Best MF/LF for digital...

[Derrel]

Here are three articles you might like to look at. The middle one has more information and more samples from the same piece epatsellis is referring to with the Betterlight scan back pitted against the 16.7 megapixel Canon 1Ds-II d-slr from a few years back. As you know, higher-end d-slr cameras have moved to 21 and 24.6 megapixels now, and MF digital has been bumped up in MP count as well.

4x5 Film vs. Digital

A Visit with Better Light

Alain Briot Fine Art Photography

Still, there's nothing that can compare with a camera that has movements...nothing.

 

[Vautrin]

It seems there's a lot of contradictory stuff on the net in terms of what's better film or digital:
Film vs. Digital

 

[epatsellis]

Sure, comparing a Dslr to 4x5 film is a no brainer, of course 4x5 film will be better. It really comes down to what your priorities are and if you want to make it a fair comparision. I shoot 4x5 or 8x10 film for most of my fine art work. Simply because of the craft aspect makes it easier to sell. (i.e. good story about traditional process, silver gelatin prints, etc...) Does the ability to have a compelling story add to the image quality aspect? The article by Richard Sexton on LL was a purely objective approach (though flawed in a few aspects, see the follow up on the Betterlight website) to the comparision and the Betterlight clearly wins.

For product and commercial work, where the end result needed is a digital file, then high quality digital capture makes far more sense. Film still is best at long exposures, night work, etc. but only about 15% of what I shoot professionally is of that work. By far the majority is either in studio or on location table top product work, with controlled lighting and plenty of light available. Even with my "small" Phase One Studiokit (9mp native, 27 mp per JCIA ratings), the quality and detail far outweigh all but the latest MF backs, and clearly outperform all the Dslr's I've compared it to. Not bad for a $500 scan back.(used of course)

I find for my paying work, digital far and away leads film, both in a quality and turnaround time standpoint. If you shoot fashion, portraiture or any other style that requires fast handling and lens speed, a scan back is definately out. On the other hand, for archival scanning of historical documents, fine art repro, product work, and similar segments where high resolution, high color accuracy and dynamic range capability are needed, they are the only option, in my opinion.

erie

 

[Soocom1]

Oh I am going to start a huge fight here!
In the arena of Film vs. Digital, one of the hardest aspects to understand or explain for that matter is that the Mp Count really isn’t as important as image AREA! A 4x5 will hold much more information than a 35mm as is the obvious reason. But the real issue is the full area exposed in relation to the area viewed in real life. I came up with a term one time and got hammered on it.
I call it Aspect Ratio Distortion.
Though it is NOT an actual photographic term used, it is however valid when you consider the following:
Here is where it gets extremely difficult, so go slow!
The image area (35mm, MF, LF, etc) determines the full detail allowed in a given viewed area (image as seen in the view finder). The larger the format, the less distortion occurs.
What distortion you say?
Now bear with me here.
When the area of an image is larger overall, (one format larger than the other) there is a certain amount of distortion on the smaller end vs. the larger end. This distortion is a result of two things: The size of the image area, and the glass needed to achieve the specific distortion needed to get the desired image to that particular size. (Think focal point here).
The problem is that with smaller formats, there is less actual data; yes: BUT if you were to take that 35mm negative and proportionally stretch it back up to actual size, you will see that the objects in the image DO NOT FALL exactly back into place. In fact, the smaller the image, the more distortion. This distortion is why 35mm images REGARDLESS OF THE Mp count will NEVER be as good as a MF or LF image.
The 4:5ths Aspect ratio actually allows for less distortion, and is why it’s better for portrait and landscape.
So, to cut to the chase, if you want superior images, go LARGER format, rather than Mp. Count.
A simple test is to set up a series of shots with small, med. and large format with a 1 foot ruler.
Regardless of the actual length of the ruler, (but I use a 1 foot ruler for demo), take a picture of that ruler at exactly 3 feet away from the Image Plane area. (From the actual surface of the sensor or film.)
And yes, you actually can measure that if your camera has a surface position indicator on it. It looks like a letter “o” with a line through it. It looks like this but sideways: Ф
That indicates the actual point where the image area is at inside the camera. Then measure the distance from that point to the ruler. Set up your camera using a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera, or equivalent for larger formats. Then take the picture.
Blow the image up where the edge of the ruler and the Number “1” in the image matches that against the ruler. When you blow each image up back to original size, you will see a lot of distortion take place. Start at the edge of the ruler in the image and place the actual ruler against the image. Compare the tick marks in sequence against the image and you will see in the larger formats, the closer to actual size you get or, less distortion. The smaller, the tick marks wont line up exactly.
This is not to say that the image is going to be way off, but even at 50mm or equivalent, the image is still distorted a bit.
This distortion cannot be gotten rid of, because you cannot accurately project an image in a 3 dimensional world onto a 2 dimensional plain accurately.
Try flattening out an orange peel.
Because Aspect Ratio is the term used for the size of the image area compared to itself (one side’s length vs. the other side) the ratio such as 1.61 or 2.14 for Hollywood type film (see super 35), that makes another difference in the overall quality of the final image. The lens needed must be able to “squeeze” the light onto the given image area.
The larger the format, and the wider the ratio, the less “squeezing” takes place.
Because the image area of a larger format comes closer to actual real life size, the more image area is exposed and thus more detail, along with less distortion.
Anyone who has ever played with large format from 4x5 to 8x10 can tell you that the larger the area, the less actual distortion of perspective occurs.
Sorry if I confused you here.

 

[epatsellis]

Perspective is primarily a function of two things, focal length and distance to subject irrespective of format.

 

[Soocom1]

Perspective is not what I am realy talking about. This is a difficult concept, and I know its hard to grasp. But when you are involved with cartography and projections, (trying to make 3d things fint in a 2d image) it then becomes clear.

 

[epatsellis]

but since we're talking about the pictoral use of photography, not photogrammetry, I don't see what relevence it has.

 

[RedSun]

For commercial work, like sports, photojournalism and wedding, pure digital is the way to go, either 35mm or MF. For portrait studio, you have more options with digital backs. The pace of work and the amount of production pay for the huge upfront cost. In 2-3 years, you can upgrade again to the newest digital cameras or backs.

For slower-pace, on-your-own, or art work, digital still cannot beat MF/LF film. With a 6x7 MF or 4x5 LF, and a fairly decent film flatbed scanner, the resolution is still much better than digital. Also you can enjoy your work more. With film systems so cheap, you can build a complete system with $1k or slightly more, insread of the $30k digital camera or back. But the turnaound time is much longer, not suitable for fast commercial use.

Open a spreadsheet and do the calculation

 

[epatsellis]

with the right clients, turnaround time difference of a day or two versus a week is immaterial if image quality is the first and most important criteria.