Enlargement

[wattie]

I am thinking about moving to digital from my current set up which is 4x5 drum scanned. I print images up to a maximum 150cm x 120cm approximately - usually a bit smaller, but sometimes I have to go that large for certain exhibition venues. The work is, for want of a better term, "conceptual photography". Simply put: can I achieve the same level of output resolution I am getting from my drum scanned 4x5s with a CFV 50 back?   

Thanks,

Dave Watson

[NickT]

Hi Dave
I'm sure you'll get lot's of different opinions on this.

In my opinion the answer is absolutely yes. I have 1.2 m prints on my wall from a 16MP capture and they look prefect close up. I am still shocked by how grainy drumscanned film is compared to good digital. Of course if grain is part of your look you can always add it later

Nick-T

[wattie]

Hi Dave
I'm sure you'll get lot's of different opinions on this.

In my opinion the answer is absolutely yes. I have 1.2 m prints on my wall from a 16MP capture and they look prefect close up. I am still shocked by how grainy drumscanned film is compared to good digital. Of course if grain is part of your look you can always add it later

Nick-T

Thanks for the reply. That sounds promising as it would bring a number of practical "workflow" advantages. Your comment about getting lots of different opinions is intriguing. Frankly I am not obsessed about "print quality" in the way that some people are, all I want is sufficient resolution to enlarge without artefacts etc, and to achieve a neutrality that allows the image to do its job. If people want to stick their noses against an image and tut that it isn't a sharp as it could be, well that's up to them, but they are not my audience.

[mharvey65]

A number of years ago I was asked to run a comparison between the then current H3D-39 mk2 and 5x4 film (scanned).

The digital won hands down.

A 5x4 neg / tranny contains approximately 80Mb of information before you start to physically scan the film grain. The H3D-39 mk2 produces a larger cleaner file so theoretically should win in terms of resolution. In my real world tests it was well ahead of the 5x4 and comparable to 10x8 with some work in photoshop.

Now, reading between the lines, you mention the CFV back. I assume you are thinking of putting this on the very same Sinar? My advice, Don't.

With these high resolution backs, it is all about the camera platform and the lenses. You will not see the full potential of the Hasselblad 50mPixel unless you are using an H camera and HC lenses - Fact. Trust me. I have done test after test with various photographers that just refuse to give up their old large format cameras. I know - I still stare lovingly at my Linhof Master Tec.

You just will not get the most out of the 50mp back unless the software (Phocus) can see all of the important capture information that it obtains from the H camera and HC lens when you are taking the picture. Information that it uses to optimise the image when processing out to tiff.

I'm sure you will get much more focused advise if you explain what type of photography you are doing and how you are thinking of moving forward digitally. There are some pit falls that you could avoid.

Feel free to email me off list if I can help.

atb,

MichaelH

I am thinking about moving to digital from my current set up which is 4x5 drum scanned. I print images up to a maximum 150cm x 120cm approximately - usually a bit smaller, but sometimes I have to go that large for certain exhibition venues. The work is, for want of a better term, "conceptual photography". Simply put: can I achieve the same level of output resolution I am getting from my drum scanned 4x5s with a CFV 50 back?   

Thanks,

Dave Watson

[wattie]

Now, reading between the lines, you mention the CFV back. I assume you are thinking of putting this on the very same Sinar? My advice, Don't.

With these high resolution backs, it is all about the camera platform and the lenses. You will not see the full potential of the Hasselblad 50mPixel unless you are using an H camera and HC lenses - Fact. Trust me. I have done test after test with various photographers that just refuse to give up their old large format cameras. I know - I still stare lovingly at my Linhof Master Tec.

You just will not get the most out of the 50mp back unless the software (Phocus) can see all of the important capture information that it obtains from the H camera and HC lens when you are taking the picture. Information that it uses to optimise the image when processing out to tiff.

I'm sure you will get much more focused advise if you explain what type of photography you are doing and how you are thinking of moving forward digitally. There are some pit falls that you could avoid.

Feel free to email me off list if I can help.

atb,

MichaelH

Michael,

Many thanks for your comments and advice.

My intention was to buy a Linhof Techno or Arca Swiss digital platform and invest in new Rodenstock Digaron lenses to go with the digital back. I like to have movements for scheimpflug (when photographing along things like large factory walls) and also rise/fall and shift etc. I understand that my old Sironars, Grandagons etc won't be up to the task, but was thinking the new Rodenstock or Schneider lenses designed for digital would do the job. I would be most interested to read your thoughts in this regard. I work on location and like to work slowly and systematically and only shoot maybe three or four images on any given day. http://www.dave-watson-photographs.net/

[mharvey65]

Hi Dave,

I did reply to this message yesterday, but it seems to have gone astray!

I'm not sure the Linhof / Arca solution is the best thing for what you want to do...

It's a bit boring that I wrote a long reply to you yesterday and it never made it through, so I'm trying to remember the important points for you now.

Setting up the Linhof with the CFV back is a real nightmare. Dust is your enemy with the 50mpixel chips and sliding the adaptor from the ground glass screen to the digital back is a real dust magnet. On top of that you have all of the issues of cabling the back to the lens and on top of that flash if that's something you use... The camera is a real Frankenstein's monster once it is all set up.

I mentioned that we used to send out students to shoot like this from Waterloo bridge in London. Most of the time they came back with no pictures.

Furthermore, using the CFV back on the Linhof with 3rd party lenses will not allow Phocus to 'optimise' the captures as it would when shooting on an H4D camera and HC lenses.

The HC lenses and the H4D camera itself all form part of the integrated system that Hasselblad has spent so long working on. Phocus is the tool that brings all the components together and will truely show you the power of the whole system. I know that I can use my H4D-50ms today and beat everything I was doing on 5x4. Hands down. Not to mention that The H4D camera is versatile and compact enough to work with efficiently and productively in any environment - especially outdoors.

The Linhof will take forever to set up and pack away every time you want to take a shot.

To be honest, the only part you need to worry about is your need for sceimpflung. And for that there is the HC Tilt Shift adaptor <http://www.hasselblad.se/products/h-system/hts-15.aspx>

In 10 years of digital consultancy, I have only come across 2 situations where I have advised to shoot on 5x4 with film.

The tilt shift adaptor will more than handle the work you are producing.

I signed off yesterday by saying that if you are based anywhere near the UK, I'd be more than happy to join you for a few tests. I could bring my H4D-50ms and we could see how it compared to the Linhof / Arca solution? Email me off list if you want to talk it through. It really is a case of been there, done that, so I should be able to help you out.

atb,

Michael

[david distefano]

i have both the 501 for my cfv 16 and the arca swiss 6x9. the arca swiss allows for rodenstock's digital lens that are excellent, that goes down to 24 mm and a plethora of lenses for any type of look you may want. i also like it for the sliding ability for panoramas.

i am new to this forum but on this thread i am noticing something that i have been reading on all the nikon forums. they say that the d800 with its 36mp senor is the death of medium format. well we all know that that not true. the d800 has a sensor half the size of a cfv-39 or 50 and a pixel size of only 4.88. heck the phase one with 80 mp has a sensor size 2.5 times as large and still has larger pixels. so no the d800 is not the death of medium format, but its owners want to believe it because that is what they own.

that brings me to my point. comparing medium format digital to large format film. why do we always have to say one is better then the other. that is like saying who is the best guitarist, jimi hendrix, eric clapton, jeff beck, stevie ray vaughan, or peter green. in low light, sports and wildlife i will take the d4. it is the best tool for the job. if you want your work to be published in arizona highway magazine, the premier photo publication in america, you will use 4x5 or larger film because they do not accept digital work. michael fatali's 4x5 and 8x10 chromes are unequaled. The most expensive photo that was just sold (i thought it was a nothing) was done on film. i shoot with my hasselblad and with my 4x5 and i believe they compliment each other. i have the 4x5 drum scanned on a tango at 10700 dpi to a 600 mb file and they are as smooth as a babies behind. so lets quit saying one is better than the other and use the right tool for the job. i think all those guitarists are great but if you have never heard "supernatural" played by peter green when peter green played with john mayall you are in for a treat. one of the best instrumentals ever!

[jonathan.lipkin]

Dave - I have to agree with the comments above. Last year, I did a considerable amount of testing between a digital back on a techincal camera and a Hasselblad with an HTS adapter. For my purposes - landscapes and some architectural work - the HTS (hasselblad tilt shift) produced much better results. It's very hard to get a normal or slightly wide lens with a digital back as the crop factor requires you have a very short lens indeed.

You can get a lot of shift, and more than enough tilt. The only thing I miss is the ability to adjust the rear standard. The HTS only allows you to move the lens relative to the back, not vice versa. Also be aware that the adapter has a lens multiplication factor of 1.5x, and you lose some light. I haven't measured, but suspect it.s about a stop.