TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

The dynamic range of the image recording SYSTEM is bounded by all the items in the data acquisition chain - the sensor, amplifier prior to the A/D, and the A/D, but it CANNOT be higher than the voltage resolution or DR of the A/D. In fact the noise is composed of multiple sources, the noise of the sensor itself, the amplifier noise and the digitization uncertainty of the A/D. The theoretical best-case resolution of a digitizing system with a 14 bit A/D is 14 bits - period (that should be self-evident). When you say that the D850 has a DR of 14.8V with 28,500 levels, how can that be resolved by even a perfect 14 bit A/D which has only 16,384 possible levels? In reality, the resolution of a 14 bit A/D is generally considered to be 13-1/2 bits due to the LSB uncertainty. Then add the noise from the sensor and amplifier and the actual SYSTEM resolution is less than 13 bits. I agree that the system resolution of a modern camera is currently limited by the sensor/amplifier DR, but it cannot exceed the voltage resolution of the A/D.

Dikdik Loc: Winnipeg, Canada

I would put this/these photos in a folder:

E:\My_Photos\Chronology\2018\08_Aug

and label them as SuzieBDyymmddnn, and for the first one the nn would be 01. If there were a lot of them I'd create a folder SuzieBP and place them there. The 08 for the month guarantees that they are in order: 01_Jan, 02_Feb, 03_Mar, etc. Once you have created the folder for the year, you can copy the folder to another folder and rename the year to 2019, etc. My Chronology folder has years to 2020.

Just a suggestion. That's how I organise my photos, and can usually find them fairly quickly with a search if I'm not sure when it happened (often).

Dik

BebuLamar

I don't think it gets to that point. Both systems are incapable of capturing the image that project on to them faithfully. Most people can see the differences but it's the matter of personal opinion on which is better.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

Here is my challenge to you: Take a photo with that 4x5 of a fixed subject. Cut out one tenth of the negative at aspect ratio. Enlarge that portion to an 8x10 print. Take the same photo with a 24mp SLR and crop out an identical portion of the image, and print it out on a quality printer as an 8x10. Let me know how the images compare. NOTE: You will never be able to show the results on this forum because both images must be digital and thus not comparable. Just admit that digital photography is superior in every way to film photography.

ecurb1105

Whatever happened to scanning backs for large format cameras?
I recall reading about them but haven't seen anything about them lately. Are they obsolete already?

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

The answer to your question is a resounding yes! Any DSLR with a crop or full size sensor of 20Mp or more will exceed film in every technical measure of performance including dynamic range, speed, signal to noise ratio (the loose equivalent of grain in film), resolution, etc. for big enlargements (over 8" x 10"). If you are limiting your camera use to producing pictures limited to digital display or small enlargements (under 8" x 10"), any modern digital camera including cell phones will produce as good or superior results when compared to film for a beginning amateur.

therwol Loc: USA

This isn't to any individual, just my thoughts. I've worked with 4x5 film. My conclusion is that your results are only as good as your equipment. I had (and still have) a 4x5 Crown Graphic press camera with a 135mm Schneider lens. The lens was very soft in the corners, easily visible in any enlargements that had details in the corners. The alignment of the lens board with the lens carrier had to be adjusted every time I switched from 4x5 to 35mm. (Omega D2). Even assuming better equipment, and there were certainly many options that I couldn't afford at the time, when you use an enlarger to make enlargements in any format, you throw another lens and mechanical factors into the equation, like the lens alignment. If you shoot medium or large format film and scan it, you are never going to capture all of the detail on the film, no matter how good the scanner. With digital, what you see if what you get. I personally find that my Nikon D810 with my better lenses blows away anything I did on film.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

There are two versions of resolution:

1. Total megapixels - an area measurement - this measures how large you can make a print without pixelation
2. Lines per picture height which can be calculated from the system lp/mm value and the sensor height in mm - this measures apparent edge sharpness before applying clarity or sharpness adjustments

By both measures, a 6x6cm Hasselblad or Rolleiflex (2.25" square) can still beat the 50 MP digital. When I scan my B&W film at 4000 ppi I end up with about 80 MP. The Hasselblad X1D-50c has a sensor that is only 33mm high. Based on a MF lens at 48 lp/mm, film at 100 lp/mm and Coolscan resolution of 78.74 lp/mm, the system resolution for the digital option is about 57% as sharp as the film version in lines per picture height. Theoretically, that is all I can afford to speculate at this point since the X1D with a 45mm lens (maybe 60 lp/mm) is close to $10,000.

The H6D-400c ($48,000 plus a lens) has a sensor that is 40mm high. Although it exceeds the MP of what I can scan, when it comes to lines per picture height it only reaches 75% of the level of the film option.

Medium format sensors still need to get larger and the lenses need to be sharper to beat MF film for sharpness. Of course, you still need to put up with the ISO limitation and some grain along with all of the other things some people object to with film.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

" I sold all my film cameras (for next to nothing)"

i have a Nikon FE willing to sell after i get it fixed, if you need a film camera if you want to go back to film. i still have my Nikon EM. also as an amateur, here's an idea. get a entry level dslr like Nikon 5xxx or 7xxx series. use that til you have the $$$ to upgrade to those expensive models. you'll know how to use them by then. just my 3 cents, lol. good luck.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It comes down to $$,$$$ vs. $,$$$. Medium format digital is (mostly) priced in the stratosphere. Few can afford to own it. Many who use it, rent it.

"Full frame" 24x36 mm digital is expensive, but within reach of most professionals and a fair number of enthusiasts. So it is often touted as the "holy grail" format. It's bigger than the other two popular formats, APS-C (Nikon's DX) and Micro 4/3, so it has more dynamic range and low light sensitivity. It can also cram more sensor sites onto the available "real estate" of the sensor chip, so 40 to 50 MP cameras are feasible.

To a certain degree, more MP record more detail, as others have explained here. You can't see it at small print sizes such as 8x10, but if you're making very large prints that will be viewed ridiculously close, it's helpful. Certainly, high megapixel full frame (24x36 mm) images can compete with the smaller "size 120" film formats (6x4.5 and 6x6 cropped). There is much more usable information in some of those digital files than you would have in a 35mm film negative made with popular medium and high speed films.

Even in the early 2000s, we regularly printed JPEG digital images from 5.1 to 8.2 MP APS-C cameras to make portraits at 16x20 and even 30x40 inches. Viewed at the diagonal dimension of the print, or greater distances, they appeared acceptably sharp. Today, we're spoiled with quality!

wishaw

For all of the b and w in the darkroom my daughter and i miss the smell of fix

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Maybe you could develop a line of perfume for photographers.
D76
Stop
Hypo

safeman

Finely the truth is out. Thank you. If you can't eyeball the difference, there is no difference.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

But do you miss the white residue?

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Even if film may capture more information than a digital sensor, I think it is lost by the time it gets to print form. There is no question (for me at least) that high quality inkjet prints are sharper now than any enlarged print. And if the negative is scanned, there is a loss of detail and/or increased grain in the final print.