paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

How much clarity do you really want? If it can be blown up to a 8x 10 Foot photograph with no perceptible distortion, why would you want more. There are at least to us other factors, like costs, how easy are they to manipulate, removing or erasing unwanted elements etc.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

Keep in mind what CHG_CANON has already said. To a great extent, I agree.

If you are looking to compare medium and Large film resolution and image quality to 35mm any thing then I think you will be be disappointed. It is certainly true that 35mm digital is superior to 35mm film.

If you are trying for a landscapes approaching the quality of Large Format Cameras then I would suggest that you invest in medium format equipment. These cameras are not as nimble as many FF digital cameras but are capable of beautiful results when properly used.

I do think there is a special quality to large format film photography that is hard to duplicate but this is now rather expensive. Part of the beauty comes from the film itself and the use of long focal length lenses.

Tjohn Loc: Inverness, FL formerly Arivaca, AZ

There are a lot of other factors. You want to haul a camera for 9x9 up a mountainside or into a swamp? I've seen 9x9 aerial photos next to 2.25x2.25 Haselblad enlarged to 12x12. The Haselblad blew the aerial photos away. Why?
It has a lot to do with camera, lens and sensor.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

What?!! You scan the film with a cheap desktop scanner? Doesn't your film scream in agony at such an abuse and indignity?

Yep -- average photographers and sheet film -- a match made in heaven.

So I never mentioned 24 bit ADCs.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Since you’re still posting film shots, which category are you in, Paul - a fossil, idly rich (my guess), or a hipster (doubtful)?


Stan

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I have a camera, it takes pitures [sic].
YAY TEAM!

(I wonder how many people take magnifying glasses to art museums.)

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

No.

The number of "shades of gray" (term used by your reference source) made possible by the ADC does not measure or determine the sensor's dynamic range. So two sensors with different dynamic ranges can both have the same bit depth ADCs and so be capable of the same number of "shades of gray." The author of your reference is confused.

No. Digital camera's ISO sensitivity is not related to ADC bit depth.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

The original post that begins this thread "Ansel Adams size resolution -- try to duplicate in digital?" notes a fact and then asks a question: "Purdue Engineering claims that a film size of 9" x 9" would need a digital image size per frame of 432 mega-pixels. Now that is resolution. How can 35mm full frame digitals compete with that?"

Large format film provides more resolution than FF digital cameras. Yes that's correct.

But as the thread progresses you imply that because large format film is higher resolution it is therefore better quality than digital, "The only quality comes from large film cameras as this date. All the rest are recreational cameras as discussed on UHH. But lets make it clear which is which. i.e which is the 'filet mignon and which is the chuck.' The large film is the filet mignon final print."

And again I would ask; If you're concerned about quality why did you bring up resolution first? You're not ignorant enough to think that resolution is the primary technical quality factor for a photograph are you?

Resolution is a lesser quality factor if you want to compare technical photo IQ. And how could you not know that?!! Ansel knew that. The photograph's tone response is the primary IQ factor. Color response is also critical and more important that resolution. Resolution need only be enough to satisfy the requirement of the final output.

I spent decades working with large format film both commercially and personally. I use digital cameras now because, among other reasons, I can get better overall quality than was possible using large format film.

zonedoc

With my 4x5 view camera I can swing, tilt, and shift for perspective control. What I can’t do is lug it around with 3 lenses, a tripod, light meter, filters, and a couple of dozen film holders any more. At 88 I have gone to the “dark side”. A full frame digital. Easier on these older bones to lug around.

Old Coot

Just like those who say Vinyl sounds better than Digital

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

[Yawns]

I like Ansel's work. I like some of the work done by other view camera users. But I like the work of hundreds of other photographers, too, whether they used a film camera in the 1940s, or a wet plate camera in the 1850s, or a digital SLR in the early 2000s, or a Micro 4/3 camera yesterday. I even like some recent color film images, full frame mirrorless images, and video captures from 1969 rock concerts.

The medium is not the message. The MESSAGE is the message. The medium is a transport mechanism, and admittedly, that adds or subtracts a little clarity or character to/from a message, but it isn't the whole of it. (Sorry, Marshall McLuhan, but I never could agree with your theories.)

Photography is a form of communications. It is a "visual language." It is an art form and a tool and a craft and a lot of other things. Most of those things are independent of the media used to create the images.

I will leave the persistent obsession with size and resolution to physicists and engineers whose job it is to research such things, to those with inferiority complexes, and to those who miss the point of making images.

Use whatever camera you like, for whatever reasons make sense to you, for the images you choose to make. Your point of view, message, and emotional impact are what I will see and experience. Megapixels? Meh. Just teach me, inform me, move me, motivate me, and help me remember.

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

👍👍👍

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

You my friend are getting closer to fossil every day 🤣

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

35mm might not be able to, but if you want to compare different size formats, then see if you can find a film camera that does this.

(Download)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Maybe for you, but I’m a “techy geek” and found it interesting. As has been pointed out, given equivalent lenses and output devices, film has as good a resolution as digital (or better), BUT as has been also ably pointed out, there is more to photographic “quality” than just resolution, and for the average shooter, large format film cameras can be impractical and cumbersome. Personally, I still shoot some 35 and MF film occasionally, but I do it because I like the “look” of a silver print (and no, I don’t play vinyl - the technical advantages of digital are just too persuasive).