Hip Coyote

I'll be looking forward to seeing your work with at least one of the dozen cameras!

User ID

The “average photographer” doesn’t really give a ratzazz about large film formats, so whatz the point ?

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

By average photographer I meant you (anonymous?) One who doesn't in his vocabulary care a "ratzazz" about sensors or size or quality?-----

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The system resolution is limited by the weakest link. The most important limiting factor is the lens. But the resolution of the scanner also drops as the film format increases.

Small format lenses have higher resolutions in terms of line pairs per mm (over 60 lp/mm) than lenses used for larger formats (about 40 lp/mm) but they are far below the maximum possible resolution of film (as much as 800 lp/mm). But the ultimate measure is the total number of lines that can be resolved over the width and height of the image. This is where larger formats have an advantage, but it's close.

The total resolution needs to take into account the combination of the sensor and the lens vs. the combination of the film, lens and scanner. If you don't scan you have to take into account the resolution of the enlarger lens.



The ultimate winner is medium format film which can have a format wider than 6x6 cm unless you stitch a panorama from a full frame digital sensor of 24 MP or more.

Photographic System Resolution explains how these numbers were developed.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

I've looked at your photos in the film photo section of this blog. Which of your three designations do you fit?

Bye the way, the emulsions available to Adams were not the equivalent of modern emulsions and chemical developers.

MrPhotog

When 35 mm still photography began roughly a century ago there actually were comparisons made between the image quality of 35 mm vs. 4x5, and 35 mm fared pretty well. Partly because it wasn’t a level playing field.

The slow f/4.5 lenses on press and view cameras called for longer exposure times, and the films were faster and grainier. Cut film has a slightly thicker emulsion than roll film. Geared track and bellows focusing was standard for large format cameras.

Then came Leica. They were built around a finer-grained film with a thinner emulsion. The smaller frame could be held flatter, the helicoid focus lenses could be adjusted more precisely, the lenses had slightly larger apertures, which mostly compensated for the difference in film sensitivity, and the lenses were designed and ground by a precision microscope company. They had higher resolution, which could be retained in the thinner emulsion. Put the small camera on a tripod, use a slow, super-fine-grain film, and you could get 8x10s that looked as good as what a 4x5 could do. Oh, and color slide film in 35 mm became a huge hit. Project those on a 40” x 40” screen and no 8x10 b&w print could compare.

Alas, Those days are gone.

Has anyone seen any full frame 4x5 sensors? 8 x10? Large format has shrunk.
Where medium format was 55 mm on one side and the same or bigger in the other direction, the medium format digital sensors are much smaller.

I’ve been looking at people using 4x5 cameras with 35 mm digital cameras sliding along the film back to capture a huge amount of pixels in three panoramic strips—stitched together on the computer. It appears 35 and 4x5 may have reconciled their differences, and married !

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

As with most things - we need to balance failures against successes and then make rational decisions. If you do that, digital wins hands down - and then some.

ELNikkor

and when I want a decent shot of indoor basketball? Do I get out my "toy" 35mm digital?, or my 8x10 "real" film camera and 400 cut film holders, tripod, etc. etc...?

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

I tinkered with 4x5 a few times back in the day but never got the kind of edge to edge sharpness I get from modern lenses with digital cameras. The only exception was possibly the Fuji 6x17 Pan camera with the 180mm lens.

BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh

I've seen many of your postings taken with film, so which are you?

Canisdirus

Not too difficult to surpass medium film.

Take 3 across and 3 down with a high MP FF...stitch together...voila...will be over 500MP
Or just take one shot and Gigaplex...voila.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

BIG DEAL........2 completely different mediums........2 different centuries of ideology........I aint never going backwards,,,,sorry NOT.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I was planning to set up my darkroom again to let my grandchildren experience the pleasure of taking film from loading in the camera through enlarging to a print. After reading your reference to fossils, I imagine them saying "Grandpa, you know we have buses today. We don't have to walk barefoot in the snow three miles uphill both ways anymore."

Cheese

The topic of this post is “Ansel Adams size resolution — try to duplicate in digital?”

The answer is simple. If you stitch 12 digital images together, you can duplicate Ansel Adams’ size resolution.

Goober Loc: Southeastern PA

Who cares? Not even practical! This whole posting is a total waste of time…gives me a headache. You must be pretty bored with too much time on your hands.