Even today's most beastly medium format cameras top out at 100 megapixels, and the size of their sensors pale in comparison to the behemoth footprint of an 8x10 film sheet. Check out this awesome video that examines just how much detail large format photography can provide.
Coming to you from Ben Horne, this fun video follows him as he closely examines a 709-megapixel drum scan of an 8x10 image. Large format photography (unlike medium format) is an entirely different beast (notice how he refers to his 150mm lens as his "wide-angle lens") that requires a different workflow and a lot of attention to technical parameters, but the payoff is huge negatives that provide an unbelievable amount of detail and a look that simply can't be replicated. As a result, Horne ends up with a digital file that's almost 30,000 pixels on the long side and weighs in at an astounding 4 GB for the TIFF file, but it appears the unwieldy size is worth it. If you're wondering, Horne mentions on his Instagram that he used Velvia 50 film for the shot. Velvia 50 is a beautiful choice for landscapes and probably the film I'd recommend if you want to try shooting landscapes on film.
*DETAIL* is what matters, not Megapixels. You could take a half frame negative and scan it with an electron microscope to get a 500Gb TIFF file, but the detail would not be there, it would just be *grain* you are scanning. Yes 8x10" LF has a wonderful look, mainly from the giant sheet size requiring a standard lens of 240-300mm, so you get a certain bokeh from standard lens portraits that is very hard to replicate in smaller formats. But please don't mix up big scan size with image detail/resolution - they are not the same thing!
I look at a lot of very high end 8x10 and 5x7" sheet film images, often printed huge - 80x120" for example - and they are simply not as sharp as a good 100mp digital camera file. Sorry, but it just happens to be true. I work with and know most of the high end art photographers in NYC, and almost every one of them has shifted over to digital MF. The only reason to stay in LF film is the look and methodology. If that suits you, and what you do, then great - please keep at it. It is a special look, and I'm happy if it works for you, just don't tell me its sharper, with 700+ Mp resolution. Scanned file size does not equal resolution!
Except he views the image at 100% with plenty of detail in the scan, discusses the grain (or lack thereof) in the scan, and the title of the article is *literally* "Examining the Insane DETAIL a Large Format Camera Can Produce".
In short, your rant has nothing to do with the article.
Most of the article titles that shared this Youtube video have definitely focused on the wrong thing.
If you watch the video and pay close attention, Ben specifically mentions that his foremost goal in "pixel-peeping" this deeply is to study the DOF of the image, more so than the per-pixel detail level. Because with 8x10, DOF is extremely shallow and precise movements (usually tilt / swing, google "scheimpflug") are needed in order to properly maximize DOF. And the only way to know if your precise camera movements were as good as they possibly could have been, is to go nuts with the scan resolution.
All the usual comments (although fewer than elsewhere).
When someone starts making gigapixel large format digital sensors, at a price that wouldn't comfortably pay for a luxury jet, please do let us know.
But sure, we can all keep pretending that our dinky little digital sensors are "better" than large format to justify our emotional investments.
Agreed. Usual characters who just can't walk away from an article on film photography. They just HAVE to disparage it in the name of the Almighty Digital Sensor. Obviously if they don't, the digital gods will get angry and will make them develop film rolls again.
To those digital gearheads who cant leave well enough alone: there is no difference between this article/video and the numerous posts about gigapixel stitching. NONE. They are different techniques to achieve the same result. Move along.
I find it's laughably predictable by now.
This is not exactly light and portable. Only for the truly dedicated.
Reading this and other similar discussions make me feel like I'm reading a restaurant review that only describes the quality of the salt. Now, I like salt (probably too much) and I shoot almost entirely 8x10 and some 4x5 large format so I get the allure of all of the detail and image quality, but there's more to it than just the "salt."
It would be fun to see you scan that photo at home at a lower setting and then print a 24X30 from each scan. I would bet you can't tell the 2 apart. I only shoot black and white film and have found with it there is no value in the higher res. scans for prints. I will also add that since I got my newest full frame DLSR the film camera has had very little use.
What in the world does this article have to do with digital vs film? Seems like a pretty straightforward exercise done by Horne for curiosity’s sake.
Although Alex mentions a 100MP camera, He never says one is better or worse. He just compares the size of the sensor to the sheet of film to put 700MP into context.
No one is saying digital is better or worse.
Nothing; but people have become extraordinarily emotionally invested in digital, and so will dump on film at every single opportunity.
A useful reminder to all the “full-frame” evangelists who deride smaller formats that 35mm has always been “small format”.
Just stitch, they say. It's easy, they say...