Charles Cramer / P45 vs 4x5

[Jack Flesher]

First of all, I would like to thank Charles and Michael for posting this comparison as I have been waiting to see how close the P45 would be to my gold-standard, drum-scanned 4x5.  

Like you Charles, I will probably make the move too.  And I understand why you'd have a medium format body to use it with, but my question is why not continue to use your view camera with the P45 mounted as your main imaging device?

Granted, you would need a few additional lenses like the Schneider Digitars or Rodenstock Digitals in the shorter focal lengths, but by so doing you'd have all the advantages of direct digital capture with all of the advantages of a camera with movements.

I'd appreciate your comments...

Cheers,

[raymondh]

Here's the thing that I never understand about these comparisons...

You've taken a non-digital medium (film) and converted it to digital.  You then take this converted image and send it to print to compare it against an image that is in its native (digital) format.

Skip the drum scan and compare prints.  Would that change the results?

[michael]

Simple.

Inkjet prints are easier to make, can be made on a wider variety of interesting papers, and in colour at least, last longer than any chemical print process by a country mile.

Oh yes. And they look really good to.

But I do sometimes miss the smell of fixer in the evening.

Michael

[collum]

Here's the thing that I never understand about these comparisons...

You've taken a non-digital medium (film) and converted it to digital.  You then take this converted image and send it to print to compare it against an image that is in its native (digital) format.

Skip the drum scan and compare prints.  Would that change the results?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56455\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

with very few exceptions (Burkett is one), most fine art color images are now scanned before printing. If not inkjet, then Lightjet prints are the gallery norm.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

But I do sometimes miss the smell of fixer in the evening.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56456\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I keep a jar of fixer right next to my printer, so I can open it and whiff whenever I get withdrawal symptoms.  

Eric

[BernardLanguillier]

One thing I don't really get is why everyone is seemingly jumping on the Phase wagon without considering the 2 other contenders, namely Leaf and now Hasselblad Imacon? The multishot option of the Hassy 39 seems to be a significant advantage to me in some scenes at least.

Besides, one could hope that the painterly effect shown on some p45 samples could be better controlled with the competition.

Considering the amount of money involved, I would think that waiting a few months to get the results of an actual comparison between the top contenders would make some sense? Or is it the "I need it now" thing?

Regards,
Bernard

[Jack Flesher]

Good point Bernard.

When I said I was probably going to make the move, I meant to one of the 39MP contenders.

Having both single and multi-shot capability sounds like a plus but I'm not sure how much it will mean in usable added image quality given the current state of single-shot 39MP capture.  Of course 4-shot for true color would be nice if nothing else.  

I am not in a rush and am going to wait a bit and see what the final comparisons look like.

[pixman63]

We all have different eyes, and see the world in different ways (and long may that be so)

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but the 4x5" looks far superior to the Phase One to my eye (see, eg, the veins on the leaves), even with the inevitable degradation induced by the scanning process.

The only area in which the digital does score (apart from convenience of course) is in the dynamic range of the first sample - but this is against Velvia, which has a fairly narrow range even for slide film. Would it be true to suggest that a less contrasty E6 emulsion (perhaps Astia) or, even more so, colour neg would have narrowed that particular gap?

An interesting article nonetheless.

[alanrew]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but the 4x5" looks far superior to the Phase One to my eye (see, eg, the veins on the leaves), even with the inevitable degradation induced by the scanning process.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I noticed the veins in the leaves, and how much softer and less detailed they looked in the Phase One image. However I my first thoughts were "yes, a typical Capture One RAW conversion".

As I've said in a different thread, I don't think that the RAW converter's contribution to this contest should be ignored. Phase One's Capture One converter, at least in my experience with digital SLR RAW files, tends to reveal less detail than some other converters (e.g. ACR, RSP). So until some other RAW converters can be tried by Charles, I think the jury is still out.

But what an exciting contest!

Regards,

Alan

[MatthewCromer]

I agree, the drum scanned 4x5 looks far superior in detail.  The P45 is showing the same "foliage mush" at 100% that all Bayer sensors display.  I hope Cramer doesn't sell off his LF gear just yet.

On the other hand, the field handling of a P45 w/ MF camera allows you to do things impossible with 4x5, and the output should be indistinguishable to 16x20 or so.  I'd love to have a P45 in addition to my Shen Hao but it won't happen any time soon.

As for dynamic range, Fuji Pro 160N has more than any digital back and more detail too.  With a bit of Neat Image or the like it's easy to remove film grain.  I shoot exclusively with Fuji Pro 160N and Astia 100F films, because it's easy to get the color and contrast you want in post-processing.