[LargeFormat] Death of Large Format !

[Michael Sullivan]

I think this is an amazingly naive statement (although the WORK part 
"might" be legitimate -- however, considering that my digitally-backed 4x5 
is about the same overall weight as your 8x10, it might just be a draw).

8x10 lenses are not as sharp as 35mm lenses. Period. They certainly are 
nothing compared to the new medium format digital lenses by Schneider and 
Rodenstock. As such, a montage made up of as many images as this one will 
almost certainly have MUCH MORE data in it than even the best 8x10. No 
kidding. The real issue is OUTPUT -- inkjet printers cannot come close to 
the resolution of emulsion. A digital image (no matter *what* its 
resolution) printed on the best inkjet printers at the highest settings at 
8"x10" cannot come close to the detail that an 8x10 contact print provides. 
Period. I feel that this is the main issue REALLY LARGE format 
photographers should focus on.

OTOH, a 40"x60" digital print from a 4x5 digital file vs a wet print 4x5 
chrome/color neg (in spite of Christopher Burkett's admonitions to the 
contrary) is likely to be MUCH SHARPER and have MORE DETAIL than the analog 
version. No kidding. I have tested this thoroughly in case you are 
wondering. I've been doing digital scanning since the late 80s (in fact I 
was one of the very first people to do scanning and digital separations on 
a Mac, way back in 1988). I've also shot 8x10, 5x7, 4x5, 2 1/4 since the 
late 70s, so I'm quite familiar (and comfortable) with both camps.

I only ask that you keep to the facts (in spite of the many smiley faces). 
Casting aspersions against "anything digital" is counterproductive -- 
especially to those of us who shoot LARGE FORMAT DIGITAL!    :-)  :-)

J Michael Sullivan
author of "Make Your Scanner a Great Design and Production Tool" 1995 (out 
of print)
http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/photography



At 06:33 PM 12/3/2003, you wrote:
>A single sheet of 8x10 (and most likely 4x5) film would make this 
>gigapixel image look like an Etch-A-Sketch drawing. And at about 1/1000th 
>the work.
>
>:-)
>
>Jim