[RonHendriks1966]

exactly, with the advent of the D800 the argument for apsc for reach is less relevant.

You missed on my main complain that you will end up with 75 MB RAW files for that birdshot, while carrieing an APS-C camera for this wil bring home 22 MB files. There is a huge downside when using that D800 for just a part of the sensor and that is in filessize and processing and storing at home.

[eddie1960]

You missed on my main complain that you will end up with 75 MB RAW files for that birdshot, while carrieing an APS-C camera for this wil bring home 22 MB files. There is a huge downside when using that D800 for just a part of the sensor and that is in filessize and processing and storing at home.

if it is shot in crop mode does it still have a full size raw?

I agree though the drawback is the file size on any sensor this large. however aside from a blip in hard drive pricing thanks to the thai floods, in general storage get's cheaper by the year. so does RAM. but it may force people to upgrade their processors. Assumption at this point would have to be that anyone who can afford the $3000 body can probably afford a sensor/ram upgrade unless of course they use mac in which case the upgrade is about twice the price (or more) than a windows environment

[tuco]

You missed on my main complain that you will end up with 75 MB RAW files for that birdshot, while carrieing an APS-C camera for this wil bring home 22 MB files. There is a huge downside when using that D800 for just a part of the sensor and that is in filessize and processing and storing at home.

I process 125MB and 250MB scanned DNG files. You need more memory than CPU, I've found. LR will bog down with lots of editing on a 250MB file even with fast hardware and 16GB of memory. But Photoshop does pretty good. 75MB file should be a piece of cake with 8GB memory and a computer within the last 3 years.

[Digitalis]

I process 125MB and 250MB scanned DNG files. You need more memory than CPU, I've found. LR will bog down with lots of editing on a 250MB file even with fast hardware and 16GB of memory. But Photoshop does pretty good. 75MB file should be a piece of cake with 8GB memory and a computer within the last 3 years.

I work with 1gb 8X10 drum scans those chew up tons of memory in photoshop, if you have your swap disks set up properly you can keep drive flogging to a minimum, also using an SSD* to run your commonly used applications from speeds things up considerably.

*Solid State Drive

[tuco]

I work with 1gb 8X10 drum scans those chew up tons of memory in photoshop, if you have your swap disks set up properly you can keep drive flogging to a minimum, also using an SSD* to run your commonly used applications from speeds things up considerably.

*Solid State Drive

Those are indeed huge. Are those TIFF files? My file size doubles if I scan to TIFF vs DNG. But I doubt you get that option from the drum scanning software. I have a RAID 0 setup (and backup frequently).

[Digitalis]

Those are indeed huge. Are those TIFF files? My file size doubles if I scan to TIFF vs DNG. But I doubt you get that option from the drum scanning software. I have a RAID 0 setup (and backup frequently).

yes they are tiff files, in full 16 bit format. the 8X10 film I get scanned is Tech pan - a discontinued kodak film which has obscenely high resolution. the scans have close to 18 stops worth of useful tonal information the biggest problem is getting all that DR to fit on papers that only can handle 8~10 stops at most

[tuco]

yes they are tiff files, in full 16 bit format. the 8X10 film I get scanned is Tech pan - a discontinued kodak film which has obscenely high resolution. the scans have close to 18 stops worth of useful tonal information the biggest problem is getting all that DR to fit on papers that only can handle 8~10 stops at most

Yes, getting all that's on the negative be it wet print or digital file is the challenge. I don't do much wet printing anymore. Too lazy, I guess. After all the work of scanning and editing, it is easy to export for the printer.

But a feature with PMK Pyro (everyone seems to use Pyrocat these days in LF) is you could burn/dodge highlights and shadows separately (and in fine detail) by only using filters on the enlarger with variable contrast paper. That really helped bring in more range but of course that's not FB paper.

And all the tricks used in digital such as exposure blending can be employed in the figital work flow too. Scan twice on a single negative one for shadows and one highlights and blend in post for a small increase range.

---

Last edited by tuco; 03-12-2012 at 03:51 PM.

[Digitalis]

Yes, getting all that's on the negative be it wet print or digital file is the challenge. I don't do much wet printing anymore. Too lazy, I guess. After all the work of scanning and editing, it is easy to export for the printer.

But a feature with PMK Pyro (everyone seems to use Pyrocat these days in LF) is you could burn/dodge highlights and shadows separately (and in fine detail) by only using filters on the enlarger with variable contrast paper. That really helped bring in more range but of course that's not FB paper.

And all the tricks used in digital such as exposure blending can be employed in the figital work flow too. Scan twice on a single negative one for shadows and one highlights and blend in post for a small increase range.

I use PyrocatHD - slightly different formula than common PMK, I do enlarged platinum prints and a few cyanotypes with my ultra-violet enlarger. The platinum emulsion I make has a high level of midtone and a decreased level of hightlight contrast than what one normally expects because of the high level of purity, there isn't any palladium in it. I really don't want to put my hands under concentrated UV-A light my enlarger produces. Thankfully Pyrocat HD makes platinum printing much easier due to how it handles the shadows and highlights. Kodak Tech-pan is one of those films that can get really contrasty really quickly if you don't know how to tame it. I have also been doing some experiments with Pyrocat HD with 120 format Fuji Neopan pulled to ISO 50 - some spectacular results can be achieved with that combination from what I have been able to get.


Ebony SV8X10E with Rodenstock 240mm f/5.6 APO-Sironar-S - Kodak Tech Pan Developed in PyrocatHD - pure platinum emulsion on 460GSM archival cotton paper, Image dimensions 16"X20"

[eddie1960]

your setup is making me jealous Digitalis. I haven't done a platinum print since the 70's at art school. the scan looks great and i'm sure the reality is fantastic (not much chance of the web representing a platinum print in all it's glory.
Do you ever do Palladium prints (the poor man's Platinum) I did some of those way back because it was cheaper (and I was a student)
Platinum prices have skyrocketed since the 70's

[tuco]

I did some Palladium prints. I thought it was expensive back then. IIRC it was almost $100USD for enough to make about three 16x20 prints 20 years ago. And it usually took me three tries to make one print if all went well. I'd do small prints and calculate what the enlarged size time should be but still after drying there was always tweaking that needed to be done.

[Digitalis]

your setup is making me jealous Digitalis. I haven't done a platinum print since the 70's at art school. the scan looks great and i'm sure the reality is fantastic (not much chance of the web representing a platinum print in all it's glory. Do you ever do Palladium prints (the poor man's Platinum) I did some of those way back because it was cheaper (and I was a student) Platinum prices have skyrocketed since the 70's

yes, platinum costs are extremely high*. I don't really do palladium prints all that much because I find the contrast with palladium is just too low for the negatives I make. So it is a good thing my platinum prints command very high prices. I usually produce them for personal exhibitions or for commissioned works. I always chuckle when I see some digital photographer trying to sell a 36"X24" "limited edition" inkjet print and expecting $5000 for it. That platinum print I posted above actually sold for nearly twice what I expected for it $7300(sans gallery owners commission). So I consider it a worthwhile venture to produce limited editions of my platinum prints, the reason why I do so it because the polymers in the film base are easily attacked by the ultraviolet light my enlarger produces and there is an upper limit on how many prints I can make from a negative before the image literally disintegrates.

did some Palladium prints. I thought it was expensive back then. IIRC it was almost $100USD for enough to make about three 16x20 prints 20 years ago. And it usually took me three tries to make one print if all went well. I'd do small prints and calculate what the enlarged size time should be but still after drying there was always tweaking that needed to be done.

I actually use a modified zone system for my platinum prints, I expose around zone I~II because I know pyrocat HD will pull the highlights down anyway and Kodak Tech-Pan is an inherently contrasty film the developer and film work well together. T grain films turn out too flat for platinum printing in pyrocat HD I have been experimenting with making my own pyro based developer that pushes the contrast harder, because I only have a few boxes of 8X10 format Tech-pan left.

*Interesting anecdote, I was at the Adelaide flute festival in 2009 where they had a solid platinum flute on display from japan made by muramatsu - the thing was worth over $250,000 and did it sound any better than my 18 Karat gold flute? not really, it was just physically heavier that's the only difference I noticed.