Speed Graphic used for today's APOD

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:52:29 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 8:25:32 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson
wrote:

You need to define "quality". The film is lower dynamic range,
lower
sensitivity, lower spatial resolution, and introduces a wide
range of
surface artifacts. In most respects, it is significantly inferior
to
good electronic imaging devices. 4x5 film has approximately the
same
spatial information content as a high end 35mm digital sensor.

Since the image in question was a long time exposure, I would think
that it is
at least possible that film does better than CCDs in retaining
exposure for
hours.

Film has reciprocity failure, which can be viewed as that film loses
sensitivity during very long exposures so that the exposure must be
made even longer to compensate for that. CCD's and other electronic
sensors have no reciprocity failure, if the scene is X time fainter
you needed an exposure X times longer, not an exposure much longer
than that. Due to this, electronic sensors are also much easier to
use for phorometry than photographic film.



I don't think the image involved use of the Scheimpflug rule or any
other view
camera goodness.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 18:45:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

https://luminous-landscape.com/4x5-film-vs-digital/

The digital clearly wins. But you don't need that large format sensor.
Just an APS or 35mm sensor gives about the same resolution as 4x5
film, and much better color and dynamic range.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 11:58:07 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

I've considered this at times, but I'm unsure if such a lens offers
any significant advantage over making these corrections during
processing. I'm interested in your thoughts and experience in that
matter.

Deconvolution has its limitations. Since lens tilt changes the object distance
at which the image is in focus, post-processing would not be able to match it.

Well, yes. I wasn't thinking in terms of focal plane position. Most
usage of these kinds of lenses seems to be for landscape and
architectural photography, and that shouldn't matter. They're being
used mainly for geometric correction, not focus. For that, I don't see
an obvious advantage over Photoshop.

Certainly, however, for macro work, the ability to tilt the focal
plane could be very useful (although there are good ways to do this in
post processing by combining images at different focus- very suitable
for still subjects).

For interior photography as David mentions, this may be useful as
well.