Where does modern digital LF start?

[Joanna Carter]

OK, I have a big wooden spoon and I'm not afraid to use it

Of recent, we have been preparing an exhibition, mainly of our B&W images. Most of these were taken on either a Nikon D810 (36Mpx) or a Nikon D850 (46Mpx)

Scanning a 5" x 4" negative on our flatbed Epson scanner at 2400ppi gives us 115Mpx and will print at 240ppi to 50" x 40".

However, with resizing software (we use Topaz Photo AI) we can happily get either 144Mpx (60" x 40") out of D810 images and 184Mpx (69" x 46") out of D850 images - all without any perceivable loss of definition or sharpness - more if we forego ultimate sharpness at arm's length.

Since both Nikons can produce significantly larger prints than a scanned negative, is it about time we looked again at what qualifies for the LF label?

---

In addition, the Nikon D850 sensor contains 5500 pixels on the 24mm dimension - virtually 5000ppi!!! Compare that with scanning a negative at 4800ppi, with all the interference of grain and you still are unlikely to get the same quality of final image as you would with the D850. This is just crazy!!! Think back to the early days of the D100, where the sensor was barely equivalent to 2000ppi. No wonder we jumped to LF back then.

---

If that's not LF, then exactly how do we define it nowadays? Your suggestions?

 

[Ian Grant]

There's a flaw, because you can use the same re-sizing software on a B&W 5x4 negative scan. I'm in the middle of scanning a few hundred 5x4 negatives as it happens at 2400dpi my file sizes are typically around181,870kb. That's with a an Epson V750, the file size difference will be in the TIF file options.

Then there's another factor, the interpolation of the printer driver or RIP software which can be quite surprising, some years ago I was regularly getting A1 and the occasionally A0 posters printed, and the images were shot with a 6mb Canon. I had a Canon printer about 25 years ago, essentially A4 but with a feed slot for A3 and was amazed at the quality of an A3 print from 2mb images from my Olympus camera. That was almost certainly due to the Canon printer driver., that was probably better with some images than others.

Then digital large format would really be an LF camera with something like a Phase One back, or at least a Digital camera with movements.

I can see where you are coming from, I switched to a DSLR for work years ago (all colour), and with modern sensor sizes and high end printers the quality is outstanding. But I'm a darkroom printer, and also find I need to use movements on my cameras, which is why I switched from a MF SLR to a field camera for my personal work years ago. I had been using LF anyway for around 10 years for work.

Personally I've always thought of photography having many avenues, B&W, Colour Negative, Colour Positive, Alternative Processes, Polaroid, etc, and Digital just became another option. And then thers Hybrid shooting one then outputting via another

Ultimately it's whatever you are happiest working with, and if output is 100% digital then a DSLR makes sens with the fallback of your LF camera where needed.

Ian

 

[Dave_P]

"...is it about time we looked again at what qualifies for the LF label?"

Short answer: no.

Long answer: I can't believe we're even entertaining these discussions in 2025. It makes as much sense to me as going onto a horseriding forum and starting a thread singing the praises of your motorcar which is far easier to travel with, much comfier, can travel further, carry more luggage, and doesn't shit everywhere or buckaroo you into a hedgerow when it's startled, so maybe we should look again at what qualifies as a horse.

If the internet has taught us anything it's that any idiot these days can create a huge file, easily, and with minimal outlay of either finances, forethought or effort. There's facebook groups full of 'em. Rather than make LF irrelevant or obsolete, the relative ease of generating large filesizes today only serves to underscore what is actually good and unique about proper large format - the tactile nature of the process, the level of engagement, commitment and attention to detail etc etc. And just the sheer enjoyment of it. It's not just about resolution. Granted, if people were only in LF for the resolution in the first place then fair enough, I bid them good day to sail off happily into the sunset with their D850s and wide-gamut inkjets, as long as they shut the door on their way out please, and leave the "large format" moniker with us when they go.

 

[Joanna Carter]

There's a flaw, because you can use the same re-sizing software on a B&W 5x4 negative scan

Nobody is saying otherwise. But, the difference is, you don't need such software to obtain a large print from a neg unless you want to go to a print that is larger than 10x the neg size.

… as it happens at 2400dpi…

If I may step in to correct you there. scanning resolutions are measured in ppi not dpi - dpi is the reserve of printers only. as it refers to ink dots, of which you need several to print one pixel.

Then there's another factor, the interpolation of the printer driver or RIP software which can be quite surprising

Of course, you can let the printer carry out its own interpolation to obtain a given print size but digital printing professionals, like myself, ensure that the finished TIFF file for printing is accurately resized, in pixels, to give the desired physical size when printed.

That was almost certainly due to the Canon printer driver., that was probably better with some images than others.

Like I said - as a professional, I can't afford to have anything hit and miss. Every print has to be immaculate - in exactly the same way as a darkroom print.

Also, as I said earlier, the sensor on a D850 has a resolution of 5500ppi so, just by working on the file at 240ppi, I am getting an enlargement of 22x without any interpolation at all.

To arrive at a non-interpolated image for A2 paper, I usually end up cropping or downsizing to 5347px x 3780px, but I very rarely need to upsize.

---

But the main argument of this post is to determine what exactly is LF?

Then digital large format would really be an LF camera with something like a Phase One back, or at least a Digital camera with movements

Certainly, if you insist on having a multiple inch capture device, then you need to look at something like the Largesense 5x4 back, but then you only get a 6Mpx sensor with whacking great pixels of 50µm. So, no better resolution than a Nikon D100 and a requirement to use enlargement software for anything larger than a 12" x 8" print.

But, if by large format, you mean large print size, then you might as well use a Nikon D100 and save yourself $26,000. You can even get atilt-shift lens for it for a lot less than that price.

Ultimately it's whatever you are happiest working with, and if output is 100% digital then a DSLR makes sens with the fallback of your LF camera where needed.

Indeed. But that also raises the supplementary question of what do you call a Silver Halide print from a Lambda printer, such as Harman and Picto use? It has no ink dots, just beautiful analogue photographic paper coated with a light-sensitive emulsion from Ilford.

I can understand, Ian, your fixation with the "purity" of an analogue end-to-end process and would never decry it. You have put a lot of time and effort into perfecting your techniques. I too love caressing my MF hand LF cameras. But we do not have the room to setup an LF darkroom for printing so, we have to be satisfied with an all digital workflow, right up to the point where the Lambda print is made when, by some wonder of technology, we end up with a beautiful print on silver paper.

---

I can't believe we're even entertaining these discussions in 2025. It makes as much sense to me as going onto a horseriding forum and starting a thread singing the praises of your motorcar which is far easier to travel with, much comfier, can travel further, carry more luggage, and doesn't shit everywhere or buckaroo you into a hedgerow when it's startled, so maybe we should look again at what qualifies as a horse.

But things have changed since you gave up your horse.

If a company asked a photographer to produce a 50" x 40" print, they usually really couldn't care less how you go there, as long as the image is as expected and fits the intended purpose.

I will reiterate - does LF refer to the originating sensor/film size or the finished print size?

To which I will add a supplementary question - does how you get to the end result really matter apart from a fetishistic worship of all that lovely wood and leather and getting high on darkroom chemistry?

… and leave the "large format" moniker with us when they go.

For you, obviously, you are just as nuts about traditional LF as we were when we bought our Ebony cameras at a time when digital was totally inadequate for the size of prints we wanted to make. You answer is obvious - don't touch my bellows

For us, things are not so clear but, as long as we end up with the same large prints without having to setup a darkroom, we tend to be a bit more pragmatic and large print size wins out every time

 

[Ian-Barber]

Also, as I said earlier, the sensor on a D850 has a resolution of 5500ppi

If a Nikon D810 has 7360 pixels why does a D850 only have 5500

Of course, you can let the printer carry out its own interpolation to obtain a given print size but digital printing professionals, like myself, ensure that the finished TIFF file for printing is accurately resized, in pixels, to give the desired physical size when printed.

If the Canon printer is 300dpi native, isnt the printer driver doing it's own own interpolation to go from 240 to 300 ?

 

[Joanna Carter]

If a Nikon D810 has 7360 pixels why does a D850 only have 5500

7360 long edge, 5500 short edge.

If the Canon printer is 300dpi native, isnt the printer driver doing it's own own interpolation to go from 240 to 300 ?

Actually, the Canon Pro 1000 has a stated dot resolution of 2400dpi x 1200dpi and the print head actually has 18,432 nozzles.

So, approximately, printing at 240ppi means the Canon Pro 1000 printer is constructing a pixel from a group of 10 dots x 5 dots

The Epson P900 states a dot resolution of 5760 x 1440 dpi, so one pixel at 240ppi takes 24 dots x 6 dots.

Except pixels are square, so both printers are obviously doing something that we are not meant to understand behind the scenes.

This all stems from a massively confusing misapprehension that continues to be propagated through all sorts of online tutorials. Printer dot resolution (dpi) has nothing to do image resolution (ppi). The printer doesn't interpolate but, rather, maps a mixture of different coloured drops to make up the colour of a single pixel.

I'll say it again, ppi and dpi are not related and should not be confused.

All image dimensions, scaling, etc should only ever be based on ppi regardless of dpi.

 

[Dave_P]

If a company asked a photographer to produce a 50" x 40" print, they usually really couldn't care less how you go there, as long as the image is as expected and fits the intended purpose.

I will reiterate - does LF refer to the originating sensor/film size or the finished print size?

Ironically if someone's only claim to fame is huge file sizes or big printers then they might not get asked to make the 50x40" print in the first place. Again, the tech for large prints and big filesizes has never been as straightforward, or available to as many photographers, as it is now, so this isn't really relevant to the discussion, unless photography is nothing more than an exercise in joyless print size onupmanship.

Creating good work, that someone would want to buy a big print of, and successfully marketing that work, and getting commissioned is a different matter altogether. Plenty of commercial clients look for artists who's work they like and value, or that they have an existing relationship with, they don't just scour Flickr or the D850 owners club forums for the guy doing the biggest stitches. And if creating that great work means getting excited about the process, and enjoying doing it, and engaging with it creatively, so someone can stick with it for the months/years it takes to get good at something with a consistent approach, then yes, the process very much matters. If you enjoy playing a piano, then the fact you can construct a superficially similar output in Garageband is irrelevant. Both have merit, great art has been created with all sorts of tools and approaches, that's clear. You'd never ask a musician or an artist "does the process matter", so why ask a photographer the same question?

As for the latter question, you know the answer. LF refers to the film/plate size, as it always has done.

 

[Ian Grant]

Hopefully, Joanna will give her wooden spoon to a Welsh Rugby Union fan tomorrow.

LF is by Joanna's own definition:



Now she wants a change to include higher resolution DSLR/Other backs/sensors.

The world has changed, but here on, this Forum, it is still about using Large Format film cameras and film, not digital capture.

@Dave_P is 110% correct. But then your LF work Joanna is almost all excellent, anything I think might not be is just nit-picking, but maybe valid.

As to enlargement, I'm 100% sure no-one else on this Forum has got even close in terms of linear size. You could turn a long wheelbase transit or longer Mercedes equivalent, in my darkroom. Three time (maybe more) I made images that cover the length of a Transit van. That was from 5x4 copy negatives.
,
Ian

 

[thronobulax]

I will reiterate - does LF refer to the originating sensor/film size or the finished print size?

To which I will add a supplementary question - does how you get to the end result really matter apart from a fetishistic worship of all that lovely wood and leather and getting high on darkroom chemistry?

I have a somewhat orthogonal view on this matter, I guess.

The terms "large-" "medium-" and "small" format are anachronisms hearkening back to the earlier days of film photography. Not only are they older notions, even within the film world, their meaning changed with time. When the default pro format was 10x8, someone shooting 4x3 or 3x2 was said to be shooting small format (if memory serves, I could be wrong about these details). But in no case was the format
described in terms of the output size, only the "capture" size.

In my view, this does not translate directly to digital. The very largest pro digital sensors are still classified, based on the sensor's physical size, as "medium format" as the term was last used in the film world. But the output does not directly correlate to images produced from a similar size film negative.

I was around for the birth of the Moog synthesizer and there was all this howling at the time about the death of pianos and "real" music. What actually happened was the electronic music went its own way and Steinway and Bösendorfer are still around, thank you very much. The medium did not replace the old, it merely became a new thing unto itself.

So my take away it that digital photography should not be seen as an extension of film photography but rather as an entirely new discipline in its own right, no more related to film than, say, oil painting. If that's valid, then attempting to map terminology from one onto the other doesn't have a lot of meaning.

 

[David M]

The terminology of digital imaging is rather confused. If you Google “large format” you will certainly get results that involve sheet-film cameras, but also large format digital printers that can generate a print the side of a juggernaut. These are really wide-format printers and their size is quoted as the width of the roll they can handle. The length is a matter of mechanics rather than optics.
When it comes to cameras, we seem to have all sorts of sizes available. “Full frame” seems to refer backwards to the physical size of 35mm film, but medium format seems to mean no more than “bigger than 35mm”.
In fact if we want to attribute a size to a digital sensor, it should be on the basis of the number of pixels rather than the space it occupies.
So, as I see it, the definitions of digital sensor sizes are too confused to assign a boundary at which it becomes Large. In any case, progress is very rapid and that boundary would almost certainly be obsolete quite soon. Witness how phones now routinely exceed the very best specifications of the most advanced DSLRs of a few years ago.
My view, at the end of this rambling, is we should keep this expression for sheet-film cameras with movements (I don’t dare to attempt a tighter definition) and allow the digital community to evolve its own terminology, rather than poaching from the senior branch.
I have no problem with large format digital printing, although I do wish that Google could sharpen up their efforts.
I’ve printed up to A2 from my little iPhone SE and had the results exhibited. Stationary subject, hand-held, in good light…

 

[MartyNL]

I'm not surprised you can't bear to part with your beautiful and timeless Ebony.

I bet your 'new' nikon's will be long out of the door before you get rid of your 'old' Ebony...

And we ALL know that REAL large format camera's don't have anywhere to put batteries.

 

[Ian Grant]

And we ALL know that REAL large format camera's don't have anywhere to put batteries.

There are exceptions, my 5x4 Super Graphic has a battery chamber

Ian

 

[Joanna Carter]

… unless photography is nothing more than an exercise in joyless print size onupmanship

Of course that is not the aim. It is a matter of horses for courses.

As for the latter question, you know the answer. LF refers to the film/plate size, as it always has done.

Actually, as has already been pointed out, not always.

I found this interesting quote from Wikipedia…

Large format cameras were some of the earliest photographic devices, and before enlargers were common, it was normal to just make 1:1 contact prints from a 4×5, 5×7, or 8×10-inch negative.

And this is where any definition of size of format starts to come in, with the question of what size contact print can be obtained.

The same applies to a definition of "macro" photography. The original definition was where the size of the image on the subject on the film or sensor is life-size or greater. Of course, this became a misnomer as soon as folks started to use 35mm film, where a great many small objects are often larger than the frame of such an image.

So, now macro usually means an image, of whatever size, that is larger than life-size. Here in France, they insist on differentiating anything that is larger than 1:1, and not taken with a macro lens, as "proxy"

Definitions change as technology evolves. If format naming follows technology, what would we call the 3.2Gpx LSST camera? Ultra, ultra, ultra, ultra, ultra … large format.

If we talk about the resolving power of an image capture device, then, as I have previously outlined, modern digital sensors are far more capable of resolving detail than scanned film, which still requires either a digital scanner or a digital camera to publish to anything other than a darkroom print. Scanning a 5" x 4" sheet of film at 2400ppi results in an image with a long edge of 12,000 pixels. Taking a picture with a Fujifilm GFX 100 results in an image with a long edge of 11,648 pixels - which is why many call such cameras digital LF. The size of the capturing medium becomes almost irrelevant. Except that Fujifilm label their 102Mpx sensor as MF, with a physical size of 44 x 33 mm. - and yet it is capable of resolving the same level of detail as a scanned 5" x 4" (LF) sheet of film.

This forum is labelled as being LF but that is not at all accurate if you exclude the possibility of digital capture at the same, or greater, resolution, than a sheet of film.

I would posit that your limitation of LF to film is simply because you (rightly so) are enthralled by the whole process of using and processing large sheets of film. Taking a simile, Might I ask if you still keep your food cold in an ice cave, or go out finding an animal, killing it, slaughtering it and butchering it, because "that is the way we've always done it"?

There is a common misconception that digital photography is easier, so it can't be consider a "craft" like film photography and I am guessing that is one of the reasons behind your insistence of not applying a "craft" name (LF) to anything that does not involve chemicals and darkness.

Darkroom printing is, indeed, a true craft that has to be learned and practised to perfection. But good digital photography is every bit as much of a craft with a massive learning curve. The only difference is the toolset that we use. But, if we count Lambda printing, the result is exactly the same - a silver gelatine print of astounding quality.

 

[Joanna Carter]

LF is by Joanna's own definition:

That needs taking into context. It was written 20 years ago, at a time when that was true. It is no longer valid. That site should be regarded as a historical archive.

here on, this Forum, it is still about using Large Format film cameras and film, not digital capture

Says who? And why does everyone use miniscule digital files to demonstrate their analogue LF prowess?

So my take away it that digital photography should not be seen as an extension of film photography

In that case, why do we allow digital scans in this forum to demonstrate our analogue printing skills? Should we not be running a print exchange group?

The domain name of the forum is 5x4.co.uk. Should we only allow 5" x 4", or 5cm x 4cm, or 5mm x 4mm, or 5m x 4m images? There is no hard and fast rule as to the unit size, only a "traditionalist" interpretation.

Should we say that images made with the Largesense 5" x 4" digital back are valid, even though they are only 6Mpx (equivalent to a Nikon D100) in resolution?

My view, at the end of this rambling, is we should keep this expression for sheet-film cameras with movements

Except there are many LF cameras without movements. Those with movements are more precisely labelled "field cameras".

I’ve printed up to A2 from my little iPhone SE and had the results exhibited. Stationary subject, hand-held, in good light…

Absolutely. I often get photo club members who want me to print their less than 1Mpx images of birds in flight, taken with a 500mm lens but at around 1km distance. With Topaz Photo AI I have succeeded in producing prints up to A3+ that, viewed from an appropriate distance, look amazing.

And we ALL know that REAL large format camera's don't have anywhere to put batteries.

Only if you don't count the battery in the spot meter

 

[David M]

We use small scans because that’s what’s available. If you’ve ever watched a print circulation scheme in operation, you’ll know how slow and inconvenient it can be.
May I insert the word “often” before “with movements” to avoid chasing down this well-worn rabbit hole? In practice, we all know what is a large format camera, but some people do enjoy the thrill of seeking out a definition to several decimal places. So far, nobody has disputed the validity of metric sizes on a forum that has an Imperial size in its name, but I offer it as a potential future playground.

Johanna is quite right. Digital technology can now exceed the limits of 5x4. I presume that 10x8 will very soon follow. Nevertheless, I suggest that hand-made* photography will continue for some time in much the same way that hand-made paintings continue to flourish, despite their limited resolution and often poor colour fidelity.

Is there a parallel discussion about the effects of digital technology on the aesthetics of photography?

*Please don’t attempt a discussion of this. It’s the best approximation I can devise at short notice. Otherwise we might have to debate whether using tongs invalidates the credibility of a print.

 

[MartyNL]

Or digital is LF when my dds fits into the memory slot?

 

[Ian-Barber]

here on, this Forum, it is still about using Large Format film cameras and film, not digital capture

Says who?

Me.

 

[Joanna Carter]

Me.

Well, at least I got folks talking

 

[David M]

You certainly did. Well done.

 

[Dave_P]

Actually, as has already been pointed out, not always.

Nonsense. What's been shown is whilst the exact sizes referred to as "large" or "small" etc has drifted over time, the format nomenclature has always related to the plate/film size, and never the print size. Hence the another above said; "But in no case, was the format described in terms of the output size, only the "capture" size."

It's funny how, when fine grained 35mm film and enlargers became commonplace, 35mm film didn't suddenly start being called 'Large format" because you could easily produce 10x8" or bigger prints, isn't it? Maybe at the time there were people who used to shoot big plates, but weren't into it any more, who tried and failed to persuade their peers to rename it, but I guess we'll never know as, thankfully, the internet wasn't around then.