PDA

View Full Version : New Luminouse Landscape Article



Ron Marshall
20-Jan-2006, 09:27
In the future an 80MP digital back may be able to match 4x5. But for me that will remain a moot point until they sell for less than about $5000.

tim atherton
20-Jan-2006, 09:30
I'll repeat what I just posted in the Colour thread:

Burtynsky was talking about the possibility of going digital with the new MF 39 mp backs coming out from Imacon/Hassleblad etc which he is busy testing. If they meet the quality and convenience he wants he will use them - if they don't he won't. (For one thing he finds LF with a Linhof MT a pain for aerial shots and believes these will be an improvement for that in particular). If he finds they do what he wants with less hassle than 4x5, then he will use them. If not, then no. (for example, he can still get a faster look at detail by shooting a test Pol type 55 shot and looking at the neg with his 10x loupe in a few seconds than he can waiting for a digital file to run through the system)

matthew blais
20-Jan-2006, 09:31
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502679.html

Scott Fleming
20-Jan-2006, 09:34
Can someone tell me how you use front and back tilts or swings by looking at a 2" LCD screen? I can't even really do it worth a darn when using a roll film back.

James Aldridge
20-Jan-2006, 10:02
A few thoughts:

I like the new P45, so I need to switch to an SLR. Why? Buy an adaptor for your 4x5. Digital is a medium, not a camera style.

The test shots display the same detail as about 20 % larger for the P 45 file. Why? Reduce the P25 by 20% in photoshop, balance the color (Phase does not have the P45 dialed yet in C1, and this looks like a horrid conversion), and add noise at about 1%, and you have a decent comparison.

This comparison is almost a film advertisement. The P 45 files as presented look rubber enough to bounce off a wall. With proper care, the files are significantly better.

Joseph O'Neil
20-Jan-2006, 10:17
One extremely important issue, not addressed here, or on may of these digital reviews, is the point about power consumption.

CCDs, and related hardware draw a hellva pile of juice, so you need either a connection to house current, or a heck of portable power supply.

On a smei-related topic, I've used CCD based imagin cameras on a telescope inthe feild, and for a small chip, it's amazing the pwoer you need - something capable of supply power in amps, no milli-amps.

I don't know how much pwoer some of these 4x5 backs will draw, but for use in teh feild, outside the studio, without a word of exaggeration, the size and weight of the generator or batter or power supply - ot whatever you are using - will rival hauling an 11x14 setup!

Put it this way - this past summer, tromping around some Colorado mountians in the thin air at 12 to 14,000 feet, just with my 4x5, there were times I thought I was gonna die (Yes, I am a big wussy at heart :)

Unless somebody develops a really small, very powerful fuel cell, I just don't see digital 4x5 (or larger) backs becomming very popular outside of a studio or too far away from a van loaded down with gear. Just ain't practical, IMO.

joe

paulr
20-Jan-2006, 10:40
"CCDs, and related hardware draw a hellva pile of juice,"

this is true ... it's also one of the things that's going to change over time. when the day comes that i can afford (0r am forced to afford) a digital back, it's likely they will be many times more efficient.

one benefit of high efficiency ccds is that they could allow the same kind of constant-on viewing that people with digital point 'n shoots enjoy. you could have what's basically a digital ground glass ... either right on the back of the camera, or on a connected laptop. in the mean time, it's going to be an issue for a lot of people.

Frank Petronio
20-Jan-2006, 10:45
Stephen Johnson has been using Better Light backs in the field for about ten years now. All it takes is money. At least in the case ofthe scanning backs, they really aren't that expensive anymore. Considering that some folks spend 30 minutes per shot fooling around under a dark cloth, so checking the image on a Powerbook isn't any worse a hardship.

Every commercial shooter I know who has gotten a medium format back has spent a lot of time trying to justify it after they compare the results from a higher end DSLR that costs a fraction of the price. There are very few jobs left that require that many pixels, and I think Phase One and Hasselblad are selling expensive medium format cameras as much for the photographer's bragging rights as utility.

I think the serious amateurs here - trying to make large prints from large format film or files - are the most demanding photographers these days. No pro needs to play with 500 mb files, but you guys do it all the time. But I'd be damned if I would take a $40K outfit out into the desert, seside or a snowstorm - while having no qualms about taking a LF film camera outdoors in the worst conditions.

Kirk Gittings
20-Jan-2006, 10:46
Henceforth largeformat photographers will count the years as BP45 and AP45. We are in the first year of our Lord Pixel.

Steven Barall
20-Jan-2006, 10:48
We compromise all the time. That 39mp back is a great compromise to 4x5 even though it's not exactly the same. You have to ask why anyone chooses 4x5 in the first place? The reason is that 4x5 is a good compromise to 8x10 and 8x10 is a good compromise to 11x14 and so forth.

Is the difference between that 39mp digital system and a perfectly scanned sheet of 4x5 film greater that the difference between 4x5 film and 8x10 film? I bet that the digital and 4x5 are a lot closer to eachother than the 4x5 and 8x10 are to eachother. Compromise.

As you 5x4 shooters might say; Different horses for different courses.

Jim collum
20-Jan-2006, 10:52
"CCDs, and related hardware draw a hellva pile of juice,"

i shoot with the Betterlight, and use a 3lb 80W digital camera battery (http://www.digitalcamerabattery.com ), and can shoot for 10 hours, with over 100 exposures during that time. I travel with 2 of them, and both will fully charge overnight.

i can get my 4x5 (ebony sv45te), 4 lenses, full Betterlight setup, 2 batteries, laptop, focusing cloth, IR filters in a standard f64 backpack (the medium size. meant for 4x5 setups). I'm in my late 40's and have had surgery once for a ruptured disc (not photo related ..). and still can carry this (and the tripod) all day. it's not all that much heaver than my 4x5 film setup. There are some new batteries available that will decrease the weight even more.

QT Luong
20-Jan-2006, 11:00
There aren't that many people who backpack with the LF camera (myself, I try to avoid doing so, unless absolutely necessery). Recharging batteries overnight is sufficient for most nature work. Those batteries fit into the camera, so they must not be that big or heavy.

I find that comment "I wonder if, in the soul of every large-format photographer, there is a latent snapshooter waiting to get out?" most curious. Bill Atkinson (a fine art photographer) makes 3000 exposures a week in MF. I do a lot of travel stock work where I move around quickly. I use 35mm (digital) with a 4fps body, mostly with zooms. I have yet to produce more than 1500 images in a week.

QT Luong
20-Jan-2006, 11:17
Every commercial shooter I know who has gotten a medium format back has spent a lot of time trying to justify it after they compare the results from a higher end DSLR that costs a fraction of the price.

My understanding is that the main benefit of the MF is to impress the client (which is important). DSLRs just don't look professional enough.

Bruce Watson
20-Jan-2006, 11:22
As a drum scanner operator, I have to point out that the Tango isn't the sharpest scanner on the block. It's minimum aperture is 11 microns IIRC. I think Mr. Cramer is leaving some sharpness on the table as it were.

Also, I have to point out that where Mr. Cramer writes "Digital has more dynamic range than film..." he means transparency film (he's a big tranny user), not negative film. Digital still has a ways to go to catch up with the 11+ stops of dynamic range that modern color and B&W negative film delivers.

Finally, we should note that a 30x40 inch print from a 4x5 negative is at most an 8x enlargement. To keep the 1.25 aspect ratio right it would be a 32x40 print BTW. Assuming 360ppi output (for an Epson 9800 printer), lets do some math:

(360ppi)(40in)(360ppi)(32in)(2 bytes)(3 colors) = 995 MB. This means that Mr. Cramer upsized his own 500MB 16 bit files for printing his test prints. He could easily scan to this size, not interpolated, and seen more of the resolution that is actually on his film (assuming a sharper scanner than a Tango, such as an Aztek Premier). By scanning at a lower resolution, he simply gives up some of film's advantage to digital.

What I'm saying is that this test seems to have tied one hand behind film's back to make digital capture look better. And still film won. What can you say?

When digital *exceeds* what 5x4 negative film can do, both in resolution and dynamic range, call me. Until then, I'm not terribly interested.

Jim collum
20-Jan-2006, 12:02
"When digital *exceeds* what 5x4 negative film can do, both in resolution and dynamic range, call me. Until then, I'm not terribly interested."

the scanning back technology surpasses both. however, there are some other factors that might make this option more difficult for some photographers (Charles likes the slow exposure, fast flowing water in images.. not possible to get that artifact with the scanning back). However for his forest images, and landscapes without flowing water, this works just fine)

Rob_6274
20-Jan-2006, 12:15
For my eyes, the digital images have plasticky color and less details. With the bayer matrix color filter, digital images never show you the real color. I have seen many digital images from dslr. When I look very closely to a print, I usually can tell that the image was from dslr. There is something different about the overall color. Could the bayer filter and color interpolation cause this? For me, I would go digital if the foveon style sensor (3 layer RGB) is being used, with at least 3x24 M pixels, and relatively inexpensive.

Eric Brody
20-Jan-2006, 12:20
These multimegapixel backs sound great, just a bit expensive for most of us. I think the upgrade from the P22 back is a mere $10,000.

One must be a wealthy pro with equally wealthy clients to generate the income needed to justify such a device. This is not much different than reading Ferrari or Lamborghini reviews in car magazine, exotics available to the very few albeit state of the art. This is not to say it's not interesting, but I'll plod along in my darkroom for a while yet.

Enjoy the fantasy.

Eric

Jim collum
20-Jan-2006, 12:25
"digital images never show you the real color"

actually, i don't know of any films that show that either :^) nothing very real about velvia/provia.. but that's not what it's being used for... it's the emotional impact of the color that works for some people. Color negative film comes a little closer in contrast.

the Bayer does create artifacts.. color and detail. looking at a 100% crop from a dslr image and that from a scanning back (full detail/color for each pixel), and you can see that. i'll see if i can get an online comparison.

Jim collum
20-Jan-2006, 12:27
"Enjoy the fantasy"

used scanning backs can be found on ebay every so often for about 3-4K.

Me? right now, i'm lusting after one of those cheap 12x20's with a couple of film holders.

Bruce Watson
20-Jan-2006, 13:00
"When digital *exceeds* what 5x4 negative film can do, both in resolution and dynamic range, call me. Until then, I'm not terribly interested."

the scanning back technology surpasses both.

Well, not really. Part of the resolution that film offers is what I call "parallel capture" in that you expose the entire sheet of film within the duration the shutter is open. This lets the camera/film resolve well things that move, from water to people.

A scan back works as "serial capture" in that it moves the CCD array slowly (in comparison to a "normal" shutter speed for a film exposure) across the image capture area. So it really fails to resolve well anything that moves, like water, clouds, people, etc.

That and the last time I asked (a couple of years ago I admit) it took an extra 20lbs of equipment over and above my normal LF equipment to run a Better Light system (I'm not sure that even included the required lap top computer). That's just not realistic if you are going to hike from Yosemite Valley to the top of Yosemite Falls, and hiking is the only way to get there unless you can score a permit for helicopters.

But if it makes you happy Jim, I'll amend my thought to this:

When digital *exceeds* what 5x4 negative film can do with parallel capture, in resolution, dynamic range, and specific weight, call me. Until then, I'm not terribly interested.

And by specific weight, I'm talking units of resolution per unit weight that I have to carry when hiking into location. Consider what a sheet of 5x4 film weighs. Even consider what 200 sheets of 5x4 film weights (what I typically can use in three weeks in the field).

Phillip Smith
20-Jan-2006, 13:04
"Can someone tell me how you use front and back tilts or swings by looking at a 2" LCD screen? I can't even really do it worth a darn when using a roll film back."

You don't utilize the digital back on until you're ready to make the exposure. Composition, tilts, swings, focus, etc are all done the traditional way (except if you have a scanning back, which you can use for focus).

Mike Kovacs
20-Jan-2006, 13:06
As long as we are comparing what is essentially a close to LF image quality on a MF camera, to a LF camera, what about movements? Yes you need less movements for 645 format but you can still do more with a 4x5, which is what I find so fascinating about this medium.

There are many images you simply cannot execute without the movements!

Phillip Smith
20-Jan-2006, 13:11
"So it really fails to resolve well anything that moves, like water, clouds, people, etc."

Your statement is not entirely true. If there is little wind, clouds reproduce wonderfully on a betterlight.

Jim collum
20-Jan-2006, 13:18
"And by specific weight, I'm talking units of resolution per unit weight that I have to carry when hiking into location. Consider what a sheet of 5x4 film weighs. Even consider what 200 sheets of 5x4 film weights (what I typically can use in three weeks in the field)."

Weight of my Betterlight setup that I take into the field is a little more than what i'd be taking with film (using film holders). I'll photography my Betterlight pack.. but it does fit neatly into a F64 medium camera backpack. It's a lot less than an 8x10 field outfit.

Parallel capture... i mentioned those restriction above... and fully agree that the setup isn't for everyone. If you shoot people or flowing water and like to slow down the shutter speed (which, by the way, is also altering time in order to produce an unreal artifcact.. just one that's been accepted as appealing).. then it's not for you. I have no more problem with wind and trees/branches than if i were using film. it's a pain in both cases.. and produces artifacts in both as well. For 90% of the large format landscape/architectural work that i see going browsing thru the books/magazines and web sites... my setup would work.

It takes longer to set up than film, is less 'convenient'.. but since when are we (large format photographers) all that interested in 'convenience' :^)

If i know i'll be shooting flowing water, or very quickly changing light, then i take film along with me.

with the Betterlight, when i leave a location, i *know* i have the shot, properly exposed and in focus corner to corner.

Eric Leppanen
20-Jan-2006, 15:32
While we don't know key aspects of the tests performed by Mr. Cramer et al (e.g., what type of lenses were used, etc.), the results seem consistent with what could have been theoretically predicted.

Using 240 DPI (upsampled within Photoshop to 360 DPI) as the optimum input resolution needed for an Epson printer (see my post in this thread www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/504529.html#583554 (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/504529.html#583554)), the P45 maxes out at roughly a 23 x 30" print size, as does (for my taste) drum-scanned 4x5 chrome. If you compare 23x30" prints of the P45 versus 4x5 (as opposed to 30x40" used by Mr. Cramer) I suspect you'd see virtually no difference between the p45 and 4x5. The question is: are the benefits of digital (much faster setup time, less carrying bulk, greater depth of field, 2 1/2 additional stops of speed, immediate image feedback, etc.) worth $30K to you? If you are a pro or independently wealthy amateur who generates a lot of 23x30" prints, values the additional resolution due to its ability to minimize moire, or who needs to impress clients with an incredibly expensive camera, the answer might be yes. If you do mostly commercial or stock photography, or you are not sitting on a huge bank account, the answer is probably no.

My concern is that the MF digital market appears to have too many players and a shakeout seems inevitable. Hasselblad/Imacon seems likely to survive since they offer both a camera system and digital backs, but Phase One and Leaf seem exposed (relying on discontinued camera systems from Contax, Hasselblad and potentially Mamiya, as Hasselblad is evolving the H1/H2 in a closed proprietary direction). Mamiya will almost certainly fold if the ZD is not a resounding success. Nor are we even certain that the MF digital market niche will have sufficient long-term critical mass to survive as Canon upgrades its high-end DSLR's. I'd personally need more clarity in the MF digital marketplace before committing a bunch of resources to it.

Rob_6274
20-Jan-2006, 15:51
Sinar, Horseman and Linhof now have small monorail view cameras that are designed for digital backs. I guess PhaseOne and Leaf could make backs for those cameras.

Rob_5209
20-Jan-2006, 15:54
with the Betterlight, when i leave a location, i *know* i have the shot, properly exposed and in focus corner to corner.

Wouldn't it just be a lot cheaper (and easier) to shoot a Polaroid? I dunno, but for me the beauty of LF shooting lies in its simplicity, which is a major reason I enjoy it so much. If I had to lug a bunch of batteries and a laptop computer in the field, I don't think I'd enjoy this hobby anymore. What's more, I love shooting in the rain and enjoy waterfalls and streams; I don't think I'd want to take my laptop out in that kind of weather.

Maybe its just me but replacing LF with digital just seems to be a case of replacing something simple with something overly (and unnecessarily) complicated. Sometimes, it seems as if digital is a problem in search of a solution (example, the digital toothbrush.....WTF).

Henry Ambrose
20-Jan-2006, 16:09
hmmm..........

Let me think this through:

I have a nice 4x5 camera and lenses.

1) I can purchase, shoot and process 10 sheets of color film for $50.00 tops, probably less. If I'm a B&W shooter its probably more like $20.00 or less since I process it my self.

Or

2) I can spend $20,000 to $30,000 for a high-end digital back, a laptop and accessories and go shoot all I want for "free"

tim atherton
20-Jan-2006, 16:18
Or lets say you are shooting a project - absolute minimum you are shooting is 50 sheets a day and you are travelling for three months photographing say 5 days a week with travel etc

That's roughly about $15,000 - so it doesn't take too many of those if that's the sort of photography you are doing.

David Luttmann
20-Jan-2006, 16:25
Bruce,

Most new DSLRs actually have between 9 & 10 stops of dynamic range. With the latest from Canon, the 5D, I have run tests using Imatest to confirm 9.98 stops of DR. Many digital backs have 11 stops. With that in mind, film and digital capture are basically tied.

James,

As far as the "rubber" comment, you'll note that the screen view would have to be reduced by an order of 4 to 5 times for it to mimic the print. Remember, it was rezzed to 360 dpi & your screen is probably between 72 & 96 ppi. Reduce it to appear as it would on a 32x40" print, and you won't see a difference.....except maybe for some grain on the 4x5 film.

Now the cost is a different matter. Doing commercial work, $20,000 is easy to justify. As an amateur or low volume shooter, it may not make sense.....although with film, processing & scanning costs, it still may. With shooting a couple of hundred color sheets a year, you'll easily spend quite a few thousand in film, processing, and scanning costs. You might make it up in 5 or 6 years.....now $20,000 doesn't seem that expensive anymore, does it!

Henry Ambrose
20-Jan-2006, 17:17
Tim, sign me up. When do we start? I'd love a job like that.

I've used/owned 5-6 scanning cameras, and along the lines of what Tim and Dave wrote, when you are capturing thousands or tens of thousands of shots the savings over film and scanning can be huge. Bigger than what they wrote about! But you have to be careful that its YOU who is saving the money.

If you SAVE all that money for your CLIENT by buying expensive gear to make their bill smaller (say - to get the job instead of some other guy) and for you to do MORE WORK FASTER you can get in trouble real quick. Before too long you did a load of work and your fancy camera is broken and the manufacturer is out of business so there is no one to repair it.

Time to drop $10,000 again! (you did set some money back for this eventuality?) Of course now days its only "Time to drop $2,000-7,000 again!" if you are just doing "shit on white" with a DSLR. Or, you were smart enough to turn that puppy before it craps out so its only half the above amount - every six months to a year or so.

And none of this has much to do with most people who post here who I suspect are lucky enough to not shoot enough to ever pay for a $15,000-30,000 back. How much quality, productive shooting can a person do in the landscape? I mean a scene and situation worth burning film on - how many can you get in one day? And who'd want to deal with all the hassles anyway? A bag of film holders is pretty simple to deal with and the results are "good enough" ; >) for most anything I can think of.

If you're not doing high volume commercial work I hope you have some other reason than cost savings for forking over the big bucks. And any reason that makes you happy is OK with me.

tim atherton
20-Jan-2006, 18:25
I was talking to Burtynsky after a talk last night, and this is basically waht he does with film now one of his projects (and as I mentioned, is testing the Hassy stuff to see how it fits/looks - and he is obsessive about image quality - his comment about the quick check with type 55 neg for his colour work - he can use his 10x loupe and check the sharpness for a 50" print right there on the spot - which is how he works)

Paul Kierstead
20-Jan-2006, 20:19
Most new DSLRs actually have between 9 & 10 stops of dynamic range. With the latest from Canon, the 5D, I have run tests using Imatest to confirm 9.98 stops of DR. Many digital backs have 11 stops. With that in mind, film and digital capture are basically tied.

Tests? Who cares about tests? What do your eyes tell you? My eyes tell me that digital DR doesn't even come close to B&W film, and probably not Color film either. Not all the stops are equal in usability (i.e. aesthetic quality). Of course, many images don't need massive DR.

With all the "what is sharper" discussions, I see things rapidly going the way of a gear DSLR forum. So sad.

David Luttmann
20-Jan-2006, 21:46
"Tests? Who cares about tests? What do your eyes tell you?"

My eyes tell me that I can maintain highlights and still drag more detail out of the shadows while maintaining lower noise than film. Anything else?

Richard Martel
20-Jan-2006, 22:54
This thread gave me a chuckle...It appears to me as an upscale/Gucci digital/film debate. Time for me to raise the ante and move to 5x7. Sooo I'm looking for a good 5x7 Anba-Ikeda or Nagoaka...Anyone.

Thanks, Richard

Andre Noble
21-Jan-2006, 03:58
I don't want a DVD for all my efforts. I want a large format negative.

Philip_5765
21-Jan-2006, 06:59
In regards to who will survive in the MF back game, I would have to disagree with the poster above. Right now, Hasselblad is incredibly shaky and many in the business doubt it's short term survival. The Imacon backs are noisy and the software is very unpopular among users. Plus, Imablad (Hasselcon?) has really compromised their brand name with the discontinuation of their film cameras and the abandonment of their prime user base. PhaseOne is pushing the innovations and has strong software and support. Leaf is considered dead in the water by many and since Mamiya has put all their eggs in one (well, two if you count the phantom ZD) basket, well, they can say "hello" to Contax in camera heaven soon, I think.

M

Frank Petronio
21-Jan-2006, 07:45
I agree that Phase One is the best option right now. The question is going to be what camera body and optics will we be left to shoot with? The Fuji H1 may be the only new system left and that seems iffy too (as well as being an overpriced plastic POS).

David Luttmann
21-Jan-2006, 09:01
"got to go with Bruce Watson on this, and for the record Dave after having a play with digital back it took 4 seperate exposures in 1 stop increments shot raw blended as a hdri file to match the dynamic range I got from a flat scan of a colour neg"

I would disagree with Bruce considering he apparently has not done a true DR test on digital gear.....I have. I get about 10 stops with conventional DSLRs. Digital backs give me 11 on Imatest. Where are his test results?

darr
21-Jan-2006, 09:29
Another take on this article by Mike Johnston:

TheOnLinePhotographer (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/01/27000-digital-almost-as-good-as-film.html)

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/01/27000-digital-almost-as-good-as-film.html

Jack Flesher
21-Jan-2006, 09:56
I agree that Phase One is the best option right now. The question is going to be what camera body and optics will we be left to shoot with?

You can use just about any of them on the View Cam you already own. IMO this is the best option for the high resolution backs due to the movements.



The Fuji H1 may be the only new system left and that seems iffy too (as well as being an overpriced plastic POS).

Totally agree here but hey, it does have that spiffy built-in pop-up flash!

;),

Kirk Gittings
21-Jan-2006, 10:01
Jack it seems to me though, that the issue with a VC becomes effective focal lenght of your lenses and making them work. The image area is smaller tahn 2 1/4 right? For architecture needing a 90 on 4x5, I would need a what 30mm lens? Where is the lens and how do I make that work on a VC. Also focusing and movements on a projected image smaller than 2 1/4 square would be a nightmare.

Eric Leppanen
21-Jan-2006, 10:09
I stand corrected on Hasselblad/Imacon then, and I realize Phase One overall offers the best MF digital back solutions right now. But I doubt Phase can feel very comfortable relying on a bevy of discontinued, increasingly obsolete camera systems (assuming Hasselblad/Imacon eventually goes down) for their corporate survival. If Phase ends up being the last man standing in MF digital, then I still think they need control of some type of camera system to survive against increasingly high resolution Canon and Nikon systems. Yet apparently the Contax system was not good enough (otherwise why would they not have adopted it by now?) and Michael Reichmann (who is close to Phase One) is saying he now believes the Contax system is dead as a doornail. If the Contax wasn't good enough, then I doubt the Mamiya would be either (assuming Mamiya eventually goes down). So who is left? Does Phase buy the rights to the H1/H2 system if Hasselblad goes down? I don't think anyone sees them fabricating a new system from scratch.

If you are a high volume pro who can write off his/her digital back investment in a year or so, none of this matters much. But my point is that if you are a high-end amateur shooter examining MF digital as a replacement to 4x5 ("close enough" resolution to 4x5, far more versatile and convenient), you probably don't want to make such a large investment in a product until its long-term market viability has been demonstrated ("long-term viability" also includes more accessible pricing). I personally am in that boat at the moment.

Perhaps the "best case" scenario for MF digital is that Phase acquires a camera system from somewhere, and joins Canon and Nikon as the primary trio of stable, established DSLR manufacturers. To achieve this, Phase will need a camera system and much lower pricing. The problem is, this is an enormous step up from where Phase stands today. Do they have the capital and savvy to pull this off? Will they fail? Will a larger player buy out Phase instead? It's hard to see MF digital making much headway in the market beyond its tiny niche until such questions are answered.

Dan_4341
21-Jan-2006, 11:13
I'm a 'low volume' amateur (not that many sheets of film shot per year - certainly not enough to show an advantage to buying a $20K+ digital back amortized over even 5 years), and I don't want to spend hours futzing with PCs, Macs, backs, software patches, upgrades & assorted digital knick-knacks.

I like the 5x7 aspect ratio better than 4x5/8x10, and it gives for me an acceptable size for viewing transparencies or contact prints (4x5 is too small for me), and it provides potentially superior technical quality over 4x5 film and any non-scanning digi back now and probably for a least a few years. Tying in affordability for a non-pro, probably for many years.

Plus, viewing the larger 5x7 groundglass is easier and more pleasurable than 4x5 for me. Also, the overall 5x7 kit is much lighter/smaller (esp. due to film holders) than an 8x10 kit. Color film for 5x7 is very limited, but sufficient (Provia 100F, EPY, EPR, 160NC via - some available through Midwest, Badger, ViewCamera, possibly others); and if you want to buy holders for 13x18cm there are other emulsions available but have to get them from Europe). I store a stock of film in the freezer, so even if it's discontined I'll be able to shoot for a few years more (and processing 5x7 is harder to find even now, but via mail order there should still be plenty).

For those 4x5 shooters who don't find the aspect ratio ideal and who want to easily stay ahead of the quality of non-scanning digital backs for the next few years, and/or would find the viewing of 5x7 transparencies or contact prints a desirable end-result (in addition to superior quality for very big enlargements) moving up to 5x7 might be worth considering.

Dean Tomasula
21-Jan-2006, 11:34
These film vs. digital comparisons always make me laugh. They always end up "proving" that digital is equal or better to film, but their photos prove differently. So which is it?

Mr. Cramer's photos do not prove that the P45 is better than Velvia. Maybe its his scsnning technique, maybe its his Photoshop technique. Who knows. But this article just proves that Velvia resolves better and has better color saturation than the P45 back does.

It's funny how these people claim one thing but have a hard time proving it. He mentions how Velvia has a "slight" edge over the P45, yet his photos show Velvia in the lead by a wide margin.

Jack Flesher
21-Jan-2006, 12:19
Jack it seems to me though, that the issue with a VC becomes effective focal lenght of your lenses and making them work. The image area is smaller tahn 2 1/4 right? For architecture needing a 90 on 4x5, I would need a what 30mm lens? Where is the lens and how do I make that work on a VC. Also focusing and movements on a projected image smaller than 2 1/4 square would be a nightmare.

Good points Kirk --

However Rodenstock and Schneider have come to the rescue and now provide a range of digital-specific lenses that are shorter focal lengths with smaller IC's, but also have higher resolution capability to meet the demands of the small pixel-pitches of these high resolution backs. As for wides, you can currently get a 24mm, 28mm and 35mm that will allow movements with these backs (though the 24 is pretty tight). The sensor diagonals are about 60mm, so the 35's coverage is very close to the 90 on 4x5; the 28 about a 70 and the 24 about a 60.

As for focus, if you run the back tethered to a computer you get perfect, digitally-confirmed focus with the software. If running un-tethered, keep in mind you can "zoom" in on the image to 100% view on the rear LCD, and since feedback is essentially instant, you can confirm critical zones are sharp or make the necessary corrections and re-shoot. It's like having built-in polaroid at full print size available at all times!

And a PS here: Once you have manually focused with a loupe, then confirmed that focus with tethered digital focus, you will quickly realize how inadequate our eyes really are ;) I would bet 90% of the time even the best of us are off perfect focus. Whether it is by a significant amount for the final image is another discussion, but nonetheless seeing it is on a computer screen at 100% view is definitely an eye-opener -- so to speak.

Cheers,

Scott Fleming
21-Jan-2006, 12:40
A couple people touched on it but I'd still like somebody to tell me how you focus and employ movements on a slightly less than 6 x 4.5cm square in the middle of your gg. Really ... I want to know.

People keep quoting $ figures as regards the logic of getting into a new top of the line digital back. For some reason everyone is being overly optomistic. That is ... low by about half. If one is a view camera enthusiast right now and does not own a MF camera or a top of the line Mac or PC it seems to me the entry fee would be closer to $50k than the 20 0r 30 I keep hearing. Even if you decide to stay with the view camera you're going to find you need a new one of those most likely and some absurdly high priced digitar lenses. If you want to print your own throw in another several thou as you're going to need the best RIP as well. Can't skimp now can we? Then if you are not a PS guru already it's either going to take you a couple years to get on top of that or a few more thou in the best tutoring to cut the time. As per my question in my opening paragraph I think you'll also find that shooting tethered is still required in this game even though supposedly not. The MF digital fashion shooters I listen to over on RG.com are mostly shooting tethered. I think that's because this is the only way they can actually SEE what they're doing. That's another three grand ... and a giant hassle to boot.

If I really had the digital bug I'd just go 35mm. Sensors are not film. 35mm is no longer 35mm when talking sensors and digital capture and reproduction. I don't think MF digital capture will survive another five years except through discontinued hardware.

Jack Flesher
21-Jan-2006, 12:42
These film vs. digital comparisons always make me laugh. They always end up "proving" that digital is equal or better to film, but their photos prove differently. So which is it?

In my case, I happen to agree Dean, and feel scanned 4x5 is still the gold-standard.

However, digital is quickly closing that gap and I suspect that when we see 50MP of direct digital capture, we will have equaled the best scanned 4x5. As Richard pointed out, you could then move to 5x7 or 8x10, but the lenses and media become more restricted. I think the real answer is more on the line of where Frank was going -- how big do you really need to print and at what quality?

If you never print larger than 16x20, you're not going to see much difference between a well-printed 39MP direct digital file, a print from a 4x5 drum-scan, and a traditional wet print. At 40x50, we'll have a different ballgame. So at exactly what mega-pixel count this transition will actually occur is again open to argument, but personally I feel that at 24x30 the differences remain academic. Since 24" is as large as I can print on my printer -- and as large as I really care to print anyway -- then for me, 39MP is going to be adequate.

But, it will not be better than scanned 4x5... Cost and convenience now become other significant parts of this equation, and of course each of us will have to weigh those for ourselves based on how much we shoot, to what end purpose, our budgets, etc...

Cheers,

David Luttmann
21-Jan-2006, 13:52
Matthew,

I can't find the backup files for the Imatest run I made. Here is another fellows tests on a Canon 20D. This has smaller pixel dimensions and considered to have a bit lower DR than the 5D.....and at least one stop lower than 16 bit digital backs. But, as you can see, it easily reaches 9.92 stops. This is more than sufficient as it beats ANY color slide film I use. Even if it matches or doesn't quite match color neg film, as most film users find better color from scanned chromes, I consider it a wash.

http://members.shaw.ca/daveandclaire/stuff/imatest.jpg

Frank Petronio
21-Jan-2006, 15:04
My expectation is that smaller, specialized companies like Better Light and maybe Phase One will continue to build small runs of highly priced, high resolution digital backs for legacy medium format cameras and 4x5s. But because the volume will be low, the prices will remain high. On the other hand, companies like Canon and Nikon have pretty much reached the limitations of their current lens designs and performance. Simply to remain competitive, I suspect they will eventually introduce a new digital format that breaks it's ties with 35mm, and allows higher quality lens designs.

There is more margin for them to sell a rack of $2000 "L" or "Pro" lenses than there is to sell another 35mm based body. Look for cheaper bodies and really expensive high end lenses to follow. Nikon especially built its business around selling people lots of lenses -- they need to figure out how to do that again.

Then again, most amateurs are more than happy with crappy plastic $200 18-300mm f/5.6 zooms that distort and CA like crazy, so I am probably full of it.

David Luttmann
21-Jan-2006, 16:50
No Matthew,

I actually enjoyed your work while viewing your website. I'm just not sure how whether or not I like your images has anything to do with tested dynamic range of different media.

Best regards,

Glenn Kroeger
21-Jan-2006, 17:32
This isn't a perfect scientific test. It doesn't matter where the slim edge lies. The comparisons of subtle nuance will quickly become academic. The fact is that these new MF digital backs are close enough to 4x5 quality to begin to move those areas of commercial photography that have continued to use LF color film, particularly architectural photography.

Whether or not we like to admit it, LF color photography has been subsidized by LF commercial photography, and to a great extent by all other formats of color film use. All of these are quickly vanishing, and despite placating language by Fuji's customer relations department and some of Kodak's sales force, the fiscal realities of producing color film are going to come crashing down in the next few years. Fuji Quickloads will soon pass $5 a sheet heading toward $10. Outside of cities with major photo industries (LA, SF, NYC, Chicago, Denver), E6 processing labs are thinning out rapidly. We are down to 3 in my town, one of which is already in Chapter 11. It is possible that LF color film will reach a supportable equilibrium for Fuji if Kodak quits the business. I can't guess at the price point of that supply/demand equilibrium. We will know alot more by the end of 2006 about the prognosis.

My great fear is a coming void... where LF color film is all but gone, and digital backs are still clinging to their prices north of $15K. In today's economy, demand doesn't always create supply.

B&W is another matter. There are already small firms producing emulsions.

Mark_3632
21-Jan-2006, 17:44
Okay, Let me get this straight. to do these tests a person takes an image with a digital camera, in some cases the image file is recorded directly onto the computer, other wise the computer reads the image file directly from the camera or other storage media. Basically there is no middle process?

they take an image with film, then employ a middle process to get the analog image into the computer to test by scanning (take a digital picture of it). I don't care how good the scanner or the person running the scanner is they are still taking a picture of a picture right?

Does anyone else see a problem with the methodology? WHy don't people, on both sides, realize they are comparing two entirely different things and get over it. It is like comparing watercolor and oil painting.

Jim collum
21-Jan-2006, 18:15
"WHy don't people, on both sides, realize they are comparing two entirely different things and get over it. It is like comparing watercolor and oil painting."

Only problem is the majority of color film fine art photography done today is printed from a scanned image. Only a handful still have images printed directly from an enlarger. The reason i've heard from the photographer's themselves is the quality of the output image they get from a scanned image is higher than they were getting printing analog. (this is just color i'm talking about here).

David Luttmann
21-Jan-2006, 19:13
That hits the nail on the head, Jim. Nowadays, most color output is scanned and then output digitally. The best scanners on the market today are able to pull more off of film then paper is able to record, in terms of dynamic range, and when dealing with color materials. While I agree that there is a middle step with nthe scanning of film, that is just the way most color film is worked with now.

Quite frankly, the differences we are talking about are all within about 1 stop at most....probably less. And as such, they play no part is true quality differences under real world printing conditions.

Now B&W is a different matter all together. I still prefer B&W film. And scanning B&W film is a pain in the @ss. I have actually found better results for some B&W work by scanning Astia F and converting to monochrome using channels, or one of the actions I've written. But that's a story for another day.

Rob_6274
21-Jan-2006, 22:45
"B&W is another matter. There are already small firms producing emulsions."

I'm a strong believer of this: When the giants go away, little firms will pick up the opportunity. When Kodak and Fuji quit making all films, there will be small firms producing color films.

paulr
21-Jan-2006, 23:36
"The best scanners on the market today are able to pull more off of film then paper is able to record, in terms of dynamic range, and when dealing with color materials."

Or black and white materials. Or scanners that are far from the best. I've been digitally reprinting a body of black and white work from 4x5. Prints range from contact size to 11.5 x 9 inches. The darkroom prints were made with a current model Apo lens, glass carrier, and perfectly aligned enlarger. The digital prints absolutely blow the silver prints out of the water when it comes to definition of fine detail. Many of them look more like contact prints than the actual contact prints do.

Never before did I realize how much sharpness was lost to the enlarging process.

All the scans were done with an epson 4870 using Vuescan, with the film wet mounted on float glass and shimmed to the best point of focus. This is about $500 worth of hardware; about 3/4 the cost of my enlarging lens.

I do not thing this scanner would do so well at larger sizes, even 16x20, but with 3X enlargements the results are better than anything I've seen come out of my darkroom.

otzi
22-Jan-2006, 01:21
To me all this discussion seems pointless. It would seem that inteligent digital usage is far more technical than film usage. Well it would apear so to this not so theoretical photographer. Digital is good an so it should be for the $k's spent on equipment and when the short life of a digital generation is taken into acount I feel God bless all digital users who choose to invest in and promote an advancing technology. Convenient? no. Instant? well only so so. Some might recall a format colloquially refered to as 35mm. Small, light. only one hour proofs down town and hay no need for a lap top a very efficient car opener down town.

Sorry boys, I am finding it increasinly difficult to find justification in shuch huge investment in a product(s) that will only marginly if any improve, better or convenience my photographic life.

bglick
23-Jan-2006, 10:16
> In today's economy, demand doesn't always create supply.

Glenn, I am glad you share my exact concern. I am not sure if many on this list are reading other posts regarding the expense required to start a company, design / build machinery to make color film....it is reserved for public companies, or Bill Gates type. But from an economic standpoint, who would spend $20 million dollars (?) to start a new company in which the field is demonstrating a conistent year-to-year downward trend in product sales. What's worse, the slope of the curve is not slight, but rather like 45 degrees, very steep, not conducive to investment capital.

I desperately want film to be here for 15 years, but realize being a cheerleader will not effect the outcome. It will take a monumental effort from "insiders" or public agencies, to come up with a viable continued supply of color film for the next 15 years. Before several of these threads, I used to think like rob, hey, if there is demand it will be filled by small companies throughout the world. However, after digesting information from some very informed posters, this is a very unique situation......unlike products made from wood, plastic, where existing technologies and machinery can be purchased off the shelf, color film has been produced with propietary equipment by only two companies who got so big, they will leave film in the dust and never look back.

Howard Slavitt
15-Aug-2007, 15:37
I'd like to revive this thread, for selfish reasons, because I'm tempted to get a Better Light back. . . . You can get them used off of EBAY for reasonable prices, under $5k, and Better Light will upgrade and support them. With enough light (as ASA 200), you can get scan times down to 30 seconds, which isn't very long in comparison, for instance, to 8" x 10" film. Also movement isn't as big of a problem as it may seem because the sensor is scanning across the image, miniscule lines at a time, each line can be as short as 1/250 of a second, which is enough to stop almost any movement. The weight is getting reasonable -- a 2 lb. battery (the current batteries), a pocket computer (you can get them the size of a cigarette pack apparently that will run the camera and software), the scanning back insert, about 2 lbs., and maybe something else I'm forgetting, some connector, but in the end it sounds to me like it's about 6 lbs or a bit more. For those of you who are still willing to, or enjoy, shooting film it doesn't make sense, but for those of us who don't want to shoot film any more, and like large format landscapes, it makes a lot more sense (to me, at least) than a 39 megapixel Phase One back that is outrageously expensive on an outrageously expensive Hasselblad h2 or h3, andthat doesn't allow movements. I'd much rather be using an Ebony sw45 with a better light back and can probably get the whole system for $12T or so, assuming I get a decent deal on a used better light 6000 HS back (which knew are now only about $12T anyways).

naturephoto1
15-Aug-2007, 15:43
Hi Howard,

Don't forget that you will not be using the entire 4 X 5 frame with the Better Light back. Therefore, all of your lens focal lengths will record as longer. You will require one or more additional lens wider than your usual for 4 X 5 in your kit for your wider views.

Rich

Howard Slavitt
15-Aug-2007, 21:10
Right, but it's close to the "full frame" of a 4 x 5 back.

Michael T. Murphy
15-Aug-2007, 22:08
Not sure this is the *greatest* thread to post that in Howard, but let us know the results of your decision making. :)

By $12T, did you mean $12K in US dollars? Sorry, I do not know the abreviation if that is another currency.

I need to do something very soon. In the last two months I have spent $400 per month on 4x5 film and developing for a personal project. I can only afford 1 more month, that will be a total of $1,200 ...

For me, the most important number in looking at alternatives is annual depreciation. I estimate the depreciation on a Canon 1DsII at $1,000 for the next year. The first two years that I owned mine it was $1,500 per year - from $7,800 in January 2005 to $4,800 in Jan 2007.

I will wait to see if Canon announces anything in September. I'll also have to take a look at net cost for a Mamiya ZD back per year, along with other used MFDB options. I just can't keep spending the money I am on film - about the same as I was in 1998, $5,000 per year. :mad:

Best,
Michael

Jiri Vasina
16-Aug-2007, 02:18
Reading the whole thread, there are a lot of valuable arguments (for both sides - digital and film). But one has not been brought around:

how much at ease do you feel when staying for several tens of minutes or even hours in the same place (roughly) with $10k several times more expensive equipment? Sometimes you are in a solitude, no one else around, so no worries. But then again, you might be around a lot of people and someone might think of your equipment changing hands...

I had a bit of this problem myself when I started shooting with Pentax 67, it was worth several times my monthly salary at that time (and I don't get paid for photography at all). After a year or two I eased with this feeling. But I'm not sure I'd ever ease enough with a $20k equipment. A lot of times I'd think if I should dare to bring the camera out of the pack, let alone stay there for one or two hours... With film if everything was stolen on such occasions, it maybe worth a 1/10 or even a 1/100, so the worries would be significantly smaller - and me getting more pictures in the process and enjoying it much better :)

Maybe I'm the only one with such a concern.

Howard Slavitt
16-Aug-2007, 09:05
I agree, Jiri, that how comfortable one feels with such expensive equipment IS a valid concern. Today (as opposed to yesterday), I'm much less enamored of the betterlight scanning back idea. One of the reasons is, as you point out, the concern of theft or whatever else happening to the equipment. It would diminish my enjoyment in travelling to far away places, which is a large part of my joy with photography. What I really want is a foveon-like (i.e. capturing all three colors at each sensor site), full-frame DSLR, hopefully that takes Canon or Nikon lens mounts. In the meantime, I may buy an Ebony 45SW and play around with it with negative color film and a 6cm x 12cm panoramic back, and just pay the cost of film and developing vs. depreciation of high end digital equipment. I'd look seriously at the Mamiya ZD back if you could attach it to a platform like the Cambo Wides (which will take a lens like the 24mm schneider), but without that ability, it becomes much less interesting. The problem with all of the medium format single shot backs is that their sensor size is too small to make using camera movements at all feasible, unless it's a tilt shift lens. Pretty much everyone who has tried to use them that way is in agreement.

cgf
17-Aug-2007, 10:01
...they are comparing two entirely different things...

Excellent point.

I am curious whether, if I were to be presented with several large prints of a similar/identical scene taken with digital capture and large format film, printed via wet darkroom, scanned film, inkjet (etc)... would I see a real difference?? Let each photographer participating use their 'best' method, no restrictions. I've often thought this would be far more interesting than the 'turn everything into digital and print once scanned, re-sampled & re-sized' style of comparison usually seen.

And for even more fun... run some kind of blind test afterwards to see if the participating photographers themselves can truly tell the difference in the final product.

Of course the result wouldn't change the reality of digital capture (convenience but at the cost of computers, photoshop time, etc) v film, but it would still be interesting... :)

Chris.
(waiting patiently until used betterlight backs hit ebay at <$1000...)