True cost of digital vs. LF...starting out?

[Tony Flora]

Everyone seems to think that digital is the way to go but, I just don't see it.

Is it really about saving money with no film costs or is it more about workflow and instant gratification? I have been putting together a portfolio www.tonyflora.com (critiques requested) using a Nikon D70 and I love the camera but my goal is to be shooting for architects and interior designers...The images look good on the website but I don't think they will hold water compared to 4x5 or high end digital. But I don't have the big bucks to buy the high end $3K plus cameras....and $3K is the low end. Even if I did.....why would I want to? In two years (or less) a $5000 D2x has dropped $2000 (ebay prices)........factor in programs to run it all and massive amounts of storage.....I just don't think it's cheaper or smarter for me. (considering god only knows how long before I can earn enough to make it worth it)

I'm just starting out and the idea of buying a camera for $1000 (LF) that will produce results on par or better to a $25K digital camera appeals to me. If I had money to burn and really wanted to stay on the cutting edge of technology I could see it but I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone just trying to break in to the business. Results are what matter for me. Anyway it's decision time and I need some clarity...(that's where you come in).....do I bite the bullet and buy the D200 or D2x and make do with quality that I believe to be sub-par to a 4x5 or do I buy the 4x5 and continue to shoot digital for the detail stuff? Sorry about the rant, my medication is wearing off, and thank you for the feedback.

[QT Luong]

There are advantages and drawbacks in both workflows, but eventually it all depends on volume. For instance, in 35mm I expose easily 10,000-20,000 frames/year, so digital makes sense. On the other hand, in LF, it's less (recently way less) than 1,000/year, so digital is still not competitive.

[Frank Petronio]

Tony, you have first class work regardless of the equipment and most people don't need to look at anything beyond the superior photos on your website to see that you are a skilled and talented photographer. So why don't you get into the market and let the paying jobs take you in the most appropriate direction? Having the job pay for your gear always is better than buying a bunch of stuff in anticipation. I know lots of "professional" photographers, including myself, who have gone on gear buying binges only to find they didn't need it all.

But... then again, getting a new D80 with a quality wide lens (which may be the hardest part) gets you all the quality of the D2X/D200 in a less expensive but still very nice package (I went from a D2X to a D80 without feeling anything but relief). And I just picked up a second Sinar F with a bag bellows for under $400... quality gear has never been such a good bargain.

[Kirk Gittings]

I am a thirty year professional arch photographer and I primarily use a modified 50 year old Calumet Wide Field (about 150 bucks) with C2N roll film backs, color negative film and a $400 scanner. Of course I have about 10 thousand in lenses, but you could get around that with careful shopping.

[Jim Rice]

Kirk makes a fine point. A $200~300 CC-400 or Graphic View II will do anything you want to except fold up or be elegant. I'm partial to reasonably modern German glass (insert your preference here). Multi-coating is a good thing, so budget five bills for your first lens (you'll probably get it for less in carefull ebaying). A handfull of holders and there you are. If you find that you don't care for LF, you can back out with minimal loss of skin. You might even like it.

[Kirk Fry]

I also recommend a good CC400 calumet. They are going for $50-100 for good ones. They do it all except bag bellows or fold. 210 mm lenes are about $300 for really good ones on ebay. Older ones like a Fujinon 210L can be had for $100...

[roteague]

For instance, in 35mm I expose easily 10,000-20,000 frames/year, so digital makes sense.

Hmm.. if I shot that much 35mm a year, I would see the volume as a reason to keep shooting film, not a reason to switch to digital.

[Kirk Gittings]

I am talking about a Calumet Wide Field not a CC400. They haven't been made since the 60's. It actually has only three different parts than the 400, but those parts transform it into a different camera. The Wide Field was designed for architecture. It has a special, very flexible bellows, not bag but as good. It will take a 47mm on a flat lense board with full movements.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Funny that the guy that is considered anti digital is giving you this advice, and certainly Kirk would be a better resource than I am, but in my expereince (limited as it is) architectural work for publication no longer requires an 8x10 camera and trannys.... From your web site I think you are doing very well and I would encourage you to stay with digital, it will make your submission and delivery of photographs much more easier and from what I have heard, most architectural magazines/architects want a file rather than a slide.

While there are some growing pains, I think your work in digital with a middle range camera and your current experience will give you more work than if you get a LF camera.

Bottom line, I say stick with it, do what you know how to do well and grow from there. Working in LF is a far different animal that might not suit your way of work and photographing.

[PViapiano]

Tony...

Great work on your website! If you're using a D70, how are you holding your verticals together like that? Are you photoshopping the skews/perspective to keep them straight?

Great job!

Paul

[Don Wallace]

Before investing a lot of money, see how much you are going to be making, and go with the equipment you have in hand and with which you are already familiar. If you get the kind of work that might require a view camera, then you can revisit the question.

A very minor point: Jim, you are correct in that there are a lot of inexpensive view cameras out there, but a Graphic View will not take the short lenses required for architecture without a real fight.

[Tony Flora]

thank you all for the kind words and the feedback.

In my mind I have associated 4x5 with high quality images at a very attractive entry price.


There is always the posibility of renting a D2x or MF system and billing for it, but I think that should be the exception, when someone insists on MF digital capture.

Again, in my mind, I'm thinking that LF allows me to produce results on par with someone using a $30K system. And I own it for less then $2K and will continue to own it for the next x number of years.

I realize the inherent danger in running out and spending $2k on new gear and then having 2nd thoughts. It wouldn't be the first time for me, so I am proceeding with caution, I just don't want to leave anything on the table..... Like my future...

I quess the bottom line is, I want to produce Images of unquestionable quality, relizing that it may be overkill in some situations. I will always have a 35mm digital system at hand for the details and the fleeting images that seem to come and go, so I am by no means giving up on digital. But..MF Digital is not practical for someone who is just starting in the field and is on a tight budget. Also I believe that upgrading to 10-12mp is necessary but not a replacement for LF film or digital......for someone who desires to produce images suitable for buyers at all ends of the spectrum.

Thank you for helping me get my thoughts together on this....

[David Luttmann]

Tony,

What lenses are you using? How do you post process for maintaining perspective, verticals, etc....Photoshop, Panorama Tools?

Superb work on your site.

Regards,

[Tony Flora]

I am using the 18-70mm kit lens mostly. I just keep the camera as level as possible and use the lens correction tool in photoshop to fix lens distorion....barrel/pin cusion and the vertical adjustment tool is a life saver. I have to crop after the adjustments but I try to frame a little loose to give myself some room. I will also use skew, perspective control, rotate......whatever it takes.... shift+' applies a grid to the image so you can get it right. Hope that helps.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Tony Flora,

Renting high end digital is a good choice when you are not flooded with work. If you only are getting 100 billable shooting days per year with high end equipment, the only other way to make that purchase generate income would be to rent it out to others, but then you become the equipment rental place instead of a photographer.

If you have your billing correct, the rental fees, films costs, scanning, et al. end up being billed to the client. That can be a blanket fee including those items, or you can itemize if you want to indicate how the payments are applied to invoices. A little detail can be good, though sometimes lots of details can just lead to too many questions.

So how much to spend on Large Format gear . . . consider what you would bill out for a location shoot, then figure out how many times that large format gear will be used on location each year. Maybe it is only 10 shoots per year, but you can take that base billing expectation and use that to factor a budget. We would all like to have better gear, but the reality is that gear needs to generate income; which is often why amateurs and enthusiasts can have better gear than many professionals.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Robert Richardson]

Tony,
Your photo's are great - stick with what you have! It's the output that counts, not the format you use -digital are film. I'm am an 8x10 format guy, but I'm impressed with your work.
Bob

[Daniel Piar]

Hi, Tony -- I am in a similar position to yours: preparing to start up in commercial architectural work but without the many thousands of dollars needed for high-end digital. (Incidentally, I am also in the Atlanta area.) My take on this is that film is the way to go for now. The equipment is far cheaper, bang for the buck in terms of image quality is superior, and from a business perspective it will be much easier to pass along film and processing costs to clients than it will be to recoup a massive investment in digital equipment. Not to mention your observation about the depreciation costs of digital. Top-quality film equipment can be had already depreciated and reasonably priced from several sources. Accordingly, I bought a used Sinar 4x5 plus a roll film back, and like you am in the process of building a portfolio (enjoyed your interiors, by the way). As others have suggested, I figure there will be time enough for further investments once the volume of business justifies the cost. I also agree that there is a place for DSLR's for detail work or for situations where ultimate quality and perspective control are not critical. Given our mutual interests and our proximity, feel free to PM me if you'd like to talk further. Best of luck!

Regards,

Daniel

[Bruce Schultz]

One thing digital can't do is shoot symmetrical patterns, like a metal roof, without the dreaded moire problem. All the remedies I've seen require unsharpening digital images, and that's hardly a solution. My D70 is notorious for moire, but it sounds like all digital cameras have the problem to some extent. For that reason, I think many architectural photographers will stick with film for now.

[Tony Flora]

there has been a lot of great advice in this thread, thank you to all that have replied.

The descision is proving to be a little harder then anticipated but I think this is my plan.

1.) I'm keeping my digital system, and plan to upgrade to 10MP+ body in the spring.(D80,D200, Fuji?, or ?)

2.) I am going to stick my toes in the Large Format pool. I plan to purchase a 4x5 monorail system within the next month. I will start with 2 lenses (150mm and most likely a 90mm). From what I've read here a Sinar F/F1/F2 or Horseman 450/L/LE/LS system would make a good Architecture setup and prices look about right on ebay.


My reasons:

1. I can't afford a high end digital system and I don't have clients to bill for it.
2. I can afford large format
3. Large format gives top of the line results, I want top of the line results
4. I'm keeping digital so I'm not losing capability.
5. I don't have to turn down work from someone who wants 4x5 or high end digital quality.
6. I get to feel good about producing quality work. (This, of course, happens after I go blind from reading and crazy from not sleeping, because I'm a little obsessive about photography.)

Thank you all for helping get my thinking clear.....if you see any wholes in my logic please let me know.

-Tony

[jackies]

Tony,

Love your photos. You have a great eye.

I use both 13MP digital and 4x5. Sounds like a good plan. I always shoot digital in case I mess up the film. However, I am becoming more and more fed up with the digital mania and technical problems with the whole digital system, from capture to print.

Keep up the good work and remember that the camera is only a tool no matter which format you choose.
Jackie

[Sergio Caetano]

For cost comparison of analog x digital it is necessary to compute the cost of a computer work station (hardware/software) for that purpose, and not only the camera cost. A digital camera is a peripheral device of computer.

[Joseph O'Neil]

For cost comparison of analog x digital it is necessary to compute the cost of a computer work station (hardware/software) for that purpose, and not only the camera cost. A digital camera is a peripheral device of computer.


agreeed - doesn't matter if you run a pet food store or dental clinic, a computer is pretty much a defacto, needed expense in any business today.

Specific to your cost however might include speciality software - Photoshop for example. A specific scanner might also be looked at seperately too.

I have found - from desktop publishing - for commercial/industrial use, you have a three, maybe four year window of opportunity before you will be upgrading for one reason or another your digital gear. So regardless of how you amortize your equipment for tax purposes, for "real world" use, plan on the reovery of your capital costs of yor digital gear inside a four year period. If you cannot do that, re-examine buying vs renting, and what you really need.

good luck
joe

[Leonard Evens]

I've done small, medium and for the past five years large format photography. Currently, my 'serious' camera is a Toho (not Toyo) FC-45X with 75 mm, 90 mm, 150 mm, and 300 mm lenses. I also got a D70 for more casual photography. I use the D70 mainly with the kit 18-70 mm lens. I use both for architectural photography, although I use the D70 more for 'test' shots before I come back with my view camera. The D70 certainly can't deliver the resolution and tonal qualities of 4 x 5, even if you scan the latter. The typical lenses you get for the D70 have considerable pincushion/barrel distortion. That can be corrected to some extent with appropriate editing tools, but it never comes out exactly right. With typical view camera lenses, you don't have that problem, and you can use rises to correct for converging verticals. With the D70, you typically have to point the camera up and correct verticals in a photoeditor, but that degrades the image somewhat and again it is very hard to get it just right. Of course you can get lenses for the D70 with little or no distortion, but they cost quite a lot. My feeling is that the cost of a digital camera system capable of doing high quality architectural work is comparable to a view camera system and the latter offers greater flexibility. In either case, you can start off with a relatively inexpensive camera and put your money in the lenses. Later you can upgrade the camera and use the same lenses.

[Michael Mutmansky]

Tony,

If you are serious about 35mm digital architectural photography, consider leaving behind the Nikon gear and getting a Canon full frame digital camera. It opens up a level of lens options that are simply unavailable to you right now, and some of them will provide a serious improvement in image quality and flexibility.

In particular, I'm talking about PC (perspective control) lenses, made by Canon and others that will fit the body. Also there are a number of very high quality lenses that can be used on the Canon bodies with adapters, and some of these simply blow away the image quality of Canon or Nikon lenses, in particular the C&N zooms.

For example, I can see barrel distortion in some of the images, and while that may be fine for some clients, it won't pass the grade for serious architectural clients that have a discerning eye. The use of PS to correct for perspective will also reduce the image quality considerably, which won't be an issue for web images, but will rear it's ugly head in prints for the wall, unfortunately. Architects like to put prints on the wall, and sometimes fairly large ones, so the digital capture has to have enough information to hold up to a certain size print, which I think probably goes to about 16x20 for most clients.

I think digital can do these things, but I find I prefer the quality of the 4x5 images for a variety of reasons. One thing in particular is the relatively low distortion associated with LF lenses (due to their relatively symmetrical nature and lack of retrofocus design). Once you have been weaned on LF optics, using a 35mm based system is a let down, no matter how you look at it.

There's a reason many architectural photographers are still using LF gear, and is entirely related to control and quality of the image, which is paramount to many of the clients they photograph for.

My suggestion is get a 4x5 and start working with it. At least, it will improve your overall skill base considerably, and once you are makig successful images with it, you can then judge whether the LF route is right for you.

An inexpensive 4x5 and a good lens to start with will not be a huge financial burden, and you can then make the decision to go further based on some experience with that. Buy used from a good source like Midwest Photo, and you will get a great product at a very fair price.

I love the Fuji Quickload holder; it eliminates the need for loading holders, and I can have a handful of different film types on hand. I'd skip the traditional holders and go for the QL or RL system, even though the film costs a bit more per shot.


---Michael

[neil poulsen]

I sure agree with Michael's response above. Don't spend your money on anything less than a Canon full-frame, if you go digital architecture. Wide-angle is just too important for architecture not to have a full-frame camera. By the way, there's a wealth of good information on the variety of good, wide-angle lenses that can be used on an EOS mount on the old Rob Galbraith digital forum. See www.robgalbraith.com under the full-frame and lens testing forums. For example, a 21mm Olympus OM is sharp and shows minimal distortion. Or, the Olympus 35mm PC, is just about the best available in it's class.

In the meantime, consider expanding your options and the flexibility of LF beyond two lenses. Like, get a 75mm and a 120mm (or 121mm?) in addition. With a scanner, you can just about get all the advantages of digital and side-step some of the disadvantages. (Like expense!) For example, one of the biggest advantages for architecture is being able to blend multiple frames of the same image, but taken at different exposures (different shutter speeds, not f-stops). That's a huge advantage, especially for blending inside views with outside window scenes.

Speed is not one of the advantages of digital that can be side-stepped. One still has to process the film, or at least be near a lab. Some clients will want a very quick turn-around. Some clients will also ask you if you can shoot digital. If not, . . . Click.

So in shooting architecture, digital will still be in the offing. I have a friend who, a year ago, was shooting architecture with all 4x5, except for some 35mm film for models and less important shots. Now that he has a 1Ds Canon full-frame, he's shooting 85% digital. 4x5 is now in the minority. He had to get digital to stay competitive in his market. Further, he scrapped his Nikon cameras and transistioned to get the EOS full-frame camera. He still uses his Nikon lenses, though.

Given the constraints in cost, I guess what I'm suggesting is, consider going with film now, and over time, save the money you need to expand into full-frame digital. The 4x5 equipment will still be useful, because there are clients who will insist on 4x5 to meet their needs.

[Tony Flora]

thank you to everyone who has contributed on this thread, I am happy to report that I am the proud new owner of a Horseman LX 4x5...... I got a great package deal which included 3 lenses (90mm sup. Ang., 135 symmar-s, and 203mm Kodak), bag bellows, dark cloth, poloroid back, lens boards, case, and normal bellows. I have not received it yet but it has been paid for and should be on the way in the next few days. I am sure there many questions in the next couple weeks, but for now it's time to curl up with a good book on large format photography. Thank you all for your help on this, I'm looking forward to making my first images with it. All I need is a roll film back and I might swap out that Kodak lens or all of them....not sure but I will post a thread when I get them.

[archivue]

the cheaper digital option for architecture is 5D plus TSE lens, most architects around me use 40 Mo images max., i have two arca 6x9 and 4x5 and even a norma 8x10... but considering the fact that you don't have to spend hours to go to the lab, and to scan... the 5D is a quite good alternative... it all depends on amount of job, where is your pro lab...
a good 4x5 still better than the 5D, but most of time 5D pics are enought !

[scrichton]

I am new to the large format game ... but as being an avid mis-spelt ebay pprice hunter (lihoof etc...) I have picked up an ex military MPP with 6 darkslides 3 lenses (2 schneider 1 wray), polaroid 545 and a fitted case and accessories. Now however this kit is not brand spanking new it does represent the feasable entry into large format at a UK price of £600. This in itself just for the 5x4 polaroids works out as a system that would equate to a camera that sits with a small instant print module if I were to choose digital. Oh and add £40 for a nice Gossen Lunasix with adapter or Euromaster with Invercone.

Now to digitally obtain anywhere near this quality I would require nothing less than at least a manufacturers 18-70mm (APS C sized sensor) zoom with a constant 2.8 and probably APO correction to have a lens of similar quality. Or 3 prime lenses of 17mm 35mm and 85mm. Now I will contiune this in Nikon terms as I have Nikon ...

So we are now at a decent professional level body (representative of similar build) 3 primes, a direct printer a memory card and a bag to house all of this to equate to what I have.

Body wise £2400 for a D2X which would give comparible build and quality of results.
£29 on Sansdisk Card. £445 for a nikon AF 2.8 20mm (wray eqv wide) £95.00 on a 50mm 1.8 D (standard focal length), £295 on the 85mm 1.8 D and finally the photo printer a Canon Selphy @ £75 which creates 6x4 prints so digital ends up with a whole inch more. Oops Bag... Lowepro Mini Trekker Classic @ £59.99 and another £50.00 for the printer batteries to make it portable.

Ok so Kit wise minus a tripod lest we not forget. For the equipment to produce 1 single image on paper we are ... Large format = £640 Digital = £3419.99
These figure allow us to have the same variety of lenses storage and have means of onsite production.

So the running costs. With digital we will forget the actual cost of running for just now as computer software licencing etc ... all adds up. Along with large format the darkroom chemicals are not cheap so we will go for the polaroid/direct print options still.

Currently Polaroid Type 59 direct from polaroid is £69.09 for 20 sheets. And the Canon is 24 sheets for £9.99.

Therefore each picture costs in effect £35.45 for large format and £142.91 per sheet. For the first load. After 1000 pictures the figures read like this..

Type 59 1000 sheets = £3454.50
Digital Selphy Paper = £416.25

Cost per sheet:
Large Format = £4.09
Digital = £3.84

Now I don't know about anyone else, but these figures show a pretty good return on the large format stakes. Remember this is figure judged against a fully working professional level technical camera pushing out colour 5x4 polaroids, against a Nikon professional level digital body with very similar accessories and lenses etc..

One thing about the digital camera as well is there will be a charge involved in the charging of both the printer and the camera that will no doubt even out the figures a bit more ... especially if a weston meter is used with the LF (sans batteries)

Of course though this is looking at the systems without considering the large format one has the capability for very comprehensive movements and 1:1 macro on the longest lens with full extension. The Nikon does not account for these.

This once again though comes down to personal preference and requirements of workflow. I use all manner of camera for all manner of things. From a lowly 600 AF for gig photography ( seeing the crowd members face as you hand them a polaroid of their idol from the pit is an amazingly heart warming thing) to large format for macro and landscapes sometimes portraits.

My conclusion is that all photography costs the same, just the instant costs or the stored costs are not always determined. I for one use film then scan ... or digital -> digital. Printing is pretty much a set cost as inkjet printing is terrible especially when pipped against durst epsilons and the like. Just take the time to compose the photo and enjoy the process whether it be the speed of digital or the relaxed nature of LF.

Overall I would say don't let me loose with a calculator and the internet in work when bored :-D Sorry for the lengthy first post hope to get into the forum and get on with people.

Regards Steven

www.zuikomedia.com
(prices are from www.warehouseexpress.com cheapest in the UK probably)

[Rory_5244]

Wow! A very ambitious first post. :) And I'm still settling in after 60-odd.

I'll say "Amen" to the above. LF is actually cheaper for me than your estimations suggest, since chemicals are cheap down on my end of the planet.

- Ooh, correction (I surprise myself) that's 90-odd (useless?)posts

[Chris_Brown]

A couple of years ago, Editorial Photographers (http://www.editorialphoto.com/) website posted a very nice article about the ROI of digital equipment compared to analog equipment. Even though I'm not an editorial photographer, it changed the way I managed my business.

It has a rudimentary cost analysis of doing business in this century and is well worth the read.

I've attached a copy for members.

[Doug Dolde]

Pretty damn nice work dude...especially for a D70. I'm not going to offer advice but I do like your images a lot.

[picsareus]

Tony,

You've got some nice images on your website.

I think you are expecting too much from the digital upgrade. If you want to go up from the D70, then get the D80. It has as the same megapixels and pretty much the same guts as the D200 (minus a few features.)

I don't think you would gain much from a couple extra megapixels. If I where you I would get the D80 and forget about getting the top of the line Digital SLR's if you are on a budget. I have the D70 and D200 and there is not a ton of difference between them in picture quality. I bought the D200 before the D80 was available.

If you get the large format 4x5 camera, then that would be a big and noticeable difference in megapixels. (I'm assuming you would also buy a good quality scanner and scan the film.)

The large format will last a long time and nothing says that you have to dump the digital if you are using large format. You can use both at the same time. It seems like your type of photography is well suited for large format versus someone who has to be very portable and takes a lot of action shots for example.

It seems like medium format may not be worth the effort. If you are already setting up a tripod and your subject is not moving and running around, then why not just go straight to 4x5 or other large format.

Good luck in your decisions!

[C. D. Keth]

I think what you might want to do is figure out the cost of equiping yourself in large format (include a nice scanner if you intend to do that). Then figure your average film and processing cost for a year. Than figure out the working life of a DSLR like your D70. You can fairly directly compare working costs that way. It will probably work out that shooting 4x5 is cheaper up until you're shooting X sheets per year than digital takes over in economy. You also have to figure-in scanning time, the worth to you of perspective control in origination, how compact your kit needs to be, and how much you want or need the huge files 4x5 can yield. For a lot of people digital technology will beat out film origination, for some it won't. I think more and more the people for whom film is still the winner are those who are simply in love with it and who enjoy it enough to spend the extra time and money for superior results and a rewarding experience, whether it be hobby or professional.

Tony: Your stuff on your site are generally quite nice but you should work on taking multiple exposures to get detail of everything. There are some very ugly blown out ares and some very ugly blocked up shadows that could be fixed if you took multiple exposures and put them together in PS. It's a simple operation and would up the class of your work quite a lot. Also, avoid very slight off-horizontals like the ones in the wood paneling in the shot of the stairway in the cabin when you're shooting on a DSLR. The result is that very strange unattracting stepping pattern that is very distracting, especially in a shot without much to draw the eye around.

[Tony Flora]

Thank you for the feedback. Actually this decision turned out to be an easy one for me. I felt like the leap in quality due to resolution, perspective control, and focus control really made the large format route the best option for me. I bought a used Horsemen LX kit off of eBay, with a bag bellows, Polaroid back, 90mm Sup Ang, Symmar s 135mm, and old 203mm Kodak lens. I paid $850 for the whole thing so it was a great deal. The bad part is that it should have been here about 2 weeks ago from England. I've been waiting over 10 weeks so far, but thankfully I paid with Paypal and if it doesn't arrive I should be covered. I think I will be purchasing a D200 after the holidays which will become my main body and the D70 will become the backup or I might sell it and buy a MF film camera as a backup and personal project setup. I'd be thankful and happy with the LX and the D200 anything else is a bonus.

Christopher: thank you for the feedback. I bought an Epson 3800 scanner several years ago to scan slides when I was shooting with an N80 and still have it. It came with a 4x5 negative holder, so I think this will be an adequate initial setup. In regards to multiple exposures, I always bracket .... with digital it doesn't cost money, just time. However I am having no luck/skill getting results that I think would be professionally acceptable. I have tried several different techniques including layered masks and various software solutions but still have not found anything that I like. If you have any suggestions I'd love to hear them.

Tony

[peterm]

[QUOTE=Tony Flora;184587]Everyone seems to think that digital is the way to go but, I just don't see it.

Hi Everbody,Im new to this forum.Im reading a lot of these type of threads recently and i think anyone who begins to compare a 5x4 trans with a 35mm digital is trying to square a circle.
I ve had this arguement alot with photographer friends.
You cannot acheive the same images on a sensor this size of 35mm.
When someone designs a sensor measuring 5"x4" you will be able to,but they havent and you cant. Sure you can stick a 14mm on your canon and produce an approximate
image in terms of cropping but thats all.The small sensor limits the lens you can use,therefore the dynamic of the shot is altered.
Am i right,or am i not understanding something.
I think the new digital cameras are excellent,but they have limitations in their uses.
I shoot 1 million sq ft buildings regulary and cant work out how i could possible do it on 35mm digital or medium format for that matter, and still keep them upright.

Cheers.

P

[Sheldon N]

[QUOTE=Tony Flora;184587]The small sensor limits the lens you can use,therefore the dynamic of the shot is altered.
Am i right,or am i not understanding something.


Dynamic range has nothing to do with the lens or the size of the format used, it's about the medium. The choice of which digital sensor or which type of film you expose the image on, then how you handle that image afterwards in the digital or traditional darkroom, is what really determines the dynamic range that you can capture. Both mediums can perform very well in the right hands.

Perhaps by "dynamic range" you are trying to refer to the less depth of field/longer shutter speed effect that moving to a larger format gives?

Yes, camera movements are great for keeping a natural perspective in architectural work, but they aren't the sole realm of 4x5. You can buy shift lenses for 35mm and medium format.

I personally prefer large format over 35mm for the detail, full camera movements, and the methodical manner in which it forces you to work.

[peterm]

[QUOTE=Sheldon N;214809][QUOTE=peterm;214805]

Dynamic range has nothing to do with the lens or the size of the format used,

Hi Sheldon,
If you were given the task of shooting a building or scene on both formats.
A building that can be captured on 5x4 on a 58mm lens, you would need to shoot on something like a 15mm lens on a 35mm.This is what i mean by 'The dynmanic'
The results are very different.

[roteague]

[QUOTE=peterm;214805]

Dynamic range has nothing to do with the lens or the size of the format used,

I don't believe he is referring to dynamic range at all. He is referring to the dynamics of the image.

[peterm]

[QUOTE=Sheldon N;214809]

I don't believe he is referring to dynamic range at all. He is referring to the dynamics of the image.


Thank you.. you are quite right.I did not mention dynamic range at all.

PM

[Sheldon N]

Whoops, you are absolutely correct. I misread dynamic as "dynamic range".

Too much time on digital photography forums... :)

[richard brown]

hey tony......did you ever get that 4x5 camera.... i live in alberta canada and have an extra monorail....arca swiss model C with axis and base tilts, bag bellows, beattie screen(brighter) in excellent shape...my friend just gave it a clean/lube and alignment.
if you are interested, contact me www.richardbrownphoto.ca
would love to help you out .....love your photos....

[Bill_1856]

Over half of the cost is in the post-processing, not in the image capture system. The per-print cost of digital prints is much higher than that for silver, (a Digital printer and basic wet darkroom cost is about the same). I drop over $100 every time I go to Staples for paper and ink (at least once a month), while a big box of Ilford paper, Dektol, stop, fixer, and toner will last me a long, long damn time.
I think that right now it's a toss up between the processes, but digital is definitely the future. That's where I'd go if I were just getting started.