Digital bacls on VC

[Martin K]

There is a thread now moved to the lounge that started out interesting to me as it touched on photographers working digitally. It all fell apart with arguments and I didn't really learn much. I am here to learn so thought I would try a new thread with that as an aim.

I shoot only digital now but have 30 years of film in my past. As this is a LF forum it is essentially cameras with movements that I would like to discuss. View cameras if you like.

I am very new to using VC with digital backs and am interested in the experiences of others working this way, and others that are not, and why.

Some things I wonder about are reliability in the field. Home made or commissioned adapters to fit backs to lightweight field cameras. Suggestions and ideas for using DB in the field.

Anyone else interested in these topics or am I wasting time on this forum?

[David Luttmann]

There is a thread now moved to the lounge that started out interesting to me as it touched on photographers working digitally. It all fell apart with arguments and I didn't really learn much. I am here to learn so thought I would try a new thread with that as an aim.

I shoot only digital now but have 30 years of film in my past. As this is a LF forum it is essentially cameras with movements that I would like to discuss. View cameras if you like.

I am very new to using VC with digital backs and am interested in the experiences of others working this way, and others that are not, and why.

Some things I wonder about are reliability in the field. Home made or commissioned adapters to fit backs to lightweight field cameras. Suggestions and ideas for using DB in the field.

Anyone else interested in these topics or am I wasting time on this forum?

You are wasting your time. You will be told that it's not large format. You will probably have the thread moved to the lounge. If not, Jorge will post a bunch of anti digital nonsense and the thread, like the last you mentioned, will be moved to lounge where the moderators will ignore personal attacks on you.

Feel free to send me a PM and I'll be happy to share better forums for this information exchange as well as some general info.

Of course, with this posted, the opposite will probably happen to prove me wrong. If so, send me a PM anyway.

Regards,

[Jim collum]

i've been shooting with a Betterlight scanning back on my 4x5 since 2001. I carried it throughout Thailand and Cambodia... 90 deg, 90% humidity.. i've shot the coastline innumerable times with salt spray in the air. So far, it's been 100% reliable.. i haven't had a single failure in that time.

Using a scanning back doesn't fit everyone's workflow, nor subject matter. In spite of that, though, i've found it successful in shooting moving water, normal landscapes, still lifes. However, if there are very severe winds.. i don't take it out.. camera shake will produce small artifacts that are very difficult to correct


There is a thread now moved to the lounge that started out interesting to me as it touched on photographers working digitally. It all fell apart with arguments and I didn't really learn much. I am here to learn so thought I would try a new thread with that as an aim.

I shoot only digital now but have 30 years of film in my past. As this is a LF forum it is essentially cameras with movements that I would like to discuss. View cameras if you like.

I am very new to using VC with digital backs and am interested in the experiences of others working this way, and others that are not, and why.

Some things I wonder about are reliability in the field. Home made or commissioned adapters to fit backs to lightweight field cameras. Suggestions and ideas for using DB in the field.

Anyone else interested in these topics or am I wasting time on this forum?

[Bruce Watson]

For me it's a weight thing and a cost thing. 160PortraVC in readyloads cost just $3.60 a sheet and have minimal weight. I'd have to use a ton of film every year to make a digital back pay off, and I'd have to hire an assistant to carry the extra weight. I don't see either happening any time soon.

That said, should a reasonable digital back make it to market, I'm certainly going to take a good hard look at it. But until then I'm going to continue to capture to film and scan and print digitally. While partisans from both sides continue to abuse me ;-).

[Ron Marshall]

What Bruce said.

[Ben Chase]

If there was a P45-type solution under $10,000, I'd seriously consider it - but right now it is nowhere near economical for me to shoot digitally - I am on the same boat with the previous two posters. I do look forward to that day. I don't shoot readyloads or quickloads anymore, so my costs are even less per sheet.

I don't know much about the scanning backs, but from what I understand - if the subject matter isn't moving, then a scanning back would likely work pretty well. I don't know if you've looked at the latest Roundshot hardware, but the scan times on that bad boy are pretty darn short. I would think it's only a matter of time before that gets translated into a faster-scanning portable back. I would expect that a scanning back would be heavier than a standard digital back, and that might be a determining factor for the type of camera you use for this application. The last thing you want is to have your scanning (or CCD) back shifting on you during exposure.

[erie patsellis]

Martin,
if you shoot me a pm with your email, I can give you my observations, based on recently adding a LF scan back to our studio, for catalog and commercial work.


erie

[Martin K]

I believe that the very high cost of DB is a huge issue and would not be able to afford it but for the fact that I run a very busy commercial studio and that more than pays for the gear, In my spare time I get to use the kit for fun things.

I do not find the weight a problem. I dont think the back weighs that much more than a bundle of film holders, changing bag and so on. It is certainly less bulky.

I hope the thing proves to be as reliable as the Betterlight!

[Daniel_Buck]

if there was an inexpensive 4x5" sized chip (not scanning back) I think I would certainly go for it! I doubt that will happen for a long time though :-(

[sanking]

I believe that the very high cost of DB is a huge issue and would not be able to afford it but for the fact that I run a very busy commercial studio and that more than pays for the gear, In my spare time I get to use the kit for fun things.

I do not find the weight a problem. I dont think the back weighs that much more than a bundle of film holders, changing bag and so on. It is certainly less bulky.

I hope the thing proves to be as reliable as the Betterlight!

Are you using the Phase One P45? If so, I would be interested in any comments you may have regarding print quality compared to 4X5. A couple of friends (one of them has a P45 that he uses on a Contax MF camera ) are planning a comparison test of the P45 versus MF (6X7) film and 4X5 film and any information that would help us better plan the actual tests would be appreciated.

Sandy King

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

There is a thread now moved to the lounge that started out interesting to me as it touched on photographers working digitally. It all fell apart with arguments and I didn't really learn much. I am here to learn so thought I would try a new thread with that as an aim.

I shoot only digital now but have 30 years of film in my past. As this is a LF forum it is essentially cameras with movements that I would like to discuss. View cameras if you like.

I am very new to using VC with digital backs and am interested in the experiences of others working this way, and others that are not, and why.

Some things I wonder about are reliability in the field. Home made or commissioned adapters to fit backs to lightweight field cameras. Suggestions and ideas for using DB in the field.

Anyone else interested in these topics or am I wasting time on this forum?

I don't think you are wasting your time, after all we are not talking DSLRs here and there will come a time in the future where a digital back will be affordable.

Having said that, you will find that there are few in this forum who have used them and many that pretend to know what they are talking about when they don't.

The only one I know in this forum who has posted work taken with a digital back is Jim Collum. I would listen to what he has to say, since he has the experience both as a LF photographer and a digital back user. Other than that, the mayority of the digital "experts" here are DSLR and PS users, which I don't think it is what you want or need.

IMO, at the moment the large format photographers who are the most successful with their work are those who are still using film and scanning. Check out the work by Ken Lee and Michael Mutmansky, and when Jim decides to publish his site, visit his as well, these three are doing beautiful work.

Kirk Gittings might have experience with a LF digital back since he is not only a REAL professional photographer but he is also a teacher, so he might have had a chance to play with the backs and give you his impressions.

[Marko]

I believe that the very high cost of DB is a huge issue and would not be able to afford it but for the fact that I run a very busy commercial studio and that more than pays for the gear, In my spare time I get to use the kit for fun things.

Yes, it is expensive, but you can capitalize it over several years, and once you generate enough business to cover the initial outlay compared with the amount of film you would shoot and process over the same time period, any additional use will basically come free.

In other words, if the film, processing and polaroids cost you $5 per shot with traditional, you would have to reach 9000 chargeable frames over the amortization period. Given that it is essentially computerized equipment, I think it would be reasonable to amortize it over the same time frame as computers, which is normally three to five years. That would mean 250 chargeable frames per month for a 36-month period or 150 per 60-month period.

Anything you shoot after and above that is essentially free.

P.S.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I am not a professional photographer and I don't use a digital back, but I do use computer equipment in my job and I used that as a basis for the above statement.

[David Luttmann]

Yes, it is expensive, but you can capitalize it over several years, and once you generate enough business to cover the initial outlay compared with the amount of film you would shoot and process over the same time period, any additional use will basically come free.

In other words, if the film, processing and polaroids cost you $5 per shot with traditional, you would have to reach 9000 chargeable frames over the amortization period. Given that it is essentially computerized equipment, I think it would be reasonable to amortize it over the same time frame as computers, which is normally three to five years. That would mean 250 chargeable frames per month for a 36-month period or 150 per 60-month period.

Anything you shoot after and above that is essentially free.

P.S.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I am not a professional photographer and I don't use a digital back, but I do use computer equipment in my job and I used that as a basis for the above statement.

That's been my problem. While I could use one of these backs, most of my wedding and portraiture work is between 8x10 and 20x30, with most in the 11x14 and 16x20 range. That niche is filled nicely with a DSLR. Portraits don't require the same resolution needs as landscape work. As such, because 95% of my income is not from landscape prints, I really would have no ability to amortize the back.

It's always a question of need vs want for business. If the backs where $10 to $15K, then I would buy one....but $30K.....Geesh!

[Marko]

That's been my problem. While I could use one of these backs, most of my wedding and portraiture work is between 8x10 and 20x30, with most in the 11x14 and 16x20 range. That niche is filled nicely with a DSLR. Portraits don't require the same resolution needs as landscape work. As such, because 95% of my income is not from landscape prints, I really would have no ability to amortize the back.

It's always a question of need vs want for business. If the backs where $10 to $15K, then I would buy one....but $30K.....Geesh!

Hey, I'd just LOVE to get one of those high-end MacPro towers, with two quad-core processors, gazillion Gigs of RAM and dual 30" screens. Some of my friends have them and I've played with them a bit, those things positively scream. But they are doing high end video production and they need it and a couple of those are more expensive than a P45. I am doing web and a top iMac maxed out on memory with a bunch of external drives and a decent laptop are all that I really need, so that's what I have.

In short, the only thing I want in my business is more work. Everything else is per need basis. If I can't afford it, I don't really need it.

So, why don't you go with something less exotic, like Mamiya ZD? That's right in your price range and it's manageable enough heft-wise. You could always switch back and forth between digital and film with it, after all.

[erie patsellis]

Marko,
I felt the same way, and after picking up 3 local manufacturers product work, I took a look around and found a PhaseOne Studiokit scanback for sale near me inexpensively, 9 or so mp, nothing I shoot is ever reproduced larger than 8 1/2 x 11, so the resolution isn't an issue. Sharpness and the ability to use view camera movements were my first priority, and had already figured on shooting C41 film and scanning, the scanback was a pleasant surprise.

Cost effective ($500.00) wouldn't even begin to describe it, on 2 days of part time work, it's already paid for itself, and the clients absolutely love the quality of the files. (with any luck in the next few months I'll be able to quit the full time job and get back to shooting for a living again)

erie

[David Luttmann]

Hey, I'd just LOVE to get one of those high-end MacPro towers, with two quad-core processors, gazillion Gigs of RAM and dual 30" screens. Some of my friends have them and I've played with them a bit, those things positively scream. But they are doing high end video production and they need it and a couple of those are more expensive than a P45. I am doing web and a top iMac maxed out on memory with a bunch of external drives and a decent laptop are all that I really need, so that's what I have.

In short, the only thing I want in my business is more work. Everything else is per need basis. If I can't afford it, I don't really need it.

So, why don't you go with something less exotic, like Mamiya ZD? That's right in your price range and it's manageable enough heft-wise. You could always switch back and forth between digital and film with it, after all.

I'm normally a Mamiya lover as my RB67 saw years of use for wedding formals. But I just wasn't that happy with the ZD images. They were very sharp and detailed, but the noise is an issue. The ZD has as much noise at 400 as my Canons to at 1600 - 2000. Because the Canons are noise free at 400, I normally shoot there. Besides, 22mp just wasn't that much different than the 17mp I had with the Canon. I felt like if I was going to spend the cash, I may as well go big and go for a back.

The time will come. I routinely stitch 3 DSLR images and combine them in PTGui. It gives me a 33mp image that handles 30" and 36" perfectly. When I can get that in a single shot back, for less than a penthouse in San Diego, I'll make that leap.

Until then, I'll stitch, or use sheet film.

PS....I see Jorge posted something. I guess he just can't stay away from the digital threads. Odd considering he doesn't use digital equipment. Whatever could he be after ;)

[Martin K]

Just going to give my position on a few things raised without all the quotes if that is OK.

1 The saving in film will pay for the back over time. This is a myth. Perhaps it works for wedding and portraits but commercial photographers in South Africa always charged time and a mark up on materials and processing. Going digital removed a profitable revenue stream. We compnsate by charging for post production but this entails hiring more people. I now employ 12 people.

2 As Jorge said, I am not talking DSLR here. I have nothing against DSLR, I own 2 but there is a massive difference is chip quality even between the 22 mp Canon and the 22 mp Leaf. Then there is the whole difference is working methodology between a DSLR and a VC. It is the latter that interests me.

3 I am using the 33MP Leaf. I know it is a matter of opinion but I have looked at the P45 and prefer the Leaf. Pixel frequency is not as fine on the Leaf and I believe it shows. I can't remember which old LF user said "there is a subtle beauty to a LF image where every grain of silver does not have to fight for its place in the sun" I believe this to be true for digital as well. As to quality differences it is difficult to say. I am of the school that does enough PS to achieve the image I had in my mind before I made the image. I am convinced that DSLR is better than 35mm film. I am not sure regarding 4X5. I am happy with my images.

4 This might be controversial but digital is more work than film if you do it properly. Storage is vastly more complex than archival sleeves and a fire proof safe after careful processing. Colour management is an ever moving target and is a vast field involving ICC profiles and a lot of sensitive experts. You could do a degree on photoshop and then the bloody program changes every 2 years. Then there is the minefield of raw converters that can cause debates of near religious intensity. Anyway I work as hard as I can and did the same with film so I guess its equal but I feel more swamped now.

5 It is very interesting to compare the back mounted on the new AFI (made by Rollei) and on the Cambo. I was taught as a kid in the South African Air Force that LF lenses where more difficult to make than MF and 35MM lenses for reasons such as coverage. I am using very good lenses on the Cambo, Schneider Apo Digitar, but still the Schneiders on the MF are distinctly sharper than the LF lenses. Still it is the images taken on the Cambo that draw the most attention from my clients. The movements I believe make the difference. I will try to upload one of my images. What I do like is that the sensor being smaller than 4X5 I have a lot of movements available. More than I remember on my old VC but then I had cheap lenses so perhaps that is the cause.


Thank you all for the input and the constructive way this thread has developed. I will certainly look up the photographers mentioned.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I am of the school that does enough PS to achieve the image I had in my mind before I made the image.

Hmmmm.... Imagine that, I was told by the digital "experts" in this forum that I was "blathering" when I stated that the GG was the most immediate feedback you can get and that the finished photograph is in my mind before I even press the shutter.

IMO this is the true test of a large format photographer, one who plans the shot before it is even taken. While my taste might be diametrically opposed to your, I am glad to see a digital user who is also a large format photographer inthis forum. I guess that makes two of you... :)

Good luck in your search and if you do get to compare backs, show us what you got.. :)

[Martin K]

Regarding the use of a GG. I usually have an image in my mind before I set up the camera. I know what size I am going to print and what paper, whether the image will be colour or BW, toned and if colour what the palette will be. I think this is a result of being very heavily influenced by the work of Edward Weston and after him the f64 group when I was in my teens and early 20's.

I don't think that previsualization is the only valid way to work but for me it is now a natural part of my work flow. It just happens that the finished image pops into my mind before I shoot. So it is first the scene in front of me, then the image in my mind, next the image on the GG, then check it on the LCD, then on the computer in photomechanic, import into Lightroom, output to CS3, place in the rip (I use imageprint), and finally the print.

[David Luttmann]

Regarding the use of a GG. I usually have an image in my mind before I set up the camera. I know what size I am going to print and what paper, whether the image will be colour or BW, toned and if colour what the palette will be. I think this is a result of being very heavily influenced by the work of Edward Weston and after him the f64 group when I was in my teens and early 20's.

I don't think that previsualization is the only valid way to work but for me it is now a natural part of my work flow. It just happens that the finished image pops into my mind before I shoot. So it is first the scene in front of me, then the image in my mind, next the image on the GG, then check it on the LCD, then on the computer in photomechanic, import into Lightroom, output to CS3, place in the rip (I use imageprint), and finally the print.

Agreed. I think you'll find no argument from anyone that previsualization is key as part of the process of capturing your image. It sounds like your workflow is well thought out as well, right from LCD to print. Are you wanting to work untethered, or would you find any benefit to having the back connected to a small laptop in the field?

I'd suggest you visit the Phase One site and join the forum there. There are some good folks there who work with this equipment day in and day out. They'll be able to tell you what works and what doesn't.....as well as what your expectations should be. With my limited use of the an older 22mp back, I agree that there is a very different look compared to APS C or full frame sensors. Resolution was only part of it. It was the larger pixel size and the greater dynamic range that went with it....that and different lenses. There was a certain sparkle to the image that the backs have over DSLRs. This was visible even on a 16x20.

[Frank Petronio]

A lot of people say "When Large Format Digital becomes affordable", and with the exception of Erie using an older, lower resolution scan back, I don't see how it will ever be in the amateur-hobby price range. Seems to me that scan back manufacturers had to of peaked their sales at some point over the last decade, so competition and increasing demand isn't going to happen in that sector... so why would the prices come down any further? And does Better Light really have anybody begging for even high resolution? I doubt it....

And as for the medium format chip manufacturers, right now they are barely 6x4.5cm size, which used on a view camera is super fussy and requires the very finest lenses and very tight, precise geared cameras -- no wooden boxes. Even if someday they could go up to a 6x8cm chip, is there really any significant market force to go any larger for any economic reason other than bragging rights? So get real, they ain't ever going to make a BIG CCD, it won't happen.

So IMHO they aren't coming down in price. Film will get more expensive. And commercial photographers will use the latest, greatest Phase One/Leaf/Hasselblad backs, maybe a tilt shift lens will come out for the Blad, and the DSLRs will get even better -- but I don't expect anything to change on the view camera front all that much more.

[Peter De Smidt]

Just as an aside, at the studio where I work, they have the capabilities to use their Phase backs on Sinar P2 equipment. They don't, even in the studio. It's too much of a pain. The photographers all use Canon Dslr's or Phase backs on a Hasselblad, probably 80% Canon. I also assist at a billion dollar company. Their photo studio used to do all 8x10s. Now they use Canons (often with tilt/shift lenses) and Hasselblads, with no view camera to be seen.

[Martin K]

The Cambo I use is geared and yes you do need very good lenses. I dont find it fussy to work with the smaller size of the chip. The new cameras are made to work with them.

I read somewhere that total sale of new MF cameras world wide for 2006 was 5000. A very small number so I agree with you about small back sales when you think that back sales must have been even smaller that that. The economics of it seem to preclude the big price drops we saw with DSLR. It also means that the life of these devices is longer than what we see for DSLR.

What I think I pick up now on this forum is that a lot of people love LF and cannot justify the cost of MF backs. I would never buy one at current prices if it was for personal work only. Along comes someone who says one of two things that angers the lovers of LF.

The first is that DSLR is as good as LF, which is patently false. The second is more difficult to counter and that is when someone says something that makes the film lovers feel that they are being left out or will not be able to keep up. This is also silly I believe. If I never had to make a living at it and still wanted to shoot with movements I would use 4X5 film. I have done both and for me it would be an economic choice.But who would not give the latest gear a try if it was handed to them however.

When I was shooting exclusively on DSLR I used a 1DS MK II with TS lenses. It is not a bad compromise but it is not the same as having full movements. It is simply better than nothing. The following image is a stitch using that system and was shot 2 years ago

[Marko]

What I think I pick up now on this forum is that a lot of people love LF and cannot justify the cost of MF backs. I would never buy one at current prices if it was for personal work only. Along comes someone who says one of two things that angers the lovers of LF.

The first is that DSLR is as good as LF, which is patently false. The second is more difficult to counter and that is when someone says something that makes the film lovers feel that they are being left out or will not be able to keep up. This is also silly I believe.

Just to make the record straight, since I was one of those whose comments generated some ire initially:

I don't think anybody at their right mind would argue that DSLR could be as good as LF in general. I didn't see anybody on this forum do that. The comparison that has been made, though, was the one between an 4x5 film scanned on the consumer grade scanner could be compared to a high-end DSLR.

Another comparison being made is the difference in workflow. The immediacy and portability of a DSLR vs. the deliberate and contemplative nature of LF. The two methods are as different as the two technologies are and any real comparison between the two could only be made with the subject matter and the output method in mind. Saying that a DSLR is better for shooting sports or that it provides instantaneous feedback for exposure, DR and even color balance or superior bracketing method than the LF does not imply DSLR is ultimately better, it means simply that DSLR is better suited for the task.

The point that some of us have been making all along is that the two technologies and two methods are not mutually exclusive, but rather complement each other and that each has its strengths and weaknesses. I think it should be rather evident to anybody who approaches these kinds of discussions without malice or ulterior motives.

Also, I absolutely agree with Frank about both the economics of future chip production and the future direction that film is taking, including price and availability. Recognizing the reality has, or rather should not have anything to do with likes or dislikes - interpreting that kind of analysis as doom and gloom or even attacking it as false is nothing more than shooting the messenger.

[Marko]

It also means that the life of these devices is longer than what we see for DSLR.

This is one of the two prevailing myths about digital.

DSLRs have no expiry date and no switch built in that would turn them off after a fixed period of time. They are essentially identical to their film counterparts, except that they have a digital chip built in instead of film, a small computer and an LCD. Otherwise, they have the same shutter, the same pentaprism and they use the same lenses. There is no reason why they would not last as long as their film cousins, other than the desire of their users, of course.

Amortizing it as a business investment is a very different story altogether.

The other myth is about digital users being sloppy and even ignorant. A good photographer is a good photographer no matter which camera he/she uses and the very same could be said for the bad photographer, even more so. There is no more need to "fix it in Photoshop" today than there was a need to "fix it in the darkroom" yesterday. There are people who do not understand the basic principles of exposure and never bothered to learn them, but that's something altogether different. Those people existed long before digital cameras and in all fields, not just photography.

When desktop publishing became fashionable some 15-20 years ago, there was an onslaught of kitch and generally "work" that could only be characterized as atrocious, done by people who had no clue whatsoever about typography and design, much less about finer points such as white space or grid. The arguments very similar to these were heard then about the new technology destroying the fine craft of old. But it didn't. It actually enhanced it, once it became clear that the technology itself cannot replace expertise.

The only difference is that the experts are now using Quark instead of the old fashioned typesetting machines. And the only thing the new technology replaced was the grouches who refused to learn it.

[jetcode]

I don't think you are wasting your time, after all we are not talking DSLRs here and there will come a time in the future where a digital back will be affordable.

Having said that, you will find that there are few in this forum who have used them and many that pretend to know what they are talking about when they don't.

The only one I know in this forum who has posted work taken with a digital back is Jim Collum. I would listen to what he has to say, since he has the experience both as a LF photographer and a digital back user. Other than that, the mayority of the digital "experts" here are DSLR and PS users, which I don't think it is what you want or need.

IMO, at the moment the large format photographers who are the most successful with their work are those who are still using film and scanning. Check out the work by Ken Lee and Michael Mutmansky, and when Jim decides to publish his site, visit his as well, these three are doing beautiful work.

Kirk Gittings might have experience with a LF digital back since he is not only a REAL professional photographer but he is also a teacher, so he might have had a chance to play with the backs and give you his impressions.

Everything here comes with qualification as if someone like me with no experience with a digital back is going to come forward and betray someone with misleading information.

There is far more integrity here then you realize and I think it is wise to let the people make up their own mind according to the evidence at hand. Like I said before, there are no stupid people here, none.

Your need to divide and conquer is based in some form of fear. Stop policing and start providing. If you have no experience with a digital back why are you posting here if you can't provide the OP with an answer or question?

In all fairness I am asking you kindly to please respect all forum members ... thanks

[Martin K]

I was not pointing a finger at you in any way Marko. I was alluding to some general misconceptions that I am confronted with every day when competing in the commercial world with photographers that are trying to convince my clients that their DSLR is all that is needed and that my equipment is overkill.

Absolutely there is no need to be sloppy merely because you work digitally. I did find for myself that I tended for some reason to get sloppy when I was about 5 years into my digital adventure. I am not sure why but I was annoyed when I noticed it and still remind myself daily to slow it down and think. It could be that the pressure was off a little to get it bang on in camera and I relied on my team of perhaps too forgiving retouchers. One of the things I did was to tell them to be harder on me and throw sloppy work back. They still delight in doing this.

On the issue of life of a camera I agree with you up to a point. I have cameras that are 7 years old that are so poor in quality that they are effectively dead. They will also only run tethered to a scsi mac running system 8. something or other. I don't have a live machine that will do that anymore. I also have a DCS560 that Kodak will not support and has no batteries and a blown firewire port. I also had a Kodak proback that died and Kodak would not support that either. On the other hand I have a Canon 1DS that I was offered $1000 for last month. In the past 2 months it has shot $40 000 worth of catalogue work. The problems with the life of digital cameras is 2 fold. 1 They undergo massive improvements and you are placed at a competitive disadvantage unless you gear up. 2 The software' hardware, support, and peripherals around them dries up or becomes obsolete.

[jetcode]

Frank is right about manufacturing large CCD's, first of all I believe 300mm (12") is still the biggest wafer possible and the reason manufacturers squeeze die size down is to increase yield. If a CCD is 8" in size the failure rate would likely be catastrophic due to imperfections in process (every pixel matters), just the masks alone for a new die set on a wafer cost 25-45k and that has nothing to do with the cost of design, production or associated electronics required to process an image.

Another example of yield can be found in digital media. You cannot buy media without bad sectors, in fact not only do NAND flash devices exhibit bad sectors but so do hard drives. This real estate is mapped in the bad sector table or in the pad field above a sector in flash. Premium media with 0 bad sectors is Industrial or Mil-Spec grade and very very pricey. It's no different for sensors. The high price of digital imaging is directly related to size, complexity, and yield. I think Frank alluded to market share, digital LF is a very small market and that usually means fewer pay more.

[erie patsellis]

The Cambo I use is geared and yes you do need very good lenses. I dont find it fussy to work with the smaller size of the chip. The new cameras are made to work with them.....


Martin,
one of the advantages of the scan backs is the larger pixel site size, and conmensurate decrease in the quality of lenses needed. When I first bought my Studiokit, the photographer I bought it from told me he used his Componons mounted on a Sinar panel. I tried it and I'll be damned, there's no perceptable difference between a Symmar-S MC and a Componon at tabletop distances (and add the fact you don't need a shutter and it becomes pretty obvious) other than some contrast difference, not always a bad thing however.


erie

[Daniel_Buck]

A lot of people say "When Large Format Digital becomes affordable", and with the exception of Erie using an older, lower resolution scan back, I don't see how it will ever be in the amateur-hobby price range. ...
wishful thinking I guess :o

[David Luttmann]

Everything here comes with qualification as if someone like me with no experience with a digital back is going to come forward and betray someone with misleading information.

There is far more integrity here then you realize and I think it is wise to let the people make up their own mind according to the evidence at hand. Like I said before, there are no stupid people here, none.

Your need to divide and conquer is based in some form of fear. Stop policing and start providing. If you have no experience with a digital back why are you posting here if you can't provide the OP with an answer or question?

In all fairness I am asking you kindly to please respect all forum members ... thanks

I think you've pretty much summed it up. I don't see any local photographers I know that "fix in PS" any more than I used to "fix it in the darkroom." I see people who photograph in much the same way we used to.....just with some different gear.

I am also not a fan of all the "real LF photographers" stuff. How silly. It's not as though it takes a mental giant to obtain a photo with a LF camera vs MF, 35mm, DSLRs, digital backs, Holgas or Diane's.....they're just cameras for god's sake. The same skill is required to obtain the photo as well as making a print, be it in the darkroom or through digital technology. To instantly label someone an idiot and poor photographer because they use digital capture or anything non-LF is ludicrous!

[jetcode]

David thanks, that is the last from me here on this subject. We are here for LF photography as Jorge has alluded to all along.

[Marko]

I was not pointing a finger at you in any way Marko. I was alluding to some general misconceptions that I am confronted with every day when competing in the commercial world with photographers that are trying to convince my clients that their DSLR is all that is needed and that my equipment is overkill.

[...]

The problems with the life of digital cameras is 2 fold. 1 They undergo massive improvements and you are placed at a competitive disadvantage unless you gear up. 2 The software' hardware, support, and peripherals around them dries up or becomes obsolete.

Martin, I understand what you're saying. My point is that every new technology goes through an initial phase of rapid development with a very steep growth curve in the early stages. It also suffers from either uncritical acceptance and perception of a "magic bullet" by those unable to master the substance OR from equally uncritical rejection by those too vested in the old technology or simply too old themselves to adapt.

But eventually it matures and reaches the plateau, where increments become qualitative rather than quantitative and if you watch the digital camera market, it looks like that phase has began a year or so ago, first with smaller chips and then with larger. it is a simple matter of reaching the point of diminishing returns so to remain competitive in the consumer-based market, the manufacturers have to offer something. That "something" was megapixel count in the steep part of the curve but now it changes to additional functions.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah since I can charge for film the "savings" from digital aren't there out in front. The problem is that all the other competitors use digital so you have to be pretty awesome for the client to want to pick up the cost of film/proc/scanning nowadays...

We seem to be sort of close to agreeing with each other. Hypothetically speaking (wishfully thinking...) if I could afford a higher end MF digital back on a geared precision view camera then I agree w Martin that in the studio it is possible to use view camera movements and do work at a higher level than simply plugging away with your medium format SLR/H3 camera.

But, in real world outdoor field conditions, where it would be really difficult to set up a laptop for previewing and there's dust and grit flying around, not to mention bad weather and being able to fit everything safely in a reasonable carrying load (backpack or shoulder bag) -- using that precise geared camera becomes marginalized. Maybe you'd use it out of the car on nice days, but would you really subject to the same conditions as you might a nice 4x5 system that "only" cost $500 to $5000?

(I do like the handheld wide angle MF digital cameras w the helicoil focusing lenses -- those make sense for wide angle work -- but then you might as well be using an H3 or SLR type body at that point.)

I'm surprised they haven't done a really good tilt shift lens for the medium format digital SLR cameras yet... seems like that would move a few more people towards using them.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The first is that DSLR is as good as LF, which is patently false. The second is more difficult to counter and that is when someone says something that makes the film lovers feel that they are being left out or will not be able to keep up. This is also silly I believe. If I never had to make a living at it and still wanted to shoot with movements I would use 4X5 film. I have done both and for me it would be an economic choice.But who would not give the latest gear a try if it was handed to them however.

LOL.... you are just batting a 1000, aren't you?

Look, we need to go back to your initial question. Are you wasting your time here? As I stated, in general I don't think you are, in particular to your situation I do think you are. Regardless of the platitudes and opinions you will get here, these are just that, statements from people with no experience. The bottom line is that you can count with the fingers of one hand and have fingers left over the number of memeber in this forum who are both professional large format photographers and digital back users, simply because few here have used them frequently to put food on their table.

YOu will not find here the pros and cons of using one digital back versus another, I think you need a more specialized forum for this, since I think this is your goal, the comparisson of the quality resulting from variosu digital backs.

If you want to engage in a "phylosophical" discussion, well then this might be the right place, but then the opinions not only will be slanted but will be relegated to the experience of the person expressing them which includes those of people who do not sell their work as print sales or work for hire, so while this might be entretaining, I don't think it will be of much use for you.

There is a difference in the mind set of a beguinner who says " a good photographer can make a good picture with any camera" and the mind set of a professional that knows that only one tool can do the job that is required.

You mention you are up against the competition who claims your equipment is overkill. Get used to it, you will come against this all the time and I sure that as bored as you are of explaning yourself this will not stop. This prevalent in the wedding photographer industry where any hack with a camera is a wedding photographer.

I would suggest you contact Kirk Gittings or Bill Schwab and have them suggest to you a few forums dedicated to professional photographers and the needs they have. As much as it pains me to say it, this is not the place for what you need.

[Stephen Best]

I don't see any economical/feasible solutions for digital LF from current topologies, though Dalsa's TDI scanning technology (as implemented by the Roundshot D3) looks promising.

One solution that nobody seems to have thought of is to make an insert or International Standard back that uses a sparse array of yesterday's DSLR sensor chips (say 6mp each) offset so that when you rotate the back 180 degrees you've got just over 100% coverage. Assembling the final result is a simplified application of existing stitching software. You'd need two exposures but this would be workable for a lot of applications. Make the insert/back with just a slot for a SD/CF card, include a battery with a reasonable life and price it at $2K and I'd buy one. A fancy model with a display that enables you to check focus/exposure could sell for more.

Wake me up when it's available.

Hmmm. On second thought it looks like you'd need three offset exposures for complete coverage. Back to the drawing board.

[lxdesign]

This is quite an interesting discussion. I've only had my LF camera for a few days now... and while I'd love to shoot it digitally... I think the joy of shooting film, and the unknown element of seeing your images come to life in the darkroom outweigh the advantages of shooting digitally and the financial outlay.

Has anyone used the Camera Fusion system here ? Just wondering how it works.

[Peter De Smidt]

I just spent a week working for a big photo studio for a billion dollar company. They use all Sinar P3 with the Sinar eMotion backs. I talked to a number of the photographers about this. Basically, using movements with these backs is hit and miss. Some of the backs work fine with movements, but others start to show color artifacts and other problems when movements are used. As such, the key would be to try out any equipment before you buy to make sure it meets your needs. Btw., all focusing and framing where done live on big computer screens. Stylists in particular really like this aspect of these systems.

[Kirk Gittings]

I've been out of the loop and missed some of Jorge's references to me here. I actually have not kept up with MFDB on VCs stuff the last two years or so. The prices were so over the top that I could not justify them for my business and did not need them for my personal work where I am happy with scanned film. So while I kept reading up on developments, I have not done much actual testing of late. As all of my work both commercial and personal is on location, I need very portable quick to set up and use solutions, which rules out systems like having to focus on a computer screen. I like the Betterlight backs, but they need to be quicker or I will spend to much computer time cleaning up images with things like moving trees because of the slow scans etc.. TBH the only thing that really fits the bill for my commercial work right now is scanned film or DSLRs. As far as sights for digital info, the best I have found is Luminous Landscape, though you need to wade through allot of dumb and off topic comments to find the meat. LL is not a good source though for Betterlight backs, but is very good for DSLRs and pretty good for MFD.

[audioexcels]

Marko,
I felt the same way, and after picking up 3 local manufacturers product work, I took a look around and found a PhaseOne Studiokit scanback for sale near me inexpensively, 9 or so mp, nothing I shoot is ever reproduced larger than 8 1/2 x 11, so the resolution isn't an issue. Sharpness and the ability to use view camera movements were my first priority, and had already figured on shooting C41 film and scanning, the scanback was a pleasant surprise.

Cost effective ($500.00) wouldn't even begin to describe it, on 2 days of part time work, it's already paid for itself, and the clients absolutely love the quality of the files. (with any luck in the next few months I'll be able to quit the full time job and get back to shooting for a living again)

erie

How does this back do vs. 4X5 film drum scanned?

[audioexcels]

Just to make the record straight, since I was one of those whose comments generated some ire initially:

I don't think anybody at their right mind would argue that DSLR could be as good as LF in general. I didn't see anybody on this forum do that. The comparison that has been made, though, was the one between an 4x5 film scanned on the consumer grade scanner could be compared to a high-end DSLR.

Another comparison being made is the difference in workflow. The immediacy and portability of a DSLR vs. the deliberate and contemplative nature of LF. The two methods are as different as the two technologies are and any real comparison between the two could only be made with the subject matter and the output method in mind. Saying that a DSLR is better for shooting sports or that it provides instantaneous feedback for exposure, DR and even color balance or superior bracketing method than the LF does not imply DSLR is ultimately better, it means simply that DSLR is better suited for the task.

The point that some of us have been making all along is that the two technologies and two methods are not mutually exclusive, but rather complement each other and that each has its strengths and weaknesses. I think it should be rather evident to anybody who approaches these kinds of discussions without malice or ulterior motives.

Also, I absolutely agree with Frank about both the economics of future chip production and the future direction that film is taking, including price and availability. Recognizing the reality has, or rather should not have anything to do with likes or dislikes - interpreting that kind of analysis as doom and gloom or even attacking it as false is nothing more than shooting the messenger.

Actually, forget who it is, but he has a section dedicated to reviews on gear and he switched to the Canon 5D over LF. He didn't use a cheap scanner and knew precisely what the LF and 5D potential is/was/etc.

Others stick out the idea of the Canon 5D or similar, along with multiple images-stitching...and say it looks as good as a drum scanned piece of 4X5 film out to a certain limit of print size.

[David Luttmann]

Actually, forget who it is, but he has a section dedicated to reviews on gear and he switched to the Canon 5D over LF. He didn't use a cheap scanner and knew precisely what the LF and 5D potential is/was/etc.

Others stick out the idea of the Canon 5D or similar, along with multiple images-stitching...and say it looks as good as a drum scanned piece of 4X5 film out to a certain limit of print size.

No matter what the rez, there is a different look. Some people like it, some don’t. I find the digital files look sharper even with less rez because of color films rather poor ability to maintain acutance.

When processed correctly (aka, not over sharpened like a lot of digital newbies tend to do), a stitched image holds up very well. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the Pentax K20D I recently purchased (15mp) using a 3 vertical stitch yields 33mp, which prints beautifully at 30”. Doing a 9 horizaontal stitch (3x3) gives me a 94mp image that prints 48” better than I’ve seen anything from drum scanned 4x5.

Depends on what you’re shooting of course. I used stitching a fair bit on some recent trips to the Southwest with a Canon 1Ds Mk2 and Rebel Xti. The 3 and 9 panel stitches I did printed every bit as well as drum scanned film for the 16x24 and 20x30 print’s I’ve made. In fact, the Xti did extremely well on the 30” prints from both 3 and 6 panel stitches. Nothing like a stationary background to photograph. I’m looking forward to going back again with the Pentax to give it a try.

[Martin K]

Thought this thread was dead. Since it has come back to life I will relate my experiences so far with a Leaf 33 on a Cambo Ultima23.

I shot some flowers using movements to hold focus and made a A2 print on good paper with a epson printer running imageprint rip. More of an experiment than anything else but I felt the image had a different feel to what I had been getting from the Canon even with TS lenses. Showed it to a few commercial clients to show them what I was up to when they came in for a shoot and sold the image twice. Clients also felt it had a different feel.

I am using the Cambo out in the field and find it easy to use and to achieve focus. A new way of working for me in that it is the first true combination I have experienced between the "old" LF workflow and a digital workflow. I was working out of my car and now have a backback, large, that loads all the gear very comfortably.

the workflow is simple really. Set up camera as per normal and work off the groundglass. Use a spotmeter to measure exposure and check contrast. Stop down lens and cock all as ith film and slide back into position. Expose and then to the histogram. Need some skills to use histogram well as where the info falls makes a definite impact on final feel of print even allowing for adjustments. The back is mounted onto a sliding adapter with groundglass and is well protected. Images written to CF card and backed up to photo wallet. Small rechargeable batteries are convenient to use and can be charged from cigarette lighter.

I have not experienced a loss of quality from using movements but perhaps because the lenses are made for digital being Schneider Apo Digitars.

Very busy with commercial work and training for a 175km bike race but once it quietens down I will be off to the mountains for some fun.

I would not be able to justify the price of this gear myself but the studio requires it commercially and I am pleased it does. I love working with this system, get a real good feel from it. The quality is fantastic. Have no idea how it compares to a scanned tranny but will look into that with a friend that shoots only 4X5.

[DominiqueMarcWehrli]

I do architectural photography for a living since 2004.
Since mid 2006 I am using a sinar digital back (emotion 54LV) on a view camera - I had to decide between a high end scanner and jumping to digital capture. The first year the camera was my Arca Swiss 6x9 from the film days. It worked but it was terrible to focus the 35 or 24mm lenses when in a hurry. Later I switched to a Gottschalt camera that has lots of movements and is very light (ca. 700 grams). It's now a real pleasure to walk around with this setup.
You need to find an efficient workflow to work with these backs on location, because all of the backs show a certain amount of color shifts when used on a view camera. It can be fixed easily and with the right workflow it is less work than working with film.
For personal projects I have tested my 4x5 again for a few images (there is still no solution for long term storage of digital date...).
I switched back to the digital camera. It is incredibly light, gives an excellent BW-Print (60x90 cm) and you can carry dozens of images with one cf-card and a full battery.
The only drawback is the smallish ground glass. I liked the way of working with the traditional cameras more. But with the digital back if you have the discipline to compose on the groundglass and meter with a lightmeter instead of snapping away until you have the image you want, it is very similar to work as with the film based cameras.
Focusing is simple: infinity and f11 to f16 as long as you are outside. Otherwise guess the distance. You have so much depth of field, that the images will be tack sharp.
In the end it is just another tool. The principles of photography have not changed width digital. No system is perfect, but digital works very well for me (and width day long wanderings in the city, I really enjoy the weight of my backpack).

Regards
Dominique

[Peter De Smidt]

Actually, forget who it is, but he has a section dedicated to reviews on gear and he switched to the Canon 5D over LF. He didn't use a cheap scanner and knew precisely what the LF and 5D potential is/was/etc.



You might mean Paul Butzi (www.butzi.net). If so, I can vouch that he knows what he's doing. I have a couple of his silver gelatin prints.

[David Luttmann]

You might mean Paul Butzi (www.butzi.net). If so, I can vouch that he knows what he's doing. I have a couple of his silver gelatin prints.

What happened to him. He hasn't updated his web site forever!

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually, forget who it is, but he has a section dedicated to reviews on gear and he switched to the Canon 5D over LF. He didn't use a cheap scanner and knew precisely what the LF and 5D potential is/was/etc.

Others stick out the idea of the Canon 5D or similar, along with multiple images-stitching...and say it looks as good as a drum scanned piece of 4X5 film out to a certain limit of print size.

Audioexcels, If memory serves, Paul was using an 1800f when he switched to 5d. We discussed it many times on this forum. By any definition I know of, the 1800f (which I owned two or three of-they failed often) was only comparable to an Epson 750. Since I do allot of stitching with a 5d. I would say about a 4 image stitch with primo lenses was pretty close at 16x20.

Peter,
I thought Pauls b&w work was superb. I can't say much for his color work with the 5D.

David, last time I talked to him, this forum and some of the people here was giving him high blood pressure. I guess I was one of them as I am blocked from his email.

[David Luttmann]

Audioexcels, If memory serves, Paul was using an 1800f when he switched to 5d. We discussed it many times on this forum. By any definition I know of, the 1800f (which I owned two or three of-they failed often) was only comparable to an Epson 750. Since I do allot of stitching with a 5d. I would say about a 4 image stitch with primo lenses was pretty close at 16x20.

Peter,
I thought Pauls b&w work was superb. I can't say much for his color work with the 5D.

David, last time I talked to him, this forum and some of the people here was giving him high blood pressure. I guess I was one of them as I am blocked from his email.

Thanks Kirk.

I emailed him late 2006 for some information on the Oregon Coast. I got a very valuable email back with load of info. I ended up spending some time in the Tofino area in BC and didn't have the time for Oregon.

[sanking]

Thanks Kirk.

I emailed him late 2006 for some information on the Oregon Coast. I got a very valuable email back with load of info. I ended up spending some time in the Tofino area in BC and didn't have the time for Oregon.

Pacific Rim National Park is an extraordinary place. You could knock yourself dead photographing the driftwood on the beaches south of Tofino. In a walk of a hundred feet on the beach you should find at least a dozen images equal to or better than the one attached.

Sandy King

[David Luttmann]

Pacific Rim National Park is an extraordinary place. You could knock yourself dead photographing the driftwood on the beaches south of Tofino.

Sandy King

It is a beautiful place. I'm always trying to get to the southwest (Arizona, Utah, New Mexico)....I have to remember all the local treasures as well. Tofino is stunning.

[sanking]

It is a beautiful place. I'm always trying to get to the southwest (Arizona, Utah, New Mexico)....I have to remember all the local treasures as well. Tofino is stunning.


We have a friend from Oaxaca who lives on Gabriola Island in the summer. Thanks to her we discovered BC and for some years now have spent a week or so on the island in the summer. Gabriola Island in the summer is about as close to paradise as it gets. The same could be said for much of Vancouver Island.

Looking forward to taking another small bite of the apple of paradise in late June/July this year.

But in January, I recommend Oaxaca!!

Sandy

[Peter De Smidt]

Peter,
I thought Pauls b&w work was superb. I can't say much for his color work with the 5D.


I have some of his b&w work, an 11x14 silver gelatin print from a 4x5 negative and a couple of 8x10 prints. They are excellent. I haven't seen any of his new digital color work in person.

You're right that during his crossover to digital phase he used an 1800f to scan images.

Regarding a comment by someone else in the thread: Yes, he hasn't updated his regular website in a long, long time. He does, however, regularly write on his blog, which is accessible from his website.

[erie patsellis]

How does this back do vs. 4X5 film drum scanned?

Different end uses, the images I'm shooting end up no more than a 1/4 page, 9mp is overkill.(though my up rezzing experiments have been quite fruitful and atypical of my other digital experiences) Typical product studio lighting, low to moderate contrast, so no really challenging lighting or contrast ration issues other than the typical product lighting issues.

Were I shooting a double truck ad or larger, I'd seriously consider 160NC or VC. My results shooting with the RB are pretty impressive, even scanning on a lowly Powerlook III or the Heidelberg/Lino scanner. Everything being said about the new Portra films being designed for ease of scanning has been proven to me in my workflow.

In summary, I haven't bothered doing any direct comparisons, i.e. same subject, lighting, camera, lens, etc. just changing the capture medium, as I for the work I do, it'd be a waste of time. Should I fall into a higher resolution back in the future, I will certainly have to look further into it, as the Photophase+ or Betterlight at 135mp would all but eliminate my film needs for product work, at least in the studio for non moving subjects (darn 3 min.+ captures)


erie

[David Luttmann]

We have a friend from Oaxaca who lives on Gabriola Island in the summer. Thanks to her we discovered BC and for some years now have spent a week or so on the island in the summer. Gabriola Island in the summer is about as close to paradise as it gets. The same could be said for much of Vancouver Island.

Looking forward to taking another small bite of the apple of paradise in late June/July this year.

But in January, I recommend Oaxaca!!

Sandy

Sandy, you should also check out Saltspring Island in late summer early fall. I was there last October just after a few weeks in Arizona. The colors were incredible. I left me camera at home. Never fails.

I’ll be spending a fair bit of time photographing around home in Sooke this summer and fall….primarily along the water. As well, I’ll be up in Botanical Beach as the rock formations there are stunning. Enjoy your visit to the island. Feel free to PM me with any questions if you’d like.

[sanking]

Sandy, you should also check out Saltspring Island in late summer early fall. I was there last October just after a few weeks in Arizona. The colors were incredible. I left me camera at home. Never fails.



Just curious. Are the colors better on Saltspring Island than on the other Gulf Islands?

Fall colors in my area are really hard to beat. The Appalachian mountains and Piedmont in the southeast rival any place in North America in terms of spectacular fall colors.

Sandy

[David Luttmann]

Just curious. Are the colors better on Saltspring Island than on the other Gulf Islands?

Fall colors in my area are really hard to beat. The Appalachian mountains and Piedmont in the southeast rival any place in North America in terms of spectacular fall colors.

Sandy

I don't think they are better per se, but the scenery on Saltspring is so picturesque that you need to include in on your trips to the area.

Nothing will be the colors on your end though....the weather produces better colors.