I'm affraid it won't be long

[BrianShaw]

Why not simply accept the fact that digital imaging and film are completely different technologies, both have their specific merits and serious problems. Use each technology based on the image goals required.

If that could happen, it might also be the solution to world peace and hunger!

[Drew Wiley]

Some of this is just new toy mentality. Gotta have it - everything in the Sharper Image catalog mentality. Geekography as
far as I'm concerned. But at a practical level, there are very serious reason of workflow and scheduling which can justify the
expense of a digital back. Thirty or forty grand is no more than most folks spend on a second car, and if you are making a living this way, and most of it is for publication anyway, which is virtually never extreme in either size or quality ... why not?
I'd do it if that was my way of making a living. Personal work, esp in the field is a different subject. Why do people still go
fishing and deer hunting even though it's cheaper to buy fish and meat at the supermarket? It's about quality of life. So is
simply looking at the world thru a big groundglass.

[John NYC]

Per that Tim Parkin thing - you can prove anything with that kind of sloppy handicapping. Maybe both sides of the test were
half-assed. I don't have time right now to point out all the nonsense. He's got an 8x10 propped up on a twerpy little ballhead
that can't control shutter vibrations worth a damn. The film was probably sagging in the holder. Poor technique from the word
go.... And then you guys go quoting some photo guru or another ... and some of these guys I not only know and have had
in-depth discussions with in person, but have a very good idea of what their own work looks like in person (not over the web). Then there are people with more of a big-budget commercial commitment to the latest digital setups (way beyond what
probably anyone participating in this forum can afford), and I hear the pros and cons.... and I can make a sharper print in the
darkroom then they can with all that stuff. ... So no, I am not really impressed when someone shows up at the track with
an 800 HP dragster with four flat tires and an empty gas tank and tells me how a Vespa scooter is faster...

You obviously did not read it carefully and understand the parameters and the conclusions.

[Drew Wiley]

Actually I did read thru that whole thing some time back. What's the point? If you can afford that kind of gear and like the
result, go for it. You sure as hell don't need my permission. But when someone goes around saying that such and such cannot
be done with film, and I do it routinely, you can understand my skepticism at their own credentials. And I have very little patience for all these number cruching exercises by people who probably don't have a clue what a really skilled darkroom print
looks like in the first place, and aren't willing to get off their web-addicted-lardass and go look at appropirate examples.

[John NYC]

Actually I did read thru that whole thing some time back. What's the point? If you can afford that kind of gear and like the
result, go for it. You sure as hell don't need my permission. But when someone goes around saying that such and such cannot
be done with film, and I do it routinely, you can understand my skepticism at their own credentials. And I have very little patience for all these number cruching exercises by people who probably don't have a clue what a really skilled darkroom print
looks like in the first place, and aren't willing to get off their web-addicted-lardass and go look at appropirate examples.

Drew the conclusion was basically that 8x10 was ahead by a certain margin for most people. That is why I don't believe you read it or understood it.

Frankly I am skeptical of your own credentials. You seem to have little experience with digital. But you have a load of opinions on it.

[Drew Wiley]

I see it all, John. Every single day I talk with a dude who owns a Phase 1, a Betterlight system, and gave up on 8x10 film
simply because Ciba ended. 8X10 is now simply overkill for his customer base. He fitting Phase 1 into the commercial shoe of 4x5 for publication work. He hates the look of digital prints per se - and I'll bet he's got more digital gear mothballed in the back room, unsused, than most labs could ever afford. His last personal studio (one of three) was a six story highrise in downtown SF! I see pro digital prints every single week. I've seen lots of work by the top gurus on the foodchain - the people contracted by Epson etc to tell them what to do! Sometimes I interact at a technical level with people who charge a min of 40K just to set up a digital workflow to go to print. People like these would howl with laughter if someone claimed a DLSR was even remotely in the league of proficient LF capture. You seem to forget where both the tech and economic locus of the country currently is. I really don't care what you use. And I really don't care if someone came along with a cell phone that could take "better" pictures than a view camera. It still wouldn't be the same experience. If all this is so important to
you, why not take it up on some DLSR forum? I accidentally converted some DLSR people to film when they saw my actual
prints.

[Brian C. Miller]

Per that Tim Parkin thing - you can prove anything with that kind of sloppy handicapping. Maybe both sides of the test were half-assed. I don't have time right now to point out all the nonsense. He's got an 8x10 propped up on a twerpy little ballhead that can't control shutter vibrations worth a damn. The film was probably sagging in the holder.

From the page, in bullet points:

* Use two tripods for the 8×10 shot (a Velbon Sharpa/Carmagne CF tripod and a five series Gitzo tripod) the smaller tripod supporting the lens end of the camera.
* Use double sided tape for the dark slides for 4×5 and 8×10 (more about that later)

So two tripods for the 8x10, and film sag was definitely not a factor.

He doesn't show the test pattern results for color 8x10, so I'm guessing that it's a similar degradation to what was shown for the 4x5. I.e., 4x5 Delta 100 was 12 and Provia was 11, so I'm guessing a score of 13 for the 8x10 Provia.

And the IQ180 scored a whopping 5 for the same test setup.

The results were hardly skewed towards favoring the IQ180.

(Oh! The IQ280 has come out. 80Mp, though. Comparison Redux any time soon?)

[C_Remington]

People like these would howl with laughter if someone claimed a DLSR was even remotely in the league of proficient LF capture.

I doubt that.

[Corran]

I see it all (...) Every single day I talk with a dude who owns (...)

I think this sums up your experience.

[Drew Wiley]

So go join a little league team, if that's your comfort level. I'm slowly getting arthritic in the hands and probably will be reliant on 35mm some day. ... but until then.... But still looks like a hokey test to me. If you've ever worked with German
engineers like I have, or spent decades fine-tuning color darkroom techniques, then you might have a different take on all this. I'm not knocking the technology for what it does best ... but it sure can't replace what a view camera does well. Gotta
have the right tools. Guess if you feel more comfortable in the machine-gun school of philosophy, you will save some film expense. Not that the two approaches are mutually exclusive... but the way this argument is being phrased, the folks with
the BB guns seem to think they have the trump card. ... not the best thing for hunting rhinos, maybe for sparrows.