Architecture: LF film vs. 35mm digital capture

[Ellis Vener]

Some magazines like Arch. Digest will still not accept digital at all.

I think this non-acceptance has two roots: the production department at the magazine and the real world problem that so many digital photographers just really don't know what they are doing with regards to accurate color management. If A.D. insists on film one reason reason might be that if everyone submits on film, Conde'-Nast can completely control the reproduction process from the scan to the printing and this makes for more consistency in reproduction throughout the magazine.

[Glenn Kroeger]

Regardless of how recently Kirk has handled digital backs, two things are clear:

1. The sensor size issue has calmed down, with the apparent winner being approximately 36x48mm. I find it hard to believe that demand will ever justify the costs of a larger sensor, particularly since this size can easily go to 35MP assuming pixel sizes similar to the Canon 1DsMkII or 20D.

2. Kirk's other questions: "Do the sensors suffer from noise because of the angle of light at the corners? Do you need to be teathered? Is this a 25,ooo.oo investment that will be obsolete in 3 years?" are still valid concerns.

This next year is critical. We will see what Mamiya can produce at a lower cost. We will see whether everyone can deliver on their announced untethered solutions. And we will see who is still in business 12 months from now.

[Frank Petronio]

Conde Nast probably wants the film so they can reuse it, figuring that the photographer won't be competing against them if they give them the film. Their terms are rather draconian.

[Kirk Gittings]

As for Arch. Digest, Ellis has it right, but this will surely change.

But Frank, I think you have a point there. I never thought of that angle.