"Digital" View Camera II

[Frank Petronio]

MR's article refers to his checking the images nightly, after shooting, not tethering up in the woods. It also refers to him missing a few shots because of focusing/alignment errors.

I'm sure for a critical shot (commercial work) you'd want to review the images before striking the set.

As for the image storage devices, I tried a couple and they are all funky IMHO - just use the cash to buy CF cards. I think you can save a bit with slower cards on the MF backs, as they don't need the fastest speeds for rapid shooting (at least for landscape).

[Kirk Gittings]

"your film/lab fees are easily $15K/yr, so it is easy to rationalize spending $30K on a Hasselblad system." Except that the clients are paying the film/lab fees plus a markup. Now you have to sell them on something else like a "Digital Capture Fee" per image and hide your equipment costs in that. Watch them scream for awhile as they get used to that, because they thought digital was going to be cheaper because there was no film and processing.

Contray to clients expectations, shooting digital is far more expensive than than film was.

[Frank Petronio]

Ahhh, but you are also saving money on YOUR film and processing, which allows you to shoot more for your portfolio and to shoot more images of each set-up. Both of which are really good habits for a commercial pro to be in - otherwise you'll spend your life doing hack work for the lowest bid.

Every top "successful" and busy professional shoots more than just paying jobs. That's what they need to do in order to build a winning portfolio and reputation. And spending $15K/yr on film and processing - even for these non-paying - jobs is pretty easy. And clients will pay a digital fee for capture, eidting, overhead, etc. They've been doing it for film and video forever, with the digital fee seperate from your talent (creative) fee.

The "day rate" kind of guys suffer from this, as do the people who rely on upcharging on materials. But those togs are usually bidding on price, not quality, anyway.

That said, I'd probably still use film for other qualities, such as the way it actually shoots when you do a large format portrait. The sitter's experience is very different with a large format camera versus a digital camera, and that affects the type of image you get in the end. Digital is great, and I use it too, but it's not about the resolution or technical -- it's about the experience of photographing.

[Bob Salomon]

"You can't use the same back on MF and LF, unless you count a 6x9 arca as LF. "

Nonsense.

Linhof makes several adapters. One converts Linhof 69 TK and Technika cameras to accept Hasselblad V backs for film or digital.
Another converts any 45 Graflock to Hasselblad V backs for film or digital.
Then they make adapters for any Linhof M679 adapter that mounts them to Arca, Sinar, Toyo or Linhof Kardan 45 cameras. The available plates let you choose Hasselblad V, H, Mamiya RB, Mamiya RZ film or digital backs. Four of the available M679 backs are rapid shift types.

[Kirk Gittings]

Frank,

With all due respect "The "day rate" kind of guys suffer from this, as do the people who rely on upcharging on materials. But those togs are usually bidding on price, not quality, anyway." This may reflect your business, but not many others.

You are painting this picture with way to broad a brush. What segment of the pro market are you talking about? Certainly not architectural photography. I am and associate myself with many of the leading architectural photographers in the country, Hedrich Blessing included, and all of us are "day rate kind of guys" and marking up film and processing is integral to our profitability. In addition virtually none of the top guys that I know in ArchPhot have switched to digital.

[Kirk Gittings]

Frank,

And I never ever bid on work.

[Frank Petronio]

Sorry Kirk, everyone is different. I'm thinking about advertising/editorial work and photogs who charge creative fees, plus rentals and materials. If you use a dayrate more power to you, but I wouldn't ever use a dayrate myself as it leads to too many complications and confusion in my experience.

A lot of younger ad and fashion shooters don't even own cameras anymore, they just rent at the studio for their shoot. Strange but true. But their clients are paying for the rentals no problem.

This guy seems to be an "OK" architectural shooter -- he is all digital and not charging a day rate.

[Kirk Gittings]

frank,

First off let me say that I am anything but anti-digital. If I had the money to throw at it right now I would pick up a Canon 5D outfit for certain kinds of jobs. But....Since I lecture frequently and teach architectural photography at The School of the Art institute of Chicago, it is part of my responsibility to know what the leading arch photographers are doing. I actually teach my class as a digital class, but..... I spend a fair amount of time every year checking on this very subject. I have friends and contacts in this business all over the country that I regularly talk to about this. Of course some are using digital, but the vast majority of the leading professionals are not (and absolutely none that I personally know and some that went that way for awhile have come back to film like Robert Reck who shoots foe AD). You could probably find a great arch photographer using a Diana, but that doesn't change the fact that most are still shooting VCs and film traditionally and scanning.

[Don Miller]

Kirk's feedback is interesting. I can see how ,in that specific niche, the digital bloom is off the rose. I can also see the arch film guys getting sick of explaining "why film" to photographer buddies (especially the young guys). But I still doubt the guys under 50 will make it to retirement without going digital.

"why would you need a laptop for a back"

Because I shoot LF to make big prints. To do that, everything needs to be near perfect. I would not have confidence focusing than little sensor area on ground glass ( 5 x 3.5 cm or about 2 x 1.5 inches ). I would not feel the need to check my work with an H2, however. I would just auto focus, shoot an optimal aperture and then stop down more for a safety shot.

The same focus issue is true with the new high definition video cameras. Where a small LCD was good enough for standard definition, now videographers are finding the need to bring a laptop or larger monitor to ensure a sharp shot. If you had a high def TV several years ago, most shows had shots with missed focus.

As always, if we're talking about work it's "the right tool for the job". If we're talking about some recreational zen thing then it's whatever one believes.

[Kirk Gittings]

"why would you need a laptop for a back"

Because if you are lighting interiors, the display on the back is simply not large enough to figure out the nuances of the lighting. And more over once you download it to the laptop you almost always need to goto a place where the light is subdued to seeit properly.

Shooting first class digital architectural photography is neither quicker nor cheaper than shooting traditional. Anyone who claims they can are simply NOT doing first class work. They are shooting down and dirty. This is true even if you are using the Canon 35 mm digital.