digital backs

[Richard Kelham]

"Canon 1DS with TSe lens... try yhe 24 with full movements, and a very contrast atmosphere... Digital back on my arca ? just think about the dust... and the size of the sensor... Smaller the sensor is, shorter the wide angle lens have to be... at the end, no room for movements, and a very tiny image on the ground glass !"

Silvestri? Sinar Monobloc (or whatever it's called), the new Linhof. Plenty of other options out there for serious architectural photography that would blow away the amateurs with their Canons.

(my Bank Manager and I are very glad I don't have to do this for a living any more!)

[Frank Petronio]

There are successful architectural photographers shooting the 22 and 39 mp backs on dedicated wide angle cameras like the Cambo DS, Alpa, and Silvestri. I am sure a BUSY professonal working on higher end stuff (Miami, major stuff) can and do justify it.

This guy does just fine with high end digital. He says he uses all the best stuff - Digitars, several camera bodies, 39mp Leafs, and a full Canon system for snaps.

Whether you can do as well in a smaller market and less impressive clients/subjects is really the question, not whether digital is viable for high quality architectural photography.

My hunch is that film will serve you well until you reach a higher critical mass and are competing on your reputation, not the price of commodities like film or digital proc. fees.

And I also know that pros like Tim Griffith shot a ton of film before they ever touched a digital camera...

[simon warren]

Hi Guys

Thanks for all the interesting information. If any of you ever come to London let me know and I will show you around.

Cheers Simon("Nearly Digital Warren")

Check out my site to see what stuff I have been up to. www.simonwarren.com

[Jonathan_6488]

I'm an architectural photographer also. I was fussing over the same issue myself a few years back but ultimately came to the conclusion that, since I would need a 200MB file to get equivalent quality to 4x5 - that the technology does not exist that would give me acceptable quality (despite the fact that you don't need anywhere that much for MOST purposes (inkjet 8x10s for example). Also - I would need to carry around a laptop and god knows what cabling and battery backups which would SEVERELY limit my ability to get shots. Who needs it? I tell my clients. Sorry - I only shoot film. I'm not interested in compromising on image quality. If the client want to have the originals scanned - that's fine - they can borrow them. Or I'll do it for them. I may, on occasion, provide the client with my own digital scans - but I don't like the idea of them expecting it.

[Frank Petronio]

Over at the debatable Luminous Landscape there is a pretty convincing article that argues that the newest generation of 39mp backs surpasses 4x5 film. A laptop would be required only if you needed to proof. Frankly, I think some of the 22mp backs are as good or better than 4x5 in practice, unless you make some pretty wonderful 4x5 scans on top-end equipment. From a sheer quality point of view, my hunch (not tested) a 30x40 inch inkjet from a 22mp back will likely be nicer and more detailed than a 4x5 scanned on a flatbed and printed the same size. That would be a good real world test, since most of us aren't scanning on high end scanners.

But it sounds like clients that aren't willing to pay for scans won't be concerned about getting increased quality -- if you have to compete against guys with digital SLRs then your problem is more about marketing than technique.

BTW, I enjoyed visiting your website and seeing your fine work. I think you need to base your marketing on quality, not price, as your skills and talent are excellent. It's a shame they aren't obvious to your clients, but i think you may need more upmarket clients.

[John Brownlow]

I've seen 24x30 prints from both 22MP backs and well-scanned 4x5 (Imacon) and the 4x5 beats the 22MP hands down.

The difference is night and day. The digital stuff looks good until you get up close, and then you realize there is no grain-sniffing detail. At 24x30 the 4x5 is holding the finest detail. And I'm talking 400 ISO film here too.

39MP is probably somewhat closer.

Anyone who wants to can go into Vistek in Toronto and see a bunch of 22MP images printed out on their 7800. Look at Reichmann's brickworks shot or the big jazz portrait. They look nice until you get up close.

[Ted Harris]

I've been following this thread with interest. Now to add a bit to wht John said. Well scanned is the key and scanning a 4x5 transparency with an Imacon, when you are presenting your image to a demanding client who wants to examine it closey is only the beginning. All too often when we discuss scanning we tend to think in terms of the results from a 4990 or even an 1800f. IMO an Imacon is not all that much better but is jus the next step up the line. Sticking only with scanners currently being manufactured you have the entire range of flatbed scanners from Kodak/Creo, the Screen Cezanne and the drum scanners from Aztec, ICG and Screen; not to mention all the now discontinued high-end products that many of us use. The point being that any of these will produce a final image that is far superior to anything a digital backis likely to be able to produce for many many years.

I am not suggesting thta anyone run out and purchase a $25,000 to $50,000 scanner tomorrow but most are available used at half their new price or less and you can always go service bureau you know and trust for the scans when you need them. OTOH, the cost of the scanner is not likely to be more than the cost of the backs we are discussing and will give you better images so why not consider buying one. Again,, these are items that come available at decent prices on the used market. A caveaat, be cautious when buying used and buy from a used source. In a discussion yesterday I learned that the number of serious repairs (read expensive) required of units purchased on eBay (read very cheap) is three or four times that of units purchased from known sources.

[John Brownlow]

All too often when we discuss scanning we tend to think in terms of the results from a 4990 or even an 1800f. IMO an Imacon is not all that much better but is jus the next step up the line.

I gotta disagree with you here. Although the Imacon resolution is not fantastic (2000 ppi or so), the scans are beautiful. There is a huge world of difference between an Imacon and 4990 scan.

[Ted Harris]

John, we don't disagree. I am just trying to point out that as much beeter as the results from an Imacon are they are still not close to the top end scanners.

[Frank Petronio]

The real world difference between an Imacon and a "top end scanner" has never been tested or proven to me. I've learned enough techniques - from combining multiple scans and making other adjustments - with my 4990 and Imacon scans -- that the notion of sending film off to be generically drum scanned by an operator who doesn't see what I see hardly makes sense to me.

Ultimately it would be ideal to become "intimate" with a high end drum scanner (carefully though, at 5000 rpm). But reality keeps us apart... love is a bitch!

In other words, the skill and concern of the person doing the scanning is the critical factor. I rather have a carefully made scan from a 4990 than a generic production line scan from a Tango. So Praus's Imacon is the next best thing for me ;-)