High-End Digital Vs. 4x5 Film

[Gordon Moat]

A few interesting aspects about this: All those guys are more workshop oriented than professional photographer. It gets stated too often about the cost of film, but in a proper professional billing environment, that expense is paid by the client, either directly, or it is included in the overall fees. The same goes for drum scanning. Seriously, film is a zero cost item for me; I don't see why anyone else would eat the cost of film and processing in commercial imaging.

Drum scanning is a huge bag of worms. The cost can easily be billed out directly, or someone could take that same $30k that was mentioned and buy a nice drum scanner, or even a high end flat scanner. Anyone with a film catalogue of years of images is not likely to throw out all their old film, even if they thought a digital back was the best idea since holes in Swiss cheese. A Heidelberg Tango is now over seven years old; I even saw a couple sell recently for under $8k (complete and working, including dedicated computer). That Aztek is better, but not by much; want the latest in drum scanners, find an ICG; with the qualification that any scanner is operator dependant, so results will vary. High end flatbed Creo, Screen, and Fujifilm scanners come super close to matching many drum scans.

I guess if anything really bothers me about these comparisons, it is the implied message that you must have some form of digital capture. People use to be able to get really nice looking images, either chemical based or published, starting with film capture. I don't think that has changed. Anyone who got nice images in the past from 4x5 should not have much reason to not get nice images today. Basically, if you cannot create compelling images, then maybe it is not the camera, nor the form of capture (digital .vs. film, choice of film, et al).

Last item is digital capture as pacifier. There is a certain doubt everytime the shutter is released. Despite the best and most careful set-up, lots of thought into composition, or even long time of contemplation, the reality remains that what you just exposed to film might be boring, or just so-so. That digital back, tethered system, or any preview of that careful set-up you hope makes a compelling image, is the pacifier. Some people will find this works better for them; they can shoot with more confidence because some slight doubt is removed. Those without good editing skills, or those somewhat unsure about editing choices, can use the preview. Obviously, such use of digital capture is mostly a digital Polaroid. I think that while some will greatly appreciate this approach, and thrive with it, this is more something that alleviates doubt, rather than a path to greatness.

Simple approach to all this:
Creativity should not be technology, nor economically, limited.
Film allows plenty of room for profits in commercial imaging today, unless you have a bad invoicing system.
Digital capture is faster, and can sometimes alleviate doubts.
Not all of us have a question/problem that digital capture answers.
The bleeding edge of technology is expensive, and turnover rate is high.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

[Gregory Gomez]

Excellent! It's good to see that digital cameras and backs are making steady improvements.

I work with digitally produced images on a daily basis from medium format cameras that use $25,000 digital backs, and they are quite good. Also, if I were a professional photographer shooting $20,000 worth of film each year, it would make sense for me to be thinking very seriously about using a digital back with a medium format camera.

However, I am an armature photographer with aspirations of producing high-quality images in low quantities. So the test results shared here, while interesting, are of no use to me.

Until I can buy a digital back for my view camera that produces the same quality presented in the test for no more than $2,000 and then print superlative 11x14-inch silver-gelatin prints using a desktop printer costing no more than $2,000, I am not really interested.

But thanks for sharing anyway.

[Jim collum]

I wouldn't either. There are just too many variables to do a valid comparison. For example, what developer was used to process the film? Fuji or Kodak. It does make a different. What contrast range was used in the test? Film resolves higher at higher contrasts (ever notice that MR comparisons are fairly flat). What scanner was used and how was it scanned? Single pass or multiple pass scanning, single sample or multiple sampling. Hiow has the generational loss between an already digital file (from the scanning back) and the film scan been taken into account? How about the loss when resizing for the web? Remember, when you resize the image from the film scan, you are essentially throwing away most of the information available in the scan - it isn't as big a problem for digital. MR's comparions are just plain BS.

Michael Reichman may not have a lot of experience in the 4x5 arena, but Bill Atkinson and Charles Cramer are two of the foremost photographic technicians in the film community today. Not only that, but there are few around today who can put the detail onto film that Charlie can. This isn't a case of someone with a "predetermined let's show digital in the best light" agenda.

[Jim collum]

... the scanner was a Tango Heidelberg drum scanner

[QT Luong]

Whether the P45 is slightly better, as good as 4x5 with a given scanner, or slightly inferior, is mostly irrelevant. What matters is that it does offer a rather comparable image quality in a vastly different workflow that some find more productive for them.

[roteague]

Bill Atkinson and Charles Cramer are two of the foremost photographic technicians in the film community today.

Yes, and I sure their scientific credentials are known world wide....

[Frank Petronio]

It's hard to argue about Bill Atkinson's credentials. He is one of the fellows most responsible for that glowing screen you're sitting in front of. My bet is he knows his way around the "scienctific method".

[Doug Dolde]

A few interesting aspects about this: All those guys are more workshop oriented than professional photographer.

That may be true if you are speaking of Reichmann and his sidekick Chris Sanderson.

But where have you been hiding to say that about Charles Cramer or Bill Atkinson?

[Marko]

Not really, I logged in fresh, went straight to this column, read Frank's post and clicked on the picture.

It gave me the login dialog but then kept coming back to it in a loop. As if it did not recognize my id. When I went back (using browser back button) to the post, I was still logged in.

[Scott Fleming]

To be fair to Mr. Reichmann ... he is providing a DVD with all the raw files for anyone who is interested at nominal cost.