"both are slow.... aren't they? "
Compared to what?
the finished or the viewable result on film is many times slower. Especially if one is in the field.
I am speaking of the time required from pushing the shutter to seeing a result.
"both are slow.... aren't they? "
Compared to what?
the finished or the viewable result on film is many times slower. Especially if one is in the field.
I am speaking of the time required from pushing the shutter to seeing a result.
"sure the potential is there but so is the price"
Copared to buying film and processing it?
Digital may be many times cheaper for a heavy shooter. No more film, lab, chemistry costs.
Not to mention the time savings
"sure the potential is there but so is the price"
Copared to buying film and processing it?
Digital may be many times cheaper for a heavy shooter. No more film, lab, chemistry costs.
Not to mention the time savings.
I can never see film being totally phased out in our lifetime..it would not make economic sense for many users and for the makers. As Bob S points out, for heavy shooters, digital potentially can make sense, specially in the studio... however, for field shooters, specially 4x5, the digital backs on mild evenly lit sunset scene are now shot at about 30 minutes exposure times... high noon shots at 10 minutes... many of us complain when we get to 1 second exposure time in LF... can you imagine the number of things that move in 10 minutes... I am not disputing this will not improve, but it would never make sense to dump so much R&D into this area since it represents a small market segement vs. the studio guys who are shooting objects that don't mvoe and use a ton of film, there for, they will cater to them first.... Plus, digital backs for 4x5, are $15k to $30k based on quality of equipmenent...why would many of people make this investment when film works just fine? And the investment would be obsolete in a few years with newer technology... The only thing that may ever threaten LF film makers if all of saw we can accomplish the same end results with say MF system with a reasonable price tag... and a bulk of LF users switch to these backs or systems..... and like all industry changes, the focus is the heavy users in which the new technology benefits the most, hence they are willing to pay the most for it.. unless that cost / convience ratio reaches the remainder of the market, then film will always be around... yes it will happen but my guess is not in the next 30 - 40 years. Economics still is the driving force between allmost all decisions, R&D, market analysis, end user decisions, etc....
< I am not disputing this will not improve, but it would never make sense to dump so much R&D into this area since it represents a small market segement vs. the studio guys who are shooting objects that don't mvoe and use a ton of film,>
How about all those people doing photography of live people, models, portraaits, weddings, sports, news, etc.
While landscape may be the least of the market the other areas are driving the research and when the quality for one is their so will landscape.
<the digital backs on mild evenly lit sunset scene are now shot at about 30 minutes exposure times... high noon shots at 10 minutes.>
Not necessarly so. The kaiser Scando DYNA+ digital camera with a 48mb file size in color, $7995.00 list has an imaging time of appx. 2 to 3 minutes at full resolution and full image area (size of 35mm film).
This size is more then big enough to make a very photrealistic 40 x 60" color print digitally.
But Bob, you must admit, that is still a far cry from 400MB in 1/30 second. But your point is well taken, the wedding /portrait market would definetly be a prime target for fast digital photography, but not that will be limited to 35mm or small, 6x4.5 MF at best... I can't see 400MB in 1/30 second in our life time...
The scanning backs I have seen are working at 2-3 minutes. Much slower than 1/30 sec., but nowhere near 30 minutes.
For what its worth, digital printing has convinced me that the resolution needed for large prints is much less than analog methods suggested... edge contrast matters much more. I have a 20x24 print made at 204 dpi into a LightJet5000 and it is every bit as sharp (actually looks sharper from a reasonable viewing distance) as the same sized print made from the 4x5 original with traditional enlarger technology. This suggests that 4000x5000 pixels will do this sized print, and 6000x7500 will do a 30x40 inch print WITH EQUAL SHARPNESS (which may not even be necessary given viewing distances). So I conclude that a back with 150MB will do virtually anything a field photographer needs. That is a realistic number for reasonable cost and portability within a decade. So, unlike Bill, I fully expect to live to see and use one!
will digital ever be able to touch the subtle change of using a different film developer comb.?I personally dont see a filter in photo shop reproducing say the effect of pyro. but the resolution does seem to be there. A friend who works in a professional lab said he made some tradional prints from 4x5 chromes and then they made the same size print on the lambda which is some machine durst makes for doing photographic prints from digital files. according to him the prints off the lamda were just as good if not better.BUT thats color.there is no lamda that prints fiber base and probably never will be. it will just be a whole new way of doing things and a whole new look. also my friend was moved out of the print department because the demand for traditional prints has dropped signifigantly. josh
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks