Heresy?

[Don Kellogg]

I know that it's insanely expensive but I've been thinking of taking the jump into a quality digital back for my Hasselblad equipment. I have followed Charlie Cramer's odyssey with interest from large format to a Phase One P45 back on medium format equipment. He feels that he can get "near" large format quality (up to 30" x40" prints)
with his digital equipment. I have the highest repect for Charlie and perhaps he is onto something. I've always thought that large format was the "gold standard" and it probably still is but his results have starting me thinking. It sure would be nice to get immediate gratification. Any suggestions as to equipment? Comments? Be kind.

[BrianShaw]

No, it's not heresy. If it works for you, or you want to see if it works for you, then go ahead. I'm sure you'll be welcomed back by LF if your foray into Digi-MF doesn't work to your satisfaction. Personally, I kinda' wonder if I'd like photography any more by having 'immediate' feedback, but I still can't justify spending lots and lots of money on a MF digital back.

[Jack Flesher]

I have looked at the Phase P45, Leaf Aptus 75 and the new Hassy/Imacon 39 and would agree with Charlie's assessments on image quality -- they are all on par with drum-scanned 4x5. I'd add that in many cases image quality is better than scanned 4x5 due to significantly less noise (grain in digital parlance) and greater dynamic range.

The negatives are:

1) Cost. I estimate about $40,000 US by the time you buy the back, peripherals, MF camera and lenses. This of course assumes you already own a high-powered desktop computer and lots of storage space to process and store the huge files these backs generate -- add at least another $5,000 US if you don't. If you want full functionality in the field, add in another $2500 US for a good high-powered laptop. Or just figure $50,000 US for everything and you'd be well set.

2) Difficulty of use on a view camera. All of the issues of using a view camera get magnified as you move to smaller formats and these sensors are all roughly 36mm x 48mm in size -- smaller than 645 format...

2a) Additionally, the P45 seems to have color-shift issues when lenses are shifted on it and requires the user to take a "white subtraction frame" for every shifted or tilted image. This obviously adds to set-up/shoot times and complexity.

2b) Cost. Add in more $$$ for the new set of shorter focal "digital specific" view camera lenses you need to render "normal" views on the small sensor.

3) Lack of ultra-wide and tilt-shift lenses on the MF cameras the backs are designed for, though Hassy has indicated they will offer "some" TS lenses and a 28mm ultrawide in the near future for their closed H3D-39 system.

If money were no object, I would probably look seriously at the H3D-39, four lenses and the adapter to use that back on my Arca view camera (add another $2500 US for the adapter). Since money is an object for me, I continue to shoot 4x5 and scan or simply accept the files from my DSLR when I need instant feedback or quick turnaround.

A side note on costs. I shoot readyloads with 4x5 and pay to have a lab process my chromes and negs. Total cost is about $7 US per frame, drum scans are $45. I guess if one shot on the order of 1,500 4x5 frames per year and scanned 100, they could justify going MF digital since they'd break even on costs associated with each system in about three years...

My .02 only and YMMV,

[Brian Ellis]

I've never considered a digital back because of the expense so I know little about them. I also have little interest in reading about digital SLRs though I use my Canon 5D quite a lot so I'm not up on the latest stuff. However, I've seen rumors and discussion in other forums about the next round of Canon (and probably other) digital SLRs, rumors of 20mps and that sort of thing for under $5000. These are rumors only and I know there's more to digital cameras than the number of megapixels. Still, if it were me I'd at least wait to see what happens with the next round of higher end SLRs before plunking down $50,000 or so for a digital back and related gear.

[Jack Flesher]

PS: It's just been brought to my attention that 600 MB drum scans are now running over $100, so adjust my numbers above to 50 or so scans per year

Sorry,

[GPS]

Instant gratification is your temptation? Hmm. On the laptop screen, yes. If you want to translate this unsatisfying even if instant gratification to a satisfying print add to it hrs in front of a computer until the instant gratification becomes just a constant PITA, quite literally. That's how I see it.

[Marko]

Heresy? Only if you take photography as a religion of sorts.

Otherwise, exactly what Jack said.

And yes, as GPS pointed out, you should also be aware that going digital may well replace hours in the dark, smelly room with hours in front of the computer. Good photos don't just happen no matter which method you use, so it ultimately comes down to how you prefer to spend the production time.

[Dan Fromm]

Perhaps not heresy. You might want to read what Emmanual Bigler has to say on digital vs. film. Look here: http://www.galerie-photo.com/film-co...esolution.html and understand that so far he's published only the first part of a longer essay.

[GPS]

A good article, surely. Only once and marginally does he touch the ominous problem of the storage though. Thus the "immediate gratification" can translate into quite an "instantaneous" gratification after some time...

[Gordon Moat]

I don't get the instant gratification concept. However, I can understand some anxiety about results with film, and in some ways a quick view of final results can alleviate some anxiety. The ground glass is already one preview, strangely enough larger than most LCD displays on digital backs. Another preview for film users is a Polaroid. Anyway, I suppose there is some magic attraction to seeing it happen faster.

Similar to what Jack Flesher mentions, I and several other photographers I know have also ran the numbers. If you have lots of disposable income, then it might not be an issue. If it is commercial photography (not high volume product photography), then it is a business decision, and time is also a factor because you are effectively becoming the lab (RAW processing, post production, etc.). That three year time frame Jack mentioned is also a good time period. When I ran the numbers, the only way I could make it work would be to rent such a back to other photographers. After I saw that, it made more sense to rent a digital back from a company, rather than purchase one. So you might want to look into rental options prior to spending a very large chunk of money.

Just to point out the comparison with darkrooms, I drop off my film at a lab. Then after three hours when I pick it up, I edit the results to decide what to show each client. After that the frames that need to be scanned go back to the lab, or a service bureau, and the rest is post processing (if needed) and delivery (FTP, CD-R, DVD-R). With fine art photography, there might not be much reason to rush, so time elements are more relaxed; decide how quickly you need results or prints.

If you intend to run workshops that are heavily PhotoShop or post processing biased, you might be viewed at a higher credibility level if you own a high end D-SLR, or if you own a medium format digital back. In such situations, your workshops would very likely bring in more income that sales of fine art photography. As has been mentioned often, fine art photography is speculative; I think it would be foolish to continue at it for long without some profit, unless you had lots of disposable income.

On the potential of future sensor development, I think it should not be difficult to imagine 24mm by 36mm (or near that) sensors in the range of 20MP to 24MP. This would mean a small pixel cell site size, though imply a true optical resolution capability of near 60 lp/mm; imagine a Nikon D2X pixel size with a full frame 24mm by 36mm sensor. Medium format digital backs have an advantage on larger physical cell site sizes, which are more efficient at capturing photons, hence the often cleaner (less noise) results. While the MegaPixels might be similar, if you actually compared a 22 MP D-SLR to a 22 MP digital back (in theory), you might find the tonal quality better from the physically larger sensor; in other words don't fixate on the MegaPixels, or you will miss the important differences.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio