OT: Sinar Hy6

[QT Luong]

The advantage of a MF back over a DSLR is significant improvement in image quality (sort of like going from 35mm to MF, but maybe less).

The advantage of a MF back over a scanning LF back is the quickness and ease of set-up and ability to photograph subjects with motion.

In the digital world, MF is more squished by 35mm (35mm digital is quite good), but on the other hand, the differences in usability between MF and LF are larger, because LF is not one-shot.

High-end commercial jobs run in the 5 figures and often in the 6 figures, so for that amount of money clients prefer to get the best files available, just in case the extra quality is needed. Rental fees for a MF digital system are quite low in comparison to the total budget of a high-end shoot.

As to MF digital making sense economically for the fine art photographer, Charles Cramer writes:

"Over the last three years my expenses for film and processing came to around 60% of a P45 (large format film is expensive!) Although I do my own drum-scans, I contribute to a Tango scanner's maintenance contract to the tune of $2,000 per year. Add those up, and I'm 80% of the way to a P45. "

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, with the MF Digital you do getting a nice clean file with better detail in the shadows and highlights compared to a DSLR. This makes a difference on things like some of the highly detailed, high quality fashion/beauty/cosmetic ads where shooting a 39mp MF is so much nicer than trying to shoot a model with a 4x5. It is going to be so much nicer to her skin than any DSLR, and the raw shot provides a lot more for the retoucher to work with.

Otherwise, I think some food and auto ad photos really benefit from the extended range that the DSLR would clip.

Basically skin, chrome, and delicate highlights are what really benefit...

And if you walk around a big modern US Mall store, some of the banners and large photos are reproduced quite nicely, with a lot of detail, even up close.

BUT yeah, if you're careful I am sure a good photographer could do fine with a D3 or 1DSmk3... a large part is snob appeal and to impress the client. And the big chip gives you a margin of error that helps too. Look at the shots Tyra did on America's Next Top Model using a digital Blad -- the greyscale conversions were top notch.

Hmmm...well, you know I know nothing about digital cameras, but if you are doing a studio shot where you are able to control the lighting ratios, is the "clipping" you mention that important? Seems to me that if you mantain lighting ratios that are within what a dslr can register, then you are home safe.

I don't know, aren't dslrs now at 16 megapixels? Isn't this enough for magazine print quality, even if it is for Vogue?

BTW, if you are watching Tyra and ANTM you are not taking enough pictures..

[Gordon Moat]

I have met Charles Cramer, and he does some quite nice landscape images. My impression was that his primary income is from workshops. In that direction, if you own something more impressive than the average baby boomer who wants to attend one of his workshops, then it might be a bigger draw than stating that you scan film (even on a drum scanner). In other words, I think his move to a MFDB shows a few things: that his business model for fine art prints did not adequately factor the cost of film, and that he saw an opportunity to get more digital shooters into workshops, and lastly the the economics of buying the MFDB were partially justified because it became a form of advertising for his workshops.

I think one of the disappointing aspects of that move was a print I saw of his that had a few pixelation flaws. This was hanging at the Ordover Gallery area of the Museum of Natural History in Balboa Park. Maybe it was honestly missed, a lack or time, or carelessness, or it could have even been bad post processing; or I could be expecting too much (feel free to sling sh*t my direction). Anyway, I find some aspects and claims baffling, despite how nice people are, or their level of talent/recognition.

Sure, a MFDB made in the last three years of so can give you quite a nice image file, and the latest high end D-SLRs can do the same thing. I don't think it is about the gear so much, and I am glad to see the outrageous claims disappearing slowly, and a return to emphasis on the content of the images . . . and not what f*(king over-priced tool you choose . . . the camera does not take itself out an make compelling images.

I stand by the fact that if you can tell what camera, or what post-processing, or any other aspect of technology was used to create an image, then you are losing the magic in the images. Maybe something is obvious to a professional, and not to the average guy on the street, but if you are not making people go wow, at least some of the time, then it makes little difference what gear you are using.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Ben R]

The first thing I noticed when I shot 4X5 in specific comparison to my DSLR's was not resolution but how the resolution was shown, the tonality was incredible and far more 'real' than the compressed data at either end of the spectrum of the DSLR files especially at the limits of resolved detail. Oh did I mention that I was using the same DSLR stitching with the Camera Fusion adaptor for the comparison? It's the same reason that I still prefer my 645 trannies to my 5D, more real estate and resolution means better and far more realistic representation of 3D objects on a 2D medium. I have little doubt that especially with advertising photography this is precisely why those photographers are using MFDB's. It's so easy to tell the store signs and posters shot with a 35mm DSLR, the tonality looks, well, 35mm...

[QT Luong]

This assessment seems unfair to Charles Cramer. To begin with, all his workshops appear to be computer classes, so students won't even see him shooting. Lake Tahoe based landscape photographer Elizabeth Carmel (also represented by Ordover) uses also a 39MP Medium format back, and she hasn't taught any workshop.

[Gordon Moat]

Elizabeth Carmel, who does some very nice images, is sponsored by Hasselblad and Calument Photographic, who pay for her to give short workshops that are free to the public. Her and her husband also own a successful gallery.

I don't see where I was being unfair to Charles Cramer. This is really quite simple: if he makes enough money off his prints to pay for a 39MP MFDB, then I suppose it somehow makes good business sense. The impression I got from him, and others who know him, was a somewhat curious one. It nearly seemed that it was not possible that he was selling enough prints to justify the substantial expenses of his gear. On the other hand, there was quite good indication that he was making very good money off his workshops.

If art photography was treated like a business, then a simple cost to profit analysis would suffice to show where any value might be in using a MFDB, especially at the highest and most expensive level. In a situation where someone has the money for such things, and simply wants to use them regardless of profit potential (or loss), then that is (to me) not a business decision.

None of this detracts from their images. They both produce quite nice work, and are very nice people to talk with about their images. So how is that unfair?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Eric Leppanen]

Short-term economics and workshops notwithstanding, I believe much of the reason Charles Cramer migrated to MFDB was because he honestly felt it would increase the quality and volume of his color landscape work. When I last corresponded with him about nine months ago, he said he was quite content with his P45 setup, and had really not used his 4x5 for the previous year (although he was not ready to sell it quite yet). He felt that, for print sizes up to 24x30", the P45 produces results just a good as 4x5; the small image capture area translates into greater depth of field; and the speed and spontaneity of using zoom lenses on an SLR camera was really addictive. He doesn't shoot architecture, so he doesn't really miss not having rise/fall, and for the infrequent cases where he misses tilt he purchased a used RZ system with P45 and tilt/shift adapters. Also, if I recall a previous discussion with him correctly, previewing his images on the LCD also helps him instantaneously gauge proper shutter speed for dynamic subjects such a running water, whereas with film he would have to bracket several speeds and hope for the best.

Switching to digital capture presumably makes marketing his workshops a bit easier to the legions of DSLR owners in the world. But I think it is unfair to presume that it was the preponderant motivation. I think having a continuing stream of new, high quality work visible in photographic publications and mass media is more far valuable to recruiting students than the specifics of one's capture method.

[QT Luong]

Elizabeth Carmel, who does some very nice images, is sponsored by Hasselblad and Calument Photographic, who pay for her to give short workshops that are free to the public. Her and her husband also own a successful gallery.

I wouldn't call a two hour talk a "short workshop". I attended the last one (see lounge post). To my surprise, she hardly mentioned Hasselblad. An interesting tidbit that I learned was that she almost always shot at f32 (remember the sensor size is smaller than 645, and some in this forum worry about diffraction on 4x5). To suggest that an artist makes equipment choices for marketing reasons rather than for the impact on his work is not necessarily flattering. To me, it makes much sense for a landscape photographer to use MF digital, because it is simply considerably easier to get a good image (and even more so, images) that way.

[Gordon Moat]

I am not questioning the relative quality of images from a MFDB; in fact I have rented a 22MP several times in the past. If one is not making a profit from their photography, and simply has the money to use something like this, then it becomes an expensive hobby. If the intention is to make profit, then it should be handled as a business decision. In that consideration, I seriously doubt if print sales generate enough to justify the substantial expense. The other argument I have heard is one of reducing costs, though in reality if you had not factored film and processing costs into your sales, then the business model was flawed.

So for an art photographer, what is a reasonable justification for buying a MFDB? According to every survey and statistic I have read on professional realms on photography, fine art photographers are the worst paid of all, even lower on the scale than photojournalists (PDN, US Gov., and UK surveys). I will refer back to the long thread on fine art photography on this forum, in which one of the implied/suggested messages was that few were making much of any profit from their endeavors. So how do the statistically lowest paid photographers justify the most expensive equipment?

Also, if any one of these photographers using a MFDB stated absolutely nothing about their gear, then I would not consider it marketing. As soon as you state something about gear, or about process, then it is marketing. If an image was simply hanging in a gallery, without any explanation, then that work can be judged on it's merits (and not process). When training or background come into an artist's statement, then we get a feel for who they are, and perhaps insight to there approach. As soon as gear is mentioned, then it is done to make an impression. There is not a question of right or wrong here, and I only feel my statements would be unfair if an individual was embarrassed by what I wrote.

Anyway, if some of my writing about this subject is such a bad thing, then I will be happy to accommodate changes. I would even be willing to delete the posts I have made in this thread, if anyone requests that. Perhaps I have stepped upon a taboo subject?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Asher Kelman]

Also, if any one of these photographers using a MFDB stated absolutely nothing about their gear, then I would not consider it marketing. As soon as you state something about gear, or about process, then it is marketing. If an image was simply hanging in a gallery, without any explanation, then that work can be judged on it's merits (and not process). When training or background come into an artist's statement, then we get a feel for who they are, and perhaps insight to there approach. As soon as gear is mentioned, then it is done to make an impression. There is not a question of right or wrong here, and I only feel my statements would be unfair if an individual was embarrassed by what I wrote.
Gordon Moat Photography

Gordon,

This last weekend I looked at nearly all the images in the 2008 Photo LA exhibition. The large expensive prints mentioned nothing about the camera used. Just the price, for example, $,7400 and the method printing: C print, Chromagenic print, Archival Pigment Ink or Platinum print.

However, if one asked, the gallery owner generally knew what camera was used.

One artist was making prints from an antique Fuji version of the Kodak box camera I used as a boy. Except for lens it had some sort of window glass it seems! Here prints had an ethereal feel and went for about $1500-$200.

So is all that still marketing?

Asher