Top-end digital concerns

[bglick]

> You ought to take a look at what the movie production studios have been doing. These features made things that people were already doing easier, so obviously it didn't make anything previously impossible suddenly possible.


OK, I should have added.... making these powerful tools available at a price point the avg. photog can afford....i.e. $200 vs. $200M :-) Like most technology, it filters down to mainstream over time, at affordable prices with simple to use interfaces. I would agree, in many ways PS is way behind in certain areas of graphics software...that's what happens when you have no major competitors...

[Rakesh Malik]

OK, I should have added.... making these powerful tools available at a price point the avg. photog can afford....i.e. $200 vs. $200M :-) Like most technology, it filters down to mainstream over time, at affordable prices with simple to use interfaces. I would agree, in many ways PS is way behind in certain areas of graphics software...that's what happens when you have no major competitors...

It's pretty frustrating that there's so little competition for Photoshop, isn't it?

On the bright side, at least there are several competitors for Lightroom floating around.

[Gordon Moat]

> Which brings us back to film. If film is indeed obsolete, as some claim, then it implies that film images are no longer relevant. Taken to an extreme, it further implies that the images of the past, from film, are no longer relevant.


HUH? You can't be serious about this? Who is implying any of this?

I hear or read this on a weekly basis, and that has been going on for many years now. Sad and true. Gladly I am finding people more open minded about this now than I did a few years ago.

> Many things possible in PhotoShop 3 or 5 are now simply faster. In other words, I have seen no digitally manipulated images in the last year which could not have been done with an older version of PhotoShop;


hmmmm... hard to grasp this....

Why? Simply show me an image that could not have been created in PhotoShop 5, and it disproves what I stated.

PhotoMerge, Auto Align Layers / Depth of Field Blending, Content Aware scaling, 3d enhancements.....I could go on and on.... PS is revolutionizing the way we think about Image Capture.... as well as, how we manipulate images.

All productivity changes. Merging, alignment, blending, selective scaling and more could be done starting with PhotoShop 3 and layers. Accurate colour control starting in PhotoShop 5.0. The 3D texture mapping is one of the few changes, though it was possible to control texture maps in PhotoShop 3, and I recall sending those texture maps to Alias Studio many years ago. The biggest change in the 3D realm within PhotoShop is support for file types not previously handled directly in PhotoShop.

The end result is still a flat 2D image. Whether it took longer, or was more difficult for some people in older versions, is a separate aspect. Look, this is progress from Adobe, to make some aspects easier or more accessible, and that is a good evolution of PhotoShop. In some ways that helps, and in other ways it slows down some procedures.

Of course, no software develops a Master Plan. But all the imagination and creativity in the world, won't allow you to reach a given final product, without the proper tools. And it's knowledge of the tools that enables us to imagine "what's possible". It's the same in every craft....the premier craftsman is someone with a mix of creativity and solid understanding of their tools.

Actually, Adobe does have a Master Plan for PhotoShop, and all their other software. I have three friends who work at Adobe, and I hear about things often. Now if you meant something else by that statement, then you lost me on it.

A pencil is an amazingly simple tool, and so is a piece of paper. Yet to truly master those tools can be quite complex, and difficult for some people. In some ways, cameras can be all too simple, and quite easy to master. When the tools do not hinder your creativity, then you have mastered the tools.


"We run into problems when we want to reinforce our choices, or quantify our choices. We can define for ourselves a basket of criteria of needs, then slot an imaging system into those needs, and in that process identify our ideal imaging solution. When that does not hold up is when we try to apply that to others, . . ."

Gordon, I am working hard to understand this...... tell me if I got this right.... you are saying.... some of us, attempt to "reverse engineer" an imaging solution....then we try it, but it fails. This forces us to push the failure onto others.... do I have this right? For what reason would someone do this ?

That's an odd twist on what I stated, and I'm not sure how you managed that, or why.

There is a need amongst some to justify why you made the choices you made (you meaning all people, and not specifically you Mr. Click). Re-inforcement could come from convincing others you made the best choice, or at least a damn good choice. That is not right or wrong.

Suppose I wanted to take photos of dangerous animals in their environment. If I had a really long telephoto lens, it would be far easier than if I only had a wide angle lens. Though if I told someone that "this 6000mm Canikony lens is the best lens ever made", then that claim only works for my specific needs, regardless of data that might show how truly wonderful it performs.

Taken more simply, I have often heard people state how wonderful some particular DSLR or MFDB performed, sometimes even showing you data to prove how great it worked. Taken to an extreme, some people will look at you like a space alien simply for mentioning that you use anything other than the latest technology, as if technology in and of itself was so wonderful that you would need to be a fool (or a space alien) to even consider using something older. In fact, film users, no matter how young, can be often called Old School.

So who is right? Or is there even a need to be right? Why? Why not?

Just because I usually take a Shen-Hao 4x5 to a location for a paid advertising shoot, only use transparency films, and only deliver scanned files, does not mean I think everyone else should do what I do. I have found my ideal imaging solution. I would never suggest that someone else's choice was inferior, nor would I suggest that their choice was superior.



"Drawing and painting are hopelessly obsolete, low resolution, low tech, and at times downright cheap."

IMO, the EXACT opposite is true... Us LF photogs can ONLY dream of the day when a LF print garners the same respect as an oil painting of the same scene.... sad but true... the ratio of galleries in the USA, paintings vs. Photography is probably 500:1 or greater. This speaks volumes on the publics perception of "what is art" .....

Wow, you completely missed my point. How much does a pencil cost? How much is paper? Compared to transparency film and a 4x5 set-up, some oil paints are actually affordable for some people. While a do own several hundred dollars of brushes, painting could be done at a lower cost than large format colour imaging.

There can often be more effort that goes into hand made artwork, but there are also five minute paintings. Oil painting has a far longer history in the world of art, and it is less accessible to the masses to do it themselves. Compare that to many people thinking it is all too easy to pick up a camera.

Now if you take Gursky, Richard Prince, Burtynsky, or a handful of others into the mix, then photography can garner big dollar amounts. These are the exceptions. On a lesser known artist scale, those who paint or sculpt will often get more respect than photographers, and I don't have a problem with that, though that wasn't my original point.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[bglick]

> BG, 10ft prints are not the average size for the average home. But other artists target the wealthy market (eg- Peter Lik with many 3 meter prints).


You are preaching the choir Van.... I have sold many prints 20 ft long... some prints hangin in my home are 11 ft, panoramics. Of course, not everyone shares my love of HUGE prints. Liks long prints are from 6x17.



> When you need that level of quality, large format film is the only choice.

I have some 10 ft stitched DSLR shots that are as nice as anything I have ever produced, which include Seitz 220VR and 4x10" captures. Lots of options today....


Thanks for the APUG link on some of films accolades. good info, although I was a bit dissapointed that Kodak will not release the new Ektar 100 in 8x10...bummer... Also the Fuji 6x7 folder, spring 09...encouraging. I hope they offer it in several fl's.

Its too bad there is not a new, low cost, ($5k ?) LF film scanner of high quality for sale today... maybe up to 8x10, with excellent lenses, high optical dpi and Dmax. Since a scanner is a digital device, I think it could be done... just like HD tv's in 1996 were $15k, now ones 4x better sell for $1500. Scanners will have surely benefitted from the continued advances in digital capture..


> They have a 65mp camera with capability of 50fps, and a 617 digital format (261mp-and 25fps) coming out ini 2010.


Did you see the price tags? Not sure this will sweep the world... high end market will love it.... but not the masses. Can't see a large dent in the market. Your other comments are well received.


While I do agree there is some who don't know how to use a computer, they are dying off. The new generation certainly does, and therefore, IMO, PhotoMerge will slowly make a dent into film, as stitching is such a powerful capture method, simple to merge in PS, no film, no processing, no scanning, scanning fluid fumes, etc. etc. Anyway, just my $.02.... I think we are safe for the near future, then, no one can predict.... AND, there is one big safe-guard if dooms day comes.... deep chest freezers.... film stores very well at 0 deg F! You can store enough to last our life time! So I don't fear the loss of film...

[Don Hutton]

The following comments by Henning Serger...."In the last two years Kodak introduced 11 (!) new or improved films: Portra 160 NC-2, 160 VC-2, 400 NC-2, 400 VC-2, Portra 800 version 3, improved Gold 200 and Gold 400, Portra 400 NC-3 and Portra 400 VC-3, TMY-2, Ektar 100.

I grew up in in the golden analogue days. But I can't remenber a time in the past, when Kodak introduced 11 Films in only two years. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Look back at summer 2006: Anyone here on apug who thougt that Kodak will bring 11 new films to the market in the next two years?http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/...ws-film-4.html

Worth mentioning that, by your logic, they also discontinued 10 films in the past two years two (all the previous iterations of those films, except Ektar 100 which is actually a "new" film altogether).

They also completely discontinued Kodak HIE.

Like yourself though, I'm delighted that they still seem to be throwing money at developing their analogue product line even though I don't see 10 new choices on the shelf - really just the same (except Ektar 100....) with some minor improvements.

[bglick]

The fact ektar 100 will not be in sheets, says something about Kodaks position on LF film sales, right?

[Eric Leppanen]

The fact ektar 100 will not be in sheets, says something about Kodaks position on LF film sales, right?

I wonder about this. I'm not so sure. When Ektar 100 was initially announced I was enthusiastic about it as a possible chrome replacement (I have historically carried both chrome and color neg) if it ever came out in LF sheet sizes. But the primary benefit of color neg film for me is exposure latitude (I use Portra or Pro 160S for high contrast scenes, and use every bit of that -2 to +3 stops of exposure latitude that those films offer), and I noticed that Ektar 100 offers only -1 to +2 stops. So for me, Ektar is a "tweener", occupying a market space between high latitude neg films and chrome. It cannot replace my existing color neg films, and if I'm therefore still stuck with carrying two film types I'd still prefer to carry "high latitude color neg" + chrome, as chrome gives me a wonderful positive image and enables cheaper processing (in my area, E-6 sheet processing is much cheaper and more readily available than C-41) and a much wider choice of digital print labs (many such labs do a fine job with chrome film, but few handle color neg properly).

My take is that Ektar is targeted at the consumer market where folks get their film processed at Costco or Walmart (consumer E-6 processing being long extinct), and want to save money (or avoid anything computer-like) by using that old beater 35mm camera in the closet rather than coughing up for a new digicam. Since LF shooters use pro labs, they do not fit this consumer business model. I have also heard speculation that Ektar was targeted at the Japanese market, where 35mm film retains a larger market share than in other countries, and Fuji does not offer a color saturated neg film.

So if Ektar came out in sheet sizes, I'm not sure many LF photographers would buy it. Perhaps concerns along these lines is holding Kodak back, rather than a lack of belief in the sheet film market (reportedly Kodak has internally tested Ektar in roll and sheet film versions). Then again, maybe I'm not typical...

[Bruce Watson]

The fact ektar 100 will not be in sheets, says something about Kodaks position on LF film sales, right?

Yes it does. To me it says something about how amazingly good 160 and 400 Portra are. The bar is set pretty damn high. From what I read about Ektar 100 so far, it would have a tough time jumping that high.

What Ektar 100 has I don't need or want. Finer grain than 160Portra is meaningless in 5x4 and larger. Really. And the last thing I want or need is "ultra vivid" color. I'm not after clown colors, I want something more real. So yes, I'm using the NC versions of the Portra films.

I think Kodak knows exactly what we LFers want. What Kodak has done for me lately is TMY-2, and the new versions of 160Portra and 400Portra. What more could an LFer want? Holy cats -- life is good! Thank you Kodak!

[Eric Leppanen]

Back to the original topic of this thread...the new crop of 20+ MP DSLR's may finally be prompting the long predicted MF digital price collapse. Take a look at a couple posts from the diglloyd blog, where he concludes that the new Nikon D3x is producing low ISO dynamic range and shadow detail that rivals some MF digital backs:

http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/fre...cks/index.html

In the same blog entry he also notes a new Phase One promotion:

Looks like the increase in DSLR quality and the economy are leading to some extremely aggressive deals in the medium format world...

The latest promotion from PhaseOne: buy a P45+ digital back, and get the camera (Mamiya 645 AFD III) and five lenses which sell (street price) for about US$20,000. There is also a three-lens deal on the P30+.

Note that Phase is doing everything they can to avoid devaluing their franchise digital backs (giving away cameras and lenses instead), but if this trend continues digital back price reductions can't be far behind. The rest of the blog is here: http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html

If this info was coming from just one Nikon enthusiast then I would be skeptical, but I'm getting similar vibes from a variety of sources.

I certainly would hold off making any major MF digital back investments until the smoke clears...

[Bruce Watson]

Back to the original topic of this thread...the new crop of 20+ MP DSLR's may finally be prompting the long predicted MF digital price collapse. Take a look at a couple posts from the diglloyd blog, where he concludes that the new Nikon D3x is producing low ISO dynamic range and shadow detail that rivals some MF digital backs:

http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/fre...cks/index.html

In the same blog entry he also notes a new Phase One promotion:

Looks like the increase in DSLR quality and the economy are leading to some extremely aggressive deals in the medium format world...

The latest promotion from PhaseOne: buy a P45+ digital back, and get the camera (Mamiya 645 AFD III) and five lenses which sell (street price) for about US$20,000. There is also a three-lens deal on the P30+.

Note that Phase is doing everything they can to avoid devaluing their franchise digital backs (giving away cameras and lenses instead), but if this trend continues digital back price reductions can't be far behind. The rest of the blog is here: http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html

If this info was coming from just one Nikon enthusiast then I would be skeptical, but I'm getting similar vibes from a variety of sources.

I certainly would hold off making any major MF digital back investments until the smoke clears...

One would think that PhaseOne is in the midst of it's own "perfect storm" of rising DSLR capability and a huge economic downturn at the same time. I'm glad I'm not the CEO responsible.