I can't quite understand the interest in using a medium-format digital back on a 4x5 view camera? I have a scanning-back for 4x5, and that seems more attuned to the functionality of a 4x5 view.
I can't quite understand the interest in using a medium-format digital back on a 4x5 view camera? I have a scanning-back for 4x5, and that seems more attuned to the functionality of a 4x5 view.
Fair enough comment. I may be wrong but what I would hope to get out of it is the ability to move the lens and take advantage of the sever tilt and shifts that can be obtained by a view camera.Originally Posted by Gene McCluney
I was going to move to film but after seeing the chromogenic prints from some truly amazing photographers that were shot on film then scanned it changed my mind. The prints I get from the Imacon back I found printed substantially cleaner. I am sure you find the same with your scan back. I think now that professional printers have moved to digital the work flow is demanding digital capture as well. Am I opening a big can of worms here?
If you use the extreme wide angle lens required to give a reasonable field of view on a 4.5 x 6 cm digital chip, you will still be restricted in movements due to the camera being very compressed. Otherwise, the normal and slightly long focal length lenses normally used for 4x5 will become extreme telephoto lenses. Some digital backs have "issues" with a form of color fringing and vignetting if the lens is off-center, due to the micro-lenses of the chip.
A 4x5 color transparency is hard to beat for mural-sized quality, and you can take full advantage of your cameras capability. Many people (including myself) have adopted a hybrid workflow for color and b/w, shooting on film, and scanning and printing by inkjet.
I absolutely do not believe that modern photography demands digital capture, rather the industry has become accustomed to the short turnaround provided by digital, and expects that speed from all projects. If you have in-house film processing and scanning, as I do, then the time differential is insignificant.
There is no digital back that can capture the amount of detail possible with a 5x7 or 8x10 camera and well exposed and processed film.
Since the scanning-back I have requires constant light, and takes up to 3 minutes to scan the scene, it is a specialized studio tool for still-life and products only, and can not take the place of film for general photography.
I certainly in theory agree with what you are saying.
I just took part in a photography festival and had my first gallery solo show. All my images were captured digitally with both my Blad and stitched DSLR. My prints ranged from 17"x17" with many 7' plus and one that was 14.5'x14.5' all prints were chromogenic done with a Oce Lightjet Printer. I was excited to see work done by a few large format photographers that were also featured for the festival. I was very disappointed with the quality of prints form the LF film prints. The LF prints were also printed on a chromogenic printer. I did compare the prints with my printer and she explained that when scanning film that the scanner also picks up the film grain and that is what we were seeing in the final prints.
I am still open to going film just now need to see the benefit. So it seems back to the back on a LF camera.
Till RED come out with the Epic 617 pro! And I have enough pocket change to get one!
Sounds like poor scanning technique, though it can also depend upon the film used. I have never had film grain show up in prints from 4x5 Kodak E100VS and Fuji Astia 100F, but maybe that's just my luck. Anyway, if your path of least resistance to better prints goes through a digital back, then you have found an ideal solution for you. Every once in a while, there are some EBAY sellers with Graflock to Hasselblad adapters for 4x5 cameras; that might be a solution for you.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
If you are planning on only using your Imacon on a 4x5 camera I would seriously consider the Arca Swiss 6x9 F-Compact Metric with M/Orbix, the latter function providing very fine adjustment which you would need for digital capture. I tested one recently and was very impressed with the functionality and quality. If I could afford it I'd have one over any other alternative out there.
If you plan to use 4x5 film as well then disregard what I said above. I have an Ebony but the way they are constructed limits the weight you can put on the back (it will flex back a little which means the image on the sensor is not completely face on) and adjustment is a lot cruder, especially if you want to take shots to stitch together. My experience of other brands is poor but I guess they would need to be sturdy and have the ability to make fine adjustments.
Cheers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks