The truth about LF digital?

[Jim Chinn]

Greetings,

I want to discuss a gripe I have with how digital for the large format realm is presented in various publications such as View Camera, Camera Arts, Phototechniq ues etc.

From what I understand there are a variety of ways to achieve a fine print using digital technology. These are using desktop printers and scanning film to produ ce inkjet prints, desktop scan of negs and reproduction of larger negs for conta ct printing, drum scanning negs and printing from file, drum scan and make dupe neg in larger format for contact printing, drum scan and have the neg printed vi a lightjet or simial technology, or using a digital back omitting film altogheth er.

The problem I have is I have seen work produced via desktop methods using epson 3000 printers and various aftermarket inksets and software and they do not match up to equivalent silver or platinum, not to mention the inability to produce si zes over 16x20.

Those other methods as proposed by photographers such a Chip Forelli, Charles Cr amer, Huntington Witherill, Howard Schaub etc are astronomically expensive. I b elieve in a previous issue of View Camera Forelli stated that it costs almost $5 00 to get a negative for printing, and that others propose drum scan (40$ per sc an) and then digitally output a larger neg ($40-$60 per neg). I have not seen an y of these gentleman's prints in person, but I have read in other posts that the y are only equal to the best B&W prints. I understand that Cramer's work is inc redible but costs are also in the several hundreds of dollars.

My beef is with the fact that these methods and technologies are thrown around a s if we are all going to take out second mortgages in order to go digital and pr oduce the same quality of print, with less permanence than we already acheive.

Does it irk you that these articles never discuss the negatives of digital while only espousing the virtues? I remeber reading a review by one of the above tha t discussed printers, saying that he had a closet full of printers but the newes t (at that time) epson was probably the last he would need to purchase. Of cour s untill it breaks down after the warranty runs out or the next last one comes o ut. I don't know about you, the last time i looked in the closet it was not ful l of discarded enlargers, just film and paper.

I am not a silver junkie. I believe digital will be part of the future of LF. But why can't the articles inlude the costs of digital method vs the quality of the final product. Can I afford one of the better epson scanners and quadtone i nks or whatever the flavor of the month is, yes. But what is the point if the q uality is poorer then my silver prints. Some will argue that their prints are b etter then silver, but I would argue they have not achieved the level of craft t hey are capable of with traditional materials. Maybe the high dollar technologi es are superior, and I understand the need to discuss them, especially for profe ssionals.

Maybe the ability to achieve the highest quality with digital means only an elit e few will be able to get those results. The beauty of traditional LF is that I can use the same tools and materials, (and I literally mean same tools and mate rials) and the only hinderance to making equal or better prints is my ability. In some cases those tools are less expensive for me now then they were for them 50yrs ago.

Alright, done with the rant. My question is do you think we need more honest di scussions about digital in the LF realm? Would it not be a benefit to everyone to know the costs and quality issues of various technologies. Am I being cynica l to suggest that some of the hype is designed to sell printers and scanners to photographers hoping for great results only to be disappointed when they don't e qual the more expensive technologies?

Take it or leave it, would like to see any comments you may have.

[Jim Chinn]

Like to make a clarification to the previous post. Towards the end I talk about using "the same tools and materials". It should read "using the same tools and materials as the greatest photographers of all time." I apologize for my dreadful proof reading.

[M.]

Imagine yourself in the 1850s. You are a successful Degarreotype photographer, and all the magazines are full of articles about Fox- Talbot's negative/positive process. You could make more than one print from each "negative." There are some predictions that perhaps some day you may be able to make negatives with dry plates so you don't have to coat them in the darkroom before the photo session. Some crazy author even claims that someday you will be able to make enlargements from the negatives, rather than print only the same size as the original. So what, you say -- have you seen the pittiful lack of detail compared with the best Degarrotypes? This is an analagous situation with wet vs Digital photography at this time.

[Marcus Leonard]

The grain size of a good film may be of the order of a few microns. The pixel size on a CCD is orders of magnitude larger. Scaling the CDD and the negative to the same size, one sees that film captures a much larger amount of data, especially so our beloved LF. So the departure point, at present day technology, does not look good for digital, although it may approve. For small prints, this hardly matters because paper simply cannot store as much data as film. For large prints the difference is obvious. LF has two selling points: detail and movements. If you are in it for the former, chemical beats digital at this point in time.

[Michael Chmilar]

I have taken the course offered by Charles Cramer and Bill Atkinson, to learn "Digital Printing for the Fine Art Photographer", so I can offer a synopsis of the costs involved.

Drum scan of 4x5 film (I have been using West Coast Imaging. Their Tango operator, Jeff Grandy, delivers a truly outstanding scan): $79.95 for a 300MB file. This is sufficient to print at large size (40x50). This is a one-time cost for each image.

LightJet Prints (done by Calypso): $39.60 for one 22x26 print (20x24 image size, with one inch white border).

So, first print is $120.00 in service bureau fees. Tax and shipping pushes it up to $150. For additional prints, subtract the scanning cost.

Of course, you also need a computer, monitor, calibration system, and Photoshop. This is a one time fee for all images, unless you are upgrade crazy. You can use the same computer for many other hobbies (digital video, online shopping, bookkeeping, email, etc.).

The cost of Bill and Charlie's course: $795 (includes a Tango scan and a 20x24 print). When you leave, you will be able to produce fine-quality color prints.

The quality is identical to having a color print made traditionally on Fuji Crystal Archive paper, as this is what the LightJet uses.

For bw, I have this setup:

Heidelberg LinoScan 1450 scanner. One time cost: $730. This scanner is sufficient to print at 16x20, but no larger.

Epson 1160 printer: $200. One time. (Max paper size 13x19.)

PiezographyBW with continuous ink system: $665. One time.

After the $1600, the cost per print is very low: just the cost of the paper and ink.

Quality and comparison of PiezographyBW prints with traditional is an ongoing subject.

I hope this helps to give concrete examples of the exact cost of doing prints the digital way.

[kthompson]

true..only daugerrotypes were rather expensive compared to other forms that followed like ambrotypes, ferrotypes, etc....maybe it was the albumen print that did it in...all the same it came down to cost & the ability to mass market the results. Only with a LF scan or capture back, they are _really_ out there in price unless you are in a commercial setting that can justify this expense...I doubt the average user of this forum--which seems to be very fine-art oriented--fits the bill here....we've been looking at these backs since 1996 or so for our in-house studio, and the actual expense of the back is one thing (the first ones I looked at were dicomeds--phew, talk about pricey...), but then there's EVERYTHING else....the whole nine yards....if it's not workflow & storage issues, there's the compromises of the back designs...you're not looking at simply adapting a current system to this stuff, you practically have to start over again from the ground up....very hard to do when you're sitting in a studio that's all paid for and works okay....

I hear you though on your rant...I work in an in-house facility for a largish state history museum....it's a scary time for us in a way...our peers in the "outside world": the commercial shooters, are all ditching 4x5 and heading for the digital slrs...we're sitting on a large working neg file, and have access to some 1.5 million LF negs, including nitrate & everything else up to 11x14 or so, and dating back to civ war era times....about half the folks around me are saying "you need to go digital"....just because they think they can just press a button and we can cut down on material costs....they think a floppy disc storing camera is a substitute for a full studio and in-house 4x5 lab in both b&w and E6.....groan....it's out there and it's coming our way......it's the monster know as digital mutated with desktop publishing and consumer point-n-shooters. Everybody's an expert....(present company excluded of course!)

So...our solution? To start planning and begging now to ditch the wet lab, save the money we spend on service contracts for the wet processors and parts, and materials...and go for dedicated film scanners and a Pictro printer.....BUT still shoot film. It's the perfect storage medium, shoot it, run it and throw it in a drawer in safe storage...no migration issues, it's there and you don't need electricity to view it....

But as to your question? Well, depends upon who the users of this forum are...personally, I'm interested in keeping up with that stuff because I don't want to be out of job in 5 yrs. time...but for the individual shooter of LF? Forget it.....it's all marketing hype, if you're a millionaire--okay--but if you can't make up the money you invested on a back in a job or two, you don't need one. It's not even remotely close to the same experience...we looked at the new Leaf C-Most back recently and it was incredible, the quality of a raw file...the ease of the interface, and all that, even the price. But to fit this thing on a 4x5 was anything but great. More compromises. You'd need one of those small 2-1/4 views to use the thing, but then add another 4K to the price tag there, and then new lenses to boot....and yet, some big museums are using these things already...and it's surprising the number of museums in this country that have ditched their wetlabs too....people seem to love to praise the "archival-ness" here of fiber (I know I've been on a year long rant against this, forgive me, but I see the irony in it coming from another community so to speak), and yet these big, big museums up in DC are churning out RC prints, and now are doing dye-subs and even selling inkjets to patrons....they don't claim them to be archival, and neither do we, but then that doesn't stop them from using cheaper and more cost-effective materials like their counterparts in the "outside world"....

ahh, now I feel MY rant coming on....but I do wish you all would shoot film and lots of it. keep it in production, becuase the pros won't.....as always, MY OPINIONS ONLY.

[Jeff Buckels]

Response to bmitch: Actually, it's not clear whether the present film and digital situation is analogous to the old daguerre and pos/neg situation. Only time will tell if digital really will drive film out altogether. There are some reasons noted in the previous responses to think this will not happen. I suspect the two will coexist for my lifetime, anyhow. I'm fairly sure film will remain in use by some group, no matter how large or small. We still have (again have, really) platinum and other archaic processes, including daguerrotyping, even though these processes were overwhelmed by silver printing and pos/neg respectively. There's a good reason for that, too: Platinum printing does things no other process can do. Period. This is even true of daguerrotyping, which to this day produces the most brilliant type of photographic image ever achieved. -jeff buckels (albuquerque)

[chris jordan]

Hello James. I too hate the front-end costs of digital printing, but for me the quality makes it work it. My printing method starts with a 16-bit drum scan made on a Tango, which costs more than a hundred dollars per image. Multiply that times about 120 images so far, and the scanning cost is pretty astronomical. But, when I consider the expense I incurred to get those 120 4x5 transparencies, in terms of money on equipment and processing and wasted film and travel expenses, not to mention the TIME investment, etc., then the additional marginal cost of a 600 MB drum scan actually isn't that significant. My personal aesthetic about printing is that this is the ONE thing in the world that I don't have to compromise about, so I'm taking the highest possible road, regardless of the cost. And maybe sometime when I'm in my 70's or 80's, I might even turn my first dollar of "profit" from my photography...

~chris jordan (Seattle)

www.chrisjordanphoto.com

[M.]

I guess that I failed to make my point. Despite the almost immediate replacement of Daugerrotype photography, it took almost another 50 years before the negative/positive process actually began to live up to its potential, and approach the quality of Daugerrotypes. (Also to point out one of the truisms of photography: "It is impossible to spell Daguerre correctly." Probably a quote from St. Ansel, or David Vestal, or someone really clever like Eliott Erwitt.)

[kthompson]

I'll admit they're absolutely stunning, we have quite a few in our collection, but the tintypes did them in more than anything....tintypes were around for like 50-60 years almost and were dirt cheap & easy to produce in comparison. Yet they were a poor substitute for those cased images....

As for the LOC, well they're straddling the fence so to speak...all those places up in DC--the Smithsonian, NARA and the LOC are _all_, and have been for longer than most places in the commmercial world, dabbling in digitization projects. Just ask NARA about their program using the big laserdisc storage medium in the early 90's....or the LOC on the workflow of the American Memory Project....or ask the Air & Space Museum about the "paper prints"--inkjets they offer to patrons now, or the dye-subs they make for the SITES traveling exhibits...or NARA's use of lightjet type c-prints for their exhibitry as well....not much different than my museum--using RC prints and now, we too, use lightjet output for murals etc. Even the LOC offers a pretty wide range of RC materials on their Photo Services list....of course, they're one of the few places left in this country that still offer an "archival" fiber print, but then you have to pay about 3 times as much for it as well...but, it's the LOC, I actually believe it would be a great fiber print. NARA doesn't offer fiber prints right off the bat, either...most of their vendors use RC paper for patrons. There's at least one branch of the Smithsonian that uses digital capture as well....so like I was saying on the other thread, museums & archives are split up into different working groups and disciplines....and they just about all have a function that's similar to more commercial lab/service bureau as well. Nobody in these institutions will claim that an inkjet or an RC print is a longlasting medium, but that won't stop them from using the stuff on a daily basis either. If you wanted to get cynical & sarcastic with your questions ( I wouldn't advocate this & hate to bring it up--really), you could start asking questions about microfilm projects. As to what medium is archival, is always in flux...because you never know really until it's too late. Those accelerated tests don't reveal everything....they're just good guesses and need to be interpeted just right. Every industry person, company etc. can put their own spin on the results as well....in the end you can't please everyone...look at the brittle books programs. The archives community will stand firm that microfilming is IT, it's the standard to which all else is matched...and yet people on the "outside" have a problem with that at times, or can't put it in perspective....this is the same way with rc prints, or with any of this other stuff....it's like there's a conspiracy or something to microfilm a newspaper & throw it away. Like there's a bottomless pit of money & space to store everything on earth. So....ah, where was I?? Well, digital is the same way.....I was at the Smithsonian in 1997 for a conference on archiving photo collections in the digital age...it was sponsored by SCMRE/CAL...that's the professional development wing of the Smithsonian...probably one of the best paper/object conservation labs in the country. NARA and the IPI, and researchers in plastics, data storage etc. were all there as speakers. At the time, the general message was "don't do it (digitization), it's too soon...it's a mistake, let someone else make that mistake, not you..." it was like a mantra....and yet that didn't stop them...so, look at American Memory, NAIL etc. And then get a copy of that report to congress by the LOC about what they see their role as being in the "digital age"....it's not all fiber printing, I'll tell you that much....in the end what it is, is using materials for ACCESS and using storage for preservation.....and what this means now is very close to what got people upset about the Corbis/Bettman thing...it's putting everything safely away underground or in a vault forever, and limiting access to "surrogate" copies--i.e. scans or prints.

I should add here that we're involved in similar type program as well....I don't know if it's good or bad, but it's the way things are going--online.

If you want to read an interesting article on accelerated aging tests and variables in inkjet inks & longevity....pigments v.s. dye sets, and pollutants...I can probably dig the links out for you...needless to say it wasn't as optimistic as the advertisements make it sound....a c-print or an RC print looks pretty darn good in comparison to some of this stuff.

I left out the lab part though...yeah, you could farm it all out...just today we were getting a PO together for about 10 murals and assorted prints that we need done...in the old days (last year) we'd get this done using trad. materials....4x5 bumped up to 8x10 and using ciba mural papers, or some b&w rc, maybe c-prints if the exhibit was short term. Now, it's all 4x5's drum scanned and everything done on a lightjet printer using either cibas or b&w mural paper. the cost including the scans and a wide array of mounting, including to MDF and Sintra, and laminates as well? Just a little more than $5k....that's a good deal....and probably will be a better product in the end as well.

I don't think it's going to kill LF from an enthusiast's point of view, but from a commercial lab viewpoint, or a studio....it's coming along fast now. As always, my opinions only.