Stephen Johnson's 'The Parks Project' - Is this a glimpse of the future for LF?

[Peter Brown]

Hi Bill,

Yes I agree with your sentiments. I think that the time frame is probably about right too.

You say; " . . .it seems most of the chip makers are putting their recources in the larger markets such as 35mm and MF systems." - this is most likely correct but the plus side to this is that the innovations which occur here, will flow fairly quickly to LF shooters too, I would imagine. There are a lot of professional LF shooters who work outside the comfort of the studio and I'm sure the manufacturers will accomodate them too, which will in turn benefit us "landscape photographers".

But who knows, perhaps those advances in 35mm & MF will be so good that we'll give up LF all together!

- just kidding! ;-)

-- "Where there is an open window there exists limitless opportunity."

Kind regards

[Paul Schilliger]

Digital technology is promising, but far from being ready for outdoor photograph y. What would be interesting is a system the size of a medium format camera, but with some movements, why not comp uter controlled using for example inner lens elements movements and digital zooming, and offering large fo rmat resolution. As you point out, keeping details in all the dynamic range the subje ct offers is interesting, although some is inevitably lost when the image is adjusted to have an eye pleas ing contrast, at least details in the shadows and highlights are preserved. There are already a few opt ical banches that have been made for the purpose of digital photography, such as the 6x9 Linhof. Combin ed with high resolution digital lenses and a high res lightweight digital back, they should b e able to replace film.

I'm sure we will get there eventually. But there is still a *very long way* to g o technically and economically before there is a real *field* high res digital camera that will make us forsake the film camera. In fact I can't see any benefit if the gear is not lighter and shooting times are not simi lar or shorter than for standard film. Using a laptop computer outside in not conceivable either. As Gle n pointed, the price of such equipment may limit it to some professional photographers who are doing wel l. But ten years ago, a graphic workstation was priced well above any amateur's means and is now available to an yone. So we will see what the future offers, but of course outdoor large format photographers do not represent such a big market and developers are always looking for a return on their investments.

What worries me is that we, outdoor photographers may soon be placed from the pr esent standstill position into a dead end position. The studios are massively turning to digital and some of the processing labs are already forsaking their 8x10 and 5x7 processing equipment. 4x5 may be next on th e list. The film distributors are gradually reducing their range too. So we should better hold to our sheet films as long as we can and shout loud or the film marketing companies might forget us otherwise and leave u s mean less!

[Howard Slavitt]

For the person who asked about what Johnson's prints look like, I've seen several prints made from Johnson's original digital files. There were several at MacWorld in S.F. a few years back. They were fantastic. The equal in terms of smooth tonal range and definition of anything I've seen from film originals.

[Bill Glickman]

Howard, but keep in mind, although he does an excellent job of cherry picking the shots to suit his long shutter speeds... you won't see many traditional shots, such as waterfalls, etc. Well, at least if you do, they will not have the look that we are all accustomed to.

One of the incredible mysterious of this digital phenomena is the actual comparison of digital file size vs. analog files. Conventional wisdom says that a digital camera must be able to acheive the same size file as a scanner can pull from film, assuming the scanner did not exceed the resolution of the film, for arguments sake, 5 - 6k dpi. However, what has become a shock to me is that in reality, this has not panned out. There are several digital, one shot backs right now that can produce a 30x40" print with equal quality than 4x5 scanned film. The small files, < 70mb are rezzed up to the needed size, for example, a 30x40" print at 300 dpi on LF film will be 316MB. With the proper rezzing software it seems these digital files acheive near similar results than film at 30x40". It is theorized that the digital back files have pixels much more condusive to rezzing up vs. files acheived by scanning film. I have consistently read these test done on everything from 35mm digital to the MF one shot backs. The consensus seems overwhelming.

So I guess my point is, the technology seems to be very close to where we need to be, assuming very few people are making prints bigger than 30x40", and i am sure the next generation backs will match 40x50" prints. So as I see it, the ultimate backs for LF landscape shooters are about 2 or 3 generations away. First the price needs to drop from the $25k average price now. I think $10k is good price point. Next they need to become a bit more compact and utilize smaller storage products. Then they need to be more rugged for field use and be able to operate in a wide range of temperatures. So this is where my 5 year guess came from...not so much the sheer technology which is practically there for prints 30x40" and smaller, but rather all the issues most landscape shooters are confronted with.

I have to admit, the idea of not buying film, storing film, loading film holders, unloading film holders, processing risks and cost, scanning costs etc. is very appealing to us film > digital users of today. It seems nothing has changed in 180 years of photography, images were taken the same basic way, lens, light tight box and film. Now in a period of less than a decade the process is being completely revolutionized. In my opinion, the digital revolution will bring even more serious hobbiest and part time professionals into the arena, as this generation loves everyting computerized! As Bob Dylan says, Times are a changin....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

"I have to admit, the idea of not buying film, storing film, loading film holders, unloading film holders, processing risks and cost, scanning costs etc. is very appealing to us film > digital users of today"

How about carrying lap top, batteries, batteries for scanning back, cables to connect both? Does that sound any better? I read about this person's "Project" many months ago, I think it was on PT, any way I think it is a gimmick for him to get some kind of notoriety since neither his talent nor his image look particularly appealing.

I dont know if this is the future of film, but it seems to me that as far as simplyfying the process we are changing one for the other, film holders, for digital back and lap top, neither make it easier than 35 mm. As I stated before when I really see a definite improvement of digital over traditional film then I will consider it, so far it is only hype and wishfull thinking.

[abiggs]

I guess Bill wasn't commenting on the current status of large format digital photography, only that in the future, we might be able to get a device that is portable and won't require the use of a laptop and other gear out in the field.

I, too, would like to see a digital back that will allow me to shoot in similar situations. I don't think 30 minute exposures would cut it for me. We might be a long way off for a digital back that can take 1 shot (not a scanning back) and has the resolution power equal to that of a 4x5 negative or chrome.

Back to my Tri-X development in my Jobo with the NFL playoffs in the background.

:-)

[M.]

If you mean the combination of impressive technology with pedestrian image making, you're probably right. Same as always.

[james mickelson]

Do we need better equipment and more pixels and more expensive printing options to do what has been done for decades now very well? Can the eye discern all these refinements? I'm starting to think that this is overkill. Unless it makes for better workflow these refinements aren't really needed. james

[Howard Slavitt]

First, I agree with Bill that Johnson "cherry picks" his shots. Second, I am very active in digital imaging and agree with Bill's assessment that in about 5 years it will be feasible for many to replace large format cameras in the field with digital backs and expect that within 10 years it will be feasible for the majority (cost being the distinguishing factor). Third, the only reason in my opinion to go to digital shooting is if one prefers printing by digital methods, or for some other reason needs digital distribution. For black and white printing there may not be much advantage, if any, to printing digitally. For color, there is already a distinct advantage to digital printing.

[Bill Glickman]

Jose... How about carrying lap top, batteries, batteries for scanning back, cables to connect both? Does that sound any better? No, not really, hence why I mentioned the fact these current digital products are not very field friendly - yet. But in 5 years, I think we will have a digital back about the size of 5 4x5 film holders that include the LCD and storage device..in which you can bring extra storage devices and batteries. This should make the total load less than that of film holders. There will be a few extra pounds. Then you get all the benefits of economics, seeing the image on screen, no processing, no film cost, etc.

James.... Do we need better equipment and more pixels and more expensive printing options to do what has been done for decades now very well? Can the eye discern all these refinements? I'm starting to think that this is overkill. We don't need faster cars, more efficient cars, safer cars, etc. But it's the nature of capitalism. Even if image quality does not improve, there still seems to be many other advantages of digital. The other issue I forgot to mention which will be a big improvement over film is exposure latitude. 7 stops will be the norm, much better than chrome film.