Notice how most of his digital images don't contain any, if any, trees? That seems a bit limiting, in my view. His tools might be more useful for tabletop product photography.
Notice how most of his digital images don't contain any, if any, trees? That seems a bit limiting, in my view. His tools might be more useful for tabletop product photography.
I'm sorry, but I think some of you are misunderstanding my question. In my original question I asked; "I'm wondering what you all think of this concept and whether this is what the future holds for LF photography, albeit in a more compact and easier to handle setup."
Note that I said " . . .the future . . ." and ". . . in a more compact and ea sier to handle setup." - NOT with the current technology and equipment available.
After Joe's post I then suggested we rephrase the question; "Thanks Joe, you may be on to something - perhaps the question should be re-phrased: Is this a glimpse of the future for LF "FILM" or the way in which we will record our images? "
Comments about the exposure time or moving objects being omitted, are no more relevant than talking about LF images which contain water which looks more like mist than water or leaves that are so blurred from movement that they are unrecognisable.
My question was not about what is available NOW, but what will be available IN THE NEAR FUTURE! It's not about whether he is a good photographer or not, whether we like or dislike his photographs, in fact it's not even about whether he choose the right equipment for the job or whether he was doing it for his own "promotional" reasons or not.
What I was interested in, was hearing comments about whether you think this type of image capture will be what we will use for LF field photography in the future and if so how soon will we likely be using it. Perhaps it is just to o much of a contentious issue to get unbiased replies.
Anyway, thanks everyone for taking the time trying to answer my ambiguious questions.
" Who am I to blow against the wind? "
- Paul Simon / Graceland
Kind regards
I guess we all got a little off-topic, eh?
Yes, I think that the technology will allow those who wish to carry a self-contained digital back out into the field is near at hand. I think it will come down to economics, though. I suspect such a device will cost well over $25k upon its release. It's a matter of time before the price will get down to where many non-commerical photographers can afford it.
Yes Andy, I agree that the initial cost will probably be quite high, but I know that I have spent thousands of dollars on good quality LF gear and equipment to output my images to prints, as well as the ongoing cost of film and processing. I wonder if we looked at our LF expenses and compared them to the equivalent for digital capture and output whether the difference would be so great?
More contenious questions ;-)
Kind regards
I would say the difference is very great Peter, heck I have a Hassy, a Linhot TK 45, A GAndolfi 8x10 a at last 3 lenses of different lenghts for all 3 cameras a great darkroom with a zone VI enlarger...and put all together I am barely hitting 25000, and it wont become obsolete in 6 months. You complained that we got off track with your question, I think all the responses were very relevant to your initial question because quality of reproduction, ease of acquisition (both the equipment and the image) and type of work that can be done are all relevant as to wether this will become the future of LF image capture. For example, even if the digital back becomes small enough to be able to capture, store and preview the image, I am pretty sure that it will still need a battery....now, my lap top is a top of the line IBM....these people still cannot get the batterie to last more than a couple of hours, and the technology for pc is mature, not like the digital backs.....so, in the near future you have this wonderful back....and at 30 mins per pic....you maybe get to take 4 pics. Ok, now lets say we get the nice back with a wonderful battery.... lets say you can take 100 pics with the back....this is great, but will you process and print 100 pics, will your work be better? I think that one of the reasons that many LF photographers use the cameras is because of the time, care and discipline required to take the picture....with this type of back might as well use a 35 mm now and let it rip.
Ok, so in short I don't think this will be the furture of LF field work unless we are forced to replace film because it is not manufactured any more. I think for studio and commercial work it is already the future of LF and it will only get better. But like many things the price will not go down unless a new technique for manufacturing becomes available, I know many commercial photogs that use 20 year old equipment, they dont like to spend money in new stuff when the old works just fine...so I dont see many of the ones who have invested in digital backs now, replacing them any time soon unless the quality of the new back is so much greater to justify the expense. In any case I dont see the prices going down to within the reach of us lesser mortals. When I can get a digital back that is as easy to use as a Fuji quickload, costs about the same as a lens, it can take pictures in fractions of a second, and it will fucntion in rain, sand, etc with a battery that will last at least 20 hours....then I will write back to you and tell you...YEP...this is the future of LF...for now...I still think film is it!
>> I'm sorry, but I think some of you are misunderstanding my question. In my original >> question I asked; "I'm wondering what you all think of this concept and whether this is >> what the future holds for LF photography, albeit in a more compact and easier to handle >> setup." >> Note that I said " . . .the future . . ." and ". . . in a more compact and easier to >> handle setup." - NOT with the current technology and equipment available.
No. This is not the future of _photography_. It is the future of digital, which is a wholly different art form unrelated to photograpy (although it appears supperficially similar).
Photography is the art of removing whatever the artists deems irrelevant and presenting an image that communicates to the viewer what the artist _feels_. Digital is the art of adding whatever the artist deems necessary and presenting an image that communicates to the viewer what the artist _imagines_.
Audiences who are interested in _art_ will continue to appreciate chemical photography for the emotions it conveys, and the unspoken understanding of the limits to which chemicals can be manipulated. Those who'd rather be entertained will go away and favor the expressions of imagination that is currently the digital field.
Eventually, digital will lose it's 2D limitations as 3D animation software improves, and the fields of digital movie making and "digital photography" will merge into one. Chemical photography will remain, much as it is now, but with new found respect as a proper art form. Something like the respect given sculptors.
whadya think?
Mike :-)
To answer your question, with some reservations about the economic and political future itself, yes. The future of photography, which means painting with light, is bound to digital. This may be a long way off but yes the future will be digital. We may not like it but that is the direction it is going. My friend uses a digital scanning 4x5 back now. He shoots product shots for catalogs. His work flow is tremendous now compared to just a few years ago. And with the advent of digital cameras and the requisite PC + all the programs, it is here now. I will lament the change and possibly drop photography as my chosen art form. But the future is here now. I see too much that has been captured digitally and printed digitally to think it is very far off. But LF will be the last to be brought into the digital age with respect to landscape photography. The capture time is long and the equipment is very expensive. And the detail available now from the smaller formats is tremendous already. Will we need LF at all? And lets face it, LF is a niche market. Will the industry put forth the effort to grow in that direction? Making LF portable enough to take to the field and stay any length of time? Let's hope so. But my premiss still holds. Do we need to go to so much trouble and expense to gain a minute decrease in grain and increase in detail over what we have now in LF using film? And will we still be able to control contrast the way we do now with film and developers? That can't be done now in digital capture. Yes you can dodge and burn but can you spread out the contrast range in digital as you can with developemnt changes in film processing now? Not that I know of. We shall see what the furture holds for LF.
Digital is a workflow and detector technology. It is a permanent part of the photo scene. Digital is a great way to make images; so is film. Choose wisely and have fun. I visited Steven's galery about a year ago, viewed his images and had a good talk with him. He's a dedicated photographer who is highly skilled in conventional and digital photography. He is acutely aware of the limitations of the digital process but has chosen to explore this process as one might explore carbon printing. His digital prints are made with a high level of craftsmanship and presented beautifully. I think his work will help us all sort out which tools are best suited for which applications. I for one will keep an eye on what he is doing; to stay abreast of the technology and to enjoy good images.
This photographer (Frank Grisdale), is doing some interesting "artistic" things with digital capture:
http://www.photoeye.com/Gallery/forms/index.cfm?id=84413&image=1&imag ePosition=1&Door=2&Portfolio=Portfolio1&Gallery=2
Kind regards,
Tuan wrote... I just don't see the weight of the batteries beating that of film. Batteries don't seem to follow Moore's law.
This is very true, and its something I have overlooked in my assesment of these digital backs being suitable for landscape shooters. Battery weight / performance has not changed much in 150 years. There has always been a tremendous weight / size issue for items, such as digital backs, that require many miliamp hours for operations. For the serious backpacker, this might always be the limiting factor. but for the shooter that stays within a few miles of his car, this is not as much as an issue.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks