When will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?

[paulr]

Of course if you have a dark room and it's set up, stay there, keep your soul, digital has very little soul, film is full of it.

Oh come on, most people's souls are so f'ing ugly.
Don't show me yours and I won't show you mine.
I'll show you my inkjet prints, though. They look better than most of what I was able to do in ten years in the darkroom.

[Drew Wiley]

Sorry to hear about you darkroom skills, Paul

[paulr]

Drew, any time you're in NYC I'll show you prints and you can judge with your eyes instead of your assumptions. There are also a few to be found in the bay area.

[Drew Wiley]

I was just being mean and facetious, Paul ... inevitable cynicism in any of these redundant digital vs analog blurbs. I'm happy you found your niche and have no problem beliving you're getting excellent results. For me, however, an "upgrade" to
anything digital would be a big step backwards. It's not the look I want for my own prints, or the kind of workflow I enjoy. Some people never learn to play a guitar but
are good at piano. But it would be idiotic to call one better than the other just because it has a few of the latest tech patents appended to it.

[Don Dudenbostel]

I love my 5D II. Long term I intend to shoot with medium format digital on a 2x3 view camera. But will I give up large format? Of course not. Why should I? Why do these things have to be in competition with one another? Seems rather myopic IMO to assume that one sort of tool necessarily has to replace another.

Same here. I scaled down my LF and bought a new Hasselblad digital back and Technikardan 23 to use it on. I'll still shoot LF but less of it. I love the process and also like the control of the view camera. I'm neither new to film or digital. I've shot film for 50+ years and digital in my commercial work for 12. The quality is there now with digital and the blend of the view camera and digital is a natural for me. To me it's another tool to work with.

[paulr]

IIt's not the look I want for my own prints, or the kind of workflow I enjoy.

I think the workflow is the much greater distinction. I don't believe there's a digital "look" any more than there's an analog one ... both worlds encompass such a huge range of possibilities, most of which are unrealized.

When I'm comparing my digital prints to my analog prints, I'm really comparing one very specific example to another (this paper / chemistry / technique combination to that paper / ink / technique combination). The results really can't be generalized to other examples.

[Don Dudenbostel]

Maybe when there is a 300Mp, 5x7" sensor that doesn't requiter a LOT of power supply, and can be used in single exposures? Ah humm - there is: Film.

How large do you print? A 300 mp camera would produce a 900 meg 8 bit (1.8 gig in 16 bit) RGB file. My 39 mp back produces a 117 meg 8 bit file that prints with no interpolation to 18x24 inches at 300 dpi. Epson printers down sample to 240 dpi. If you print at the native 240 dpi the print is much larger. A 50 mp back has a native file size of 150 megs and prints 20x28 at 300 dpi. I bet most folks on this forum have the price or more incvested in LF gear and scanner. The price has come down quite a lot. The hasselblad CFV39 back is $13,995 and the cfv50 is $17,000. Lots of money but count up what you own and what it would cost to replace then throw in the amount of film you shoot with processing. Don't get me wrong I still ove and shoot film and don't think there is any nicer looking image than a fine silver gelatin B&W or platinum but for color I don't think digital can be beat.

I've been experimenting with making digital negs for platinum printing and had good success. I've also done it for silver gelatin printing with excellent results. My next step is to make digital negs from the digital back and make platinum and silver gelatin prints. I expect they will look great and most likely as good or better than original B&W negs.

[Ari]

I think the real news here is that most people on a Large Format Forum say they prefer film to digital.
Wake me up when it's over.

[Jay DeFehr]

Paul,

You make so much sense, so often, and the above is no exception.

[Drew Wiley]

I think we should start a parallel thread, "Why the hell switch to digital at all". In my
less than humble opinion, the "sweet spot" for digital capture is really in the medium
format realm (with or without view camera movement options), speaking quality-wise,
that is. It still can't compete with large format in many respects, and maybe never will.
And for large color work, it inherently bottlenecks with mandatory digital printing, which
just don't cut it yet for me. Add all those wasted dollars for early obsolescence, and
I really don't understand the appeal for a printmaker like me. If your output is for
publication, or you're in the studio doing commercial still-life, that's a different question. But large-format is mostly overkill for that kind of market anyway. Hopefully
things will improve, however, and they will design a reliable digital back with a large
opalescent upside-down image that look natural under a darkcloth.