Feasability of hybrid film/digital workflow.

[atorger]

$8k would also get you one damn nice kit. I think that is a lot. Shit, an 8x10 camera plus 3 nice lenses can be had for half of that.

I'll keep an eye open on the second hand market. My calculations are based on new prices of fine equipment, Arca Swiss F-Line, Rodenstock lenses, and it adds up... Still a lot cheaper than MF digital, and about the same as high end 35mm digital. My motivation to make a move is to gain quality and to work with a view camera, the film aspect is just a necessary evil from my point of view and is what causes hesitation. Could I shoot with a digital back I'd made the move already, but MF digital which is significantly better than high end 35mm digital is out of reach in price for me.

[Marc B.]

Regarding the comparison of Epson V7XX series scanners vs Epson 10000XL.

Real world resolving of the V7XX scanners are in the 2200-2400 range, and the 10000XL is maybe at best around 1800, (IIRC).
I have no personal experience with the XL's, but I would also want to check with third party, scanning software companies,
(Vuescan/Silverfast, etc...), to ensure that they have drivers updated regularly for new desktops/laptops for the XL scanners.

There has always been timely updates from third party scanning software companies in support of the V7XX series,
running on both any newly released PC's and Mac's.
The better resolving stats(?) of the V7XX series scanners, (and available drivers),
made me prefer/choose the V7XX series over the 10000XL's.

New or used, it seems the XL's are about triple the cost of the V750's, and up-to four times the cost of V700's, (YMMV).
My thoughts on the matter...you may have other thoughts.

Marc

[Tobias Key]

If you get a top of the line view camera you can still fit a digital back to it later on so it's not that much of a risk, you could even look at hiring the back and using it with your own set when you feel that's what you need. Depending on how much you shoot in a day hiring a back may work out more cost effective in certain situations.

I certainly learned a lot from using a view camera so even if film went away tomorrow I and the camera stayed on the shelf I still would have got my money's worth from 18 months use.

[Frank Petronio]

It's hard to justify buying a new large format camera... they are simple mechanical devices, millions (well a million) have been made, and the higher quality models have usually been well cared for. Once you are on this forum for 30 days you can access the Buy and Sell section where you can exploit the broken dreams of some failed newbie who just couldn't hack it.

It is kind of a shame for the manufacturers but they made too good a product, it is very hard to wear out a large format camera out and they never become obsolescent. Just replace the bellows and lubricate the gears and you're good for another 20 years.

The digital back rationalization is a bit of a stretch, people like to think that and we can let them, but the requirements for focusing and making adjustments with a much smaller sensor "optimally" require a camera with finer controls, a shorter overall form, and digitally optimized lenses with less coverage. You could locate one of the 4x5 scanning backs I suppose.

[atorger]

I have investigated scanning backs actually, and got several offers ranging from $500 - $1500, but only equipment from the 1990s which often have mechanical issues and poor image quality and ancient cabling (SCSI) and need to be tethered to an ancient system. I've heard from those dealing with scanning backs that the interest has dropped drastically the last couple of years, so it may be tough for Betterlight et al to make it. We'll see.

A digital hack that could be working quite well is to get a 9 um 36x24mm 22 mpix MFDB such as P25+, will cost you $5000 if you are lucky, and stitch a 4x5" through back frame movements (really precise high quality camera needed with large movement capacity +/- 40mm), will take 9 frames, and if you train and get smooth at it you'd probably do it in 30-40 seconds which is on par or faster than a scanning back. You will get lens color cast issues, but it is correctable, and you'll need to stitch of course. The 9um pixels matches quite well what type of resolution you'd expect out of an analog 4x5" system, so there's no value in having a higher resolution back.

I think it is a bit unfortunate that the scanback solutions are fading away. Professionals don't need them any longer when MFDB is as good as it is. However I believe a scanback could be made at low cost (lower cost than MFDB, due to sensor) and aimed to 4x5" film enthusiasts that want a digital complement to their large format film camera. But that's probably not going to happen.

[tgtaylor]

Right now is the ideal time for working with a "hybrid film/digital workflow." Rodney Lough (http://www.rodneyloughjr.com/index.p...Q32FNr8ag2sqq1), for example, shoots wilderness landscapes with 8x10 cameras on transparency film and prints huge via lightjet. The transperancies are no doubt drum-scanned for output that large and the printers are no doubt expensive as well.

But if you're not printing big you really don't need expensive gear to do good work. For example here is an example shot with a Pentax 6x7 camera on lab processed Velvia 100F, scanned on an ancient Epson 3200 and printed (8.5x11) with an equally ancient Epson 2200:



Thomas