Why should I NOT buy a IQ back and ditch my 4x5s?

[pdmoylan]

May I suggest that you visit the Phase.com website and view Joe Cornish's images with the 45+ and IQ180. Tell me truthfully if those images have thesame image charactistices of 4x5 images. THere are simply too many issues with DOF (check out the distant subjects),color accuracy and of course it is not always desirable to obtain 12 stops of dynamic range detail. I have always been impressed by Joe's images of the seacoast using traditional film; whereas, his IQ images dont' seem to render the same impact. The holy grail (at least for color) of greater DR is simply overstated. These images have plenty of resolution but the dynamic range reduces contrast and, in my opinion, makes the image quality seem frail, thin and without power. It's almost as if the resolution and DR overtakes the photographer's statement about the character of the light. I would question the color accuracy of many of the images as well. Having spent years looking at dynamic outdoor lighting, I can say that few of these images seem real to me.

[mcherry]

darr has it exactly right. You can tell right away who shoots for the "love" of it, or for the "art" of it right away - and there's nothing wrong with either of those pursuits. I love photography. I shoot fine art in addition to commercial work. I LOVE film. Having said that, I can't imagine using a film based workflow in a major market (or even a medium market) for commercial work (other than editorial fashion, which is far more art than commerce, but that's another discussion and one which I fear would not go well here). Even if you were masochistic enough to do it, I can't imagine an art director going for it in this day and age.

Sorry to say, but some shoot (maybe most for many) are just about the money - and there's nothing wrong with that either. Whether or not you could benefit, professionally from a $50K back should be very easy to evaluate. What are your billings and how long will it take to make a return/amortize out? Are you losing jobs because you don't have it? Can you increase your sales by expanding into new markets? Etc.

Of course, if you just want it, that's cool too. There's nothing wrong with digital, even for art. I made about 25% - 30% of my income from fine art sales the past two years. Half of it was digital. I prefer a finely crafted silver gelatin print hand made in my darkroom, the market doesn't always agree with me.

If it's work, make a good business derision. If it's for the love of it - then do what you love.

[Patrick Raymore]

Let me come to the question from another angle. Considering that I could use digital (and did and still do some) here are a few reasons why I continue to use (film) 4X5. Please remember this is just one persons opinion. One man's food is another’s poison.

1) Digital is cranky. Electronics in general tends to be cranky if not fragile. I need very few features to my tools to make my images, but I need the features to work and work consistently. The features that I need should be accessible, reliable, and easy to implement. Digging through menus and pushing too many buttons distract me. The image needs my full attention.

2) There is something to be said about viewing your image on a large surface. Viewing images on tiny little electronic screens distract from my creative processes. Yes, yes I know you can zoom in etc but it is not the same.

3) The upgrade cycle. I am not just speaking cost for software and hardware. Companies need to be feed and they will make sure you keep them feed. Beyond that however, there is another cost I find far more objectionable. That is the need for me to constantly adapt to these changes (in my tools) in order to continue do what I need to do. The image is the objective, not constant adaptation to new menus, methods, buttons, routines, tools, etc.

4) Know yourself. I love the view camera because it is a tool focused on the basics of imaging and around getting the focal plane into the image plane (one of the ways to cheat diffraction). This is important to me. It may not be important to you. You need to now what is important to your image making and then the answer to your question will be obvious.

[norly]

Good replies. Thanks.

[Amedeus]

I shoot more digital MF (Leaf Aptus 56mp and Hasselblad 39MP) but I equally enjoy shooting LF (4x5 and 8x10). I even mount my digital backs on my Sinar and stitch landscapes ...

As a few have mentioned ... it's a different workflow and either one has pro's and con's ... it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. The immediate feedback from digital does it for me in terms of the more customer demanding work but when it comes to creative processes, I turn to LF and scan to then further manipulate digitally (at times).

OTOH, my panorama's are purely digitally stitched and I don't see myself doing these the analog way ...

As for the cost of MF backs ... it is high but I never bought "new", always gently used at 50-60% of new. The results are the same. Digital MF backs do have a plus compared to the high res 35mm such as the Nikon D800E etc. You can mount your digital back to your LF camera with all the creative options that come with it.

Your mileage may vary ...

[cosmicexplosion]

buy $50,000.00 dollars worth of your favourite films and relax.

[ROL]

Hi.
Ive now spoken with everyone I know and it didn't make me wiser.

That's because experience (mostly bad) makes you wiser, not opinion.

IMO (), since cost is apparently not particularly relevant, it comes down to some soul searching and brutal self analysis. Are you a taker or a maker of photographs?

If you're more of a taker, which your dependence on outsource labs suggests, it doesn't matter much what tools you decide use. OTH, if you are a maker of photographs, the closer you get to your process in attaining your visualization, the better. In that case and still at this moment in history, it would seem better to invest in darkroom skills and techniques.

Which is all to say that this "decision" may be a turning point for you, larger than it at first appears.


FYI: I still carry a (film) LF into the field despite growing physical maladies, not because it gives me superior images, but because it allows me to express artistically what cannot be achieved by other means.

[wentbackward]

I went through a painful experience, going to an IQ160 + DF + Alpa to replace my Nikon and 4x5. I kept my Nikon film body but use a Sony DSLR because DSLRs work around poor talent (I cannot use an SLR).

ALL my 4x5 gear is less than 1/2 the price of one digital lens, I've kept it. I hated the DF. The Alpa was a disaster for me. Mainly I use an RF or WLF or field camera. The Alpa always needs one more thing that's extra expensive, no matter what you do. We didn't get on, it drove me nuts (but many friends and colleagues use it successfully). I was able to trade everything in and move to an RZ ProIID and a Techno. Those two cameras sit well with me. I find they become invisible when I use them.

I also had a lot of technical issues, Phase One support have been great (I've actually met the guy that helps me on the help desk when he came out here!!), I fully recommend getting the VA (which is insurance that supplants the need for two backs)

My first mistake was getting-in-to-digital, I almost made a second mistake getting out again at huge loss (no return in pictures). I had made the error of looking at the MF medium and not at the tools which suited me best. I concur with Darr on all her excellent points.

There is no reason to get into digital except convenience. That convenience does provide a workflow that for many opens more creative avenues. Personally I'm lucky to have a few hours per week to dedicate to photography. Digital certainly has the quality I need, but importantly allows me to keep at it and I feel that by constantly being able to dip my toes in-between the bigger trips makes me a better photographer, keeps the skills intact (use it or lose it).

With the techno I can mount all my 4x5 lenses up to 240mm, plus use some new, super lenses from Rodenstock and Schneider, I have a roll film holder for 6x7 format, I can swap my DB between the Techno and RZ for which I also have a roll film back. I'm just getting to grips with this setup, but it has been wonderful so far. My Docter 240/4.8 is wonderful on film and can resolve fine detail on the IQ wide open.

For me photography is very recreational and full of exploration and experimentation. My new setup finally fits me, and happens to support digital. That's the most important thing.

[Ken Lee]

"Those two cameras sit well with me".

Precisely !

Some clothing and jewelry looks very nice on others, but not on us. Some equipment just feels right and we get good images: it's largely a matter of "chemistry". This sort of chemistry is composed of many intangibles, but when it works, it works.

I recently re-acquired a 4x5 Tachihara field camera for this very reason. Once I got reconnected with it, photos started flowing again.

If someone were to hand me a $ 50,000 piece of new gear, it would have to pass the same fundamental test: Do we have an affinity ? If not, then let it find harmony with someone else

Most musical instruments are all capable of adequate sound, but in the right hands they can be more than adequate. Part comes from the instrument, part from the player. The line between them is blurry at best.

If I could better tune into the creative stream by attaching my camera to a baby stroller I would do so: let us all just find what works best for us.

[paulr]

For me photography is very recreational and full of exploration and experimentation. My new setup finally fits me, and happens to support digital. That's the most important thing.

Interesting post. I'm glad you posted your experiences. It's mostly money that keeps me away from MF digital, but I've heard enough now to not jump in too recklessly if that stops being a barrier. It seems like there's a hell of a learning curve and adaptation period with the tech cams and backs. It also sounds like the manufacturers have some things to learn about ergonomics. For instance, it would be delightful if one day the live view performance on a phase back would catch up with Nikon or Canon, so you could just focus there and be done with it.