http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/counting-ants.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/counting-ants.shtml
Interesting, but pretty difficult to use in the field for extended periods without touching base to recharge batteries. He mentions having four batteries for his P25 back, and getting about 1/2 the life out of a P45 battery. That means that, assuming higher resolution, he would need 2x the number of batteries (8) for a single day of shooting. Ouch. Both expensive, and really, really heavy.
Not to mention the batteries needed for the laptop to download images.
So, while the setup if practical for busy commercial studio shooters, it's still not really practical for extended field trips.
I still can't wrap my mind around shooting in the field with all that gear. Wow. Granted, I have a large kit (4x5 + 7 lenses, some of which I don't carry at a given time), but add to that multiple batteries, a laptop, cables....I need a body like Barry Bonds to carry all that stuff!!
I'm seriously trying to work out what the 'improvement' over my technika and Portra NC is. In truth I'd be quite happy to see a digital LF setup that I could live with but that sure ain't it. I even went into Vistek to look at the Phase backs but when I saw the sensor size I just turned round and walked right out again.
It's a vicious cycle. The small imaging area requires more precise movements, which requires a heavier geared movement camera. The sliding back prevents dropping the expensive back, yet slugging the outfit over your shoulder is asking for disaster sooner or later. At least when I toss a LF over the shoulder I only have to worry about wacking the lens. But his outfit - with the back, lens, etc. secured by only a few latches - would explode if it got wacked. $40K on the ground. Youch!
Those all in one Cambo Wide DS, Alpa, or Silvestris look much more realistic for field use. It seems that most of the architectural togs who shoot MF digital are using these instead of the full system anyway. You easily could fit one of these, with a couple of lens, into a small Lowe Computrekker.
The picture titled "A River Runs Through..." appears to have been manipulated to bevel the dominant color Green. (In CS that's 'select color' then make a mask or copy to new layer, apply bevel/emboss and optionally, curves.)
I'd bet a beer on it.
If you wish to verify this, use the metrics that digital forensics use to find fraudulent scientific images. Begin with High Pass filter.
>The picture titled "A River Runs Through..." appears to have been manipulated to bevel the dominant color Green. (In CS that's 'select color' then make a mask or copy to new layer, apply bevel/emboss and optionally, curves.)
I have no idea if he did or didn't for this image... but i've been living in this area for > 20 years, and it's pretty easy to capture that color/saturation with either film or digital. that color and contrast happens naturally all the time (especially this time of year, following heavy rains)
I understand what you are saying, Jim. I've been there, too, however there is something other than saturation - a real pixel-offset from the original pixels that says (to me) that it has been artificially enhanced using bevel and/or offset masks (not unsharp masks).
These images aren't all that impressive for having spent $40K.
I still don't understand how people can say that the digital back is cheaper in long-term. I shoot maybe 300 4x5 images a year. Assuming that all I shoot is color chromes, that's about $360 + $750 for development. That's $1110/year.
Let's assume that I'm more serious about photography and I shoot 1000 photos a year (roughly 3 photos every day) - that's $1200 + $2500 (for development) = $3700/year. And let's add a good scanner that will do 4x5, like the Imacon 646. Now you're up to $10,000 + $3700/year. Assuming that the digital back costs $30K, it would take me about 5.5 years of continuous shooting, or 5000 4x5 processed chromes to equal that cost. If you're shooting only B&W it would take about 7 years to equal that cost.
(There is also a hidden cost of having to scan the negatives, which can sometimes be time consuming. The digital back isn't completely exempt from that either though, because you still have to download and process the digital files on your computer.)
I seriously wonder if Michael Reichmann will still be shooting with a P45 in the year 2012. I wonder if the physical device itself will last that long.
Consider also that you have to amortize the cost of this outfit over, what, 5 years? Probably less than that because in 5 years the system will be obsolete- or very close to it. You'll have to sell a lot of photographs in order to do that.
What Mark just said. Who amortizes digital equipment over 5 years? PC's are much more mature technologically than digital photographic equipment, and still people don't amortize them over a period that long. More like 2 years.
But neither the economics nor the practicality is what makes this pursuit interesting. He insists on being on the bleeding edge, and telling us about it at length. Who doesn't find that interesting? I'm thankful that he does it, since nobody I know personally would ever do it.
Bookmarks