Film vs. Digital? Continued ...

[MunichPrag]

@williamtheis

"I could give you my take on doing Large Format digital with a Better Light scanning back, should anyone be interested." ... "anyone interested in more detail?"

Yes, I am sure many people here would like to hear more !

- How do you think it would handle night shots (city at night; lighten only by street lamps) ?
- Can you show us some sample photos ? Especialy of city/architecture ?
- Can you describe this in more detail:
....."Downside is long scanning time, having to use the lens more open since diffraction limits are problems degrading image so movements are critical" ?
.
etc..
Would be great to hear detailed review from real long-term user of Better Light.

Thank you

Daniel

[Steve M Hostetter]

I just can't see using a scanning back for landscape ... Even when using film I still wait for the lull in the wind to make an exposure..

I may still only have a 1/2 sec. of calm conditions and sometimes that isn't perfectly calm

Does one just have to limit their subjects to not include: streams, trains, people, grass lands, animals, macro, not to mention the problems with using long lenses?
steve

[Peter Mounier]

The Betterlight scan back works like a flatbed scanner, in that it scans lines across the film plane. Depending on the model, it has to scan about 8,000 lines to make one (slightly smaller) 4x5 image. Those 8,000 lines can be exposed for up to 1/8th sec. each, making for very long exposures overall, but only 1/8th sec. per line. Not only that, but each line gets exposed by a trilinear sensor, meaning that each of 3 colors gets scanned separately with each line. The scanback software stitches the 3 colors together and also the 8,000 lines in the controller box. If something is moving, the colors can become out of register, and the separate lines also won't align. Thus the need for stillness. Here is a crop from a shot I intentionally took with some motion. Each line got 1/30th sec. for an overall exposure time (1/30th x 8,000) of approx 2.5 minutes.

Peter

[Jim collum]

The Betterlight scan back works like a flatbed scanner, in that it scans lines across the film plane. Depending on the model, it has to scan about 8,000 lines to make one (slightly smaller) 4x5 image. Those 8,000 lines can be exposed for up to 1/8th sec. each, making for very long exposures overall, but only 1/8th sec. per line. Not only that, but each line gets exposed by a trilinear sensor, meaning that each of 3 colors gets scanned separately with each line. The scanback software stitches the 3 colors together and also the 8,000 lines in the controller box. If something is moving, the colors can become out of register, and the separate lines also won't align. Thus the need for stillness. Here is a crop from a shot I intentionally took with some motion. Each line got 1/30th sec. for an overall exposure time (1/30th x 8,000) of approx 2.5 minutes.

Peter

you can end up with images like that, or images like http://betterlight.com/gallery/MC_gallery/MC_lobby.html or pretty much anything at Stephen Johnson's site http://www.sjphoto.com/


90% of my shooting is in the morning.. wind at that time is rarely an issue.... and if it is, I shoot film. I find it particularly useful when shooting old glass.. no shutter is needed, and you can see the effect when you are shooting. For the most part, my exposure time ranges from 35-60 seconds. Have been a happy user since 2001.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd second a look at Stephen Johnson's work. He should be applauded for being a pioneer in the practical outdoor use of a scanning back and coming up with actual
display prints that way, but it's definitely not the kind of look I would want for
my own work. Sheet film is way more practical, and to me at least, more "authentic"
in potential results, especially when one considers how difficult it is for outdoor subject
matter to stay stationary even a full second, plus all the other factors of reliability
and potential tech repair, expense amortization, and rapid obsolescene. I just don't
see any substitute on the horizon for real film, unless you're talking about relatively
small-scale garden-variety reproduction like stock photography for publication.

[MunichPrag]

Hallo,

I have created new Thread:

All about Better Light scanning back
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=84099

let's continue all our talk about Better Light there.

Thanks

[D. Bryant]

If anything moved during the whole procedure, it
would record in a different primary color at each position it was present at that
particular moment. The result was called color fringing. Same thing happens if digital exposures for each component color are sequential rather than simultaneous.

Sorry but that isn't correct Drew. Multiple exposures made with a digital camera don't require separation filters for each exposure. Any color fringing in the combined digital image will be the result of some other issue encountered during the exposure.

Moving objects will be blurred.

[Drew Wiley]

Don, I specificially stated that IF exp are sequential rather than simultaneous, but did
not mean this in reference to panned or stitched exp. Quite a bit of the early LF
digital work was distinctly color-fringed, perhaps because some of these individuals
thought they got better results that way - successive tricolor. And of course the
now obsolete Epolux system was strictly successive and might now make a good
bargain studio system if any compatible software still exists. But I've talked to a few
folks who still do it this way because they feel they get better dyanamic range or
that it simplifies workflow. No different than in-camera tricolor separations when something moves, versus a one-shot camera, and a handful of people still work this way. In small format fringing is more often a lens problem relative to angle of incidence. I should have clarified my statement a little more, but of course you are
correct from your own angle of perspective about this.