New Luminouse Landscape Article

[David Luttmann]

No Matthew,

I actually enjoyed your work while viewing your website. I'm just not sure how whether or not I like your images has anything to do with tested dynamic range of different media.

Best regards,

[Glenn Kroeger]

This isn't a perfect scientific test. It doesn't matter where the slim edge lies. The comparisons of subtle nuance will quickly become academic. The fact is that these new MF digital backs are close enough to 4x5 quality to begin to move those areas of commercial photography that have continued to use LF color film, particularly architectural photography.

Whether or not we like to admit it, LF color photography has been subsidized by LF commercial photography, and to a great extent by all other formats of color film use. All of these are quickly vanishing, and despite placating language by Fuji's customer relations department and some of Kodak's sales force, the fiscal realities of producing color film are going to come crashing down in the next few years. Fuji Quickloads will soon pass $5 a sheet heading toward $10. Outside of cities with major photo industries (LA, SF, NYC, Chicago, Denver), E6 processing labs are thinning out rapidly. We are down to 3 in my town, one of which is already in Chapter 11. It is possible that LF color film will reach a supportable equilibrium for Fuji if Kodak quits the business. I can't guess at the price point of that supply/demand equilibrium. We will know alot more by the end of 2006 about the prognosis.

My great fear is a coming void... where LF color film is all but gone, and digital backs are still clinging to their prices north of $15K. In today's economy, demand doesn't always create supply.

B&W is another matter. There are already small firms producing emulsions.

[Mark_3632]

Okay, Let me get this straight. to do these tests a person takes an image with a digital camera, in some cases the image file is recorded directly onto the computer, other wise the computer reads the image file directly from the camera or other storage media. Basically there is no middle process?

they take an image with film, then employ a middle process to get the analog image into the computer to test by scanning (take a digital picture of it). I don't care how good the scanner or the person running the scanner is they are still taking a picture of a picture right?

Does anyone else see a problem with the methodology? WHy don't people, on both sides, realize they are comparing two entirely different things and get over it. It is like comparing watercolor and oil painting.

[Jim collum]

"WHy don't people, on both sides, realize they are comparing two entirely different things and get over it. It is like comparing watercolor and oil painting."

Only problem is the majority of color film fine art photography done today is printed from a scanned image. Only a handful still have images printed directly from an enlarger. The reason i've heard from the photographer's themselves is the quality of the output image they get from a scanned image is higher than they were getting printing analog. (this is just color i'm talking about here).

[David Luttmann]

That hits the nail on the head, Jim. Nowadays, most color output is scanned and then output digitally. The best scanners on the market today are able to pull more off of film then paper is able to record, in terms of dynamic range, and when dealing with color materials. While I agree that there is a middle step with nthe scanning of film, that is just the way most color film is worked with now.

Quite frankly, the differences we are talking about are all within about 1 stop at most....probably less. And as such, they play no part is true quality differences under real world printing conditions.

Now B&W is a different matter all together. I still prefer B&W film. And scanning B&W film is a pain in the @ss. I have actually found better results for some B&W work by scanning Astia F and converting to monochrome using channels, or one of the actions I've written. But that's a story for another day.

[Rob_6274]

"B&W is another matter. There are already small firms producing emulsions."

I'm a strong believer of this: When the giants go away, little firms will pick up the opportunity. When Kodak and Fuji quit making all films, there will be small firms producing color films.

[paulr]

"The best scanners on the market today are able to pull more off of film then paper is able to record, in terms of dynamic range, and when dealing with color materials."

Or black and white materials. Or scanners that are far from the best. I've been digitally reprinting a body of black and white work from 4x5. Prints range from contact size to 11.5 x 9 inches. The darkroom prints were made with a current model Apo lens, glass carrier, and perfectly aligned enlarger. The digital prints absolutely blow the silver prints out of the water when it comes to definition of fine detail. Many of them look more like contact prints than the actual contact prints do.

Never before did I realize how much sharpness was lost to the enlarging process.

All the scans were done with an epson 4870 using Vuescan, with the film wet mounted on float glass and shimmed to the best point of focus. This is about $500 worth of hardware; about 3/4 the cost of my enlarging lens.

I do not thing this scanner would do so well at larger sizes, even 16x20, but with 3X enlargements the results are better than anything I've seen come out of my darkroom.

[otzi]

To me all this discussion seems pointless. It would seem that inteligent digital usage is far more technical than film usage. Well it would apear so to this not so theoretical photographer. Digital is good an so it should be for the $k's spent on equipment and when the short life of a digital generation is taken into acount I feel God bless all digital users who choose to invest in and promote an advancing technology. Convenient? no. Instant? well only so so. Some might recall a format colloquially refered to as 35mm. Small, light. only one hour proofs down town and hay no need for a lap top a very efficient car opener down town.

Sorry boys, I am finding it increasinly difficult to find justification in shuch huge investment in a product(s) that will only marginly if any improve, better or convenience my photographic life.

[bglick]

> In today's economy, demand doesn't always create supply.

Glenn, I am glad you share my exact concern. I am not sure if many on this list are reading other posts regarding the expense required to start a company, design / build machinery to make color film....it is reserved for public companies, or Bill Gates type. But from an economic standpoint, who would spend $20 million dollars (?) to start a new company in which the field is demonstrating a conistent year-to-year downward trend in product sales. What's worse, the slope of the curve is not slight, but rather like 45 degrees, very steep, not conducive to investment capital.

I desperately want film to be here for 15 years, but realize being a cheerleader will not effect the outcome. It will take a monumental effort from "insiders" or public agencies, to come up with a viable continued supply of color film for the next 15 years. Before several of these threads, I used to think like rob, hey, if there is demand it will be filled by small companies throughout the world. However, after digesting information from some very informed posters, this is a very unique situation......unlike products made from wood, plastic, where existing technologies and machinery can be purchased off the shelf, color film has been produced with propietary equipment by only two companies who got so big, they will leave film in the dust and never look back.

[Howard Slavitt]

I'd like to revive this thread, for selfish reasons, because I'm tempted to get a Better Light back. . . . You can get them used off of EBAY for reasonable prices, under $5k, and Better Light will upgrade and support them. With enough light (as ASA 200), you can get scan times down to 30 seconds, which isn't very long in comparison, for instance, to 8" x 10" film. Also movement isn't as big of a problem as it may seem because the sensor is scanning across the image, miniscule lines at a time, each line can be as short as 1/250 of a second, which is enough to stop almost any movement. The weight is getting reasonable -- a 2 lb. battery (the current batteries), a pocket computer (you can get them the size of a cigarette pack apparently that will run the camera and software), the scanning back insert, about 2 lbs., and maybe something else I'm forgetting, some connector, but in the end it sounds to me like it's about 6 lbs or a bit more. For those of you who are still willing to, or enjoy, shooting film it doesn't make sense, but for those of us who don't want to shoot film any more, and like large format landscapes, it makes a lot more sense (to me, at least) than a 39 megapixel Phase One back that is outrageously expensive on an outrageously expensive Hasselblad h2 or h3, andthat doesn't allow movements. I'd much rather be using an Ebony sw45 with a better light back and can probably get the whole system for $12T or so, assuming I get a decent deal on a used better light 6000 HS back (which knew are now only about $12T anyways).