What'll YOU Do When Big Dig. Sensors Are 'Cheap'?

[Scott Fleming]

No, not you artists with your own dark rooms, 8 x 10 or larger cameras and perhaps are fond of the more unique or arcane printing methods. Not to say you can't chime in if you wish too.

I'm more asking the folks who take their keeper trannies to the lab for Chromira/Lightjet prints or perhaps have their own LF printer, probably shoot mostly color, are not fully professional and have , say .... $10k or @20k invested in equipment but not $30k, $40k, or even more.

Will you be tempted to pick up a 22MP back when they come below $10k? Do you think you would continue to shoot LF if you had such a back? Or will it take more megapixels and or cheaper prices to entice you? Do you think about putting a digital back on a monorail camera or would a Hartblei tilt shift lens on a MF camera be enough?

Personally I can't say for sure what I will do. I certainly enjoy shooting film today and really see no reason to stop even if I had a Phase One 22MP back right now. However ... if I found I could be more creative, my images were sharper and I could get more tonal range into my prints with digital I'd be hard pressed to keep using film. Certain respected pros are making such claims right now.

I'm not asking this question of pros who shoot hundreds of images in a day when working. Really I'm talking to the fine art producer who is anything but high volume.

[Bruce Watson]

Until they can get the weight down (*way* down), get the dynamic range up to the 12 stops I can easily do with film, and get the price down where it can compete with my sub $2.00/shot cost (4x5 Tri-X in XTOL), I'm not really interested. And I think that day is a *long* way off, because all the digital back players seem to be after the 35mm tranny people, and the 645 fashion and advertising folks. After they get those markets, I suspect that R&D funds will begin to dwindle. Time will tell, but I'm not convinced they'll ever get around to the large format art market.

[bob carnie]

Hi Scott

I am one of those with large dollars invested in traditional and digital darkroom equipment, I have axcess to phase as well as Leica.
Your question is interesting as it seems that the equipment is paromount to good imagery, where as I do enjoy Man Ray's rayograms and Josef Sudek prints made under duress.
Equipment is only a tool , it is what is going on in ones head that produces good imagery. Micheal Torisan does hand pulled prints using 1800"s technology, I believe he is extremely busy and happy doing this.
I think I will always explore film as it is what I am personally use to and know well, but at the same time not (head in the sand) stubbourn to not try any new imaging device that will create images I enjoy.

A good friend of mine said that there is too many photographers out there trying to produce images.

The cream does rise to the top whether it is a analog, digital image. Let the masses follow the marketing wave of the manufactures and concentrate on making good images with material and equipment you like to use and are familiar with.

[Steve Hamley]

I'll be tempted when I can get 7 stop range or more in a gigapixel back that will hold at least 6 shots and cost less than $2,500 and weigh the same a 3 8x10 film holders.

Let me know when that gets here.

And as for 4x5 and roll film, in the future when 22 MP is small, I can rescan my film at a higher resolution!

Steve

[Ralph Barker]

(In your best Obiwan voice) Look beyond the megapixels, Scott. Look beyond the megapixels. ;-)

As the megapixel count goes up, I'm of the opinion that the importance of the physical construction of the array increases at least proportionally. In many cases, the large megapixel count is being generated in software, and doesn't actually include additional real image detail - just ditherings of the adjacent raw pixels to fill in the blanks. Remember, each individual pixel can only be one color, even if that color is being selected from a very large palette. Thus, to record real image detail, large numbers of physical pixels need to be present in the arrays.

So, for me, a 22mp camera that uses an APS-sized or even full-frame 35mm-sized sensors is much less interesting than one that has 120 (or so) pixel pairs per mm, runs for days on a couple of AA batteries, and has a transfer time of a second or so (about the time it takes me to advance a frame on my Leica M6). Heck, I'd even be satisfied with a transfer time of 5-6 seconds - the time needed to pull and flip a 4x5 film holder. Naturally, I want that array to measure 4"x5" then, too. ;-)

[Scott Fleming]

I did put cheap in quotation marks.

I only have what I hear form MF digital shooters to go on. I shouldn't mention names but there is one guy in particular over on robgalbraith.com who is a well known photog who does big mag layouts. He flat out claims he can uprez a 22MP file and surpass anything you can get out of 6 x 9 cm and even that 4 x 5 has only a tad of resolution over the sensor while DR is much greater with the sensor over any transparency film.

Maybe I'm just lazy and lord knows I don't fancy being glued to a chair in front of my computer all that much but I love the control I have when shooting with my little 10D. It's SO much better than scanning.

I think I detect a bit of unbridled prejudice here in these answeres so far rather than scientific analysis.

[Kirk Gittings]

I have been to the mat with a few "upresers" and I am not impressed with those who rely on a computer program to provide their fine detail. Yes there is a simulation of sharpness but detail and sharpness is something else again. For a 16 x 20 I like to start with a 1G file and scale down to somewhere around a 600MP file. I have tested it and downresing a large file gives much better detail than upresing a small file. It is only logical. A 22mp file is not even in the ballpark.

Besides that there is an issue with the "look" of digital capture. DC files don't have the same look as scanned film a good scan has the feel of the character of the original film. I grew up on film and I like the look of it. The next generation may have different standards.

The other issue is archiving. Give me film any day! There will always be scanners or as long as I will be alive.

[Andre Noble]

And give me film anyday too. The U.S. government should pay Kodak to re-engineer Kodachrome & the K-14, subsidize the new kodachrome film sizes from 8x10 down to 35mm and also the processing too, and make it the official government archiving medium for color imaging.

[Frank Petronio]

The larger, higher resolution sensors will never get "cheap" because the market isn't large enough. They can sell millions of APS sized 6-mp sensors, and in a year or two resell the same people on a 8-mp chip (EOS 10d to 20d). There are less than 30,000 serious large format photographers - if that - just ask how many $5000 Linhofs Bob S. sells - I bet he knows where each one is going...

Instead of lowering their prices, companies like Phase One are going to keep their prices as high as possible. Unless some crazy Chinese company knocks off the technology and makes the chips better - something they haven't done with PC chips (a much better market...) yet - so I'd imagine making imaging chips is low on the priority list. Unless some radical breakthrough allows a giant leap in low cost production, I think this will be the case for the forseeable future.

Some of us will shoot film because we haven't found a really bullet-proof archiving method. It may not exist. I also enjoy the immediate feedback of digital, but I actually like slowing down for large format.

[Scott Fleming]

Kirk,

Wow. Damn.

Your response is unlike anything I have ever heard. I've been trying to learn as much as I can in the past two years and I haunt a lot of websites trying to pick up as much as I can. I've read more than a few books as well.

But 600MB for a 16 x 20 print?!?! Would somebody else chime in on this....Please.

I agree with the achiving part though.

[Scott Fleming]

Frank,

Have you checked in here lately:


http://www.mamiya.com/ (http://www.mamiya.com/)

This is their new front page. I once derided this as vapour ware but obviously this company is not to be denied.

So .... one year after we get the Phase one ... we have a 50% reduction in price. Yes this is a bit of conjecture. The camera nor the back is here yet and we are not sure of the price. We also are not sure either of them will 'measure up'. But if they do it's a whole new world.

I have argued exactly as you are in your post. Truth is I don't know and neither do you.

What I want to know is just what is the dynamic range of the best backs? How many pixels does it really take to create a sharp detailed image? My calcs if figuring 240 ppi for a 24 x 32 inch print (largest possible with 32 x 40 mat board) come to 44,236,800 .

[Ted Harris]

I'm with Kirk. A 4x5 transparancy scanned at 3200 ppi and 16 bits yields a a ~ a 1 GB file. The detail and sharpness are great. I don't even downsize unless I need to work 8 bit for some reason and that cuts the size. Processing the image is a bit slow for some functions on my G4 dual 867 with 2 Gigs of RAM but an upgrade to a G5 w/ 4 Gigs of RAM will take care of that.

[Frank Petronio]

The sensor is only costing these guys $1000 - $2000, tops. The rest is for R&D, software, interface, and a cheap camera body to house it in. And profit. 100% profit margin or it ain't worth doing.

What will probably really kill off large format is when some smartie pants figures out how to combine an array of cheap APS consumer DSLR chips into a multi-lensed camera that would calculate and optimize each lens/sensor's info. You could use imperfect, cheap components and have the software figure out what was missing.

[chris jordan]

Well shoot, this is about as interesting a thread as I've seen in awhile here, so here's my two bits. I work from 8x10, drum-scanning my trannies at 2000 dpi, which produces 16-bit files in the 1.6 GB range with VERY little fuzz. Anyone who says you can get a "sharp" 1GB file from a 4x5 should come and see my files from 8x10 originals. You could trim an 8x10" section out of one of my 4x7-foot prints and it would hold its own in a critique group of contact-printing freaks. As Ralph eloquently says, it's not the filesize that matters (you could scan a 5 GB file from a 35mm frame if you wanted to), it's the amount of image detail. And so far, there is nothing in the digital world that can touch the results that can be gotten from drum-scanning an 8x10 film original, presuming the image was focussed and the lens was sharp and the scanner cost at least as much as a new BMW.

So as far as I'm concerned, it'll be awhile before any digital this-or-that can hold a candle to the current technology, so long as you're willing to compress your vertebrae with 45 lbs of Toyo on your back.

What I'm waiting for is an 8x10 digital back with the following features:
--no cord going anywhere, e.g., no laptop to run it from, just a standalone digital back;
--runs on four AA batteries and is the same size and approximate weight as an 8x10 filmholder
--has at least 50 Gigabytes of built-in memory, with a port to an optional 200GB belt-pack;
--captures a 1 GB file; exposure time doesn't matter; could be minutes for all I care;
--then you go home and plug it in and download 20 GB of new images onto your Mac G-12 and they open up on your 30x40" monitor and you make like Keanu Reaves in The Matrix and quietly say "whoa."

For THAT, baby cakes, I would sell my house.

~cj

[Kirk Gittings]

Well shoot Chris that is about as close to an 8x10 penis enlargement spam as I have ever seen in this forum. Dang man, I guess you win. Yours is biggest. Yee Ha!!

[Kirk Gittings]

Love your photographs though!!

[Scott Fleming]

Chris,

Yeah, and dump the wife too if necessary.

[Scott Rosenberg]

The sensor is only costing these guys $1000 - $2000, tops. The rest is for R&D, software, interface, and a cheap camera body to house it in. And profit. 100% profit margin or it ain't worth doing.

hey frank, i am wondering how you came to this conclusion? i know it's a bit off topic, but would you mind elaborating a bit on this? i am a process engineer in the semiconductor industry and would love to see some of the material that led you to this conclusion. please don't think i'm being belligerent, i am really just curious about your findings. feel free to shoot me an email off line.

thanks,
scott

[Frank Petronio]

I really don't have a clue other than having the impression that low volume specialty manufacturers (I've done a lot of corporate photography, writing, and marketing ) need a high margin, whilst mass-market manufacturers can be successful with a small margin. For example, Kodak used to sell a million dollar copier, but there were only a few hundred customers. But the market for small office copiers is in the millions...

If a Mamiya ZD is $12000, given 33% to the reseller's mark-up = $8,000. Give up $1000 for the cheap camera body, and another grand for the software = $6000. The chip maker has to make some money, so maybe the chip is worth $4000? I dunno... but I think my guesstimates are very high by 2x or 3x. My experience with places like Kodak is they need to make 100-200% to make a deal worthwhile, because they are so inefficient. A small business you or I run can get by on a much lower mark-up, but big companies are so darn clumsy that they need these huge margins to make anything worthwhile.

Epson ink and Xerox toner come to mind - 30,000% mark-up?

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I will still be shooting film for as long as they make 4X5 e-6 film and chemistry. What I am waiting for is a $500 Imacon scanner and a $200 Epson 4000 printer. Then my world will be complete.

[Joe Smigiel]

I'll still be using film.

I've dabbled in digital, but I'm left affectively flat by it. As marvelous as the digital camera and output technology can be, it really doesn't produce a true photograph and I guess I'm just a photographer and always will be. I even get annoyed when videographers on local news programs are referred to as "photographers." They are videographers/camera operators to me and that's different than being a photographer. I get the same feeling when thinking about digital camera images and inkjet prints. For that reason, I don't think I'll ever truly embrace digital imaging no matter how inexpensive or accessible it becomes. I'd rather take up wetplate collodian and salted paper printing if commercial LF film resources dry up.

[Brian Ellis]

If "cheap" means $3000 or less I'll buy it in a heart beat.

[Spencer Cliss]

Anyone know what the outlook is? We can soon have 22 MP in the 645 format for 10'000 dollars, but what comes next? Is there a market for larger files? These files are plenty big for advertising, magazine publication and billboards. The only applications that I can see requiring more is fine art and science. We'll count obsessed amateurs to the fine art category :-).

A friend of mine sells his 13x18 cm transparencies to calendar companies. Some of them scan his film at 400 dpi on flatbed scanners. Yes, 400 dpi on-film resolution. These are 17 MB files. That's a factor 100 below this film size's purported potential.

I predict an incremental improvent in form of a 32 MPixel sensor that has smaller pixels and fills the 645 format fully - 56 x 42 mm.

What bothers me most about the current crop of medium format backs is the unavailability of shift and tilt lenses. For example, Hasselblad just came with a new autofocus line priced semi-astronomically. Why not include a line of tilt-shift lenses for crying out loud?

I could imagine we will sometime soon see 44 MP 6x8 cm sensors for the small view cameras, twice the size of the current 645 chips. The view camera companies will drive this because they want to continue selling cameras. Not everyone will stick a 645 back to their cameras just to have tilt and shift. I predict that more often than not, you will focus looking at the computer screen - yes, with your head under a dark cloth. The dark cloth will still be with us :-). The 6x9 ground glass is very small to compose and properly focus. Get prepared to buy all new lenses though, the old stuff doesn't cut it.

Film is such a pain in terms of handling, especially loading and unloading. Cost too, especially when you exposure bracket. I work in the desert with the 13x18 cm format. I don't use the 4x5 inch format because I think the increment in film size from 6x7 isn't worth the bother. I'll cheer when I'll go on a trip for the first time without film.

The other major issue with film is that it takes a 30'000 to 100'000 dollar scanner to unlock its potential. You have a choice: scan at home with compromises or spend a lot of money.

I do not see digital sensors in the 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 formats in the near future, say within 10 to 20 years. I predict that a very long time will pass until we see a 4x5 inch full frame sensor. I could imagine that such a sensor will not be made of silicon, but of polymers. Demand for this sensor would be driven by amateurs who would like to keep using their old LF gear with digital. Yes that's right, the market for very large format digital sensors will be driven by amateurs. No one else wants these big files.

[Frank Petronio]

Have you ever tried using tilts on a 645 SLR? It has to be really hard to see what is happening...

Most architectural photographers seem to go directly to the full-frame Canons so they can use wide angle lenses - the 645 wides just aren't wide enough for everything.

[Dave Moeller]

The other major issue with film is that it takes a 30'000 to 100'000 dollar scanner to unlock its potential.

Nah...all that it takes is an enlarger that costs one heck of a lot less than $30,000. Or if you're shooting 8x10 B&W, all it takes is about $0.75 worth of Azo, $0.10 worth of chemicals, a light bulb (which most of us already have) and a contact printing frame (which, if you try really,really hard you can pay upwards of $200 for...or you can pay $28 for one like I did on eBay.

Don't forget the true joy of film...you don't have to handle it digitally if you don't want to.

Now, before people start castigating me: I shoot film and develop and print in a wet darkroom. I shoot film, scan it, and print it digitally. I shoot digital and print digitally. I have no particular axe to grind, except with those who feel that digital beats film because scanning film is such a losing proposition. For over a century we got away without scanning film...a little more attention in history class may have lead some of you to realize this, but others seem convinced that "The One True Path Must Include Digital"...and it just ain't so.

[Darin Cozine]

Just to chime in here: I dont think there will ever be such a thing as a cheap AND big sensor. If you look at the CPU/memory chip industry, these items get cheaper because A: they are mass-produced to a large market and B: advances manufacturing process allow the chip to be smaller, thereby producing more chips on each silicon wafer.

So very few pros need a chip larger than 35mm, and large chips will allways be extremely expensive to manufacture.

That said, I think there is a future for LF scanning backs, which use a relatively small chip which moves through the focal plane.

[Donald Hutton]

Frank

Most photographers go to full fame Canons because they can buy tilt/shift lenses for them and the image quality is OK for a lot of their work. You can get some pretty amazing wide angle lenses for 645 (the 35mm lens for the H1 comes to mind). Using basic movements on a digital SLR body is actually really easy - you use a laptop and the screen is pretty big... You can also overlay a grid of any form etc. You basically use a little trial and error - it's very fast and you know if you have the shot the way you want it. It would not be any more difficult to use a digital back equipped 645 and do exactly the same thing. The problem is, as has been pointed out, there are not exactly an array of tilt/shift enses available for any system.

[Glenn Kroeger]

I doubt we will ever see a digital sensor much larger than 37x49mm (currently the size used by most MF high end backs). As someone else pointed out, the resolution will evolve to at least 35MB to match the pixel densities of the latest 35mm sized chips. Tilts and movements aren't a problem since one can do this on a wirelessly connected laptop screen showing real time data from the sensor. Not sure I want to backpack with all of the required batteries!

Sinar, Plaubel, Linhof, Cambo and Arca Swiss are making small view cameras and Schneider and Rodenstock are responding with appropriate focal length lenses optimized for smaller image circles and higher resolutions.

This is the configuration currently being used in high end digital architecture, but it won't replace scanned 8x10 for fine art work.

[Scott Fleming]

Gee I'm glad I asked this question here.

I've gotten a wholly different perspective than I get on luminous-landscape or robgalbraith.

Everyone has to find his own way in this game. It all depends on what you love. There are those who claim to be fine art shooters yet are actually gear heads who love cameras much more than they love creating images. There are money making pros who are at the mercy of the forces of competition and volume. There is a lot of mixing up of these and other genres amoungst the beginners. One has to figure out if you want to be a photographer because you like the sound of it or you actually believe you have something to say.

I'm glad I'm just a simple obsessesed fine art wannabee who has a chance to perhaps come close to the grail once or twice maybe before I kick it.

[Ralph Barker]

All of this stuff is a series of trade-offs, Scott. Plus, there is a lot of digital Kool Aid drinking among the digital zealots, and maybe some pyro drinking among the film zealots. But, I don't hear the digital-only gurus asking the critical questions about real image detail, hence my previous comment. There is a huge difference between making a large print that looks good, and making a large print that displays additional fine image detail that simply wasn't seen in a smaller print. If, for example, I take a 22MP digital image of a model standing across the room, filling 3/4 or so of the frame, I can probably tell she's wearing a watch when I enlarge the image. If I shoot the same thing on 8x10, as I enlarge the image to its limits, I can not only tell what time it was, but read the brand of the watch, as well.

Ultimately, however, the whole question boils down to individual preferences mixed in with the real science (not the marketing).

The real camera of the future will likely be more like a 22PP digital device. That's peta-pixel - none of this girlie-man mega-pixel, or even giga-pixel stuff. The image file will also include ranging and surface contour data, so elements in the image can be extracted, manipulated and digitally rotated in 3-D, as well as being animated in software for use in interactive holograms. (Remember the "feelies" from "1984"?) It will run on a small atomic power source about the size of a hearing-aid battery, and will use molecular-level data storage technology.

[tim atherton]

"It will run on a small atomic power source about the size of a hearing-aid battery, and will use molecular-level data storage technology."

like that dna based computer they were working on? cool...! I remeber when I read about it two or three years ago, they figured one dna computer would have more computing power than all the existing computers at the time of writing... (those test tubes of dna gunk made the prototypes kinda messy and wet though)

[Glenn Kroeger]

Ralph et al.

"There is a huge difference between making a large print that looks good, and making a large print that displays additional fine image detail that simply wasn't seen in a smaller print"

I agree with Ralph. But I have been pondering the meaning of this observation. Is there more to a print than "looking good"?

Digital prints look good even with less detail. The human eye/brain doesn't look at the image and ask "I wonder what's between those pixels?", it evaluates what is present. The lack of grain and the edge contrast cause the image to look "sharp". This lack of grain also contributes, at times, to what many describe as a "plastic" feel.

But why do we long for the extra detail if, in its absence, the print looks good? Certainly the feeling and mood of what we seek to capture isn't contained in detail that requires good reading glasses to see. Rarely in a gallery do viewers move in that close. More often, they back off to drink in the entirely of the image. If the meaning were in the detail, painters would have given up centuries ago.

Don't get me wrong, I like the detail! But do I really need it for my art? As I look back on my migration from 35mm to 120 to 4x5, I now believe it wasn't the detail that drove me, but the lack of grain and smoothness of tones. I can get this from 22MP digital (but I can't afford it!).

It is becoming clear that the commercial photography world doesn't value that detail. This has little impact on B&W work, since commercial photography hasn't valued that in quite a while, but it may have a devastating impact on E6 film and processing. Not tomorrow, or next year but not as far off as we may wish.

I suspect I will be very happy someday with 35MP. And long before the micro-reactor, I will have 16bit dynamic range and RGB sampling at each pixel. Then I can focus on light and mood, and how much charge is left in my battery and what to erase from my full memory.

[Henry Ambrose]

Glenn wrote:
"It is becoming clear that the commercial photography world doesn't value that detail. This has little impact on B&W work, since commercial photography hasn't valued that in quite a while, but it may have a devastating impact on E6 film and processing. Not tomorrow, or next year but not as far off as we may wish."

That first sentence is so true. Quality requirements for most commercial and advertising photographs are just not that high. If its printed by offset its gonna get chewed up. The Canon 1Ds had an abundance of resolving power and is entirely suitable for almost any commercial photography (and now there's a newer model thats even better). For that matter so are most of the 35 Digital SLR style cameras made in the last couple of years. Sure it looks different but no one said everything had to look "Hasselblad" or "4X5" to be good.

I don't know about E6 going away though. Maybe in smaller cities it'll dry up but I know of one large catalog company that still shoots nearly everything on film. They have no serious plans to switch as film and scanning is the only way they can keep control over the complete look of each project. I doubt they are alone in this. Funny enough, I shoot and deliver digital to them and have for the last 10 years.

Another thing that's not been brought up in this thread is the quantity of film and processing that you can buy for even that imaginary "cheap" $3,000 4X5 back. I wish I shot enough sheet film to justify even that puny expense. (I can only imagine the life expectancy of such a device - I'd want to write it off in one year for sure.) I'll be very surprised if we ever see any large 4X5 size instant capture back as I doubt there is enough demand for such an item worldwide.

There is a clear divide opening right now between film and digital use. Some have a foot on both sides of the crack but I think it will be safe to stand on either side. So I hope no one feels they'll be left out of photography because they can't or won't buy a digital back for their view camera.

Last, I find it amazing that anyone would want to fool with the expense and time overhead of high end digital capture for a hobby. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for doing it, but I am amazed. Somehow film seems so much more suitable for a pursuit where speed of delivery is not needed and you have only yourself to please.

[Ralph Barker]

Glenn said: I agree with Ralph. But I have been pondering the meaning of this observation. Is there more to a print than "looking good"?

Interesting point, Glenn. The fact that we're reading a large format forum suggests that most of us crave the additional detail and visual nuance provided by large format photography. Those raised on TV and computer screens, but have never gone to a gallery, may have an abridged set of visual standards. But, they like "big", too, as their bedroom walls may have been plastered with posters printed at 90 LPI. So, they see no problem with up-rezzing their digital images with Genuine Fractals to make big prints.

Although I, too, shoot digital for some things, I tend to think of even current high-end digital images as the "Cliffs Notes" version of the scene. You know, those yellow pamplets we bought in school when we were too lazy to actually read the book? Sure, the Cliffs Notes version got the basic facts right, but we lost out on the real lesson - reading the artfully crafted prose and all its richness of imaginary detail.

While for some purposes, "good" is good enough (especially if it's quick and easy), I think there is real value in striving for "superb" or "stunning" instead.

[Frank Petronio]

Eventually, using a large format film camera will be an artistic choice, rather than a means to an end. If digicams can do everything the commercial world needs and wants, (and I think they pretty much can) then the reasons to use film are either idealistic or economic. Since almost every enlargement COULD potentially be a digital manipulation, and the "purity" of the image - free from digital manipulation - will become a valuable artistic commodity (like using oils instead of acrylics) - it makes sense that people will start to value images that are made "by hand", without any digital steps. If you follow this line of reasoning far enough, we should be bypassing 4x5 and going straight to ULF positives made in the camera - the ultimate detail and quality, with the least opportunity for outside digital manipulation.

Then again, people like Struth shoot film and manipulate it as a means to the end - making large, detailed prints, with a field camera system that is light and portable. But, if 22mp plus backs and Zeiss glass can give 4x5 quality, then we'll all be moving there sooner or later, come hell or high water, as traditional commercial color technology (E6 and C prints) disappears.

On a practical note, the hassles of flying with a large format camera are very frustrating. Either I take my chances shipping the camera in a trunk; compromise by moving to a super compact system (like a Toho) or go to a medium format digital system that can fit into a carry-on. This issue alone is going to be one of my "tipping points."

[Donald Hutton]

Frank

The last point is right in the front of my mind too - avoiding "airport" saga would be a real pleasure. While travelling with LF gear can be done, having to carry all one's film (unless you Fedex that each way too) can be pretty frustrating. I also still find TSA supersleuths who just cannot resist insisting on opening sealed boxes of film, even after they've nuked 'em. I'm not married to film - if I can get the same results from something else in an economical way, I'd do it.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You could trim an 8x10" section out of one of my 4x7-foot prints and it would hold its own in a critique group of contact-printing freaks



As a contact printing "freak" allow me to say ....LOL

[Matt Miller]

"As a contact printing "freak" allow me to say ....LOL"

ditto

[David Luttmann]

It's funny. The debate on the advantages of using film goes on and on. I recall getting into a rather heated one when a fellow had told me that his 1DS exceeded 6X7 and the 1DS MKII matched 4x5 & 5X7. I found it hilarious and when I pointed out that my test shots with the new 17MP 1DS MKII came nowhere near 4x5 scanned on my Imacon, let alone 5x7, I was told that I used crappy lenses on the 1DS & shot hand held & didn't know what I was doing. It's funny though when you show them a 30" wide print from the 1DS and 4x5, how their tune suddenly changes & film isn't dead afterall.

We have to remember that that highest quality of any medium is never used by the majority. As such, most are happy with their 6MP DSLR & 8x12 prints from their Epsons.

[Calamity Jane]

When BIG sensors get cheap enough, I'll use 'em to tile the walls of me darkroom!

[Ralph Barker]

"When BIG sensors get cheap enough, I'll use 'em to tile the walls of me darkroom!"

Just remember to use a non-scratching cleanser when you spiff up those walls. ;-)

[Dan Wells]

As has been alluded to here. the problem with really big sensors is the sheer area of silicon involved. Computer chips (of all type) get radically cheaper per transistor with time, but the price per square millimeter of silicon changes much less! Almost all of the price decreases have been due to figuring out how to pack more transistors into 1mm^2...
This is an odd case where we care not so much about the number of transistors, but the actual size of the piece. 22 MP is nice, 60-100 MP from a good back would print so big you'd need a three story enlarger (or an impossibly large inkjet!) to handle it, not to mention gallons of developer or inkjet ink. The problem is that you need a large format film or sensor to use movements effectively. 35mm 0r 645 size chips and viewfinders are just too small. Someone's going to have to figure out a new way of making chips before we see a 3x4 inch or larger chip (for a price anyone other than a spy will pay-I'm sure spies already have them in airplanes, satellites or both...)
Until them, big film is the only real way to use movements unless someone comes up with a really good tilt-shift lens with full front movements, mounts the sensor to give us micrometer driven back movements AND figures out how to magnify the viewfinder effectively!

-dan