"Digital" View Camera

[FpJohn]

Hello: This may be of general interest:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml

I've been critical of my faithful Arca 6x9 as big-I've changed my mind!

yours
Frank

[Bruce Watson]

One consideration that is always left out is weight. Digital always has a hard time comparing itself to a handful of filmholders when the basis of comparison is weight. True, no one in the studio cares. But we landscape photographers definitely care. If I have to schlep it up the mountain on my back, weight is definitely carefully considered.

And before anyone asks, I'm comparing to my Toho and 10 film holders. 20 sheets. That you can put 60 shots on a flash card is irrelevant - I can't make 60 setups in a day no matter how target rich the environment may be. And if I could, I wouldn't. The point of LF isn't efficient production...

That said, I would be very interested if they could make digital view camera system that I could use, and afford. But Reichmann's system isn't it.

[RJ Hicks]

Man, he has some toys.

[Frank Petronio]

If only he knew how to make a decent photo with all those damn toys...

[Rob_6411]

Yeah, Reichmann has lots-o-bucks and enjoys his toys, but all his money can't buy talent. I hate to be rude, but his photography is rather uninspiring and mundane. He's seems to be more of a gearhead than photographer.

[Frank Petronio]

He should invest in some workshops. Atttending workshops, not trying to lead them.

(I wonder what kind of car he is driving? Does he toodle around in a Chrysler Mini-Van with this stuff?)

The digiheads I follow tend to show their biases too. A lot of good photographers would say that the Aptus backs have better usabilty than the PhaseOnes, and you could argue about the camera platforms to the cows come home. Same goes for Nikon/Canon/Zeiss lenses, etc.

I thought it was funny that he felt he "had" to use a $1500 Arca Cube with an Arca Swiss camera. Yeah, right. I understand the necessity of using microgeared movements with the smaller sensors, but so far none of those super-mini cameras (Rollei, Sinar P3, Linhof) look quite as field-ready or grit-proof as the Arca.

His only real intelligent observation was that it was easy to toss a few rolls of "film" and a roll back into the case as backup. That is a nice thought ;-)

Just looking at the cables, multiple battery packs, sliding brackets, and a Mercedes-E class sitting atop a Gitzo scares the heck out of me. I'm much too clumsy to own such an outfit. Give me a nice cheap Arca or Phillips 8x10 with some crappy APO Sironars to knock around with. Heck, I could even make do with an Epson 9600 instead of the 9800...

[Percy]

Hmmm...interesting. Why does this guy keep insisting that digital is better than film? Is he being paid by Phase One, Canon or somebody? And about the file sizes...I got bigger files when scanning 6x9 film on a Nikon 9000...I just don't get it.

One other thing...I was at a show recently in Detroit; a local gallery has a photography show every year. I happened to be carrying my Crown Graphic with me (didn't want to leave it in the car). Amazingly (given that I was surrounded by photographers and art enthusiasts) it attracted a great deal of attention--and derision from some. One guy, I think he won "best of show", seem to glare at the camera, then me, and rather derisively state that he gave up view cameras long ago. he went on to add that he hadn't shot film in years. There was no prior conversation that precipitated these remarks. He seemed to actually be ANGRY with me for carrying a 4x5 film camera.

Anyone else experience this? Wierd...

[Ed Richards]

Reichmann does have talent, but I think it is in his photojournalist shots, which reflect his professional background. While I do not like to pay car prices for a car, much less a camera, I can see where this might make a lot of sense for high end location shooting for advertising. I enjoy seeing the new technology, even if I cannot afford it. (I like car magazines for the same reason.) One thing he does not mention is that it is pretty hard to use micro movements on 6x9 gg - those machines really need the tethered computer for viewing. Once do that, I assume we will see motor driven view cameras that automatically set the movements. Then the photographer can send the asst. out with the camera and run everything from the office.:-)

[John Brownlow]

I've been shooting with Michael on a couple of occasions, once with me shooting LF, and he's not in anyone's pocket. All our gear went in the trunk of an Audi as I remember. We did a fair bit of hiking and he lugged his gear around very cheerfully up and down a bunch of very steep sand-dunes.

I absolutely don't agree with him about digital, but if you actually talk to the guy he's much less dogmatic than he seems on the site. I think he's a genuine enthusiast for it and can afford it, so why not?

For me, the killer with all this stuff is trying to imagine using it in adverse conditions. I often find myself shooting in the rain, or wet snow, walking around with the camera on a tripod over my shoulder, protected by a plastic bag... often on snowshoes... the thought of trying to use this gear in that manner is just ludicrous.

The second killer is one of the main reasons I sold my 1Ds: you have to keep the damn thing charged, and you have to deal with the archiving issue.

I like to have the camera in the trunk of the car so I can pull it out whenever I feel like it. And I have never found a compelling solution to the digital archiving issue.

[Walt Calahan]

"And about the file sizes...I got bigger files when scanning 6x9 film on a Nikon 9000...I just don't get it."

Percey

Bigger file size from scanned film verses digital capture is similar to comparing apples and oranges.

When one scans film, you scan the grain and resolution limits of that film. Digital can match or exceed scanned film with smaller files because of the lack of grain. I've seen this comparing my scanned film shot on my Hasselblad, when compared to the image file I got of the same scene using a borrowed digital back. There really is a difference.

That said, when can I buy a digital back for my 8x10? HA! I want guys to glare at me and be really angry, so I can pay no attention to them at all.

All the folks who have seen me with my Crown Graphic always smile. Percey, sounds like the fellow was jealous. His loss.

[Bruce E. Rathbun]

"Digital image quality is superior to that of film. And when you factor in ease of use, speed and assuredness of results, and flexibility of image processing, there isn't that much of a contest any more."

Since when did digital vs. film become a "contest"? One item that never seems to be mentioned is the quality of a contact print when compared to digital. A few years back I ran a simple test. A portrait that I had taken on 8"x10" was contact printed on Azo. The same portrait was captured on a digital back (Mamiya 654) and printed as a 4 color black and white print. Although the digital image was nice the Azo blew the digital away. I find that every digital image that I see has the same sterile type of look. Very hollow shadows and highlights tend to blow out. And what about the constant need to upgrade the digital gear? The average life span of a digital back is at maximum 10 years. Funny how the longevity of a view camera and lenses never get any mention in articles like this. I have three wooden cameras that will last my lifetime when taken care of.

Digital will always be the choice for commercial, advertising, fashion, product and architecture work. For fine art work (landscapes, black and white portraits, abstracts) the use of film is at the present time the best option. Speaking of landscapes I also find the reference to Clyde Butcher very odd if not offensive. What Clyde does is fine art at a very high level. Not the same for Michael Reichman.

With articles like this there is no wonder why fine art photographers are having problems setting the record straight. There is even on rather famous photographer that is selling what he claims to be “digital platinum palladium”. Will the nonsense ever stop? I say let those who enjoy the simplicity of using film alone.

-Bruce

[John Brownlow]

What Walter said re file sizes.

I had one of the original 1Ds cameras and, up to about 11x14, it was the equal of 6x9 in terms of sharpness and tonality. That was an 11 MP capture.

As soon as you got bigger than that, the image fell apart.

I personally can't bear to look at a digital image blown up much past 300 ppi, because the softness drives me nuts. With scanned neg I find that a 10x enlargement looks OK, partly *because* it has grain... even if the image isn't critically sharp, if the scanner is resolving grain, the image looks OK. (This is why 35mm blown up big looks fine whereas a 5MP capture blown up to the same size looks horrible).

The Phase One P45 is 7216 x 5412 pixels. So that gets you to 24" x 18" more or less. If you were less sniffy than me about blowing up digital images you might go to 24o ppi, which gets you 30" x 22.5".

Now, my 6x9 Fuji gives me a 24" x 36" print which is satisfyingly sharp. So there's a rough equivalent here in terms of enlargeability. I don't know about tonality. I bet the P45 image is cleaner, which may make quite a difference. I've seen prints from the Phase One of about this size which blew me away. They looked like 4x5.

Anyway, the real point I wanted to make here about film cameras is that, compared to digital, they are *cheap*. That means you can own more of them. I have a bunch... a Rollei 6x6, a Fuji 6x9, a Fuji 6x17, a Noblex, a 4x5... and you know what? They all do different things. Shooting something with the SL66 is *completely different* to shooting it with the Fuji 6x17, or the Noblex. Radically, totally different. It's like playing different guitars, or shooting different guns, or driving different cars. Then you can throw in different emulsions, and you get another degree of freedom. Shooting something on Pan F is radically different to shooting it on Portra NC 400, just like playing a Jazzmaster through a Fender Twin is different from playing it through a Marshall.

Now, of course, you can mimic these qualities in digital, just as you can fire up Guitar Rig on your computer and get some amazing tones from the virtual amps. But it ain't the real thing.

That's not the whole story, of course, as there are digital 'looks' which film cannot approximate (eg mixed lighting during twilight).

The point I am bumbling towards is that it isn't film vs. digital, it's film AND digital. I'd certainly be interested in a cost-effective digital solution to working in LF. I just haven't seen it yet.

[Ralph Barker]

The Linhof M679 is certainly a nicely-engineered medium-format view camera. And, the PhaseOne P45 is also an interesting digital back that can be adapted to the Linhof and other cameras. But, at $33K for the back (with a 3-yr warranty), and over $8K for the M679 (if you want shifts), the combo is far too rich for my blood.

Bruce said, "Since when did digital vs. film become a "contest"?"

I believe the "contest" is a result of the marketing of digital products and the need to make them competitive with, and as a replacement for film-based photography. Otherwise, it would be difficult to justify the investment (and re-investment every 18 months to two years) in the digital equipment simply based on the quick turn-around for digital-appropriate assignments.

Walter said, "When one scans film, you scan the grain and resolution limits of that film. Digital can match or exceed scanned film with smaller files because of the lack of grain."

That may be true, but it may be more accurate to add "as affected by the resolution of the scanner and the effects of the scanning methods". That is, the scanning process introduces another step that affects image quality prior to the final print. Thus, the quality of the scan depends first on the quality of the film image, and then on the quality of the scanner as well as the methods used in scanning.

To me, it seems that one of the elements that attracts some photographers to LF is the added detail that is available with larger film formats. That added detail, even if our eyes aren't supposed to be able to actually "resolve" it, adds a richness (for lack of a technically more accurate term) to the LF images that is lacking in smaller formats.

So, when I think about digital capture compared to film-based capture, I think in terms of real detail present in the image. The PhaseOne P45, for example, produces an image that is 7,216x5,412 pixels (39 megapixels) in size, each pixel being a single color from the available digital palette, as affected by the bit-depth of the digital file. Based on the comments from drum-scanner operators (here and elsewhere), fine-grained film seems to run out of additional detail somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 PPI. If we assume the lower end of that scale, 4,000 PPI, and a scan made with a high-quality drum scanner, a good 4x5 negative will produce something close to a 16,000x20,000 pixel scan, or about 320 megapixels (ignoring the film margin for ease of calculation). Thus, I have a hard time understanding how 39 megapixels of detail can be "better" than 320 megapixels of detail.

[darr]

"just like playing a Jazzmaster through a Fender Twin is
different from playing it through a Marshall"

A little off-topic, but fun: I remember when Ovations were not considered the real thing either.

[Frank Petronio]

I dunno, I'm looking at a 24 x 30 color print from a 6mp D70 file. It ain't the same as a 35mm scan or trad print, but I think it enlarges beautifully, even when it does go "soft" it does it smoothly. Different cameras, software, and techniques have the same variety of "looks" as different types of film, and I tend to introduce some noise for a "tooth" rather than going for absolute resolution anyway. The point is not to make my 6mp RAW files look like 8x10 TMX -- I'm just trying to get the most out of the inherant quality of the medium, just like Ansel and Weston ;-)

I think a lot of people hate digital because they try to play with an in-camera jpg in sRGB and they get crappy results. But they'd get crappy results from home processing a C41 disposable and sloppy darkroom technique too - while they should be comparing "best practices" techniques consistently with both digital and film photography.

Getting super resolution isn't that important. The reason I'm loving 8x10 film isn't because of the resolution. I like the way the film, lens, and subject relate to each other. There is a relationship between a big camera and the people/things that you photograph that you can't get from a 44mm chip. I love the reaction that portrait subjects give me when I focus the 8x10 on them, compared to rapid fire shooting with the D2x or whatever.

If I won the lottery I'd run out and get a Leaf Aptus 75 set-up next week, no question. But I'd still shoot film too.

[Jim collum]

Thus, I have a hard time understanding how 39 megapixels of detail can be "better" than 320 megapixels of detail.

it can't. i shoot both film and digital, and picked up a used Howtek d4500 on ebay a bit ago. My digital work is divided between using a 1dsmk2 with adjacent images stitched (giving about 39 Mp), and the Betterlight (giving 9,000x12,000). The 1dsmk2 image are on par with 6x7/6x9, enlarged up to about 24x30. after that they start falling apart (in my opinion).

i agree.. with most bayer sensor's 300ppi is about a low as i go to print. The 'true color' sensors (foveon, betterlight), will handle a much larger amount, and i can get prints with no digital artifacts at 200ppi easily.

as far as image size vs file size. everyone always says they can get tons of Mb's from their scanned images. not a problem. i can scan a 35mm slide into close to a 1Gb file. in the same manner, i can take a digital camera phone (1Mp) file and create a 1Gb file. Both are full of garbage. from observation (and i'm a 'detail' fanatic with images), the 9,000x12,000 betterlight capture will give me better, more useable detail then provia/velvia drum scanned on my Howtek. Also a *much* wider Dynamic range (closer to color negative film).

would i use it on a rainy day? nope.. too much hassle. i'd either use the film i carry along with me (if i needed the movements and enlargeability), or the 1dsmk2.

The real limiting factor that i've found is lens resolution. I have to go thru different lenses and test to find ones that don't limit the betterlight (and limit film i'd imagine).. i've seen the quote of velvia being able to capture 150 lppm. that's a pretty irrelevent statistic when some of the best lenses i've tested are limited to 80lppm (and those are *very* rare).. most sit somewhere between 30 (really bad) and 60, at f11

[tim atherton]

"The real limiting factor that i've found is lens resolution. I have to go thru different lenses and test to find ones that don't limit the betterlight (and limit film i'd imagine).. i've seen the quote of velvia being able to capture 150 lppm. that's a pretty irrelevent statistic when some of the best lenses i've tested are limited to 80lppm (and those are *very* rare).. most sit somewhere between 30 (really bad) and 60, at f11"

You could always use 35mm and get 400 lp/mm ... :-)

[John Brownlow]

Based on the comments from drum-scanner operators (here and elsewhere), fine-grained film seems to run out of additional detail somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000 PPI. If we assume the lower end of that scale, 4,000 PPI, and a scan made with a high-quality drum scanner, a good 4x5 negative will produce something close to a 16,000x20,000 pixel scan, or about 320 megapixels (ignoring the film margin for ease of calculation). Thus, I have a hard time understanding how 39 megapixels of detail can be "better" than 320 megapixels of detail.

Mainly because when you hit the resolution limit of film, you are beginning to resolve grain, so the signal to noise ratio gets rather high. Whereas with a digital capture at low ISO the image remains very clean all the way down to the pixels.

You see this when you blow a 4x5 and a digital image up big. The 4x5 remains crispy, but you start to see a little bit of the grain. The digital image remains smooth, but the sharpness seems to fall away. They degrade differently, in other words. It's much easier to see than to describe.

My own rule of thumb based on personal experience is that 8x magnification of film is roughly equivalent to 240 ppi output of a digital capture at the same ISO. Equivalently, measure the area of film in square cm and multiply by about 0.6 to get the equivalent in Mega pixels. (You can do the math if you think the film/digital equivalence is different -- my numbers are pretty conservative and err slightly on the side of digital I think).

This gives you the following rough equivalences:

35mm = 5 MP <-- feels about right

6x6 = 21 MP

6x9 = 32 MP

4x5 = 77 MP

8x10 = 309 MP

6x12 = 43 MP

6x17 = 61 MP

So I would expect the 45 back to chime in somewhere between 6x9 and 4x5, in terms of resolution on the print.

[CXC]

The best portrait I ever took was with an APS camera. It is sufficiently interesting, that the modest resolution, and inability to enlarge to 50"x60", seem completely irrelevant. So very little of the art of photography is a function of the equipment.

Like most of LumLan stuff, this article was filled with interesting technical info, mixed with some strong opinions. Makes for good reading.

[Jack Flesher]

As an aside, I have been asking MR a few questions about his outfit in a thread on his forums and an interesting "shortcoming" of the P45 came up -- at least from my perspective. It seems it the P45 is NOT capable of "real-time" focus when tethered! Anybody who has shot high-resolution digital using real-time focus can tell you that even the *slightest* touch on the focus knob imparts a direct and visible change to the image focus.

If I wanted single-capture digital MF, this factor alone would have me looking at one of the multi-shot backs like the Sinar or Leaf since their software does allow real-time focus when tethered. And as Frank indicated, they also would allow for multi-shot capability when desired which adds resolution and color-depth. In my case, I don't have $30,000 in loose change sitting around for either option, so the issue is moot. But I am looking into a BetterLight scanning back as a viable solution ;)

[Frank Petronio]

There are several good posts by Mark Tucker over on Galbraith's forum about the practical use of MF digital in the field. To paraphrase what he gets down to is that yes, you will judge the photo from the Histrogram and enlarged image on the LCD, so your $30,000 back ought to come with a functional LCD that is at least as good as the one on a $600 D-70. And the Phase One LCD (and most of the others) is pretty much unusable. The digital back manufacturers seemed to add the LCDs after afterthoughts and haven't really studied the way real photographers make pictures.

(Of course we all know that we shouldn't trust the LCD image. But since the digital exposures are "free", you'd be foolish not to plink off another shot just to be sure... )

There's also a chicken and egg type of problem with all this great stuff. If you can't focus the super-duper lens because you're trying to squint into a tiny crappy viewfinder or lousy ground glass - much less tweak your tilts and swings half a nanometer, then having the "ultimate" hardly matters. That's why people are "settling" for overpriced Fujiblads with auto-focus. At least you have half a chance of getting things in focus...

Think about all the people who gave up trying to use 6x9 view cameras because they are just too fiddley and hard to see with, much less make movements. Now shrink that 6x9 another 50%...

No thanks. I'll "settle" for a nice large format and good DSLR combination until something radically better comes along.

[FpJohn]

Hello:

I considered the M679 as well as the Arca which I did choose. Arcas of all sizes seem to be the most common monorail in field use-does the M679 venture outside as well or has it become a studio/technical camera exclusively? Opinions/observations?

yours
Frank

[Jack Flesher]

>> Now shrink that 6x9 another 50%... <<

Excellent point! As the lenses get shorter, the effects of lens movements get magnified... Not a huge issue if you only plan to use is rise/fall and shifts. But I can only imagine the frustrations of trying to critically focus and set T&S with a high-res digital MF back conventionally. Using my 4x5 and a BetterLight, my existing lenses are only about 20% longer effective FOV and I can focus the 3"x4" capture area of the Betterlight conventionally and get it close enough on the tilts and swings that all I need is a final touch-up for subject focus with the software. But the BL does require a tether...

[QT Luong]

35mm = 5 MP <-- feels about right

6x6 = 21 MP

6x9 = 32 MP

4x5 = 77 MP

8x10 = 309 MP


This assumes that the resolution on film is the same across all formats, which in real-world conditions isn't true.
Also, personally, I find that MR has a good eye (esp. recently), but even if I didn't think so, I would have trouble to understand what is gained by the dismissive language applied to his photography by some here. As for his opinionated style of writing, think about it as a good way to entertain readers (another examples are Philip Greenspun, Ken Rockwell, and Ann Coulter, all popular in their own way). What I found most interesting in the article is the mention of the director's viewfinder. I have never seen that idea before, and it seems to be a nice and affordable alternative to the Linhof finders.

[Dan Jolicoeur]

I also find his use of Clyde's work offensive!!!

It appears as though he is using Clyde as a comparison of darkroom to light room. The video starts out dark. Then showing Clyde's great work being rolled in large trays as an almost mysterious concept. Then showing a video of someone pulling on a curve with a mouse to insinuate it is doing the exact same thing. I'll quit if he ever makes a digital photograph that comes close to capturing my attention away from Clyde's work with his! This video was played on Good Morning America about a year ago, maybe two? I wonder if he produced it or purchased it from NBC or whatever network?

Regards,
Dan

[John Brownlow]

35mm = 5 MP <-- feels about right
6x6 = 21 MP
6x9 = 32 MP
4x5 = 77 MP
8x10 = 309 MP

This assumes that the resolution on film is the same across all formats, which in real-world conditions isn't true.

True, but my figures are deliberately pretty darn conservative. Most people would argue that a Leica and a slow film is worth a heck of a lot more than 5 MP. You could multiply by a factor of 1.5 and still be in the ball park.


Also, personally, I find that MR has a good eye (esp. recently), but even if I didn't think so, I would have trouble to understand what is gained by the dismissive language applied to his photography by some here. As for his opinionated style of writing, think about it as a good way to entertain readers (another examples are Philip Greenspun, Ken Rockwell, and Ann Coulter, all popular in their own way).

The reason MR rubs people up the wrong way is not that he is opinionated but that he seems to have an incredibly, and some would say unjustifiably, high opinion of his own work. I find those kinds of judgements are best left to other people. I like my own work -- I hope most of us do -- but I try not to make any claims for it.


What I found most interesting in the article is the mention of the director's viewfinder. I have never seen that idea before, and it seems to be a nice and affordable alternative to the Linhof finders.

Except that the good ones are just as expensive as the Linhof finders, and they are not calibrated for still film formats. The chinese 4x5 finders you can see on eBay are a good deal, as are the non-zooming Linhof finders which can be had for $100. I am a huge fan of removable optical finders in general, although I increasingly find I can do the whole thing by eye.

[Frank Petronio]

I think QT would look cute running around with a Director's Viewfinder and vintage corduroy Patagonia mountaineering knickers ;-)

And a beret, can't forget the beret!

I mean really, what good are these things? Take a step forward or take a step backwards. If you can't imagine what a 90mm does compared to a 150mm then you have larger problems that money can't solve.

[John Brownlow]

Switching from 90mm to 150mm is NOT remotely like taking a step forwards or backwards.

[Frank Petronio]

Right, a 90 to 135 or 150 is significant. My point is if you can't size up a shot with your eyeballs and know whether to use a 90 or 135 or a 210, then you need to spend more time shooting...

And if you are one of those guys who has a 90, 110, 120, 135, 150, 180, and a 210 then by all means, you NEED a director's viewfinder too!

[FpJohn]

Hello:

As a matter of curiosity, I weighed my 21/32MP (Brownlow) Arca outfit - 6x9FC, binocular viewer, 20cm rail, Horseman back, 80mm Xenotar, all in noname pack + Gitzo 2220 with head - and it is 8.5lb vs 31lb for the digital setup.

yours
Frank

[Walt Calahan]

If we all take one step forward, then a side step to the right, fellowed by a backstep, then do the fore mentioned backwards, we'd all be doing the"Fox Trot."

And now we dance.

These upstarts using this new "film" instead of traditional wet plate. HA!

In two hundred years will it at all matter?

Digital is here to stay. No one is forced to use it. It's getting better everyday.

I hope film is here to stay, and companies put the R&D into making it better. I sure do love shooting LF regardless of which focal length I envision.

Now where did I put my director's chair? I need to sit down after reading all this. Grin.

[John Brownlow]

Changing lenses is never like taking a step backward or a step forward. It's like changing lenses.

When you move backwards or forwards (or up or down or left or right) you change all the spatial relationships but not the field of view. When you change lenses you change the field of view but NOT the spatial relationships in the frame.

[Frank Petronio]

I understand, it's Photo 101. But in the real world I don't have a Panavision zoom lens for our view cameras. I only have a handful of wide, normal, and long view camera lenses if that. Or at least most of us do. And the only point I am making is that most of us can gather a pretty good idea of what a our lenses will accomplish spatially "in our head" and use the camera itself for final composition.

That's me, in the background, squatting down and stretching tall, using my free organic cranial viewfinder... And get this - it comes in stereo!

[John Brownlow]

I agree, Frank. I do the same thing. I look for the magic spot and then think about the lens. Which is quite often fixed so... no thinking required.

[Frank Petronio]

I hear you John. I'm a one lens guy myself. By the way, you have a great website that others should check out here (http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/).

[julian_4860]

>>By the way, you have a great website that others should check out here.

or for more recent stuff checkout JBs flickr account for5x4 and 6x17/6x12 pano

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinkheadedbug/

[neil poulsen]

What's a "Director's Viewfinder"?

[Walt Calahan]

Neil

go here to see a director's viewfinder:

http://store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/marvdirview.html

A director's viewfinder is an optical device that allows a film director to preview a scene before the cinematographer set up the camera with a particular lense.

[Kirk Keyes]

"What's a "Director's Viewfinder"?"

Looks like it does the same thing as a Linhof Multifocus Viewfinder.

[Paul Kierstead]

I spent some time with MR on a workshop (go ahead, laugh, but it was an awesome trip down the Grand Canyon and I have no regrets). He has reiterated many times his philosophy of shooting fast; he likes to set-up, shoot and move on. Actually, on that trip he was using an Arcbody. I think he really does love movements, but I give him no more then a few months with this set up before he runs out of patience with the set-up time. I have to say, it is an interesting rig; maybe if I sell my house ....

Or, maybe he will suddenly enjoy the radical slow-down. The constraints should reflect in the results; it will be interesting to see.

[Scott Fleming]

As a photography 'seeker' I've kept up with MR for four or five years now. Let's see .... I remember the Rollei he gave up on partly because it fritzed out on him in damp weather. Then he had a brief love affair with a Mamiya rangefinder. He then had a tragic and heart rending fling with a Pentax 6x7. Then came the 1Ds, 1Ds II and the Contax 645 and now the Linhoff. He also has a thing going on the side with video. The guy writes about gear for his website. He's interesting.

My theory on the Linhoff is that he was really blown away with Clyde Butcher's work when he interviewed him for his video journal he puts out. I subscribe to this and it is worth the money and time. He had a segment a while back on Johnson's work with his scanning back. Great. This segment on Butcher was really great. Butcher shoots with 4 x 5, 5 x 7, 8 x and up to 11 x 14, scans with a creao in 8 bit and makes B&W prints up to 6' by 16' that will make you weep. Seeing how he does it, how he prints and develops his work was one of the most instructive and inspiring things I've found in all my seeking so far.

I'm so glad I have gone through much of my trial and error as far as gear goes as a voyeur on the web rather than actually by spending thousands more than I have in real time real life. This latest article of his on the Linhoff has proven to me without doubt ... without reservation that LF is the best ... hands down ... no caveats .... no question. For me. When it was just the astronomical costs with digital I was still given to dreaming and even longing .... but when I realized that you could not focus the stupid thing and that swings and tilts were virtually impossible. It was a huge AHAH! experience. I'm free! I'm right where I wanna be! Well ..... maybe an 8 x 10 would be something to think about.

[jhogan]

He'd get laughed off the set if he called the DP a "DOP." All he needs is an "E" and he has a name for himself.

[tim atherton]

I'm sure JB has a nice Arri one or some such... ;-)

[John Brownlow]

Actually I don't have one, Tim. I keep thinking about buying one. The MarkV is the one to have. Everything else is for the tourists!

http://www.alangordon.com/r_camaccessories.htm

[Mark Woods]

DOP is the standard initials used in Europe and virtually everywhere in the world. To my knowledge "DP" is used only in the USA. An Arri would be considerd "small format" on this forum, unless you had the 65mm, then it would be MF.

Cheers,

MW

[tim atherton]

as JB's the only one on here with his own entry on imdb that I know of I try not to get into arguments with him about film making...

[tim atherton]

though I guess you could be Mark Woods (I) ?

[Mark Woods]

I am Mark Woods (I) and you can see some examples of my work at: www.markwoods.com. I've been a Director of Photography for 25 years. That's a lot of film under the bridge. ;-)

Kind Regards,
MW

[tim atherton]

That's what I thought after reading your post - strangely enough I've seen the "He'd get laughed off the set if he called the DP a "DOP." argument made before by uninformed usaians before...

[Mark Woods]

Hey Tim,

The first time I was called a DOP, I was puzzeled and had to ask the person (a friend of mine) what the heck it ment. Since then, I've become accustomed to it -- especially since my agent is UK based. ;-)

Kind Regards,
MW

[tim atherton]

my only movie making experience was doing the unit stills for one made for tv movie - and that was enough!

(I remember the first day trying to figure out who the hell was who and what they did - I'd been hired because it was a remote area in which I had experience and contacts. Towards the end of the first day some very authoritative looking person came over and told me I was doing it all wrong and I was especially causing the sound guys problems - I was mortified. Went and talked to the sound guys who asked me who had told me. At which point they almost died laughing - they explained he was the hairdresser who fancied himself as a director but was a complete wanker! After that the sound guys became my source for rides, who was who (and who was sleeping with who) and what was what)

[Frank Petronio]

I did the same sort of stuff in SoCal with my trusty Hexar. Lots of fun stories and they all work hard and have a blast. The end results are usually crap, but well done and well produced crap ;-)

When I was a ski bum a director got wacked by the tail rotor of a helicopter in the Timberline Lodge parking lot. In less than 24 hours they flew a replacement director in, while I had to hose off the blood from the pavement. ("World War III" made for TV movie with David Soul -- I played a extra Russian soldier XC skiing over the Polar ice cap (on Mt. Hood) -- $200 a day and a lot of coke around the neighborhood in the early 80s!)

[jhogan]

Yikes, my (North) "Amerocentricity" shows through, how embarassing. All apologies.

My cine experience has been with US/Canadian crews, and no matter the location, it's been "DP..." I stand corrected.

As far as cameras, no Arris or Aatons, but if I had the choice it'd be this (http://www.photosonics.com/Rental/4C.html) or this (http://www.photosonics.com/Rental/Nac%20E-10%20and%20HD-16.html) if only for the sounds they make. The old military models are even more fun.

They're all magical- enough to make the worst tasting beer look palatable. How cameras deceive.

[Mark Woods]

LOL, now THAT'S a lot of film through the gate!! JB, you thinking 1200 fps??? Gotta love it.

MW

[Doug Dolde]

You all might have missed the fracas but both Mark Tucket and James Russell have been declared "Former Members" on the Galbraith forum. I also "volunteered" to be a Former Member by telling Galbraith to go F himself.

Read about it here

luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10389&hl= (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10389&hl=)

[Don Miller]

As long as we're working on terminology, I've never heard of a Director's Viewfinder. It's commonly called a Director's Dick.

For you kids watching at home, by "Dick" I am, of course, refering to the name Richard. Probably came from the first director, who was named Richard........

As for you adults, be nice to MR. His PJ work is good. His landscape stuff is improving. And most (all) of us have not seen his work printed. I think it's great he's out on the bleeding edge. Figuring out necessary real world lens resolutions is becoming critically important. I'm glad he's spending his money doing it. You may or may not like his photography, but he is a smart guy who has contributed a lot.

[Frank Petronio]

I don't think Galbraith banned as many people as people like me asked him to close our accounts. Early RG had posted a warning that non-technical talk wou;dn't be tolerated. Once I saw Tucker was gone I quit too. Then Russell, Dolde, and many others.

It was a good community and I never saw it get out of hand. Russell and Tucker are two national level commercial photographers and yet they spoke with everyone, even the most clueless, with good humor and patience.

Duh! What was Galbraith thinking?

[darr]

"As long as we're working on terminology, I've never heard of a Director's Viewfinder".
I own a Kish Director's Viewfinder and use it occasionally.
Here are a few links to some:
tinyurl.com/hquo3 (http://tinyurl.com/hquo3)
tinyurl.com/kmp2v (http://tinyurl.com/kmp2v)

[Don Miller]

"As long as we're working on terminology, I've never heard of a Director's Viewfinder".

I own a Kish Director's Viewfinder and use it occasionally. Here are a few links to some:

Let me rephrase. I've only heard Dp's and assistant Dp's refer to it as.... what I said. It's west coast people. They will ruin us all.......

Just want my dope LF homeys to be cool with their bling bling

[John Kasaian]

I operate my view camera with my digits. Dosen't that make it "Digital?" ;-)

[simon warren]

Defininition of photography" The art or process of producing images by the action of light on surfaces sensitized by chemical process"

Long live Film !!

S

[Jean-Louis Llech]

Mr Petronio,
I agree that everybody here has the right to say what he thinks about other people photos, and articles.
I don't know M.Reichmann personnaly, no more than I know you. I saw his photos, and I saw yours. And I keep my opinion for me.
When you say "If only he knew how to make a decent photo with all those damn toys..." or "He should invest in some workshops. Atttending workshops, not trying to lead them.", you seem to strongly hate Michael Reichmann.
Once again, that's your problem.
M.Reichmann makes what he wants with his money, his opinions, and his photos.
You don't explain, or prove. You just affirm. You don't give arguments, you distill poison. What you write seems so disproportionate and exagerated that you probably miss your target.
That's nothing but an "ordinary oozing hate". Something very sad in the hierarchy of human feelings.
Jean-Louis LLECH

[Andrew Ito]

Funny how the word "digital" conjures up such harsh words and feelings around here. I shoot with an Ebony and a Canon and love both for what they each are able to do. And, if I could get a digital back like the Leaf Aptus or Phase One for $1000 or so, I'd be all over that.

Name calling and finger pointing is simply not necessary here. Let's all just be friends! :) Long live film and long live digital!

[Marko]

Funny how the word "digital" conjures up such harsh words and feelings around here.

Andrew, if you think this is harsh, you ain't seen nothing yet. You'd get tarred, feathered and drummed out of town even if you only thought that word over at apug. Here, you don't need to pick your words... just your company!

:)

[Jean-Louis Llech]

Marko, that's ballyhoo... a pure joke...
Just read the topic "Is it possible to be a pro and not use digital today?" on APUG : 46 answers, and nobody was killed.
About 500 topics with the word "Digital" somewhere inside.
No blood on my screen.

[Marko]

Jean-Louis,

Well, yes, of course it is a joke. That's exactly what that big yellow smiley face at the end of my message denotes.

[bglick]

I promised myself I would never jump into one of these again...but here I am.... just a few comments...

I also have shot with Mike R, as many others have. I also read his website, as many others. I think Mike has some very nice images...lets face it, half the battle is getting in front of subjects of interest, and he sure does that! His style is a mixture of many discliplines, his taste vary, a nice mix of imagery in my opinion.

People are attracted to photography for many different reasons. Some simply want to record history, some want to make fine art, some want to fondle the gear, some like the process, for some, it justifies their travels, etc. etc. There is no question about it, Mike has strong interest in gear and has become fascinated with the digital evolution. As a result, he buys a lot of gear, and not just cameras, it's everything from capture to print. He is not being paid by anyone and spends countless hours sharing his findings with fellow photographers on his web site - for free. Whether his style or his "camera of the month" is in tune with what everyone else does is not relevant to what he is offering. Bottom line, I would be hard pressed to find a reason to knock him for his contributions to the photographic community. He is a tireless worker, and we all know the pay is not so great.

As for the digital / film issue. I too use both mediums. The desire and curiosity to compare is part of the natural curiosity and creative forces that drives photographers. However, IMO, there is some big holes in most of these comparisons. Without getting in rediculous detail of my insights, I do want to point out what I see as the biggest and most dangerous ommision....

In pre digital era, we used to compare film formats. Since the same film was available in all formats, the comparisons were pretty straight forward. Every jump in format, 35mm, MF, 4x5, 8x10 had the potential to offer 4x the overall recorded data, or in our terms, 2x the enlargement potential. However, even when these comparisons were being made, there was often not enough attention paid to DOF and to a lesser extent, lens resolution and venerable 1/R (max recordable resolution based on film and lens resolution combined). If all shots were compared shooting a flat test target or infinity subjects, then differences in overall resolutions are limited to lens MTF and film flatness issues. So overall, comparing modern vintage gear, the differences in formats were often very predictable. For sake of discussion, each format jump would offer a 1.7x advantge under this scenario, in other words, you could produce a print of equal shaprness as the smaller format, up to 1.7 larger.

But when DOF is introduced, the rules changed dramaticaly, as the lenses ability to resolve becomes degraded by aperture diffraction as a result of 2 extra stops of aperture required per format jump. (putting aside the other drawback - 2 stops loss of shutter speed) Now even with DOF, the scenarios can run the gamut of 35mm using f2.8 to acheive sufficient DOF, therefore MF = f5.6, 4x5= f11, 8x10 = f22. In such case, only 8x10 suffers some small diffraction penalty in regards to the equal jumps in potential enlargement factor. But the opposite scenario of 35mm starting at f11 to acheive sufficient DOF, well, here is where the numbers go astray.... as each jump up in format is now being heavily burdened by diffraction, so the value of the larger formats is greatly diminished. How diminished vaires based on how far up the in fstop you were forced to move...... Of course, each can be run through 1/R for details, but this is a general discussion.

Now in the digital arena, not ONLY do we have to make the exact same considerations as above, which still, are often completely overlooked....such as digital advocates comparing a 39MP shot with 8x10 film and showing the digital shot wins. And it makes sense, if the scene required heavy DOF, 4 more f stops for the 8x10, then, the 8x10 shot was so diffraction limited, it reduced the format to that of MF. On the other hand, if you compare 8x10 at infinity vs. 39MP at infinity, then it would be obvious that 8x10 is superior (assuming shutterspeed is not an issue). However, the comparisons are often made by digital enthusiast trying to boast digital..... NOT, film enthusiast trying to bash digital ...so motivation also adds to the confusion, and not all of it is intentional.

However, leveling the playing field, there is ONE huge advantage to digital capture in general. Unlike film, the digital evolution has been increasing the sensors pixel density. As this has happened so dramaticaly through time, such as Canons 6MP, 11MP and now 17MP on the same size sensor, its dramatic effect is often overlooked. When you 2x the sensors pixel density (4x the # of pixels in same physical area), it enables you to make a format jump (as in film era) while avoiding the drawbacks of added diffraction which the film format jumps experienced due to a need to double the lens fl to produce the same composure. Of course the lenses need to offer enough resolution to appreciate this benefit. Which is currently what the digital lenses address and future lenses will be attacking.

So ultimately, a highly dense sensor with enough pixels, to enable much shorter fl lenses, will offer 4x5 shooters tremendous advantages, mainly by gaining more DOF then currently possible..... for landscape photographers, where near to far subjects is a constant battle, this will be a huge gain. The 39MP backs have already approached this threshold, attacking the 4x5 gold standard of LF....and also defying the "MP vs. film size" analogy offered earlier in this thread.

So eliminating cost issues, pyaback issues, viewfinder issues, electrical logistics, etc., digital is now (with these new large MF backs) offering many benefits and if it develops some more and the price starts to fall, well.... less and less film will be used.

Please, no attacks on the film issue, I love film, I still think it will always have some great applications, specially for us landscape shooters who trek out into the woods with heavy packs and want limited gear to pack, easy recording medium, very reliable, no electrical issues, can be turned digital at a later date, when the logistics are more favorable (like sitting at our desks), movements, changing plane of sharp focus, etc. etc. etc.

[rhbourbonnais]

35mm Digital View Camera

http://www.horsemanusa.com/img2/vcc001.jpg

http://www.horsemanusa.com/vcc.html

Robert (Robin) Bourbonnais