PDA

View Full Version : "Digital" View Camera II



FpJohn
27-Mar-2006, 17:04
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/counting-ants.shtml

KenM
27-Mar-2006, 19:07
Interesting, but pretty difficult to use in the field for extended periods without touching base to recharge batteries. He mentions having four batteries for his P25 back, and getting about 1/2 the life out of a P45 battery. That means that, assuming higher resolution, he would need 2x the number of batteries (8) for a single day of shooting. Ouch. Both expensive, and really, really heavy.

Not to mention the batteries needed for the laptop to download images.

So, while the setup if practical for busy commercial studio shooters, it's still not really practical for extended field trips.

I still can't wrap my mind around shooting in the field with all that gear. Wow. Granted, I have a large kit (4x5 + 7 lenses, some of which I don't carry at a given time), but add to that multiple batteries, a laptop, cables....I need a body like Barry Bonds to carry all that stuff!!

John Brownlow
27-Mar-2006, 19:57
I'm seriously trying to work out what the 'improvement' over my technika and Portra NC is. In truth I'd be quite happy to see a digital LF setup that I could live with but that sure ain't it. I even went into Vistek to look at the Phase backs but when I saw the sensor size I just turned round and walked right out again.

Frank Petronio
28-Mar-2006, 07:02
It's a vicious cycle. The small imaging area requires more precise movements, which requires a heavier geared movement camera. The sliding back prevents dropping the expensive back, yet slugging the outfit over your shoulder is asking for disaster sooner or later. At least when I toss a LF over the shoulder I only have to worry about wacking the lens. But his outfit - with the back, lens, etc. secured by only a few latches - would explode if it got wacked. $40K on the ground. Youch!

Those all in one Cambo Wide DS, Alpa, or Silvestris look much more realistic for field use. It seems that most of the architectural togs who shoot MF digital are using these instead of the full system anyway. You easily could fit one of these, with a couple of lens, into a small Lowe Computrekker.

jeannot
28-Mar-2006, 07:59
The picture titled "A River Runs Through..." appears to have been manipulated to bevel the dominant color Green. (In CS that's 'select color' then make a mask or copy to new layer, apply bevel/emboss and optionally, curves.)

I'd bet a beer on it.

If you wish to verify this, use the metrics that digital forensics use to find fraudulent scientific images. Begin with High Pass filter.

Jim collum
28-Mar-2006, 10:58
>The picture titled "A River Runs Through..." appears to have been manipulated to bevel the dominant color Green. (In CS that's 'select color' then make a mask or copy to new layer, apply bevel/emboss and optionally, curves.)

I have no idea if he did or didn't for this image... but i've been living in this area for > 20 years, and it's pretty easy to capture that color/saturation with either film or digital. that color and contrast happens naturally all the time (especially this time of year, following heavy rains)

jeannot
28-Mar-2006, 12:30
I understand what you are saying, Jim. I've been there, too, however there is something other than saturation - a real pixel-offset from the original pixels that says (to me) that it has been artificially enhanced using bevel and/or offset masks (not unsharp masks).

Emre Yildirim
29-Mar-2006, 05:22
These images aren't all that impressive for having spent $40K.

I still don't understand how people can say that the digital back is cheaper in long-term. I shoot maybe 300 4x5 images a year. Assuming that all I shoot is color chromes, that's about $360 + $750 for development. That's $1110/year.

Let's assume that I'm more serious about photography and I shoot 1000 photos a year (roughly 3 photos every day) - that's $1200 + $2500 (for development) = $3700/year. And let's add a good scanner that will do 4x5, like the Imacon 646. Now you're up to $10,000 + $3700/year. Assuming that the digital back costs $30K, it would take me about 5.5 years of continuous shooting, or 5000 4x5 processed chromes to equal that cost. If you're shooting only B&W it would take about 7 years to equal that cost.

(There is also a hidden cost of having to scan the negatives, which can sometimes be time consuming. The digital back isn't completely exempt from that either though, because you still have to download and process the digital files on your computer.)

I seriously wonder if Michael Reichmann will still be shooting with a P45 in the year 2012. I wonder if the physical device itself will last that long.

Mark Sampson
29-Mar-2006, 09:08
Consider also that you have to amortize the cost of this outfit over, what, 5 years? Probably less than that because in 5 years the system will be obsolete- or very close to it. You'll have to sell a lot of photographs in order to do that.

CXC
29-Mar-2006, 10:06
What Mark just said. Who amortizes digital equipment over 5 years? PC's are much more mature technologically than digital photographic equipment, and still people don't amortize them over a period that long. More like 2 years.

But neither the economics nor the practicality is what makes this pursuit interesting. He insists on being on the bleeding edge, and telling us about it at length. Who doesn't find that interesting? I'm thankful that he does it, since nobody I know personally would ever do it.

John Brownlow
29-Mar-2006, 10:17
Apologies if I've made this point before but for me there are some hidden benefits to using film which were important factors in my switch back from digital (a 1Ds Mk I and all the goodies).

1. total non-reliance on batteries or access to power supplies

2. Not having to deal with the digital archiving problem to such a huge extent

3. (Most important) Because the cost of shooting film is the *film* rather than the equipment, it is possible to shoot in various formats using lots of different wonderful cameras. For example... I use a 4x5, a Noblex 6x12, a Rollei SL66, a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder and a Fuji 6x17 rangefinder. They are radically different cameras which offer radically different views of the world. My aim with the 1Ds was to replace all of my cameras with a single one, but in fact it imposed a single way of working which killed my photography for two years. Go figure.

Frank Petronio
29-Mar-2006, 10:33
What it really points out is that for most practical field work and nearly all commercial work, the current professional camera choices are down to either:

1. A Hasselblad H system with the 22 mp backs of choice – using a larger 39 mb doesn't matter because the lenses won't perform well enough for the larger chip. And the other medium format competitors are nearly out of production.

2. A Canon/Nikon/Leica DSLR set up with selected lenses (carefully tested > $2000 "pro", Zeiss, "L", or Leica lenses)

3. A clusterful confabulation of cables, doohickies, and mad gadgets like Michael or Flescher are using -- scan backs, 39 mb backs, geared 6x9 cameras, expensive digital lenses, electronic shutters, etc.

Even if money was no object -- most photographers will probably settle on the H2 and a 22mp back for the best ratio of usability versus image quality. And, if you're doing around $120K/yr of commercial work, your film/lab fees are easily $15K/yr, so it is easy to rationalize spending $30K on a Hasselblad system. You'd have to be doing quite a bit better to justify all of Michael's gear (all three systems, probably $100K of gadgets).

IMHO the smartest photographers will avoid all three digital options and use large format film for the best quality, price, and usability. They can always rent a digital back for certain jobs, and nobody cares whether you shoot film or digital for your personal work and portfolio.

Afterall, if scanning is such a pain in the butt, maybe you're scanning too many crappy photos. Become a better editor and photographer, and then the time spent scanning will be more fun.

Don Miller
29-Mar-2006, 10:40
I'm contrary today.

- one back could be used on both MF and LF equipment.

- film can still be used on the view camera when necessary.

- many people have many projects near the car. The arguments against digital sound like outdoor photography only takes place on multi-day alpine hikes. The car is a wonderfully reliable power system.

- 3lb laptops are common and cheap for someone buying a $30K back.

I'm sure MR isn't getting rid of his Canon gear. He's using what he thinks is the right tool for the job based on his criteria. This criteria includes entertaining us (photographers) with bleeding edge antics. Why take comfort in explaining why it's such a bad thing? It's his money and his projects.

John Brownlow
29-Mar-2006, 10:59
You can't use the same back on MF and LF, unless you count a 6x9 arca as LF. If you try to use it on your 4x5 kit the ridiculous sensor size screws you completely. All of your lenses become telephotos.

Don Miller
29-Mar-2006, 11:15
O.K. semantics. change LF to view camera.

John O'Connell
29-Mar-2006, 11:17
Reichmann carries a rollfilm back and some film with him to avoid the death-by-battery issue.

I for one would love to be able to shoot with a one-shot digital back on a fully geared view camera in the field, with an assortment of the finest modern lenses. When I'm rich and these backs cost as much as a 4x5 camera, not a car, maybe I'll indulge.

What kills this stuff for me is that the sensor size is 49x37 and you're evaluating the image on a groundglass through a loupe. I don't think I'd wind up with very many sharp images working on such a small groundglass area.

Don Miller
29-Mar-2006, 13:06
What kills this stuff for me is that the sensor size is 49x37 and you're evaluating the image on a groundglass through a loupe. I don't think I'd wind up with very many sharp images working on such a small groundglass area.





That will be interesting. Being a little off with focus may kill the advantage of such a high res sensor. I know I would produce more and better photos with that sensor on an H2.





I assume this back can be shot tethered to a laptop. It seems with movements and without auto focus that would be the way to go. Or only shoot at infinity with no movements :)

John Brownlow
29-Mar-2006, 13:22
I'm not so sure about the focus issue. Obviously it is critical for some people but when you're shooting landscape like Michael does (and I do predominantly in LF) the subject is often 15 feet away on a 90mm @ f/32. There is plenty of room for less than critical focus. In fact in situations like these I rarely use a loupe and simply judge it from the reflex finder. I don't have a problem with sharpness.

(I have other problems but not sharpness...)

Emre Yildirim
29-Mar-2006, 23:55
- 3lb laptops are common and cheap for someone buying a $30K back.

I'm not sure if they're that common. Here is a short list of high-end laptops that would be suited for this type of equipment (keeping in mind that the large image files need good processing power, lots of RAM and a decent size display):

17-inch PowerBook G4 - 6.9 lbs
MacBook Pro - 5.6 lbs
Dell Inspiron 1705 - 7.61 lbs
Dell XPS M170 - 8.6 lbs

The only laptops that are 3 lbs (with standard battery) is the Sony VIAO TX series. Unfortunately these come with rather small, 10 inch screens, 512MB RAM and cost $3000. The display is only 0.18 inches thick, so I don't think I could take one of these out into the mountains.

So in the end, laptops are still pretty heavy.

Larry Gebhardt
30-Mar-2006, 05:27
Why do you need a laptop with a non scanning back? Just brings lots of batteries and a portable harddrive device like Epson or Jobo makes.

Film still sounds easier for my shooting, so even if I could justify the expense I don't think I would.

Frank Petronio
30-Mar-2006, 06:19
MR's article refers to his checking the images nightly, after shooting, not tethering up in the woods. It also refers to him missing a few shots because of focusing/alignment errors.

I'm sure for a critical shot (commercial work) you'd want to review the images before striking the set.

As for the image storage devices, I tried a couple and they are all funky IMHO - just use the cash to buy CF cards. I think you can save a bit with slower cards on the MF backs, as they don't need the fastest speeds for rapid shooting (at least for landscape).

Kirk Gittings
30-Mar-2006, 08:12
"your film/lab fees are easily $15K/yr, so it is easy to rationalize spending $30K on a Hasselblad system." Except that the clients are paying the film/lab fees plus a markup. Now you have to sell them on something else like a "Digital Capture Fee" per image and hide your equipment costs in that. Watch them scream for awhile as they get used to that, because they thought digital was going to be cheaper because there was no film and processing.

Contray to clients expectations, shooting digital is far more expensive than than film was.

Frank Petronio
30-Mar-2006, 10:15
Ahhh, but you are also saving money on YOUR film and processing, which allows you to shoot more for your portfolio and to shoot more images of each set-up. Both of which are really good habits for a commercial pro to be in - otherwise you'll spend your life doing hack work for the lowest bid.

Every top "successful" and busy professional shoots more than just paying jobs. That's what they need to do in order to build a winning portfolio and reputation. And spending $15K/yr on film and processing - even for these non-paying - jobs is pretty easy. And clients will pay a digital fee for capture, eidting, overhead, etc. They've been doing it for film and video forever, with the digital fee seperate from your talent (creative) fee.

The "day rate" kind of guys suffer from this, as do the people who rely on upcharging on materials. But those togs are usually bidding on price, not quality, anyway.

That said, I'd probably still use film for other qualities, such as the way it actually shoots when you do a large format portrait. The sitter's experience is very different with a large format camera versus a digital camera, and that affects the type of image you get in the end. Digital is great, and I use it too, but it's not about the resolution or technical -- it's about the experience of photographing.

Bob Salomon
30-Mar-2006, 19:10
"You can't use the same back on MF and LF, unless you count a 6x9 arca as LF. "

Nonsense.

Linhof makes several adapters. One converts Linhof 69 TK and Technika cameras to accept Hasselblad V backs for film or digital.
Another converts any 45 Graflock to Hasselblad V backs for film or digital.
Then they make adapters for any Linhof M679 adapter that mounts them to Arca, Sinar, Toyo or Linhof Kardan 45 cameras. The available plates let you choose Hasselblad V, H, Mamiya RB, Mamiya RZ film or digital backs. Four of the available M679 backs are rapid shift types.

Kirk Gittings
30-Mar-2006, 19:15
Frank,

With all due respect "The "day rate" kind of guys suffer from this, as do the people who rely on upcharging on materials. But those togs are usually bidding on price, not quality, anyway." This may reflect your business, but not many others.

You are painting this picture with way to broad a brush. What segment of the pro market are you talking about? Certainly not architectural photography. I am and associate myself with many of the leading architectural photographers in the country, Hedrich Blessing included, and all of us are "day rate kind of guys" and marking up film and processing is integral to our profitability. In addition virtually none of the top guys that I know in ArchPhot have switched to digital.

Kirk Gittings
30-Mar-2006, 19:17
Frank,

And I never ever bid on work.

Frank Petronio
30-Mar-2006, 19:30
Sorry Kirk, everyone is different. I'm thinking about advertising/editorial work and photogs who charge creative fees, plus rentals and materials. If you use a dayrate more power to you, but I wouldn't ever use a dayrate myself as it leads to too many complications and confusion in my experience.

A lot of younger ad and fashion shooters don't even own cameras anymore, they just rent at the studio for their shoot. Strange but true. But their clients are paying for the rentals no problem.

This guy (http://www.timgriffith.com/) seems to be an "OK" architectural shooter -- he is all digital and not charging a day rate.

Kirk Gittings
30-Mar-2006, 19:55
frank,

First off let me say that I am anything but anti-digital. If I had the money to throw at it right now I would pick up a Canon 5D outfit for certain kinds of jobs. But....Since I lecture frequently and teach architectural photography at The School of the Art institute of Chicago, it is part of my responsibility to know what the leading arch photographers are doing. I actually teach my class as a digital class, but..... I spend a fair amount of time every year checking on this very subject. I have friends and contacts in this business all over the country that I regularly talk to about this. Of course some are using digital, but the vast majority of the leading professionals are not (and absolutely none that I personally know and some that went that way for awhile have come back to film like Robert Reck who shoots foe AD). You could probably find a great arch photographer using a Diana, but that doesn't change the fact that most are still shooting VCs and film traditionally and scanning.

Don Miller
31-Mar-2006, 10:04
Kirk's feedback is interesting. I can see how ,in that specific niche, the digital bloom is off the rose. I can also see the arch film guys getting sick of explaining "why film" to photographer buddies (especially the young guys). But I still doubt the guys under 50 will make it to retirement without going digital.

"why would you need a laptop for a back"

Because I shoot LF to make big prints. To do that, everything needs to be near perfect. I would not have confidence focusing than little sensor area on ground glass ( 5 x 3.5 cm or about 2 x 1.5 inches ). I would not feel the need to check my work with an H2, however. I would just auto focus, shoot an optimal aperture and then stop down more for a safety shot.

The same focus issue is true with the new high definition video cameras. Where a small LCD was good enough for standard definition, now videographers are finding the need to bring a laptop or larger monitor to ensure a sharp shot. If you had a high def TV several years ago, most shows had shots with missed focus.

As always, if we're talking about work it's "the right tool for the job". If we're talking about some recreational zen thing then it's whatever one believes.

Kirk Gittings
31-Mar-2006, 15:00
"why would you need a laptop for a back"

Because if you are lighting interiors, the display on the back is simply not large enough to figure out the nuances of the lighting. And more over once you download it to the laptop you almost always need to goto a place where the light is subdued to seeit properly.

Shooting first class digital architectural photography is neither quicker nor cheaper than shooting traditional. Anyone who claims they can are simply NOT doing first class work. They are shooting down and dirty. This is true even if you are using the Canon 35 mm digital.

Frank Petronio
31-Mar-2006, 17:00
Not to raise your blood pressure, Kirk, but if you are an architectural photographer who is not taking advantage of digital techniques - mostly in Photoshop - not necessarily in "capturing" the image - then you are short changing your clients. By understanding Photoshop techniques you can extend your tonal range and reduce your reliance on artificial light. And perhaps even deliver more humanistic pictures (at least to editorial clients) than the stiff, formal traditional 50s modernist architectural shots that are so painfully crafted to look pristine and devoid of life.

Kirk Gittings
31-Mar-2006, 18:45
Frank,

If you would bother to read my posts you would have figured out the absurdity of your statement on digital techniques. I have been teaching digital architectural photography and delivering digital files to my clients for years now.

Your MO is transparent Frank. It is "get someones goat" time. Please, save your uninformed career advice for someone naive enough to believe it.

Frank Petronio
31-Mar-2006, 19:35
My apologies Kirk, I respect your work and opinions. Have a nice weekend.

Kirk Gittings
31-Mar-2006, 20:53
We be cool.