PDA

View Full Version : digital backs



simon warren
13-Apr-2006, 15:58
Hi Guys

Its been a while since my last post. I dont know what is happening in the States but digital is making things very difficult for photographers here in the UK. As an Architectural photographer I strive for perfection and as far as I am concerened shooting on film on 5x4 gives me that. Unfortunately clients are increasingly refusing to pay for scanning and in some cases film. Simply because they are reveiving images from guys shooting on digital who make no extra charges. Have I got it all wrong can digital be better for architectue? If any of you guys are shooting on digital what do you use and how does it compare.

Thanks Simon

Walt Calahan
13-Apr-2006, 16:23
First off, anyone shooting digital should be charging for digital capture, post-production, master films, web galleries, printed contact sheets, etc.

So to say your clients won't pay for film, processing and scanning is to say they are selling you a song and a dance 'cause they should be paying more for digital services. At least they do here in the States.

Now about "better". If you clients find digital more useful to their needs, then of course your clients knows digital is better. That doesn't mean your 5x4 isn't good, it simply doesn't offer your client what they need.

Clients drive the market. We supply a service.

simon warren
13-Apr-2006, 17:02
Thanks for your comments. Yes guys do charge for digital services. Unfortunately more and more clients just want the job done for the least money. Quality is really coming down. New guys with little or no experience are coming along and shooting for a fraction of the cost and producing inferior results in my opinion. Sounds like its better across the pond?

Simon

Walt Calahan
13-Apr-2006, 17:10
No no, not better across the pond. Sounds more like the same now that you've expanded on your posting.

Personally I'm with you. 5x4 is better. But the client's drive for faster, more, right now, can bring down quality.

That said, in a generation or two, digital backs in the hands of a caring photographer such as yourself will be able to produce to your film standards. Let's just hope the cost of the digital investment is lower!!! Ouch!

simon warren
13-Apr-2006, 17:14
Sadly digital backs in the UK range from around £17K to£10k . Unfortunately in two decades time I will be 66!

Cheers Simon

Frank Petronio
13-Apr-2006, 18:24
A few years ago the cheapskates used 35mm when the better photographers used large format. So what is new?

Walt Calahan
13-Apr-2006, 21:23
Simon

Sorry, when I wrote "generation" I didn't mean human generation, but computer generation.

4 to 6 years from now LF digital that's good may be affordable.

Crossing fingers.

I'll be 69 in 20 years. OUCH!!

Kirk Gittings
13-Apr-2006, 21:55
Simon,

See my site www.gittingsphoto.com. I still shoot film and scan it. Because of my relationship with Freestyle and Calumet I get to test most everything new in digital out there.....Like digital photographers who charge a "capture" fee. I charge a capture fee in which I hide my film, polaroid, processing and scanning costs. This is not necessary with all clients just uninformed brainwashed ones. I do primarily shoot 120 color negatives for scanning which saves on film costs. I have had 0 problems competing with digital photographers.

Even Hedrich Blessing arguably the leading AP firm in the US shoots film and scans it.

If I were to switch to digital, it would not be cost effective for my clients. My fees would have to go up to cover the equip costs (I currently use a 50 year old camera, very cost effective) and I would get less images done in a day. Digital architectural photography is slower than shooting film.

Richard Littlewood
14-Apr-2006, 03:01
I'd go along with what you say Simon. I work in the UK, trying to fly the flag for film, and I too have noticed that scanning has become 'something that dosn't need doing now', and also the idea of filing images for the future has become less important.
I work in galleries and museums photographing Art work in 2D and 3D, using film, in a few formats, and have good predictable lighting etc, and I know how to use it. Recently I've seen someone doing a job that I should have had, and he was photographing some small paintings using a digital SLR, propping these paintings up in window light, and shooting without a tripod. I also saw the (printed) results, and I suppose, if anything, they were just scraping OK.
Yes, standards have taken a nose dive, but prices have not. Things have just speeded up. Thats OK by me, it's the way of things, and I suspect that ex-film pro's may just possibly have a greater understanding of the mechanics of image making, because we were brought up to think in those terms.
I also accept that unless I buy into digital for commercial work it will go somewhere ealse, so buy the back for your 5x4 (if you have the cash) then buy the better one next year, and the next!
Good luck!

Kirk Gittings
14-Apr-2006, 06:56
"Recently I've seen someone doing a job that I should have had, and he was photographing some small paintings using a digital SLR, propping these paintings up in window light, and shooting without a tripod. "

But we have always had to deal with competition from ill equiped and experienced amatuers pretending they are pros. This kind of example is not new with digital.

Ken Allen
14-Apr-2006, 16:20
If you are shooting digital and negotiating with clients you should not overlook the fact that a good digital files needs less pre-press retouching than a good scan from a good chrome (notice that there are two variables for bad to creep in).

And I would go on to say that if there even slight problems with the shot (film/digital), digital captures are usually easier to fix.

Not that any of use ever deliver anything but perfect chromes.

In the states pre-press retouching is quite expensive from $60/hr to $250/hr.

Clients often cringe when thinking about retouching fees.

-Ken

kenallenstudios.com

Kirk Gittings
14-Apr-2006, 16:59
Ken,

A "good" scan requires no more work than a digital file. That is why most architecture publications prefer chromes.

Frank Petronio
14-Apr-2006, 17:36
Yes, but many architecture publications make "Arizona Highways" looks positively cutting edge ;-)

Kirk Gittings
14-Apr-2006, 18:25
Great relevant comment Frank since the topic happens to be Architectural Photography.

Frank Petronio
14-Apr-2006, 19:49
Sorry, I thought everybody knew that "Arizona Highways" is infamous for not accepting digital. It's quaint.

Kirk Gittings
14-Apr-2006, 20:16
But Arizona Highways is accepting digital. It has been for like two years. The photo editor is a friend of mine.

Frank Petronio
14-Apr-2006, 20:24
arrrgh, you got me... writhering in the dust...

Kirk Gittings
14-Apr-2006, 21:25
Luck of the draw. Next time it'll be me.

Walt Calahan
15-Apr-2006, 07:28
The architectual shooters in my area of the world find ALL their clients driving them to digital.

The magazine is not the standard by which these shooters are aspiring to to make their living.

I'm doing a shoot for an architecture firm out of Baltimore soon. The images I'm producing are more life style than architectural because they want to show how they've solved the "human" needs of their client (a local college). So they DO NOT want LF. Yes they want the line to be square, but they specifically asked for SLR digital. They want to see the students using the space, and how the space helps in the college's mission.

Who am I to say I shouldn't shoot it on my Arca-Swiss 4x5? My bank doesn't care what format I used when I deposit the check.

Now today looks like a beautiful Saturday to go wander with my KB Canham 8x10. Just for me. To hell with mowing the lawn. Now one from Arizona Highway will ever photograph my property. Grin.

giancatarina
15-Apr-2006, 10:43
as a pro architecture photographer, i'm spending my time shooting 6x7 with an arca swiss Fline 69 and a lot of lens.
I'm dreaming of going digital, but i can't see any perfect digital camera... with full movements !
i just want to be able to make the same images that i'm doing with film... nothing more...

Canon 1DS with TSe lens... try yhe 24 with full movements, and a very contrast atmosphere...
Digital back on my arca ? just think about the dust... and the size of the sensor...
Smaller the sensor is, shorter the wide angle lens have to be... at the end, no room for movements, and a very tiny image on the ground glass !

i can't see any valid solution for my needs, i will probably buy a canon sometimes with all the TSE, but only when i won't be able to have my film process... i still dreaming of a 6x7 that can be use with a lot of shift... let's wait !

Richard Kelham
15-Apr-2006, 10:58
"Canon 1DS with TSe lens... try yhe 24 with full movements, and a very contrast atmosphere... Digital back on my arca ? just think about the dust... and the size of the sensor... Smaller the sensor is, shorter the wide angle lens have to be... at the end, no room for movements, and a very tiny image on the ground glass !"

Silvestri? Sinar Monobloc (or whatever it's called), the new Linhof. Plenty of other options out there for serious architectural photography that would blow away the amateurs with their Canons.

(my Bank Manager and I are very glad I don't have to do this for a living any more!)

Frank Petronio
15-Apr-2006, 12:13
There are successful architectural photographers shooting the 22 and 39 mp backs on dedicated wide angle cameras like the Cambo DS, Alpa, and Silvestri. I am sure a BUSY professonal working on higher end stuff (Miami, major stuff) can and do justify it.

This guy (http://www.timgriffith.com/) does just fine with high end digital. He says he uses all the best stuff - Digitars, several camera bodies, 39mp Leafs, and a full Canon system for snaps.

Whether you can do as well in a smaller market and less impressive clients/subjects is really the question, not whether digital is viable for high quality architectural photography.

My hunch is that film will serve you well until you reach a higher critical mass and are competing on your reputation, not the price of commodities like film or digital proc. fees.

And I also know that pros like Tim Griffith shot a ton of film before they ever touched a digital camera...

simon warren
16-Apr-2006, 15:53
Hi Guys

Thanks for all the interesting information. If any of you ever come to London let me know and I will show you around.

Cheers Simon("Nearly Digital Warren")

Check out my site to see what stuff I have been up to. www.simonwarren.com

Jonathan_6488
16-Apr-2006, 22:16
I'm an architectural photographer also. I was fussing over the same issue myself a few years back but ultimately came to the conclusion that, since I would need a 200MB file to get equivalent quality to 4x5 - that the technology does not exist that would give me acceptable quality (despite the fact that you don't need anywhere that much for MOST purposes (inkjet 8x10s for example). Also - I would need to carry around a laptop and god knows what cabling and battery backups which would SEVERELY limit my ability to get shots. Who needs it? I tell my clients. Sorry - I only shoot film. I'm not interested in compromising on image quality. If the client want to have the originals scanned - that's fine - they can borrow them. Or I'll do it for them. I may, on occasion, provide the client with my own digital scans - but I don't like the idea of them expecting it.

Frank Petronio
17-Apr-2006, 06:20
Over at the debatable Luminous Landscape there is a pretty convincing article that argues that the newest generation of 39mp backs surpasses 4x5 film. A laptop would be required only if you needed to proof. Frankly, I think some of the 22mp backs are as good or better than 4x5 in practice, unless you make some pretty wonderful 4x5 scans on top-end equipment. From a sheer quality point of view, my hunch (not tested) a 30x40 inch inkjet from a 22mp back will likely be nicer and more detailed than a 4x5 scanned on a flatbed and printed the same size. That would be a good real world test, since most of us aren't scanning on high end scanners.

But it sounds like clients that aren't willing to pay for scans won't be concerned about getting increased quality -- if you have to compete against guys with digital SLRs then your problem is more about marketing than technique.

BTW, I enjoyed visiting your website and seeing your fine work. I think you need to base your marketing on quality, not price, as your skills and talent are excellent. It's a shame they aren't obvious to your clients, but i think you may need more upmarket clients.

John Brownlow
17-Apr-2006, 06:29
I've seen 24x30 prints from both 22MP backs and well-scanned 4x5 (Imacon) and the 4x5 beats the 22MP hands down.

The difference is night and day. The digital stuff looks good until you get up close, and then you realize there is no grain-sniffing detail. At 24x30 the 4x5 is holding the finest detail. And I'm talking 400 ISO film here too.

39MP is probably somewhat closer.

Anyone who wants to can go into Vistek in Toronto and see a bunch of 22MP images printed out on their 7800. Look at Reichmann's brickworks shot or the big jazz portrait. They look nice until you get up close.

Ted Harris
17-Apr-2006, 06:45
I've been following this thread with interest. Now to add a bit to wht John said. Well scanned is the key and scanning a 4x5 transparency with an Imacon, when you are presenting your image to a demanding client who wants to examine it closey is only the beginning. All too often when we discuss scanning we tend to think in terms of the results from a 4990 or even an 1800f. IMO an Imacon is not all that much better but is jus the next step up the line. Sticking only with scanners currently being manufactured you have the entire range of flatbed scanners from Kodak/Creo, the Screen Cezanne and the drum scanners from Aztec, ICG and Screen; not to mention all the now discontinued high-end products that many of us use. The point being that any of these will produce a final image that is far superior to anything a digital backis likely to be able to produce for many many years.

I am not suggesting thta anyone run out and purchase a $25,000 to $50,000 scanner tomorrow but most are available used at half their new price or less and you can always go service bureau you know and trust for the scans when you need them. OTOH, the cost of the scanner is not likely to be more than the cost of the backs we are discussing and will give you better images so why not consider buying one. Again,, these are items that come available at decent prices on the used market. A caveaat, be cautious when buying used and buy from a used source. In a discussion yesterday I learned that the number of serious repairs (read expensive) required of units purchased on eBay (read very cheap) is three or four times that of units purchased from known sources.

John Brownlow
17-Apr-2006, 21:24
All too often when we discuss scanning we tend to think in terms of the results from a 4990 or even an 1800f. IMO an Imacon is not all that much better but is jus the next step up the line.

I gotta disagree with you here. Although the Imacon resolution is not fantastic (2000 ppi or so), the scans are beautiful. There is a huge world of difference between an Imacon and 4990 scan.

Ted Harris
17-Apr-2006, 21:52
John, we don't disagree. I am just trying to point out that as much beeter as the results from an Imacon are they are still not close to the top end scanners.

Frank Petronio
18-Apr-2006, 05:48
The real world difference between an Imacon and a "top end scanner" has never been tested or proven to me. I've learned enough techniques - from combining multiple scans and making other adjustments - with my 4990 and Imacon scans -- that the notion of sending film off to be generically drum scanned by an operator who doesn't see what I see hardly makes sense to me.

Ultimately it would be ideal to become "intimate" with a high end drum scanner (carefully though, at 5000 rpm). But reality keeps us apart... love is a bitch!

In other words, the skill and concern of the person doing the scanning is the critical factor. I rather have a carefully made scan from a 4990 than a generic production line scan from a Tango. So Praus's Imacon is the next best thing for me ;-)

Ted Harris
18-Apr-2006, 07:04
Frank, I totally agree. I would never suggest "a generic drun scan" and in fact actively discourage folks from just sending trannies off to be scanned without knowing anything about the lab in question or the operator. The operator is key, I have seen horrible scans done on very expensive scanners simply because the operator didn't have a clue. In fact, for one of our scanning articles, I asked a commercial lab that I used to work with to do a scan for us and the operator didn't reallllllly know how to use the software (one of several reasons I don't use that lab anymore).

Secondly, labs generally charge by the megabyte and seldom delvier a full resolution scan .... they just scan for what you/they think is need for your maximum size print. Silly in many ways when you consider that the prep time to get ready to do a 4000 spi or 8000 spi scan is no different than tht for a 1200 spi scan. It's a whole different story if you are doing it yourself. I'm no tsuggesting a lab, I am sugesting that the tradeoffs between ownership of a digital back and ownership of a higher end scanner ... say from an Imacon on up .... are worth examining.

Kirk Gittings
18-Apr-2006, 09:03
"The real world difference between an Imacon and a "top end scanner" has never been tested or proven to me. I've learned enough techniques - from combining multiple scans and making other adjustments - with my 4990 and Imacon scans -- that the notion of sending film off to be generically drum scanned by an operator who doesn't see what I see hardly makes sense to me."

My sentiments exactly. Most times I get exactly what I need from my 4990 or 1800f. When I know that I will be printing large, I rent time on a local 949 Imacon and scan it myself. I have always found that since learning basic scanning techniques that I can get better scans for my purposes by doing it myself than paying someone else to do it.

Kirk Gittings
18-Apr-2006, 10:06
And Frank, here are a couple of guys who just manage to be the leading archtectural photographers in the world shooting film and scannning it.

http://www.hedrichblessing.com

And Walter, while it is true that most architecture clients want files, you don't have to shoot digital to deliver that. And actually the magazines do define success and the leading edge in architectural photography. All of the big name arch photographers are defined by their magazine work. Too suggest otherwise is naive. For clients like design professsionals it is all about PR and that primarily comes through design magazines. Yes you could do AP and never work for an architect, interior designer or shelter magazine, but it would be extremely abnormal and those that do probably consider themselves advertising photographers who shoot some architecture.

Kirk Gittings
18-Apr-2006, 10:11
Sorry

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

Frank Petronio
18-Apr-2006, 11:01
Kirk, Hedrich Blessing is great. They also aren't competing for jobs in the same market. Nobody who hires Hedrich Blessing cares about the cost of film, or scans, or digital backs -- they simply want an excellent shot and HB delivers. Also, it looks like they are doing more advertising than they did in the old days -- and ad agencies don't really worry about the expense either.

I hardly think they are competing against the quick and dirty DSLR photographers that are undercutting middle of the curve architectural photographers...

(I know everyone, even HB, worries about the expense but it is still a lessor factor with their regard.)

Kirk Gittings
18-Apr-2006, 12:16
Frank the guy you showed is not competing with the quick and dirty slr guys either. So what is your point.

Hedrich-Blessing has always done advertising going back to the 30's. Their overwhelming mainstay now as then is architects and architecture magazines.

Frank Petronio
18-Apr-2006, 12:29
Simon's original question was "clients are increasingly refusing to pay for scanning and in some cases film" and "Have I got it all wrong can digital be better for architectue? If any of you guys are shooting on digital what do you use and how does it compare?"

So if HB uses film and scans, God bless them. My point is their clients don't care. But Simon's clients obviously do care.

The higher end clients don't care whether the image is from a film or digital source so long as the photographer delivers a good file in the end. Tim Griffiths is high end and uses digital; HB uses film.

But on the middle market level, guys like Simon are getting kicked by the digital guys, so maybe Simon has to either go digital for his level of clients; AND/OR find higher end clients -- stealing jobs from Griffiths and HB ;-)

Kirk Gittings
18-Apr-2006, 20:18
There have always been and will always be low end people crashing the market for experienced professionals. Before it was 35mm shooters. Now it is digital SLR shooters. The problem is exactly the same, performing at a higher level to justify better fees and educating the client. What has changed?