High-End Digital Vs. 4x5 Film [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Marko

15-May-2006, 20:56

paulr

15-May-2006, 22:05

Also, I suspect a lot of the people who buy the megabucks digital backs are saving money by saving time in their high volume workflows. The technology is not at a point yet where anyone's even trying to push it on guys who wander around with a camera slung over their shoulder.

Doug Dolde

15-May-2006, 22:44

Frank Petronio

16-May-2006, 04:47

The good news is that as each generation of new, higher res backs comes out, it means that I'll be able to buy the last generation back for less. In a year or two the 22mp backs should be under $10K for a decent version, and that is a pretty viable price point for a moderately busy professional or serious amateur.

Joseph O'Neil

16-May-2006, 05:16

Doug and Kirk,

Ok, so my questions:

1. Over how many years do you figure a digital camera or back should amortize?

-snip-

Years ago we abandoned our traditional iron printing press with lead type in favour of desktop publishing. Whiel not photogrpahy, there are some paralells. A few thoughts and observbations, all learned form first hand experience;

1) It is/was eaiser and faster to repair and get parts for a 100 year old printing press than a 3 year old laser printer;

2) You can do ten times more, 100 times more with desktop than you can with a real printing press. Conversely however, there are some types of high quality work that can only be done with a traditional press.

3) Respect for you craft has completely gone to the dogs as compared to what it was 25 years ago as every household has a computer and a printer. Try and convince somebody that your $5,000 printer is just a wee bit better than the $50 inkjet printer sold at Wal-Mart is sometiems a battle lost before you even start.

4) You Amortization - I find, NOT for hobby use, but for commercial / industrial use, your window of opportunity for desktop publishing gear - be it your software, computer, printers, etc, you ahve realistically a three year period, maybe four at th emost, before what youa re using is obsolete.

I fyou or anyone else does not belive me, jump over to the thread on this fourm about what is th ebest book deisgn software, and look up the comments that "Pagemaker really can't be considered a professional level publishing tool anymore." - see here
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=17471

Point is, that statement is absolutely correct.

I coudl go on and on. We will NOT go back to our iron printing press - it's gone anyhow, but I find my profit margin is lower, the need ot constanty update hardware and software a bit burdensome - mostly because many new software programs do not really make your job easier, they just add more useless features. Factor in the amount of money you are constantly spending on upgrades, consumable supplies - i fyou think photo paper is expensive, you should see the paper bill I got the other day for just a few boxes of of high grade paper for printing cards on - ouch! Onc eyou get past those boxes of 20 pound white copy paper - *any* paper - photo quality for inkjet or laser printing, card stock, arrchival acid free - anything out of the "norm" - prices - holy crap.

So, looking at it this way, traditional wet darkroom phtography isn't all that expensive. Not if you do a few spreadsheets and take a very hard, critical look at your expenses.

The real point of digital is getting the job done 5 minutes ago, and being able to Photoshop aunt Matilida out of the old family portrait becasue she and uncle Harry are divorced and we don't want to upset anyone. And while you're at it, can you brush out those crow's feet, and maybe make her boobs a little bigger and ........

*sigh*

joe

Marko

16-May-2006, 08:58

Being a wedding photographer...wouldn't that be punishment enough in and of itself?

I think I'd rather photograph funerals.....but there is a great similarity in the sadness factor as well as the final outcome.

To each his own, as they say. ;-)

And I have yet to find a line of work for which there are no snide snipes out there... Just imagine what kind of field day the computer geeks must be having with all those photographers being dragged into using computers these days!

He's still my friend, he still earns a decent and honest living and I still stand by my math, though.

Frank Petronio

16-May-2006, 09:47

Actually, many "high-end" or at least good to formerly successful advertising and corporate photographers have taken to doing high quality wedding photography. While rates for commercial work have been stagnant, many upper middle class American weddings are spending $5000 on photography alone. I have several friends who have shot national ads and are now doing weddings as often as possible.

I used to sneer at it too. I tried doing one last year and found out that it is really hard work to do a wedding well, and next time I would want at least $5000 for a long day on my feet plus an extended editing and digital process, all bound into a nice book and CD.

When I was a young tog I was flying to NYC for Xerox, getting like $1000 a day. I thought I was hotstuff until the guy sitting next to me told me he was a tog too and pulled out a Halliburton filled with all the best Hasselblad stuff. He would go to Long Island every weekend and make $10K per week shooting two weddings. Then he would return to Rochester and print the weddings. It's taken me years to realize that this guy outearned me and probably made more personally fun and satisfying photos - that made people happy - than I did doing corporate stuff.

Photo below is from a wedding - it's a 45-minute time exposure (4x5) of the ceremony. The white dust is my little flash going off as I shot with my dSLR.

paulr

16-May-2006, 10:57

-snip-The real point of digital is getting the job done 5 minutes ago, and being able to Photoshop aunt Matilida out of the old family portrait becasue she and uncle Harry are divorced and we don't want to upset anyone. And while you're at it, can you brush out those crow's feet, and maybe make her boobs a little bigger and ........

*sigh*

joe

Maybe for some people, but that's not why I use it.

It's a set of tools with strengths and limitations, just like anything else.

All the complaints about crappy work done with digital tools have to do with accessibility, not with the tools' innate abilities. It's a specious argument to suggest otherwise. Remember all the painters who belittled photography in its early days. "All you have to do is push a button. Anyone can do it." And to prove their point, they could show you all the crappy snapshots in the world. Do these arguments really say anything about the worth of photographic tools?

Your comparison to printing is apt, but only if you look deeper at the history of printing and design. There has been great work and terrible work done with every type of printing technology. The nature of the work changes, since the different tools have different strengths and weaknesses. There has been plenty of crap done with the letterpress. For evidence look at most of the nineteenth century. Converely, most modern typographic design and typefaces are not suitable to the three dimensional impressions of letterpress type. Typefaces like futura or frutiger would look preposterous set in lead. As would most typographic design from the modernist period onward.

It's time to stop looking at one technology as being superior to another, and to save that energy for something that makes sense ... like picking the appropriate technology for the work you want to do.

Ted Harris

16-May-2006, 11:14

paulr said "It's time to stop looking at one technology as being superior to another, and to save that energy for something that makes sense ... like picking the appropriate technology for the work you want to do." and that is the most sensible statement ever made on any of the digital v. fil threads in all the photography forums on the net. I firmly believe that any of us that value our art and our craft be it for artistic or commercial purposes or some combination of both should applaud every new tool that becomes available to us, evaluate it, learn enough about it to understand how it fits or could fit into our workflow and vison and finally use it when appropriate.

I have a much wider variety of tools in my toolbox today than I had 50 years ago and an even wider variety to put there shhould I choose to do so. All I can say is I am glad to have the choices.

Don Miller

16-May-2006, 12:12

Reichmann's Canon bias is legendary. Why no Nikon's in the bunch? Surely the D2x compares favorably against the Canon MKII, and definitely the 5D.

You may remember that Nikon wasn't making review cameras available when they were producing clearly inferior product.

I wouldn't put much stock in MR's 4x5 comparisons. His transparencies have less detail than just about anyone else who have done this testing.

Marko

16-May-2006, 12:30

Photo below is from a wedding

I can see the thumb, but when I click on it, I get a login dialog again. When I fill it in and submit, it simply pops up again.

Tom?

Ralph Barker

16-May-2006, 12:42

Marko - might your login have timed out due to inactivity?

Jim collum

16-May-2006, 12:53

You may remember that Nikon wasn't making review cameras available when they were producing clearly inferior product.

I wouldn't put much stock in MR's 4x5 comparisons. His transparencies have less detail than just about anyone else who have done this testing.

however, there's few around who can get as much detail from a sheet of film than charlie cramer... and he wasn't just a bystander in this testing.. he was a very active part in it.

palantiri7

16-May-2006, 13:04

Hi Frank. That 4x5 long exposure is just so coooool!

roteague

16-May-2006, 13:33

I wouldn't put much stock in MR's 4x5 comparisons. His transparencies have less detail than just about anyone else who have done this testing.

I wouldn't either. There are just too many variables to do a valid comparison. For example, what developer was used to process the film? Fuji or Kodak. It does make a different. What contrast range was used in the test? Film resolves higher at higher contrasts (ever notice that MR comparisons are fairly flat). What scanner was used and how was it scanned? Single pass or multiple pass scanning, single sample or multiple sampling. Hiow has the generational loss between an already digital file (from the scanning back) and the film scan been taken into account? How about the loss when resizing for the web? Remember, when you resize the image from the film scan, you are essentially throwing away most of the information available in the scan - it isn't as big a problem for digital. MR's comparions are just plain BS.

Gordon Moat

16-May-2006, 14:41

A few interesting aspects about this: All those guys are more workshop oriented than professional photographer. It gets stated too often about the cost of film, but in a proper professional billing environment, that expense is paid by the client, either directly, or it is included in the overall fees. The same goes for drum scanning. Seriously, film is a zero cost item for me; I don't see why anyone else would eat the cost of film and processing in commercial imaging.

Drum scanning is a huge bag of worms. The cost can easily be billed out directly, or someone could take that same $30k that was mentioned and buy a nice drum scanner, or even a high end flat scanner. Anyone with a film catalogue of years of images is not likely to throw out all their old film, even if they thought a digital back was the best idea since holes in Swiss cheese. A Heidelberg Tango is now over seven years old; I even saw a couple sell recently for under $8k (complete and working, including dedicated computer). That Aztek is better, but not by much; want the latest in drum scanners, find an ICG; with the qualification that any scanner is operator dependant, so results will vary. High end flatbed Creo, Screen, and Fujifilm scanners come super close to matching many drum scans.

I guess if anything really bothers me about these comparisons, it is the implied message that you must have some form of digital capture. People use to be able to get really nice looking images, either chemical based or published, starting with film capture. I don't think that has changed. Anyone who got nice images in the past from 4x5 should not have much reason to not get nice images today. Basically, if you cannot create compelling images, then maybe it is not the camera, nor the form of capture (digital .vs. film, choice of film, et al).

Last item is digital capture as pacifier. There is a certain doubt everytime the shutter is released. Despite the best and most careful set-up, lots of thought into composition, or even long time of contemplation, the reality remains that what you just exposed to film might be boring, or just so-so. That digital back, tethered system, or any preview of that careful set-up you hope makes a compelling image, is the pacifier. Some people will find this works better for them; they can shoot with more confidence because some slight doubt is removed. Those without good editing skills, or those somewhat unsure about editing choices, can use the preview. Obviously, such use of digital capture is mostly a digital Polaroid. I think that while some will greatly appreciate this approach, and thrive with it, this is more something that alleviates doubt, rather than a path to greatness.

Simple approach to all this:
Creativity should not be technology, nor economically, limited.
Film allows plenty of room for profits in commercial imaging today, unless you have a bad invoicing system.
Digital capture is faster, and can sometimes alleviate doubts.
Not all of us have a question/problem that digital capture answers.
The bleeding edge of technology is expensive, and turnover rate is high.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

Gregory Gomez

16-May-2006, 14:57

Excellent! It's good to see that digital cameras and backs are making steady improvements.

I work with digitally produced images on a daily basis from medium format cameras that use $25,000 digital backs, and they are quite good. Also, if I were a professional photographer shooting $20,000 worth of film each year, it would make sense for me to be thinking very seriously about using a digital back with a medium format camera.

However, I am an armature photographer with aspirations of producing high-quality images in low quantities. So the test results shared here, while interesting, are of no use to me.

Until I can buy a digital back for my view camera that produces the same quality presented in the test for no more than $2,000 and then print superlative 11x14-inch silver-gelatin prints using a desktop printer costing no more than $2,000, I am not really interested.

But thanks for sharing anyway.

Jim collum

16-May-2006, 15:10

I wouldn't either. There are just too many variables to do a valid comparison. For example, what developer was used to process the film? Fuji or Kodak. It does make a different. What contrast range was used in the test? Film resolves higher at higher contrasts (ever notice that MR comparisons are fairly flat). What scanner was used and how was it scanned? Single pass or multiple pass scanning, single sample or multiple sampling. Hiow has the generational loss between an already digital file (from the scanning back) and the film scan been taken into account? How about the loss when resizing for the web? Remember, when you resize the image from the film scan, you are essentially throwing away most of the information available in the scan - it isn't as big a problem for digital. MR's comparions are just plain BS.

Michael Reichman may not have a lot of experience in the 4x5 arena, but Bill Atkinson and Charles Cramer are two of the foremost photographic technicians in the film community today. Not only that, but there are few around today who can put the detail onto film that Charlie can. This isn't a case of someone with a "predetermined let's show digital in the best light" agenda.

Jim collum

16-May-2006, 15:14

... the scanner was a Tango Heidelberg drum scanner

QT Luong

16-May-2006, 15:30

Whether the P45 is slightly better, as good as 4x5 with a given scanner, or slightly inferior, is mostly irrelevant. What matters is that it does offer a rather comparable image quality in a vastly different workflow that some find more productive for them.

roteague

16-May-2006, 15:32

Bill Atkinson and Charles Cramer are two of the foremost photographic technicians in the film community today.

Yes, and I sure their scientific credentials are known world wide....

Frank Petronio

16-May-2006, 17:10

It's hard to argue about Bill Atkinson's credentials. He is one of the fellows most responsible for that glowing screen you're sitting in front of. My bet is he knows his way around the "scienctific method".

Doug Dolde

16-May-2006, 17:14

A few interesting aspects about this: All those guys are more workshop oriented than professional photographer.

That may be true if you are speaking of Reichmann and his sidekick Chris Sanderson.

But where have you been hiding to say that about Charles Cramer or Bill Atkinson?

Marko

16-May-2006, 17:39

Not really, I logged in fresh, went straight to this column, read Frank's post and clicked on the picture.

It gave me the login dialog but then kept coming back to it in a loop. As if it did not recognize my id. When I went back (using browser back button) to the post, I was still logged in.

Scott Fleming

16-May-2006, 18:08

To be fair to Mr. Reichmann ... he is providing a DVD with all the raw files for anyone who is interested at nominal cost.

QT Luong

16-May-2006, 18:37

A few interesting aspects about this: All those guys are more workshop oriented than professional photographer. It gets stated too often about the cost of film, but in a proper professional billing environment, that expense is paid by the client

I think Gordon, like quite a few others, is equating professional photography with
commercial assigment photography. Whether they derive their living income from their craft or not, fine art photographers shoot on spec and don't have anyone to bill for the expenses.

Gordon Moat

16-May-2006, 21:49

That may be true if you are speaking of Reichmann and his sidekick Chris Sanderson.

But where have you been hiding to say that about Charles Cramer or Bill Atkinson?

Hello Doug,

I have met Charles Cramer, and seen many of his prints. Yes, long history of fine art photography. What surprises me is that people who have known him for a long time wonder how his print sales could enable financing a digital back . . . . . . . .
:confused:

I don't understand what you mean by including Bill Atkinson, since it is clearly stated in the article that he is a scientist. Are you implying that he sells enough fine art prints to buy a digital back? Or just that he has enough money from his other work to justify buying one?

A little confusion too in that I am not really hiding. Maybe at best I could term myself an emerging photographer, and I would not claim any of my images are better than that of any of the photographers mentioned in that article . . . that is for others to decide. I have a degree in fine art, specializing in oil paintings (very low resolution, by comparison; though rich in colour), which should not make me any more, nor any less, qualified to state opinions.
:D

My speciality is commercial printing, commercial photography, and design for print; which is how I make my living. I won't claim to be an expert . . . this is a forum, in which we state our informed (hopefully) opinions. Anyone only choosing one source of information would get a biased view, so I encourage people to research, and find the numbers for themselves. I don't have any need for people to agree with me either, and I respect the opinions of others.

Okay, so fine art compared to commercial imaging: if someone made $500 profit per fine art print, then it would take 60 print sales to pay for a digital back; if profits were more like $100 per fine art print, then 300 print sales would be needed to pay for a digital back. Sure, fine art photography can be largely speculation, but when the expenses are quite high (i.e. $28k in film per year), then it seems that it would make some sense to look at it as a business. Now because I have a degree in art, and not a degree in economics, maybe I have that wrong. If fine art photography is only speculation, and no guarantee of income, can it really be considered professional photography? My understanding is that professional photography generates an income; in other words the primary revenue generator for an individual.

I exhibit fine art photography too, so I am not just a commercial photographer. However, my main reason for doing that is to build an exhibit history that will help me get into an MFA program. I do get some commercial work from exhibiting, and I have sold enough for my fine art photography to break even.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

Doug Dolde

16-May-2006, 22:18

Oh now I see where you are at. Clinging to definitions and arrogant and pompous as well. Are you English by chance?

tim atherton

16-May-2006, 22:25

Gordon you're a dickheaad

Oh now I see where you are at. Clinging to definitions and arrogant and pompous as well. Are you English by chance?

what's with the juvenile comments?

Jim collum

16-May-2006, 22:27

Marko

16-May-2006, 22:31

Oh now I see where you are at. Clinging to definitions and arrogant and pompous as well. Are you English by chance?

Good grammar and correct spelling. Oh, and decent manners too. Yes, I think he might be.

But you know, the Revolution has ended a long while ago. Sucessfully. No need for ad hominem.

Gordon Moat

17-May-2006, 00:04

Oh now I see where you are at. Clinging to definitions and arrogant and pompous as well. Are you English by chance?

Nice humour Doug. I am German, just to clear things up. Does that make a difference?

I have no desire for people to blindly agree with me, so no offense taken. I respect your opinion, whether or not I might agree with it.

Art is not strictly defined. Unless my English usage is incorrect, I thought using a term such as professional implies that one made an income from an endeavour. If it would be better that we consider the term professional to mean someone of talent, or notoriety, then that is a usage different than I would normally apply to individuals.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

Gordon Moat

17-May-2006, 00:31

it's really no more speculation than your commercial photography. you supply a product, which some deems to be of value. as a fine art photgrapher, the art is also a product, and is sold to a client, just as your commercial skills are. there is very good money to be made in the fine art marketplace. I know one photographer who sells for > $2k/image, and during his last reception/show, sold over 300 prints.

Definitely a good level to aspire towards. When I spoke with Dan Burkholder several years ago, he told me he was making most of his income from his prints. We also share a common interest in motorcycles, though that is a different direction from photography. It might be that prints are not his primary income now, but I don't know. The point is that some fine art photographers do make a living, or at least quite a good amount of money, from selling their prints. It would surprise me if someone new to fine art photography was able to generate much income in their first few years.

I definitely supply a product with my commercial imaging, often somewhat strictly within an art director's or client's concept. The difference between commercial and fine art imaging would be that the client is definitely known in commercial imaging, while the speculative nature of fine art imaging gives some variable aspect to whom becomes the end purchaser/user of a print. We could figure out target audiences, but a sale is not guaranteed.

If I was to attempt more with my fine art images, or just try to go further in fine art, I would be more likely to do more paintings than photography. The costs are much higher, but the potential income could also be much higher. I have what some consider an odd approach to fine art photography, in that I only do single images; though some of my fine art photos have been used commercially.

My large format approach might also be something others consider strange. I can go to a location and sketch (pencil/graphite on paper) a scene, or I can set up my 4x5. To me, both approaches create a representational rendering of my creative vision.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

David Luttmann

17-May-2006, 06:01

This thread has proven most interesting. It wasn't that long ago....maybe 6 or 8 months that a lot of discussion came up around the quality differences between capture methods. What is amusing here is that a number of us who had actually tried some of these types of digital backs as well as the Betterlight mentioned how we found the quality of the image obtainable to be superior to 4x5 (in the case of multisampling 22MP backs and the Betterlight).

The venom flowed and some of us were skewered for even suggesting that such low pixel counts could compare to 4x5 scanned film. Now fast forward 8 months and all of a sudden it is accepted that this is so....but instead, now the arguement focusses on cost.

Amazing how time changes everything ;-)

Don Miller

17-May-2006, 06:25

however, there's few around who can get as much detail from a sheet of film than charlie cramer... and he wasn't just a bystander in this testing.. he was a very active part in it.

Sorry, I should have actually read the original question before posting :)

I was thinking of the original excitement of the 1Ds v. 4x5.

I see there's a new review. I haven't read the conclusions, but looking at the images the 4x5 drum scan looks significant better to me than the P45. I'm looking at the last three scans and the details. Especially the colr threads. If shooting bitmapped images digital would win.

I'm 95% digital, and expect to purchase a MF back as well as the new Canon this fall. But the 4x5 still looks better tp me. I expect a scanning back would look the best under ideal conditions.

Joseph O'Neil

17-May-2006, 06:55

The venom flowed and some of us were skewered for even suggesting that such low pixel counts could compare to 4x5 scanned film. Now fast forward 8 months and all of a sudden it is accepted that this is so....but instead, now the arguement focusses on cost.

Amazing how time changes everything ;-)

HI;
For me, it was and always is the money, never the quality. :)

For what it is worth, I think there's a difference in attitude between a serious hobbisy or artist and commerical use.

For desktop publishing - something that pays the bills and puts food on the table in part for me - when a new program, new printer, new large large capacity hard drive, etc, etc, comes out, and it is the next "must have" bit of equipment, my first thought is "can I afford it" or " do I really need it, and if so, how fast, or how long can I hold off before I really have to buy it."

Quite frequently buying that brand a new high resolution scanner - for me anyhow - might mean giving up on a dentist visit or some planned car repairs I had hoped for this month.

If I were using 4x5 to make my main source of living income from, and not something I do on the side, then my main reaction to "see this new 4x5 scanning back" would not be "gee, that's great, gotta rush out and get one" but rather "how the hell am I goning to be able to afford that!"

A local newspaper photographer I know and was talking to not long ago - I noticed his digital SLRs were getting close to 2 years old. I asked him with a smile when they would upgrade to the newest model SLR. His reply - "are you kidding, they likely haven't paid off these ones yet."

Frankly I could not care less what has better or worse resolution - I don't compare how many lines of resolution a sheet of 4x5 tech pan has compared to an oil painting - it's two different mediums, two different looks. What irks me - and if any venom does spill out from me - my apologies - but what bothers me to no end is the fact I have large format lenses and cameras that are 10, 20 or even 50 years old, and i still use them. I just bought a "new" used Schenider lens this week- 15 years old - perfectly good. Two weeks ago I finally threw out a 10 year old laser printer that orignally cost me new $4,000.

In the past 15 years I have spent ten of thousands of dollars, probally into 6 figures even now, on computers, scanner, printers, backup tape drives, monitors, etc, etc, and almost all of it is worthless. A brand new colour laser printer I bought 6 months ago dropped in price by 20% about 6 weeks after i bought it. "E-junk" filling up the landfills.

I know this is the way the world is nowadays, and I know there's little I can do about it, and i know I am certianly part of the problem to begin with. But still, on some fundamental, moral, ethical or philosophical level, isn't there something terribly wrong with a society that produces so much goods that is destined on purpose to becomes redundant in such a short time? I dunno what the alternative is, even if there is one at all. Maybe that's one reason I love large format so much - it's longevity.

Sorry to ramble on - need more coffee, need more coffee :). But if you see me lash out at the latest 4x5 scanning back or any digital product, it has nothing to do with film vs digital or any such thing. It's a deeper, more philosophical issue at hand. That, and the fear I may have to press my cashflow to buy yet again another device that by the time I master it to my personal level of satisfaction will be replaced by something "better".

thus endith the sermon on the mount for today - we return you all to your reguarliry scheduled "digital bashing" forum for the day.

:)

joe

Brian Ellis

17-May-2006, 06:59

Reichmann's Canon bias is legendary. Why no Nikon's in the bunch? Surely the D2x compares favorably against the Canon MKII, and definitely the 5D.

Maybe because the 5D costs about $2200 with rebate and the D2X costs about $5000?

Jim collum

17-May-2006, 07:12

yes, i also did a 1ds vs film comparison... and the 1ds didn't come close. i also agree that the film in this case is still holds more detail than the p45, and if 30x40 or 40x50" images made up a large part of my income, the p45 wouldn't do it for me. i've seen Charlie's 30x40 " images, and they can be breathtaking. part of this is the seemingly infinite amount of detail present that provides very real sense of place. a 24 x 30" with the p45 will reatain this... i havne't see the 30x40 yet to make a judgement.

[QUOTE=Don Miller]Sorry, I should have actually read the original question before posting :)

I was thinking of the original excitement of the 1Ds v. 4x5.

I see there's a new review. I haven't read the conclusions, but looking at the images the 4x5 drum scan looks significant better to me than the P45. I'm looking at the last three scans and the details. Especially the colr threads. If shooting bitmapped images digital would win.
QUOTE]

David Luttmann

17-May-2006, 08:48

Scott Fleming

17-May-2006, 08:56

Maybe because the 5D costs about $2200 with rebate and the D2X costs about $5000?

WHAT rebate for gawds sake?! $2200 samollians?! Jumpin Judas Priest? Where's my freakin checkbook?

(googling as fast as he can)

Jim collum

17-May-2006, 09:01

Jim,

Where is the 1Ds vs 4x5 film comparison? I've done a large search and I can't find any reference to it. Are you referring to Alan Briot's comparison of the 1Ds MK2 to 4x5? I've seen reference to that, as well as testing it out myself. If 16x20 was all I was doing, then the 1Ds MK2 would be a fine replacement for 4x5....but definitely NOT the original 1Ds.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/45_film_1ds.html

the Betterlight used at that time was the 8000x6000 model, which was inline with the drum scanned 4x5 film up to about 30x40" prints. the model i'm currently using is the 12000x9000 model, which captures a bit more than the drum scanned provia.

as you said.. it really depends on what your output is. since the largest i've sold is 40x50", then anything capture above that isn't being used. (although i'm getting a 40"x120" print ready for a show.. taken with the Betterlight and pano adapter)

jim

Michael Gordon

17-May-2006, 09:42

Sorry, this had to be posted in response to Mr. O'Neil's post :)

http://mgordonphotography.com/NPN/obsolete.jpg

David Luttmann

17-May-2006, 10:01

Thanks Jim.

It looks like I missed that one. I would most certainly not put the 1Ds up to 4x5.

Regards,

MJSfoto1956

17-May-2006, 13:11

A couple of misconceptions:

There is no BetterLight model that delivers 9000x12000 natively.

There are two BetterLight series -- 6000 series and 8000 series with 6000x8000 and 8000x10666 native resolution respectively. Both can instruct the stepper motor to capture an additional line of data in between the native scan lines resulting in an interpolated 9000x12000 and 12000x16000 pixels respectively. (the other dimension is totally interpolated with no additonal "real" data contribution). Thus, the 9000x12000 is not real data. Nor for that matter is the 1Ds data as stated below.

I have used the Betterlight 6000 series extensively and even at 6000 pixels the scan back is right at the resolution threshold of most lenses (approx 80 l/mm). So any additional sampling/interpolation may not deliver all that much more "true" resolution (of course, depending upon which lens and where in the image area you are measuring).

For that matter, the 1Ds Mark II is already over the threshold for most lenses (3328/24=138) which means that much of the native "resolution" delivered by the 1Ds Mark II is already faked. (to make matters worse, the Bayer array itself essentially interpolates the data by a factor of 2x which means that much of the data delivered by the Canon 1Ds and its ilk is suspect from the get-go)

Which brings me to my main point: Any test that uses scaling *OF ANY KIND* to scale one image up or down "to bring it into alignment" with the others for comparison purposes is essentially flawed since scaling will introduce artifical "resolution" that simply is not there. Further, most scaling routines add a modicum of sharpening further disqualifying the result. This is the main "trick" MR and others use to "prove" that digital is as good or almost as good as film.

If this were a fair test, NO SCALING WHATSOEVER would have been allowed and the result demonstrated online would have been significantly weighted in favor of film and the BetterLight (yes size DOES matter!). What is more, I opened the 1Ds files and saw absolutely no noise or obvious Bayer artifacts whatsoever in the blue or red channels leading me to come to the conclusion that the 1Ds data being presented had been doctored significantly.

In short, in spite of all the credentials, what we are seeing on the Luminous Landscape site is at best a terribly flawed test and at worse a fabricated exaggeration.

J Michael Sullivan

Richard Littlewood

17-May-2006, 13:17

Oh now I see where you are at. Clinging to definitions and arrogant and pompous as well. Are you English by chance?
The good old English 2 fingered salute to you mate!

tim atherton

17-May-2006, 13:21

thanks for voicing that richard....

David Luttmann

17-May-2006, 14:53

If this were a fair test, NO SCALING WHATSOEVER would have been allowed and the result demonstrated online would have been significantly weighted in favor of film and the BetterLight (yes size DOES matter!). What is more, I opened the 1Ds files and saw absolutely no noise or obvious Bayer artifacts whatsoever in the blue or red channels leading me to come to the conclusion that the 1Ds data being presented had been doctored significantly.

In short, in spite of all the credentials, what we are seeing on the Luminous Landscape site is at best a terribly flawed test and at worse a fabricated exaggeration.

J Michael Sullivan[/QUOTE]

What is odd Michael is that I've compared scanned images myself to the Betterlight, and in no uncertain terms, found that with horizontal resolution at 8000 pixels, it quite easily surpassed 4x5. My opinion only.

As to doctored images and fabricated exageration.....are you saying that all four involved in the test have an agenda? I've ordered the DVD and will be looking at the results myself. However, I've done these type of tests myself....and the results are pretty much bang on with what I found.

I guess maybe you've got too many black helicopters hovering over your home to see the results for what they are. Gee, I thought the compaints about price were bad enough.....now there are people claiming conspiracy theories.....OMG!

Rob Landry

17-May-2006, 16:13

Well, I must say that I still find the 4x5 shots to be the best (which is what Cramer found as well, albeit not by much). So, I guess if I had a spare 30K lying around and could stand the limitations of a smaller capture area or that of a scanning back, I could get shots almost as good as a few boxes of Velvia. Wow, what a deal. Nice comparison, but academic at best and not very useful for 99% of the LF crowd out there. This comparison is akin to comparing a Ferrari to a Honda Civic; sure the Ferrari is better in almost every respect, but of what relevance is it to most ordinary people. So in the end, it was an entertaining read, but then again so are Archie comics.

David Luttmann

17-May-2006, 16:23

Rob,

We were talking about the Betterlight.....and for that, it's no contest.....4x5 lost. As well, the cost is approx $8000, not $30K for that. Considering that's what my 1Ds originally cost....and the fact that it's paid for itself many times over, it is a viable solution for some. For the hobbiest shooting a couple of dozen sheets a month, it may not be. As well, for most people printing 40" wide and less, there is little to be gained.

I'd say to everyone here, order the DVD and give it a try. You'll probably be as suprised as I was when I did my original testing about a year ago.

MJSfoto1956

17-May-2006, 17:02

Rob Landry

17-May-2006, 17:15

Jim collum

17-May-2006, 17:55

The Betterlight 6000 HS is $12000 and it's still a scanning back, so is limited to only certain subjects. Since it cannot be used un-tethered, using it in the field is cumbersome (as if LF is not cumbersome enough). I can't imagine dragging that monstrosity, plus my laptop PC (with their pathetic batteries) and an 8 pound battery for the back out on a rainy day. Also, the capture area is not the same size as 4x5, so lens FLs are altered. I don't doubt it is useful in some situations, but its price and complexity are too much for the average person. To me, this is a nice conversation piece, and something most techno-weenies would have wet dreams about, but I just don't see the point for the average user.

i wouldn't classify anyone using LF or ULF as being an average user. Frankly its all relative. I've hauled a Betterlight, laptop and 4x5 outfit through SE Asia in 90deg/90% humidit.. and it really wasn't all that different than hauling around an 8x10 and holders. As far as limited... it won't shoot people or wildelife, but there's not much else in the field i shoot with film, that i haven't with the Betterlight... and what i can't shoot with it, there's always a quickload handy

jim

Rob Landry

17-May-2006, 18:16

Okay Jim, my first question is why? My second question would be, how do you shoot waterfalls or anything else requiring a long exposure, anything outdoors in a breeze, on a day with variable clouds?

Jim collum

17-May-2006, 18:38

Okay Jim, my first question is why? My second question would be, how do you shoot waterfalls or anything else requiring a long exposure, anything outdoors in a breeze, on a day with variable clouds?

why? i've been asked that about 4x5, 8x10, b/w darkroom, platinum prints, platinum and pigment prints. I've been looking longingly at some 11x14 and 12x20 ULF cameras as well... :^)

so why the betterlight? i can leave a location knowing 100% that what i've captured has been captured the way i want... what i want is in focus, and what shouldn't be isn't. It allows me the freedom to capture color more accurately than any film ever has, as well as more creative options with capturing both color and infrared at the same time. it also provides a dynamic range that exceeds anything else digital, and is on par with color and b/w negative film.

wind? artifacts are less of a problem to deal with than motion blur... slight rainbow fringe around leaves/branches that's very easy to deal with in photoshop. The real wind issue is with the camera/bellows blowing.. and i have that same issue with film. (most of my shooting is done in the early morning, so wind usually isn't an issue anyway)

flowing water?

http://web1.omniblog.com/_smartsite/modules/local/blog/blog_display.php?cmd=show_blog&user_id=10004&type=entry&map_id=1216

Pt. Lobos and Garrapata Beach. the pano of the beach is what you get with incoming waves.... an artifact of motion. If you shoot waves, you'll typically have them blurred.. also an artifact of motion.. and personally, i find neither one (betterlight or film) to be aesthetically displeasing.

Waterfalls?

I think i have 2 waterfall images in my portfolio... both film. Stephen Johnson has a waterfall image from Yosemite that works... i'll see if i can find a link to it.

In general, you can take a browse thru my blog and see a number of Betterlight shots.. both portfolio images as well as just messing around and testing.

http://collum.omniblog.com

jim

David Luttmann

17-May-2006, 18:40

Dear David,

The fallacy here is twofold: Scaling an inferior image will always make it look "better" in comparison to a superior (higher resolution) image. If the images were not scaled (easily done btw) one could readily identify how significantly better the medium format, large format, and Betterlight data actually is -- a true apples vs apples comparison. If you personally have ever resampled a lower-res image up, then you too have fallen prey to this fallacy.

The other issue is more disconcerting: *ALL* Bayer array digital cameras exhibit "Bayer artifacts" which are readily noticable in the red and blue channel (perhaps you've never bother to look closely there -- I suggest you do). The posted images have none. This both surprises me and concerns me as it seems to be a smoking gun IMHO.

Taken together, I have to come to the conclusion that the methodology is simply flawed -- nothing more. (you are welcome to your nonsense conspiracy theories, I prefer irrefutable evidence, not anectdotal). And either the entrants knew it or they didn't -- doesn't matter to me. The so-called "proof" offered on the website should be disqualified and a more exacting (not necessarily exhausting) methodology enforced.

As for your assertion that Betterlight can resolve 8000 clean pixels across -- you won't get an argument from me. It "can" given perfect conditions and high-end lenses -- but just barely. It cannot resolve a clean 8000 pixels if the lenses are not absolutely perfect across the entire width and everything is not in perfect alignment. Sadly, that elminates the majority of lenses being used by mere mortals. Ditto for the Canon. However: when used in 9000 pixel interpolated resolution, it CANNOT resolve 8000 pixels. If you are making that claim, then I can only say you must be smoking crack.

Methinks you suffer from "my car gets 100mpg" syndrome -- and no one can tell you otherwise.

J Michael Sullivan

P.S. I am an avid digital user and don't easily fall prey to the preposterous claims offered by manufacturers and their cheerleaders such a MR. In short: Long live film. Long live digital. I love them both. Just don't try to sell me on fairy tales

Michael,

Considering I do take images, process images (from a dozen or so different digital sources as well as scanned film) and print images 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, there is truly little you can teach me about uprezzing or downrezzing interpolation, Bayer interpolation, or digital processing in general. I suffer from no "syndromes."

As to your comments of doctored images and fabricated exageration, I believe the "smoking" comment belongs in your court. I happen to know the output of the sampled cameras very well, and there is no "doctoring" apparent in those images. I think you're simply trying to fabricate some case to bolster your opinion. It is very easy to do. I can simply say you've never used any digital scanning or MF backs and you're simply making it up. As well, I believe the 4 individuals you malign deserve far more respect for both their skills & integrity than you do as someone blathering on about conspiracy theories.

Nuff said!

MJSfoto1956

17-May-2006, 21:17

If calling into question their methodology is "maligning" them, then you have amazingly thin skin. Even "experts" make mistakes (in fact, they often make them), typically at the beginning of a project by making "assumptions". This ongoing (endemic to our industry btw) assumption that scaling an image is a legitimate way of comparing two digital images is simply and patently false. It is voodoo. If you allow the 1Ds to be scaled 200% then you must also scale all the others the same amount to have an apples-to-apples comparison -- BECAUSE SCALING, PARTICULARLY BICUBIC SCALING, CHANGES THE DATA RADICALLY. It is not a case of it being "unfair" -- it is simply a case that it is a bogus comparison.

You seem to have this idea that I'm bashing digital. Quite the opposite. I've known from extensive first hand experience that the BetterLight data to be significantly better than other digital cameras. In comparison, pretty much all other digicams produce questionable quality -- especially in the red and blue channels (my Canon's certainly do). BetterLight sets the bar for quality data and other digital cameras fall far short. At least this test does one thing right: it demonstrates how good the quality of digital *can* be.

What I *am* bashing is pandering. And MR is just one more in a long line of panderers to equipment manufacturers. He doesn't even need to "doctor" the image (your words, not mine btw). All he has to do it put it through his "normal" workflow (which likely has an anti-noise component) and call it a day. It is not a conspiracy at all (again, your words, not mine). It is just how business is done today. To not question it (worse, to defend it) is the ultimate in ignorance and hypocrisy -- especially when you provide evidence that you know it to be true.

J Michael Sullivan

Marko

17-May-2006, 21:24

Also, the capture area is not the same size as 4x5, so lens FLs are altered.
...
To me, this is a nice conversation piece, and something most techno-weenies would have wet dreams about, but I just don't see the point for the average user.

Both of these "arguments" were beaten to death and beyond in digital forums, but obviously LF is backward enough that this is only now starting to crop up. OK, here it goes, brief version:

1. Focal length of a lens, any lens, remains fixed (unless it's a zoom, obviously) no matter what size and kind of media is attached to the back of the camera. In other words, a 300mm lens would have the focal length of exactly 300mm on both the tiniest 5.3mm x 4.0mm digital sensor and on the 8 x 10 inch film. Its image circle would also remain the same. But the image projected into that circle would get cropped by the image capturing area. That's why it's called a Crop Factor.

2. As for the average user, I see no point in anything other than a point and shoot for them. That would be a digital point and shoot, most likely with the sensor of the size quoted above.

MJSfoto1956

18-May-2006, 06:06

Today's lesson: Why up-sampling lo-res data to compare it to high-res data is bogus.

Problem: online sites often compare lo-res digital images to high-res digital images using a common technique: up-sampling the lo-res data (typically in Photoshop using bi-cubic sampling) to match the high-res data so that it can be presented "objectively" on the web.

This technique is taken to be wholey objective and presented as a fair comparison. And to date, few have challenged the methodology. Herein I attempt to present the reasons why the comparison is both false and misleading (the effect of the technique is to always make the lower-res data look significantly better than it really is, regardless of the type of photo)

Let's take a simple piece of data, such as the following letter "T":
http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/scanning/resolution/T.6000.gif
Figure A: high-res data "as is"

The above has been scaled WITHOUT SAMPLING to 200% of original size so that you can see with clarity the detail in the pixels.

Now let's do the same for the same data only at precisely 1/2 the resolution:
http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/scanning/resolution/T.3000.gif
Figure B: lo-res data "as is"

The comparison is immediate and dramatic. It is CLEAR to the human eye that one image has twice the resolution of the other. If online knowledge clearing houses such as Luminious Landscape would use such comparisons, they would inevitably draw different conclusions about the "quality" of data being delivered by the equipment they were reviewing.

But of course, they don't. Instead they upsample the low-res data so that it matches the resolution of the better data. The effect is dramatic (and misleading):
http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/scanning/resolution/T.3000.sampled.gif
Figure C: lo-res up-sampled

While MR et al did not perform the next step in their much balleyhooed online showdown of film vs. digital (at least they said they didn't), many many other sites then take the above "C" data and sharpen it as such:
http://www.haywood-sullivan.com/scanning/resolution/T.3000.sampled.sharpened.gif
Figure D: lo-res up-sampled, sharpened

Thus, most sites compare figure A with figure D and then go on to conclude: "while A was sharper than D, it was only slightly so". Their conclusion? D is "almost" as sharp as A, conveniently neglecting to reveal figure B to their readers.

You, of course, get to draw your own conclusions. But as consumers, we should demand more from the sources we rely upon for infomation.

J Michael Sullivan

David Luttmann

18-May-2006, 06:08

Micheal,

Don't tell me "they are my words, not yours."

To quote you:
If this were a fair test, NO SCALING WHATSOEVER would have been allowed and the result demonstrated online would have been significantly weighted in favor of film and the BetterLight (yes size DOES matter!). What is more, I opened the 1Ds files and saw absolutely no noise or obvious Bayer artifacts whatsoever in the blue or red channels leading me to come to the conclusion that the 1Ds data being presented had been doctored significantly.

In short, in spite of all the credentials, what we are seeing on the Luminous Landscape site is at best a terribly flawed test and at worse a fabricated exaggeration.

So, you most certainly did say the images were "doctored." Of course, shortly we can all have the original DVD where you'll be able to see the raw, "unscaled" images yourself. And what you'll notice when you do review these images and compare them yourself is that you "scaling" flaws actually introduce very little error in swaying the decision between different capture devices. This is backed up by a test that I am working on with someone comparing the Nikon D200 to scanned 35mm Velvia. We were testing peak resolution. The 35mm had a a slight edge in peak frequencies, but with a fair bit of noise. The key is, interpolating the D200 image up to the film scan size, or downrezzing the film scan to the D200 size didn't change the outcome of the test.

I never said you were anti digital. But your entire argument is based upon what you claim to be "flawed methods, exageration, fabrication, and image doctoring," of which you have no proof other than your opinion. As I've stated before with some others in these forums....opinions not backed up by facts (or proof) are worthless.

And before you claim someone is putting words in your mouth, might I suggest you pay better attention to what you've actually written previously.

MJSfoto1956

18-May-2006, 06:35

chris jordan

18-May-2006, 06:58

MJSfoto1956

18-May-2006, 07:58

Depends who you ask...

If you ask a film devotee, they will tell you that 4x5 will outperfom the P45

If you ask a BetterLight devotee, they will tell you the quality of data coming out of the Bayer array sucks

If you ask a commercial photographer who is always on deadline and heavily invested in $50k of digital equipment, they will tell you the P45 quality is better!

Then there are the scientists/technicians who can "prove" any of the above positions -- key thing they focus on is signal-to-noise ratio.

In the end, it is the print that matters for printing will soften up and hide a host of problems. Clearly at 16"x20" you will not be able to tell the difference at all between quality 4x5 film and a 32-39mp digital back with good optics. @ 30"x40" you will see differences though -- as someone stated earlier, film and digital "diverge" as they get enlarged. Film reveals its grain and digital simply gets "smooth" (not unlike the "T" lesson regarding up-sampling I demonstrated previously)

Personally, I really like the look of grain.

My Mamiya 7 images look great at 30"x40". But then again, my Betterlight prints looks pretty damn awesome at 30"x40" as well, so I can't complain there. My guess is that you will be very happy with the P45 (your checkbook might complain though)

J Michael Sullivan

David Luttmann

18-May-2006, 08:10

David, you are tedious and whiney.

It is has been well known for years that upsampling changes the data significantly. The above test proves it objectively and succinctly so that anyone can understand it in plain layman terms.

You (and others) cannot claim that something is "objective" when it has been changed by a process known to produce a false data. It is as ludicrous as suggesting that we DOWNSAMPLE the high-res data so that we can compare it objectively to the low-res data. Hogwash. You are not thinking man.

MR et al should know better. So should you.

J Michael Sullivan

First off Michael, it appears when someone points out something you don't like, you resort to namecalling. Typically, that's the first sign of a problem. Second, I pointed out that you have claimed the testers are being dishonest by "doctoring" the images. The "doctoring" term was yours. Third, the image interpolation used was NOT downrezzing, but upsampling the lower rez images to match the higher rez image....you'll note the reference to the 6000X8000 size....in other words matching the Betterlight. This is the ONLY way to compare on screen. Are we to compare different size images at their native resolutions on screen? They would all appear sharp, but at different sizes. By interpolating the smaller images up, we don't create any new data, we samply show the smaller images to be less sharp and less detailed. This test was ONLY designed to show resolution....nothing else. The authors even stated this.

You miss a very important point. You have NO CHOICE, but to interpolate the image. If you print out the images in their native sizes, you would normally interpolate them to a standard rez, say 240dpi or 300 dpi, etc. According to your interpretation, this would be cheating as well.

The method used to show samples at same size on screen via upward interpolation is not only valid, but the ONLY way to compare, other than on print. This is something done by all reviewers. After all, how would you compare different size images? You can't.

So please, keep the whiny comments to yourself. What is tedious are those who can't seem to comprehend normal testing procedure as well as those who think it makes a difference to the outcome.

I noticed you avoided acknowledging your "doctoring" mistake.

Don Hutton

18-May-2006, 09:37

Dave

What happened to your "departure" from this forum? You're starting to get all pompous and abrasive again so soon after your return...

It seems clear that J Michael Sullivan actually uses a P45 and 4x5 film and that you don't (you use a 1DS for weddings.... and I'm really unsure how much else you do). His opinions actually are of interest to a lot of people because he actually has hands on experience with the technology.

David Luttmann

18-May-2006, 11:04

Don,

I do a fair bit of work with MF & 4x5 as well as with 22MP backs for product work. In fact, a great deal of my outdoor portraits are done with Astia in my Mamiya, scanned on an Imacon. I'm no newbie. However, that isn't relevant in this discussion. I find it odd that I question a response of image doctoring made by Michael....with no proof, I point out that one CANNOT compare images of different sizes when checking for resolution.....and I'm arrogant? Most interesting.

Michael & I can use whatever gear we please....however, no matter what gear you use, or capture media, it is absolute nonsense to state that no interpolation can be used for this test. As I said, you cannot compare resolution differences on images of differing sizes. I proved this point a while back to someone blathering on about it like Michael is. I compared a 1Ds Mk2 image against an old 3MP Canon D30. I made the D30 image bigger and the 1Ds image was cropped out and made smaller. Because both looked sharp, people thought the D30 image may be the better one because it was bigger.

Now, when I posted the D30 & 1Ds image at the same size, with the D30 interpolated upward to the rez of the 1Ds, you could easily see the D30 was soft in comparison. It easily showed the 1Ds to have higher resolution. Now, according to Michael, that would be a flawed test. Maybe the images were doctored. Maybe I was exagerating. Maybe I was fabricating it. But in the end, the results still stand.

What should be questioned here is not your perception of my arrogance, but why you allow Michael to claim that well known, highly skilled and knowledgeable, and respected photographers are basically being called liars. Do you find that stance on his part to be acceptable? I would hope not.

Is the test perfect? Nope. Does it still show exactly what we find on print? You bet. But don't my arrogant words for it. Order the DVD with all the files on it and run comparisons just like I said. You'll quickly find out who was right & wrong. Feel free to post back when you're done.

Don Hutton

18-May-2006, 11:19

David

At the end of the day, I'll make up my own mind: it won't be made up by you, Michael or any "expert". Michael actually uses a P45 - there's a huge difference between having tested one and uses one. While I may find fault with some of his reasoning (to be honest I don't), I'm not here to be abrasive and play little ego games about my knowledge with anyone. You may not realize it, but the language you use is frequently derisive.

Rob Landry

18-May-2006, 12:20

Jim, while I applaud your efforts to use such a device, I know that it would frustrate me to no end, to the point that I doubt I'd use it even if given to me. I saw the picture of your setup on your Sukhothai, Thailand blog; no thanks. Heck, I don't even like using my DSLR and that's a compact, handheld, all-in-one package. I know that I can shoot my DSLR tethered too, but I'm not about to try it just to preview the shot on my laptop screen. To me, these backs were designed to fill a very specific niche, but they're not mature products ready to fill all the roles of a traditional LF camera. They are at best, half-way to where they need to be in order to be accepted as a replacement for LF. For me, a scanning back is simply out of the question and so is a tethered camera. The day may come when we see an integrated, single shot camera back at a decent price, but until then, I (and many others) will happily shoot film and save our money. Unless you absolutely must have the immediate turnaround or shoot boat loads of film, a digital back similar to these will remain nothing more than a curiosity for many.

Personally, I just don't understand what is so difficult about shooting film, it's not that hard really. If you have tricky or contrasty lighting, shoot negs and if you're really unsure, bracket or shoot a few roids or use a small digicam to help preview or judge exposure; cheap insurance without all the extra fluff. As for accurate color, well I guess if that's what you like, but I'm not ready to give up my Velvia just yet. I looked at a few examples on your site and honestly, some of them could use a little more punch. Also, the lighting in most of your shots is quite flat and would be a piece of cake to meter accurately and certainly does not require digital training wheels to nail those shots. Honestly, any of the shots on your site would have easily been captured with one of the various films on the market today.

Anyway, we all have our preferences, but to compare these digital backs to film is academic at best for all but a few individuals who need (or feel they need) such tools.

Gordon Moat

18-May-2006, 13:16

Guys, I have a dumb technical question that I can't seem to find the answer to on the internet. Is this P45 back really for a 645 camera? It seems impossible that the 645 in digital format could capture the same amount of detail as a 4x5 film setup. And if that is the case, what about the 4x5 scanning backs-- if the same parameters apply, they should be comparable to 11x14 film.

All the current high end digital backs are slightly smaller than 645 film area, thus they could be considered somewhat optimum on a 645 or 6x6 camera. The P45 has a capture area of 33.1mm by 44.2mm. The only downside on some 6x6 cameras is that the rectangular sensor might not be able to be turned 90º on the mounting. Compare that to a roughly 95mm by 120mm area on 4x5 film, about 7.8 times the area on a P45.

Detail is somewhat subjective. We know from painting and drawing that when you include just enough information the minds eye will fill in any missing details. An example is that a painting or drawing of an individual only need enough to make us realize that it is an individual, and seems real. This was traditionally called a representational image, though seem might called it realistic.

So to equate to photography, film, and digital capture, it might be easier to consider how much detail we really need. Most people can only see near 5 lp/mm on a print, though some people will list that limit as 8 lp/mm on a print. So in a resolution needs consideration, think of how you can best retain at least 5 lp/mm to 8 lp/mm in high frequency details on your final prints. Perhaps interestingly, a somewhat common sheet fed press printing resolution is 300 to 304.8 (metric conversion) dpi; a figure that closely matches 6 lp/mm on the final print.

An easy way to think about 4x5 films is to use the lens test data from C. Perez and others. Seems that 60 lp/mm is an easy to achieve target on the film. At a 10x enlargement/print we would be at 6 lp/mm, assuming we did not loose detail from our enlarger lens, paper, scanner, printer, or other methods. This is an oversimplification, though rather than type out 10 pages of commentary and details, I think this is an easy way to consider things. Of course, we can often lose some details going from film to print, though hopefully we retain enough that the minds eye fills in anything missing. The other probably obvious consideration would be that many parts of a typical scene do not contain elements of high frequency data . . . after all, we are not photographing test charts in the real world.
:D

Our method of printing can be more limiting than our method of capture. Combine that with smaller printing sizes, and we can have a situation where we will often have too much detail information. Evenif we could get 15 lp/mm on the print, no humans could see the additional information, and in fact such an image could often seem softer than a lower resolution print; the higher frequency details can just blend (or blur) together. We could do like the GigaPXL project did and offer a magnifying glass to viewers of the prints, though when I saw that exhibit at MOPA, none took up that offer.

Resolution alone is no guarantee of a good, nor a compelling, image. We can photography a building, but do we really want to be able to see the anti-pigeon spikes on the edges? The hyper-realistic approach could be a creative decision, and we could often have more visible on a print than if we stood in front of the same building and viewed it with out own eyes. Would that make it better?

Take a P45 pixel dimensions, and assume that every pixel captures distinct and separate detail. We know this is not true, but it makes an easy comparison. The largest normal file size is 5412 by 7216 pixels. Pixels do not equal dots, but for simplicity divide our 300 dpi printing convention into that to give us a roughly 18" by 24" printed output. If we again assume that we can see that 6 lp/mm on the print, then we can figure out what resolution capability 4x5 film might need to equal the P45 assumption. Our 4x5 film is actually smaller than 4" by 5" so to get an 18" by 24" print would be roughly 4.8x enlargement. Lots of math might indicate that we only need to capture/retain about 20 lp/mm to achieve that, something that should not be too difficult with many lenses. Again, probably obvious, post processing in software can affect results, either digital capture or film scanning sources.

Disclaimer: I have at least 200 pages of technical White Papers on capture devices and printing technology. There is not a practical way for me to condense that into a short reply, and I don't think it is possible to address all aspects, nor cover all variables. Anything written by anyone, short of a book, will involve simplifying lots of data.

Opinion: Quantifying comparisons are attempts to more easily understand various approaches to imaging. What blurs quantitative data is the subjective nature of viewing results. Some people have better eyesight thant others, and some people worse. Colour is also more subjective; what I might describe or consider a nice blue is quite likely different from what someone else wants. When I choose a film, often that can be because of the colour response; I am less conveying reality than I am conveying a creative vision. So resolution becomes the easy to quantify measurement, despite that we can often have more than we need; which is why I think economics are an easier to quantitfy comparison.

Phase One have a reprint of an article from Professional Photographer magazine under the link titled "Does Size Really Matter?" on the right side of their site. While this is just the P30 and P45, and no 4x5 film comparison, I found this comment interesting:
"WE HAD TO LOOK REALLY CLOSELY TO SEE
ANY DIFFERENCES."

That is only 31 MP to 39 MP. Beyond a certain point, comparisons are really hard to see. We can think there is more difference by reading the numbers, but in the end printed results we might often not notice, or have difficulty noticing, differences. Hope that sort of answers some questions, or makes you want to investigate more on your own. If it concerns you, or you are considering buying such a digital back, I highly encourage you to do your own research.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

Gordon Moat

18-May-2006, 13:25

Sorry, just to add a note about sheet fed presses and commercial printing; the resolution is often 2400 or 2540 (metric) per plate, depending upon manufacturer. What I meant by the 300 to 304.8 figure was file specifications at output dimensions. Hopefully that was not too oversimplified, nor too confusing.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

SteveL

18-May-2006, 13:37

Doug and Kirk,

With all due respect (which, btw, is very significant in both cases), I don't think it is realistic to compare a digital back to either a Quickload back or the camera. Before you let me have it, please read the message through. :)

I happen to know a wedding photographer who was all against digital and who used pretty much the same arguments - prices of digital equipment vs. analog being the most prominent.

Well, notice that I use past tense here - the moment he started comparing their respective cost and ROI, he switched. Here's the math: he shot 50-70 rolls of film per week on average. He books about 40 weeks a year. One roll of film costs him about $14 processed (not counting the proofs and prints).

Taking lower numbers into account, it comes down to the following:

50 rolls x 40 weeks x $14 per roll = $28,000 per year

I'm farily certain that wedding photography does not rank very high neither in prestige nor in earnings, so these figures will be even more pronounced for many other high rate professional fields.

Ok, so my questions:

1. Over how many years do you figure a digital camera or back should amortize?

2. How much film and at what cost (including processing) do you use annually?

I am definitely not a professional, but unless I neglected something really big, I think the answers to these two questions should pretty much settle the issue for any individual photographer.

High volume shooters will definitelly find interest in digital, low volume shooters will not (yet). Speaking of large and medium formats. Small format is already settled, I think.

Another approach would be to discount the price of processing, since digital files need to be processed too. So, the figure should be roughly half. Everything else remains the same.

This is only half the story. The true cost of digital imaging is in the the extra time the photographer spends in front of the computer, and in the cost of that computer and its peripherals. Now that the image libraries I submit to are only interested in scans, I spend many hours preparing them. This is (extra) time that I do not get paid for, as the libraries are still paying the same rates.

Patrick Lichfield was proud of saying that he saved £5000 a month on film and processing after switching to digital. What he forgot to mention was the costs of all the computing equipment, plus the salaries of the two assistants he took on to manage the system.

I'm sorry, but the argument that digital is cheaper than film is nonsense if ALL the costs, including time, are considered.

Kirk Gittings

18-May-2006, 13:54

Steve, I second that thought about the true costs of digital. However that is our playing field and I don't see it getting any better.

Marko

18-May-2006, 14:30

This is only half the story. The true cost of digital imaging is in the the extra time the photographer spends in front of the computer, and in the cost of that computer and its peripherals. Now that the image libraries I submit to are only interested in scans, I spend many hours preparing them. This is (extra) time that I do not get paid for, as the libraries are still paying the same rates.

Patrick Lichfield was proud of saying that he saved £5000 a month on film and processing after switching to digital. What he forgot to mention was the costs of all the computing equipment, plus the salaries of the two assistants he took on to manage the system.

I'm sorry, but the argument that digital is cheaper than film is nonsense if ALL the costs, including time, are considered.

I wasn't arguing that digital was cheaper than film, I was responding to a comparison of digital and film cameras without including the costs of film. If you read the entire post you are responding to, you'd have noticed that I did mention the time and/or skill needed for processing.

But let's analyze Patrick's example you mention. £5000 a month is approx. $9,700 per month, give or take a hundred for rate fluctuations. That in turn means $116,400 per year, so let's round it down to $115,000. How much could two powerfull computers cost and what would be their amortization period? I'll be conservative and figure the most expensive option with the shortest amortization (higher cost annually). The most expensive Mac maxed out on memory and with biggest (30") monitor costs just shy of $11,000. Multiplied by 2 (assistants) and divided by 3 (amortization period, years), that would be $7,333, so let's round it up to $7,500 annually for easier math. That leaves $107,500. Let's leave $7,500 for petty cash ;) and he's left with $50,000 per assistant annually.

Guess what, there's a lot of highly skilled and educated people even here in the States that work for that much or less. Sounds like Patrick did cut himself a nice deal with that switch, after all...

tim atherton

18-May-2006, 14:46

MJSfoto1956

18-May-2006, 15:08

Let me go on the record that I never call MR et al "liars" -- those are David L's nasty words.

I called their methodlogy flawed, which it is.

As I do not bow down to "experts" like David L does, it bothers him tremendously and he feels he must challenge anyone who dares suggests "the king has no clothes".

One should note there is nothing in the report that suggests that Bill Atkinson (a true digital expert if ever there was) was in cahoots with Michael Reichman (a true charlatan if ever there was). Instead, I believe that everyone was doing what they believed was their best effort. It is not Bill's methodology that I question as he only had to deliver the Betterlight tests. Rather, it is Michael R's methodology (and numerous other's on the web) whose "conclusions" are marred by flawed methodology based upon comparing apples and oranges -- then trying to make the world believe in the objectivity of the results.

The test between drum scan and Betterlight is valid since no sampling was involved -- it is a truly objective test (however, it is only valid in the digital domain). The test with the 1Ds and everything else is simply bogus. It does not stand scientific scrutiny. And sour David L knows this.

J Michael Sullivan

Nitish Kanabar

18-May-2006, 17:00

First off Michael, it appears when someone points out something you don't like, you resort to namecalling. Typically, that's the first sign of a problem. Second, I pointed out that you have claimed the testers are being dishonest by "doctoring" the images. The "doctoring" term was yours. Third, the image interpolation used was NOT downrezzing, but upsampling the lower rez images to match the higher rez image....you'll note the reference to the 6000X8000 size....in other words matching the Betterlight. This is the ONLY way to compare on screen. Are we to compare different size images at their native resolutions on screen? They would all appear sharp, but at different sizes. By interpolating the smaller images up, we don't create any new data, we samply show the smaller images to be less sharp and less detailed. This test was ONLY designed to show resolution....nothing else. The authors even stated this.

I'm a bit confused here - perhaps someone will clarify for me. When an image is up-sampled, then isn't new information added to the image - meaning that additional pixels are added to the image? If I understand correctly, the resampling algorithm analyses the image by considering each pixel, then analyses its nearest neighbors to compute the property (RGB) of the pixels that need to be added between the pixel under consideration and its neighbors so that the resultant image is up-sampled to the desired resolution.

For example, I have a very simple image with two pixels - one pure white (RGB= #FFFFFF) and one pure black (RGB= #000000) - say #000000,#FFFFFF. If I want to increase the resolution by a factor of two, then I will HAVE to add 2 more pixels between the existing pixels. What the color of these new pixels should be will be decided by the quality of the resampling algorithm. A crude algorithm would add pixels whose color falls between pure-white and pure-black so that the resultant image looks like #000000,#555555,#AAAAAA,#FFFFFF (0, 33%, 66%, 100% of original values). The resultant image would display a loss of sharpness, but it will be have twice the resolution of the original image.
A sophisticated algorithm would detect the sharp transition between the original pixels and would factor that in the calculation for the new pixels so that the resultant image is #000000,#000000,#FFFFFF,#FFFFFF, thus resulting in no loss of sharpness.

This process is called interpolation and the resampling algorithms are called interpolating algorithms precisely for this reason, that they add new data (pixels in this case) based upon existing data.

So up-sampling the image DOES produce new data/pixels, if this reasoning is correct.
Does that not skew the results when comparing two data sets - one with interpolated data points (or pixels) and the other without such interpolated points?

shileshjani

18-May-2006, 17:41

[QUOTE=Nitish Kanabar]
So up-sampling the image DOES produce new data/pixels, if this reasoning is correct.

New data, yes. New information, No.

Nitish Kanabar

18-May-2006, 18:15

New data, yes. New information, No.[/QUOTE]

What is the difference? In my first example, two gray pixels were added - isn't that new information?

Ralph Barker

18-May-2006, 18:24

Dan Wells

18-May-2006, 18:33

I performed an interesting (and purely visual) inadvertant test on my own equipment. Neither my digital nor my film setup is up to what these guys are using, but it gives some idea. I use a Nikon D200 (brand new - I was actually primarily playing with the camera to test it), along with a Hasselblad and a Horseman VH "baby view" , which I chose because I have a Nikon 9000 scanner that likes 6x9 cm, but not 4x5. I just printed a couple of prints that seem sharp to my eye, but upon VERY close inspection may be reaching the limits of their format. Both were printed on the Epson 4800, which is a frighteningly sharp printer. The Nikon print is 15 inches in the short dimension and 22.5 the long way, and I feel that the Nikon makes it to this size for my purposes (I wouldn't hesitate to print a sharp D200 shot this big), and the Horseman shot was cropped in one dimension only to produce a print size of 15.5x36 inches (an artistic choice, the image happens to look good as a panorama). I wouldn't crop a Horseman shot much tighter than this and try to print it 16 inches on the short side, judging by the fact that the detail is, again, "just holding" in this shot.
If I take both of these as being pretty close to the maximum print size I am comfortable with for their respective cameras (of course, I could print the Horseman 24x36 without cropping if I had a printer wide enough), that puts the short side of the Nikon's sensor as basically equivalent to about 4 cm of film. The Nikon seems by this measure to just about equal 6x4.5 (which makes some sense from what other people have said as well). The 1Ds mk II might have enough pixels to resolve like 6x6 (in a different shape), or even 6x7. If pixels scale more or less evenly (10.2 mp cropped out of a 1Ds mkII or a Phase looks something like a D200), this puts the single-shot backs in the category of 6x9 or a little larger, but not quite 4x5. I wonder how evenly high quality pixels scale? Of course compact digicam pixels scale VERY poorly (I've used 4 MP SLRs I prefer to any 8 MP compact), but are good pixels basically good pixels, at least at low iso? It also says that a big Phase back just might make a 30 inch wide print, because it has about 40 mp, so twice the resolution of my D200 (which makes 15 inch prints) in each direction...Nothing scientific, just my eye (and yours may differ).

-Dan

Nitish Kanabar

18-May-2006, 19:04

Nitish - in my view, you are correct. Upsampling (obviously) creates new pixels, because the total number of pixels increases. The soft/firm ware for doing so looks at the adjoining pixels and makes a best guess at what the color value for the added pixels should be. I believe what shileshjani meant by, "New information, no" was that the added pixels don't contain additional real detail.

Thanks Ralph. I'm afraid I don't quite follow. Perhaps there is something subtle (or obvious!) that I could be missing here. What distinguishes real detail with respect to an interpolated pixel? Pixels added to an image have a color-value - as do the original pixels. Once an image is up-sampled, then there isn't anything that distinguishes an interpolated pixel from an original pixel. To an observer, the interpolated pixel does represent some image detail in that case, doesn't it?

Considering my original example of the crude interpolation (#000000,#555555,#AAAAAA,#FFFFFF). To an observer, this would indicate that the subject did have those two gray values when the image was taken. Granted this is bad interpolation, but no interpolation algorithm is perfect and any pixels an algorithm does add would become indistinguishable from original pixels, wouldn't they? So, to me, up-sampling the image, does modify it at some level.

Having said that it does seem, to me, that J Michael Sullivan has a valid point when he points out that it is erroneous to draw conclusions from comparisions between upsampled images and non-sampled images.

Dave Moeller

18-May-2006, 19:17

Nitish Kanabar

18-May-2006, 20:02

Nitish-

I think I can help with the "New information, No" interpretation by extending your thought experiment a bit.

Assume that you have a digital camera that has a resolution of two pixels. Now, imagine that you filled the veiwfinder with two squares of mat board, one black and one white. You carefully align the image so that the white square will fall exactly over one of your pixels and the black square will fall exactly over the other pixel.

When you make the image and then look at it, you see the information that was present in the world when you pressed the shutter. There were two squares, one black and one white, and that's exactly what's in your image.

If you now upsample (using the pixel colors you stated in your previous post), you'll get more pixels in your image, but none of those pixels will represent anything that existed in the real world. So, yes, you do have more data. But no, you don't have more information. In fact, what you have is false information. Your picture shows gray shades that didn't exist in the real world. Upsampling algorithms can take a pretty good stab at what's missing, but in reality they never add real information to an image.

Hopefully this makes sense.

Be well.
Dave

Thanks Dave. The distinction makes sense now.

Interestingly, an observer viewing only the interpolated image without access to the original will not know that there is false information in that image or at the minimum will not know WHICH information is false in that image. Now when that observer compares the interpolated image with an non-interpolated image, then that observer is actually comparing a data-set with false information with a data-set with no-false information. The results of such a comparision would definitely be suspect.

David Luttmann

19-May-2006, 06:03

Let me go on the record that I never call MR et al "liars" -- those are David L's nasty words.

I called their methodlogy flawed, which it is.

J Michael Sullivan

Sorry Michael, you said the images were "doctored." That directly suggests that by making any comparison, the authors are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Doctoring an image would be intentional manipulation.

But of course, you still try to avoid admiting this. Of course, you also avoid explaining to us all how we should compare resolution differences between images of different sizes. We've alrreasy establsihed the point that you were incorrect in stating the images were downsampled. They were only upsampled to keep image sizes on the screen relative. But please, do tell us how we compare different sized images.

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how we do this, and how the intentionaly "doctored" (your words, not mine) the images. Maybe you can actually stick to this point to clarify youserlf.

Oh well.

Jack Flesher

19-May-2006, 06:23

They were only upsampled to keep image sizes on the screen relative.

FTR, the 4x5 film scan was done at 2500 PPI on a Tango and had to be downsampled slightly to match the BL file size.

MJSfoto1956

19-May-2006, 06:25

Interestingly, an observer viewing only the interpolated image without access to the original will not know that there is false information in that image or at the minimum will not know WHICH information is false in that image. Now when that observer compares the interpolated image with an non-interpolated image, then that observer is actually comparing a data-set with false information with a data-set with no-false information. The results of such a comparision would definitely be suspect.

That is precisely my point.

However, there *IS* a corrollary: if your final print size is 16"x20" using inkjet, then yes, the IDs and other high-end SLRs are more than competent to make stunning prints (stunning for inkjet of course). Using a 4x5 or larger camera will *NOT* give you an advantage at this size with inkjet output (whose "resolution" is a fraction that of analog paper). Only if you were to expose a 16"x20 negative and then contact print it would the difference be noticable (and then mostly only close up).

So in the digital domain, digital SLR's satisfy 80% of the market -- including advertisers. Digital is this regard is clearly "good enough". It remains to be seen if 16mp is as big as SLR's get (there are many technical reasons why it may not get signifcantly bigger than this with current CMOS technology).

As for larger formats (either film or digital) -- to print them digitally means to print them larger than 16x20 so that the the benefit can be readily seen. If we were to scale the Betterlight 200% to 12000x16000 pixels and print that at the native 360dpi of the Epson inkjet printers we would end up with a tack-sharp image at 33"x44". Printed at this size, the 1Ds would pale in comparison and the softening effect of the extreme scaling necessary would become obvious.

But digital artists do have a fair response: at a print size of 30"x40" (or larger) most people don't view such an image up close. And further, such an image viewed at 50" away, would have a hard time distinguishing between the Betterlight and the 1Ds. Of course, this is anethema to most large format photographers who demand an image that "takes you in" all the way to a few inches away. Few would deny that such an image is superior in every respect.

Unfortunately, the mass market seems not to care.
Thus, you persue large format for other reasons...

J Michael Sullivan

MJSfoto1956

19-May-2006, 06:41

uggh, more tedium from the tiresome DL technician...

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how we do this, and how the intentionaly "doctored" (your words, not mine) the images. Maybe you can actually stick to this point to clarify youserlf.

um, David. I've already explained precisely HOW the methodology is flawed. Please see my Test earlier in this thread. The explanation is readily apparent for the lay reader. I suggest you read my test. Then take a year off and try to comprehend it.

As for doctoring -- the 1Ds images posted on the web are devoid of Bayer artifacts. This is a fact for all to see. However, this is hard to swallow as the 1Ds is a Bayer array camera. In "normal" use, this camera delivers data in the red and blue channels that exhibit such artifacts. There are any number of tools and/or methodlogies that could be used to acheive this "cleaned up" result. As I innately don't trust Reichman the pandering showman, it makes it difficult to trust his data when the data doesn't match reality. Precisely "how" the !Ds data is devoid of Bayer artifacts should be answered by him and not me.

Gosh. what a nerd. Get a life dude.

J Michael Sullivan

Jay W

19-May-2006, 09:07

I'm pretty sure just about any of the cameras/backs in the article would have enough resolution for my shooting. When I went from 35 mm film to 120 film, it was to gain resolution, but with the added resolution, I found that often my subject wasn't completely in focus. Due to the plane of focus, part of the subject, let's say a rock wall, was in focus, but since it was not parallel to my film plane, part of it wasn't in focus. The switch to 4x5 really helped that (I love tweaking the focus plane), and another benefit of LF is that lenses are relatively cheap.

In comes digital. The good gear is still out my price range, but I have to wonder if the added depth of field you get with a smaller sensor (say full frame 35 vs. 4x5 film) will make up for the inability to change the focus plane. Any thoughts on this? Most often I'm only making small tilts and swings, but I rarely leave the camera dead center.

I have a feeling that in a few years, when the prices come down, I'll probably wonder to do with all the old camera gear (Nikon, Hassy, Rollie, Wisner, Schneider, Rodie...)

Jay Wenner

Larry Gebhardt

19-May-2006, 10:33

As for doctoring -- the 1Ds images posted on the web are devoid of Bayer artifacts. This is a fact for all to see.

Could you point us to a good example of bayer artifacts so we can see this for ourselves?

Jack Flesher

19-May-2006, 15:30

Somebody back about 6 pages in this thread asked how you shoot a waterfall with the Betterlight. I was just in Yosemite and the falls were flowing -- and I had my Betterlight... You can see some examples, complete with crops of artifacts, on my blog: www.jack.omniblog.com.

Cheers,

Jim collum

19-May-2006, 16:19

I've uploaded a zip file with a tif from a 1ds image (it's 1/3 of a 3 image stitch). was shot at ISO 100, f29, 1 second. Was processed with RSP, with no sharpening. the zip file contains the tif directly from RSP (raw converter). (in fact, it also shows an extremely dirty sensor in the corners).

http://www.jcollum.com/fm/CC4S5868-01.jpg

this is the image.. the zip is large, and can be downloaded at

zip file (http://www.jcollum.com/fm/1ds.zip)

here's a 100% crop (http://www.jcollum.com/fm/CC4S7431-crop.jpg) of a section of an ISO 640 image from the 1ds (a bit smaller than the full image). Noise Reduction set to 0 in the raw converter (for both images)

jim

QT Luong

19-May-2006, 16:39

As for doctoring -- the 1Ds images posted on the web are devoid of Bayer artifacts. This is a fact for all to see. However, this is hard to swallow as the 1Ds is a Bayer array camera. In "normal" use, this camera delivers data in the red and blue channels that exhibit such artifacts. There are any number of tools and/or methodlogies that could be used to acheive this "cleaned up" result. As I innately don't trust Reichman the pandering showman, it makes it difficult to trust his data when the data doesn't match reality. Precisely "how" the !Ds data is devoid of Bayer artifacts should be answered by him and not me.

J Michael Sullivan

To your benefit, you have explained your point about interpolation well, and it's a methodological issue that was interesting to raise, although not everybody will necessarily agree.

Now about the "doctored" images issue.

First, since you insist on being so rigorous about comparison methodologies, how can you draw conclusions from web images, when a DVD with the original files are available ?

More importantly, since it's something that only you apparently can see, I would think that it would be up to you to show us more precisely what makes the data suspect, especially in view of the language you have used. This language, by the way, borders on the inappropriate, and for the sake of maintaining forum decorum, I hope that you will refrain from using it in the future.

QT Luong

19-May-2006, 16:42

I've uploaded a zip file with a tif from a 1ds image

Thanks Jim, but what are we supposed to look for in this image ?

Jim collum

19-May-2006, 16:47

Thanks Jim, but what are we supposed to look for in this image ?

an example of a Canon 1ds image that hasn't had any post processing on it.. available as an example of what kind of noise/artifacts that can be expected from a high end Bayer sensor. With the more recent sensors (1ds Mk2, D2x), less noise can be expected

Jack Flesher

19-May-2006, 17:09

FWIW:

I happened to be visiting Bill in is studio when he and Charlie were prepping many of these images. I got a chance to see the image stack first-hand and can assure you they did not "doctor" any of the files negatively to sway the results. If anything, the real files show even more difference than the web jpegs suggest.

Probably the toughest call was the 4x5 scan compared to the P45 file. There were areas that on close inspection -- 200% -- showed more detail than the P45 and others where it showed less. I think Charlie's comment at the time was something like the differences we were seeing were so slight they would not show even in a large print -- and I would agree with that.

Moreover, I had a chance to see some "real" P45 images -- 36"x48" prints Bill had made from his P45 files after up-rezzing them. I feel they had a very "organic" look, being VERY close to what an inkjet print from scanned 4x5 looks like. In a nutshell, I was convinced the P45 produced an outstanding file, rivaling scanned 4x5.

Cheers,

David Luttmann

19-May-2006, 18:17

Michael,

Thanks again for the non-reply. Your personal attack against me proves the point. QT's comments directed to you should sum things up. I guess we can't expect an honest answer back from you without an attack, so I guess I'll move on to a thread where you don't post false accusations.

Best regards,

David Luttmann

19-May-2006, 18:23

FTR, the 4x5 film scan was done at 2500 PPI on a Tango and had to be downsampled slightly to match the BL file size.

Jack,

My understanding, and I may be mistaken here, is that the 4x5 was scanned at 1600dpi. I thought I saw that on the site, but can't locate it now. I can't find reference to the 2500dpi drum scan, so this part is vague.....although, in the end, it still shows the Betterlight as the best, which we know is the case through other testing.

Regards,

Jack Flesher

19-May-2006, 18:38

David, it's possible but... When I was there visiting, Charlie scanned the 4x5 and I am pretty sure he scanned it at 2500. I remember Bill downsizing it to match the BL file. However, this was a few months ago and it is entirely possible they re-scanned the 4x5 at a lower resolution to more closely match the BL.

Gregory Gomez

19-May-2006, 23:32

While I am no scientist nor am I a professional photographer, I do have some observations I would like to make about the comparison test of the Phase One P45 digital back with 4x5 film:

1. The individuals involved in the comparison test all purchased the Phase One P45. Quite possibly there could be unintended experimenter bias. These individuals may have a strong desire, conscious or otherwise, to justify their purchase. It would have been far better if an independent laboratory had conducted the experiment and had showed the results, in a double blind fashion, to a panel of photographic experts, art critics, painters, and professional photographers.

2. Because different digital systems were used, different optics were employed, and different cameras pressed into service for this test, there are too many variables to control in order to reach any valid conclusion about the Phase One back compared to 4x5 film. If only one camera system were used along with only one camera optic, then the only difference, or variable, would have been the method of image capture, Phase One digital circuitry versus 4x5 film. Then there is the issue of which film should be used. Since resolution was the parameter measured, a series of tests should have been done to select the very highest resolving film currently available for the 4x5 format. (I wonder if that had been done beforehand?) But after reading the title of the article one more time, the testing was not just about 4x5 film versus digital; a number of items were being tested against each other, including cameras, lenses, and digital backs. That's a lot to test in such a short article.

3. The fact that all of the testers were middle-aged, suggests that their eyesight may not have been up to the task of discerning minute differences in resolution among the various alternatives tested. (Mine certainly were not.)

4. While it's convenient to show the results to the world over the Internet, doing so will tend to mask the differences among the results because computer monitors have varying levels of resolution, etc. Honestly, I found myself having to study the pictures carefully to see any differences at all.

5. Personally, I am a little bothered that there is a charge for this DVD of $9.95, plus shipping and handling. Now ten to twenty bucks is no big deal. But I get the feeling that a commercial undercurrent is present in this test. That's what I object to; I don't object to The Luminous Landscape trying to cover the cost of the DVD, so no flames please.

6. Another thing that bothers me is the 30-day, free trial of the Capture One software. How nice. Here's that commercial element again. I'm sure Capture One is the very best on the market, right?

7. I found very interesting the fact that the testers did encounter some difficulties while photographing the test subject:

" We didn't manage to get exactly the same crop or angle on all shots.* Several of the shots had to be redone due to focusing, cropping or exposure errors.* One error that we did not have time to correct, is that the Velvia 645 shot was composed to fit the slightly smaller rectangle of the P45 sensor, instead of using the full 645 film area.* This will make the Velvia 645 look a little worse than it could be."

This difficulty will of course affect the outcome, but I am glad that they mentioned it up-front.

8. Notwithstanding my previous comment about the DVD, it's nice that the raw data is being made available for others to examine.

9. "All captures were made such that the 15.5 inches wide 'goal posts' in the test scene approximately filled the width of the frame, but to make comparisons I still had to compensate for differences in image size and offset." I realize that image size and offset are going to affect the final results to some degree, but once again, these "compensations" could affect the outcome. It's a question of trying to remove all the variables to derive one, pure result untainted by the differences in the equipment used, which may be an impossible task.

10. "Each different digital or film back or lens resulted in images with somewhat different contrast and color. Because it is very difficult to visually distinguish between contrast and actual resolution, I needed to normalize differences in contrast and color." This "normalizing" bothers me. I realize that it may be difficult to distinguish visually between contrast and resolution in color images, but making changes to the raw images does taint the final result.

11. "In order to clearly see the differences between the captures, it was important to sharpen the developed images. I made various attempts to sharpen each image 'to taste,' but found the process entirely too subjective." This admission alone is enough to invalidate the entire test. Why sharpen at all? If the testers had to sharpen to "see the differences among the captures," then these differences may very well be insignificant. And "sharping to taste" is almost an admission of making subjective what should have been objective. The testers could sharper the Phase One back results to a "better level of taste" over the results produced by the competition simply because they all purchased this back and were determined, at least at an unconscious level, to justify their purchase decision.

12. "At first I tried to rank order the nine digital and film backs according to their image quality but I ran into a number of stumbling blocks. The whole area of sharpening is quite subjective with no clearly correct method, and different sharpening will change the outcome of any ranking. Contrast plays such an important role in perceived resolution that normalizing the six ColorChecker grays was necessary, but that normalization impacts any comparisons of color and tonal gradation. There are many different variables to consider in image quality, including resolution, grain or noise, color fidelity, and smooth tonal transitions." The conclusion I can draw from this quoted passage is that the differences among the items tested was quite small and subjective at best.

13. When looking at the results between the scanned 4x5 image and the one produced by the P45 back and Capture One, it does appear, at very high magnification, that the P45 is slightly sharper. Maybe. I really don't know. But if contrast and overall color could somehow be corrected between the two samples, it would be a real tossup. The 4x5 image, for example, seems to have a slight yellow cast compared to the P45 image. I am also surprised how well the Canon images did; the same applies to the image produced by the Mamiya 645 using Velvia film.

14. Like the testers suggested, if one were to stare at the samples too long, one would get punchy. Well, that happened to me, I must admit.

15. "I see the resolution differences between the 4X5" drum scan and the P45 as quite minor, but with a slight edge still going to the drum scanned film. But when you consider the time and cost of shooting film, processing it, and then scanning, the advantages of a 39MP back like the P45 are compelling...So if we have a close race between a 39MP back's files and a 4X5" drum scan, where does that leave us? A traditional enlarger made print can't hope to compare...with top-tier medium format digital close to equaling 4x5" large format. And to my eyes images from the 16Mp Canon 1Ds MKII are awfully close to those from drum scanned 645 format Velvia." As critical as I have been over the testing methods used, and my criticism stands, I am going to have to agree, tentatively, with this conclusion, no matter how it was reached. If I were a top-tier, professional photographer with a large clientele and the money to buy something like the P45, I might consider it. But for an armature like myself, it's good to know that 4x5 images perform well, and when I make a "real keeper," that I can have it drum scanned in order to make a really awesome print of huge proportions. The problem is, however, I don't react well to prints much larger than 11x14 inches, so it would be a moot point, right?

16. One last thing: I don't understand how some of the respondents on this b-board could get so, well, worked up over this article. Maybe someone could explain that one to me?

David Luttmann

20-May-2006, 06:54

Michael Reichman mentions "another online forum"....at least he didn't spell out the Large Format Forum.....in a personal note as per attached below:

http://luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml

It's sad to see the unjustified comments of doctoring have made such a negative impression. OF course, this can always have negative repercussions back to the author. Maybe an apology is warranted. Just a suggestion.

Ralph Barker

20-May-2006, 07:11

In all fairness, there are always two sides to a coin, and multiple interpretations of most words, "doctored" included.

Don Miller

20-May-2006, 07:13

So how many people worldwide have attacked the reviewers - questioning their motives or ability? No more than a few. Critical analysis of the results and conclusions is certainly valid, however.
Do you feel Michael is upset by a few responses, or rather enjoys the "controversy"? I ordered the DVD to get some P45 files to print. I'm kinda bored with the detailed analysis. IMO all four camera types reviewed have been shown to have their place.

Jack Flesher

20-May-2006, 07:25

Jorge Gasteazoro

20-May-2006, 08:02

You get idiots picking at every aspect of your test including alluding to your commercial intentions for charging an outrageous $9.95 for a DVD! A DVD that cost you $1 for the blank, takes several minutes of your time to burn and more time to ship.

As opposed to the idiot who thinks you should take his word and accept the parameters and results as the word of the oracle? I think Gregory's comments are very valid.

tim atherton

20-May-2006, 08:10

Whoa - hey - Jorge's back - hopefully a good sign that you are well enough to jump right into the digital fray...?

Good to see you

Ralph Barker

20-May-2006, 08:24

Jack - I understand your frustrations regarding testing, but it's probably not helpful to to the discussion to refer to those who may have criticisms as being idiots. Some of them may be, but the fact that they have criticisms may also be telling.

The underlying problem, it seems to me, is that there are no widely-accepted standards for these tests. As such, the methodology is always subject to criticism - some valid, some not. I'm not sure that trying to compare digital capture to film is valid in the first place. Both technologies produce good results, but by substantially different means. Thus, isn't it rather like comparing a violin to a guitar? Both have strings, and (can) produce music, but it's likely they will be used in different circumstances and for different reasons.

To compare digital to film, for example, the film obviously needs to be scanned. That introduces an additional variable that is not equally applied to both technologies under test. And, if the film is still to be scanned, why choose 1600 or 2500 PPI as the scan resolution? Why not scan at the highest resolution beyond which no additional detail can be extractd from the film? Then, what adjustment should be made for the optics of the scanner? Alternatively, why not examine the film directly under high magnification, and the digital capture at full magnification, to see which resolves better detail? Oops, that introduces different analysis isues on both sides of the comparison, too. Then, there's the question of why interpolate/up-rez one side, but not the other?

Personally, I think we'd be better served if everyone could admit that digital capture can be darned good now, even though it may not be as convenient in all circumstances, or as affordable, as everyone would like.

Marko

20-May-2006, 08:28

This is precisely why I no longer publish my own test results...

You go through enormous effort to control all the variables actually in your control, then admit to those you couldn't control, then post your results AND offer to share your raw files publicly and what do you get? You get idiots picking at every aspect of your test including alluding to your commercial intentions for charging an outrageous $9.95 for a DVD! A DVD that cost you $1 for the blank, takes several minutes of your time to burn and more time to ship. MR is probably netting what, $25 per hour for that effort? I can assure you he makes far more than that when billing at his normal hourly rates -- folks he is providing that DVD as a SERVICE so that all the naysayers could view and process these files on their own specifically to avoid these kind of accusations!

I personally applaud them for taking on the task in the first place -- they already knew how good the P45 was before they embarked on this comparison test and did not have to go through what they did to get the data to you. Given the response, it is unlikely they will ever bother sharing similar tests in the future...

There's people who can only feel great by making other people feel small. They don't seem able to do anything creative and so they spend their time nitpicking on those who can. You can usually tell them by all the vitriol and name calling and when confronted they always respond by turning personal.

As for MR, I admire him for several things - the amount of effort he puts into his site, the amount of his own money he spends doing it and the fact that he's doing it for free (not counting the dvds he sells). If he feels the need to recuperate some of those costs by charging for the access to the original files, I don't see a problem with it. He could have easily refrained from doing it at all or he could have charged for all of it.

If you don't like him for whatever reason, simply don't go to his site and don't read his free articles. Namecalling does nothing to diminish my opinion of him and everything to form an opinion on the name caller.

Jack Flesher

20-May-2006, 09:02

As opposed to the idiot who thinks you should take his word and accept the parameters and results as the word of the oracle?

No just the idiots who atempt to bolster a shaky position by finding fault at every turn. As opposed to an individual making VALID criticisms as to methodology. You can easily identify the later: they will almost always reinforce the good aspects of a given experiment while they question their primary point of concern...

PS: It appears you are feeling better -- best wishes for continued imrovement!

Jack Flesher

20-May-2006, 09:08

Jack - I understand your frustrations regarding testing, but it's probably not helpful to to the discussion to refer to those who may have criticisms as being idiots. Some of them may be, but the fact that they have criticisms may also be telling.

Good point Ralph. My own experience is driving the use of that word, where more than once my DSLR lens tests were challenged by individuals that didn't own a full-frame camera and my print tests were challenged by people who did not even own a printer. So what other moniker should I give to them that won't offend the PC crowd?

Ralph Barker

20-May-2006, 09:24

. . . So what other moniker should I give to them that won't offend the PC crowd?

Just "people"? ;)

Back when I reviewed high-end UNIX workstations and servers for a living, I had my pet names for "those" people, too - often less flattering than "idiot". But, the pet names were shared only with my monitor while reading their e-mails and those within earshot of the lab.

Marko

20-May-2006, 10:33

To compare digital to film, for example, the film obviously needs to be scanned. That introduces an additional variable that is not equally applied to both technologies under test. And, if the film is still to be scanned, why choose 1600 or 2500 PPI as the scan resolution? Why not scan at the highest resolution beyond which no additional detail can be extractd from the film? Then, what adjustment should be made for the optics of the scanner? Alternatively, why not examine the film directly under high magnification, and the digital capture at full magnification, to see which resolves better detail? Oops, that introduces different analysis isues on both sides of the comparison, too. Then, there's the question of why interpolate/up-rez one side, but not the other?

If we agree that the print is the ultimate destination of every capture method, then why not produce the best print using the native workflow for each method and then compare the prints?

1. Capture the same scene/object using the same light and the closest possible framing with each capture method. Using the highest capture resolution for digital and the best resolving film for analog is assumed.

2. Limit the post processing of the digital file only to the absolute minimum to get the best possible print. Use printer's optimal resolution and print size.

3. Print from film using native, darkroom workflow to the same print size on the best possible paper.

4. Scan both prints using the same reflection scanner.

This would elliminate most of the variables you mention, but it would still introduce the difference in operators' skill in producing the print as well as differences in equipment (lenses, sensor, film...). Those kinds of variations are inevitable and at some point we need to accept the fact that photography is an art backed by science and technology, after all, not the other way around.

Ralph Barker

20-May-2006, 11:32

Comparing prints is a fairly reasonable approach. But, as you said, Marko, the final result depends on the skill of the printer to a large degree. Thus, would it be better to have each printed by a different person who is a "master" in that medium? And, that approach leaves open the question of how large the prints should be. Then, how much of the comparison is related to the nature of the print, and how much is related to the capture medium itself?

Ultimately, I think the question still boils down to the fact that those who find the digital workflow beneficial to what they are doing, and can find a way to afford the equipment, will prefer that method. Those who find film better-suited for what they do, will still choose film. While the two technologies fill similar end goals, they tend to fit different sets of requirements and/or objectives. As such, a direct comparison of just the final output (the prints) can't tell the whole story.

If the question is whether to choose a beautiful blonde or a gorgeous brunette, the obvious answer is, "Yes!" Which, however, is a matter of personal preference. :cool:

Marko

20-May-2006, 11:49

Ralph,

Yes, absolutely. :D

This is realy a non-issue for professionals, at least those with healthy business models - the market will make the choice for them. As for the rest of us, those who find digital more to their liking will go digital if they can afford it. The rest will stick with film. And some will dable a little in each.

Personally, I don't think a really objective comparison is possible at all. There's too many variables and too many vested interests and too many preferences involved. But damn, does it make for lively discussions!

Eric Leppanen

20-May-2006, 17:08

Well, after starting this thread (I didn't have time to offer any opinion on the LL article so I just posted the link) I headed out on a trip for several days (without any web access), and have just gotten back. Of course I had to check in to see how the thread was doing. Digital versus film is always good for some anarchy, but 116 posts in just four days, with Michael Reichmann venting on this web site over the things being said here?? Yikes! I never knew posting a link could be so much fun! :)

What I find amazing is why folks aren't just happy that single-shot digital capture has now (more or less) reached 4x5 image quality, giving the photographic artist another potential weapon in their equipment arsenal. Whether there is a small resolution difference remaining is irrelevant for most applications, as most observers won't notice the difference in real world prints. Unlike film cameras and even DSLR's, MF digital is still in its early stages and much work remains to be done in camera bodies, backs, lenses, software, and yes, even comparative evaluations. If you perceive errors in the reviewers' methodology, by all means call them out, but don't question people's integrity when there is not a single whit of justifying evidence. Michael Reichmann recently bought $50K+ worth of MF digital hardware, to be used as much as possible in lieu of his Canon DSLR. So much for being in Canon's pocket. IIRC Bill Atkinson retired from a senior position at Apple before the tech bubble burst, so I presume he is financially loaded. He doesn't need to be an advocate for any particular photographic company. And if you question his photographic skills, check out his web site at www.billatkinson.com. C'mon guys, get real!

That $30K MF digital back of today will cost less -- maybe a lot less -- than $10K in two years, as new players in the marketplace emerge and cut-throat competition (rather than long, drawn out product development cycles) increasingly dictates pricing strategies. I'd personally love to immediately verify that my shots were successful, rather than having to wait until film is processed before I can see the results.

So from my perspective the Reichmann/Atkinson/Cramer comparison succeeded in giving a ballpark idea of where digital technology is currently at. Photokina this fall should be very interesting, with new products expected from Canon, Schneider, Mamiya and others. Color film will hopefully be around for a very long time, yet it would be naive to bet the farm on that given the difficult economics facing that industry. My concern is that adequate, cost-effective high-end digital solutions be available to us should color film eventually expire. We need to encourage the developers and reviewers working in high-end digital, not gratuitously attack them over debatable portions of their methodology.

Neal Shields

21-May-2006, 07:28

The one thing all of these "tests" seem to have in common is that they avoid photographing anything quantifiable, like an airforce test target.

Much of the exhaustively researched litature, such as "Image Clarity" shows how and why "sharpness" is in the eye of the beholder, where as information content is not.

Even with old darkroom techniques, if you had the information you could manipulate it to look sharper. Now with scanning and photoshop, if you have the information you can do almost anything with it.

The only thing you can't do with modern computer enhansement is create information that was lost at the time of capture.

For that reason, I can't see any use in tests that don't measure and quantify information content.

palantiri7

21-May-2006, 08:20

$50k? >gulp< And here I thought 8x10 transparency film was expensive. I wish I could see a large print done with the P45 and compare it to a large print from my 8x10. But I live in da bush, so it might be a while. Then again, I don't think it will make a difference; I just like working with film. I'm getting tired of being viewed as an out-of-sync odd-ball on a photography forum at home, though.

vijayn

21-May-2006, 11:13

Exactly what Neal said. Need to quantify these "tests" from an information content point of view.

Jack Flesher

21-May-2006, 12:15

The one thing all of these "tests" seem to have in common is that they avoid photographing anything quantifiable, like an airforce test target.

This is certainly a valid point. I test all my lenses on an AF test target. I can tell you that some lenses (usually older ones) appear soft at first glance, but when you examine the file closely you see they actually resolve as many LPMM as their more modern counterparts. So from a resolution standpoint they are equal. The issue comes down to differences micro-contrast, not resolution...

The dificulty arises when you then compare identical "real world" images taken with them -- and find that first impression of "softness" remains, even though you know it is technically as sharp. So which image is "better" becomes a much more subjective debate. I think this same problem exists when comparing sensors -- and may explain why the film versus digital debate remains so heated.

Jack Flesher

21-May-2006, 12:18

PS: As an aside, I have recently altered my own perceptions of what qualities make an image "good" and find myself using older glass, but glass I feel (subjective) has more character.

Gordon Moat

21-May-2006, 13:07

Indeed the prices will go down. At the circa $10k level, a digital back would be near starting level of some high end scanners (Creo, Screen, et al). A professional could justify such expenses, and probably see some profits . . . I am less sure that would be the situation with an enthusiast, though that depends more upon availability of disposable income.

Resolution tests are an interesting comparison. I think many people like the comparison levels at places like DPReview.com, and similar sites. Unfortunately, no digital back makers have offered their gear to such sites for resolution and imaging testing. Since most high end D-SLRs hit in a real 40 to 60 lp/mm, I would expect somewhere in the same range for digital backs, but with the understanding that resolution is only one comparison.

I have only had a few clients that really wanted digital capture over film. In those situations, I rented, since that was more cost effective. The shots from digital backs are generally cleaner, and more free of noise than those from high end D-SLRs, something that could be worth more than outright resolution. However, there are so many variables of needs, and figuring out how to fit such devices into workflows is an individual decision.

What I often see in comments concerning digital capture is that immediate reassurance provided by a display image. Sure, there has always been an uncertainty of film, and maybe some anxiety with waiting to see the results, and sometimes those results might not be what you expected. This is the confidence building aspect of digital imaging and digital review on an LCD; some call it the Polaroid factor, or replacement. I would not use this to justify using digital capture; I don't personally need that reassurance; I do understand that others want that feeling of security.

I was taking night skyline shots yesterday with my 4x5. I only had a limited time when the light was the way I wanted. During that time period, I did one 2 1/2 minute exposure, and another 7 1/4 minute exposure. Digital backs struggle with such long exposures, though there are work arounds, and an aperture of f22 would not have been necessary, nor would the 82B filter I used. That really is not my point in mentioning it; the main thing is that I don't know how the final images will look, though I have a good idea due to similar conditions, past experience, and consistent working methods. The main lab I use is not open until tomorrow, so I cannot see the results until then, but that does not bother me at all. Maybe others here on this forum feel the same way?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

Eric Leppanen

21-May-2006, 14:20

I can tell you that some lenses (usually older ones) appear soft at first glance, but when you examine the file closely you see they actually resolve as many LPMM as their more modern counterparts. So from a resolution standpoint they are equal. The issue comes down to differences micro-contrast, not resolution...

I have seen the same phenomenon comparing modern lenses from Rodenstock or Fuji versus Schneider. An APO Sironar-S, for example, tends to be a bit more contrasty and generates a bit more acutance then an APO Symmar; as a result, the Rodenstock superficially appears to generate slightly sharper negs. Yet when I objectively examine negs from both lenses under a 10x loupe, both lenses resolve the same amount of detail. If I wanted dramatic contact prints, I would likely favor the Rodenstock, but for digital printing the lenses usually generate comparable results, as the digital workflow compensates for any contrast differences. The higher contrast Rodenstock might be a smidge better at tonal separation, the Schneider a bit better at shadow rendering. But in most cases it doesn't matter.

More germane to resolution testing IMO is how well optimized a lens is for a given focus distance. For example, my Fuji-C's seem to be optimized for at or near infinity; if I want the sharpest results at closer focus distances, I am better off using a plasmat.

What I often see in comments concerning digital capture is that immediate reassurance provided by a display image. Sure, there has always been an uncertainty of film, and maybe some anxiety with waiting to see the results, and sometimes those results might not be what you expected. This is the confidence building aspect of digital imaging and digital review on an LCD; some call it the Polaroid factor, or replacement. I would not use this to justify using digital capture; I don't personally need that reassurance; I do understand that others want that feeling of security.

Let me give an example to better illustrate my concern on this point. When shooting a sequence of exposures with chrome film during difficult lighting conditions (say shooting a sunrise on a distant mountain with cloud cover periodically obscuring the sun), getting a proper meter reading is often problematic and the only certain way to successfully get the shot is to exposure bracket. When shooting 8x10 chrome, however, you only have a limited number of loaded film holders, so you have to constantly ask yourself: do I exposure bracket now to be sure I properly capture the current lighting conditions, or do I hold off and hope for better lighting as the sunrise progresses? You don't have enough holders to do both, nor is there time to do polaroids. This is where digital capture could be very helpful; you can immediately verify exposure and reshoot as necessary until proper exposure is achieved; then repeat the process until the sunrise is over (of course there is also no limitation on the number of exposures you can make, which is immensely helpful).

MJSfoto1956

21-May-2006, 14:31

Good points Gordon,

Pros have moved to digital because the market demands it. Clearly the quality is "good enough" for their clients. And pros have always been able to get an ROI on their purchases (at least the ones that stay in business!). It is not at all clear that an enthusiasts could ever recover the investment over the expected lifespan (4-6 years?) with today's ever-changing digital equipment. Worse, when it comes time to sell this stuff 4-6 years later, you get pennies on the dollar!

Recall that you might have scrimped and saved for years to purchase that Sinar or Arca Swiss or Ebony -- but the expectation was that you would have it for 20 years or more (or alternatively you could sell it for nearly what you paid for it years later). So it really was an investment. Not necessarily so with high-end digital equipment. You better damn well have a good business model before you plunk down n-thousands of dollars on x, then another n-thousand for y.

This is the crux of the problem for anyone who is not professionally being subsidized by their clients. The chatter and limelight go to digital photography (and the digital photographers) at the same time that curators and art associations are focusing less on representational and more on figurative work. For those of us who are large format landscape photographers times can seem to be tough.

OTOH, I personally think these days are the most exciting days photography has ever enjoyed. There is not a person whose work on this (and other similar quality) lists I have not drawn inspiration from.

J Michael Sullivan

MJSfoto1956

21-May-2006, 14:38

Eric,

This is why I always bring a pocket digital camera with my when I shoot film -- I sometimes use it as a digital Polaroid and record of the environment. These cameras are so small they fit into any camera bag. Faster, and cheaper than Polaroid. As long as you shoot "normal" focal length lenses (e.g. 90mm to 240mm) most 3x pocket cameras can give a good approximation.

Saves time setting up your equipment too as you can easily adjust compositions prior to lugging your camera gear into position.

J Michael Sullivan

Juergen Sattler

21-May-2006, 15:40

The best part of this thread is hearing from Jorge - so glad you are back at the keyboard! Best wishes and hope you are feeling better!

Eric Leppanen

21-May-2006, 16:10

Eric,

This is why I always bring a pocket digital camera with my when I shoot film -- I sometimes use it as a digital Polaroid and record of the environment.
J Michael Sullivan

J Michael,

That is a great idea, and I actually used my D70 for that purpose when shooting my mountain sunrise scene. I find, though, that the digital sensor does not match film exactly (particularly high contrast film like Velvia or E100VS), and I still have to bracket a half stop in each direction to be sure of getting the shot. It does save me from having to do five shot bracketing like I used to do, which is a big help.

Gordon Moat

21-May-2006, 17:51

Hello Eric and J. Michael,

I am not opposed to someone wanting a confirmation image, whether that is Polaroid, or some other capture method. Usually I have some control over lighting, though quite often there are situations with changing light. I have a Nikon FE that has an unusual aspect of the light meter in that it will keep a shutter open for very long exposures; near 30 minutes being the longest so far. I can use that as a simultaneous timer on longer exposures. There are a few similar cameras, or some of the older Olympus and Pentax SLRs with OTF metering. Ideally some form of automatic shutter, or OTF metering arrangement on large format could accomplish something similar.

The suggests of a small carry along test camera seem like a good idea. I cannot recall shooting many sunrise scenes, but I have done many sunset, or just after sunset images. On the 2 1/2 minute and 7 1/4 minute exposures I mentioned, I kept metering each 30 seconds with my Sekonic to see how much changed from the time I started the exposure, though adjustments in such situations are something I rarely do. I guess photographing more urban subjects I have a bit more luxury in returning to the same location, if I wanted to try something different. Someone hiking to a remote area might often not have such an option.

I tried a few times in the past using a Digital Polaroid, basically a P&S that one of my past assistants use to bring along often. I also found that the sensor was not a good match for some films, so I largely abandoned that method. I wish I had a good recommendation for metering consistancy when using transparency films, but I don't think my methods would be the answer for others. A couple minutes waiting on a Polaroid could be enough for the light to change.

Rather than bracket, if you could use colour negative film instead, then that might simplify some exposure leeway. I don't know if there is one true solution. My results were not that consistant when I first started doing difficult lighting, though I had some benefit from using 35mm first under those conditions. Maybe it is something I just got very use to doing, because the majority of time I find my exposures to be where I expected. Wish I could offer something more constructive.

I just wanted to add in that one of my favourite colour imaging photographers has been Pete Turner. He did some pretty amazing difficult shots using very manual equipment, like a Nikon rangefinder. Sure, only little 35mm, but I thought it might be cool to see one of his shots from several decades ago:

http://www.peteturner.com/africa16.html

Ciao!

Gordon Moat