Myth of digital efficiency

[George Kara]

Forgive the CPA in me but truly - the myth of high end digital being cheaper overall when compared to film doesn't appear to add up.

Here is a real example. Please tell me the errors in my computation.

Over on Ludicrous Landscape, there is a gentlemen selling a P45 for 17K or best offer. It has 5006 actuations according to the jpeg image.

So lets do the real world numbers in this exact circumstance.

Original purchase price approx $ 30,000
Sales - use tax est. at 7% 2,100

Total estimated costs excluding
all other digital related hardware
and software $ 32,100

Lets say you can purchase
for 16K 16,000

Depreciation of asset over
two year period $ 16,100

Number of total captures 5,006

Cost per image $ 3.22

This is only for the capture related costs. This excludes the photographer's time
in developing and correcting the digital negatives. It also excludes the delivery cost of the product to the client. Please note no costs for computer, cf cards, monitors, cables etc. are included above.

So please where is the cost/time savings derived?

George

[John Voss]

Lets say you can purchase
for 16K 16,000

Depreciation of asset over
two year period $ 16,100



Believe me, I'm no fan of digicams, but more than total depreciation over two years? Are you kidding? Take a look at used digital camera prices at KEH.com and notice that even 4 megapixel Nikon D1s, for example, are still are being offered for hundreds of dollars.

Oops, I should have checked. The Nikon D1 is a 2.65 megapixel camera.

[Donald Miller]

Thanks for the heads up...I am going to see about buying it.

[ViewIIguy]

Believe me, I'm no fan of digicams, but more than total depreciation over two years? Are you kidding? Take a look at used digital camera prices at KEH.com and notice that even 4 megapixel Nikon D1s, for example, are still are being offered for hundreds of dollars.

Oops, I should have checked. The Nikon D1 is a 2.65 megapixel camera.

How many people are actually going to buy a D1 though? Digitals certainly don't hold their price, and then it's pretty hard to sell them after about 5 years or so period. We run in to a good many people trying to sell us used digitals at the shop, and it just doesn't make sense. They're not too much different than computers, no one wants a 5 year old computer to do serious photoshop work on because everything has gone so far since then and what not.

Take for instance the fact that we bought two Canon d60s when they came out for about 2500 dollars. 6MP cameras, nothing wrong with them, but if I sold them today I could maybe get 200-300 dollars. That's if anyone wanted one at all, which is so very unlikely.

-Will

[Ed Richards]

How about if the art director is looking at the computer while you are shooting and approving/modifying the setups, and the models and other costs are running $50K a day? Want him to hang around while you develop film or persuade him to look at Polaroids - assuming you can even get the film?

Sure, you cannot make the numbers work shooting landscapes for fine art prints, but in a commercial environment those 5,000 captures might be $500k in business. Just shooting 5,000 sheets of 4x5 transparency film with processing will be about $25,000, plus scanning say, 10% of the sheets at $100 per scan is another $50K, you are now at $75,000 to get to about the same place, with a whole lot of extra work dealing with processing, scanning, etc.

Digital looks like a bargain to me.

[sanking]

But what are you comparing costs to? If one is working professionally they are more likely doing color, and the best color is printed from digital files. So every one of those digital shots, had they been done on film, would have required a high quality scan. So if you want to compare to film, say MF, you will need to count the cost of your scans. And the cost would need to be based on use of a high end flatbed or drum scanner.

I have done the calculations for my own work flow and have come to the conclusion that medium format film is a much better value for me than high end digital, say a Canon 1DS Mark III or a P45 back. But I can see that a working professional dealing with dozens or hundreds of images per week there would be clear advantages, both in time and money, to straight digital capture over film capture and scan.

Sandy King




Forgive the CPA in me but truly - the myth of high end digital being cheaper overall when compared to film doesn't appear to add up.

Here is a real example. Please tell me the errors in my computation.

Over on Ludicrous Landscape, there is a gentlemen selling a P45 for 17K or best offer. It has 5006 actuations according to the jpeg image.

So lets do the real world numbers in this exact circumstance.

Original purchase price approx $ 30,000
Sales - use tax est. at 7% 2,100

Total estimated costs excluding
all other digital related hardware
and software $ 32,100

Lets say you can purchase
for 16K 16,000

Depreciation of asset over
two year period $ 16,100

Number of total captures 5,006

Cost per image $ 3.22

This is only for the capture related costs. This excludes the photographer's time
in developing and correcting the digital negatives. It also excludes the delivery cost of the product to the client. Please note no costs for computer, cf cards, monitors, cables etc. are included above.

So please where is the cost/time savings derived?

George

[jetcode]

I went to AC Graphics in San Rafael today. If you need quality framing or mounting for less money in the bay area that's the place. I go in and see this gorgeous mounted print of my neighborhood, that is, the beautiful mountain backdrop here in the San Geronimo Valley. Admiring the print from a distance and then up close I asked the owner what he took the image with ... a 6mp Nikon ... it was a great print and great image in the 16x20 range. I then compared it to my 4x10 generated image printed a bit smaller. They were virtually identical in quality and I printed my image at 600dpi. Granted I could have tweaked the sharpness in and kicked the detail up a notch or two in my print but needless to say I was impressed with the result of a 6mp camera.

As far as cost per print what about the transportation and development costs, the time lost getting film developed, scanned, etc. That all adds up. The user of a digital back may pay $3.22 an image but the image is nearly instant.

[Gene McCluney]

The bottom line for working photographers is, if the client demands digital, you have to do digital. It is certainly not economical to purchase a medium-format digital back to do "hobby" or "art" photography, not by a log shot. But if you are already in the high-billing commercial or fashion photography field, and want to continue to work, you have to provide digital. In larger markets one can rent medium-format digital backs. So, hypothetically, if the referenced digital back costs $32,000, and the photographer is selling it after 5000 exposures, over a two year period. What if his billing (derived from this digital back) for that period was $250,000.??? It is certainly possible to bill that and more for high-end work over a 2 year period. If you consider this scenario the back only cost him $0.02 per shot (5000 shots) out of his billing for the shots.
That is assuming he sells the used back for $16,000. I may be wrong on my calculations, but the bottom line is spending $16,000 to make $250,000 is for sure a good investment.

[jetcode]

The bottom line for working photographers is, if the client demands digital, you have to do digital. It is certainly not economical to purchase a medium-format digital back to do "hobby" or "art" photography, not by a log shot. But if you are already in the high-billing commercial or fashion photography field, and want to continue to work, you have to provide digital. In larger markets one can rent medium-format digital backs. So, hypothetically, if the referenced digital back costs $32,000, and the photographer is selling it after 5000 exposures, over a two year period. What if his billing (derived from this digital back) for that period was $250,000.??? It is certainly possible to bill that and more for high-end work over a 2 year period. If you consider this scenario the back only cost him $0.02 per shot (5000 shots) out of his billing for the shots.
That is assuming he sells the used back for $16,000. I may be wrong on my calculations, but the bottom line is spending $16,000 to make $250,000 is for sure a good investment.

not to mention you write the digital back off as an expense ...

[David A. Goldfarb]

Not to mention that if one is also paying rent for a studio in a major city, particularly in New York, $30K for a camera setup starts to look like a modest expenditure.

[Kirk Gittings]

George you are missing some things. These days all clients want files so you will need scans and all that computer equipment even if you shoot film. Also you have not included bracketing exposures (necessary on chromes), Polaroid costs etc. At my high point a few years ago, I was spending 16K a year on processing 4x5 film alone + the film costs + Polaroid etc. Film was not cheap to shoot before all the clients wanted files and you had to scan everything too. Shooting digital removes allot of time as there are not two trips to the lab for every shoot, all the time scanning, removing dust from the scans etc.

[Anupam]

Lets say you can purchase
for 16K 16,000

Depreciation of asset over
two year period $ 16,100

Does this mean that if someone buys it for $16,000 and two years later I take it off his hands, he'll pay me a hundred bucks ? :D

[Darren Kruger]

Forgive the CPA in me but truly - the myth of high end digital being cheaper overall when compared to film doesn't appear to add up.

Number of total captures 5,006

Cost per image $ 3.22

So please where is the cost/time savings derived?


Compared to 4x5 transparency, the $3.22 per image seems like a deal.

I can find Fuji Provia for around $2 per sheet at B&H (Pro160S is about the same price.) NewLab in SF charges $4 to process each sheet. So your cost per image on 4x5 film would be $6.

then there's time + gas/mileage to drop the film off at the lab and pickup (or shipping.)

-Darren

[jetcode]

Compared to 4x5 transparency, the $3.22 per image seems like a deal.

I can find Fuji Provia for around $2 per sheet at B&H (Pro160S is about the same price.) NewLab in SF charges $4 to process each sheet. So your cost per image on 4x5 film would be $6.

then there's time + gas/mileage to drop the film off at the lab and pickup (or shipping.)

-Darren

and scan charges, the time to dust bust, etc ... scanned film is an expensive path

[Ron Marshall]

Myth confirmed!

[Donald Miller]

Does this mean that if someone buys it for $16,000 and two years later I take it off his hands, he'll pay me a hundred bucks ? :D

Nope, that is why this is a bargain...it is like buying a new car versus a two year old car.

[Brian K]

How about if the art director is looking at the computer while you are shooting and approving/modifying the setups, and the models and other costs are running $50K a day? Want him to hang around while you develop film or persuade him to look at Polaroids - assuming you can even get the film?

Sure, you cannot make the numbers work shooting landscapes for fine art prints, but in a commercial environment those 5,000 captures might be $500k in business. Just shooting 5,000 sheets of 4x5 transparency film with processing will be about $25,000, plus scanning say, 10% of the sheets at $100 per scan is another $50K, you are now at $75,000 to get to about the same place, with a whole lot of extra work dealing with processing, scanning, etc.

Digital looks like a bargain to me.


I had no problems having art directors look at polaroids during the 25 years I spent shooting advertising. When I shot still life or hand models I had a TTL video camera system on my Sinars so the AD and clients could see what the shot was without crowding around the camera. And in terms of getting the AD the film, by the time we were done with lunch the film would be back. Or if it were an afternoon shoot they'd be on his desk by 9:00 am if needed.

Here's the economics part, It was standard practice to charge $12 a sheet for 4x5 chrome with processing (this is back in 2002 when I was still doing advertising work).
If I recall correctly the actual cost was more like $5, so I made, as did all my peers, about $7 a sheet profit for 4x5. Also polaroid had a similar mark up and 8x10 film went for about $20 with processing. So a busy photographer would make another $25k-50K a year on film and polaroid. Ah the good old days.

As for having to scan a whole bunch of film, unless you shot catalog you didn't actually shoot many images. Most of my gigs were only a few shots a day. That would not require all that much scanning or retouching. And actually back then they hired photographers who knew what they were doing so there was very little retouching needed most of the time.

[Brian Ellis]

I fail to see what one example (and not even a very good one at that since it doesn't take tax benefits into account, assumes a sales tax that may or may not be payable, ignores the selling price and possible profits from sales of the images made with the 5,000 exposures, etc. ) supports a generalization that digital cost savings are a myth. Everyone has their own individual situation, for some digital is more expensive, for others film is more expensive. I'm sure that digital has been more expensive for me than film but that's just me - I make relatively few images over which to spread costs, I had no lab costs with film since I did all my own processing and printing, and never spent the amount on film cameras, lenses, etc. that I've spent on digital. But that's just my own situation. It's hardly a basis for generalizing about the relative costs of the two types of photography.

[bob carnie]

Just to bring up a point that may not be so obvious.

1988-Now I have been catering to the professional photographer market here in Toronto.
First as a manager of high end E6/C41 then to my own company black white & colour custom and portfolio printing.

97 till now there has been a steady move from film to digital for commercial jobs.
The lab I managed is still offering E6 but the decline in rolls of film is staggering, the owner *to his credit * has held the line in control ,but I am not sure for how long. All the other E6 labs have gone.
I have seen a complete change in client base from professional photographers to now only art photographers and projects we take on ourselves.
Commercial film is dead, only to be used for projects that are not time sensitive and budget sensitive. I am not saying that nobody is shooting film for commercial projects but I would bet less than 3% of all commercial work is done with film today.
At least in my market.

If a photographer is not digitally equiped and savvy they will not last in any major market unless they have a really good team of clients willing to use film.
My buisness partner is a working photographer and we find single jobs will pay for most digital equipment, and spreading the cost of a 50K back over 3 years is well worth the investment.

What I hear daily that it is scary enviournment for the commercial photographer, who is competing with their own clients for possible shoots. As Joe pointed out his amazement with a 6mp camera.*I find it amazing at the number of designers and production people in agencys handing off their files for printing on commercial jobs and bypassing the photographer.
Today a photographer does save money in trips to the lab, film costs bla bla bla , but at what price, hours and hours post production, retouching , image enhancement, just to come out on top to make the job worthwhile financially.* today the photographer IMO is taking on too much responsibility, it amazes me that they are taking on the cmyk conversion responsibility , let alone the retouch and file management to place in magazines, that just a few years ago were handled by teams of skilled technicians.
Yes this does amaze me as I think all this responsibility is taking the photographer away from what they are really good at and maybe the thing that they started envisioning for themselves.
In fact as others here have probably done, I have spent the last three years working at my company trying to make a living and then every single hour that is available, study PS, Lightroom, Profilemaking, Digital Printers and all the upgrades . At some point I have to stop myself and just get back to what I really love doing , making some good exposures and putting them down on paper. That's really why I got into this crazy game .
I do remember at our front counters, a community, a place to hang out and meet friends, shoot the shit and share news and gossip, sadly those days are gone here in my area, I am lucky if I bump into old friends once a year at an opening or event.
For me this is the real loss, as digital takes over, financially it is a no brainer to work with the new technology but from my vantage point I see a complete change in community and maybe thats why I am here and on other forums, APUG and Luminous Landscape to get back a bit of the old days.

this aspect is the true loss , rather than the financial cost factor, film, memory cards are cheap, knowing what to put on them is the most important factor.

sorry for the soapy rant but this thread , kind of deals with these issues for me.

[Brian K]

.......
What I hear daily that it is scary enviournment for the commercial photographer, who is competing with their own clients for possible shoots. As Joe pointed out his amazement with a 6mp camera.*I find it amazing at the number of designers and production people in agencys handing off their files for printing on commercial jobs and bypassing the photographer.
Today a photographer does save money in trips to the lab, film costs bla bla bla , but at what price, hours and hours post production, retouching , image enhancement, just to come out on top to make the job worthwhile financially.* today the photographer IMO is taking on too much responsibility, it amazes me that they are taking on the cmyk conversion responsibility , let alone the retouch and file management to place in magazines, that just a few years ago were handled by teams of skilled technicians.
Yes this does amaze me as I think all this responsibility is taking the photographer away from what they are really good at and maybe the thing that they started envisioning for themselves.
In fact as others here have probably done, I have spent the last three years working at my company trying to make a living and then every single hour that is available, study PS, Lightroom, Profilemaking, Digital Printers and all the upgrades . At some point I have to stop myself and just get back to what I really love doing , making some good exposures and putting them down on paper. That's really why I got into this crazy game .
I do remember at our front counters, a community, a place to hang out and meet friends, shoot the shit and share news and gossip, sadly those days are gone here in my area, I am lucky if I bump into old friends once a year at an opening or event.
For me this is the real loss, as digital takes over, financially it is a no brainer to work with the new technology but from my vantage point I see a complete change in community and maybe thats why I am here and on other forums, APUG and Luminous Landscape to get back a bit of the old days.

this aspect is the true loss , rather than the financial cost factor, film, memory cards are cheap, knowing what to put on them is the most important factor.

sorry for the soapy rant but this thread , kind of deals with these issues for me.

Bob, I can relate to what you're saying. I saw that it was all heading in this direction especially the fact that photographers were also becoming retouchers and pre-press production people. When I had to shoot products clients would give me hand picked, or even models of their products to shoot. But once digital retouching became wide spread they'd send me over the worst beat up crap to shoot. And I'm talking heavy duty clients that should have known better. They just figured they'd clean it up with retouching. The writing was on the wall for advertising photographers so I closed my studio and switched to landscape.

[Kirk Gittings]

Bob, I regret the loss of that community too. On the other hand, though I hated it at first, I have grown to appreciate the control I have by doing all my own retouching, CMYK conversions etc. Also with all that work being done in house, my fees are way up. I am more self sufficient and I am more profitable. In the field, now that I know more what I am doing on the computer, I can previsualize a final processed, tweaked, retouched image while in the field. For example shooting a twilight shot for a well known client the other day, I loved the light on the building but not the pattern of car light trails in the foreground. So two exposures, blended in PS, gave me exactly what I wanted. But I could see this opportunity in the field and manufacture the final image myself exactly as I saw it in my mind's eye in the field. The creative potential in commercial work by controlling the whole process is phenomenal.

[neil poulsen]

. . . This is only for the capture related costs. This excludes the photographer's time in developing and correcting the digital negatives. It also excludes the delivery cost of the product to the client. Please note no costs for computer, cf cards, monitors, cables etc. are included above.

So please where is the cost/time savings derived?

George

And, it excludes archival costs and labor, which can be substantial.




. . .But what are you comparing costs to? If one is working professionally they are more likely doing color, and the best color is printed from digital files. So every one of those digital shots, had they been done on film, would have required a high quality scan. So if you want to compare to film, say MF, you will need to count the cost of your scans. And the cost would need to be based on use of a high end flatbed or drum scanner.

Sandy King

That's a good question. If we're speaking about digital, I would think that there would be a rational for comparing pre and post digital. So, images are printed using an enlarger. (So, pre Powerpoint, and pre scanning?)

As Kirk aludes above, we should also include the advantages of digital in this conversation, many of which benefit efficiency. Others I can think of include the following.

> Quicker turn-around.

> Amazing control and repeatability.

> Enormous advantages for special effects types of photography. (i.e. for advertising?)

> Ability to accomodate huge dynamic ranges with multiple exposures. (This works for stills, but not for action.)

> Others?

I like film a lot and like it for personal work. At the same time, my professional life was in high tech as a statistician. Spending a lot of time in front of a computer is part of my nature, and I enjoy it. (In fact, it's not too out of bounds to think of Photoshop as a statistical engine! :)) So, I love both the technology and the practice of digital photography.

What's interesting is where the best of traditional and the best of digital photography combine. Think about how alternative photography combines the best at the beginning of the 1900's with the best at the beginning of the 2000's.

[domenico Foschi]

Bob, I have thoroughly enjoyed your heartfelt post.
There are many lessons that photographers could extract out of that.

[Ben Syverson]

What are we talking about here—commercial or fine art photography? Makes a big difference.

For high-end commercial work, digital MF makes a lot of sense.

For fine art photography, I'm not sure what sense it makes to plonk down $30-50k for a digital MF setup, especially when even a $150 beater 4x5 will generate a much more detailed image. The highest resolution digital back right now is 50MP, but you can easily get a detailed 115MP file from 4x5. The same scan settings will get you a 460MP image from 8x10...

[George Kara]

For me efficiency means more profit - for the same amount of time and or investment.

Perhaps Im wrong, but it seems to me that pro's arent making that much more money and working less than in the predigital era.

For me professionally digital computing has made significant improvements in overall earnings, and the personal time I have available. There have been 0 negatives to computing as a CPA. Also turbo tax or any other consumer tax software has had virtually 0 effect on the clients that CPA's generally work with.

For the pro photographer, I don't see quite the same net effect. I must be off in my understanding.

George

[Toyon]

It's an interesting historical fact that when an older labor-intensive trade is radically altered by a new technology offering great increases in speed, throughput and productivity, the net result is almost always a lowering of income for the average practitioner. The increase in productivity for the individual almost immediately lags the rapid lowering of pricing for the end product. If you lop off the outliers who do extremely well or badly in this new field, the trend is negative for photographers' incomes. This occurs primarily because of the lowering of barriers to entry for new practitioners (making unionization nearly impossible) and the resulting commoditization of business practices that were once protected from competition by long training/apprenticeship periods, the capital intensiveness of investment in cameras, studios, etc.. and the need to establish a reputation necessary for a business that has high up-front expenses and a considerable lead time. Today, digital photographers can compete for business with far less training and expenses than was previously necessary. In addition they can deliver some form of product immediately, negating a good portion of the requirement to develop trust in long-term, established business relationships. So while digital efficiency is clearly superior in terms of productivity, speed and adaptability, the average practitioner will see greater competition, and will be required to deliver more product, at faster speed and for less pay than was true in the pre-digital age.

[bob carnie]

Well said,

I think the point about loping off the two ends of capabilities and leaving the middle average making less today than before makes total sense.
I understand Kirks viewpoint about the total creative control that this new technology has given him, * I also remember Kirks viewpoint a while back , the recent years of study to reach a high level of expertise in digital to match his years of analogue skills.*
That statement years back *if indeed it was Kirk* was enough to motivate me to endure in a very intesive study of PS and all things digital at 54 years of age, two years later I feel some of the control Kirk mentions in his post on this thread.
I think within another 10 years those skilled apprentice ship programs will come back. In fact my lab has started this already with young students, the first was a young man from France who worked for 1 year here and at the end basically skipped two years of photography school with his portfolio and resume of duties he performed here. I am signing on an 18 year old in Sept for a 2 year stint under very tight reins.

There are the exceptions who really are excelling with integrating digital to existing long term photography studios, but I can also tell you horror stories of very competent photographers for reasons I cannot explain did not do what some very keen photographers did, which is embrace the technology and master it.
These large number of individuals are now at the end of their careers seeing dwindling offers of jobs due to a industry in massive change.

* I also think the worse is still to come*

Today we are seeing the Manufacturers, Fuji, Kodak, Ilford , Harmon and others compete with their own clients.. point of sale printing machines, custom printing at the factory, Memory books for weddings and friends.
I can tell you its hard enough running a profitable Custom Lab , without the hassel of competing with the suppliers of the materials I use.
This alone is enough for me at least to lose any or all loyalty with any vendor of products. Problem is they are all doing it and I am sure they have their reasons , but for me it is a sign of the times and things to come.


So here we are stuck in the middle, our clients are competing and so are the people making our materials... kind of make's me think that this industry as a whole is the shits.

So I think Kirk is right , embrace it all , study for years , control as much as you can with your workflow, remember it really is still about completing a complete circle from capture or exposure, process, edit , print matt and frame and put it on a wall. The more you do yourself the more control of the final product, whether it is digital or analogue.
My last post was a bit of nostolgic thinking that maybe those days would come back.


So before I fade into the sunset, I promise myself to do the following.

Learn everything about digital I can.
Be up on technology so when a permanant inkjet material comes I am ready.
Keep printing on enlargers and processing film.
Make my digital negatives on a Lambda unit to any size I need.
Start making alternative prints, tri colour with a black on paper or platinum,colour gum , POP, Van Dyke, Lambda and Enlarger silver prints or any material that stands a chance of lasting more than 23.3years.*according to Wilhelm*
Buy enough material to freeze and use up as I start moving to the depends age.
Move to the farm.
Oh yea, all my work areas will be wheelchair accesable so when I am at the depends age all one has to do is wheel me up to the table.
Sell my work to anyone who is willing to enjoy my vision.
and not rely on anyone person to make my images come alive other than myself.

ps. Kirk I hope you see that by using your name in this thread that it is a sign of respect and if you did not say those things a couple of years back , I apologize, but I would imagine you saying them.











It's an interesting historical fact that when an older labor-intensive trade is radically altered by a new technology offering great increases in speed, throughput and productivity, the net result is almost always a lowering of income for the average practitioner. The increase in productivity for the individual almost immediately lags the rapid lowering of pricing for the end product. If you lop off the outliers who do extremely well or badly in this new field, the trend is negative for photographers' incomes. This occurs primarily because of the lowering of barriers to entry for new practitioners (making unionization nearly impossible) and the resulting commoditization of business practices that were once protected from competition by long training/apprenticeship periods, the capital intensiveness of investment in cameras, studios, etc.. and the need to establish a reputation necessary for a business that has high up-front expenses and a considerable lead time. Today, digital photographers can compete for business with far less training and expenses than was previously necessary. In addition they can deliver some form of product immediately, negating a good portion of the requirement to develop trust in long-term, established business relationships. So while digital efficiency is clearly superior in terms of productivity, speed and adaptability, the average practitioner will see greater competition, and will be required to deliver more product, at faster speed and for less pay than was true in the pre-digital age.

[Lenny Eiger]

What are we talking about here—commercial or fine art photography? Makes a big difference.

For high-end commercial work, digital MF makes a lot of sense.
For fine art photography, I'm not sure what sense it makes to plonk down $30-50k for a digital MF setup, especially when even a $150 beater 4x5 will generate a much more detailed image. The highest resolution digital back right now is 50MP, but you can easily get a detailed 115MP file from 4x5. The same scan settings will get you a 460MP image from 8x10...

Fine Artist here - the numbers are even higher for me. With a top level scanner, I produce 320 megapixels from a 4x5 and 568 megapixels from my 8x10's. Somewhere between 2 and 3 Gigabytes of data. There really is no comparison. It's ten times the data. And I get the kind of prints that I want.

I figured out the price of a new 60 megapixel camera - maybe 60-80K, the higher number reflecting having to replace lenses, etc. Many others would have to also include purchase of expensive lights, and updated computer systems, add another 20K. I just got a new Canham 8x10 for about about 3K. Beautiful thing, Keith is really an artist... I can go thru a lot of film for the remaining amount. And I won't have to watch my investment be worth nothing in two years, like so many have.

Now to the obvious - it wouldn't matter how much or how little it costs - the largest digital camera can't do what I need. It won't until it gets over 150 megapixels, at least, which it may or may not.

If I was doing commercial work, I wouldn't bother with film for another minute. As an artist, and one who prints in the style I print, digital is simply not there yet....

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

ps. Kirk I hope you see that by using your name in this thread that it is a sign of respect and if you did not say those things a couple of years back , I apologize, but I would imagine you saying them.

Thanks Bob, close enough on the quote. I got into digital capture kicking and screaming because of my business client needs. I didn't then nor need now DC for my personal work. For commercial work I would never go back to film, for my personal work I still see no need now or in the future to go fully digital, 4x5 film and scanning gives me all the quality I need (even though I rarely print over 16x20) at a reasonable price.

But more than that, using a VC and film is very contemplative, using one puts me in a head space, a creative tradition, that is personally very satisfying and empowering and completely different than doing commercial work. Me and my work thrive on that difference.

[Gordon Moat]

. . . . using a VC and film is very contemplative, using one puts me in a head space, a creative tradition, that is personally very satisfying and empowering and completely different than doing commercial work. Me and my work thrive on that difference.

Well stated! This has been the big draw for me and my work. If that digital back screen was larger than near 645 proportions, then I might use a mini view camera, but I think we are a few years away from that.

I have rented medium format digital backs a few times, and I think it makes more sense economically. I suppose if some CPA crunched the numbers on how often a particular photographer might need a digital back, then either leasing or renting might make much more sense than purchasing.

However, outside of making large prints for trade shows, I have to admit that what I do on a 4x5 is often much more resolution than needed in the final printed form. Much commercial work could be accomplished with lesser equipment.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[QT Luong]

> Fine Artist here - the numbers are even higher for me. With a top level scanner, I produce 320 megapixels from a 4x5 and 568 megapixels from my 8x10's. Somewhere between 2 and 3 Gigabytes of data. There really is no comparison.

Maybe, but Charles Cramer, quite established as a fine artist, has posted such a well-publicized comparison.

Past a certain point, the presumed increase in resolution does not matter much from an artistic point of view. On the other hand, with digital MF, you can capture images that would have escaped you for many reasons with a LF set up: too slow, too windy, not enough DOF, too far, not worth setting up, not worth burning (more) film...

[audioexcels]

... a 6mp Nikon ... it was a great print and great image in the 16x20 range. I then compared it to my 4x10 generated image printed a bit smaller. They were virtually identical in quality and I printed my image at 600dpi. Granted I could have tweaked the sharpness in and kicked the detail up a notch or two in my print but needless to say I was impressed with the result of a 6mp camera.

As far as cost per print what about the transportation and development costs, the time lost getting film developed, scanned, etc. That all adds up. The user of a digital back may pay $3.22 an image but the image is nearly instant.

So was there any difference in "the look" of your film based image to the digital image? I don't care about resolution this or that, just how each produced color accuracy, life-like looking rendition of fine details (pixels vs. grain, etc.), etc. Why don't you pay the person to take your 4X10 file and print it to 8X20 using his/her printing methods as this may reveal what kind of quality you can achieve through a printer that they are using vs. the one you are using.

I don't argue the digital looking as good, just have some questions and also a to do-get him to print the files you have from 4X10 and the Cezanne.

Cheers!

[Lenny Eiger]

Fine Artist here - the numbers are even higher for me. With a top level scanner, I produce 320 megapixels from a 4x5 and 568 megapixels from my 8x10's. Somewhere between 2 and 3 Gigabytes of data. There really is no comparison.

Maybe, but Charles Cramer, quite established as a fine artist, has posted such a well-publicized comparison.

Yes, but in color. I've got plenty of respect for him and his accomplishments, I spent plenty of time talking to Charles and did a test with him of a test neg. I didn't like the comparison, nor the ones on luminous landscape. There was a decided lack of criteria - and I thought the conclusions were flawed as a result. Further, Cramer only has a Tango at his disposal and it can't resolve past 4000. He wouldn't know if there was more after that or not.



Past a certain point, the presumed increase in resolution does not matter much from an artistic point of view.

Yes, but how many know where that point is... I found it at the dither pattern level. One can't really get detail past 720 - on any printer I have seen. However, there is plenty of detail in there at 500 - at least in black and white with a 6 dilution set of inks. It makes a very large difference. It isn't just a bunch of theoretical mumbo-jumbo. It's the difference in tonality that shows up in a black and white print where the extra sensitivity takes the print from being just a print to exceeding the capacity of platinum. Now some folks don't want to print like that, and that's fine. But if you want to make a print as beautiful as a platinum print, then you had better have the pixels. And a very sensitive scanner, preferably with a PMT.



On the other hand, with digital MF, you can capture images that would have escaped you for many reasons with a LF set up: too slow, too windy, not enough DOF, too far, not worth setting up, not worth burning (more) film...

This is true of any comparison between large and small cameras. I was very concerned at one point that my work was getting a little stiff so I taught myself to set up the 8x10 and take a photo in 60 seconds. Sometimes I still do... altho' I enjoy the longer process as well. Part of doing large format is seriously considering what it is you are photographing - it's one of its great strengths. Wind is a pain... no doubt. However, I'm not doing street shooting and so it is not as much of a concern. I talk to a lot of color shooters and they say things like I only have 15 mins in the morning and 15 mins in the evening... I guess you get what you get... depending on what you want to shoot, and if you can't get the shot, well, you can't. You're probably missing something else right under your nose.

Lenny

[audioexcels]

> Fine Artist here - the numbers are even higher for me. With a top level scanner, I produce 320 megapixels from a 4x5 and 568 megapixels from my 8x10's. Somewhere between 2 and 3 Gigabytes of data. There really is no comparison.

Maybe, but Charles Cramer, quite established as a fine artist, has posted such a well-publicized comparison.

Past a certain point, the presumed increase in resolution does not matter much from an artistic point of view. On the other hand, with digital MF, you can capture images that would have escaped you for many reasons with a LF set up: too slow, too windy, not enough DOF, too far, not worth setting up, not worth burning (more) film...

Are you so sure of this? I didn't realize there was so much wind in studio shoots or even outdoor shoots unless photographers shooting outdoor shoots have models that don't mind the wind blowing their hair in their faces and enjoy being out in windy conditions.

I know a person working with a very high end digital MF setup. It has splendid images. But it takes the person a full blown setup to achieve, and shoots involve a team of workers to carry his equipment, then a 1 million photolab to deal with things, etc. etc. Conditions have to be a certain way or he has a lot of issues to deal with. It's not so easy as pull the trigger. The same DOF and other issues may not exist, but the same slower process involved in the shoot is no different than a person using a view cam, and is way slower than a person using an MF film cam.

On the other hand, if one is using something a lot more simple like a FF DSLR, that's an entirely different story/situation.

As to resolution and fine art, there's obvious thresholds in how much information can be extracted off a piece of film and how useful that amount of information is going to be once it goes to a print.

I would much rather have a tack sharp 60X80 print from an Aztek Premier 8X10 scan where I could go up and look at every detail pin-sharp with my nose to the print than a washed out digital print that cannot come close to this size, let alone may sizes smaller. Also, what is fine art, a photo involving a lot of movements or one that has little to none at all? I don't think anyone would have any point in having any view cam that was not a point and shoot with similar tiny movement possibilities if one wanted the same potential shooting with an MF cam...come to think of it, if one is shooting strictly point and shoot with MF digital backs, why not just use a point and shoot 6X9cm film cam and scan the loads of film shots off a high end flatbed/drum scanner? It wouldn't be as fast as giving the file to the editor right away, but it would be a lot more efficient in practice IMHO.

[audioexcels]

Personal opinion on all of this...

1) Digital is much more efficient if you are blasting off tons of shots with a DSLR. MF backs aren't exactly blasting off tons of shots. They take more care and time. I don't honestly see a point of shooting with an MF back when a FF DSLR should more than do the same job. Then again, when all the digital fiasco started, I remember a guy that used some $200 point and shoot camera to shoot swimsuit models for Sports Illustrated...By that means, digital is extremely efficient/cheap/etc.

2) If a photographer is well known or known enough, they can easily shoot with whatever they want, be it MF film, or even 35mm film. I don't see a problem with film shooters in the industry unless the agency wanting a spread in their magazine absolutely has to have the files in a few hours after the shoot...if a magazine actually cares about the final product, even a hobbyist using a nice MF outfit can provide the scans that same day via a Jobo and a Howtek 4500.

3) If we are talking about the "fine art" debate, why isn't anyone mentioning the look of a print from a digital camera vs. one from a film camera? I know a "ton" of people that much prefer the look of grain vs. pixels. It isn't to say that they do not like digital photos, but that on a whole, film just does it for them...and these are commercial photographers working with FF DSLRs and Sinar MF backs. I also know many that have not used their digital cams in a long time since going back to film, be it 35mm, 120, whatever...

I know "fine art" to me represents something that looks splendid, beautiful, captivates me in whatever way it does. Be it from film or digital, it doesn't matter even if I am a film person myself (I.E. Two prints side by side or many prints on the wall, I pick a few I like, and if they happen to be digital prints, they are still fine art prints in my eyes).

[Bob Salomon]

" I had no lab costs with film since I did all my own processing and printing,"

How did you get free paper and chemistry? And what was your time worth?

[jetcode]

So was there any difference in "the look" of your film based image to the digital image? I don't care about resolution this or that, just how each produced color accuracy, life-like looking rendition of fine details (pixels vs. grain, etc.), etc. Why don't you pay the person to take your 4X10 file and print it to 8X20 using his/her printing methods as this may reveal what kind of quality you can achieve through a printer that they are using vs. the one you are using.

I don't argue the digital looking as good, just have some questions and also a to do-get him to print the files you have from 4X10 and the Cezanne.

Cheers!

I had a B/W image and the other image was color. He stated he saturated the color a bit but it looked very clean and realistic. It was a fantastic image but likely more so because the content was fantastic. It is amazing how forgiving the eye is when the visual is rich. I have seen 35mm prints that looked equivalent. I didn't get really close to examine detail. My observations were from a normal viewing distance.

I'm not interested in having someone else interpret (print) my work at this time. The production was standard by all means and I didn't buy a bunch of gear to have my own work farmed out.

[jetcode]

> Fine Artist here - the numbers are even higher for me. With a top level scanner, I produce 320 megapixels from a 4x5 and 568 megapixels from my 8x10's. Somewhere between 2 and 3 Gigabytes of data. There really is no comparison.

Maybe, but Charles Cramer, quite established as a fine artist, has posted such a well-publicized comparison.

Past a certain point, the presumed increase in resolution does not matter much from an artistic point of view. On the other hand, with digital MF, you can capture images that would have escaped you for many reasons with a LF set up: too slow, too windy, not enough DOF, too far, not worth setting up, not worth burning (more) film...

Those are large files. If I may ask how long does it take you to prepare an image for stock or fine print sales?

[Lenny Eiger]

Those are large files. If I may ask how long does it take you to prepare an image for stock or fine print sales?

It takes a few minutes to open the file, convert to grayscale if need be, a little spotting, etc. How long an image takes to prepare for printing depends on how much masking is done, how many adjustment layers, etc. We take our time. I don't "turn them out" at all. It's a process of discovering what the image needs and getting there. I can make pretty good prints all day long, but that's not what we are after here...

Lenny

[rjbrine]

When shooting 10 shots a day in architectural photography the volume of images is not high enough to justify the £15,000 investement. I reckon to scan and retouch a trannie takes the same time as a comprehensive RAW file process and retouch.

[Lenny Eiger]

When shooting 10 shots a day in architectural photography the volume of images is not high enough to justify the £15,000 investement. I reckon to scan and retouch a trannie takes the same time as a comprehensive RAW file process and retouch.

Sure it does. This is all about purpose. My father was an architectural photographer and his old partner is still working in Florida, Dan Forer. We are all really proud of him, he's in Architectural Digest every three months or so. I know a fair amount lot about Arch. Photography...

The purpose of Arch. Photography is mostly is to create images that fit into a magazine. Digital cameras work fabulous for that. If you know you are making a 40 inch print for a display for an office, then you can shoot film as well... as a secondary operation.

Lenny

[Gordon Moat]

If you are only doing a single page, or two page spread, then a medium format digital back is overkill. Even 4x5 film is overkill. It doesn't seem to me that magazines pay well enough to justify the expense of a digital back, though a top line D-SLR might be profitable . . . maybe architectural magazines pay much better than lifestyle magazines.

How many pages or covers in Architectural Digest would one need to pay off a $30k digital back, or to pay the near $2000/month lease rate? Seems to me that renting as needed might be a better way to go, if the compensation exceeds the rental expense.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Kirk Gittings]

When shooting 10 shots a day in architectural photography the volume of images is not high enough to justify the £15,000 investement. I reckon to scan and retouch a trannie takes the same time as a comprehensive RAW file process and retouch.

We have gone over to a DSLR for architecture magazine shoots. The quality even for double page spreads is adequate. I found the scanning/spotting/retouching of scanned film to be far more time consuming than a purely digital work flow. Even with 4x5 film we did far more than 10 shots a day. I also find that we are able to do far more images in a day with digital than we did with film, because of being able to dial in the camera quickly to deal with mixed light and available light.

[Ben Chase]

I look at it this way:

Right now I'm shooting 4x5, developing, scanning, then uploading to my site.

As much as I love working with the 4x5, I hate the workflow of having to scan all of my film. Good scans are expensive and in addition, there is an additional cost: Time.

Depending on what Canon does with the 5D's successor, I may move completely to it or look more closely at the D700. Why? Simply because it will enable me to take a lot more photographs that I would normally not consider (probably out of laziness) because the setup time is significantly shorter. Also, I can get rid of the development and scanning steps in my workflow.

It's pretty clear that 4x5 and larger gives you the most amount of large-print flexibility, but I print larger than 16x20 so infrequently that I think there is a lot to gain by moving to a 12-16 MP 14-bit body. I have shot film since 1999 and I've been competent in PS since version 4.0, so as much as it pains me to, I may be leaving the film world in the near future.