Film vs. Digital? Continued ...

[Jerry Avenaim]

Since the firestorm on my introduction post to this forum, regarding this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=57725). There has been another entry on the topic, more of a continuum...

A dear friend asked if he could write a follow up on my blog. I've never had a guest blogger, but there's a first time for everything.

Written by acclaimed fashion photographer Jeff Berlin;

The Importance of Repeatable Photography (http://blog.avenaim.com/2010/01/12/repeatable-photography/)

Have at it folks...

Jerry Avenaim (http://www.avenaim.com)

[Robert Hughes]

This isn't really a film vrs digital question, more a comment on the "spray and pray" approach that digital allows more readily than film. I've seen photographers run through whole rolls of 35mm film in seconds, hoping for one good shot. And, of course, someone could spend hours with their DSLR waiting for the clouds to part and bring them the total AA experience - but why bother? Just shoot a couple hundred pix while you're waiting and spend the next month going through the thumbnails...

[stephenhunter57]

Talking of film, us in the UK pay twice as much for the same film in america, its terrible the tax thats introduced to everything in the UK so it makes it very difficult to compete with photographers in other countries for commissions, rant over :)

[Jerry Avenaim]

I apologize to the admin for the double post. I completely spaced out about placing this in the Announcement Section last night. Scotch + Age = Huh?

Jerry Avenaim

[williamtheis]

I could give you my take on doing Large Format digital with a Better Light scanning back, should anyone be interested. I am having difficulty getting e6 processed (I do B&W myself) so bit the bullet & bought one.
http://www.betterlight.com/

Resolution, color saturation, acutance beat film (even when compared to my 8x10) hands down. Downside is long scanning time, having to use the lens more open since diffraction limits are problems degrading image so movements are critical, NOTHING can move (makes color fringing rather than a blurred object! so no waterfalls!), and camera rigidity (especially the back where you hang extra weight and a long cord) is important. Lastly, it weighs more but can take 30 or more images (has a 20GB internal hard drive) since you have to pack a computer... but probably not as much as 15 film holders!

anyone interested in more detail?

[Noeyedear]

Since the firestorm on my introduction post to this forum, regarding this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=57725). There has been another entry on the topic, more of a continuum...

A dear friend asked if he could write a follow up on my blog. I've never had a guest blogger, but there's a first time for everything.

Written by acclaimed fashion photographer Jeff Berlin;

The Importance of Repeatable Photography (http://blog.avenaim.com/2010/01/12/repeatable-photography/)

Have at it folks...

Jerry Avenaim (http://www.avenaim.com)

Not wishing to get drawn into "this v that because" thing. I had a look at your site, I would just like to say, nice work.

Kevin.

[Kirk Gittings]

Since the firestorm on my introduction post to this forum, regarding this thread.

That was hardly a firestorm by this forums history. More like a tempest in a very small teapot.

[Chris Dunham]

I could give you my take on doing Large Format digital with a Better Light scanning back, should anyone be interested. I am having difficulty getting e6 processed (I do B&W myself) so bit the bullet & bought one.
http://www.betterlight.com/

Resolution, color saturation, acutance beat film (even when compared to my 8x10) hands down. Downside is long scanning time, having to use the lens more open since diffraction limits are problems degrading image so movements are critical, NOTHING can move (makes color fringing rather than a blurred object! so no waterfalls!), and camera rigidity (especially the back where you hang extra weight and a long cord) is important. Lastly, it weighs more but can take 30 or more images (has a 20GB internal hard drive) since you have to pack a computer... but probably not as much as 15 film holders!

anyone interested in more detail?

Very interesting, thanks for the post, would like to hear more ! How do you think it would handle night shots of which I do a lot? I'm not sure I understood the waterfall reference, does this mean that taking images where elements within the image are in motion is a no go? like fast moving clouds?

Do you think that given a final print size of 16x20 (or on occasion 20x24) the scanning back is he equal or better of a 8x10 colour neg?

Chris

[welly]

I could give you my take on doing Large Format digital with a Better Light scanning back, should anyone be interested. I am having difficulty getting e6 processed (I do B&W myself) so bit the bullet & bought one.
http://www.betterlight.com/

Resolution, color saturation, acutance beat film (even when compared to my 8x10) hands down. Downside is long scanning time, having to use the lens more open since diffraction limits are problems degrading image so movements are critical, NOTHING can move (makes color fringing rather than a blurred object! so no waterfalls!), and camera rigidity (especially the back where you hang extra weight and a long cord) is important. Lastly, it weighs more but can take 30 or more images (has a 20GB internal hard drive) since you have to pack a computer... but probably not as much as 15 film holders!

anyone interested in more detail?

Yeah, would love to hear about this. Not that I can afford one ($6k!), I'm definitely interested in how it works and some sample images!

[Drew Wiley]

Back before color film or even tricolor cameras, color images were made by taking
three successive shots on panchromatic black-and-white film, each through a different color separation filter. If anything moved during the whole procedure, it
would record in a different primary color at each position it was present at that
particular moment. The result was called color fringing. Same thing happens if digital exposures for each component color are sequential rather than simultaneous.
With "instant capture" if something moves, we simply get a blur of consistent color
balance. See the active thread about color photography with black and white film.

[Jim collum]

Yeah, would love to hear about this. Not that I can afford one ($6k!), I'm definitely interested in how it works and some sample images!

I've been using one since 2001.. mostly for landscape





http://www.jcollum.com/fm/betterlight_108-sharp.jpg


http://www.jcollum.com/fm/2005_10_12_bl_angkor_015-cvt-poster.jpg


http://www.jcollum.com/fm/2005_10_12_bl_angkor_011-cvt2_filtered.jpg


http://www.jcollum.com/fm/2005_10_11_bl_angkor_030.jpg

[Jim collum]

also you can go to http://www.betterlight.com/fullRes_zoomifyLIST.html and see traditional landscape images at 100%

[B.S.Kumar]

Yeah, would love to hear about this. Not that I can afford one ($6k!), I'm definitely interested in how it works and some sample images!

All the images here: http://www.bskumarphotography.com/landscape.html and here: http://www.bskumarphotography.com/personal.html were made with the Betterlight, as well as some of those in the architecture and interior sections on my website.

If there's enough light, and things are reasonably still, it can be done with the Betterlight.

Kumar

[Jerry Avenaim]

also you can go to http://www.betterlight.com/fullRes_zoomifyLIST.html and see traditional landscape images at 100%

Jim- These images are stunning. May I ask where this location is?

Jerry Avenaim

[Jim collum]

Jim- These images are stunning. May I ask where this location is?

Jerry Avenaim
First image if from Pebble Beach on the California coast (not the golf course)

The others are from Angkor Wat in Cambodia.

I could easily spend a lifetime shooting just there

[Laurent]

Talking of film, us in the UK pay twice as much for the same film in america, its terrible the tax thats introduced to everything in the UK so it makes it very difficult to compete with photographers in other countries for commissions, rant over :)

A stupid question : are you sure it's taxes ? I went to the US two years ago, and bought as much Tri-X as the store had. It was about 1/3 of the street price in France. I also bought some HP5, from the same store... and it was at the same price (minus the dollar to euro factor) than in France !

[Chris Dunham]

I could give you my take on doing Large Format digital with a Better Light scanning back, should anyone be interested. I am having difficulty getting e6 processed (I do B&W myself) so bit the bullet & bought one.
http://www.betterlight.com/

Resolution, color saturation, acutance beat film (even when compared to my 8x10) hands down. Downside is long scanning time, having to use the lens more open since diffraction limits are problems degrading image so movements are critical, NOTHING can move (makes color fringing rather than a blurred object! so no waterfalls!), and camera rigidity (especially the back where you hang extra weight and a long cord) is important. Lastly, it weighs more but can take 30 or more images (has a 20GB internal hard drive) since you have to pack a computer... but probably not as much as 15 film holders!

anyone interested in more detail?

Yes, very interested in hearing more about these backs.

Chris

[welly]

I've been using one since 2001.. mostly for landscape

Wow, lovely images and great colour. I'm puzzled as to how you would figure out exposure when the scan time is so long. How would you go about taking a shot with this digital back?

[Chris Dunham]

Wow, lovely images and great colour. I'm puzzled as to how you would figure out exposure when the scan time is so long. How would you go about taking a shot with this digital back?

Would like to know how that works too, I'm also wondering how clouds come out with a 2 minute scanning time ? Any one with scanning back experience out there ?

Chris.

[Chris Strobel]

Also whats the advantage of using one of these scanning backs vs. stitching like this yosemite picture?

http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/GlacierPointZoomify.htm

[MunichPrag]

@williamtheis

"I could give you my take on doing Large Format digital with a Better Light scanning back, should anyone be interested." ... "anyone interested in more detail?"

Yes, I am sure many people here would like to hear more !

- How do you think it would handle night shots (city at night; lighten only by street lamps) ?
- Can you show us some sample photos ? Especialy of city/architecture ?
- Can you describe this in more detail:
....."Downside is long scanning time, having to use the lens more open since diffraction limits are problems degrading image so movements are critical" ?
.
etc..
Would be great to hear detailed review from real long-term user of Better Light.

Thank you

Daniel

[Steve M Hostetter]

I just can't see using a scanning back for landscape ... Even when using film I still wait for the lull in the wind to make an exposure..

I may still only have a 1/2 sec. of calm conditions and sometimes that isn't perfectly calm

Does one just have to limit their subjects to not include: streams, trains, people, grass lands, animals, macro, not to mention the problems with using long lenses?
steve

[Peter Mounier]

The Betterlight scan back works like a flatbed scanner, in that it scans lines across the film plane. Depending on the model, it has to scan about 8,000 lines to make one (slightly smaller) 4x5 image. Those 8,000 lines can be exposed for up to 1/8th sec. each, making for very long exposures overall, but only 1/8th sec. per line. Not only that, but each line gets exposed by a trilinear sensor, meaning that each of 3 colors gets scanned separately with each line. The scanback software stitches the 3 colors together and also the 8,000 lines in the controller box. If something is moving, the colors can become out of register, and the separate lines also won't align. Thus the need for stillness. Here is a crop from a shot I intentionally took with some motion. Each line got 1/30th sec. for an overall exposure time (1/30th x 8,000) of approx 2.5 minutes.

Peter

[Jim collum]

The Betterlight scan back works like a flatbed scanner, in that it scans lines across the film plane. Depending on the model, it has to scan about 8,000 lines to make one (slightly smaller) 4x5 image. Those 8,000 lines can be exposed for up to 1/8th sec. each, making for very long exposures overall, but only 1/8th sec. per line. Not only that, but each line gets exposed by a trilinear sensor, meaning that each of 3 colors gets scanned separately with each line. The scanback software stitches the 3 colors together and also the 8,000 lines in the controller box. If something is moving, the colors can become out of register, and the separate lines also won't align. Thus the need for stillness. Here is a crop from a shot I intentionally took with some motion. Each line got 1/30th sec. for an overall exposure time (1/30th x 8,000) of approx 2.5 minutes.

Peter

you can end up with images like that, or images like http://betterlight.com/gallery/MC_gallery/MC_lobby.html or pretty much anything at Stephen Johnson's site http://www.sjphoto.com/


90% of my shooting is in the morning.. wind at that time is rarely an issue.... and if it is, I shoot film. I find it particularly useful when shooting old glass.. no shutter is needed, and you can see the effect when you are shooting. For the most part, my exposure time ranges from 35-60 seconds. Have been a happy user since 2001.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd second a look at Stephen Johnson's work. He should be applauded for being a pioneer in the practical outdoor use of a scanning back and coming up with actual
display prints that way, but it's definitely not the kind of look I would want for
my own work. Sheet film is way more practical, and to me at least, more "authentic"
in potential results, especially when one considers how difficult it is for outdoor subject
matter to stay stationary even a full second, plus all the other factors of reliability
and potential tech repair, expense amortization, and rapid obsolescene. I just don't
see any substitute on the horizon for real film, unless you're talking about relatively
small-scale garden-variety reproduction like stock photography for publication.

[MunichPrag]

Hallo,

I have created new Thread:

All about Better Light scanning back
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=84099

let's continue all our talk about Better Light there.

Thanks

[D. Bryant]

If anything moved during the whole procedure, it
would record in a different primary color at each position it was present at that
particular moment. The result was called color fringing. Same thing happens if digital exposures for each component color are sequential rather than simultaneous.



Sorry but that isn't correct Drew. Multiple exposures made with a digital camera don't require separation filters for each exposure. Any color fringing in the combined digital image will be the result of some other issue encountered during the exposure.

Moving objects will be blurred.

[Drew Wiley]

Don, I specificially stated that IF exp are sequential rather than simultaneous, but did
not mean this in reference to panned or stitched exp. Quite a bit of the early LF
digital work was distinctly color-fringed, perhaps because some of these individuals
thought they got better results that way - successive tricolor. And of course the
now obsolete Epolux system was strictly successive and might now make a good
bargain studio system if any compatible software still exists. But I've talked to a few
folks who still do it this way because they feel they get better dyanamic range or
that it simplifies workflow. No different than in-camera tricolor separations when something moves, versus a one-shot camera, and a handful of people still work this way. In small format fringing is more often a lens problem relative to angle of incidence. I should have clarified my statement a little more, but of course you are
correct from your own angle of perspective about this.