What's the point?

[Ari]

No, I'm not thinking of jumping off a bridge, swallowing poison, or watching a Matthew McConaughey movie; this pertains mostly to architectural photography.
I'd like to ask, with the stitching and perspective control available in PS, and armed with, say, a 5D MkII and maybe even a tilt/shift lens, why would I or anyone bother shooting LF?
Am I carrying around all that gear for a small increase in image quality?
I have to correct in PS half the time as it is; I imagine this might get better over time as I'm a newbie to the precision involved with buildings, but I'd still have to use PS.
I shot four buildings yesterday from a moving car with my 5D, and I was able to correct all but one in PS in under 5 minutes each. When I go back with a tripod and a few minutes to spare, the photos will turn out much better, but still...
I've never been an advocate of "fix it in the mix", but it's quite tempting to try to work that way.

[Brian Ellis]

The main reason IMHO is that many people simply enjoy the whole LF photography process and experience. I certainly enjoy it much more than I enjoy using a digital camera though I use the digital camera most of the time now. But other than simply enjoying it there probably aren't a whole lot of really compelling reasons for maybe 95% of the people 95% of the time.

[Kirk Gittings]

For what purpose are you shooting the architecture? For commercial purposes in terms of workflow and meeting general client needs, I don't think there is any question that a FF DSLR with t/s lenses is superior. Thats what I make a living with. BUT you have to work carefully to maximize image quality including the distortion and artifacts that are introduced by serious PC in PS. Hence why good T/S lenses are invaluable. There is a ton about this on my blog linked below. For personal work, expressive b&w for gallery shows etc., I prefer the 4x5 VC.

[Mark Stahlke]

The main reason IMHO is that many people simply enjoy the whole LF photography process and experience.
I have to agree with this. I enjoy LF camera time much more than I enjoy computer time. I'd rather spend my time behind a camera than in front of a computer.

[Ari]

I have to agree with this. I enjoy LF camera time much more than I enjoy computer time. I'd rather spend my time behind a camera than in front of a computer.

+1, absolutely.


To reply to Kirk, I am working for commercial clients, so yes, speed is as important to them as is quality. If I'm shooting film, it's almost always for myself or perhaps the portfolio.

[Chris Strobel]

For personal work, expressive b&w for gallery shows etc., I prefer the 4x5 VC.

Kirk is this because of image quality, or because you enjoy the view camera itself?Do you do any personal work with your Canon at all?

Thanks,
Chris

[dave_whatever]

I'd like to ask, with the stitching and perspective control available in PS, and armed with, say, a 5D MkII and maybe even a tilt/shift lens, why would I or anyone bother shooting LF?

Last time I saw a 5D MkII they still hadn't put anywhere for the film to go.

[Brian C. Miller]

I shot four buildings yesterday from a moving car with my 5D...

Since you are photographing from a moving car (bad idea!), why would you want to use a view camera? This is really giving the phrase, "drive-by shooting," a whole new, yet still dangerous, meaning. "Uh, yes, your Honor, I was distracted while driving by using the superior perspective control of my view camera, and that's why I wiped out a busload of nuns and orphans." Innocence by reason of view camera isn't a valid defense.

And here I thought that cell phone drivers were bad. Now we've got to contend with somebody fiddling with an 11x14 while doing 70 in a 35!

[mdm]

Its a zen thing. An elegant process and perhaps a special print. Not the same as a quick disposable snapshot.

[Steve M Hostetter]

If I understand your question correctly .. "I can shoot four buildings without stopping my car and that seems good enough since I can fix em in PS ".. why bother w/ LF?
Then I would agree that there would be no need to mess with LF
although personally I find it to be a far fetched idea to say the least

[Ari]

Since you are photographing from a moving car (bad idea!), why would you want to use a view camera?

Yes, generally driving and operating another machine is a bad idea. Lucky for the nuns and orphans I was a passenger. :)
But my point was someone could be as sloppy as they like, and still rescue a photo in PS. There's a whole generation of photographers who have been reared on this precept.
If that's so, why drag your gear all over creation, when the same can be accomplished with a sophisticated digital camera, weighing much less and eminently more portable?

[Ari]

If I understand your question correctly .. "I can shoot four buildings without stopping my car and that seems good enough since I can fix em in PS ".. why bother w/ LF?
Then I would agree that there would be no need to mess with LF
although personally I find it to be a far fetched idea to say the least

I am taking the argument a little far, if only to prove a point; same for the experiment in the car. I do have my own reasons for shooting LF, but they have nothing to do with buildings in particular, nor architecture in general.

Also, what is the point if I shoot film, then end up working each negative in PS for, say, 1 hour per photo, just to fine-tune perspective and distortion and line up the sides? Isn't that why I got a view camera in the first place?
So...why not just shoot digital?

[Brian C. Miller]

I'll pull my nose out of the grain for a moment and tell you about my addiction.

I didn't start with a 35mm camera. OK, I did, but it was a point and shoot. I bought a Pentax 6x7 with a 90mm leaf shutter lens. Yeah, I started with something larger than normal, and things, uh, changed for me. There's something extremely definitive between a print from 35mm and a print from 6x7. And so my addiction to good detail in a photograph began. I was inspired by moonlight, but I'm addicted to detail.

I was satisfied with this, until Kodak discontinued Techpan. Sure, I had a Graflex, but I had bought it for using it with Kodak HIE, and I hadn't done a lot with normal film. But then I couldn't get Techpan, so what was I doing to do? Well, of course, there's that view camera.

And what does my 4x5 give me? I can see bicycle spokes at two blocks away, and they only show up when the print size is 16x20. I can read signs which don't have much print on them. Ken Lee posted some pics showing how much detail is various LF images, and it was quite impressive.

So what are the LF advantages? Same as always: size and control. Size gives you detail, and control gives you in-camera correction.

If you have something that is good enough, then that's fine. That's where digital has got us, are images that are good enough. My digital P&S is a 3.5Mp from several years ago. It is still good enough for my casual use. Your 5D is good enough for the purpose you are using it.

But when you want more, that is where LF shines, and does it ever shine!

[Steve M Hostetter]

I'm like Kirk and I enjoy using both and wouldn't consider giving one up

[Jack Dahlgren]

If you can get what you need with another method and if you aren't enjoying LF, then don't bother with it. They make all kinds of cameras. Pick the one you want to use.

[Tobias Key]

Yes, generally driving and operating another machine is a bad idea. Lucky for the nuns and orphans I was a passenger. :)
But my point was someone could be as sloppy as they like, and still rescue a photo in PS. There's a whole generation of photographers who have been reared on this precept.
If that's so, why drag your gear all over creation, when the same can be accomplished with a sophisticated digital camera, weighing much less and eminently more portable?

If you really think if this is true you have an awful lot to learn and doubt you have even come close to using the full potential of the cameras at your disposal, digital or film. I know there are plenty of photographers brought up on this concept, and I have worked with some on occasion, normally they drop a bollock when you show them what a bit of craft and skill will do.

[theBDT]

I got my two-camera, three-lens 4x5 setup for less than $700. Can you even rent a 5VD MKII whatever + TSE lens for a week for that?

And 4x5 negatives scan-up with quality easily matching $50K digi Hassys (though admittedly processing is comparatively slow).

Someone with a limited budget and a fair dose of patience can play with the digital big-boys, quality-wise, for less then the cost of a new APS-C dSLR kit.

...AND said photographer still has the option to print-out optically, should that route become attractive.

[Mark Sawyer]

It may depend on your asperations and ambitions. If you want your work included in Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS), or other such projects, only archivally-processed large format negatives and fiber-based prints are acceptable.

And in a more general sense, as people have already suggested, it depends on what value you place on your own work, including the process and the experience. Shooting from a moving car might be entirely appropriate for the Cartier-Bresson-style, but large format photographers tend to prefer a slower, more contemplative approach.

[mdm]

There is no point.

[Ari]

Brian C and Kirk, thanks for your responses.
For those who insist on getting their knickers in a knot by taking everything literally:
For the record, I don't take photos out of moving cars and pawn them off as serious work. I was trying to demonstrate that acceptable results can be achieved with little investment in effort or time with a digital camera and PS. Acceptable to whom? I don't know, but verticals were vertical and nothing was left distorted.
I lament the fact that this has become an acceptable way to work for some; I certainly don't celebrate it. It does a disservice to the profession.
So far the only cogent responses have been along the lines of "superior image quality" and "enjoying the process", which in itself is a great reason for doing anything; but I was referring specifically to architectural photography and whether the view camera has become redundant or obsolete in this particular field due to advances in digital photography and digital processing.
And if you feel the need to comment about me personally, Tobias Key, that's your prerogative, but you could at least first try to find out who the hell I am by visiting my website. You won't see any photos taken from moving vehicles...I promise :)

[Mark Sawyer]

There is no point.

And you, sir, shall be banished to the Pointless Forest! :D

[Jay DeFehr]

I think the same question could be posed regarding any use of a view camera vs a DSLR. Architecture is supposed to be the one realm in which a view camera is meant to be the best possible tool for the job. If the view camera has lost its edge there, there must be no use for which a DSLR isn't better suited. Which leaves the enjoyment of the process as the last best reason to use a VC, or film, for that matter, and I think it's a very good one.

[B.S.Kumar]

I started shooting architecture and interiors with a 35mm Nikon SLR and a couple of PC lenses. In a couple of years, I managed to save up enough for a Sinar F2 and lenses from 45mm to 150mm. I shot 6x9 roll film exclusively, because my clients didn't want to pay for 4x5. Then I bought my first scanner, an Epson 3200 and VueScan Pro. Other than dust spotting, which takes some time, the scanning process isn't very time consuming. Later I bought a Betterlight, and then a digital back. Straight lines ought to be within 1/2 to 1 degree from true. If you need to correct them extensively in Photoshop, it seems to me that your shooting technique needs to be improved. An easier way to do the corrections is to open the files in Camera Raw, and use the straighten tool. It's a real time-saver.
Also, if you can straighten SLR files in under 5 minutes, why is it taking you an hour to do the same thing with scans?
I've been tempted many times to buy an FF SLR and a couple of T/S lenses, but at least for me, there's no need. I resist that temptation by buying LF stuff :)

Kumar

[Ari]

I started shooting architecture and interiors with a 35mm Nikon SLR and a couple of PC lenses. In a couple of years, I managed to save up enough for a Sinar F2 and lenses from 45mm to 150mm. I shot 6x9 roll film exclusively, because my clients didn't want to pay for 4x5. Then I bought my first scanner, an Epson 3200 and VueScan Pro. Other than dust spotting, which takes some time, the scanning process isn't very time consuming. Later I bought a Betterlight, and then a digital back. Straight lines ought to be within 1/2 to 1 degree from true. If you need to correct them extensively in Photoshop, it seems to me that your shooting technique needs to be improved. An easier way to do the corrections is to open the files in Camera Raw, and use the straighten tool. It's a real time-saver.
Also, if you can straighten SLR files in under 5 minutes, why is it taking you an hour to do the same thing with scans?
I've been tempted many times to buy an FF SLR and a couple of T/S lenses, but at least for me, there's no need. I resist that temptation by buying LF stuff :)

Kumar

As for straightening, there's a difference between a rough edit just to see what can be done, and fine-tuning a photo for professional presentation. I was merely pointing out what can be done in a short amount of time in PS.
As for my technique, well, let's not get into that :)
And, as for you buying LF gear, I end up buying quite a bit of it from you :):)
Except for reasons attributed to "personal preference", I can see no reason not to use digital equipment in this highly specialized realm. But like most of you, and for the same reasons as most of you, I'll continue to use LF because that's how I prefer to work.

[B.S.Kumar]

As for straightening, there's a difference between a rough edit just to see what can be done, and fine-tuning a photo for professional presentation. I was merely pointing out what can be done in a short amount of time in PS.
As for my technique, well, let's not get into that :)
And, as for you buying LF gear, I end up buying quite a bit of it from you :):)
Except for reasons attributed to "personal preference", I can see no reason not to use digital equipment in this highly specialized realm. But like most of you, and for the same reasons as most of you, I'll continue to use LF because that's how I prefer to work.

Ari, straightening a scan does take only a couple of minutes, if you use the straighten tool in Camera RAW. The only difference would be the processing time for DSLR vs. a scan from 4x5. So I'm not really getting this. If your scans are off by more than 1 degree, I suggest using a good carpenter's level on the camera back.

There certainly is no reason not to use digital for architecture. I just prefer to use a digital back that allows me to have the same experience as LF.

You don't know half the things I have. Otherwise you'll end up buying even more :D

Kumar

[Brian C. Miller]

It really comes down to what the client wants, doesn't it? What is "good enough" really depends on what somebody wants.

Why did Kodak produce Techpan in 8x10? I doubt that it was for pictoral usage. I'm sure that somewhere, somebody produced a highly precise lens which would do this film justice. And I bet that lens was exhorbitantly expensive. Somewhere, a client wanted that detail in a negative, and so the appropriate equipment was developed and used.

Kumar's clients didn't want to pay for LF. But some clients do want to pay for it. If the client is satisfied with X and Y comes at a premium, the client won't pay for Y. (just like Kodak and TMY2 in 8x10...) A few years ago a coworker asked me to scan a 4x5 E6 of a Japanese scroll. Art dealers examine LF photographs before making a purchase decision. They don't use small formats, which is what digital is.

Since your clients are satisfied with your pictures, then there is no reason to use a view camera.

In absolute terms, does a Canon 5D equal a 4x5 or 8x10? No. But in the client's terms, the results from the premium image aren't worth it for what they want.

[Ari]

Kumar, Brian, I agree whole-heartedly.
Brian, my inexperience in architectural photography notwithstanding, my clients are usually happy with what I give them, regardless of the format used, and I'll use whatever serves the photo the best. I would be quite leery of anybody who thought my experiment from the car window was any good, it just served to prove a point:
a lot of photography today, good or not, is a result of the editing process, whereas not that long ago, you had to get it right the first time, on film, or you weren't hired again.
What kids are doing today is amazing, but they never grew up with the discipline of film nor the darkroom. They've become much more skilled at PSing an average photo to look fantastic, rather than using skill, care and patience in composing and exposing, trying to nail a photo in camera.
Against that backdrop, I was wondering what place does the ultimate photographic tool, the view camera, have?
I know quite a few architectural photographers who have traded their LF gear for digi, and their clients pay them just as much and are just as happy as before with the photos.

[B.S.Kumar]

Yes, my clients couldn't afford LF those days. But now they and I have grown, and they don't question my fees for scans, digital capture or DVD backups :) I use whatever format I think is appropriate, and don't get asked any questions about why I'm using this or that.

I agree that satisfying the client is important. But more importantly, you have to figure out a way to satisfy yourself and the client, in that order.

Ari, There is a place for view cameras, even with digital. They just need to be more precise for this application. The Sinar P series, Arca R series, Cambo with their new tilt panels are all evidence that view cameras are also evolving.

Kumar

[Ari]

Kumar, I've always appreciated your opinions, and everything I've bought from you has been first-rate, but right now I'm mostly impressed that you get paid to burn DVDs!

[B.S.Kumar]

Ari, everyone charges for this, some separately, some build it in. Depending on what the client needs, those back-ups include some or all of the following:
1. Scans/captures at the largest native size, 16bit
2. Copies of the files I use for the prints I give to clients
3. Files for printing on clients' in-house inkjet printers, properly sharpened and sized according to their requirements.
4. Files properly sharpened, sized to 8x10 or 10x12 for printing at mass printers
5. Jpegs for emailing
6. Files for magazine printing, sized to 8x10
7. A pdf presentation
8. Web sized jpegs, according to clients/web designer's requirements, so that they don't screw up the presentation of my work.
All files for printing/distribution have project, architect and my names, so that there is no confusion.

All this takes time and effort, and is paid for. Clients appreciate that they can simply send a copy to their web designer or PR person, without having to do any extra work.

And yes, the DVD surface and jewel case cover have a hero shot printed on them, again with project, architect and photographer's name. I don't charge for this :)

Kumar

[shOo]

I think it's about traditions, quality and love for photography. Why painters paint, when they can do the same with a tablet and photoshop?

[Jay DeFehr]

I think it's about traditions, quality and love for photography. Why painters paint, when they can do the same with a tablet and photoshop?

Texture.

[glogan]

This is a great discussion!

It's the same question I've been asking myself: "Should I get into LF?" and "why?". The following are my current thoughts...

In my totally amateur photography journey I started at 35mm film, then moved to crop sensor digital 4 years ago, and now I I'm thinking I want the LF 'extra detail', especially for landscapes.

I was recently in Arches NP, and got a nice panorama with good depth of detail of Delicate Arch in it by stitching 5-7 10mp frames together. I'm specifically wanting more resolution/detail in larger Landscape prints - 20x30 or 18x36.

From what I've been recently reading, a scan of 4x5 LF photo can give around a 150 Megapixel resolution. I have read an opinion that stitching 12 digital frames together for the same result is another route to this goal (which that person prefers). But some of the sunrise/sunset pictures I take have had quick enough changing atmospheric conditions so before I could do 12 digital frames, it has become a different shot. I've also run into other complications in the stitching.

The perspective control and the whole "LF experience" including the non-digital darkroom process will all be totally new and does make me somewhat hesitant. I can see that some of the 'manual' aspects, like needing to do more careful composition and 'shot-setup' may greatly improve my somewhat lazy current digital shooting habits and improve my skills. So I've been deciding what I need to get started (and gotten some great advice on this forum), and will be probably taking the plunge here shortly with some starter camera.

[shOo]

Jay, in many cases yes, but I wasn't giving an example for only oil paintings. Watercolor doesn't have texture, except for the paper itself. But you know what I ment

[Jay DeFehr]

Jay, in many cases yes, but I wasn't giving an example for only oil paintings. Watercolor doesn't have texture, except for the paper itself. But you know what I ment

Texture was just one example of a quality an inkjet print can't duplicate. The same could be said for the relief of a carbon print. My point is that I don't think it's about tradition, quality, or the love of photography. Working backwards from the love of photography; digital photography is photography. If you'd said, the love of film processing, you'd have a point, but digital photography shares every other aspect with film photography. As I mentioned earlier, many photographers here scan their film and make digital prints, and this is becoming more common every day. Others use digital negatives to make contact prints in a dark room. Both groups claim to be photographers. How much does digital capture impinge on their claims? Not at all, in my opinion. These photographers can claim to love photography just as much as those who expose and process film do. As for quality, I won't try to argue that theoretically and quantitatively, because I think it's a red herring. I don't think the very best work done with film is better than the very best work done with digital, and I don't think the majority of the work done with film is better than the majority of work done with digital. The choice between film or digital capture is way down on the list of factors that affect the quality of the final image. Tradition is more interesting. There might be photographers who use film because they feel it connects them with the tradition of photography; the great photographers of the past used film, and so they do too. etc. But as the great photographers of the present ever more frequently use digital equipment, that tradition becomes nostalgia, and sentimentality. For me, tradition has nothing to do with my use of film. For me, inertia is more accurate. I have all of this film equipment, and I've invested so much in learning to use it, and to understanding film, paper, and the related processes, switching to digital represents many setbacks I'm not eager to embrace. For digital to become a practically attractive option, film would have to become very expensive, or unavailable.

Beyond all this, though, is my enjoyment in the process of using film. Film is fun! Maybe digital is fun, too; I don't know. When circumstances eventually favor my use of digital, I know I'll miss film, but I won't miss photography. Part of me looks forward to the new challenges and opportunities digital photography represents, while another part regrets the inevitable demise of my beloved dark room, not for any reasons of tradition, quality, or love of photography, but for my enjoyment of the time I spend there.

[shOo]

Well, then we have different opinions.

As for love of film processing, I can't say I agree with that. I started taking photographs when digital photography was already available. Though my first camera was a film camera. I switched to digital, now I am shooting only film again. And I don't like processing film, though I enjoy the process that I have to think more carefully about taking a picture, waiting to receive the developed film from the lab to see the results. And even though all of my color prints are made from digital files, I prefer the scanned images to digital ones. I don't know, there is something in it, that I call quality. It's not sharpness or lack of noise, but it's different. Maybe it's different because I don't have the photoshop skills to match my digital photographs to film, but I just prefer film.
And for me film photography is different than digital photography, though as you said people who shoots with digital or film cameras are both photographers.

[David R Munson]

I came across this thread today after an absence of years from the forum (as well as large format photography). I am making a return to architectural work, and will be getting back into sheet film as well as soon as I can afford to do so. This thread gave me the good food for thought I came looking for.

I missed this place.

[Noah A]

For me it's all about the quality. Small-format digital wasn't giving me the look I wanted in prints above 16x20 or so. (I was shooting with Nikon DSLRs as well as the Leica M9.)

Also, as my photographic style changed a bit perspective control became more important.

To get what I want with a digital system (the ability to print very large, camera movements and the 4x5 aspect ratio). I'd be looking at a high-end digital back on an expensive technical camera like an Alpa. Add some good digital lenses and we'd easily be in the $30k range.

For less than the price of a good DSLR, I've built a pretty good 4x5 kit.

The 40x50 prints look incredible. Even the smaller prints have a tonality and depth that can't be matched by small-format digital.

And yes, I do like the process and tactile nature of shooting with a view camera. The camera feels more like a tool than a toy. But that is secondary. The image quality is the primary concern for me.

[Jim Galli]

We are a transitional generation. In my lifetime a negative made with a view camera and a technician that had set the levels was considered truthful to the point that if you had some known references in the view, you could put a ruler on an enlargement and believe every measurement without further question. WYSIWYG! Kodak even continued to make glass plates for the scientific community that needed to prove to the nth that the sensor plane was perfectly flat.

So now we shoot with a 24MP camera and straighten things up in photoshop? There is a difference, and it will be obvious to anyone with a mathematical mind. Like I say, we're the generation making the transition, so my brain still tells me, it's a picture, believe it, then later on it might say, but we've got photo shop now.

Bottom line is, if you're making a living, you give your customer what they want. Still nice to be old school enough that if they wanted work as it was done in 1965, you could go and do it.........for a price.

[Chris Strobel]

For me it's all about the quality.
.

Same here, that's why I,m considering dumping all my 8x10 and 4x5 gear.I can easily surpass my 8x10 Epson scans with 5D mark II stitching, and just can not afford drum scans.I'm finding it very hard though to actually start listing the gear for sale.

[Ed Kelsey]

And 4x5 negatives scan-up with quality easily matching $50K digi Hassys (though admittedly processing is comparatively slow).


I don't think so. Even resolution wise the Hassy will win. Not to mention 12-13 stops of dynamic range.

I have an Aptus 75S and it is very close to 4x5 in terms of resolution. In most other respects it kicks film's ass. Only thing I miss is tilt and shift.

Now if you want to take your camera down near the water, you are risking a lot of damage if you take an expensive medium format camera there.

[Ben Syverson]

Not to mention 12-13 stops of dynamic range.
12-13 stops is really nothing compared to what C41 can do...

[Lightbender]

Film vs. Digital... blah blah blah.

Both can produce excellent quality output. Both require skill in producing that quality.

One thing I would like to point out that favors film is the longevety of the equipment.
In 5, 10, or 20 years will the current digizmo still be working at the same capacity?

With large format, most parts are fixable or interchangeable. I never expect to have a bricked camera. And since the 'sensor' is replaced with every shot, it will continue to provide me with excellent results for decades.

Also, the diy repair/modifacation appeals to me as well. i wouldnt want to do that to a $5k digital body.

Take into account that I shoot as a hobby only.

[Jay DeFehr]

At some point the "sensor" will become unavailable, and then you'll be left with a perfectly functional, but nonetheless worthless metal/wood gizmo.

Unless......

The idea that there will one day be a digital sensor that will slide into a LF camera exactly like a LF film holder does is not so crazy. I can imagine an 8x10 camera fitted with slide-in digital sensor, but that still leaves output. The HP system looks like a good one for making digital negatives, and one could bypass the film processing/scanning steps. Imagine 8x10 sheet film costing $20/sheet of B/W, or $50/ sheet of color. It's quite reasonable to imagine an 8x10 sensor equating to $1 million worth of film. Of course, it's possible an 8x10 digital sensor would capture as much image info as a 16x20 sheet of film.

I think the future of photography is very bright, even if it doesn't include film.

[mdm]

At some point the "sensor" will become unavailable, and then you'll be left with a perfectly functional, but nonetheless worthless metal/wood gizmo.

Unless......

The idea that there will one day be a digital sensor that will slide into a LF camera exactly like a LF film holder does is not so crazy. I can imagine an 8x10 camera fitted with slide-in digital sensor, but that still leaves output. The HP system looks like a good one for making digital negatives, and one could bypass the film processing/scanning steps. Imagine 8x10 sheet film costing $20/sheet of B/W, or $50/ sheet of color. It's quite reasonable to imagine an 8x10 sensor equating to $1 million worth of film. Of course, it's possible an 8x10 digital sensor would capture as much image info as a 16x20 sheet of film.

I think the future of photography is very bright, even if it doesn't include film.


I believe you are the one in need of a new sensor, or at least some common sense.

[Jay DeFehr]

Ok, David. Whatever you say. A very insightful comment.

[rguinter]

Film vs. Digital... blah blah blah.

Both can produce excellent quality output. Both require skill in producing that quality.

One thing I would like to point out that favors film is the longevety of the equipment.
In 5, 10, or 20 years will the current digizmo still be working at the same capacity?

With large format, most parts are fixable or interchangeable. I never expect to have a bricked camera. And since the 'sensor' is replaced with every shot, it will continue to provide me with excellent results for decades.

Also, the diy repair/modifacation appeals to me as well. i wouldnt want to do that to a $5k digital body.

Take into account that I shoot as a hobby only.

Lightbender: Your comments say it all for me too. I am a hobby-only photographer also and never concern myself with clients or trying to sell images. I shoot images for fun.

But in addition, I can point out some additional thoughts on longevity. I have Kodachrome slides I shot decades ago that look as good today as they did when new. I find myself wondering what percentage of digital images made today will survive for even half that long. One good hard drive crash and lots of data gets lost. Forget to backup digital files to DVD and voila... they vaporize.

Film on the other hand is tangible. If I store it properly and don't have the bad luck of a flood or a fire, it will still give me the same image for years to come.

And the cameras don't require a lot of batteries. 4-Wheeling off into the wilderness for hours, and then backpacking my equipment and hiking to the top of a hill, I'm quite sure my battery-less cameras will operate... even if the temperature drops below zero. And I don't need to carry my laptop along with the camera to download digital files.

And I also shoot some unusual films, in unusual cameras, with a variety of unusual filter combinations, giving results that digital methods would be hard-pressed to duplicate. Even for someone expert in photoshop. And I get my picture in one frame with no photoshop required.

Just some of my own thoughts. I carry a digital point 'n shoot for engineering photos at the job where I need to get them into a powerpoint presentation in a few minutes.

For fun I carry my vintage film cameras and get the same quality today I got with them when new.

Bob G.

[Jay DeFehr]

Bob,

I think the argument that film is a safer storage media is vaporizing, too. More and more, data is uploaded to the cloud, where it becomes safely intangible, and immune to catastrophes like hard drive crashes, computer loss, damage, theft, etc., as well as more traditional ones, like fires and floods. Spare batteries are at least as easy to carry as film holders are, and one needs fewer of them, so I don't find the issue of accessories carried to favor film photography. I'm not convinced film photography is simpler, either, being a practicing film photographer myself. Since we can't see what we actually have until our film is processed, bracketing is common, and even then, we sometimes find we didn't take away from the scene what we intended, until it's too late.

The fun of using film is something digital will never duplicate. For me, the anticipation and uncertainty are part of that fun, as is using old cameras, lenses and film. Whether my results could be duplicated by digital means, or not, has no bearing on my enjoyment of the experience.

[Pawlowski6132]

Bob,

I think the argument that film is a safer storage media is vaporizing, too. More and more, data is uploaded to the cloud, where it becomes safely intangible, and immune to catastrophes like hard drive crashes, computer loss, damage, theft, etc., as well as more traditional ones, like fires and floods. Spare batteries are at least as easy to carry as film holders are, and one needs fewer of them, so I don't find the issue of accessories carried to favor film photography. I'm not convinced film photography is simpler, either, being a practicing film photographer myself. Since we can't see what we actually have until our film is processed, bracketing is common, and even then, we sometimes find we didn't take away from the scene what we intended, until it's too late.

The fun of using film is something digital will never duplicate. For me, the anticipation and uncertainty are part of that fun, as is using old cameras, lenses and film. Whether my results could be duplicated by digital means, or not, has no bearing on my enjoyment of the experience.

What about format continuity??

What is the viability of any format in 50 years?

[Jay DeFehr]

Format continuity was an issue for physical media, like floppy discs, but those issues are going away. Besides, CDs have been around for 30 years? How difficult is it to upload a CD? Cloud computing changes the dynamic considerably. Our best and brightest are putting their considerable talents to these issues, and I'm confident these will be among the first and easiest obstacles to overcome.

[David R Munson]

I believe you are the one in need of a new sensor, or at least some common sense.

I thought Jay's point was quite interesting and well-put.

[Ed Richards]

> If I store it properly and don't have the bad luck of a flood or a fire, it will still give me the same image for years to come.

Down on the Gulf Coast, most folks would have been better off with the cloud. One of the great tragedies of Katrina was all the photos and negatives that were lost, including many major news archives. I do agree that most individuals have crappy backup, and are more likely to lose digital images than film. But if you are serious about back up, it is a lot easier to secure digital than film. I keep my negatives in a BIG Pelican case in case the levee breaks, but I am screwed if there is a fire. I would then be back on my digital scans.

I do not see format continuity as much of a problem. It just may take some active archiving. I have data on my harddrive going back to the 1970s. I have had convert formats a few times, but even that is settleing down. Tiff is not going away, and PSD will be around for a long while. More importantly, there will be a lot of lead time if something like PSD goes away, so it will be easy to convert.

Besides, digital is so much easier for our heirs to dispose of.:-)

[mdm]

Format continuity was an issue for physical media, like floppy discs, but those issues are going away. Besides, CDs have been around for 30 years? How difficult is it to upload a CD? Cloud computing changes the dynamic considerably. Our best and brightest are putting their considerable talents to these issues, and I'm confident these will be among the first and easiest obstacles to overcome.

File systems change over time. So in 20 years the files sored on a drive today may not be readable by any up to date computer, even if the drive itself is usable. The great standard of our time is the network protocol which allows all sorts of different computers to interact, but network protocols change too. So unless your data is activly maintained by someone, either yourself, some faceless organisation on the cloud, or a museum, it will cease to exist. In the long term you cant expect people to do that for nothing, and in the long term you will stop paying so unless your image has great value in itself or has a physical prescence as an archival print, negative or picture in a book, its existence is somewhat transient.


I thought Jay's point was quite interesting and well-put.
I will not be paying a million dolars for an 8x10 sensor but you and Jay are free to do so yourselves.

[Jay DeFehr]

30 yrs? I don't think so. The first IBM PC came out in 1983, and they only had two 5.25 floppies, and a hard drive was $40k for 5mb. A short while later the 1.44mb 3.5 inch floppy appeared, and it was a good decade before the CD appeared.

Most amatuers storing their family photos do not have a backup plan. Most people toss them in a drawer like they use to with their negs, and one day will be surprised. I have lots of 70 year old negs my parents shot, with zero maintenance other then sitting in a drawer.

Not quite accurate. The CD became commercially available in 1982. It's close to 2011, so that makes 29 years, by my math. Close enough to make my point.

Lots of people do lots of things, not all of them prudent, but to suggest film is more tolerant of neglect than digital files are is a stretch, to say the least.

[Jay DeFehr]

File systems change over time. So in 20 years the files sored on a drive today may not be readable by any up to date computer, even if the drive itself is usable. The great standard of our time is the network protocol which allows all sorts of different computers to interact, but network protocols change too. So unless your data is activly maintained by someone, either yourself, some faceless organisation on the cloud, or a museum, it will cease to exist. In the long term you cant expect people to do that for nothing, and in the long term you will stop paying so unless your image has great value in itself or has a physical prescence as an archival print, negative or picture in a book, its existence is somewhat transient.

A lot of things change, but the data remains digital. If I still had the first CD I ever bought (Talking Heads, Speaking in tongues), I could upload that data to my iTunes playlist without having to know much about why it's amazing. As for some faceless organization maintaining my access to my data, yes, I can count on them doing it, and I can count on them doing it forever (for all practical purposes) and for free. Since your comment on the theoretical value of an 8x10 digital sensor relative to the potential price of film completely escaped you, I won't go into the market mechanisms that make me so confident in my position.

[sanking]

My take on the difference between the archival quality of film and digital files makes no difference at all as far as I am concerned. The only images that matter to me, whether made on film or with a digital camera, are the ones that I print, and for those I always make a digital negative that I would like to have saved, if anyone in the family bothers to save my work at all. I also save the digital files that were used to print the digital negative but that is less important to me than the negative because the negative carries important printing information that could be used to reproduce the images in whatever process I use, mainly carbon transfer or pt/pd, if anyone wanted to do that in the future.

As for the other negatives and digital files it is my intention to discard all of that junk anyway before I die, if at that time I am given the time and health to do so. My take on this is that if I did not value the negatives in my lifetime enough to print them, why should anyone else give a damn in the future?

Course, as Ed mentioned earlier, a fire would pretty much wipe me out as I have almost nothing saved outside the home. Now, a flood I don't have to worry about as I am located on a high hill and the nearest stream is well over 200 feet downhill from my home, and the whole area is rapidly draining, so the only way a flood would get me would be if a tsunami or tidal wave about 1200 feet high made its way 300 miles inland!

Sandy

[mdm]

A lot of things change, but the data remains digital. If I still had the first CD I ever bought (Talking Heads, Speaking in tongues), I could upload that data to my iTunes playlist without having to know much about why it's amazing. As for some faceless organization maintaining my access to my data, yes, I can count on them doing it, and I can count on them doing it forever (for all practical purposes) and for free. Since your comment on the theoretical value of an 8x10 digital sensor relative to the potential price of film completely escaped you, I won't go into the market mechanisms that make me so confident in my position.

Time to start work on the Hypercat plugin then, Jay.

[Marko]

File systems change over time. So in 20 years the files sored on a drive today may not be readable by any up to date computer, even if the drive itself is usable. The great standard of our time is the network protocol which allows all sorts of different computers to interact, but network protocols change too. So unless your data is activly maintained by someone, either yourself, some faceless organisation on the cloud, or a museum, it will cease to exist. In the long term you cant expect people to do that for nothing, and in the long term you will stop paying so unless your image has great value in itself or has a physical prescence as an archival print, negative or picture in a book, its existence is somewhat transient.

Tagged Image File Format - TIFF for short - has been in use since the mid-1980's and the last revision, version 6.0, happened in 1992. Coincidentally, 1992 was also the year when JPEG format was created. Both formats became official standards and are still widely used. Chances are better than even that they will remain in use for another 20 years. Even if they don't, the change will be gradual enough to allow for an orderly transition. But just as with written language, the longer a file format has been in use, the more works are created and stored using it, and the greater the storage base, the smaller the possibility of change.

Again, even if/when the change does happen, the notion that humans will be needed to actively perform the transformation is rather naive and indicative of the general misunderstanding of the entire concept.

A cloud is an abstraction, not a physical entity. There are no real people on it, much less organizations, faceless or not - it is all about virtualization. The only thing that exists there is the information. Tangible storage is nothing more than a constraint that ties a piece of data, be it a book, an image, a piece of music or a video, to a particular place and piece of material and therefore makes it liable to failure and destruction. It is precisely the virtualization of the information that makes it archivable and immune to physical damage.

The main limitation lies not within the technology, but within the human inability to keep pace with the change. This is why full acceptance of any radically new technology requires at least a (human) generation - most of the kids get it, but they have to wait until most of the dinosaurs go away so they can start using it without resistance. ;)

[Lightbender]

The longevity of digital media is a poor argument.

1: what if your hard drive fails?
-This is a valid problem but is easily avoidable with one of the many backup solutions. Family photos can be stored on flikr easily enough. But if you have big RAW files that are in effect "originals" you would be best served by a proper backup solution. Note: CD/r's are not meant for long term storage. I suggest having your originals in 3 different locations.

2. What if the media is no longer supported? if you are keeping up with your backups this will not happen as you will always be using current hardware. That said, if you have an old hard drive or an old backup disk somewhere, it is unlikely that there will be no systems that can read it. Even 50-100 years later. (I find it more likely that all film scanners will be discontinued by then)

3. what if the media format (JPG/TIFF/RAW) is no longer readable? Less likely than #2. It's not like people are going to forget how to read ones and zeros. There may be a problem with some RAW formats as the exact specs and gamuts are unique to whatever machine they came out of. But other formats are published standards that will be available for at least the next century.

4. What if there is a fire and I loose my PC? If you are backing up your files you are better off than the guy who lost all his slides and negatives in the fire.

5. What about data corruption? This is a valid concern. While you may automatically assume that when you copy a file it is an exact duplicate. But you would be wrong. Most operating systems do not do any error checking at all after performing a copy. However most backup software will offer you the choice to verify a backup or will even include parity bits that can repair a damaged file. Again with the backups.

[Jay DeFehr]

Time to start work on the Hypercat plugin then, Jay.

You misunderstand my intentions. My point is not to champion digital, or to disparage film, but to encourage more positive thought about the future of our medium. It seems too few understand the differences between a dialog, a debate, and a polemic. As far as Hypercat goes, I don't care much if anyone uses it. I don't use it often, myself. It was a design problem I enjoyed working on. I've moved on, but Hypercat remains available for anyone who wants to use it. That's the beauty of intellectual property; it's inherently communist, and I'm happy to contribute to this community in these small ways.

[mdm]

Well worth the time if you have not seen this already.
http://www.youtube.com/user/GeniusOfPhotography#p/p

[Marko]

The longevity of digital media is a poor argument.

1: what if your hard drive fails?

[...]

2. What if the media is no longer supported?

[...]

4. What if there is a fire and I loose my PC?

But the media, digital or otherwise, no longer matters. It is the information they carry that does. The real advantage, and the beauty, of digital data storage and processing is in the separation of content and the carrier. This separation is what makes the information truly archival and not constrained by the limitation of any particular physical medium or technology.

Physical media represent no more than temporary shells. Think of them as envelopes, another technology whose time is passing away. They were useful to cary the mail from one place to another, to be discarded upon arrival. The email made both the envelopes and the paper the old fashioned mail was written on completely unnecessary, along with postage stamps, while carrying the same message farther and faster than ever before.

[mdm]

A letter or a print are human readable, bits and bytes are not. Who gives a s__t how long the data exists in some obscure archive when nobody can read or look at it, assuming they want to do even that.

[Marko]

There are many humans on this Earth who are quite literally illiterate and they, naturally, care at least as much about letters and prints.

In this day and age, their opinion is as relevant as the opinion of those who are computer-illiterate.

[mdm]

Did Andreas Gursky sell a the tiff of 99cents for $3.9 million? No, a print. That is the point. The final product.

[sanking]

Did Andreas Gursky sell a the tiff of 99cents for $3.9 million? No, a print. That is the point. The final product.

That is true. However, the negatives and/or digital files of some photographers will be valuable in the future because the heirs of those photographers will make editions of them, and though these editions will most likely not command anything like the price of a work printed and signed by the artist in his/her lifetime, they will still have value.

Sandy

[Chris Strobel]

What's the Point? I got 10 good reasons.

One, why shoot a dozen or more images that can be done in one shot with 4x5. Monitoring the overlap is a headache. To match 8x10 would require 4x more or 60 or more images be shot. To me that becomes a stupid approach for amatuer or pro.

Two, some subjects move (even in architecture...plants, clouds, etc).

Three, fast moving clouds, or waves crashing on a shoreline become impossible. I can record on 4x5 on a sunny day a person walking, train moving at 1/500 @ f/16 or higher using ISO 400 film. Why miss the shot by stitching?

Four, wildlife photos must be captured in one shot (I shoot them in 617 and 4x5 with finders). Stitching does not work.

Five, I've seen some reliable testing where 35mm comes in at around 19mp. So even with your 5dII you need about 15 exposures to match 4x5 (4x5 is 15x bigger then 35mm). If you believe 35mm is closer to 35mm, then pretty much double the number of stitches you will need. Lets not forget we need even more shots to account for the overlapping frames.

Six, the most important, if you shoot a landscape with a barn in the scene, the barn with 35mm film (same as ff sensor) might be 1/4 inch in size, while on 6x7 film it might be around 1/2 inch in size, or 1 inch on 4x5, and 2 inches on 8x10. This means more detail in the barn that a smaller film or smaller sensor cannot record. So in other words with 35mm (or ff dslr), your image is ALWAYS going to be a 35mm image in quality, and stitching only allows you to make a bigger print. You're shooting a bunch of 35mm images stitched together for a bigger print. The only reason quality looks better with stitching is because we no longer enlarge as many times to achive the same size print.
Shoot a snow scene with a dslr (stitched), and it will never give the same look in the snow (crystal detail) compared to the same image shot with 120 or 4x5 because each frame is still small format. This is why I prefer a compromise, and would rather stitch with medium format gear. It records more detail, and requires far less stitching. Two shots with my 6x7 (stitched) give me 612 format quality. Two is better then 15 shots (more to account for overlap losses).

Seven, stitching changes your perspective. To get the same angle of view in the scene with a single exposure may require a 28mm lens, while to record the same scene with the same angle of view (with stitching) means you must increase your focal length to shoot the same scene....thus a perspective change.

Eight, stitching takes time "in setting up" (not exposure time). Clouds move by, or seconds remaining for the sun to set, clouds rolling by too fast as you set up your head for panning. I can shoot a tallship with sails up using my Fotoman 617 or Horseman 45FA (both with finders) in high quality, can you do that stitching? No way. Stitching is useful for when you need to travel light. But to me it is a poor mans approach, because often you just DO NOT get the shot (you have too little time for setting up). The tallship photo is impossible at 4x5 quality, or wildlife art I do (they run away). Stitching only works some of the time, which for a pro is not good enough, nor good enough even for an amateur.

Nine, I find it funny when we mention stitching with a dslr, and forget that we can also stitch with our large format cameras....so in reality there is no catching up to large format film. First, you need to stitch far less with large format. Second, only 2 stitches with 4x5 gives you almost 4x10, or 2 with 617 almost gives me 5x7, and 2 stitches of 612 gives me 4x5. Two stitches is far more practical then doing 15-50 stitches with small format to get only a similar enlargement to 4x5 film (remember small format cannot record the same level of detail).

Ten, a dslr does not give you the same control over tilts and swings, nor features like axis tilt, nor the same careful thought process, or the same experience. Often we shoot 500 images on a dslr and come back with nothing worth printing, because shooting digital is free, so we do not plan our shots, or think about what were doing. We become button pushers, and become careless....shots are no longer planned carefully or analyzed before pulling the trigger.

I was commissioned to shoot this ship on a foggy and overcast volunteer work weekend in Dana Point.There are people moving, water moving, trees moving, flag waving, and I experienced none of the problems you mentioned.Didn't even use a dslr but an old A640 point and shoot.Final image size 1.6 giga pixels.Had WCI print a 30 x 40" out for them and made enough to buy several boxes of 8x10 fp4+ and chemicals from the formulary to fuel my large format hobby.Took me no more time to shoot the image on my Nodal Ninja and RD16 rotator than it would have getting my 8x10 all setup.Took far less time running the files through Auto Pano Giga than sending a chrome out for processing, then out again somewhere else for scanning, and the final print is just as sharp and detailed as the very few 8x10 negs I've had WCI scan and print in the same size, of similar subject detail.My 8x10 is still what I enjoy most, but the whole stitching thing has worked very well and effortlessly for me, but I'm not up at the same skill level of most here either.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1350/4726180627_4a478b747f_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5129/5302239194_e17e7cae47_b.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

That 3.9 million print will have faded out in a few decades, Gursky will have been
forgotten, the disc will have been long discarded, some new fad will have emerged,
and a mildewed Carleton Watkins albumen print will be hanging next to a Van Gogh.

[Jay DeFehr]

Did Andreas Gursky sell a the tiff of 99cents for $3.9 million? No, a print. That is the point. The final product.


What's the final product of the Windows operating system? Bill gates seems to have done ok, financially, without tying value to material. How many works of art exist only as data? More every day. The value relationship between intellectual property and real property is in a state of revolution. Remember when Bands toured to promote their records? Now they upload their music to promote their tours. Is music art? What's more important, the song, or the recording of the song? Which is the final product?

[sanking]

That 3.9 million print will have faded out in a few decades, Gursky will have been
forgotten, the disc will have been long discarded, some new fad will have emerged,
and a mildewed Carleton Watkins albumen print will be hanging next to a Van Gogh.

Drew,

Will you divulge where you purchased that window on the future? Can I buy it on amazon.com with free shipping?

Also, I have one of Gigapan thingies and recently made an 800 MP IR file on Lake St. John in Louisiana with a 12 mp Lumix GF-1. I figure I can convert that to a very large digital negative and make an awfully nice carbon transfer print from it. I doubt that it will ever hang by a Watkins or Van Gogh but it will for sure be more permanent than any albumen print.

Sandy King

[Jay DeFehr]

Commercially available for who? I was one of the first to buy the IBM-PC that came out in early 1983 (top machine on the market), paid a hefty price, and if CD was even heard of for consumer/business use, I would have bought that too....but IBM did not offer it, because it did not exist. Sounds to me like it was before your time, and your reading bad information. It may have been invented, but it certainly was not on the market for consumer or small business use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc

I remember when CDs replaced cassette tapes, and it wasn't in the 90s. You're thinking too narrowly. I'm 44 years old, and my information is accurate.

[David R Munson]

That 3.9 million print will have faded out in a few decades, Gursky will have been
forgotten, the disc will have been long discarded, some new fad will have emerged,
and a mildewed Carleton Watkins albumen print will be hanging next to a Van Gogh.

Is it just me, or has the forum gotten a bit more cranky in the last few years?

[Marko]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc

I remember when CDs replaced cassette tapes, and it wasn't in the 90s. You're thinking too narrowly. I'm 44 years old, and my information is accurate.

I remember it too. The irony is, the music industry bent over backwards to find a reliable distribution method that would prevent making lossy analog copies, so they turned to all-digital CD ROM because they thought it couldn't be copied.

Turns out their "perfect solution" made perfect digital copy not just possible but casually simple the moment the underlying technology improved enough and became sufficiently affordable for the average Joe.

And it didn't make it possible only for their product - it made it possible for most everything else, as we can see these days.

[sanking]

I honestly don’t remember much of this, probably because for most of this period I was either a university professor in a publish or perish environment, or a department chair supervising 45 faculty and staf, and whether music was on CD or cassete tape was not high on my list of priorities.

Butt here is what Wikipedia has to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette

“In many Western countries, the market for cassettes has declined sharply since its peak in the late 1980s. This has been particularly noticeable with pre-recorded cassettes, whose sales were overtaken by those of Compact Discs during the early 1990s. By 1993, annual shipments of CD players had reached 5 million, up 21% from the year before, while cassette player shipments had dropped 7% to approximately 3.4 million.[18] The decline continued such that in 2001 cassettes accounted for only 4% of all music sold. Since then, the pre-recorded market has undergone further decline, with few retailers stocking them because they are no longer issued by the major music labels.[17] Sales of pre-recorded music cassettes in the U.S. dropped from 442 million in 1990 to 274,000 by 2007.[19] 2009 saw another record low with 34,000 cassettes sold, and 2,000 of those albums were at least 36 months old, bought at independent retailers in the south Atlantic region, in the suburbs.[20] Most of the major U.S. music companies had discontinued them by late 2002 or 2003. However, as of 2010[update], blank cassettes are still being produced and are sold at many retail stores, and facilities for cassette duplication remain available. Cassette recorders and players are gradually becoming scarcer, but are still widely available and featured in a notable percentage of Hi-Fi systems.[21]

Cassettes remained popular for specific applications, such as car audio, well into the 1990s. Cassettes and their players were typically more rugged and resistant to dust, heat and shocks than the main digital competitor (the CD). Their lower fidelity was not considered a serious drawback inside the typically noisy automobile interior of the time. However, the advent of "shock proof" buffering technology in CD players, the reduction of in-car noise levels, the general heightening of consumer expectations, and the introduction of CD auto-changers meant that by the early 2000s, the CD player was rapidly replacing the cassette player as the default audio component in the majority of new vehicles in Europe and America.”

My 1996 Nissan Pathfinder, which I purchased in late 1996, came with a cassette player. A CD player was available as an option, but the car on the lot did not have one. I did a fair amount of looking around at the time and my recollection is that most of the cars on the lots I visited were equipped with tape cassettes and not CD players. That is purely anecdotal, but that is what I remember.

Sandy

[jnantz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc

I remember when CDs replaced cassette tapes, and it wasn't in the 90s. You're thinking too narrowly. I'm 44 years old, and my information is accurate.

exactly ... i had friends in 1983 who owned cd's
nothing was like the speaking in tongues LP ... THAT was something else ..

[Marko]

Speaking of anecdotal evidence, My mid-1995 Mazda came with a CD player and my son's 1996 VW came with a 6-disc changer, both as standard options. By that time, I was already burning my own discs in my computers.

I spent most of my life in some sort of publishing environment or the other, here and overseas. In the 80's it was the PC- and popular science magazines, in the 90's and onward it was (and still is) the Web. The way humans react to and interact with technology in general and computers in particular was always one of my primary interests, so I remember those details pretty well.

I spent 10 years of that time working within the music industry and I remember very well the incredible myopia and almost complete computer illiteracy that was prevalent among the decision makers. I also remember all the screaming and cursing when the outcome became clear.

It was every bit as bad as it was among photographers a few short years later and mostly for the same reasons... ;)

[sanking]

Van Camper,

I am rather perplexed by your list of "images not very still" that would be difficult to photography with digital stitching. The fact is that most of the things you list would also be difficult to photograph with film. I have done a fair amount of stitching from 6X9 cm film negatives, where all I had to do was turn the camera and wind the film and snap the second shop. In almost every case where anything was moving this caused problems.

I don't doubt you do good working stitching 6X12 film, but having done a lot of stitching with both film and digital my take on this is that you are kind of sh*t out of luck if anything is moving, or maybe we get lucky from time to time.

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

I bought the IBM-PC, and was willing to buy the best for my business. It DID NOT exist for computers, and what you say does not matter, because you would have been around 16 at that time. So I highly doubt you were up on busines class machines like the IBM-PC/XT, or the Lisa, Radio Shack. The consumers back then were only using the little Apple (not Macintosh which appeared in 1984 with the first 1.44mb floppy), Commodore, Atari. A CD with a capacity of 4.6gb is way ahead of that period, where in the mid 80's we only started seeing a few homeowners convinced of the need for a PC, and the volume thus allowed us to eventually afford a 10-20GB, and even a 30GB hard drive seemed like a lot.

However, you are correct for the audio market, they started in 1982 (see link ), but that is a different ballgame.


http://books.google.ca/books?id=kgY8URS_4O0C&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=CD+when+appeared+in+market&source=bl&ots=veC1Vr_Yb3&sig=1TLP-Izex66SRWnLuhb8zNsJGF0&hl=en&ei=UMYaTZnCLoa0lQewgbmwDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=CD%20when%20appeared%20in%20market&f=false

You're confusing media with application, and presuming a lot about what I'm "totally clueless". We were discussing digital media, not the history of personal computing, with which I might be more familiar than you think. There's no need to get upset over being confused; this is just a friendly discussion, not a contest.

[Marko]

This is a photo forum, so we were discussing CD use in this area (which was not around in the 80's), while it was in audio...so no, I'm not confused. You are correct though, why are we getting into this so seriously, it is just a friendly discussion, and not a contest. Actually, it isn't even important for my photography, considering I rarely use them anymore except for audio. LOL.

Actually, it isn't important for much of anything any more, not even for audio. It is a technology which played a very important role in the grand scheme of things but whose time has past. Ditto for DVD.

[Scott Davis]

Actually, if you want to be techincally precise, it is a DVD-R/RW that holds 4.6 GB of data. A CD-ROM holds 700MB+/- of data. In the 80s, most PCs whether in use by a business or in a home had internal memory measured in K (as in 16K, or the luxurious 48K that my Apple II+ had). My Mac Plus that I took off to college in 1989 had 1 MB of internal RAM, and a whopping 20 MB external hard drive. The kid down the hall had a Mac SE with a 40 MB hard-drive, the biggest on the floor, and therefore bragging rights. I remember when trying to play a 500K WAV file could choke your computer.

[sanking]

Sandy, exactly my point....I agree with often you are Sh*t outta luck with anything seriously moving, or if you're moving while shooting. Here are some samples that would be difficult with stitching.



OK, then I misunderstood your point. I thought you were suggesting it was easier to work with film for stitching in those adverse conditions.

I do understand the concept of a professional as it applies to some conditions where one has to get the shot, no ifs, ands and buts. But most fine art landscape photographers, even those who sell their work, are not in that situation. If I miss a shot because of wind or other adverse conditions it does not represent a catastrophic loss. It is kind of like the big fish that got away to a fisherman.

But being prepared for adverse conditions is always a good plan whether one is a professional or beginning amateur. It is nearly always better to get a lesser quality image than to get no image at all. So even if your plan is to stitch with a digital camera or film camera you need to be prepared to do it one shot with either a digital camera at higher ASA or with a film of higher ASA. Fuji Acros is my favorite film but when the wind is blowing and one needs to close down the lens for adequate depth of field there will be a better chance at getting an acceptable shot with TMY, or some other high ASA film.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

People have been stitiching photographs routinely at the National Enquirer for decades, and even long before that. Now that every junior high kid knows how to do
it in Photoshop, it will fade from novelty as an art form and just be one more tool in
the kit for those who so choose. We each define our own rules. My rules say I shoot
what I see on the groundglass, or in the case of a smaller camera, the viewfinder.
There an elegance to that kind of composition that I find very appealing. But the fact
is, just about every up and coming photographer today that leans on technology as
his cutting edge will probably be forgotten fairly soon, because the technology will
itself be passe. We live in a very impatient society. The more trendy something is
today, the more boring it will be tomorrow. Look at "light painting" in commercial
photography; that lasted about six months before everyone was sick of it. With a
bit more subtlety it is still hypothetically a tool for someone, and will probably pop
up again somewhere, but otherwise had had its day. In the meantime, great prints
will be thrown by family heirs into dumpsters, until someone finds a few in a garage sale a hundred years for now, and experts can argue over who actually took them.

[Kirk Gittings]

If I miss a shot because of wind or other adverse conditions it does not represent a catastrophic loss. It is kind of like the big fish that got away to a fisherman.

Great analogy.

Though in my commercial work the loss of a great image may hurt my pocket book, it is the lost personal images that truly haunt me years later-just as a few fish I have lost, while fly fishing, haunt me......I never made that connection before.

[Alan Davenport]

I'd like to ask, with the stitching and perspective control available in PS, and armed with, say, a 5D MkII and maybe even a tilt/shift lens, why would I or anyone bother shooting LF?

If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand.

[Drew Wiley]

Why shoot a charging rhinoceros with a .60 cal H&H magnum when 50,000 shots from a BB gun have the same net force?

[Ben Syverson]

Why shoot a charging rhinoceros with a .60 cal H&H magnum when 50,000 shots from a BB gun have the same net force?
Exactly. The magnum is faster. And classier.

[Marko]

I'll take a BB gun with 50,000 pellets over an empty Magnum any day. ;)

[sanking]

People of every generation have used the technologies that were available to them at the time. The method of image capture is nothing but a tool and should never be confused with the only thing that really matters, the final product. If someone wants to argue the superiority of a tool, and/or a final printing process they are free to do so, but ultimately the only thing that matters is, 1) is the individual pleased with his/her process, and 2) if the individual is a professional photographer does the method of capture provide financial and/or work flow advantages. For the individual not concerned with the second aspect of this equation people will just do what they want. Some people like to compose on a ground glass, others like to compose on a digital panel, some people like one shot photography, others like to stitch, either with film or digital. None of that matters at all in terms of the value of the final product as that is determined by the reputation and marketing skills of the artist, not by either the tool or the process.

Sandy King

[Jack Dahlgren]

Yeah, your right, I just got myself a new SUV, and already my mind is geared to the built in IPOD and USB ports on the dash. A few 16mb flash sticks, and I'm good to go from one coast to the other and back as far as music (beats a huge box of CD's in the trunk).

I believe I've thrown out any 16mb flash memory I had.

[Jay DeFehr]

My wife recently brought home from Russia several rolls of 35mm film that had been stored in a plastic bag, each one rolled and secured with a rubber band. It took us a while to straighten them out; we washed them in warm water with a little photo flo, and hung them to dry with weights on the ends of the strips. When they dried, they were flat enough to scan. Julia spent at least a week scanning and uploading them. She said her neighbors had as many, or more, but they threw them away because they knew they would never print them. I printed a few of Julia's and they look pretty good at 5x7. Attached is one of my favorites.

[Vascilli]

I've overcome the problem by having both. I had a 5D II, then I bought a Mamiya 645 system, and finally a Toyo 45G with seven lenses. (You wouldn't believe how little I paid for all of that) The Canon I pack around with me everywhere I go, the Mamiya comes on special occasions, and the Toyo sits at home for portraits until I have a drivers license and a car.

[D. Bryant]

Seven, stitching changes your perspective. To get the same angle of view in the scene with a single exposure may require a 28mm lens, while to record the same scene with the same angle of view (with stitching) means you must increase your focal length to shoot the same scene....thus a perspective change.



Van (or what ever your real name is),

Just thought I would point out when the focal length of the lens is changed but the lens-to-subject distance remains unchanged, there is a change in the image size of the objects, but no change in perspective.

Happy New Year,

Don Bryant

[sanking]

Van (or what ever your real name is),

Just thought I would point out when the focal length of the lens is changed but the lens-to-subject distance remains unchanged, there is a change in the image size of the objects, but no change in perspective.

Happy New Year,

Don Bryant

Don,

Good point.

Thanks for reminding me of that.

Sandy

[schafphoto]

...I was trying to demonstrate that acceptable results can be achieved with little investment in effort or time with a digital camera and PS. Acceptable to whom? I don't know, but verticals were vertical and nothing was left distorted.
...
I was referring specifically to architectural photography and whether the view camera has become redundant or obsolete in this particular field due to advances in digital photography and digital processing.


Hi Ari,

Nice topic, provocative title... seems to have worked...

[schafphoto]

It may depend on your asperations and ambitions. If you want your work included in Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS), or other such projects, only archivally-processed large format negatives and fiber-based prints are acceptable.

In my very humble opinion I no longer have commercial clients in my area who commission large format photography (HABS is the exception). I haven't been doing advertising much lately but everything I shoot for clients (commercial, portrait, architecture, editorial) is now digital, and everything is produced ASAP and usually used even faster. I'm not sure my clients care about backup, In the 6 or so years that I have been shooting strictly digital, I have never had a client contact me and say they needed a photo that they lost or misplaced. I suspect they are "organicaly-cloud-backuped" on every client's computer and their client, and so on, and so on...

I do a great deal of architectural photography to the Historic American Buildings Survey HABS / Historic American Engineering Record HAER / and Historic American Landscape Survey HALS standards. Which is probably the only consistent large-format, film-based photography program around for the most part. My clients – city planners, EIR firms, etc. – need a building/bridge/park documented to mitigate the impact of a project (a road, or demolition or new development on a historic resource). They call and say "We need the John Doe House photographed for CEQA to HABS standards." They may have no clue what that means, but I load up my 5x7 camera and lights and take 6 or 12 or 24 or 36 photos on HP5 polyester-based black and white silver film, and make a set of archival, fiber contact-prints in my darkroom. The images go into the public domain and hopefully into the Library of Congress or the California State Library, so that the mitigation for the project can be a "public benefit."

HABS, HAER, and HALS photography has led me to realize that the "Artifact" is a very important part of the document. The HABS/HAER/HALS specs were established to use the superior quality of large-format film to document the colonial architecture in the 1930's. The program has evolved but remained film-based even though, arguably, you could get sharper, faster, digital, etc., etc., images with new technology. I teach CEQA mitigation classes and HABS workshops and get the same question: "Does HABS HAER HALS still require film?" The answer at the moment is yes (Though digital contacts are newly being accepted).

One of the reasons goes to Ari's point. If it's an important image (Like the last photo of the historic John Doe House before demolition) can you be sure that the digital file will be in a medium and condition to be read in 500 years? Around 20 generations by my iffy math? The beauty of the HABS-HAER-HALS program is that it creates a visual, silver-on-7-mil-thick-polyester film. If that uber-washed, meticulously stored (as the LOC does) film is supposed to last 500 years before significant signs of fading, AND will be readable by the eyeball assuming that we're still using eyeballs in 500 years. That being said, I backup all my HABS photos with a GPS-tagged digital photo (currently 12MP-Nikon D300) from the same tripod position, and that's what my clients want to get on a CD while the negs and contacts go to the LOC or museum.

I keep a backup neg of each 5x7 HABS/HAER negative I submit, maybe someday I will do an ink-on-paper book of some of the historic resources that i have been privileged to photograph. Then there will be another eyeball-ready, artifact-based media to add to the mix. If I'm lucky.

[Sirius Glass]

What is the point?

Other than having available 10, count them 10, cameras from single frame [digi-snappers, you can look that up it you need to] to large format, lenses and full black & white and color dark room for less than the cost of the top of the line Nikon or Canon digi-snapper body.

Digi-snappers are one head crash away from loosing all the photographs of their children growing up. Yeah, yeah, back up on X, ... but in the end NASA almost lost 10,000 of photographs taken prior to the first Lunar Lander and most digi-snappers do not know what backing up means.

But I digress...
Who needs resolution? I can get 320 Megapixels from a 6cm x 6cm 120 film and over 2 Gigapixels from a 4"x5" negative.
Why spend thousands of dollars on equipment that will be obsolete in 18 mounts, plus you get to buy and new computer, RAID system and expensive software?
Who needs the complete color gamut? Digi-snappers, look up that one too. What the heck, just throw out most of the green, red and blue colors.
Who needs life or soul in black & white digital photographs? Digi-snappers black & white photographs have no life or soul.
Who needs archival? Mathew Brady's photographs are still printable and yet a print from a stink-jet quickly fades in the sun.
Who needs a SBR of twelve to fourteen f/stops when a machine gunning digi-snapper can provide what, maybe three or four f/stops if the wind is blowing in the right direction?
Who needs to worry about aliasing and annoying digital artifacts when one uses film. Yes, I see the artifacts all the time on digital prints which are supposed to be as good as film but are not.
Who needs to machine gun thousands of images to catch one good photograph using a film camera and a brain?
If one does not need photographs before they were taken [read: wedding photographers and photojournalists] why would one need the image instantly? Furthermore, if a photographer knows how to take a photograph and use the equipment, then the photographer knows when he/she got the shot.

Frankly, I could never find a good class so that I could learn chimpin'. One must become a first class chimper and act like a lessor great ape so that they can be a digi-snapper.

If I ever find that I have to get a complete lobotomy or brain-ectomy I will then have the proper IQ to become a digi-snapper.

By the way, see the second line of my signature.

Steve

[Ari]

Thanks everyone, quite a lively discussion.
I just want to point out that I had no desire or intention of sparking a "film vs digital" debate; that's more tired than I am at 4am.
And to re-iterate, this was aimed specifically at architectural photographers who must serve their masters, ie the clients.
I was reflecting on the equipment we all love to use, and why we use it. As Stephen Schafer points out, clients do not demand that level of quality, even though they might be better served by having it. In general, nobody but us really cares whether or not we're tilting and shifting our way to technically better photos, so long as the end product is served up subito pronto!
I got to asking myself if no client cares, and no one is demanding this quality, why would I invest time, money and a bad back into using the required equipment? Especially if I hire some kid to PS my point-and-shoot drive-bys into a photo that clients can't tell apart from a good photo?
I don't like LF only because "it isn't digital", I like it for the discipline and the reward of accomplishing some decent hand-made photos that my brain had to figure out.
It kinda got me down that day, thinking about it, but I still shoot every day, client or not; I still work on my technique with the help of this forum and a few books.

[Pavel+]

Ari, I came from your perspective. Now I tend to think it is the other way around with the exception of the fact that 95 percent of people do not discern the differences. Most who can tell the difference can spot it instantly, but they are the minority and often are professionals and often to them a small difference is all the difference.

To use an analogy; I used to box and had my nose re-aranged at least one time too many. I didn't know it but I had a deviated septum which pushed against a nerve and I had about 20 percent of what the average person has in term of smell. If you took me to a fancy dinner and asked me how I liked it my point of view, stressed quite obnoxiously, would be that I don't get it. I guess I though that one paid for the ambiance and the snobbery of fine dining. Because in all seriousness It tasted like a watered down fast food burger to me. All of it.
Subtlety? didn't have the ability do discern it.

Then years later I got my nose fixed. Over the next few years it was "whoa, man oh man oh man!" Now chilly is not some fiery torture test. Its got flavor.

However, I would never have believed it - before I could see, er, taste it.

Now I make no judgement on that. I was happy with slop, and now I'm not. By often I have to put up with slop ... so .. you get and lose .... always.

If you are one who thinks that cell phones are not for serious photography ... ask yourself why? The same case could be made. Nikon D3x photographs are hardly distinguishable from my cell phone to a certain percent of the population when used withing their zone of limits. Some can tell, like a slap to the face, but more than that they either can not distinguish, or don't give a toot.

By the same extension, I feel, that the SLR is as good as a View camera to a great many. Used to their advantage they offer what people are thrilled by. Most people.

Again, no judgement value intended. It just seems to be that way. But to a friend who is a highly accomplished photographer - I don't show him pictures that I can see little flaws with as I do with great abandon to most people. I'd be embarased. Sometimes I wonder if doing twice as much, rejecting five times as much - if that is not going overboard for a 2 or 8 percent difference.

Funny enough is the fact that I always go and put the effort in as best as I can. After all, who of us does not want to improve? Who is happy with "yeah, its ok" but I didn't want to sweat it? And equipment is a part of that equation. Reaching up as high as one can ... is the main part of why I love photography.

So how far do you want to go - Is the real answer to your question, I believe?

[dewsweeper]

...In my lifetime a negative made with a view camera and a technician that had set the levels was considered truthful to the point that if you had some known references in the view, you could put a ruler on an enlargement and believe every measurement without further question.

I am returning to large format photography after a long break in which I feel I have pretty much become fluent in the art of making archival quality digital images. Jim touches on one of my reasons. Even though we all know that film can lie, that a skilled photographer simply through selection and composition can create a story quite apart from "objective" reality on film, I tend to suspend disbelief more readily when looking at a film image than when looking at digital.

It is all too easy to manipulate digital. And I do it, with relish and abandon, for artistic effect.

But when it came time to document existing conditions in a community faced with dramatic architectural, and possibly cultural, changes, I wanted truth. And digital didn't have it.

The other thing digital doesn't have is space. Digital images look compressed to me. They may be sharp, the color may be balanced, the ability to tinker with dynamic range may be impressive, but in the end, digital -- and small format film, to a lesser degree -- looks tight, like it is trying too hard to pack too much into too small a space. And the result is that landscapes do not look vast and deep; they look pinched and flat.

I honestly can not say whether these perceptions are biases on my part, the result of growing up on a steady diet of large format film, or whether these perceptions are defensible by some mathematical analytical process. But I can rapidly, and with no effort, see the difference between a large format film image and a 35mm digital image.

Film has gravitas and large format has air.

At issue, for me, is not which format produces the more superior quality. I have seen breathtaking work from both digital and film origins, (and in truth I think craftsmanship and vision shine through regardless of the tool chosen.) Rather, it is about the qualities I want in the final product.

I think a better question might be "what's _my_ point?".

[WuLaoShi Photo]

I teach CEQA mitigation classes and HABS workshops and get the same question: "Does HABS HAER HALS still require film?" The answer at the moment is yes (Though digital contacts are newly being accepted).



Schaf,

Do you get any sense from HABS that they will be changing the standards anytime soon? Or do you get the feeling the requirement for large-format negatives will continue throughout our lifetime? It seems like the Library of Congress would need to do a major overhaul in order to start accepting digital HABS images in lieu of B&W negatives.

I don't see any mention digital contacts in the HABS guidelines. When did they start accepting these?

Tim

[gerald.d]

What is the point?
<snipped since it's on the same page>
Steve

Fascinating thread everyone, and Steve's points really hit home for me.

Speaking as someone who has done more than his fair share of digital stitching in the past, I heartily concur with the points Steve makes above.

I don't want to have to take 2-300 shots with my 5D MK II and a 200 or 300mm lens in order to come up with something substandard such as this:

http://gigapan.org/gigapans/65156/

or this:

http://gigapan.org/gigapans/62242/

I don't want to have to fight with (what is generally accepted to be) the best stitching software available in order to manually show it where the stitches should be applied (each of the above two took many hours of manual correction, and still neither are perfectly stitched).

I don't want to have to mess around in photoshop to correct weird blotchy sky (I can't even be bothered to learn how to do it actually, as is evident from the above Burj example).

It's why I've got a 5x7 set-up on order, and I can't wait to be able to take a single shot such as this:

http://dxbae.com/old_images/Burj/IMG_7985_1k.JPG (single shot 5D Mk II 17mm TS-E with zero post-processing)

or this:

http://dxbae.com/images/SZM%202%20stitch.jpg (5D Mk II 17mm TS-E two shifted shots stitched)

with a resolution approaching the above gigapans.

I'm not knocking digital stitching - I've had a lot of fun with it over the last year.

But just as there are some wondering what the point of shooting film is when you can do so much with digital these days, I doubt I'm alone in wondering what the point of stitching is when you can do so much with film ;)