PDA

View Full Version : When will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?



TAG
5-May-2011, 20:34
---

grahamcase
5-May-2011, 20:49
For me it's only partially about quality. There is the whole process of shooting, and equally important, developing that I miss with digital, not to mention actually holding something!

Filling film holders, focusing and loading the camera, standing in a dark room for far too long with somewhat dangerous chemicals, coming out with a large negative that I can show off to people, and then making real prints is far too much to give up simply because technology has sort of caught up to the quality.

Leigh
5-May-2011, 20:50
When I decrease my standards and expectations.

I already shoot digital in 35mm and MF.

LF is reserved for those images that require the absolute highest quality.

And as Graham said, the whole process of film photography is gratifying.

- Leigh

Bill_1856
5-May-2011, 20:54
Either: 1) when Hell freezes over, or 2) when I can no longer delude myself that I actually enjoy the dubious pleasure of the LF experience.

Ari
5-May-2011, 20:56
Tomorrow.
Or maybe not.

Richard K.
5-May-2011, 21:00
What Graham said.

lenser
5-May-2011, 21:02
When pigs fly!!!!!! I already have to shoot some of my commercial projects on digital in self defense since the marketing people are immersed in instant gratification, but I will always prefer film, and especially large format, when possible and always for personal projects! It's just a huge amount more fun and more thoughtful a process!

Valdecus
5-May-2011, 21:08
I have just upgraded from a 21 Megapixel full frame to a brand new used 8x10. ;)

Cheers,
Andrew

David R Munson
5-May-2011, 21:18
I love my 5D II. Long term I intend to shoot with medium format digital on a 2x3 view camera. But will I give up large format? Of course not. Why should I? Why do these things have to be in competition with one another? Seems rather myopic IMO to assume that one sort of tool necessarily has to replace another.

vinny
5-May-2011, 21:22
There's already an 80mp back out there. So what.
The viewfinder isn't 4x5 or 8x10 inches, it's tiny. I've got enough film to last another 25 years.
Big cameras with no batteries are fun and easier to compose with. When i can't aquire e-6 chems, i'll have to get a digital camera or take up painting. That may not go well if they decide painting is easier via an iphone app.

Lachlan 717
5-May-2011, 21:45
When Lobotomies come down to an affordable price.

Richard Mahoney
5-May-2011, 22:01
When there isn't any more water or moisture. When there is no longer any dust or dirt. When there is a constant supply of power absolutely everywhere. When I look forward to carrying even more gear than I carry already. When -- I think it's been said already -- pigs fly.

Oh, and hello Mr Troll ;) Out from under the bridge today?

Kind regards,

Richard

Ed Kelsey
5-May-2011, 22:05
Nobody said when they stop making film

Jay DeFehr
5-May-2011, 22:14
When the materials become prohibitively expensive, or unavailable.

mdm
5-May-2011, 22:21
even when digital is best, there will still be people with film cameras making big negatives for contact printing and alternative processes. It is a valid creative option and will only become more so as digital gets better. Maybe the Sally Manns of the future will be revelling in the imperfection of 4x5 film. Flaunting dust spots and light leaks.

Vaughn
5-May-2011, 22:44
When I get too old to carry the 8x10 or to use an LF camera, I'll start printing all the negatives I have ignored because of the newer negs I was making.

tim o'brien
5-May-2011, 23:12
Never. I shoot digital as a recording medium. The Nikon has not been out in a couple of years. But...

LF 8x10 is what it is. If the film goes away, i stop shooting. Digital just records, LF (and to an extent MF) are photography.

tim in san jose

Maris Rusis
5-May-2011, 23:37
Phooey to digital. I only make pictures out of light sensitive materials. This is the process for which the name photography was coined. These are the only pictures I'm really interested in looking at.

Not because the picture looks one way or another, digital can already mimic the surface appearance of almost any medium, but because of the necessary physical connection between the subject and the picture. This special relationship between photograph and subject means a photograph offers a special relationship to me the viewer.

Digital picture-making offers a viewer the same aesthetic speil as traditional painting and drawing and is no substitute for the thrills and goosebumps of being in the presence of a real photograph.

Why large format? Nothing in photography looks so gorgeous.

Scotty230358
5-May-2011, 23:38
Never - the process, from start to finish, is just too satisfying.

Struan Gray
5-May-2011, 23:54
Were I making money from my photography I suspect I would be using a combination of the Pentax 645D and 8x10. Since I'm not, I use neither :-)

I'll make the switch to MF digital when body/back prices drop to four or five years of my MF and LF film costs. That time is another two-three cycles of Moore's Law away by my reckoning. I will miss movements, but I won't miss handling film - I've never felt that material magic that I know is so important to many.

Richard Mahoney
6-May-2011, 00:09
I will miss movements, but I won't miss handling film - I've never felt that material magic that I know is so important to many.

Struan, surely you're not suggesting that some of us fetishize polyester?


Kind regards,

Richard

Struan Gray
6-May-2011, 00:28
Struan, surely you're not suggesting that some of us fetishize polyester?

Well, sheet film is the only form of polyester I can get truly excited about. Dumpy old buggers in baggy, mud-coloured fleece jackets are one of England's least lovely exports to the continent.

Linen is my personal toe-tingler. I lie awake at night and fantasize about colour carbon on pure linen handmade paper. Pippa Middleton's derriere might have more fans on Facebook, but for me it languishes a long way back amid the also-rans.

Andrew
6-May-2011, 01:59
when they pull the Deardorff from my cold dead hand... and the Technika from the other hand
as stated above, it isn't about the image quality. I just love a big camera and I'll still keep them even if film goes extinct

de-lux
6-May-2011, 02:26
Well after being in photography for many years I've found myself going from film to fully digital back to film. For me I really missed something I could get hold of and look at, I have negs going back some 25 years when I first started in photography, but I find it a nightmare looking for digital images. All I need now is a window or a lightbox to view my images. As for film become deceased I've already built two cameras and I have the means to build darkslides and produce my own photographic plates if needed. At the end of the day though a good quality neg or slide is important to me, and a digital image is like trying to grasp fresh air unless you have a hard copy or a machine to view.

Andrew Plume
6-May-2011, 03:24
.............hopefully, never

if film isn't available, then it will be dry plate work - I've a stack of holders (gathering dust)


andrew

Doug Howk
6-May-2011, 04:27
If I wanted to switch to a different medium, I'd learn to draw or watercolor. To me, there is no joy in digital capture.

RJC
6-May-2011, 04:55
I plan to be taking LF photos of the heat death of the universe !

I use digital for fashion, sport, military airshows and anything that moves - or things that won't stay still like children and animals.

For landscape, architecture and portraiture where I want ultimate quality it will always be my trusty Ebony that I pick up.

Rob

Emmanuel BIGLER
6-May-2011, 05:04
When will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?

I had initially planned to completely switch to digital as soon as Capitalism would collapse under the pressure of its own contradictions.
I though that 2008 was THE year ; unfortunately, it seems as if this Great Collapse has been postponed for an undetermined period of time.

MIke Sherck
6-May-2011, 05:29
I don't think I will. I sit in front of a computer all day and have for almost 30 years now; the last thing I want to do when I get home is sit in front of a computer, or feed another printer. I'll keep using film as long as I can get it.

As for large format, I enjoy the process and, particularly, the results. Sure, the equipment is heavy and bulky and I'm getting to an age where it would be really, really nice to have someone carry it for me, but on the other hand, I'm too young to get lazy yet and the fight against entropy knows no end. LF does things other formats can't, or it would have died out long ago. I appreciate the control over the image that movements give, the large negative, the ability to fix what I break with a Scout knife and duct tape... :)

Mike

Noah A
6-May-2011, 05:42
I shoot large format for two reasons. First, the image quality and the ability to make large prints with a high level of detail and smooth tonality. The second reason is for the perspective control offered by the view camera.

For me there are two issues. The first is when I would like to switch to digital. The second is when it makes financial sense to do so.

When I can get an MFDB that will equal the print quality of 4x5 film in a very large print, say 48x60", then I'd like to switch. And we're not there yet. Notice I said print quality. It's possible that some good MFDBs with top lenses will out resolve 4x5 film. But prints from digital backs I've seen (and made myself) still have a slightly 'digital' look at very large sizes. The problem with digital is that if you print beyond a certain size (depending on the camera), the quality falls off rapidly.

It's possible that the new 80MP backs may provide the level of quality I want.

I'll (possibly) be able to justify the cost once it drops to what I spend on 4 years of film and processing. Right now, that's about $12000. But that price could very well rise while digital prices fall.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but frankly I find the discussions about digital not being 'photography' tiresome. For me the result is what matters, and digital can produce very beautiful prints within limits. And as technology advances, those limits will only increase.

Noah A
6-May-2011, 05:43
I forgot to mention. When I do go digital, it will be with a technical camera (which allows movements).

BetterSense
6-May-2011, 05:48
I enjoy computer imaging on a completely different level than photography, so never. I won't care when 600MP cameras with 98 stops of dynamic range cost $5; they will be technically interesting to me, but not for making art.

SergeiR
6-May-2011, 05:53
I forgot to mention. When I do go digital, it will be with a technical camera (which allows movements).

You can hook up MFDb to you current large format, if it accepts Graflok and enjoy both - if not uber stitching plate from K-group for 2 grand, then at least sliding adapter, which will give you analogue of 6x9 (after you ran results through photoshop or C1 or something)..


PS: actually you can hook any digital SLR too, but it will be very very tiny crop, so it would be like looking at the elephant through peephole

Brian Ellis
6-May-2011, 06:14
I haven't found a screaming need for a digital back, certainly not 80 mpx. I think Charles Cramer's very beautiful and technically outstanding large prints are made with a 30 mpx back. And my 20x30 prints from a 21 mpx Canon 1Ds Mark III camera certainly don't suffer in quality compared to the prints I made in a darkroom from 4x5 film that hang next to them.

To me the only real reason to continue with large format is that it's more enjoyable to do and I think that's a perfectly good reason for me or anyone else. But it's hard for me to justify it on any other ground since I can duplicate the effect of the most common movements either in Photoshop or with a tilt/shift lens. Maybe if I wanted to make really huge prints like 40x60 4x5 would have an advantage but I'd never make a 10x enlargement from 4x5 film anyhow so that's a moot point for me. So I continue with LF but less and less frequently, in fact almost not at all lately.

Two23
6-May-2011, 06:27
I shot MF and LF before buying a digital camera about six years ago. I haven't shot 35mm or the Bronica 645 since. However, after shooting only digital for six years, it began to get boring. The shots all look the same. I started using my mother-n-laws 1959 Kodak Brownie, then bought a 1937 Bessa (6x9), then a 1914 Kodak Special No. 1 (6x9) and shot intensively with all of them. It was fun! Last fall I pulled out my Shen Hao 4x5 and have been shooting it ever since. I bought a Petzval and a 250mm Imagon lenses, am looking for something else from 1860s or earlier. Also looking to get into dry plate with either a Bergheil or an 1880s quarter plate set up. For me, I just like the challenge of using this stuff. It makes me feel connected to the photographers of the past. I also like the look I'm getting. I still shoot my Nikon D300 plenty during the week, but I'm also shooting some b&w film every week too. I suppose to sum up, the aesthetics are very important to me.


Kent in SD

jp
6-May-2011, 06:31
Other people (viewers) don't care about whether film or digital has an edge in quality (unless they are trying to justify a purchase). That's why they are shooting with cell phone cams mostly. I notice, but I'm not all worked up about it. Not being ultra concerned about quality allows me to have a fun time with good results from cheap cameras and 30-100 year old bargain lenses instead of APO glass, tmy2 and fomapan100 film instead of tmx/acros/delta100. I'm not a pixel peeper, and most people aren't either.

Shoot what you like. I like both film and digital for their own strengths. I like darkroom work and computer work too.

If film stops being made, I'll have to start doing my own plates for analog image capture, and print a few of my digital pix on pictorico film for alt process stuff. I think a hybrid near-future is more likely than digital "winning".

Emil Schildt
6-May-2011, 07:26
never - or more exactely: when I die...

And that goes for Lf - Mf or small formats.

the reason is, that there's so many techniques in the wet room that I can't believe could ever be done digitally.

I do own a digital camera - for pure registration purposes only.

But should film go away - chemistry get banned (getting closer every day here in Dk), I'll stop photographing - and start making something else... (sculpture/painting/drawing or good cooking...)

As somebody else said: I don't enjoy the digital photography.

Drew Bedo
6-May-2011, 08:05
Leaving philosophy and esthetics aside:

The limit on "conventional" film photography, in any format, is the manufacture of the FILM. When film is no longer available from the major manufacturers, someone somewhere will make something, probably a black and white material. At some point film may not be availale from anyone at any price.

"Alternative Pocess" just means older technology. Any of the older processes will be available to us in large format as long as we can get the materials to cook up a photo-sensitive material at home.

And yet: Many of the solvents and reagents are also useful in processing several types ofexplosives and illegal drugs. The day may come when we cannot legally get the materials to make collodien or nitrocellulose for wet plates. Even Daguerreotypes require crystal Iodine and Mercury. We could be regulated out of existence for reasons of public safety and national security

brianjnelson
6-May-2011, 08:22
This thread is ironic to me because I just took out my 8x10 camera, that I haven"t used in 10 years, to see if the three boxes of 8x10 polaroid were still good. I've been shooting digital for the last 12 years and while that medium is working well for me in my daily work, I'm getting very excited to start shooting some film.

Photography is my profession and it's all digital for what I shoot. However, I think the lines are now more defined for me between WORK and ART. I'm excited to go and shoot some film of completely different subjects from my professional work. I expect that I'll take some of that excitement back to my day work.

People still go out and paint watercolors of the landscape even though a photograph shows more detail. It's about a "feel" or process. It may even be more about a disconnect. I'm looking into some infrared and pulling out my collection of SF portrait lenses. I remember a musician put out an album titled "New light through older windows" I liked the idea. I'm thinking "New light through older lenses"

SamReeves
6-May-2011, 08:30
It all depends on the cost of doing LF. If it gets to be prohibitively expensive to print and process film, then that Canon 50D or 60D looks awfully attractive. I haven't reached that point yet, but who knows what will happen to film/paper prices in the next decade.

Noah B
6-May-2011, 08:30
I first started out on digital when canon started making the digital rebel. I have a 5D II now and I barely ever use it. There's something about looking at the ground glass and composing through that that makes me never want to pick up a digital camera ever again. Digital backs are way too expensive and theres just something about film that appeals to me. It's the general hand processing involved that really appeals to me, the craft of it is great.

rdenney
6-May-2011, 08:32
There is no question that I would make more large-format photographs if I could do so with digital equipment reasonably. The time required to deal with film exceeds the time I have available, and and that limits what I do significantly.

When digital equipment superseded my 35mm film stuff, I absolutely made many more pictures than I had done previously. Is that a good thing? Well, there is a balance between quantity and quality. I find myself stuck--taking out the large-format camera and film makes such a demand on limited time that I feel I can't waste it on mundane images, but trying to move my unartistic brain past the mundane has seemed like a barrier in recent months. Thus, I do too little, and bring even less of it to fruition. The digital workflow would allow me to get more stuff done, absolutely.

I have never liked spending hours in the darkroom, despite having built compmlete darkrooms in two of the four houses I have owned over the years. I always preferred being out in the field with the camera. Being able to do work on the pictures a half hour at a time, or maybe two hours every three weeks, is a boon. That is difficult with a darkroom--dust gets on everything, chemicals become stale, and lab technique gets rusty.

I still use 6x7 film because I cannot afford the digital equipment that would match it. I still use a 4x5 camera (even if I use a roll-film holder) because I cannot do without the movements. Putting what amounts to a 6x4.5 digital back on a 4x5 camera is not acceptable. I do not have the money for the high-end ultra-short lenses that are needed, or for the camera with fine enough movement controls not to be frustrating with lenses that short. I like wide-angle lenses.

I have held a Pentax 645D in my hands. It is a completely sensible camera, and I would own one if I had the available scratch. If I did, I would probably retire my 6x7 stuff. It would not, however, replace the 4x5 view camera, which just has too much image-management power to set aside.

When a 645D-like camera costs under a coupla grand (which is what I paid for my 5D), I'll probably get one, as long as (like the Pentax) it will accommodate the lenses I already own. Five years ago, that value would have been higher, but I'm a little more careful now. I spent less for my complete Sinar kit including many, many accessories and several lenses to add to what I already had.

Here are my requirements for a digital system that would cause me to stop using film in the Sinar:

- at least 3x4 format so that I can use conventional and classic large-format lenses with reasonable expectations.

- at least 100 megapixels, which is what I get now scanning 4x5 film in an Epson. That's about the same pixel density as my Canon 5D--just a lot more area.

- Single-shot operation using the shutter as the control. I'm thinking a double cable release seems a reasonable triggering device. Scanning backs have some interesting applications, but I don't see them as a general-purpose solution for me.

- Self-contained. No tethered computer, and batteries that could hang off the tripod. Tethering off something like an iPad, which is used for a live view and for displaying stored images, would be acceptable. An 8-pound laptop that take five minutes to boot up would not.

- Graflok attachment to a 4x5 camera.

- Price under $3000. This value fluctuates.

- At least 14 bits of honest dynamic range.

- No heavier on the camera than a Sinar Vario holder (which is not really a demanding requirement)

The current cost of film is not particularly important--time is far more limiting than the price of film for me. I have a pretty good supply of film in the freezer that I'm not doing nearly enough with. But it isn't just film we depend on--it is also processing, at least for those of us who do color.

I'm inching my way back in the black-and-white direction, and I suspect that if I get back into that fully I will still do it even if the above requirements are met. I am sure that it will be more difficult for a digital back to replace black and white than it is to replace color, at least for the work that I do.

Rick "defining requirements in terms of uses and constraints" Denney

colotonphoto
6-May-2011, 08:34
I have actually been headed the other direction lately. I recently sold my MF digital system and have been shooting much more 4x5 and MF film. I ultimately still scan the film for delivery and post-processing, but I have enjoyed developing film myself again. I still use digital for anything that requires capturing motion or quick image delivery turnarounds.

paulr
6-May-2011, 08:56
I've become a pragmatist with gear. I evaluate what I need for any new project. The decision comes down to what will best serve the work and what I can afford.

In the last few years I've used 4x5, hasselblad, and now dslr.

My current dream would be a medium format technical camera with a digital back, but it will be a long time before I can afford such a thing. Likewise, my #2 choice would be large format color, but I can't afford the film and processing, and would be greatly slowed down by the workflow. So it's dslr for the current work.

The vision is always more imporant than the materials and tools. This is the litmus test for distinguishing art therapy from art.

Frank Petronio
6-May-2011, 09:04
I don't really see the need for a lot of pixels but what I like about large format is the depth and rendering you get from the larger film size. Since larger sensors may never become economical -- it is hard to imagine a pressing need or mass market for a 4x5 CMOS sensor -- I doubt even the finest medium format digital backs will ever be capable of capturing the same sort of image quality. It's likely digital may have a great dynamic range and higher ISO potential than film but the rendering will never be the same because of the size difference between a sensor and large format film.

The real question for me is why I should shoot 35mm film versus digital? While I still shoot a few rolls, I end up back with digital not only because it is easier but because I think it is usually better.

David R Munson
6-May-2011, 09:13
I'd still like someone to tell me why these things have to be in competition with one another. Seems to me that we're just making everything more difficult than it needs to be when we could just be concentrating on making photographs.

cyrus
6-May-2011, 09:14
Not even when they stop making film ... I'll hand coat plates if I have to!

Brian C. Miller
6-May-2011, 09:30
Twin Lens Life: Digital vs. Film - Canon 5D Mark II vs. Kodak Ektar 35mm "Pound for Pound, Pixel for Pixel" (http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html)

What about quality?

If I were a 35mm photographer, I wouldn't switch to digital for something that was critical to me. Take a look at the comparison these wedding photographers did. Do you like what you see? Or not?

The current 80Mp back is full-frame 645 format.
645 format lenses do not produce the same look at 4x5 or 8x10 format lenses.
Lenses with five aperture blades produce different effects than 8-, 10-, or 16-blade apertures.

It isn't just a megapixel count, it's also the size of the sensor area. Yes, Canon produced a 10-in square sensor. No, it won't be seen in cameras any time soon, if ever. Scanning backs are still scanning backs, not an area of instant image capture.

Then there is the issue of the medium itself. My profile image is from a section of 8x10 film, from a distorted reflection of clouds in a window. The crop area measures about 2mm x 2mm. (I think the whole window is 4x8mm) The digital equivalent is something like less than 100 pixels square. I like having the option of enlarging a crop like that. And yes, that's enlarging with an enlarger.

I would switch to digital if I could not get either film or chemicals to make plates. And I do mean any film at all, which includes x-ray film.

John Rodriguez
6-May-2011, 09:45
When I can create a 4 foot wide nose sharp print from a body that costs $3k USD or less I'll go completely digital again.

Kirk Gittings
6-May-2011, 09:53
If I were a 35mm photographer, I wouldn't switch to digital for something that was critical to me. Take a look at the comparison these wedding photographers did. Do you like what you see? Or not?]

I just hung a show that was partially shot with a 5DMII-all handheld flat stitches resulting in files that were about 35MP. After really struggling to get the b&w conversions right on 25" wide prints, I have to say that they blew away anything I could do with 35mm film. At that size they are stunning. I personally wouldn't hang my hat on the work of wedding photographers.

They are all just tools.

Peter Gomena
6-May-2011, 10:01
Dollars and cents rule in my case. I can buy 5 years' worth of film and chemicals for much less than the cost of a good digital SLR. By the time I've used that much film, a digital camera, should I have bought one, would be obsolete.

My cameras, lenses, darkroom gear are all paid for. My only expense is film and processing chemicals. I scan and print digitally. My output of images is fairly small. The economics of the situation keep me in film. I do like my little Canon G12 as a pocket companion on LF shoots. It has the same aspect ratio as my whole-plate camera. 1:1 scans from the whole-plate camera blow me away. I'm 55 years old. I can buy and freeze enough film to last the rest of my life.

I frankly find digital photography frustrating in the field. Too many menus to pick through, too many decisions to make. I like the simplicity of focus, shutter speed, aperture setting, expose.

I rarely shoot 35mm any more, and my digital P&S camera fills what need I have for snapshots. It's amazingly versatile. I feel stupid putting it on a tripod, though. That's the place for a real camera.

Peter Gomena

rdenney
6-May-2011, 10:09
I frankly find digital photography frustrating in the field. Too many menus to pick through, too many decisions to make. I like the simplicity of focus, shutter speed, aperture setting, expose.

I agree in principle with your other observations, but I have to say that my Canon 5D can be used as simply as I want to use it. I can absolutely use it as a manual-focus, manual exposure camera. And I get to change film between individual shots.

For those who like Tokyo-by-night user interfaces, it can satisfy that itch, too. But it is most assuredly usable in the simple, old-fashioned way.

Rick "thinking a camera is obsolete only when the batteries are no longer available--which is indeed an issue" Denney

Ole Tjugen
6-May-2011, 10:20
Maybe when there is a 300Mp, 5x7" sensor that doesn't requiter a LOT of power supply, and can be used in single exposures? Ah humm - there is: Film.

ic-racer
6-May-2011, 10:26
Its like asking "when will you give up football and switch completely to baseball?" To me the question does not make any sense.

John Jarosz
6-May-2011, 10:40
When I can no longer lift the camera onto the tripod.

Ben Calwell
6-May-2011, 10:42
As many others have said, it's the process of using large format cameras that I like. I like composing on the big ground glass and working in the darkroom.
For me, digital, compared to film, is just too complicated. Too much mind-numbing technology that's forever changing.
I prefer the "vintage" process, because I feel as if I'm actually making something. I haven't turned everything over to a computer with a lens on it.
I certainly hope sheet film will be around for a long, long time.

engl
6-May-2011, 10:48
I'll abandon 4x5 film when I believe it can match the quality and features that I get with a 4x5 camera, for less than 1500$.

More specifically, that means:
1. About 80-100 megapixels (no AA filter).
2. Clean 5 minute exposures in hot weather.
3. Full front movements, axis tilt/swing.
4. A viewfinder that lets me confirm focus with tilts. I'd probably prefer a digital viewfinder, allowing me to zoom to check critical focus, while also avoiding all alignment issues between GG and film/sensor.

I'm not holding my breath...

New Hassel Man
6-May-2011, 10:56
For me it's only partially about quality. There is the whole process of shooting, and equally important, developing that I miss with digital, not to mention actually holding something!

Filling film holders, focusing and loading the camera, standing in a dark room for far too long with somewhat dangerous chemicals, coming out with a large negative that I can show off to people, and then making real prints is far too much to give up simply because technology has sort of caught up to the quality.

Oh come on now, spend way too much on a digital that is "almost" as good of quality and then go to one of these nice large print labs who don't use inkjet, I'm talking Chromira(just got done changing bleach and stabilizer in the one I run) and ask if you can hang for the day and do some printing. Then you get all the chemicals plus the high pitches of the computers, fans, rollers, elevators, beeps, pops, lights and the jams, the lovely jams. Now do all this after you've spent a few minutes or hours staring at the computer, because you want it to look like film, hopefully you shot RAW, because you want the QUALITY. Alot of money and in the end possibly more time just to create something that is "almost" as good as film. Shoot film, scan it Hi Resolution and send it to someone you trust to print it right, and keep doing it until they get it right. Of course if you have a dark room and it's set up, stay there, keep your soul, digital has very little soul, film is full of it.

Bruce Watson
6-May-2011, 11:22
"When will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?"

When the time is right.

Drew Wiley
6-May-2011, 11:26
When they pry the Ries tripod and Phillips 8x10 from my cold dead hands ....

paulr
6-May-2011, 11:26
Of course if you have a dark room and it's set up, stay there, keep your soul, digital has very little soul, film is full of it.

Oh come on, most people's souls are so f'ing ugly.
Don't show me yours and I won't show you mine.
I'll show you my inkjet prints, though. They look better than most of what I was able to do in ten years in the darkroom.

Drew Wiley
6-May-2011, 11:27
Sorry to hear about you darkroom skills, Paul

paulr
6-May-2011, 11:33
Drew, any time you're in NYC I'll show you prints and you can judge with your eyes instead of your assumptions. There are also a few to be found in the bay area.

Drew Wiley
6-May-2011, 11:57
I was just being mean and facetious, Paul ... inevitable cynicism in any of these redundant digital vs analog blurbs. I'm happy you found your niche and have no problem beliving you're getting excellent results. For me, however, an "upgrade" to
anything digital would be a big step backwards. It's not the look I want for my own prints, or the kind of workflow I enjoy. Some people never learn to play a guitar but
are good at piano. But it would be idiotic to call one better than the other just because it has a few of the latest tech patents appended to it.

Don Dudenbostel
6-May-2011, 11:57
I love my 5D II. Long term I intend to shoot with medium format digital on a 2x3 view camera. But will I give up large format? Of course not. Why should I? Why do these things have to be in competition with one another? Seems rather myopic IMO to assume that one sort of tool necessarily has to replace another.

Same here. I scaled down my LF and bought a new Hasselblad digital back and Technikardan 23 to use it on. I'll still shoot LF but less of it. I love the process and also like the control of the view camera. I'm neither new to film or digital. I've shot film for 50+ years and digital in my commercial work for 12. The quality is there now with digital and the blend of the view camera and digital is a natural for me. To me it's another tool to work with.

paulr
6-May-2011, 12:08
IIt's not the look I want for my own prints, or the kind of workflow I enjoy.

I think the workflow is the much greater distinction. I don't believe there's a digital "look" any more than there's an analog one ... both worlds encompass such a huge range of possibilities, most of which are unrealized.

When I'm comparing my digital prints to my analog prints, I'm really comparing one very specific example to another (this paper / chemistry / technique combination to that paper / ink / technique combination). The results really can't be generalized to other examples.

Don Dudenbostel
6-May-2011, 12:24
Maybe when there is a 300Mp, 5x7" sensor that doesn't requiter a LOT of power supply, and can be used in single exposures? Ah humm - there is: Film.

How large do you print? A 300 mp camera would produce a 900 meg 8 bit (1.8 gig in 16 bit) RGB file. My 39 mp back produces a 117 meg 8 bit file that prints with no interpolation to 18x24 inches at 300 dpi. Epson printers down sample to 240 dpi. If you print at the native 240 dpi the print is much larger. A 50 mp back has a native file size of 150 megs and prints 20x28 at 300 dpi. I bet most folks on this forum have the price or more incvested in LF gear and scanner. The price has come down quite a lot. The hasselblad CFV39 back is $13,995 and the cfv50 is $17,000. Lots of money but count up what you own and what it would cost to replace then throw in the amount of film you shoot with processing. Don't get me wrong I still ove and shoot film and don't think there is any nicer looking image than a fine silver gelatin B&W or platinum but for color I don't think digital can be beat.

I've been experimenting with making digital negs for platinum printing and had good success. I've also done it for silver gelatin printing with excellent results. My next step is to make digital negs from the digital back and make platinum and silver gelatin prints. I expect they will look great and most likely as good or better than original B&W negs.

Ari
6-May-2011, 12:25
I think the real news here is that most people on a Large Format Forum say they prefer film to digital.
Wake me up when it's over.

Jay DeFehr
6-May-2011, 12:30
Paul,

You make so much sense, so often, and the above is no exception.

Drew Wiley
6-May-2011, 12:36
I think we should start a parallel thread, "Why the hell switch to digital at all". In my
less than humble opinion, the "sweet spot" for digital capture is really in the medium
format realm (with or without view camera movement options), speaking quality-wise,
that is. It still can't compete with large format in many respects, and maybe never will.
And for large color work, it inherently bottlenecks with mandatory digital printing, which
just don't cut it yet for me. Add all those wasted dollars for early obsolescence, and
I really don't understand the appeal for a printmaker like me. If your output is for
publication, or you're in the studio doing commercial still-life, that's a different question. But large-format is mostly overkill for that kind of market anyway. Hopefully
things will improve, however, and they will design a reliable digital back with a large
opalescent upside-down image that look natural under a darkcloth.

Thebes
6-May-2011, 13:06
For utilitarian imaging I find my dSLR to be wonderful, quick, cheap to use, get to chimp and see if the scratch on that lens I am fleabaying shows well enough not to PO the buyer. Useful stuff.

For art though, I just don't feel it. The images don't have a soul. If I have a digital image with an excellent composition, I don't rejoice in it, rather I bemoan that I didn't get a nice film of it instead.

I guess I'd put myself into the cold dead hands category. If film becomes unavailable I'll shoot plates.

Don Dudenbostel
6-May-2011, 13:24
I don't feel the soul in a photograph comes from the camera, capture medium, lens or any hardware. I feel it comes from the photographer and if there's no soul then it's because I failed. I often get comments when people look at my images. One common one is "you must have a great camera to make pictures like that". Not to be smart about it but my response is " put my camera on a table and see what kind of pictures it makes".

I you're not making images with soul it's not the cameras fault.

I did a lot of soul searching when I decided to thin the film gear and get ineo MF digital. I decided the process isn't what it's about. It's about the final image not whether I got my hands wet in the darkroom or processed my images in a computer. I've used digital in my business for 11 years and made many excellent images on par with best I've done on film. I felt the joy wan't there but decided I had just as much enjoyment making images digitally as I did on film. I realized it was my attitude not the images. I considered the flexability I have with digital and the total control I now have vs film.

Ben Calwell
6-May-2011, 13:43
So far, Ari has given the best response to this question.

Thebes
6-May-2011, 14:08
I think, Don, that what you are calling a soul, and what I (and perhaps others) am, are two different things.

Perhaps part of this is my world view. I do not believe that we humans, as scientists and reasoners, have a full knowledge of the nature of the universe around us. In fact, I think that the world is probably an illusion formed by our imperfect perceptions, that matter is itself probably an illusion, that everything is vibrations existing along various planes and our senses put these together as best as they can into something we call physical reality. Some physicists and some pantheists believe time doesn't even exist and I am inclined to agree that even time might be an illusion. I think digital samples these vibrations and retells them, rather than imprinting a resonant slice of them. I think that film inherently imprints more than we can not discern with our senses, and I am choosing to label this "soul". Wood has more soul than plastic. Mountains have more soul than cities. Granite has more soul than concrete. You can label this superstition if you prefer.

I tend to find that more direct processes, like in camera images, have more of it. But contact prints have quite a lot, and enlargements still a fair amount of it. I see plenty of digital images that are good to the eyes, but they seem to ME to lack this resonant quality. At best they seem to be like replaying a recording rather than hearing an echo, and I don't want that for my art.

Ari
6-May-2011, 14:15
So far, Ari has given the best response to this question.

And you gave the second-best response :)

jon.oman
6-May-2011, 14:16
Nobody said when they stop making film

But we can always use wet plate, or coat our own glass dry plates!

Ivan J. Eberle
6-May-2011, 14:52
I could give it ALL up--anytime I want. Even digital. I just don't want to.

Drew Wiley
6-May-2011, 15:23
Well, even I have to admit how impressive all the new digital technology has become.
Although I'm not convinced about how ideal it is for color printing, I'm already beginning
to get the idea that within a decade or two, digital capture and output will be able to
produce work more realistically mimicking an 1890's albumen or platinum print, and with
maybe only a hundred times the gear expense. I call that real progress!!

Richard A Johnson
6-May-2011, 17:22
As posted earlier, "From my cold dead hands they'll be prying Film". As a matter fact, like the Pharrohs, I want my view cameras and film buried with me so I can photograph in the after life (smile) Richard

Robert Jonathan
6-May-2011, 19:00
I started with digital and *added* 4x5 and 8x10 to my arsenal.

I make 100% of my income with digital, because I do stock photography. You have to shoot digital to get images finished and uploaded quickly to the agency.

For my own projects, and things I feel are "special", I use LF film. I'm planning a portrait project right now that I feel will be best suited to 8x10, but it might get pretty expensive!

Most of our 4x5 cameras are protected from obsolescence anyway. You can adapt and/or use film, DSLRs, MF backs, scanning backs, future 6x7 and future 4x5 digital backs if the ever come out, and use super high quality digital lenses as well.

My 4x5 will never die, even if I stop shooting film with it.

jnantz
6-May-2011, 19:44
not sure ... but i have to learn how to "chimp" better
i shot a bunch of numeric-images tonight and i didn't chimp at all ...
it was like i was doing something wrong ..

rdenney
9-May-2011, 05:44
You can label this superstition if you prefer.

No, but it does seem appropriate that you live near Taos.

If all that we understand is mere illusion and perception (and it isn't an actual reality that we are perceiving), then our perceptions are the only things that have soul. What makes a mountain any less of an illusion than a city? It's made of the same stuff--our perceptions.

And if our perceptions define reality, then our definition of "soul" must also be a perception. In which case what you perceive as having more soul might be different from what I perceive as having more soul. Thus, it once again comes down to what you like versus what I like.

If you see a photograph of a mountain portrayed as having been made using film and enlarging paper, and admire it, feeling that it shows real soul, and then discover that you have been duped and it was actually made with a digital camera and an inkjet printer, does that remove its soul? Wasn't what you originally perceived as having soul still an undeniable part of your perception? What do you do if you don't know how it was made? Are you unable to appreciate a photograph for what it is without knowing how it was made?

If you insist that you can't be duped in that fashion, I would suggest that perhaps you already have been.

If photographs seem too glib or slick, perhaps it's because the photographer responds to the easiness of automated or digital processes by becoming lazy. Maybe the lack of soul is lack of passion and depth on the part of the photographer's vision. It used to be that lazy photographers never achieved the technical skill necessary to achieve those effects, and those who did were likely to carry that care to other aspects of how they choose their subjects. Maybe it's that commitment that results in better subject choice, composition, and tonal interpretation, that you perceive as having soul.

I have two bass tubas in F that I play with a brass quintet. One is perceived by many tuba players as having soul, and the other is not. The reasons are entirely physical--one makes it much easier to bend pitches. It also makes it easier to play out of tune, and thus is an instrument for tuba players who are more committed to learning the instrument. Is it the soul of the instrument, or the soul of the performer? Do I play the one with "less" soul in a way to imitate the one with "more" soul? No--that's why I have two. I play the one with "less" soul for music where precision is more important and where it's greater accuracy makes it easier for me to achieve that precision. So, does Bach (which demands greater precision) have less soul than Old Man River? If you say yes, it is only because of how you perceive the two, and thus your choice is guided by taste.

We might say that a synthesizer could program everything in tune automatically (though playing with the same pythagoran tuning as a live ensemble would require some effort), and even if it matches tuba sound, it might sound sterile. It would lack all the subtle changes of articulation, manipulations of pitch, and variations in dynamics and tempo played naturally by good musicians. But those effects are possible. The synthesizer makes basic technical achievement--pitch and rhythm--easy, and only highly committed synthesizer musicians would be able to achieve all those additional subtleties. They would clearly have to be quite musical to know what effects to program to provide a clear interpretation of a given piece of music. If one does that, will you notice less soul? Isn't the soul in question within the musician who knows which subtleties to apply in support of his artistic intentions?

Are we to the point of introducing noticeable flaws so that people will not accuse us of using digital processes, the way tailors pull the stitches a bit too tightly in a bespoke suit as evidence that it was hand-tailored?

Personally, I don't think photographs have soul, but their creators certainly do. And the good photographers are the ones who display their soul rather than merely their craft.

Rick "wondering why we expect digital photography to produce the same flaws we attempt to exploit in film photography" Denney

Steve Smith
9-May-2011, 06:30
Are we to the point of introducing noticeable flaws so that people will not accuse us of using digital processes

That's the way some drum machines and programmed drum sounds work.


Steve.

Michael Wynd
9-May-2011, 07:18
When I'm dead, and maybe not even then.
Mike

Preston
9-May-2011, 08:03
I'll give up LF when I'm too old and feeble, or when film and/or processing is no longer available, whichever comes first.

--P

Lynn Jones
9-May-2011, 09:40
For me it's only partially about quality. There is the whole process of shooting, and equally important, developing that I miss with digital, not to mention actually holding something!

Filling film holders, focusing and loading the camera, standing in a dark room for far too long with somewhat dangerous chemicals, coming out with a large negative that I can show off to people, and then making real prints is far too much to give up simply because technology has sort of caught up to the quality.

Not in my lifetime, however at my age that may not be too long.

Lynn

fenderfour
10-May-2011, 14:56
I just switched wholly to digital.

wait, actually I just bought two more LF cameras.

For me, it's not the huge negative and massive prints, or even the resulting image quality. I'm really drawn to the process of taking a picture with these cameras. Every step takes so much consideration; the time spent constructing the image leads to a better product.

Maybe I just need to break the light meter on my DSLR, tape a wet napkin over the LCD and bolt on a 10 pound barbell.

paulr
10-May-2011, 16:22
Maybe I just need to break the light meter on my DSLR, tape a wet napkin over the LCD and bolt on a 10 pound barbell.

You have the makings of a movement. All it needs is a manifesto.

Drew Wiley
10-May-2011, 16:26
Sounds like the "Pro" version of a Holga camera!

paulr
10-May-2011, 16:38
The guys with the 15 lb weights taped to their Holgas will feel so superior to the guys with just 10 lbs.

CCB
10-May-2011, 17:48
I'm waiting for the vade mecum plugin for PS.

All those famous lenses, all available to me.

Ed Richards
10-May-2011, 19:11
> Are we to the point of introducing noticeable flaws so that people will not accuse us of using digital processes?

I have the two classic Nikon fast lenses - 55 1.2 & 34 1.4 - complete with wonderful aberrations. They really take the digital edge off my D700.:-)

rdenney
11-May-2011, 00:32
> Are we to the point of introducing noticeable flaws so that people will not accuse us of using digital processes?

I have the two classic Nikon fast lenses - 55 1.2 & 34 1.4 - complete with wonderful aberrations. They really take the digital edge off my D700.:-)

Here are lenses I use frequently on my Canon 5D:

24mm TSE (manual focus)
90/2.5 Tamron SP Macro
105/2.5 Nikkor (vintage, with the battering to prove it)
135/3.5 Zeiss Jena Sonnar
180/2.8 Nikkor
300/4 Zeiss Jena Sonnar
500/4.5 Pentax Takumar

All of these will throw the 5D many generations into reverse in terms of automation. All require manual focus, and all but the 24 require stop-down metering. But it still works with all of them using the appropriate adapters.

Rick "who admittedly also has 24-105 and 70-200 Canon L lenses among others" Denney

Peter Gomena
11-May-2011, 08:45
Wow, lots of interesting discussion here. I don't find it to be a film/digital flogging session at all.

Re: Soul in pictures - cameras don't have souls, photographers do. It's all about individual vision and interpretation of a scene and how it is communicated to the viewer.

Re: cameras - I figure any new-to-me camera has built-in errors that need to be worked out over time. Once I've worked the mistakes out of a camera, I can hand it to someone else and he'll have to start over. Digital cameras have more built-in errors than film cameras. It's called "firmware". Firmware takes more initial work for the photographer to out-think than non-digital camera functions.

Re: Image quality - I haven't printed in a darkroom for several years. I scan film and print digitally. Image quality from a scanned whole-plate negative is vastly superior to image quality from a scanned 6x6cm negative or my 10MP snappycam. Even with my gimpy old scanner.

Re: Prints - I approach digital printing in exactly the same way I would approach darkroom printing in terms of rendering a final image. The computer just gives me more control and finer tools. At this point, I could not make a better print in a darkroom than I can with digital tools.

I see no improved quality in prints from my digital camera files over scans from smaller-format negatives. (My scanner is the equalizer here.) Large-format negatives give me noticeably better detail and resolution in my particular situation. I would buy a better scanner before I buy a better digital camera. Thus, I will stay with large format for some time.

Would I turn down the offer of a free 21mp SLR? No. My digital snappycam has shown me the versatility of a digital camera, especially in situations where I want to respond spontaneously. I'd still rather have the same shot on film.

Peter Gomena

Grif
11-May-2011, 13:40
As soon as my radios have computer tuning and no tubes. ;-)

And yes, I still do morse code. Film, tubes, 45's and 33 1/3's reel to reel,,, Oh, I do computers for a living.

I have two imaging hobbies,,, taking pictures and "photography". My digital is invaluable for shop projects, shopping for house stuff, sort of a visual note pad. Grandkids and so on. The photography hobby, well, Photography is like sailing a (real) boat. There are other better ways to get somewhere, but that's just "not" the point. It's a total mental break for me. Some folks will get the analogy with sailing. They likely already are happy with film ;-)

Robert Hall
11-May-2011, 14:58
--... ...--

K7qd

Discoman
13-May-2011, 15:18
when i give up all self respect and decide mainstream blandness constitutes fine art.
according to kenrockwell website, you need about 2 gigapixel bayer sensor to equal 4x5 film.
or I could pay a dollar or so a picture and not have to wait a couple decades for a poor digital version that muddies my artistic intent to become available.

Discoman
13-May-2011, 15:20
As soon as my radios have computer tuning and no tubes. ;-)

And yes, I still do morse code. Film, tubes, 45's and 33 1/3's reel to reel,,, Oh, I do computers for a living.

I have two imaging hobbies,,, taking pictures and "photography". My digital is invaluable for shop projects, shopping for house stuff, sort of a visual note pad. Grandkids and so on. The photography hobby, well, Photography is like sailing a (real) boat. There are other better ways to get somewhere, but that's just "not" the point. It's a total mental break for me. Some folks will get the analogy with sailing. They likely already are happy with film ;-)

kudos to that.
ah, tubes. they still have a nice, warm sound that digital just lacks. no wonder they still make brand new tube radios, record players, etc.
completely agree with your statement-digital is great to take pictures of something. stick them in a report, it's quick and convenient.
i'd say photography is more like building a wooden boat. it takes time, money, patience, and skill, but the end result is usually quite striking and one of a kind. it's also kinda zen just creating it.

Andrew O'Neill
13-May-2011, 15:29
Never. If film production stops, I'll make my own. I'm loving carbon transfer printing too much.

Fishjump
13-May-2011, 18:20
There's a place for both.....

Paul

Cornelius
26-Jul-2011, 01:03
Another post for never. If I can no longer get film I will switch to wet plate or some other method. That doesn't mean I don't shoot digital, but I don't enjoy it nearly as much. I work in LF for my enjoyment. :)

eddie
26-Jul-2011, 04:37
Another post for never. If I can no longer get film I will switch to wet plate or some other method. That doesn't mean I don't shoot digital, but I don't enjoy it nearly as much. I work in LF for my enjoyment. :)



+1

and i already shoot wet plate....:)

evan clarke
26-Jul-2011, 04:38
When they nail the lid on my box..went through the whole digital thing from 1998 until about 2005 and it wrecked the enjoyment.

Steve Smith
26-Jul-2011, 04:47
went through the whole digital thing from 1998 until about 2005 and it wrecked the enjoyment.

Me too. 2003 - 2005.


Stevbe

Steve Smith
26-Jul-2011, 04:51
[QUOTE=Ed Richards;724569I have the two classic Nikon fast lenses - 55 1.2 & 34 1.4 - complete with wonderful aberrations. They really take the digital edge off my D700.:-)[/QUOTE]

That might not be as daft as it seems (if that was the intention!).

I have lots of musician friends who all like to record their music. Most of them record digitally but will usually use a valve (tube) microphone pre-amplifier to warm up the sound (and old microphones). Some use valve pre-amplifiers which I have made. One of my friends does his final mix on an all valve mixing desk which I made for him.

I see an analogy here with the modern camera/old lens combination.


Steve.

Jim collum
26-Jul-2011, 04:58
Even when shooting with the Betterlight, I always have film holders with me. there's a different look to each, and I shoot depending on what i want with the final image. I'm finding it's a joy shooting old glass (leftovers from the Galli collection and such) with the Betterlight. I have a MBDB , with a technical camera and very good glass, but find much more character from the old.

there's been room for both... and will continue to be. Even though I have the digital, I'm starting to play around with wet plate.


all tools to an end

rdenney
26-Jul-2011, 05:27
I have lots of musician friends who all like to record their music. Most of them record digitally but will usually use a valve (tube) microphone pre-amplifier to warm up the sound (and old microphones). Some use valve pre-amplifiers which I have made. One of my friends does his final mix on an all valve mixing desk which I made for him.

I see an analogy here with the modern camera/old lens combination.

But take the analogy all the way. There is no question that those vacuum tubes apply non-linearities to the amplification process. The difference is that you and those of whom you speak happen to like the resulting distortions. That doesn't mean they aren't distortions, or that some other aesthetic might be undermined by them.

And that's even before we talk about the effects of those giant ferro-resonant transformers needed to provide the bias voltage on vacuum tubes.

Many of the complaints in this thread apply to modern equipment, not merely to digital equipment. High-end small-format cameras had long since gone to all electronic and fully automated technologies by the time digital image was practical. Instead of being opposed to the distortions caused by digital process (which are easy enough to alter to the common analog distortion so that any uncoached observer can't tell the difference), they seem to complain about cameras that use any electronics at all. My Pentax 6x7 is a bastion of traditional mechanical operation--or is it? Yup, it still requires a battery to time the shutter. And it's one reason that shutter is accurate after 30 years. And those who eschew cameras that require batteries seem not to mind meters that do.

One thing old lenses on digital cameras do is force us to abandon some of the automation, which slows us down. I have adapters for a range of different lenses for my Canon DSLR, and can mount lenses in the Pentacon 6 (including an adapter that provide tilt), M42, and Nikon F mounts. I must have dozens of lenses in those mounts. I can use them for a range of purposes, all of which require a slower, more considered approach. If that has an effect on the outcome, it's entirely because of what's going on between my ears. There are differences in bokeh between my old Nikkor 180/2.8ED and my older Carl Zeiss Jena 180/2.8 Sonnar, and the Nikkor is sharper generally, but it would take a coached eye to see the difference when used on a DSLR. I doubt any difference is visible between the old Nikkor and a new one at the same focal length and aperture.

Rick "who owns a couple of vacuum-tube amplifiers himself--RF amplifiers" Denney

Brian Ellis
26-Jul-2011, 05:51
I pretty much already have to a considerable extent though I plan to get back into 8x10 one of these days. However, that will be strictly for fun. For day in, day out photography digital has so many advantages that for me it's hard to get excited about film except for 8x10 which is such a pleasure to do. And of course printing in a darkroom is like something from the middle ages.

rdenney
26-Jul-2011, 06:47
Rick, you know many of us can shoot without meters if needed.

Let's see you do it not in bright sun, using Velvia.:D


Try explaining the 'sunny 16 rule' to some of the totally digital shooters today and look at the blank expressions you get. No different from some in years past - but the grounding in the basics seems to be missing more often now. Maybe it isn't, but it sure seems that way.

No doubt, and I always do a reality check in my head with Sunny 16 as the frame of reference. Of course, if Sunny 16 applied in all my work, I'd be using shutter speeds in the 30-125 range pretty much all the time. But I keep finding myself with shutter speeds in the 1/2 to 1-second range. I wonder why?

Of course, most even moderately advanced users with a digital camera can just make a provisional photo, check the histogram, and then know what exposure they need to capture just what they want to capture. And they'll probably take less time than I will with my Pentax spot meter.

Beginners struggle with technical stuff no matter what medium or format they use. Nothing new there.

Rick "whose subjects are often in varying degrees of shade" Denney

Frank Petronio
26-Jul-2011, 06:58
Over on the RFF they are arguing about the quality of the new Olympus 12mm f/2 lens for m4/3s digital cameras and one fellow commented that it was getting absurd to be splitting hairs over the lens quality when most of them were shooting 35mm Tri-X with $x000-plus Leica and Zeiss lenses and film bodies... while $150 digital small-sensor point & shoot compact camera has equal or superior image resolving capabilities.

At this point, it is simply fun to use film while we still can get it with relative ease.

Marko
26-Jul-2011, 07:00
Try explaining the 'sunny 16 rule' to some of the totally digital shooters today and look at the blank expressions you get. No different from some in years past - but the grounding in the basics seems to be missing more often now. Maybe it isn't, but it sure seems that way.

It surely can't be more complicated than saving files from Photoshop (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=75376)? Nevermind the file size (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=78746)... :D

Jack Dahlgren
26-Jul-2011, 11:17
Try explaining the 'sunny 16 rule' to some of the totally digital shooters today and look at the blank expressions you get. No different from some in years past - but the grounding in the basics seems to be missing more often now. Maybe it isn't, but it sure seems that way.

As long as the images look the way we want it doesn't really matter.

Different tools have different "basics". Determining exposure is no longer essential (hasn't been since cameras had meters built in a few decades ago) and is done better/faster by the camera than by humans. Not to mention that some of the new digital cameras can give good images with ISO's of 25,600.

There are new basics to photography - and some of the old-timers are unaware of them.

Robert Hughes
26-Jul-2011, 11:26
If I ever become allergically sensitive to photographic chemicals, then I would certainly give film up. But that hasn't happened yet, and I like the darkroom experience, and the negatives will last long after anybody I know will care - so what's the rush?

Besides, the film cameras I use don't rely on batteries. My digi p&s camera burns through a set of batteries in very short order. It doesn't matter how many megapixels that new camera won't expose when the thing refuses to run. But Mr. Denney beat me to that one, so never mind.

banjo
26-Jul-2011, 11:34
never in my life time I hope!!

Drew Wiley
26-Jul-2011, 11:35
Automated metering is just playing the odds about what some engineer thinks will statistically work for certain conditions. The camera doesn't think, and it can't replace the creative role of an actual photographer making conscious decisions about the exposure. I don't use automated metering for anything, even 35mm. And the less damn
redundant buttons and whirlygigs that have to be turned off in order to make a camera a basic tool rather than a complicated scifi overlord, the better. I'd rather be
taking pictures than reading through an owner's manual thicker than a phone book (for
those of you who still remember what a phone book was).

BradS
26-Jul-2011, 11:45
When will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?

I will never "go digital". I only do photography for fun and since there is nothing fun about shooting digital, I'll never "go digital".

If film becomes un-obtainable in my lifetime, I'll probably just find something else to do with my time and money...maybe, learn an alt process printing method. :)

Steve Smith
26-Jul-2011, 11:50
I have done it once.... then it was quickly undone!


Steve.

John Jarosz
26-Jul-2011, 11:56
Photography no longer is a unified seamless activity where everything has some relevance to other aspects within it. Maybe it was up until the end of the 70's but no longer.

These days photography is a matrix of niches that appeal to some people, but some of the niches have no appeal to others. Yet they all practice photography and have highly individualistic reasons for which niche they embrace.

One of my favorite concepts is that "There is always someone crazier than one's self". Meaning that no matter how esoteric are your activities (in this case with respect to photography), there is always someone doing crazier things in their quest for a photograph. In the 80's I was making silver internegatives so I could print carbon on commercial pigment tissue. Back then it certainly wasn't mainstream. It isn't mainstream now either, but at least there are larger numbers of people doing wet plate, or coating their own silver emulsions, or making carbon tissue or making final print paper with PT/PD emulsions. There may have been more people doing these activities back in the 80's but because all communication on these subjects were via printed page the knowledge of these activities was limited. Communication via forums allows all these little niche activities to exchange information more easily than in the past (narrowcasting as opposed to broadcasting). So the newest technology (internet forums) permits progress to be made in the more ancient technologies.

I'm not interested in learning to make digital ULF negatives to print, but neither are there many digital people willing to learn how to make silver internegs.

Traditional photographic processes are not going to die out and neither are digital processes. Some people always will be luddites and refuse to incorporate any new technology into historical processes. (Heck, there still are some people that make Daguerreotypes by fuming mercury). And there will be others who abandon all historical process in favor of new tech, or will incorporate whatever new technology they feel will help their historical process - all with the goal of producing a photograph to their own criteria of what constitutes a good photograph.

Getting off soapbox now......

E. von Hoegh
26-Jul-2011, 13:32
When they make a digicam capable of gigapixels and buttery smooth tonal range that looks and handles like a Deardorff or Linhof.

Seriously, if I was a pro, semi-pro, or just wanted to sell pics, I'd be digitised already. I have a little Sony digital, about the size of a deck of cards, that does a great job. Took some pictures of my neighbor's daughter's 21st birthday, they had the pics on their computer as soon as we could connect the USB cable. Can't do that with a Nikon F. :)

Ivan J. Eberle
26-Jul-2011, 14:14
I'll tell ya when: When they pry the Quickloads from my cold dead...

err...eh..umm... (cough, cough)

(Say, can you check back with me after a bit?)

Drew Wiley
26-Jul-2011, 15:50
I'm saving at least one unopened Quickload sleeve for the times-gone-by corner of my
film freezer, somewhere beside an unopened roll of 120 Kodachrome.

Shannon Wilkinson
26-Jul-2011, 18:43
That's funny to me becauseI have gone from 100% digital back to my roots and am once again in love with film. I shoot digital still because I think it has a place but I prefer to mostly film now hands down.

Shan

WalterE54
26-Jul-2011, 18:51
Really good posts, I am w/o a darkroom at this time, so no LF in a few years...work in digital at my job, but recently started shooting film in 35mm, for myself, which I never really did, and am loving the process of waiting on my color negs to get developed...when I get the darkroom up, I will continue to shoot 35 C-41, but will probably process it myself...plus, get back to the b&w LF, which I miss. I find digital too easy and the 'nightmare' of storage, backing up almost endlessly + keeping up with the best way is too time consuming...

Anders_HK
26-Jul-2011, 19:19
As advanced amateur, for landscapes I have maintained slide film alongside digital during the past 6 years. Following is my personal experience:

"When will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?" --- These are not two of the same. Digital can be large format whether it is using lens movements on a viewcamera or similar, a camera permitting shift but no tilt, or simply an Alpa TC that have no lens movements but a large format lens.

As for going complete digital, the corner stone has for me been the rendering of slide film and the pleasing colors of Fuji Velvia 50. That said, some weeks ago I sold my last boxes of film: 5 boxes of Velvia Quickload. It was frank unexpected that I would sell them and not impulsive.

Why? I recent upgraded digital back to Leaf Afi-II 12 80MP. However, please read me clear when I say that this is not a rage over the latest gear or fun tool. It is far from it. Digital is not new to me and I have prior had Leaf Aptus 65 digital back (3.5 years), Mamiya ZD (six months), Leica M8 (1 year), Nikon D200 (15 months), Nikon D50 (2 months). The Nikons were the worst per my impression. I did not like them. While the Leaf Aptus 65 impressed me, for landscape it still left something missing… something that could not fully replace the pleasing from film.

What the Leaf 80MP back has impressed me with is not the many pixels themselves, although they do help. What does impress is the fine gradation of colors, there are more colors, and colors are more correct and appear more pleasing than my prior 28MP back. There is also a wider dynamic range and which aids in the transitions to highlights, as well as in shadow detail. These are key things that I did not see before in digital, although my prior back was best I seen and beats any of the DSLRs out there in image quality, low ISO.

On a recent visit back home to Sweden in June I shot mostly Velvia 4x5 for landscapes on my Shen-Hao and tagged along my new Leaf on a Rolleiflex Hy6 camera and one 80mm normal lens for such captures about two times. Those captures were made right after I had visioned a scene and captured it on 4x5. When picking up the 4x5 from the lab they looked fine and correct exposed as I had envisioned, and some would perhaps be very proud of them. Yet, there was something missing to my eye; they failed to impress me in that they did not fully represent the scene as I had envisioned. Now part may be that my brain has become more digital and yearn for more control of the image than film will allow. However, on the very contrary the files from the Leaf left me with the complete opposite to the 4x5; I was able to process the files more per what I had envisioned and to render the scene as per my vision at capture.

I am not saying digital is better, because it is simply a tad different than film, and I do have a strong favor of landscapes shot well on Velvia 50. What I am saying is that this new tool (and that is all it is) enables me to extend my vision further than film and Velvia 50. In such means, frankly to point of that it has replaced Velvia.

In frankness I should also say that digital has been a rough and long road of learning (not only the $$$ in the list of gear above), but I feel as I have finally arrived at a point of having found what not only enables me to capture my vision but what extends my vision. It is as if it has put me flat back to photography and the image and which I believe is the key to photography. Somehow I had a feeling that this was in direction the new Leaf would be, but... not to point of selling my remaining boxes of Velvia 50, but surprise it did.

Fine, Hy6 is not large format, and therein lays a destiny of likely an Alpa STC for shift or fall/rise and panoramas once I dare to allocate such funds...

Regards
Anders

John Kasaian
26-Jul-2011, 21:01
When I stop enjoying it, of course!
BTW, there are light meters that don't require batteries ;)

JOneZero
26-Jul-2011, 21:20
For me it's just not possible to add a dark room to my home. Because of that I have used a hybrid "workflow" (if you will (I hate that word)) for the last few years. I use a lab for processing, and I scan the extremely few shots I like and send the files back out for printing. It works ok. But For the future, whether or not I continue with film will boil down to money.

I live in a remote area, and all my film has to be shipped in from the U.S. Some of the 120 too, because nobody here has the selection. Development of anything but 35mm C41 requires shipment to Wellington. I took a roll of B+W 120 up to the local lab and bless her heart the kid had no Earthly clue what to do with it. I had to explain what it even was, and that wasn't easy with my exotic American accent. In the end, they screwed up the processing, too. Now I don't trust them, so I ship the 120 out as well.

As it is, processing alone for my last batch came to $350. And after looking them over, I realized: Frankly, I'm just not that good at it to justify the cost. Add to this the ever-dwindling number of emulsions available, and well...Like I heard somebody on TV say: "Honey, I declare, you have the sweetest kisses I've ever tasted. But it's just not worth the pain." That's what I say to my Ebony almost every day.

So I'm trying to get through my last box of Astia Quickloads, and the last few sheet films I have. After that it's down to some roll film, and then....who knows. Yeah I can see going all digital in 2012, or at least eliminating sheet film. If I continue with film at all it will be strictly C41 in 35mm and 120. I might sell the Ebony and get an RZ67 or a panoramic camera of some kind. Maybe an XPan.

ic-racer
27-Jul-2011, 18:43
Not in this lifetime.

Professional
27-Jul-2011, 18:47
Before i go to read all the pages here, i have to add, that because of digital i started to shoot film, if i can remember very well then i started to shoot film just last year, happy to complete one year now, but this year only i just started to shoot LF, but only 5 sheets so far, so i hope soon by October or November maybe i will give LF more shoot, even i have 10-21mp and 60mp digital cameras it will not stop me from film for now, i feel in my part of world no place for film but i will have my experience and fun with film as well as others had.

Bottom line, i will give film if all films will disappear/discontinued from the whole markets in the world maybe, i pray this will never happen anytime in the future, i just started, hahahaha.

Professional
27-Jul-2011, 19:06
I want to add something, there are people on the other side [digital] that they will say they will never look back for films even after those years of film using, so if someone new to digital or film, which side or club he will join? and who is correct or wrong here?
I am happy that i am in both sides, hahahaha.

rdenney
28-Jul-2011, 06:18
I want to add something, there are people on the other side [digital] that they will say they will never look back for films even after those years of film using, so if someone new to digital or film, which side or club he will join? and who is correct or wrong here?
I am happy that i am in both sides, hahahaha.

Any time we make a distinction without articulating how we do photography, we are contributing to the noise of this issue.

I use both, and each fits a different set of circumstances. Sometimes, I need to throw a camera in my briefcase. The little Leica D-Lux is the perfect answer for that. It makes reasonable images when the only alternative is a cell phone. I've used it for work and for play.

When I'm traveling on vacation, I usually bring both my Canon 5D and my Pentax 6x7. The 5D acts like a Polaroid--except cheaper in the application. I use it for experimenting, and I can perform a lot of experiments in a hurry with the Canon. If something works, and if I have a lens that will work, I can then put it on film.

When I'm at home and using the large camera, I am in familiar surroundings and don't need that level of experimentation. I usually don't take the digital camera with me on excursions. But I have also made a Fujiroid image and then packed up the camera when I realized the image wasn't what I thought it was. Doing that with the Canon would have been cheaper.

We learn by attempting things and altering our approach based on the results. With a digital camera, we can attempt things and get that feedback instantly, and that reduces the learning cycle enormously. For someone already grounded in principles, a digital camera can provide a very intensive learning experience. Nearly all of that learning will translate to a large camera.

Many in this thread seem to think that camera automation precludes thinking on the part of the photographer. I don't get that. Cameras don't kill photographers, photographers kill photographers. A thinking approach to using a digital camera can reap large benefits even for large-format photographers.

Rick "thinking a digital camera provides the freedom to cheaply explore dumb ideas" Denney

Jeremy Moore
28-Jul-2011, 06:39
Many in this thread seem to think that camera automation precludes thinking on the part of the photographer. I don't get that. Cameras don't kill photographers, photographers kill photographers. A thinking approach to using a digital camera can reap large benefits even for large-format photographers.

Rick "thinking a digital camera provides the freedom to cheaply explore dumb ideas" Denney

well said, Rick.

Steve Smith
28-Jul-2011, 06:50
When will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?

The question implies a pre-determined eventuality. It should ask: Will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?


Steve.

jwanerman
28-Jul-2011, 07:07
I'll die grasping a grafmatic.

rdenney
28-Jul-2011, 07:51
The question implies a pre-determined eventuality. It should ask: Will you give up large format and switch completely to digital?

Even that is a strawman. It is possible (though expensive and restrictive) to do large fomat using digital capture devices. That possibility may expand in the future. Many of us hope so.

I think it's a safe assumption that for those who choose to do color, or who lack the capability to coat their own emulsions (which is really a hobby in and of itself), switching to digital is indeed an eventuality, assuming they don't die first.

That Grafmatic being clutched by the poster after you in the thread may, after all, be empty.

It is also a valid question, despite all the rhetoric associated with it. How much should one invest in large-format film photography? The return on that investment may have to be positive in a shorter time than people hoped for. Or maybe not--we really don't know.

One thing I do know is something I learned from a retired colleague years ago. I was huffing and puffing about ill-advised changes at the agency where I worked, and he told me, "If you lay down an ultimatum, you'd better have one foot on the train." Those who assert that they will never, ever, ever, ever, switch to digital photography may find their resolve put to the test before they hoped.

Rick "who has invested a lot in film photography and hopes it stays available for a long, long time" Denney

Steve Smith
28-Jul-2011, 08:16
Those who assert that they will never, ever, ever, ever, switch to digital photography may find their resolve put to the test before they hoped.

I did switch once.... then I switched back again.


Steve.

Ken Lee
28-Jul-2011, 08:54
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" - Another question with an implied assumption of fact. :)

Ari
29-Jul-2011, 11:33
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" - Another question with an implied assumption of fact. :)

Or, "How many will you be buying?".
Better still, Stephen Colbert asking a sincere, hard-working politician "Why do you hate America?"

Drew Wiley
29-Jul-2011, 12:33
I get off the freeway after work. Go in the dkrm and clean a LF neg, focus etc. Mix up
the RA4 and get the water tempering box going. Wheel my drum processor outside and
hook it up to the drain. Expose a test strip. Dry it. Print the full 20x24. Sound like a hassle? I'm done in time for the evening news. Why would I want to spend way more
time and money to scan and print the damn thing digitally? You call that progress?

Matus Kalisky
29-Jul-2011, 12:41
I am shooting 4x5" just because I enjoy the process. And I would only give it up if the time, finances or availability of film and chemicals would get short. Time is a bit of issue recently, but I have hopes for improvements in the future. And I would like to try some darkroom printing other than just contact prints at some point.

Marko
29-Jul-2011, 19:47
What's "evening news"?

Adamphotoman
1-Aug-2011, 06:29
I spent 30 years making my living in the darkroom. My dark area was 500 Sq feet. I think that there is a place for both. However, I stopped the darkroom work about 6 years ago when I bought the scanning back.I still get to work 4X5 but not the larger gear.
Grant

luis a de santos
1-Aug-2011, 11:46
So what is the point on this question?

Corran
1-Aug-2011, 12:12
My first real camera was a DSLR. I got interested in film so I got an old 35mm...then a Pentax 67, and finally 4x5.

I don't think I'd shoot film except that it offers some things that I can't get with my D700. One thing is lots of resolution. Also, real b&w is different than digital, and the "look" of film is subtley different (as is the DOF). It is also a different experience. Anything I do that is "paid" work is almost universally on digital. Shooting on film is usually an "extra" or "bonus," it's never requested. But I am not a big-time pro.

I don't buy the analogy about analog music tech. What I really am is a recording engineer, not a photographer. I had a love affair with tape and other analog gear but these days NONE of that is used. Tubes (toobz) are just a different kind of amplification, I prefer not to bother. I don't touch tape. The audio fidelity loss with some of these devices are in my opinion detrimental. And frankly, "preferring" old analog audio gear is a placebo affect, nothing more. If anything the "distortion" is not enough to notice or if it is it is an effect used just like reverb or chorus.

Every "digital" system still uses analog components. A microphone is an analog device, period. The difference in photography is that the "end product" (the photo) can still be easily taken on an analog medium, and is presented in an analog way (the print). In comparison, audio nowadays is almost universally consumed digitally (rare vinyl pressings not withstanding, and I guarantee it was still edited digitally).

Robert Hughes
3-Aug-2011, 07:12
I don't buy the analogy about analog music tech....rare vinyl pressings not withstanding, and I guarantee it was still edited digitally.
Horses for courses, as they say... my last vinyl project (last year) was analog everything except for the digital reverbs.

Corran
3-Aug-2011, 07:32
I'm not sure how you are proving a point when you still used some digital reverb. I mean, even if it wasn't a lot, you've still ended up using digital in some way.

Your "vinyl project," was this a major release?

Caivman
3-Aug-2011, 08:12
When digital 4x5 backs get cheaper.

Then i'll give up my film.

Lynn Jones
3-Aug-2011, 12:44
Never completely, although I'm about 95% digital now(especially since I teach photography which has been 100 % digi for the last 6 or so years), however, it is almost impossible not to use the view camera for landscape and architecture.

Lynn