I stick with film, because I don't consider digital good enough to switch.
I stick with film, because I don't consider digital good enough to switch.
Robert, that is a meaningless statement unless you qualify what type of photography you do. I looked at your website and I can see you do landscapes. I too, would choose large format film for such photos. But for photographing people in natural lighting and circumstances, where high iso, low grain, fast lenses and mobility are needed, a DSLR is superior to film IMO. I can say that because I shoot film for 30 plus years under those conditions with Nikons and good lenses. I now prefer to shoot a DSLR with the same lenses to get the best of both worlds. I don't think you can just make a blanket statement any longer about the superiority of film over digital.
Steve, you are welcome to your opinion, as I am to mine.
FWIW:
http://www.nicoleboenigmcgrade.com/
http://www.cheryljacobsphotography.com/
http://www.michaelmcblane.com/
Last edited by roteague; 30-Jul-2006 at 11:28.
large format film will continue to have an edge in quality for many years to come. Manufacturers have placed their bet: the largest sensors are going to be for 645 cameras (currently 36mmx48mm max) -- there likely will not be a 6x7 or 6x8 sensor anytime soon, if ever (how sad). And other than scanning backs, you can forget about ever seeing 4x5 or larger digital backs. The reason is simple economics: the commercial photographers with today's 22/31/39 megapixel equipment can deliver more than their customers need. Whether a fashion photographer or wedding photographer or studio photographer, today's digital equipment is simply "good enough" for commercial work. There is no economic pressure to deliver more.
The trouble is art photographers in years past used to use the same equipment and technology as their commercial pro brethren. There was a happy synergy and economics of scale that produced a reasonably priced art medium that could do double duty. In effect, commercial photographers were subsidizing art photographers indirectly. For many years this was a win win situation. That has forever changed.
Now that commercial photogs have gone over to "the dark side" the economics no longer work for the big manufacturers (film or cameras, but particularly true of medium format). So the old manufacturers rightly chase their profits and digital is delivering those profits and sales beyond their wildest dreams. That may or may not last (particularly as digital becomes more and more commoditized), but that fate will not affect large format photographers at all. Market forces are already at work that are changing the landscape of our large-format world. To wit:
#1 -- the Chinese (and other home-grown entities) are manufacturing film and medium/large format cameras and accessories that will eventually equal and/or exceed the quality we have come to expect. This is an exciting development. Of particular interest is the phenomenon of low-cost compter-controlled milling machines that can manufacture one-off customizations and accessories never before possible. (think SK Grimes and Kirk and RRS for example)
#2. Consolidation -- the old manufacturers are indeed profit motivated. But they are not stupid. They are not about to leave any money on the table. As a result, we are seeing the effective end of commercial E-6 and the "standardization" of C-41 as the primary commercial film processing/film media. This is not necessarily such a bad thing since it suggest a long-term commitment to C-41 compatible films going forward. Perhaps we will even see a C-41 color negative film without the orange mask!! (hey, why not? After all, there exist B&W C-41 films) In other words, there is no evidence at all the C-41 films or processing is going away any time soon. The same cannot be said of commercial E-6 though unfortunately.
My take: these are exciting times. Perhaps the best ever to be a large-format photographer. Yes you will need to change, but when has that ever not been true with photography?
J Michael Sullivan
Editor/Publisher, MAGNAchrom
www.magnachrom.com
Last edited by MJSfoto1956; 30-Jul-2006 at 12:34.
I have a product in mind.
It looks like a 545 Polaroid Back, sticks in any 4X5 view camera and runs on two (4 or 6 ok too) AA batteries.
It it makes 300 mb color scans in 15 secs. with light levels found in normal indoor environments
and is sensitive to 10 zones of light or so.
It costs $1,000 and the pictures end up on an SD_card.
No computer involved. Unless of course you want to see how your focus was after the fact.
What kind of dent would a tool like this make in large format film sales?
Whatever happened to Baldwin anyway? Is Kodak (Fuji) the next Baldwin? Does it matter?
K
What happened to Baldwin... here's the story. Lower production (can't compete with the digital pianos and Chinese knock-offs), higher cost, and smaller distribution network. Like Baldwin Locomotive Work's adaptation to changing technology, so has Baldwin Piano adapted too.
Baldwin Piano Information
Baldwin Piano Company is going through a renaissance phase. Production on the Baldwin artist pianos have been cut drastically to improve quality control and to directly compete with Steinway & Son. Baldwin has cut their retail distribution from over 300 dealers to 90 select dealers across the country.
They have revamped how the pianos are being built.. Like Steinway pianos Baldwin used to use an assembly line approach to building the pianos without much synergy or connection from beginning to end (except in the very limited production concert and semi-concert grands). Now Baldwin is using a "ground up" approach to each and every artist grand built. The same team of technicians builds a piano from the ground up and knows every particular item in each individual piano in order to create a better sounding piano with much improved quality control.
Baldwin is now using certain patents previously only available on the concert 9' sd-10 on all of their artist grands as well as many of their verticals. Including the Synchro-Tone String, and the Accu-Just Hitch Pin.
Every Baldwin artist grand piano now leaves the factory with a letter from the President of Baldwin Piano that he personally inspected the piano before it left the factory and it meets or exceeds the highest of standards.
Baldwin is actively replacing many Steinway pianos in performance venues as well as other brands. Baldwin has always been the choice of the consument concert performer as well as the seasoned Jazz player. Many artists are switching over to the Baldwin piano. Click here for Baldwin's artist roster.
They are also raising their prices dramatically to cover the additional costs of building a world class high performance piano with many advantages of the still more expensive steinway piano.
If you are looking to buy an undervalued high performance piano, you should seriously consider the new Baldwin artist series of pianos.
Thanks to Wagner for his comments from Brazil. I would like to ask other members living in countries other than Japan/Europe/US/Canada to comment, as their point of view is crucial to this discussion and relatively rare.
My opinion is that in a short number of years Joe and Joan Sixpack will only be shooting with their phones, and never printing anything, as snapshot imagery will become entirely electronic and much more disposable. At the high end (technologically speaking), tabletop photography for advertizing will be replaced by computer graphics, with images being built instead of recorded.
I suspect that the cleavage of "commercial" photography away from film photography is hardly the death knell of film photography - in fact, it could be a boon! It means that film photography will develop and grow as a field unto itself and the mass ease/availability of electronic picture-making will foster a greater appreciation for the craft of film photography rather than detract from it. Film photography, already somewhat viewed as an expensive specialized art form (aka elitist), will be viewed as more so - and the reduction in the ease/availability of entering into the field of film photography which will result from the end of the 35mm snapshot cameras will drive up the prices for "real" photographs too. Demand for artistic photography, rather than going down, will go up as more people come to see the intrinsic value of film photography over mass digital photography. in fact, digital photography will be a doorway to introducing more people to film photography!
So, the remaining question is whether anyone will still make film, paper and chemicals. I suspect yes since the demand for film photographs will continue (see above). It may be that the "Big guys" like Kodak etc sell off their plants to smaller outfits, which produce smaller batches of film etc, resulting in higher costs for the film etc. (which will itself make film photography even more elitist and thus even more in demand)
I suspect that the biggest investment in running a film-making factory are the machinery. Kodak isn't just going to scrap those - they'll sell them to another company that is going to use them to continue making film.
Now, what happens to the price of silver is another issue!
Last edited by cyrus; 30-Jul-2006 at 21:56.
But are we considering artistic film photography as against mass digital photography and if so should we be? Artistic photographers are going to embrace digital as enthusiastically as anyone - innovative artists in all media always have been keen to turn to artistic use the best resources available at the time. The ease with which photographs in digital storage can be manipulated, retouched or just cleaned up commends the medium to the avant garde. It permits artist photographers to devote more of their time to artististic considerations and spend less time bogged down in the mechanics of the process. Film will continue to be used as "best" if and so long as it can keep ahead in the as regards image quality: and, with artist photographers especially, the case will be progressively more and more one of "keeping the best for last" i.e. last resort.Originally Posted by cyrus
It might be in the commercial field that photographers will in fact continue to be able to persevere with film photography longer by persuading their clients to pay for it. It is on the artist photographer that the squeeze will be tightest. The commercial and artist photographer might be one and the same person - using film for a client who pays for it and pursuing his artistic aspirations as he can with what he can pay for himself. If he is gifted he will no doubt achieve something anyway - that is what being an artist, as distinct from a mere artisan or craftsman, means - but he will not choose to use less than the best available to him.
I get the impression that a considerable proportion of LF afficionados are digitising their LF images via scanners in preference to printing photographically in the darkroom so even the LF boys, many of them, are already dependant on digital photography - and demonstrating what I have said above: that they want to exploit the latest facilities available.
Apart from image quality the only really decisive consideration in favour of keeping LF film photography alive as a practical commercial and artistic option is the tilt/swing facility. This requires an adequate viewing facility. If the 36x48mm format mentioned elsewhere under this thread yields adequate image quality, provision of the tilt/swing movements for the lens would not not have to wait on any new discovery or invention. It would be just a design matter. Medium film format lens designs are available and less expensive to make than large film format. 36x48 might be considered large format in digital terms and used much the same way as 4"x5" or larger film formats. It is not the size of the recording format which is definitive here but the viewing facility - and remember: with digital there is no intrinsic reason why the viewing screen has to be physically in the same housing as the lens. I can picture a compact housing for lens and computer on a handy light-weight tripod with the photographer comfortably seated nearby operating this set-up by reference to a monitor of generous size in his lap, using a remote control. And I should like to think that the photographer would be an artist.
Before you throw up your hands in horror at this repellant scenario just consider whether this is not in principle the same as what the majority of LF format practitioners are already doing as soon as they have an image fixed on film. If its OK for the print why not for the negative?
Oh and BTW, increases in costs would certainly make film photography more elitist and, very likely, help prolong its life as an elitist thing but demand overall may be expected to contract rather than expand. That is what it means to say that something has become elitist.
Last edited by Kendrick Pereira; 31-Jul-2006 at 03:50.
Robert,
Your posted links have nothing to do with Steve's comments. As he said, in low light situations (not controlled studio lighting like your link samples) where low noise and high iso is needed, along with mobility, a DSLR is a better option. This isn't open to opinion....the DSLR will offer better noise at 1600 iso than a 35mm can at 400.
Opinion won't change this fact.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks