digital backs

**Ted Harris** · 18-Apr-2006, 07:04

Frank, I totally agree. I would never suggest "a generic drun scan" and in fact actively discourage folks from just sending trannies off to be scanned without knowing anything about the lab in question or the operator. The operator is key, I have seen horrible scans done on very expensive scanners simply because the operator didn't have a clue. In fact, for one of our scanning articles, I asked a commercial lab that I used to work with to do a scan for us and the operator didn't reallllllly know how to use the software (one of several reasons I don't use that lab anymore).

Secondly, labs generally charge by the megabyte and seldom delvier a full resolution scan .... they just scan for what you/they think is need for your maximum size print. Silly in many ways when you consider that the prep time to get ready to do a 4000 spi or 8000 spi scan is no different than tht for a 1200 spi scan. It's a whole different story if you are doing it yourself. I'm no tsuggesting a lab, I am sugesting that the tradeoffs between ownership of a digital back and ownership of a higher end scanner ... say from an Imacon on up .... are worth examining.

**Kirk Gittings** · 18-Apr-2006, 09:03

"The real world difference between an Imacon and a "top end scanner" has never been tested or proven to me. I've learned enough techniques - from combining multiple scans and making other adjustments - with my 4990 and Imacon scans -- that the notion of sending film off to be generically drum scanned by an operator who doesn't see what I see hardly makes sense to me."

My sentiments exactly. Most times I get exactly what I need from my 4990 or 1800f. When I know that I will be printing large, I rent time on a local 949 Imacon and scan it myself. I have always found that since learning basic scanning techniques that I can get better scans for my purposes by doing it myself than paying someone else to do it.

**Kirk Gittings** · 18-Apr-2006, 10:06

And Frank, here are a couple of guys who just manage to be the leading archtectural photographers in the world shooting film and scannning it.

And Walter, while it is true that most architecture clients want files, you don't have to shoot digital to deliver that. And actually the magazines do define success and the leading edge in architectural photography. All of the big name arch photographers are defined by their magazine work. Too suggest otherwise is naive. For clients like design professsionals it is all about PR and that primarily comes through design magazines. Yes you could do AP and never work for an architect, interior designer or shelter magazine, but it would be extremely abnormal and those that do probably consider themselves advertising photographers who shoot some architecture.

**Kirk Gittings** · 18-Apr-2006, 10:11

Sorry

www.hedrichblessing.com/

**Frank Petronio** · 18-Apr-2006, 11:01

Kirk, Hedrich Blessing is great. They also aren't competing for jobs in the same market. Nobody who hires Hedrich Blessing cares about the cost of film, or scans, or digital backs -- they simply want an excellent shot and HB delivers. Also, it looks like they are doing more advertising than they did in the old days -- and ad agencies don't really worry about the expense either.

I hardly think they are competing against the quick and dirty DSLR photographers that are undercutting middle of the curve architectural photographers...

(I know everyone, even HB, worries about the expense but it is still a lessor factor with their regard.)

**Kirk Gittings** · 18-Apr-2006, 12:16

Frank the guy you showed is not competing with the quick and dirty slr guys either. So what is your point.

Hedrich-Blessing has always done advertising going back to the 30's. Their overwhelming mainstay now as then is architects and architecture magazines.

**Frank Petronio** · 18-Apr-2006, 12:29

Simon's original question was "clients are increasingly refusing to pay for scanning and in some cases film" and "Have I got it all wrong can digital be better for architectue? If any of you guys are shooting on digital what do you use and how does it compare?"

So if HB uses film and scans, God bless them. My point is their clients don't care. But Simon's clients obviously do care.

The higher end clients don't care whether the image is from a film or digital source so long as the photographer delivers a good file in the end. Tim Griffiths is high end and uses digital; HB uses film.

But on the middle market level, guys like Simon are getting kicked by the digital guys, so maybe Simon has to either go digital for his level of clients; AND/OR find higher end clients -- stealing jobs from Griffiths and HB ;-)

**Kirk Gittings** · 18-Apr-2006, 20:18

There have always been and will always be low end people crashing the market for experienced professionals. Before it was 35mm shooters. Now it is digital SLR shooters. The problem is exactly the same, performing at a higher level to justify better fees and educating the client. What has changed?