Josh: I agree that nothing touches a good fiber based B&W print... but all of the B&W people using digital that I have talked to are using digital to make new (improved?) negatives... then printing these negatives with traditional methods.
Josh: I agree that nothing touches a good fiber based B&W print... but all of the B&W people using digital that I have talked to are using digital to make new (improved?) negatives... then printing these negatives with traditional methods.
After forsaking it for three years (when I got computerized!) I recently packed all my lab into a container and I am just thinking will I ever use it again? The tiny hope I have is about t he uncertain and not yet heard of coming of an affordable digital light printer. Ten years ago high quality ink jet was achieved on Iris printers costing a fortune. Now a small Epson produces amazing quality prints. O f course, the photographic market is much more confined, and if ever a small "digital enlarger " was made, it certainly would cost something. But then I would perhaps take my Ilford CAP 40 out of the box again! Will photographic paper survive however? And will I be willing to manipulate the stin ky chemicals again? A CD-Rom is such a nice thing to handle to the service bureau's staff!
sorry got sidetracked for a week, yes BobS...I'm sorry I wasn't more precise by "slow". Exposure times was what I was referring to. I know just how fast it is to skip the processing and or printing of trad films....but I can't justify spending $10k to $20k on a back that will force me to use exposure times in minutes or half-hours. Not here in Oklahoma with a more or less constant 60 mph wind. Besides, I actually like soaking my fingers in trays.... and I look forward to printing too. I do believe technology will one day bear a credit card sized camera that can shoot in near total darkness with the resolution of a 8x view camera. Hell, I'd take one roughly the size of my MF cams but not if it's slow....or sloppy. I'll buy one when that day comes, I'm not a technophobe or I wouldn't be here. I just won't settle for anything less for more money. So I'll wait and shoot 3200 speed films in the mean time and sweat fix out of my pores.
If check the numbers carefully you will find that 4*5 digital is extremely expensive. Check out the prices for a drum scan of a 4*5 Tmax 100 negative down to grain level, or the price of a 16*20 digital output print, or the price of a archival ink set for digital printer. Thinking about a digital back? That amount of money will buy you 1000 boxes of Tmax film. Unless you are doing volume or need the advantage of speed it is hard to make an argument that digital is for the average large format photographer. I do not deny the advantages (potential for manipulation, flexibility, portability, repair etc) that digital gives, but at what cost. As for film, not to worry, as long as there are undeveloped nations that can not afford digital cameras there will be film.
Expensive today. But tomorrow? I would not be suprised if large format dissappeared at some time in the future, as resolution gets better and better. The future will probably see very small imaging devices, and the shorter FL lenses that will go with them will have extreme DOF. There may still be a market for cameras with movements, but the size will probably go down. As far as supporting the needs of undeveloped nations, I dont know if that is high on the corporate list.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks