Stephen Johnson's 'The Parks Project' - Is this a glimpse of the future for LF?

**Peter Brown** · 23-Jan-2002, 19:04

That's not relevant to my question Dan.

See my last reply, ten posts above:

[snip]. . . .I'm sorry, but I think some of you are misunderstanding my question. In my original question I asked; "I'm wondering what you all think of this concept and whether this is what the future holds for LF photography, albeit in a more compact and easier to handle setup."

Note that I said " . . .the future . . ." and ". . . in a more compact and easie r to handle setup." - NOT with the current technology and equipment available. . . . .etc, etc, etc. [snip]

With respect

**Jim collum** · 22-Mar-2002, 05:27

I've seen the prints in his gallery, and i've seen the Better Light back at work. I'm not sure where the 30 minute exposure time came from. Exposures range from 60 seconds to a couple of minutes.

I've seen prints from drum scanned 4x5 chromes compared to the output from the Better Light. You'd be closer if you compared the Better Light to an 8x10 chrome.. The Better Light output is significantly better than the 4x5 scan, as well as a 4x5 enlarged print (analog). The other major difference is that the Better Light back will capture 11-14 stops of light. What's impressive about his prints in a gallery, is that there's a hyper realism about them. There's no color bias due to a particular film, and you have the entire range of light that you see when you take the image.

I'll agree that movement is an issue.. wind, moving water, and such is not a good thing. the resulting artifacts are very unusual.

**Bill_1856** · 22-Mar-2002, 07:32

Who's paying for this?

**Jim collum** · 22-Mar-2002, 11:18

that depends. I bought a Nikon D1x at $5200 when they first came out, and it's already paid for itself in film and processing alone (within the first 7 months). With just Provia readyloads and processing, you pay for it after about 2-3000 exposures. That's not figureing scans in if you're printing digitally. If fits your subject/shooting style, and the business model is there, then it's just a matter of coming up with the $15,000 up front instead of paying it out in film/processing over time. I don't think it's for everybody. but I know 35mm photographers who don't understand why people lug around big view cameras all over the wilderness either.

**Steve Gangi** · 23-Mar-2002, 13:18

To get back on topic, I don't see this as the future at all, but just another choice or option. Right now, film is far more affordable and more portable. All you need is the camera, tripod, film, and holders. No need to carry a CPU, monitor, cables, scanning or one- shot back, batteries, etc. For the professional who shoots products or portraits for a client, digital is useful. For the amateur walking or driving in the woods and shooting a lot fewer photos per year, it is not very appealing. The prices (for an amateur) are even less appealing. Professionals can write off the price as a business expense, write off the depreciation, etc. An amateur or casual photographer can not. Photography did not kill off painting or sculpture, color did not kill black and white, digital will not kill film.

**Jim collum** · 25-Mar-2002, 19:50

I agree. Some of the areas where this back would not work well is with water, or very windy days with things moving. But there's nothing stopping me from carrying along film holders, or ReadyLoads to take care of those situations.. just as I might take along a 35mm to deal with wildlife or extensive zoom situations.