Why digital?

[Carl Weese]

As several people have hinted, the reasons for digital in something like high volume catalog work is that the computer and digital scanning setup replaces not only Polaroid tests, film, and processing, but more importantly, also color separation costs. This brings a profit center into the commercial studio that used to support an entire different operation. Downside is that to go this course the studio operation has to do an enormous volume of work to amortize the equipment before it is obsolete. But despite this it brings down the client's cost for photography/separations. At risk of being unkind, this sort of high-volume studio work is exactly the sort of thing that is going to be 'run of the mill' more or less by defa

[Pookie]

Paul:

If I buy a $25k system next year, chances are the same thing may sell for $12.5K in 18 months and there will be something twice as nice, and twice as fast in 18 months for the same $25K, but that does not mean I have to buy it.

It ( digital system) is just a tool, like anything else.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I am one of those that have invested close to 25K in digital equpment. Mostly due to a pressure from clients. You charge the same for the jobs but you save on material and processsing costs and the client saves on pre press costs. The great advantage is that you stop shooting as soon as you know the job is done and then move on to the next . But I still like film better. There is no magic in digital photograpy. It is as sex must be in a bordello; cheap, easy and fills you with guilt!

[Per Volquartz]

Its all about choice!

Graphic designers never wanted to become typesetters or run a desk top publishing company. Yet that is exactly what most designer have done today to bring food on the table.

In my opinion most photographers really want to create images. Unfortunately, pressure from clients, manufacturers and competitors have forced many to jump in with both feet first, investing large amounts of money in high volume digital imaging equipment. This money has to be earned back within a short time frame due to the constant product updates and new innovations. Therefore, many photographers are becoming color separators and production houses.

In L.A. roughly 10% of commercial photographers do 90% of the work. The pressure is on...

The future will probably see art directors doing a large percentage of commercial photography using inexpensive high quality digital cameras, leaving many commercial photographers with large loans and cash outlays, floundering...until then there will be some commercial photographers making small fortunes...that is probably what drives the market...

The other camp will be made up of photographers using whatever medium it takes to create personal imagery. Digital, regular photography, holography or large format film based imaging...etc...

[Henry Ambrose]

I was a very early adopter of digital for commercial use, starting about 1991 or 92. Over the years going through several different set-ups I spent a ton of mo ney and now my last digital studio camera is broken and can't be repaired. I mad e some money with it surely, but keep in mind that if you buy an expensive digit al camera that in a few years time it will be worthless and probably not repaira ble if it breaks. So be sure to amortize its cost rapidly, like one or two years . Digital makes good sense for commercial uses as several have stated already. I t is faster and cheaper than film in a production setting. But if you don't need it for a business reason why throw your money away?

[Andre Noble]

Paul, I've been looking at film scanners, and for us large format shooters, there's really nothing out there to get excited about yet. (In terms of capabilities or cost). It will be 2-3 years for a resolution of 5,000 x 5,000 and Dmax 4.(high), etc. sheet film scanner, and another 3 years for the price of such an item to be less than the cost of an Omega or Besseler 4x5 Dichroic enlarger.

[Stpephen Willlard]

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you scan film, then there are no film savings. Furthermore, if you scan film then digital is reduced to second generation second rate stuff.

Okay now suppose I go out and spend big dollars for a 4x5 digital back (cannot get one for my 4x10 back and only God knows how much an 8x10 back would cost) so that I can eliminate film to make a first generation digital image. Can anyone tell me of a reliable portable system that will work for 10 days at 10k feet in the Colorado Rockies in rain, snow, dust, and intense solar radiation? Remember there is no power outlets in those remote areas.

Furthermore, I have been told from a big digital lab they need about 40 mgbs for each square foot of print to compete with film. For a 20x24 print that is 133 mgbs. For a 30x40 print it is 333 mgbs, and for 40x50 we have 0.5 gig. Generating lots of 0.5 gig files in the field is not practical, and I suspect the same holds for processing a 0.5 gig file in photoshop.

Choice! Hmmm... For me this has been a very easy one to make.

[paul owen]

I feel I need to clarify a point in my original posting! I should have emphasised the fact that my REAL problem was that the images made with "Big Bucks" digital systems appear no better than the images I have in front of me produced by gear that is within the reach of most amateurs/enthusiasts. Whether or not you agree with or use digital, the real bugbear seems to be that digital gear becomes obsolete within months of it being released for sale! If you have invested (say) $25K in digital and 18 months later the studio down the road has just bought the "latest" digital kit then in order to keep your customers from deserting you common sense seems to suggest that you would have NO CHOICE but to upgrade! Seems a catch 22 to me!! I'm just glad that I'm not on that spiral! I appreciate that a busy commercial photographer has no choice - but as a LF enthusiast I'm not that bothered on reading 11 pages of "useless" digital info in what I presumed to be an enthusiast publication.

[Mike Mahoney]

Paul, could you be more specific if possible in the processes used in some of the prints you're evaluating ??

Although you probably won't find this opinion in common currency on this forum, a high quality digital print from a high quality digital capture is difficult to distinguish from a high quality traditional print in sizes up to 11X14, and in many cases 16X20 using Genuine Fractals. Many experienced photographers would argue the digital to be superior.

So there would seem to be some bias here against digital in the face of strong evidence otherwise. This is understandable given the nature of this forum, and the enjoyment many of us, myself included, get from our traditional processes.

But that does not warrant a blind prejudice against digital, nor does it warrant quoting artifically high prices for digital equipment. A 6mp digital SLR is now under $2,000 U.S., a sufficient computer is $1,000 U.S., and Photoshop with a printer is another $2,000. So for $5,000 you can acquire a very good digital kit.

This kit would produce 11X14's that most would find the equal of traditional prints.

As both a LF and digital photographer, I'm finding LF to be more of a process than a result. I enjoy setting up a LF camera, I enjoy all the little frustrations such as loading film, pulling darkslides, squinting around under the darkcloth, metering, remembering to put the white side back in, etc., etc., ....it's an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon in the field.

As for digital equipment becoming obselete quickly, the tool is still there .... We're still using a 2.1 mp consumer digicam to shoot 360 degree panoramas, mostly because it offers small file sizes with good quality. Although you will find this hard to believe, this camera has taken over 16,000 frames in the past three and a half years. If it evaporated tomorrow morning I'd be more than happy to call it obselete. It cost $499 Canadian.

Digital enables me to shoot with instant exposure feedback, and I've seen little in the way of color correction that cannot be acheived in PhotoShop. Perspective control with software now lets me tell the computer how much vertical or horizontal perspective to apply or remove. It's less fun than than using rise or shift, but the results are the same. Clients are happy with one or two day turnaround, and their printers or webmasters ask for digital files anyway.

I'm sure somewhere there is a digital back being offered for $20,000, and somewhere there is a computer for $5,000, and a $5,000 printer as well. There are also Linhof and Ebony cameras offered at prices well above workhorse LF cameras that can take the same image. For every one of those $20,000 backs sold, there are a hundred $2,000 Canon D60's being sold, and for most applications the results are the same.

Shame on View Camera magazine for not offering its readers a more realistic assessment of digital ... but the source is not impartial.

[David Grandy]

Right at the moment I think film to digital is the best solution for amateur and non studio professional photographers. Film is archival and has many times the resolution as the best digital. As for a print from a scan being a second generation image certainly all darkroom prints would be the same, and are obviously acceptable.

For the cost associated with digital and the almost absolute certainty that you'll get twice the machine at half the price in two years; you have to decide if you need this tool NOW. In the early 80's when PC were first being introduced there was always the caveat that you should be buying a solution not a computer. Does digital solve a problem for you that makes economic sense? If it does then you go digital. If it doesn't then wait.