I Think MF Digital Is A Dead End

If you're shooting landscapes, just get a 4x5 and a scan back--way better quality, less

(although still a lot of) money. So you can't shoot things that move--is that actually an

issue for you?

 

Re: scanners--drum scanners are getting dirt cheap as pro prepress houses see their

entire workflow going digital, and can't justify the space the drum takes up. I recently got

an 8000 dpi Screen 1045 for $2200+$350 shipping. It kicks the living $%^& out of any

desktop film scanner I've tried for not much more money.

 

And learn to develop your own film. If you're already driving 2 hours to a lab, you're

probably one failed lab business plan away from having no lab at all. Get ready for it

gradually now, or deal with it in a mad panic when it eventually happens.

This is definitely one of the more pathetic threads I have read in a while. Fun and entertaining, but pathetic.

 

Scott, I still don't see your point. Your gripe is that the back makers have priced their products out of your range? Who cares? Deal with it. Get on with your photography.

 

You have still yet to say how big you plan to print. If you are doing 30x40, what printer are you using? How about color cailbration software? Did you get Photoshop CS yet? Are you pissed at Adobe for pricing photoshop at $700 and then upgrading it every 6 months? I would be.

 

Instead of wasting the time complaining, go make a photograph. That is what I'm going to do.

 

BTW, I'm going to use a Mamiya 7II and Agfa APX 100. And yes I am pissed at Agfa for discontinueing one of my favorite films.

Jeffery,

 

See what happens when you post real photography on the web? The computer monitor is

just a proofing device to my mind. It can not do justice to large scenics. People post full

sized files that can be examined piece by piece for resolution and detail but in no way

can one 'see' what's really there. Many with dialup connections cannot even download a

large file. So ... posting one's treasures on the web is usually a dubious effort.

 

I would think all this is a given. I can't imagine someone thinking they could criticize

another's efforts from a little monitor sized facsimile of a real image.

Hi Scott:

<p>

I did a little research for you: for $378 a month you can lease the Phase One H20 for Mamiya RZ. This is a 16 MP back and perfect for your needs. And relatively affordable. Enjoy!

<p>

<a href="http://calumetphoto.com/ctl?PAGE=Controller&ac.ui.pn=cat.CatItemDetail&ac.item.itemNo=PE71225C&.detail=y&type=SPDSEARCH">Calumet Photo</a><p>

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3352&item=3819790707&rd=1">RZ Pro II body for under $400</a><p>

What I think is pathetic is how a lot of people are down on Steve for wanting more out (or for less) of the current state of MF digital. Whats wrong with that? Isn't that what drives innovation that benefits us all? The position that the current capabilities is ok and therefore had better be ok for everyone else is absurd to say the least. If you have a camera that you are fond of, great, just don?t bad mouth people who are not also in love with your camera.

 

Sure, 35mm sensors are limited by physics to about 21mp. But whats wrong with having 21mp's? And don?t say ?my computer can't handle it? like you won't be buying a new computer in two to three years. If you really want less pixels, then you will still be better off as you can make the files any size you want. If you want more pixels, all the more reason that a 645 or 6x6, or even a 6x9 sized sensor. Personally, I'd love to have around 251mp, which is probably a little beyond my current 6x9's resolving power. However, I'd like to have it with great contrast and color rendition, and with no noise. Will this happen anytime soon? NO, but whats wrong with getting there eventually? And yes, manufacturing and chip design could get us there someday on a MF sized chip. Why would I want this? For cropping, for extreme detail in some situations, because that's what I see in my vision. Even if no one else is interested in seeing my vision.

 

Also, to put it down to telling which print is digital and which is analog from an other photographer is nearly absurd. Each process has an enormous amount of places for variation that will effect the final print, and its nearly impossible to tell which of those control steps the photographer or printer made in producing the print. Sure, a lot of errors are self evident like USM halo's, but minor changes are not as easy to tell. Not to mention what the photographers vision of the final print will be different than your own. Where it does make sense to compare the finial print is with in a photographer's own work and their own expectations.

 

I totally agree that different systems have their limitations and applications and that it is up to us to work with in those criteria. Sometimes the limitations are in themselves great motivations for creativity. However, what is wrong with wanting better tool's so that the boundaries of those limitations and applications are wider?

 

Still, the most important thing is to be taking pictures and having fun. I have fun and get satisfaction from everything from a cell phone camera to my 6x9. But whats wrong with wanting a cell phone camera that could be 6mp?

 

I just don't like anyone saying that your crazy for wanting more, people were saying that with 4mp's?

Yawn..

 

I shoot landscapes on MF, unlike my wedding work where I use 35mm and cannot afford not to get the shot each time, with my landscape work I'm happy to get a sellable image per 20 or so rolls of 120.

 

From what I hear that is more or less normal for people trying to get that outstanding image which will Sell. When I get that image I have it scanned using BPD, the UK's premier landscape lab (used by Joe Cornish, etc) on the latest Imacon scanner and emailed back and forward until I'm totally happy, for about 6 pounds. Prints are made on a Kodak (laser) mini lab using Ilford Hi Gloss paper and are spectacular.

 

So I have the best of both worlds. I'm a lot happier with the colour/sharpness of my prints then Cibachrome, I have a digital image for easy repeat printing, but I'm not worried about not having a high end computer and incredible photoshop skills.

 

Who is a happy man? One who is happy with his lot..

I think Ben's response really gets to the heart of why Scott is

seeing little sympathy. There are readily available means of

accomplishing Scott's goals which are well within his budget--

they just don't put him in possession of the latest, greatest bit of

digital gear.

Nothing is wrong.

 

All this situation is ridiculous and the roots of this problem are in the corporate offices and current market technologies that do not care about dedicated services but care about mass sales only - hit and run.

It`s just a reality of the modern world coming into small old-fashioned business of photography. Same business model as in IT ? you buy a computer, you use it for 2 years, you throw it away and you buy a new one. Do you think it would be difficult to build a fully modular system that could work for 30 years and be upgraded part by part as say old MF cameras used to be built? Of course it is possible to do but they who produce `em will never do so. They don`t want us to use the tools we have. they want us to pay more and get new. They invent new form-factors so we cannot even use old cases for god sake.

 

They will kill current market and current generation of old cameras by the lack of support and then they will start it again with new price tags and new ?design features?. That`s the reason of frustration and that`s that concerns me personally.

 

Fuji has built a great system ? H1. Where is a digital solution for it? Why did they build 40mp digital back for GX680III system but don`t sell it for 'damn foreign devils' and didn`t make a version of it for H1 or Contax or old Hasselblad?

They are not interested in this ? they are interested to force you do sell your gear, buy a S2, next year sell S2 for nothing, buy S3, and so on until you drop dead.

Why modern water heater works only 5 years without trobles and heater in my parent`s house works OK for a 25 years already? This crap is everywhere.

 

Modular MF system is almost immortal and perfect for photographer but not for those greedy bastards who want only on thing ? to suck as much money out of your pockets as they possibly can.

 

Am I bitching for nothing? Yes I am. I know. I`m sorry.

Jaques,

 

"I'm almost certain that 9 out of 10 fashion spreads (in any given issue) have

been done with analog gear. In those magazines you see what the so-called

professionals really do and why they need this equipment, because one thing

can be said about professionals, and that is that they are definitely NOT

equipment-driven. And their photography is definitely NOT digital. "

 

Agreed. What's so difficult? No one is going to give a damn about your

pictures, irrespective of what they were taken on, if it's a dull shot. A friend,

who shoots for British Vogue, (as do I) had a conversation with their Art

Director as to whether he should do start shooting on digital. The reply was

that no one gets a prize for coming first. Nick Knight is probably the most

innovative fashion photographer in the world and yet he always starts off with

analog. Check his fantastic website showstudio.com if fashion is your thing.

 

It's the quality of the photograph not what it was taken on. Is this so very

difficult to grasp or do we prefer to hide behind whatever hardware we are

using (I do sometimes)? Good grief, this is almost as bad the Leica forum :)

Wow! I had absolutely no idea people were quite so emotional

and polarized on the simple issue of whether to capture an

image digitally or with film. I come here about once every three

months or so, and thought this time I'd throw my 2 cents in...

 

I shoot ALL my professional work on film - 4x5, 6x7 and 35mm - I

then either supply transparencies to my clients or I supply them

images on CDs after scanning them (to whatever specs they

desire) on an Imacon Flextight. I like to work this way as I am

comfortable shooting film (different films for different

applications) and I know how to use filters with them to get the

results I want, I like to file my clients originals in a real filing

cabinet, and the perfect digital answer hasn't come along for me

yet (the wide angle / shift / tilt issue isn't there yet with MF or LF

digital - yes, I know about the 1Ds and 24mm shift option). I also

sometimes scan huge files for large exhibition banners, I can

rescan a transparency at a higher resolution at a later date after

the initial delivery if my clients needs change, I am not locked

into the resolution of an original digital capture.

 

Everything I shoot ends up in digital pre-press and that has

mainly changed the industry for the better. Better color

consistency, quicker and cheaper retouching and the ability to

send files across the country in the blink of an eye.

 

When I shoot my family, go on vacation or shoot my kids sporting

events, I shoot 100% digital. I like the immediacy, the ability to

have 1,000s of images in files on my computer, cross

referenced and easy to access. I like the ability to do

slideshows, to drag a bunch of images onto a CD, take it to my

local consumer lab and have 6x4s or 5x7s knocked out in an

hour without wading through endless sheets of negs.

 

Both film and digital will be with us for quite a while - use

whatever works for you and is best for your final use. We are

living in a time with unprecidented options - it astonishes me to

find that additional choices can create this amount of additional

stress!

 

John Bellenis - www.johnbellenis.com

Scott,

 

You wrote 'At $30k a back when the 1Ds solution is nearly as good for so much less..." But

the thing is, it isn't! Anyone who actually works with both can tell you that.

Scott,

 

You wrote 'At $30k a back when the 1Ds solution is nearly as good for so much less..."

 

But the thing is, it isn't! Anyone who actually works with both can tell you that. And can

tell you stories of clients who have been burned to the point of being "gun shy' by

photographers who solfd them on that claim.

Scott,

 

You obviously hit a nerve with this group.

 

But I am still waiting to hear from you as to how large you plan on printing and what printer you plan on using.

 

Please tell us.

David,

 

I don't have a definitive answer for you. I could see a 10x enlargement of a 4 x 5 but I

haven't reached that stage of my journey yet. I'm sorting everything out. I get 'proofs' of

my better images done by machine print at my local lab at 11 x 14 0r 16. I've had crops

of 4 x 5 trannies done at 20 x 30.

 

My goal right now is really to simply study photography. Every shot I take is an

experiment. Somewhere down the road I will start to build a small portfolio. Maybe some

of the experiments will make it into that grouping.

 

I have several 'spots' I shoot all the time. I use different cameras and I shoot only in my

own locale. Especially the river on which I live. I especially look for exciting

atmospherics. I shoot lots of other things but just for fun.

 

One of these days, if I am successful in my own estimation at capturing what I can

envision, I will either open a gallery or rent space in an existing gallery or shop ( I live in a

tourist area) and hang my stuff up and see what others think. If people want to buy them

I'll sell them at any size they want to pay but for my own work ultimately I would like

about 40 by 50 inches.

 

I've been waiting to get a printer and had thought to get a Epson 4000. It would pay for

itself in a few months just for my proofing purposes. But I'm glad I waited. If I can't

surmount my fear of scanners I won't be needing a printer. As to the future and printing I

don't worry about it. If I show my pictures and people want to buy them I might decide to

just let the lab worry about all that. I'm just not that much of a purist. If the lab can make

me good enough reproductions of my images ( we ain't talking silver hallide B&W here) I

may never get into printing.

 

I guess if you love printing that's another thing or if you want to keep more of the price of

a print ..... I just want to make big images and sit back and look at a lot of em hanging

on white walls with proper lighting.

<I>The reply was that no one gets a prize for coming first. Nick Knight is probably the

most innovative fashion photographer in the world and yet he always starts off with

analog. </I><P>Re: Nick Knight<P> make that 8x10 film (analog). that is his format of

choice. I know another highly successful beauty, fashion and portrait photographer. When

he is doing a 4 hour portrait session he shoots 50 to 100 220 rolls of Kodak E100with his

RZ67 cameras. He has looked into digital in a serious way and tested it but clients still

prefer film. I have some ideas about this: it is what the cliets are used to looking at; it

gives the client more of a sense of control over the digitization process (they do the scans,

targeted to how they are going to reproduce the shot); they like the look of film; and

some more reasons as well.

 

But talk to any manufacturer of medium format cameras and they will tell yo uthat there is

very little growth in that market right now and for the forseeable future. Thehasselblad will

survive, so will mamiya and Fuji. I am not so sure about Rolleiflex, Bronica, or even

Contax.

<I>The reply was that no one gets a prize for coming first. Nick Knight is probably the

most innovative fashion photographer in the world and yet he always starts off with

analog. </I><P>Re: Nick Knight<P> make that 8x10 film (analog). that is his format of

choice. And he shoots lots of 8x10 for each job. <P>

 

I know another highly successful beauty, fashion and portrait photographer. When

he is doing a 4 hour portrait session he shoots 50 to 100 220 rolls of Kodak E100with his

RZ67 cameras. He has looked into digital in a serious way and tested it but clients still

prefer film. I have some ideas about this: it is what the cliets are used to looking at; it

gives the client more of a sense of control over the digitization process (they do the scans,

targeted to how they are going to reproduce the shot); they like the look of film; and

some more reasons as well.

 

But talk to any manufacturer of medium format cameras and they will tell yo uthat there is

very little growth in that market right now and for the forseeable future. Thehasselblad will

survive, so will mamiya and Fuji. I am not so sure about Rolleiflex, Bronica, or even

Contax.

Well now I am really confused.

 

You want to buy the Epson 4000 printer whose maximum print out is 17 inches ? So why all the craziness to buy a 645 digital back?

 

So why not use your large format camera, the Epson 4000 and the Epson 4870 scanner? If you purchased both these items at B&H, the price without shipping is $2390. Very reasonable.

 

And just like I said before, take the balance that you had planned on and travel or take a class. Or do both. Plus, think of all the paper you can buy.

 

C'mon man, snap out of it!!!!

Andrew,

 

thank you for your recommendation of the June issue of British Vogue. The Luchford pages are really very interesting. Did you see the Demarchelier "white" pages in the May issue? Now this is difficult to emulate, I guess! It seems so easy... but (as always) easy is the most complicated. How did he achieve this grey-ish look? Is that all post-production or did he use a filter or maybe gels, what do you think?

This discussion is out of control. But let me throw in my two cents.

 

1) MF digital backs will eventually become available for a couple thousand bucks, probably within five years or so. IMO it does make sense to learn digital now, so as not to be too shocked once it becomes possible for amateurs to use all their MF gear digitally. Pros are, of course, a completely different story.

 

2) A different cut at it than those above, but which was important for me in my decision, to a certain extent, to buy into Canon digital: MF cannot really do long telephoto, so if you want to shoot birds or wildlife (or, indeed, sports, which I don't do), at a distance, 35 format is your only choice. 35 digital is then an obvious and logical bridge to the eventual use of MF digital.

 

3) To repeat above posts: Buy a decent scanner. I fail to understand the source of any anguish here???

There is a MF/Digital System on eBay now for $10thou. Item number 3820719822, here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30020&item=3820719822&rd=1

 

It's a Mamiya 645 AFD with four lenses and a Kodak 16MB back ... like new in box. Someone is going to be making nice pix.

I wasn't trying to be unsympathetic, just babbling aimlessly really...

>>>Digital capture is supperior to film. I won't argue this with you. I don't care if you disagree. For me it is an undeniable truth.<<<

 

Really? In what ways? Dynamic range? No, not unless you do split (multiple exposures). Which, you can also do with film.

 

Resolution? No, I can always get a larger film format.

 

 

Ease of use? Ahhhhh....that's probably the one real area you're talking about.

 

 

>>>With a histogram you can easilly nail the exposure and the only fiddling necessary on the computer is a quick curves adjustment and a little sharpening. <<<

 

If you use a lightmeter properly you can "nail" an exposure on film everytime - but, only if you know what you're doing.

 

 

>>>Perhaps your problem with my presentation is that it has been an exploration of the many variables. I have presented different variables that I will or may be forced to deal with if MF digital capture is placed out of my reach. I have supposed that there are others in the same boat. My posts have been an attempt to talk over the whole situation with others dealing with the same situation. <<<<

 

No, you're post was to complain about the fact that the easy way out for image making didn't materialize for you.

 

 

>>>I'm not writing articles here. I'm just working out a solution.<<<

 

No, you're complaining vehemently that there IS NO SOLUTION.

 

>>>I hate scanning. I hate the idea of spending $10k for a decent scanner. I hate the price of drum scans.<<<

 

Can't help you with that one. There's always a price to enter the venue. You can hate it all you want, or, focus on the end goal - an image - and just figure it's the cost of pursuing that goal. Really, golfing isn't much cheaper over the long haul.

 

>>>It just seemed so simple and workable to me to get a MF digital solution and it seemed worth up to $20k to me to do so. But not double that amount ( the whole kit). <<<

 

Funny, at least three people have posted direct links that provide solutions to your problem - at the price you want - and you apparently are bent on ignoring the information.

 

>>>Scanning is the pouring over the computer part I mentioned. Photoshopping the occaisonal keeper is not 'pouring'. <<<

 

No. Using a LIGHT BOX to edit film is "pouring over the information." You only scan what looks good on the light box. Who says you have to scan a whole roll of film just to look at it? Even there you could use a cheap flatbed, scan the whole roll for proof viewing at low res and then individually scan the keepers for the final images.

 

 

>>>Another problem I have that makes my photography less enjoyable is that my lab is fifty miles away. It takes them a week to process my normal order (varried tasks). That's four hours of travel (both ways, two trips) and a week of waiting. No fun at all. A big part of why I prefer digital.<<<

 

Geee...I'm having a hard time with this since I shot Kodachrome for years. A whole week? Wow...... Okay. Buy a small processor and do it yourself. Oh, yeah that would add "WORK" to your life, and well, from your post I can tell you really aren't into that.

 

"Now finally, your ill tempered near attacks on me for simply expressing and exploring my ideas are foolish and uncalled for. Is this what you do in life? Denigrate and belittle others for no good reason?"

 

Yep - I have little patience for lazy, whiney people - guilty as charged.

Jaques,

 

I agree with you the Demarchalier 'white' shoot is great. Very intersting to see

how something so simple could look so nice and fresh. I'm at a loss as to how

it was done. When I see the Art Director next (not soon) I'll ask him. What I

was told was that when Patrick photographed Gaultier, for the June issue, he

was very, very hands on when it came to lighting. He was the one who

adjusted the lights not the assistants. Contrast this with Steven Meisel who

only walks onto the set when all the Polaroids have been taken and the lights

have been set up :) To each his, or her, own....

I get a kick out of those bitching about what a lousy thread this is, then contribute to its lousiness. And those who are cutting down ol' Scott because they have so little time to waste straightening him out... as though he's somehow taken some away from them... saying that, after wading through this thread for ten minutes, THEN contributing ANOTHER 10 minutes of random noise generation themselves, well, it's a hoot! But I digress... At some point, whilst defending his valour, our hero Scott said: <I>How anyone can disagree with my basic complaint is a wonder to me. $30,000.00 for a digital back is such extreme madness that words fail me.</i> From what I understand, here is the rationale: If you are a "big city" studio shooting hundreds of film images a day, your lab costs can get big - really big. I suspect for some large studios, the 30 grand can come out in the wash by not having to buy all that lab time, chemicals, etc. to process all that film. Sure you still need Photoshop and a nerd or two, but they're a dime a dozen in my hypothetical, big-city studio. Add to that possible tax write-offs for a business that leases one of these beasts (and the dollar buy-out in the end), and the costs aren't nearly as bad as they look from way down here where I live, at least. It's unobtanium to me, too. Have you heard about the huge tax write-off Uncle Sam gives you for buying a gas-guzzling SUV... <I>IF</i> you own your own business? So us wee little peons are not the target market for these expensive backs, rather it is a high volume, successful pro, for whom such a purchase could actually make economic sense. Of course, i'm just another windbag with an opinion, wasting your time! ;-)

It's clear Scott believes MF-based digital is a dead-end. He's

failed to justify the claim, though, in large part because some of

the facts he's using to present his case aren't valid.<p>

1. Larger sensors give lower noise, especially in the shadows.

That means that for certain types of work, the larger sensor will

make those images practical instead of impractical--or would

otherwise require film.<p>

2. The digital systems for MF cameras have better highlight

handling; they clip somewhat less gracelessly than "35mm" or

smaller sensor systems do. Douglas Dubler stated at a recent

conference that for certain kinds of work, where he's dealing with

hot speculars, he still uses film For everything else, it's digital for

him. (He shoots primarily beauty and some fashion.)<p>

3. The $30,000 cost that keeps getting repeated isn't valid. New

MF backs are available under $8K, and, while not the

high-resolution ones, still have the other benefits: better

software, firmware, lower noise, highlight handling, etc. 100+

megapixel scanning backs are available for $15,000 or less, and

single-shot 20+ megapixel backs are available for that price or

less as well.<p>

4. The idea that manufacturers aren't aware of their customer

base is somewhat naive. (<i>I think we all might be better off if

the manufacturers of digital backs knew how we felt. These

prices are an outrage and absolutely impossible to justify..</i>)

Since they know exactly how many systems they sell, they know

exactly who HAS justified the purchase, and--for better or

worse--are OK with that choice. The prices can also be justified

by the smaller market (to help amortize the research costs), and

by the much higher sensor and hardware costs.<p>

5. If you honestly feel the system is overpriced, make one of your

own. (<i>How anyone can disagree with my basic complaint is a

wonder to me. $30,000.00 for a digital back is such extreme

madness that words fail me. </i>) Buy a pre-designed sensor

from a fab company and make the associated software; then

sell it for less. You'd be a big hit for those who want cheaper

systems.<p>

6. <b>Tools are for using</b>. It's impossible to have a tool

that's too <i>appropriate</i>--and sometimes that's 10, 40, 100,

or even 500 year old technology instead of the

latest-and-not-always-greatest. If your word demands a

technique or method that precludes the use of the latest

technology, don't use it. But making a broad sweeping claim that

something is dead when there's very little legitimate support for

the assertion simply makes you look sloppy.