bill_glickman Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 james, those backs I discussed above were 6x6 backs... they were matching 30x40" prints from 4x5...that was the mystery phenomenoa of digital files from digital cameras vs. digital files from scanned film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david4 Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 Johnson was not using the latest super model version of the Better Light 4 x 5 insert that increases the file size from 140 MB to over 300 MB. According to an ad in the Nov/Dec 2001 View camera magazine the manufacturer Better Light claims that the clarity and detail of the current digital image supermodel back surpasses that captured with 8 x 10 film. At its website, www.betterlight.com, the manufacturer describes the new supermodel allows images with up to 9000 x 15,000 pixels. The Sinar HR-Sinarcam was also discussed in the Nov/Dec 2001 issue of View Camera. It can provide 450 MB files with 75,000,00� pixels. The author states that the digital back enhances his productivity. ........... ........................................... I hope that you get the picture......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david4 Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 I was in error. The www.betterlight.com website says the Super8K-2 has a maximum resolution of 12,000 x 15,990 pixels (549 MB 24-bit RGB, or 1.1 GB 48-bit RGB file) Super6K-2�. The Super6K-2 captures up to 9,000 x 12,000 pixels (309 MB 24-bit RGB, or 618 MB 48-bit RGB file). .............................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abiggs Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 This is true, but you have to wait something like 30 minutes to take one picture. For all of my outdoor images, this would be too long, as my subjects (water, trees, etc) move much quicker than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qtluong Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 I do not agree that Stephen Johnson is a visionary for choosingdigital to do his National Parks project. I think he just pickedthe wrong tools for the job. How do I know ? Although I use onlymy own resources and vacation time, I have gotten much further in my own project to photograph the Parks (55 out of the 57 parks),and I believe with a much wider variety of images, because I canbackpack in the wilderness with my gear (solo if needed), and usereasonnable shutter speeds whenever vegetation or water is involved,two components quite unique to the landscape of this planet. What we mustadmire Stephen Johnson's for is his skill in marketing andself-promotion. The future ? I just don't see the weight of thebatteries beating that of film. Batteries don't seem to followMoore's law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abiggs Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 Notice how most of his digital images don't contain any, if any, trees? That seems a bit limiting, in my view. His tools might be more useful for tabletop product photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter brown - www.peterbro Posted January 21, 2002 Author Share Posted January 21, 2002 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." <p> Note that I said " . . .the future . . ." and ". . . in a more compact and easier to handle setup." - NOT with the current technology and equipment available. <p> After Joe's post I then suggested we rephrase the question; "Thanks Joe, you may be on to something - perhaps the question should be re-phrased: Is this a glimpse of the future for LF "FILM" or the way in which we will record our images? " <p> Comments about the exposure time or moving objects being omitted, are no more relevant than talking about LF images which contain water which looks more like mist than water or leaves that are so blurred from movement that they are unrecognisable. <p> My question was not about what is available NOW, but what will be available IN THE NEAR FUTURE! It's not about whether he is a good photographer or not, whether we like or dislike his photographs, in fact it's not even about whether he choose the right equipment for the job or whether he was doing it for his own "promotional" reasons or not. <p> What I was interested in, was hearing comments about whether you think this type of image capture will be what we will use for LF field photography in the future and if so how soon will we likely be using it. Perhaps it is just too much of a contentious issue to get unbiased replies. <p> Anyway, thanks everyone for taking the time trying to answer my ambiguious questions. <p> " Who am I to blow against the wind? " <p> - Paul Simon / Graceland <p> Kind regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abiggs Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 I guess we all got a little off-topic, eh? <p> Yes, I think that the technology will allow those who wish to carry a self-contained digital back out into the field is near at hand. I think it will come down to economics, though. I suspect such a device will cost well over $25k upon its release. It's a matter of time before the price will get down to where many non-commerical photographers can afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter brown - www.peterbro Posted January 21, 2002 Author Share Posted January 21, 2002 Yes Andy, I agree that the initial cost will probably be quite high, but I know that I have spent thousands of dollars on good quality LF gear and equipment to output my images to prints, as well as the ongoing cost of film and processing. I wonder if we looked at our LF expenses and compared them to the equivalent for digital capture and output whether the difference would be so great? <p> More contenious questions ;-) <p> Kind regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_gasteazoro3 Posted January 21, 2002 Share Posted January 21, 2002 I would say the difference is very great Peter, heck I have a Hassy, a Linhot TK 45, A GAndolfi 8x10 a at last 3 lenses of different lenghts for all 3 cameras a great darkroom with a zone VI enlarger...and put all together I am barely hitting 25000, and it wont become obsolete in 6 months. You complained that we got off track with your question, I think all the responses were very relevant to your initial question because quality of reproduction, ease of acquisition (both the equipment and the image) and type of work that can be done are all relevant as to wether this will become the future of LF image capture. For example, even if the digital back becomes small enough to be able to capture, store and preview the image, I am pretty sure that it will still need a battery....now, my lap top is a top of the line IBM....these people still cannot get the batterie to last more than a couple of hours, and the technology for pc is mature, not like the digital backs.....so, in the near future you have this wonderful back....and at 30 mins per pic....you maybe get to take 4 pics. Ok, now lets say we get the nice back with a wonderful battery.... lets say you can take 100 pics with the back....this is great, but will you process and print 100 pics, will your work be better? I think that one of the reasons that many LF photographers use the cameras is because of the time, care and discipline required to take the picture....with this type of back might as well use a 35 mm now and let it rip. <p> Ok, so in short I don't think this will be the furture of LF field work unless we are forced to replace film because it is not manufactured any more. I think for studio and commercial work it is already the future of LF and it will only get better. But like many things the price will not go down unless a new technique for manufacturing becomes available, I know many commercial photogs that use 20 year old equipment, they dont like to spend money in new stuff when the old works just fine...so I dont see many of the ones who have invested in digital backs now, replacing them any time soon unless the quality of the new back is so much greater to justify the expense. In any case I dont see the prices going down to within the reach of us lesser mortals. When I can get a digital back that is as easy to use as a Fuji quickload, costs about the same as a lens, it can take pictures in fractions of a second, and it will fucntion in rain, sand, etc with a battery that will last at least 20 hours....then I will write back to you and tell you...YEP...this is the future of LF...for now...I still think film is it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_alpert1 Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Every camera has some limitation, but usually there is a reasonable range of technical possibilities (and aesthetic room) available to the photographer. I know Acadia National Park pretty well, and I can tell you there is a variety of interesting photographs waiting there for photographers who have the vision to take them. With all his heavy and moronically-slow digital gear, Johnson's vision becomes unimportant. His function is simply to point the camera at something that the camera can photograph. His (its) photographs are, in truth, more limited in their own high-focus way than photographs that might be taken with a really bad toy camera. (Someday digital backs may become more versatile; but, given the technical challenges involved, I wouldn't hold my breath for any firm delivery date for a useful back for outdoor use.) I hope this effort is enjoyable and meaningful to Stephen Johnson, and I hope he pays for some of his equipment from the sale of prints or whatever. His is not an exercise that I would voluntarily undertake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_kelleghan Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 >> 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 easier to >> handle setup." - NOT with the current technology and equipment available. <p> No. This is not the future of _photography_. It is the future of digital, which is a wholly different art form unrelated to photograpy (although it appears supperficially similar). <p> Photography is the art of removing whatever the artists deems irrelevant and presenting an image that communicates to the viewer what the artist _feels_. Digital is the art of adding whatever the artist deems necessary and presenting an image that communicates to the viewer what the artist _imagines_. <p> Audiences who are interested in _art_ will continue to appreciate chemical photography for the emotions it conveys, and the unspoken understanding of the limits to which chemicals can be manipulated. Those who'd rather be entertained will go away and favor the expressions of imagination that is currently the digital field. <p> Eventually, digital will lose it's 2D limitations as 3D animation software improves, and the fields of digital movie making and "digital photography" will merge into one. Chemical photography will remain, much as it is now, but with new found respect as a proper art form. Something like the respect given sculptors. <p> whadya think? <p> Mike :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james___ Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 To answer your question, with some reservations about the economic and political future itself, yes. The future of photography, which means painting with light, is bound to digital. This may be a long way off but yes the future will be digital. We may not like it but that is the direction it is going. My friend uses a digital scanning 4x5 back now. He shoots product shots for catalogs. His work flow is tremendous now compared to just a few years ago. And with the advent of digital cameras and the requisite PC + all the programs, it is here now. I will lament the change and possibly drop photography as my chosen art form. But the future is here now. I see too much that has been captured digitally and printed digitally to think it is very far off. But LF will be the last to be brought into the digital age with respect to landscape photography. The capture time is long and the equipment is very expensive. And the detail available now from the smaller formats is tremendous already. Will we need LF at all? And lets face it, LF is a niche market. Will the industry put forth the effort to grow in that direction? Making LF portable enough to take to the field and stay any length of time? Let's hope so. But my premiss still holds. Do we need to go to so much trouble and expense to gain a minute decrease in grain and increase in detail over what we have now in LF using film? And will we still be able to control contrast the way we do now with film and developers? That can't be done now in digital capture. Yes you can dodge and burn but can you spread out the contrast range in digital as you can with developemnt changes in film processing now? Not that I know of. We shall see what the furture holds for LF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_eads Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Digital is a workflow and detector technology. It is a permanent part of the photo scene. Digital is a great way to make images; so is film. Choose wisely and have fun. I visited Steven's galery about a year ago, viewed his images and had a good talk with him. He's a dedicated photographer who is highly skilled in conventional and digital photography. He is acutely aware of the limitations of the digital process but has chosen to explore this process as one might explore carbon printing. His digital prints are made with a high level of craftsmanship and presented beautifully. I think his work will help us all sort out which tools are best suited for which applications. I for one will keep an eye on what he is doing; to stay abreast of the technology and to enjoy good images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter brown - www.peterbro Posted January 23, 2002 Author Share Posted January 23, 2002 This photographer (Frank Grisdale), is doing some interesting "artistic" things with digital capture: <p> http://www.photoeye.com/Gallery/forms/index.cfm?id=84413&image=1&imag ePosition=1&Door=2&Portfolio=Portfolio1&Gallery=2 <p> Kind regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_glickman Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 Tuan wrote... I just don't see the weight of the batteries beating that of film. Batteries don't seem to follow Moore's law. <p> This is very true, and its something I have overlooked in my assesment of these digital backs being suitable for landscape shooters. Battery weight / performance has not changed much in 150 years. There has always been a tremendous weight / size issue for items, such as digital backs, that require many miliamp hours for operations. For the serious backpacker, this might always be the limiting factor. but for the shooter that stays within a few miles of his car, this is not as much as an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 Which of the Pixelograph backs will allow you to make a 15 minute to 8 hour exposure to capture star trails, flowing water in low light and so many other normal, day to day photos we can take now with low tech gear 100 years old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter brown - www.peterbro Posted January 23, 2002 Author Share Posted January 23, 2002 That's not relevant to my question Dan. <p> See my last reply, ten posts above: <p> [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." <p> Note that I said " . . .the future . . ." and ". . . in a more compact and easier to handle setup." - NOT with the current technology and equipment available. . . . .etc, etc, etc. [snip] <p> With respect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted January 24, 2002 Share Posted January 24, 2002 I believe my answer above is relevant. NOW and in the FUTURE we will still be using LF gear for the same thing, creating excellent images. Many will be using it for negatives shot specifically for contact printing in alt processes. Long exposures, some lasting 8 hours or more will still be made and I don't see pixelography machines being too reliable for this type of work. Unless solar battery chargers or fuel cells are built in I don't think the gear will be portable enough to be usable for larger format sizes. <p> The future cameras don't really need to be any more compact than what we have now. A 70-100 year old 8x10 is still capable of images of the highest quality. Larger format gear of the same vintage is still used daily by many. The idea of "more compact & easier to handle" may sound nice but is not necessarily a goal of those working in mammoth camera sizes nor even many 4x5-8x10 shooters. The large ground glass is sufficient and the working methods preferred by many who use them even as we get 'improvements' coming out. Using "new & improved" just for the sake of using it is a time & money waster. Why not shoot chromes or negs & scan and save all the aggravation of the damnable electronic hellbox on location? "In the future" we will still have sub zero weather, rain & hail & sleet which some of us shoot in, camera gear in backpacks with less than pristine transportation conditions, lightening, high humidity, hot & cold extremes in the same day and field maintenance able to be preformed with gaffer's tape & a pocket knife. The Pixelograph machines will have a long trek to approach what we have now much less actually 'improve' on it. What we don't really need are more banal images taken just because we can with a pixelography machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_collum1 Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 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. <p> 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. <p> I'll agree that movement is an issue.. wind, moving water, and such is not a good thing. the resulting artifacts are very unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilhelmn Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Who's paying for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_collum1 Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_gangi2 Posted March 23, 2002 Share Posted March 23, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_collum1 Posted March 25, 2002 Share Posted March 25, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now