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

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.

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.........................

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). ..............................................

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.

I do not agree that Stephen Johnson is a visionary for choosing

digital to do his National Parks project. I think he just picked

the wrong tools for the job. How do I know ? Although I use only

my 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 can

backpack in the wilderness with my gear (solo if needed), and use

reasonnable shutter speeds whenever vegetation or water is involved,

two components quite unique to the landscape of this planet.

What we must

admire Stephen Johnson's for is his skill in marketing and

self-promotion. The future ? I just don't see the weight of the

batteries beating that of film. Batteries don't seem to follow

Moore's law.

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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.

>> 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 :-)

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.

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.

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,

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.