I Think MF Digital Is A Dead End

There is a VERY informative thread on this issue ove on robgalbraith.com

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?

Cat=&Number=239254&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

 

If this is a subject that interests you it is well worth reading.

 

Below is my post to this thread which is the latest post on the thread right now. It sums

up my personal thoughts on the future of digital .... FOR ME. Your mileage may vary.

 

This whole thing (capped off by this thread) has been a hard punch in the gut for me. I

don't think it has dawned on most avid photography enthusiasts/amateurs who have

flirted with digital capture yet. I only had a 10D but it took me away from film for a whole

year. I believed digital capture was the future. Scanning has always turned me off and I've

avoided it. I invested a year with digital because I 'knew' it was the future and I needed to

learn it.

 

I now see that digital capture beyond 35mm is a complete dead end. It's over! For the

foreseeable (imaginable) future at least. I would have to go the 1Ds route now. It is the

only possibility. I could do it. I have the money but most in my league do not. But I loathe

the format for what I really want to do.... which is large print landscape work. I guess I'll

just have to substantially downgrade what 'large' means to me now if I want to stay with

digital capture ..... AND hope that Canon can come up with a decent WA lens.

 

I really dreamed of the day I could get a full frame 645 digital back. I figured I was maybe

two years away from it. I mean that was my plan and I was ready to spend $20k to get

there. Figured I'd pick up good used equipment. Even if that meant forgetting my own

printing for a few years (not enough $ for a truly large format printer after buying

expensive kit ). But all that is OVER. It's not even a dream.

 

I'm angry about this. I'm shooting film again. I'm on the way to the printer now to have

$500 worth of prints made (just large proofs really) . This is money that was being saved

for my own digital solution of the future. I'm simply going to quit fretting about all this

and let the lab do what labs do .... I don't really want to do it all anyway (the ugly fine print

of the digital contract). I like to make images not pour over a computer screen hour after

hour.

 

Maybe it's a good thing. I don't know exactly what I will do. For now I'm determined once

again to master my 4 x 5 equipment and just forget about histograms and Photoshop. It's

hard. All that control and the ability to breathe life into marginal prints was enthralling.

But really only because I was shooting for that dream of 645 full frame and 22 MP. (or

more)

I'll just spend my 'digital money' for the occaisonal drum scan and more large prints from

the lab.

 

I'm disheartened by taking what seems like many steps backward but I can still make the

good images (I do get one now and then) with transparencies. The digital world now

seems like an affair I had with a Siren but now it just seems an ugly episode. Just a bad

taste left in the mouth. But I had to have the affair to know what I now know.

 

Perhaps some new tech we can only imagine will come along (Foveon?) and turn the 35mm

imaging chip into three times the size file we think is normal now? Then at least we could

crop to something like a decent ratio and print to 30 x 40.

 

 

 

Post Extras: ? ? ?

I'm not sure what your point is but it only took me one simple realization to know that digital--in any format in its current technology--is nothing more than a scam. There are *no* digital cameras or scanners whose image files do not require "sharpening" by software to achieve a quasi-photo quality. This sharpening is nothing more than the insertion of facsimile data where the digital capture is missing detail. After this phonybaloney computer tweaking and because it has no grain, and inspired by the false-economy of "no film cost" (blind to the added cost of the digicams themselves)and overcome by the aphrodesiac of instant-gratification, the photo ignoramuses pronounce digital "equal" to film, and swarm to it in droves.

 

The problem is not that "MF Digital Is A Dead End", it is that *digital* is a sinkhole, and the knowing and discering among us are being flushed down the drain as well.

 

Going back to film is a short-term solution, because the lemings have voted and film will not survive as a medium for very much longer, despite the pinheads who chant "film will be around forever" in total denial and ignorance of the tenets of simple economics.

Exactly how does that thread demonstrate that digital MF is a

dead end? And a dead end for whom? for what purposes?

Isn't it obvious?

 

Digital is a sinkhole and film is on its way out. I think I'm going to give up photography right now ;-)

That is an interesting read ofthatthread . the guy who made the orignal post and virtually

eveeryone else who has added to that thread wopretty much completely disagrees with

you.

 

As to the guy who said 'when Canon comes out with a 16mp version of the 1Ds...", well

unless the underlying design engineering principles of the sensor array change radically

to accomodate the hard realities of quantum electrodynamics (AKA: "light") a 16mp

camera with a 24x36mm sensor array will perform worse than the current 11mp one.

 

"Perhaps some new tech we can only imagine will come along (Foveon?) and turn the

35mm imaging chip into three times the size file we think is normal now?"

 

At a certain point pixels of the right size (currently about 9 x 9 microns) over a larger

piece real estate, not masses of tiny, tiny pixels beats a small piece of real estate with tiny,

tiny pixels. Putting more pixels in an area the size a 35mmnegative is possible now -- but

no one liks the results. other wise a 5.3Mp point & shoot would produce images that are

technically just as good as a Nikon D1x or a Canon 10D.

 

So I guess your point is YOUR dream of a MF digital camera is dead. Any of the 22mp

"medium format" backs easily out resolve and out enlarge 4"x5' film. (I know this because

I've done my own tests. Gregory Heisler thinks the resolution is about that of a 5"x7'

pirece

of film) But you have to pay for that. My suggestion to you is to get either the second or

top tier Imacon scanner instead of crying in your Lone Star.

Photographers buy medium format and large format cameras for the higher quality images they can achieve with the larger film. Amateurs use 35mm for convenience, and are now switching to digital because of its increased convenience. Lots of pros use 35mm and now use digital for convenience and speed, and for those applications where quality is not as important, such as newspaper and magazine publishing.

 

I shoot film for everything except the images I use for my business web site. Given what I shoot film for, I have no reason to consider digital capture. If digital capture can't deliver the same level of image quality as medium format or large format for professional use, I see no reason to believe that medium format or large format film and processing won't be around for a very long time. Amateurs and press photographers aren't using medium format or large format now, nor have they used it for many years. So why wouldn't the infrastructure to support medium and large format photography continue to be available regardless of digital's takover of amateur and press photography?

<i> Lots of pros use 35mm and now use digital for convenience and speed, and for those applications where quality is not as important, such as newspaper and magazine publishing. </i><p>

 

I'm not going to get into the dead end argument, but this statement is absurd. Lots of pros have used 35mm for photographs that were used in high quality applications, including documentary, scientific, nature, portraits, etc etc, and published large format books and made large prints from 35mm.

I don't understand why you say it's absurd. I have 11x14 prints made from 35mm film. They look pretty good. But there's simply no comparison between an enlargement to that size from 35mm film and the same size print from a 4x5 sheet. It's like the difference between looking at a scene, and looking at it through a fine screen. Clearly, the 4x5 sheet has more detail than a 35mm slide. How is this debatable?

"Lots of pros use 35mm and now use digital for convenience and speed, and for those applications where quality is not as important, such as newspaper and magazine publishing."

 

I don't know what sort of magazines you have in mind, but most magazines I read are quite susceptible to high quality images.

That has not nothing to do with whether or not professionals use it, that's why. You said: <i>Lots of pros use 35mm and now use digital for convenience and speed, and for those applications where quality is not as important, such as newspaper and magazine publishing. </i> That's still not true. 8x10 will give much, much, much better big prints, but that has nothing to do with what you said. Professionals have used 35mm for many years for a wide variety of applications. You said otherwise and that's just wrong. I said nothing about whether you can get better quality from a larger negative.

This is probably for another thread, although it is a related issue, but isn't there also a problem in terms of storage? How often does one need to transfer digital files to preserve the image as opposed to the long storage life of negatives? Am thinking of all those folks who preserved the most "important life moments" on VHS only to find years later they have been lost. Is this a legitimate concern...

i think theyre called hard drives...

...which never crash. but then tomorrows venus transit across the sun might wipe out everyones :)

Just use what you have and what you like and be happy, predictions on IT related items are anyway off in most cases. The kind of equipment planning for the future (more than 2 or 3 years ahead) does not make sense in our time.

That said I will still continue to buy into MF, because it is just the best of the two worlds (film + digital) for my needs. And I also dont want to support an upcoming monopolist in the DSLR sector.

>i think theyre called hard drives...<

 

yeah, but deep inside ... you all have that fear it might fail you, isn't it?

i never had this with film.

<I>I don't understand why you say it's absurd.</I> Well because it is absurd to put format

over subject. each format has its strengths and weakness, and each has it's place.

These are boring conversations and lately they are all posted by the same person.

 

...blah blah blah...

I don't understand the anguish and anger over high-end digital capture.

 

If "medium format" digital capture costs more than you can afford today, then use small format digital capture or film.

 

If small format digital capture or film doesn't give you the print quality that you want at the print size that you want, then use medium or large format film.

 

Most photo.net participants are amateurs, and our decision criteria can be different from those of pros. For example, most of us use much less film than pros so the calculation of capital cost vs film cost per day is different.

 

If in a few years high-end digital capture seems better and within your price range, then buy it then. Why worry so much about it now?

 

As an amateur, if with technology X you can get the end results that you want at a price that you can afford, then use technology X.

 

I don't know why you are so negative about scanning, or why you seem to imply that digital will give you a higher rate of good images than transparencies. Is it the dynamic range of transparency film? If so, try negative film.

Jeff,

 

Perhaps we're talking about two different things. Perhaps you don't understand what I wrote. Perhaps I didn't write clearly. So, let me try again.

 

When I look at a photograph in a magazine such as Time, Newsweek, Outdoor Photographer, etc. it's made from a series of dots. I believe it's called half-tone, but I'm not a pro, never have been, and never will be, so perhaps my terminology is incorrect. But it's clear to me, and should be clear to anyone with reasonably good vision, that the quality of an image printed in the typical magazine is far inferior to an image printed on paper in a darkroom. That being so, there cannot be much difference between an image originating on 35mm film and one originating on 4x5 film, if it ends up being printed in Time magazine.

 

If that's incorrect, please tell me why. I'm willing to listen, and learn from those in a position to know better than I.

 

But if I'm correct, that might go a long ways towards explaining why press photographers no longer use Speed Graphics and Rollei TLRs but instead use 35mm and digital SLRs. They are much faster to work with, and produce results that are more than good enough for the publications they will appear in.

 

A photographer who uses medium or large format film is obviously attempting to achieve results that are superior to that which can be produced on 35mm film. Those results would be wasted on the cover of USA Today. So why go to all the hassle?

 

Having never used a digital back on a medium format camera or a 4x5, I can't say how the results compare to film in those formats. But I do often come across statements that seem to indicate that digital is not yet up to the quality that can be achieved with large format film.

 

If that's true, I'm simply suggesting that that is a good reason why medium and large format film will continue to be a viable means of achieving high quality photographs.

 

Not trying to start a war, just offering an opinion.

"...digital--in any format in its current technology--is nothing more than a scam..."

 

"...the apparatus, the souless machine, must be subserviant, the personality and its demands must dominate..." Heinrich Kuhn

I'll see if I can talk to all those who have raised a civil point or attempted to carry on a

decent discussion.

 

Mike. $15k to $30k pricetag for a MF digital back kills it for 99.99% of all those who use

MF. It's dead to me that's for sure and it may kill it altogether.

 

Ellis. I appreciate your help and suggestions. I know you are right but I just have this

giant reluctance. I just gotta stew about it some more. If I must I must. As to the

opinions of those on that thread. I guess they're in the one onehundredth of one percent.

Hope they can keep the monopolists at bay.

 

Peter. At $30k a back when the 1Ds solution is nearly as good for so much less I don't

think the infrastructure of MF digital capture can survive. Film is more secure, to my mind

than I had thought a few months ago.

 

Michael. The anger is because I made an assumption and got sucked in. I spent a year

experimenting and learning digital for not nearly so good a reason as I thought. The

prices of larger format digital capture are beyond all reason. Senseless. Stupid. Digital is

a better way to make pictures for me. I really wanted to make my sorts of pictures with

digital capture. But it ain't gonna happen. Sorry but this ticks me off. I refuse to

compromise and make small pictures. I'm glad for those who don't give a whit for digital

and like film. I envy them actually. Perhaps it is that I was not all that good a

photographer and digital capture made me a better one. Goodness knows it was easier.

As to the rate of success with digital versus film I should think that is self esplanatory.

Easier to shoot more with digital and thus get more keepers and just the histogram itself

pretty much insures proper exposure.

 

Peter. What if tomorrow you woke up to the news that cars were going to cost ten times

what they presently do? You'd be pretty mad, right? Well my photography means almost

that much to me.

Emotionally it means a lot more than ANY car. I don't need photography to live so of

course its not the same. Yes, at heart, I am unhappy at the cost of MF digital backs. I

am unhappy with the cost of a 1Ds but it makes sense to me. Phase One's prices make no

sense. It is an outrage.

Scott,

 

In one of your other rants, you had settled on using the large AND medium format cameras you ALREADY own and that you were going to use a $400 Epson scanner.

 

So, what happened?

 

In any case, get over it. The Ferrari you want is out of your price range. Get on with life and make the photographs you want to make. Then scan them and print them. The photographs will probably come out better this way, anyway.

 

What is so difficult about this?

David,

 

Rant? Is it your opinion that this board is just to ask questions like "Can I put a Hasselblad

lens on my Mamiya Super? Or, Which Hoga should I get?"

 

If you don't like my instituting discussions about current photography trends .... please

feel free to not read them.

 

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. Those who's business

can amortize the expense are not doing themselves any favors by laying down as docile

lambs at the wolf's door.

In the new "Picture" magazine, there is an interview with the President of Mamiya America Corp. He says Mamiya has a 40% share of the medium format market. I don't recall his name.

 

So now that you know this, you can direct your efforts toward him.

 

In the mean time, why have you changed your mind about shooting film and scanning it?

I also don't see why the discussion is that heated.

 

In the ex-35mm range, digital has managed to reach or outperform film in many instances for a price that many find acceptable. Others still shoot film, for financial reasons, or because they like film.

 

In the medium format range, many (but not all) backs are still extremely expensive. I guess some of the manufacturers have to decided to get a huge return on their development investments on each individual back. Right now, few of them follow the logic that once they reduce their prices, medium format's attractiveness will not suffer and they may stay in their business themselves.

 

Hopefully some of them read these threads and find the arguments convincing... I guess many medium format enthusiasts see the issues and want to bring attention to these issues.