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

Hi all,

<p>

I just had a look at Stephen Johnson's site about his project to digitally

photograph the US national parks - 'With a New Eye'. What makes this

unique is that he is using 4x5 digital backs to do this! He is using a Sinar-X

4x5 view camera, with Dicomed 4x5 and Better Light digital inserts, and the

Apple Macintosh PowerBook 540c, 3400c, and G3 series computers, items

usually associated with taking still-life studio images.

<p>

This setup allows the taking of images in color, black and white, and infrared

with extremely high resolution and dynamic range (Dicomed: 6000x7520

pixels, 130MB files with more than 9 stops of exposure latitude and the Better

Light: 6000x8000 pixels, 142MB files with more than 10 stops of exposure

latitude.)

<p>

Obviously the examples on the web site do not show the quality of his

images very well, although they look impressive, and I'm wondering if anyone

has seen the originals and cares to comment on them.

I'm also 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>

I realise that carrying all this gear into the wilderness to take images seems

like a lot of effort, but maybe this is how the photographers of the past felt

like when lugging their heavy 8x10 (and larger) cameras, tripods and plates

around (I'm sure I once saw an image of one famous photog & his mule

carrying a lot of gear).

<p>

On another 'pro' photography list I subscribe to, many of the commercial

photographers have commented of late about the demise of a number of E6

processing labs and how the push for digital is quickly overtaking the demand

for film. Some of the recent threads here too have noted the discontinuation

of some LF size films.

I think Stephen Johnson's project is a glimpse into the future of LF

photography (or is it already here) and I would be interested to hear others'

comments.

<p>

You can visit his 'parks project' web site at:

<p>

http://www.sjphoto.com/parks_project_photos.html

<p>

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

<p>

Kind regards

<p>

Peter Brown

<p>

-----------------------------------------------

<p>

Festina lente - hurry slowly

<p>

- Latin proverb

I think it is the future in a land where everyone has $25K to spare

and the wind never blows.

back in the 19th century, when people like carleton watkins carried

mammoth plate view cameras, chemicals and fragile glass plates miles

into the wilderness on the backs of mules, it was because that was

the only way to get outstanding high-quality large images. carrying

a crap-load of digital gear and computers somewhere just to get an

image that might be 1/10 the quality of a good silver-based negative

seems pretty ridiculous to me, and sounds more like he is counting on

the idea that it is "digital" to have some impact on the general

public. which, from my experience, is probably not that far off the

mark...viewing photographs in a book or magazines, or especially on a

website, does not even begin to display the strengths of LF

photography, and lay-persons can easily be fooled by the

apparent "quality" of a 60-130MB digital file in those applications.

<p>

that said, it really doesnt matter that much what format or

methodology someone may choose - either you have some kind of vision

or you dont, and whatever medium you might choose to express it, it

will show one way or the other.

I don't think the issue is whether this is the fate/future of Large

Format so much as a glimpse of the future of FILM. No doubt, digital

will eventually replace film, and that's true for LF as well as any

other. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Our environment could do

without all the chemical waste needed for film production and

processing. At least for LF, all our equipment won't be obsolete;

we'll just use a different back. Equally certain, however, is that

accessible & practical LF digital is a long way off still. jj

Just got done looking at his website, while I see nothing unique

about his vision or composition, those little 4"x4" imgages on my

monitor look pretty good, but what do they look like at 11x14, 16x20

or 20x24 and larger? Like one of the posters said, if it is not

better, what is all the hoopla about. Pat

Thanks Joe, you may be on to something - perhaps the question should be

re-phrased:

<p>

Is this a glimpse of the future for LF "FILM" or the way in which we will record

our images?

<p>

Although I disagree with your thoughts that; "accessible & practical LF digital

is a long way off still." Having been amazed at the speed at which digital

technology has developed, especially in the last few years, and with the

advances in nano-technology I'd be more inclinded to think that accessible &

practical LF digital may not be as far off as we think.

<p>

Kind regards

<p>

Peter Brown

<p>

--

Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.

I agree with Glen. Although these scanning backs can record with

equal detail as film, the subject matter is very limited as exposure

times are in the 30 minute range... Most of us landscape shooters

struggle with the difference between 1/60th vs. 1/2 second.... so as

digital does have a ton of advantages, I feel the makers of these

products will not be rushing to make a high end 4x5 backs that will

shoot images in 1/60th of second. Therefore, I think film will be

around for quite awhile. The big market is studio shooters where

most subjects remain still. Kodaks back does shoot at rather fast

speeds but can't match 8x10 film for large prints..but falls between

MF and 4x5. Whether this trend continues remains to be seen as the

market starts shrinking real fast.... i.e. for users who requie

superb LF detail and fast shutter speeds.

Pat and others,

<p>

I didn't mean to encourage comments on the man's actual photography ability

or technique and I think that whether we like his photographs or whether the

quality (at this early stage) is better than a traditonal LF hand-made print is

irrelevant.

<p>

The fact that this photographer has taken the step to transport what is

essentially a still-life digital studio camera setup, out into wilderness to see

how it performs, is pushing the boundaries of technology and it is these

"pioneers" who set the stage for the future.

<p>

I agree that currently, film is still the best medium to produce a high quality

enlarged image of a wilderness area, but I am also open-minded enough to

acknowledge that this gentleman is trying a new approach and I for one

would not be surprised to see, as Joe says, digital eventually replacing film.

<p>

Let me ask this question;

<p>

If the price becomes comparable (or cheaper), the quality and the means by

which we can capture an image digitally, becomes as easy and as good as LF

film capture, would there be any reason NOT to move to digital capture

instead of film?

<p>

--

"There is nothing permanent except change."

<p>

Kind regards

<p>

Peter Brown

Peter, once digital exceeds film in every way, image resolution,

color fidelity, exposure times, size and bulk.... then I think it

boils down to economics. For landscape shooters that use a one box

of film per year, it still would not make economic sense. But for

regular shooters, the cost of this digital system will be dwarfed by

the expense of buying film, processing film, scanning film (assuming

you are printing digital). In addtion, digital offers many other

advantages, such as the ability to see the actual shot on screen

before leaving the area and gauranteeing there will be no lost images

in the processing stage. Of course both are equally vulnerable to

actually loosing the film or hard drive. So if and when digital ever

acheives this stage of developement, I am sure it will grab a big

market share and leave film makers in a quandry about which films to

still produce.

<p>

The only question that remains is how many years away is this?

My guess is around 5. It could happen faster, but it seems most of

the chip makers are putting their recources in the larger markets

such as 35mm and MF systems. But like any other industry, once this

becomes saturated, makers look for new markets. Landscape LF shooter

will surely be last on their target list.

Hi Bill,

<p>

Yes I agree with your sentiments. I think that the time frame is probably

about right too.

<p>

You say; " . . .it seems most of the chip makers are putting their recources in

the larger markets such as 35mm and MF systems." - this is most likely correct

but the plus side to this is that the innovations which occur here, will flow

fairly quickly to LF shooters too, I would imagine. There are a lot of

professional LF shooters who work outside the comfort of the studio and I'm

sure the manufacturers will accomodate them too, which will in turn benefit us

"landscape photographers".

<p>

But who knows, perhaps those advances in 35mm & MF will be so good that

we'll give up LF all together!

<p>

- just kidding! ;-)

<p>

--

"Where there is an open window there exists limitless opportunity."

<p>

Kind regards

Digital technology is promising, but far from being ready for outdoor photography. What would be interesting is a

system the size of a medium format camera, but with some movements, why not computer controlled using for

example inner lens elements movements and digital zooming, and offering large format

resolution. As you point out, keeping details in all the dynamic range the subject offers is interesting,

although some is inevitably lost when the image is adjusted to have an eye pleasing contrast, at least

details in the shadows and highlights are preserved. There are already a few optical banches that have

been made for the purpose of digital photography, such as the 6x9 Linhof. Combined with high

resolution digital lenses and a high res lightweight digital back, they should be able to replace film.

<p>

I'm sure we will get there eventually. But there is still a *very long way* to go technically and economically

before there is a real *field* high res digital camera that will make us forsake the film camera. In fact I

can't see any benefit if the gear is not lighter and shooting times are not similar or shorter than for

standard film. Using a laptop computer outside in not conceivable either. As Glen pointed, the price of

such equipment may limit it to some professional photographers who are doing well. But ten years ago, a graphic

workstation was priced well above any amateur's means and is now available to anyone. So we will

see what the future offers, but of course outdoor large format photographers do not represent such a

big market and developers are always looking for a return on their investments.

<p>

What worries me is that we, outdoor photographers may soon be placed from the present standstill

position into a dead end position. The studios are massively turning to digital and some of the processing labs are

already forsaking their 8x10 and 5x7 processing equipment. 4x5 may be next on the list. The film

distributors are gradually reducing their range too. So we should better hold to our sheet films as long as we can and

shout loud or the film marketing companies might forget us otherwise and leave us mean less!

For the person who asked about what Johnson's prints look like, I've

seen several prints made from Johnson's original digital files.

There were several at MacWorld in S.F. a few years back. They were

fantastic. The equal in terms of smooth tonal range and definition

of anything I've seen from film originals.

Howard, but keep in mind, although he does an excellent job of cherry

picking the shots to suit his long shutter speeds... you won't see

many traditional shots, such as waterfalls, etc. Well, at least if

you do, they will not have the look that we are all accustomed to.

<p>

One of the incredible mysterious of this digital phenomena is

the actual comparison of digital file size vs. analog files.

Conventional wisdom says that a digital camera must be able to

acheive the same size file as a scanner can pull from film, assuming

the scanner did not exceed the resolution of the film, for arguments

sake, 5 - 6k dpi. However, what has become a shock to me is that in

reality, this has not panned out. There are several digital, one

shot backs right now that can produce a 30x40" print with equal

quality than 4x5 scanned film. The small files, < 70mb are rezzed up

to the needed size, for example, a 30x40" print at 300 dpi on LF film

will be 316MB. With the proper rezzing software it seems these

digital files acheive near similar results than film at 30x40". It

is theorized that the digital back files have pixels much more

condusive to rezzing up vs. files acheived by scanning film. I have

consistently read these test done on everything from 35mm digital to

the MF one shot backs. The consensus seems overwhelming.

<p>

So I guess my point is, the technology seems to be very close

to where we need to be, assuming very few people are making prints

bigger than 30x40", and i am sure the next generation backs will

match 40x50" prints. So as I see it, the ultimate backs for LF

landscape shooters are about 2 or 3 generations away. First the

price needs to drop from the $25k average price now. I think $10k is

good price point. Next they need to become a bit more compact and

utilize smaller storage products. Then they need to be more rugged

for field use and be able to operate in a wide range of

temperatures. So this is where my 5 year guess came from...not so

much the sheer technology which is practically there for prints

30x40" and smaller, but rather all the issues most landscape shooters

are confronted with.

<p>

I have to admit, the idea of not buying film, storing film,

loading film holders, unloading film holders, processing risks and

cost, scanning costs etc. is very appealing to us film > digital

users of today. It seems nothing has changed in 180 years of

photography, images were taken the same basic way, lens, light tight

box and film. Now in a period of less than a decade the process is

being completely revolutionized. In my opinion, the digital

revolution will bring even more serious hobbiest and part time

professionals into the arena, as this generation loves everyting

computerized! As Bob Dylan says, Times are a changin....

"I have to admit, the idea of not buying film, storing film, loading

film holders, unloading film holders, processing risks and cost,

scanning costs etc. is very appealing to us film > digital users of

today"

<p>

How about carrying lap top, batteries, batteries for scanning back,

cables to connect both? Does that sound any better?

I read about this person's "Project" many months ago, I think it was

on PT, any way I think it is a gimmick for him to get some kind of

notoriety since neither his talent nor his image look particularly

appealing.

<p>

I dont know if this is the future of film, but it seems to me that as

far as simplyfying the process we are changing one for the other,

film holders, for digital back and lap top, neither make it easier

than 35 mm. As I stated before when I really see a definite

improvement of digital over traditional film then I will consider it,

so far it is only hype and wishfull thinking.

I guess Bill wasn't commenting on the current status of large format

digital photography, only that in the future, we might be able to

get a device that is portable and won't require the use of a laptop

and other gear out in the field.

<p>

I, too, would like to see a digital back that will allow me to shoot

in similar situations. I don't think 30 minute exposures would cut

it for me. We might be a long way off for a digital back that can

take 1 shot (not a scanning back) and has the resolution power equal

to that of a 4x5 negative or chrome.

<p>

Back to my Tri-X development in my Jobo with the NFL playoffs in the

background.

<p>

:-)

If you mean the combination of impressive technology with pedestrian

image making, you're probably right. Same as always.

Do we need better equipment and more pixels and more expensive

printing options to do what has been done for decades now very well?

Can the eye discern all these refinements? I'm starting to think that

this is overkill. Unless it makes for better workflow these

refinements aren't really needed. james

First, I agree with Bill that Johnson "cherry picks" his shots.

Second, I am very active in digital imaging and agree with Bill's

assessment that in about 5 years it will be feasible for many to

replace large format cameras in the field with digital backs and

expect that within 10 years it will be feasible for the majority

(cost being the distinguishing factor). Third, the only reason in my

opinion to go to digital shooting is if one prefers printing by

digital methods, or for some other reason needs digital

distribution. For black and white printing there may not be much

advantage, if any, to printing digitally. For color, there is

already a distinct advantage to digital printing.

Jose... How about carrying lap top, batteries, batteries for

scanning back, cables to connect both? Does that sound any better?

No, not really, hence why I mentioned the fact these current

digital products are not very field friendly - yet. But in 5 years,

I think we will have a digital back about the size of 5 4x5 film

holders that include the LCD and storage device..in which you can

bring extra storage devices and batteries. This should make the

total load less than that of film holders. There will be a few extra

pounds. Then you get all the benefits of economics, seeing the image

on screen, no processing, no film cost, etc.

<p>

James.... Do we need better equipment and more pixels and more

expensive printing options to do what has been done for decades now

very well? Can the eye discern all these refinements? I'm starting to

think that this is overkill.

We don't need faster cars, more efficient cars, safer cars,

etc. But it's the nature of capitalism. Even if image quality does

not improve, there still seems to be many other advantages of

digital. The other issue I forgot to mention which will be a big

improvement over film is exposure latitude. 7 stops will be the

norm, much better than chrome film.

Bill:

<p>

I guess you were answering to me...so is JORGE not JOSE...:-))

<p>

I agree with you maybe in the future we will have a back that does

all that requires a lot of equipment now. But as I mentioned before

at this stage it was a gimmick for this guy ....I mean who wants to

carry all that equipment when you can get a Fuji quickload and shoot

all you want with little hassle.

<p>

The one thing that will make me sad to see go away is darkroom work,

I really enjoy this stage of the process and just thinking about

having to sit in front of a computer to "develop" my negatives...well

sort of depresses me. I think that if film comes to pass away, I will

be one of those doing wet plate collodion and pt/pd.....as a matter

of fact I already got me a plate holder for my 8x10 ......just

getting ready for the bad news. :-(

Thanks for all the comments,

<p>

I agree with Bill's & Howard's assessments and from my own research I also

believe that a sturdy, portable digital back for 6x9/4x5 (without cables,

laptops, etc) is not too far away and the output will equal or better our

current film quality.

<p>

We are already seeing traditional camera makers such as Ebony introducing

new cameras which will be compatible with digital backs, for example the

"new" 6x4.5-6x12 'Finesse' with facilities for digital & film use. Other

manufacturers are also introducing prototypes as well.

<p>

This is a contentious issue particularly with die-hard film users and there will

always be early developers who lead the way and those who sit and wait,

but one thing is for sure, digital capture is here now - we'll just have to wait a

couple more years to see who is riight and who is wrong.

<p>

"Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better"

- Samuel Johnson (1755)

<p>

It was great hearing your views - thanks.

<p>

Kind regards,

This is not a comment in pro or con to digital LF work. Just

curious, because to the best of my knowledge the largest digital

sensor back only captures a max of a 6x6cm image. While you certainly

gain the use of view camera movements, the last time I checked 6x6

was medium format. Has this changed?

Wow! 9 million pixels of tired old image. The "Parks Project" is a

retrogressive step uniting old cliches with the most modern

equipment. Perhaps the mind set that makes people "early adopters" or

pioneers in technology put their creativity in the "default"

position. Digitization may unite all mediums but it doesn't change

the distinctly undigital acts of thinking and feeling that most of us

depend heavily on.