Why digital?

I appreciate that this certainly isn't the first nor the last comment on the great debate - digital vs traditional film, but I would like to make a few comments on this forum. I have always had an open mind when it came to digital images, although I do not use or anticipate using digital in my photography, I can see why some choose to travel this road. By coincidence, I took delivery of 40 prints today that I have to judge for a competition. There was some awesome digital work - very subtle despite being stitched panoramics - and shot on "consumer" gear. Yesterday I took delivery of the current edition of "View Camera" magazine - it takes a bit longer to reach the UK!! Inside were 11 pages dedicated to digital, studio work - that was IMHO, nothing special, in fact it was very run of the mill. But I endeavour to keep up with my interest and so began reading the accompanying text......the prices quoted for the kit used was obscene!! "$25,000 (here), $19,000 (there) and thats without the cost of the computer itself!!!! The point of this posting? At these prices, and for the quality reproduced in the journal, I can see no benefit in going digital (certainly not to this level). I imagine that it will take a long time for prices to drop to a point whereby the average enthusiast will neglect film and traditional techniques in favour of digital. I am not anti-digital, rather pro-film!! Maybe I am missing the point? But at those prices I can live with that.

Well Paul, like everything else is what you do with the stuff, not

what it costs. For example Dan Burholder uses a 35 mm, Nikon F4 or F5

I dont know if he has upgraded. He does have a kick ass computer set

up, with top of the line Mac for graphics (I dont know what is

called). I am sure he has not spent all that money you mention, but

he's prints are beautiful. On the other hand if you are a comercial

photogrpaher need fast turn around a so so resolution, I think

digital is the way too go, specially if you can claim it as a

business expense!

Jorge I agree, but the "amateur produced" digital prints were of good

quality and taken with affordable equipment. The View Camera article

was illustrated with "average" images that certainly didn't seem to

justify the amount spent on gear!

Hi Paul,

May be, I'm just a cinic, but posssibly The magazine had an ulteria

motive. Look, I have not read the magazine (shame on me, but I work

out in Saudi Arabia and magazines and the like tend to get butchered

by the censors like you will never believe) but just reading whats on

this discussion list may be I'm not so paranoid...

Never believe all you read in the papers...

Paul,

I know this guy who is a distributer for a "3 pass" digital system.

It is used in a Studio Setting and for the most part is used to

make catalogs / product shots. Cost: $25,000 . I am not big into

Digital Imaging. The occasional digital "snapshot" camera. To

make a living, I don't shoot Products, but if I did, I would probably

spend at least $25,000 on a system. It would pay for itself in

about 1-2 years--- film and processing add-up, and if you are

shooting LOTS of products, <i>chromes and E-6 processing

add-up fast!<i>

<br>

Maybe the images in view camera would have looked more

impressive if you saw the prints, instead of reproductions of

them. On this forum people complained of so-so printing a few

issues ago ( "Azo Issue").

<br>

Could it be that Amatures or Pro-Amatures because they aren't

doing it for a client or for big-bucks are able to shoot better work

and put their heart n'soul into the final image. A camera that

takes a digital image, or an image using film is just a tool.

Expensive tools don't alway make better images.

On the same note, it is easy to spot a REALLY BAD DRIVER

driving an expensive car, isn't it?

 

Pbear

Pookie, It seems that if current trends are anything to go by, a

digital system bought today for $25k will be obsolete in 18 months

time anyhow - do you then need to re-invest another $25k?

</I><I></I> for vommercial purposes , digital makes a lot of sense , even at

thse prices -- and that gear is aomed straight at at commercial image

makesrs. It makes dense because of the time savings. As soon as you know

the shot is right you can move on to the next one, or make corrections. And

the client doesn't needto have the film scanned ,etc.For catalog photography

the benefits multiply vecause of the heavy volume. <P>You also streamline

the reproduction process and the color accuracy-- which can be very

important in commercail advertising work.</!>

Paul, a long time ago, a very wise man told me " Its not the size,

shape, color, price, or smell of a man's tool that's important. The

only thing important is what he does with it." He wasn't talking

about photo equipment at the time. However, cameras, lenses, film,

etc. are also tools of the trade. It's interesting that you are upset

with the high price of professional digital imaging equipment, while

you continually attempt to convince people to purchase Ebony cameras.

I believe that Ebonys are "obscenly" priced compared to other wooden

field cameras, but you do have a perfect right to own one, if you

choose. Film, or digitally produced, the important element is the

final image. The market will determine the value, in the long run. I,

too, am a film man, and I have no interest in digitally produced

images. My wife, on the other hand, uses a digital camera on a daily

basis. It has proven to be a valuable tool for her property

management business.

</i>Normal?

<img src="http://www.luxfragilis.com/sf1.jpg">

<p>

I still find myself pro-film like you. However, I love digital for

certain applications. I love the convenience and speed of editing

and outputting photographs digitally. This quarter I've only output

the prints for one assignment via traditional means. Why?

Because it's faster and easier, which is a hugely valuable thing

to me considering that the less time and frustration I invest in

printing my assignments, the more time I have for all the other

work I have to do for other professors. It also allows me to make

changes, generally subtle ones (like in the image above) to

make the concept of some photographs clearer and more

successful.

<p>

On the other hand, if I want a print for sale or exhibition

purposes, I'll do it in a traditional darkroom. I do this because I

still feel that for fine black and white printing, my darkroom skills

are still capable of substantially superior results. Besides, I just

love the process. I don't care how good and cheap digital gets,

I'll still use silver-based processes because it's the way I like to

work for the majority of my stuff.

<p>

And as for the cost of digital, it can be ridiculously expensive, but

I believe it doesn't have to be quite so stifling. I do all of my

digital work on my own personal computer, a Mac G4, and an

Epson 1280 printer. I use the school's scanning equipment,

which helps keep cost down (though is only a temporary

solution). Between the computer, printer, and software, my

setup cost me around $3,800.00. No, not chicken feed exactly,

especially for a college student, but a lot easier to handle than a

$25,000.00 system, and there's not much I can't do. And down

the road 10 years there's nothing to say that, given the

appropriate upgrades, I won't still be using this system.

<p>

So I guess, to me, the point of all of this is that digital has its

place in my mind, and furthermore doesn't have to be so

obscenely expensive. It has its benefits and uses, but will never

entirely supplant traditional means, if only due to those of us

who simply prefer traditional means and materials.

As several people have hinted, the reasons for digital in something

like high volume catalog work is that the computer and digital

scanning setup replaces not only Polaroid tests, film, and processing,

but more importantly, also color separation costs. This brings a

profit center into the commercial studio that used to support an

entire different operation. Downside is that to go this course the

studio operation has to do an enormous volume of work to amortize the

equipment before it is obsolete. But despite this it brings down the

client's cost for photography/separations. At risk of being unkind,

this sort of high-volume studio work is exactly the sort of thing that

is going to be 'run of the mill' more or less by defa

Paul:

 

<p>

 

If I buy a $25k system next year, chances are the same thing may

sell for $12.5K in 18 months and there will be something twice

as nice, and twice as fast in 18 months for the same $25K, but

that does not mean I have to buy it.

 

<p>

 

It ( digital system) is just a tool, like anything else.

I am one of those that have invested close to 25K in digital

equpment. Mostly due to a pressure from clients. You charge the

same for the jobs but you save on material and processsing

costs and the client saves on pre press costs. The great

advantage is that you stop shooting as soon as you know the job

is done and then move on to the next . But I still like film better.

There is no magic in digital photograpy. It is as sex must be in a

bordello; cheap, easy and fills you with guilt!

Its all about choice!

 

<p>

 

Graphic designers never wanted to become typesetters or run a desk top

publishing company. Yet that is exactly what most designer have done

today to bring food on the table.

 

<p>

 

In my opinion most photographers really want to create images.

Unfortunately, pressure from clients, manufacturers and competitors

have forced many to jump in with both feet first, investing large

amounts of money in high volume digital imaging equipment. This money

has to be earned back within a short time frame due to the constant

product updates and new innovations. Therefore, many photographers are

becoming color separators and production houses.

 

<p>

 

In L.A. roughly 10% of commercial photographers do 90% of the work. The

pressure is on...

 

<p>

 

The future will probably see art directors doing a large percentage of

commercial photography using inexpensive high quality digital cameras,

leaving many commercial photographers with large loans and cash

outlays, floundering...until then there will be some commercial

photographers making small fortunes...that is probably what drives the

market...

 

<p>

 

The other camp will be made up of photographers using whatever medium

it takes to create personal imagery. Digital, regular photography,

holography or large format film based imaging...etc...

I was a very early adopter of digital for commercial use, starting about 1991 or 92. Over the years going through several different set-ups I spent a ton of money and now my last digital studio camera is broken and can't be repaired. I made some money with it surely, but keep in mind that if you buy an expensive digital camera that in a few years time it will be worthless and probably not repairable if it breaks. So be sure to amortize its cost rapidly, like one or two years. Digital makes good sense for commercial uses as several have stated already. It is faster and cheaper than film in a production setting. But if you don't need it for a business reason why throw your money away?

Paul, I've been looking at film scanners, and for us large format

shooters, there's really nothing out there to get excited about yet.

(In terms of capabilities or cost). It will be 2-3 years for a

resolution of 5,000 x 5,000 and Dmax 4.(high), etc. sheet film

scanner, and another 3 years for the price of such an item to be

less than the cost of an Omega or Besseler 4x5 Dichroic enlarger.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if you scan film, then there are no

film savings. Furthermore, if you scan film then digital is

reduced to second generation second rate stuff.

 

<p>

 

Okay now suppose I go out and spend big dollars for a 4x5

digital back (cannot get one for my 4x10 back and only God

knows how much an 8x10 back would cost) so that I can

eliminate film to make a first generation digital image. Can

anyone tell me of a reliable portable system that will work for 10

days at 10k feet in the Colorado Rockies in rain, snow, dust,

and intense solar radiation? Remember there is no power

outlets in those remote areas.

 

<p>

 

Furthermore, I have been told from a big digital lab they need

about 40 mgbs for each square foot of print to compete with film.

For a 20x24 print that is 133 mgbs. For a 30x40 print it is 333

mgbs, and for 40x50 we have 0.5 gig. Generating lots of 0.5 gig

files in the field is not practical, and I suspect the same holds for

processing a 0.5 gig file in photoshop.

 

<p>

 

Choice! Hmmm... For me this has been a very easy one to

make.

I feel I need to clarify a point in my original posting! I should

have emphasised the fact that my REAL problem was that the images

made with "Big Bucks" digital systems appear no better than the

images I have in front of me produced by gear that is within the

reach of most amateurs/enthusiasts. Whether or not you agree with or

use digital, the real bugbear seems to be that digital gear becomes

obsolete within months of it being released for sale! If you have

invested (say) $25K in digital and 18 months later the studio down

the road has just bought the "latest" digital kit then in order to

keep your customers from deserting you common sense seems to suggest

that you would have NO CHOICE but to upgrade! Seems a catch 22 to

me!! I'm just glad that I'm not on that spiral! I appreciate that a

busy commercial photographer has no choice - but as a LF enthusiast

I'm not that bothered on reading 11 pages of "useless" digital info

in what I presumed to be an enthusiast publication.

Paul, could you be more specific if possible in the processes used in

some of the prints you're evaluating ??

 

<p>

 

Although you probably won't find this opinion in common currency on

this forum, a high quality digital print from a high quality digital

capture is difficult to distinguish from a high quality traditional

print in sizes up to 11X14, and in many cases 16X20 using Genuine

Fractals. Many experienced photographers would argue the digital to

be superior.

 

<p>

 

So there would seem to be some bias here against digital in the face

of strong evidence otherwise. This is understandable given the nature

of this forum, and the enjoyment many of us, myself included, get

from our traditional processes.

 

<p>

 

But that does not warrant a blind prejudice against digital, nor does

it warrant quoting artifically high prices for digital equipment. A

6mp digital SLR is now under $2,000 U.S., a sufficient computer is

$1,000 U.S., and Photoshop with a printer is another $2,000. So for

$5,000 you can acquire a very good digital kit.

 

<p>

 

This kit would produce 11X14's that most would find the equal of

traditional prints.

 

<p>

 

As both a LF and digital photographer, I'm finding LF to be more of a

process than a result. I enjoy setting up a LF camera, I enjoy all

the little frustrations such as loading film, pulling darkslides,

squinting around under the darkcloth, metering, remembering to put

the white side back in, etc., etc., ....it's an enjoyable way to

spend an afternoon in the field.

 

<p>

 

As for digital equipment becoming obselete quickly, the tool is still

there .... We're still using a 2.1 mp consumer digicam to shoot 360

degree panoramas, mostly because it offers small file sizes with good

quality. Although you will find this hard to believe, this camera has

taken over 16,000 frames in the past three and a half years. If it

evaporated tomorrow morning I'd be more than happy to call it

obselete. It cost $499 Canadian.

 

<p>

 

Digital enables me to shoot with instant exposure feedback, and I've

seen little in the way of color correction that cannot be acheived in

PhotoShop. Perspective control with software now lets me tell the

computer how much vertical or horizontal perspective to apply or

remove. It's less fun than than using rise or shift, but the results

are the same. Clients are happy with one or two day turnaround, and

their printers or webmasters ask for digital files anyway.

 

<p>

 

I'm sure somewhere there is a digital back being offered for $20,000,

and somewhere there is a computer for $5,000, and a $5,000 printer as

well. There are also Linhof and Ebony cameras offered at prices well

above workhorse LF cameras that can take the same image. For every

one of those $20,000 backs sold, there are a hundred $2,000 Canon

D60's being sold, and for most applications the results are the same.

 

<p>

 

 

Shame on View Camera magazine for not offering its readers a more

realistic assessment of digital ... but the source is not impartial.

Right at the moment I think film to digital is the best solution for

amateur and non studio

professional photographers. Film is archival and has many times the

resolution as the

best digital. As for a print from a scan being a second generation

image certainly all

darkroom prints would be the same, and are obviously acceptable.

 

<p>

 

For the cost associated with digital and the almost absolute

certainty that you'll get twice

the machine at half the price in two years; you have to decide if

you need this tool NOW.

In the early 80's when PC were first being introduced there was

always the caveat that

you should be buying a solution not a computer. Does digital solve

a problem for you

that makes economic sense? If it does then you go digital. If it

doesn't then wait.

Mike suggested "This kit would produce 11X14's that most would find

the equal of traditional prints."

 

<p>

 

I wonder, is his printer a high quality dye-sublimation printer?

 

<p>

 

Consumer available digital is at the door for us LF photographers

interested in archiving color files from our sheet film onto, say,

archival, large capacity CD and DVD media.

 

<p>

 

But as far as digital prints themselves aren't affordable ink jet

prints succetible to permanent damage if they come in contact with

H20? This is what I have read.

My exact printer varies on the particular output, but there are

suitable offerings at a price point below my indicated price. Good

old H20 is not likely to do any print any good !! With consideration

to those who view digital threads a waste of bandwidth on a LF

digest, the following link profiles the Epson 2000, and Michael R.

has reviewed many other printers as well.

 

<p>

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/2000p.htm

 

<p>

 

Luminous Landscape is an excellent source of impartial information on

many digital / traditional comparisions. Check the subject index for

articles.

I appreciate that it is difficult to evaluate prints in a magazine -

but the prints I have in front of me are from "consumer" cameras, the

most expensive being approx £600 UK pounds. The quality is very good -

and this sort of quality reinforces my own opinion that there is a

place for digital! I am not anti-digital! The prices I quoted re;the

View Camera article were lifts from the text! One photograoher even

discusses how he shelled out $65,000 for a lighting set up for his

digital!!!!!!!!!!! I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that I

no longer feel as worried about the future of film! Traditional

photography will become a "niche", but I am sure it will survive.

View Camera had an article last year I believe authored by

GeorgeDeWolfe (sp)discussing the newest Epson printer. After

discussing the merits and improvements over previous printers he

mentioned how he had a closet full of the latest and greatest

printers, each one made obsolete by the next newer model or

technology. The last time I looked, I didn't have a closet full of D2

enlargers, just the same 30yr old one I bought second hand and have

used the last 10yrs to make many a fine print.

1-The ability to create photo-realistic images (and a lot more-see

below) by spraying ink on paper, as refined by Epson engineers, is

certainly one of the greatest discoveries/advances/thresholds in the

history of imaging. Looking back, I think it will rank right up there

with the printing press, lithography, the Daguerrotype, Kodachrome,

Polaroid film.

2-Yes, digital capture can emulate and maybe in some circumstances

surpass silver and iron halide capture of a latent image and its

development. I have never seen the output from the best digital

capture devices so I can't judge. My understanding is that the CMOS

processor in the Canon D30, as well as the CCD chips used in the

highest end digital SLRs, a la press services, are of a qualitative

difference from consumer level 3-4 mega-pixel cameras.

3-But on the output side, I think we spend too much comparing apples

and oranges. "Just as good as, almost like a," belies the issues.

This spraying of ink on paper is an entirely new graphic medium with

tremendous potential for personal expression. It's not as good as a

photography, it's different.

GOOD A