I Am SO Skewered On The Horns Of A Dilemma

[jim_jensen]

Well, my hyperlink didn't work for some reason. The site is

www.photo-i.co.uk.

[thomas_sullivan]

...when you start learning scanning and photoshop, do yourself a favor and make sure your tutor teaches you RAW scanning, and how to work with it in Photoshop. I'm just learning it myself, the RAW scanning, with my Epson 1640 SU....right 1600dpi...i can not believe the difference in my scans. I'd love to see what an Epson 4870, or even better yet, a Nikon 9000 can do with a MF scan in RAW. Epson, and Nikon scanner software, and even Vuescan scanner software all have their merits (those are the only ones i;ve personally worked with), but you depend on their version of image processing being the best. RAW scanning gives you exactly what the scanner scans, and YOU make the decision in Photoshop how to process it. The difference is outrageous. I honestly believe all those MF film to DSLR comparisons would fall apart (in favor, decidedly so, of MF film)if they ran RAW scans of the MF film....just my opinion.

[scott_fleming1]

David,

 

These are good questions and require much thought.

 

***1. Do you enjoy the process of photography better shooting digital or film and if the

latter then on what scale? Ignore the results for the moment, measure the enjoyment.***

 

At this point film is more enjoyable and shooting digital (other than fun snaps) is more a

question of control. I wish someone would build a lightmeter with a histogram on it.

Shooting is indeed the fun of it all (and there is a security inherrent in digital that

removes stress and adds to the fun factor) but my goal of a portfolio of prints I can be

proud of is .... The Goal. Still, nothing beats a good tranny on the light table or in the

projector.

 

***2. Do you want to be fully involved in a post-exposure processes leading to prints or

not?****

 

I don't love it but I want the control in my hands.

 

*** You can scan yourself or get it done by a lab. You can prepare your own digital file or

get it done by a lab. You can make your own inkjet/giclee prints or get them ( and a wider

range of print-type options) made by a lab.***

 

I don't trust my lab and it's fifty miles away. I want to print my own stuff.

 

***Big prints by great labs aren't cheap but only you know how many you might want .***

 

For now not that many but one of these years ... quite a few.

 

****3. Do you want to do your editing on a monitor or on a lightbox/loupe?***

 

I can do both. Enjoy both. However a monitor and a light table are only proofing devices.

The print is the thing.

[david_goldfarb]

One of the attractions of shooting color transparencies is that you always have a standard to which prints can be compared. My lab (West Coast Imaging) is 2000 miles away, and when I say, "match the slide but give me the digital equivalent of 5Y and 10M," I trust them to get it right, and they usually do. Work on getting your transparencies right in the camera so you don't need so much post-exposure work.

 

If your main interest is landscape, then large format is the right tool for the job. If your camera is too heavy, get a lighter camera. Many 4x5" cameras are lighter than pro 35mm cameras (Gowland, Toho Shimo, Toyo 45 CF, Ikeda Anba, and if you like more precision Arca Swiss F-line, and probably a few others).

[roger krueger]

I tried the newest coolest scanners (bought a Sprintscan 120, tried a couple of scans on someone else's Nikon 8000, and had a few scans done on an older Imacon as well) but wasn't really happy with my scans 'til I took a leap BACK in time and bought a 1996 vintage Screen 1045 Drum scanner--for only a few hundred more than I paid for that $%^& piece of $%^& Polaroid.

 

It's absolutely the ONLY way to get anywhere close to all of the sharpness and resolution a good lens can deliver to 4x5, and is considerably superior to the Polaroid/Nikon on 2x3 as well.

[jay_de_fehr]

I always get a kick out of these "my equipment is holding me back" threads. Most of the greatest photographs ever produced were made with very humble equipment, and lots of talent, but the compensation doesn't work in reverse, contrary to what the manufacturers and advertisers suggest. You already have many, many times the investment in equipment that poor Eddy Weston ever had, but he managed to forge ahead in spite of his disadvantages. I think you're barking up the wrong tree, Scott. Best of luck to you, and I hope you enjoy whichever new equipment you settle on.

[raymond of rish]

I don't care what they say, there is a ceiling as to the quality of pictures that any piece of equipment can take. I used to use Kodak Gold on an APS camera and the pictures sucked. Then I moved to a Rebel 2000 and the quality of my pictures increased 5-fold. Then I upgraded film and again my pictures got better yet. New lenses, filters, etc. continually promote better photography. I will grant you that if you are not a good photographer then better equipment will not give you better pictures, but that does not imply that if you are a better photographer that better equipment will not help you either. On the contrary, contrapositive to the original statement, there is a limit to the quality of photography that given equipment can produce. Sure, I've seen some decent photos taken by some good photographers on disposable cameras. But the photos those same photographers take on better equipment are usually beyond comparison.

[jeffrey_abelson]

I don't care what they say, there is a ceiling as to the quality of pictures that any piece of equipment can take.

 

It really depends on how you define quality - but I disagree with this sentiment...

[scott_fleming1]

Jay,

 

Nowhere in my post did I say my equipment was holding me back. I said I had reached

the point where I wanted to buy the correct new equipment for me (and not have to

upgrade sooner than thre or four years) after having spent two years with varrying used

cameras and differing formats.

 

I detailed my angst with the present state of the affairs regarding MF which I like very

much and hate to see fully and finally eclipsed by 35mm.

 

I raised questions about scanning. Something I have resisted very solidly but now see I

must encompass in my efforts.

 

I suppose I lamented, obscurely, the ridculous, absurd, insane, cost of digital capture

devices that are eclipsed every two years by a new model.

 

I guess what I left out was an out and out complaint that for now anyway the dedicated

amateur can no longer keep up with the pros unless he is truly rich. I believe by the

way that this is the case. The only way I can do it is if I shoot 4 x 5 and either pay for a

drum scan or pay the lab hundreds for the large prints I want to produce. That is what it

will take to equal the output of a PhaseOne P-25.

 

As to your reference to Edward Weston .... pretty silly. If I had a brother (Cole) that did

half the process (printing ... which is analogous to the scanning and Photoshop end of

digital photography) maybe this whole thing would look less complex to me. Personally I

wish I had a lab that could just print a well exposed slide the way I want it or scan one

properly. The lab I have available to me is a crap shoot as to whether or not they can

even develop E-6 adequately.

 

Furthermore I don't think the Westons had nearly so many variables to juggle back in their

day as we do today. Photography was a much more straight forward process. But

whatayawanna bet that they did all they could to get the best lenses they could lay their

hands on whenever they got the scratch to do so. And I'd bet as well that in their

beginning days they were unhappy with the stuff they had and gave some thought and

energy to getting better.

[paul utkin]

Scott,

 

I see the combo of 4x5 and 645 AF system to be a perfect for any hobbyist. If you need a tool for business - get the best digital system your business can afford.

 

Speaking about scanners - 4870 will be more than enough for 4x5 slides and so-so OK for 645. I see no reason to buy your own high-grade scanner unless you will need it on regular basis to scan and sell gallery quality prints. If you need such scans just occasionally, say, ones a month - it makes more sense to scan it in the lab and use your own 4870 for the rest of work.

 

I just came back from Yosemite where I used my Contax 645 with 3 lenses and 2 backs - all in a small 17x11x8" bag. Nice and simple. Very efficient as a hobby solution.

[keith_laban]

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>Scott, Paul is right, you have the perfect tool for the job in hand. The best landscape photographer here in the UK is using a 5x4 camera and God forbid that he ever swap that for a digital back. I know of no top-notch landscape photographers that are using digital backs.<p>If I was a studio photographer I would now be using a digital back. If I were a wedding photographer or a photojournalist I would now be using a DSLR. If I were purely a landscape photographer I would be using a 5x4 (or possibly the medium format system I already own). The point is I'm not and I use medium format and film because this is the medium and format that best suits my work. Sure there will come a time when it will be impractical to keep shooting film, but I will face that one when I need to. Anything in the way of digital alternatives that I could buy now as a replacement are going to be obsolete in a couple of years anyway so I will continue to and enjoy using film.<p>By the way, the second best landscape photographer here in the UK uses medium format, so either way you can't really loose, you already own and use the same formats as the two best landscape guys in the UK and believe me they are really rather good. Enjoy the equipment you already have ;-)

[jay_de_fehr]

Scott, there are many errors of fact in your reply, including mistakenly calling Cole Weston Edward's brother (he was his son), and suggesting that he did Edward's printing for him. Edward printed his own negatives, taught Cole to print, and he continued to print his father's negatives after his death. Edward Weston used the cheapest lenses he could find, not the most expensive ones, because he understood that for contact printing his negatives, just about any lens would be more than adequate.Your assumptions regarding Edward Weston's emphasis on equipment reveals a lot about your dilemma. Photography is only as complex as one chooses to make it. I assure you that if you were to make prints anywhere near the quality of those Weston produced, you could display them proudly alongside any modern pro. It is certain that one need not be truly rich, or even well heeled to produce the highest quality work, but an investment must be made in learning the craft of photography. Who are the "pros" that you can't keep up with using your current equipment, and what have they produced that exceeds in quality the work produced by Weston, Adams, Evans, Sexton, Butcher, etc., etc.? My point is that no equipment, no matter how expensive or technologically advanced, will make you a better photographer, and the only reason to buy new equipment is if your present equipment is holding you back. In the end, photography, like most pursuits, is what you make of it. I wish you the best of luck, and continued success in whatever you choose to make of your photography.

[jeffrey_abelson]

"I guess what I left out was an out and out complaint that for now anyway the dedicated amateur can no longer keep up with the pros unless he is truly rich. "

 

Keep up with the pros? Depending on what kind of pro, there's a camera for every style: many photojournalists use dslrs; many portrait photographers use the 6x6 format and fine-art photographers use everything from the $20 Holga to the best and the most expensive film rigs.

[johnmarkpainter]

Scott,

 

You are making it too hard....

 

DO get the Epson 4870. A very practical purchase.

 

You already have a 4x5 and you aspire to do Lanscape. Use the 4x5 for that. You only

need 2 or 3 lenses and a TON OF FILM AND PROCESSING. Do you have a good spot meter?

 

Unfortunately, a View Camera and lugging it around is part of the gig. That is part of what

forces you to contemplate the shot as opposed to running around snapping with a

Motorwinder.

 

If you want to be a real man, get an 8x10 camera. I almost did but I chickened out (I am

into Portait...no landscape to speak of).

 

You have a 10D for messing around...done.

 

I am friend's with several quite successful Photogs. I have more gear than they do..that's

embarassing. I am a Full-Time Musician and part-Time pro-Photog....I make a lot more

money from my music and i spend it on gear (which is getting cheap these days).

 

jmp

[mike dixon]

<i>I guess what I left out was an out and out complaint that for

now anyway the dedicated amateur can no longer keep up with

the pros unless he is truly rich.</i><P>

If you cannot produce fully-professional quality results with the

equipment you currently have, a new set of of gear will not

magically enable you to do so. I know several full-time, working

professional photographers whose gear is no more advanced

than yours.

[j.w.]

Scott;

 

I've enjoyed this discussion; thanks for being brave enough as to bare your soul to the photo.net world.

 

Yes, I've been guilty in the past of pursuing the technology treadmill, at the expense of the pursuit of my passion for images.

 

Which is why, for myself, the passionate pursuit of images, using primitive devices such as pinhole box cameras with LF sheet film, has re-centered my love of photography back to where it should have been all along.

 

I'm not suggesting you abandon your current stable of equipment and go off on some esoteric, spiritual journey with a pinhole camera; I am saying that one critical key to your decisions you've already stated earlier, which is your passion about photographing the river canyon area near your home. Don't lose that passion. Focus on it. Its the life-blood of your photographic journey.

 

You also stated a desire to end up with a portfolio of great prints; that's also something worth focussing on, rather than the gear. Its axiomatic that those prints be as archival as possible. This area of archivability is a concern which can inform your decision making as much as image quality.

 

And don't ignore "out of the box" thinking, like alternative processes(3-color carbon printing, for instance). There may be "timeless" photographic methods out there waiting for you to capture those river images like no other method can.

[fred_mueggelhopper]

Why all the angst over equipment? Pick one MF system and

work with it until you know it inside and out, backwards and

forward, blindfolded. Pick 2 or 3 lenses for it and learn their

nuances. Keep it simple. Focus on the images, not on the

equipment. Look at the work of Robert Glen Ketchum. It is

beautiful fine art landscape images, produced with the

unassuming Pentax 67 system and a few lenses. Then get a MF

scanner and use it. Once again, keep it simple!

[scott_fleming1]

Thanks for all your help.

 

In this thread and my other it has pretty much all become clear. Hashing it out like this

is so valuable. Chalenges one and makes you think.

 

I have had to face up to two problems I had and could not understand or face up to.

One: I had a powerful lust for a 22mp digital MF back and a fancy new camera. This was

gear lust mostly, with a dash of desire to jump to pure digital capture and not much

else. I don't need it.

 

Two: I have never understood scanning and hearing of dust, scratches and Newton rings

I wished to avoid it at all costs. I see now that all my fears regarding scanning can be

surmounted and with the money I save I can hire someone to help me get over this

hurdle.

 

I CAN do all I want to do with what I have and the addition of a scanner. I think I shall

kick up my notions of just which Epson printer I need as well.

 

Thanks again to all.