The truth about LF digital?

[james_chinn]

Greetings,

 

<p>

 

I want to discuss a gripe I have with how digital for the large format realm is presented in various publications such as View Camera, Camera Arts, Phototechniques etc.

 

<p>

 

From what I understand there are a variety of ways to achieve a fine print using digital technology. These are using desktop printers and scanning film to produce inkjet prints, desktop scan of negs and reproduction of larger negs for contact printing, drum scanning negs and printing from file, drum scan and make dupe neg in larger format for contact printing, drum scan and have the neg printed via lightjet or simial technology, or using a digital back omitting film altoghether.

 

<p>

 

The problem I have is I have seen work produced via desktop methods using epson 3000 printers and various aftermarket inksets and software and they do not match up to equivalent silver or platinum, not to mention the inability to produce sizes over 16x20.

 

<p>

 

Those other methods as proposed by photographers such a Chip Forelli, Charles Cramer, Huntington Witherill, Howard Schaub etc are astronomically expensive. I believe in a previous issue of View Camera Forelli stated that it costs almost $500 to get a negative for printing, and that others propose drum scan (40$ per scan) and then digitally output a larger neg ($40-$60 per neg). I have not seen any of these gentleman's prints in person, but I have read in other posts that they are only equal to the best B&W prints. I understand that Cramer's work is incredible but costs are also in the several hundreds of dollars.

 

<p>

 

My beef is with the fact that these methods and technologies are thrown around as if we are all going to take out second mortgages in order to go digital and produce the same quality of print, with less permanence than we already acheive.

 

<p>

 

Does it irk you that these articles never discuss the negatives of digital while only espousing the virtues? I remeber reading a review by one of the above that discussed printers, saying that he had a closet full of printers but the newest (at that time) epson was probably the last he would need to purchase. Of cours untill it breaks down after the warranty runs out or the next last one comes out. I don't know about you, the last time i looked in the closet it was not full of discarded enlargers, just film and paper.

 

<p>

 

I am not a silver junkie. I believe digital will be part of the future of LF. But why can't the articles inlude the costs of digital method vs the quality of the final product. Can I afford one of the better epson scanners and quadtone inks or whatever the flavor of the month is, yes. But what is the point if the quality is poorer then my silver prints. Some will argue that their prints are better then silver, but I would argue they have not achieved the level of craft they are capable of with traditional materials. Maybe the high dollar technologies are superior, and I understand the need to discuss them, especially for professionals.

 

<p>

 

Maybe the ability to achieve the highest quality with digital means only an elite few will be able to get those results. The beauty of traditional LF is that I can use the same tools and materials, (and I literally mean same tools and materials) and the only hinderance to making equal or better prints is my ability. In some cases those tools are less expensive for me now then they were for them 50yrs ago.

 

<p>

 

Alright, done with the rant. My question is do you think we need more honest discussions about digital in the LF realm? Would it not be a benefit to everyone to know the costs and quality issues of various technologies. Am I being cynical to suggest that some of the hype is designed to sell printers and scanners to photographers hoping for great results only to be disappointed when they don't equal the more expensive technologies?

 

<p>

 

Take it or leave it, would like to see any comments you may have.

[james_chinn]

Like to make a clarification to the previous post. Towards the end I

talk about using "the same tools and materials". It should

read "using the same tools and materials as the greatest

photographers of all time." I apologize for my dreadful proof

reading.

[wilhelm]

Imagine yourself in the 1850s. You are a successful Degarreotype

photographer, and all the magazines are full of articles about Fox-

Talbot's negative/positive process. You could make more than one

print from each "negative." There are some predictions that perhaps

some day you may be able to make negatives with dry plates so you

don't have to coat them in the darkroom before the photo session.

Some crazy author even claims that someday you will be able to make

enlargements from the negatives, rather than print only the same size

as the original. So what, you say -- have you seen the pittiful lack

of detail compared with the best Degarrotypes? This is an analagous

situation with wet vs Digital photography at this time.

[marcus_leonard]

The grain size of a good film may be of the order of a few microns.

The pixel size on a CCD is orders of magnitude larger. Scaling the CDD

and the negative to the same size, one sees that film captures a much

larger amount of data, especially so our beloved LF. So the departure

point, at present day technology, does not look good for digital,

although it may approve. For small prints, this hardly matters because

paper simply cannot store as much data as film. For large prints the

difference is obvious. LF has two selling points: detail and

movements. If you are in it for the former, chemical beats digital at

this point in time.

[michael_chmilar]

I have taken the course offered by Charles Cramer and Bill Atkinson,

to learn "Digital Printing for the Fine Art Photographer", so I can

offer a synopsis of the costs involved.

 

<p>

 

Drum scan of 4x5 film (I have been using West Coast Imaging. Their

Tango operator, Jeff Grandy, delivers a truly outstanding scan):

$79.95 for a 300MB file. This is sufficient to print at large size

(40x50). This is a one-time cost for each image.

 

<p>

 

LightJet Prints (done by Calypso): $39.60 for one 22x26 print (20x24

image size, with one inch white border).

 

<p>

 

So, first print is $120.00 in service bureau fees. Tax and shipping

pushes it up to $150. For additional prints, subtract the scanning cost.

 

<p>

 

Of course, you also need a computer, monitor, calibration system, and

Photoshop. This is a one time fee for all images, unless you are

upgrade crazy. You can use the same computer for many other hobbies

(digital video, online shopping, bookkeeping, email, etc.).

 

<p>

 

The cost of Bill and Charlie's course: $795 (includes a Tango scan and

a 20x24 print). When you leave, you will be able to produce

fine-quality color prints.

 

<p>

 

The quality is identical to having a color print made traditionally on

Fuji Crystal Archive paper, as this is what the LightJet uses.

 

<p>

 

For bw, I have this setup:

 

<p>

 

Heidelberg LinoScan 1450 scanner. One time cost: $730. This scanner is

sufficient to print at 16x20, but no larger.

 

<p>

 

Epson 1160 printer: $200. One time. (Max paper size 13x19.)

 

<p>

 

PiezographyBW with continuous ink system: $665. One time.

 

<p>

 

After the $1600, the cost per print is very low: just the cost of the

paper and ink.

 

<p>

 

Quality and comparison of PiezographyBW prints with traditional is an

ongoing subject.

 

<p>

 

I hope this helps to give concrete examples of the exact cost of doing

prints the digital way.

[dk_thompson]

true..only daugerrotypes were rather expensive compared to other

forms that followed like ambrotypes, ferrotypes, etc....maybe it was

the albumen print that did it in...all the same it came down to cost &

the ability to mass market the results. Only with a LF scan or capture

back, they are _really_ out there in price unless you are in a

commercial setting that can justify this expense...I doubt the average

user of this forum--which seems to be very fine-art oriented--fits the

bill here....we've been looking at these backs since 1996 or so for

our in-house studio, and the actual expense of the back is one thing

(the first ones I looked at were dicomeds--phew, talk about

pricey...), but then there's EVERYTHING else....the whole nine

yards....if it's not workflow & storage issues, there's the

compromises of the back designs...you're not looking at simply

adapting a current system to this stuff, you practically have to start

over again from the ground up....very hard to do when you're sitting

in a studio that's all paid for and works okay....

 

<p>

 

I hear you though on your rant...I work in an in-house facility for a

largish state history museum....it's a scary time for us in a

way...our peers in the "outside world": the commercial shooters, are

all ditching 4x5 and heading for the digital slrs...we're sitting on a

large working neg file, and have access to some 1.5 million LF negs,

including nitrate & everything else up to 11x14 or so, and dating back

to civ war era times....about half the folks around me are saying "you

need to go digital"....just because they think they can just press a

button and we can cut down on material costs....they think a floppy

disc storing camera is a substitute for a full studio and in-house 4x5

lab in both b&w and E6.....groan....it's out there and it's coming our

way......it's the monster know as digital mutated with desktop

publishing and consumer point-n-shooters. Everybody's an

expert....(present company excluded of course!)

 

<p>

 

So...our solution? To start planning and begging now to ditch the wet

lab, save the money we spend on service contracts for the wet

processors and parts, and materials...and go for dedicated film

scanners and a Pictro printer.....BUT still shoot film. It's the

perfect storage medium, shoot it, run it and throw it in a drawer in

safe storage...no migration issues, it's there and you don't need

electricity to view it....

 

<p>

 

But as to your question? Well, depends upon who the users of this

forum are...personally, I'm interested in keeping up with that stuff

because I don't want to be out of job in 5 yrs. time...but for the

individual shooter of LF? Forget it.....it's all marketing hype, if

you're a millionaire--okay--but if you can't make up the money you

invested on a back in a job or two, you don't need one. It's not even

remotely close to the same experience...we looked at the new Leaf

C-Most back recently and it was incredible, the quality of a raw

file...the ease of the interface, and all that, even the price. But to

fit this thing on a 4x5 was anything but great. More compromises.

You'd need one of those small 2-1/4 views to use the thing, but then

add another 4K to the price tag there, and then new lenses to

boot....and yet, some big museums are using these things already...and

it's surprising the number of museums in this country that have

ditched their wetlabs too....people seem to love to praise the

"archival-ness" here of fiber (I know I've been on a year long rant

against this, forgive me, but I see the irony in it coming from

another community so to speak), and yet these big, big museums up in

DC are churning out RC prints, and now are doing dye-subs and even

selling inkjets to patrons....they don't claim them to be archival,

and neither do we, but then that doesn't stop them from using cheaper

and more cost-effective materials like their counterparts in the

"outside world"....

 

<p>

 

 

ahh, now I feel MY rant coming on....but I do wish you all would shoot

film and lots of it. keep it in production, becuase the pros

won't.....as always, MY OPINIONS ONLY.

[jeff_buckels]

Response to bmitch: Actually, it's not clear whether the present film

and digital situation is analogous to the old daguerre and pos/neg

situation. Only time will tell if digital really will drive film out

altogether. There are some reasons noted in the previous responses to

think this will not happen. I suspect the two will coexist for my

lifetime, anyhow. I'm fairly sure film will remain in use by some

group, no matter how large or small. We still have (again have,

really) platinum and other archaic processes, including

daguerrotyping, even though these processes were overwhelmed by silver

printing and pos/neg respectively. There's a good reason for that,

too: Platinum printing does things no other process can do. Period.

This is even true of daguerrotyping, which to this day produces the

most brilliant type of photographic image ever achieved. -jeff

buckels (albuquerque)

[michael_alpert1]

James,

 

<p>

 

Your statement makes good sense to me. A while back, I asked a question

about the way in which digital gismoes were being marketed by a

photographic magazine. My rather rude question about marketing by

specific writers was not directly answered by the publisher. Instead,

smoke-and-mirror statements were offered (I do not want to restart that

rather fruitless debate). In any case, there is reason to be concerned.

Many people are apparently taking manufacturers' claims at face value.

Recently, I spoke with the Senior Photographic Conservator of the

Library of Congress. He said that people working in conservasion have

serious doubts about the longevity of complexly layered digital papers.

At every step we are being told that this is the way of the future.

Well, I think photographers might do well to wait until the technology

matures before they cash in their film cow.

[chris_jordan3]

Hello James. I too hate the front-end costs of digital printing, but

for me the quality makes it work it. My printing method starts with a

16-bit drum scan made on a Tango, which costs more than a hundred

dollars per image. Multiply that times about 120 images so far, and

the scanning cost is pretty astronomical. But, when I consider the

expense I incurred to get those 120 4x5 transparencies, in terms of

money on equipment and processing and wasted film and travel

expenses, not to mention the TIME investment, etc., then the

additional marginal cost of a 600 MB drum scan actually isn't that

significant. My personal aesthetic about printing is that this is the

ONE thing in the world that I don't have to compromise about, so I'm

taking the highest possible road, regardless of the cost. And maybe

sometime when I'm in my 70's or 80's, I might even turn my first

dollar of "profit" from my photography...

 

<p>

 

~chris jordan (Seattle)

 

<p>

 

www.chrisjordanphoto.com

[wilhelm]

I guess that I failed to make my point. Despite the almost immediate

replacement of Daugerrotype photography, it took almost another 50

years before the negative/positive process actually began to live up

to its potential, and approach the quality of Daugerrotypes. (Also to

point out one of the truisms of photography: "It is impossible to

spell Daguerre correctly." Probably a quote from St. Ansel, or David

Vestal, or someone really clever like Eliott Erwitt.)

[dk_thompson]

I'll admit they're absolutely stunning, we have quite a few in our

collection, but the tintypes did them in more than

anything....tintypes were around for like 50-60 years almost and were

dirt cheap & easy to produce in comparison. Yet they were a poor

substitute for those cased images....

 

<p>

 

As for the LOC, well they're straddling the fence so to speak...all

those places up in DC--the Smithsonian, NARA and the LOC are _all_,

and have been for longer than most places in the commmercial world,

dabbling in digitization projects. Just ask NARA about their program

using the big laserdisc storage medium in the early 90's....or the LOC

on the workflow of the American Memory Project....or ask the Air &

Space Museum about the "paper prints"--inkjets they offer to patrons

now, or the dye-subs they make for the SITES traveling exhibits...or

NARA's use of lightjet type c-prints for their exhibitry as

well....not much different than my museum--using RC prints and now, we

too, use lightjet output for murals etc. Even the LOC offers a pretty

wide range of RC materials on their Photo Services list....of course,

they're one of the few places left in this country that still offer an

"archival" fiber print, but then you have to pay about 3 times as much

for it as well...but, it's the LOC, I actually believe it would be a

great fiber print. NARA doesn't offer fiber prints right off the bat,

either...most of their vendors use RC paper for patrons. There's at

least one branch of the Smithsonian that uses digital capture as

well....so like I was saying on the other thread, museums & archives

are split up into different working groups and disciplines....and they

just about all have a function that's similar to more commercial

lab/service bureau as well. Nobody in these institutions will claim

that an inkjet or an RC print is a longlasting medium, but that won't

stop them from using the stuff on a daily basis either. If you wanted

to get cynical & sarcastic with your questions ( I wouldn't advocate

this & hate to bring it up--really), you could start asking questions

about microfilm projects. As to what medium is archival, is always in

flux...because you never know really until it's too late. Those

accelerated tests don't reveal everything....they're just good guesses

and need to be interpeted just right. Every industry person, company

etc. can put their own spin on the results as well....in the end you

can't please everyone...look at the brittle books programs. The

archives community will stand firm that microfilming is IT, it's the

standard to which all else is matched...and yet people on the

"outside" have a problem with that at times, or can't put it in

perspective....this is the same way with rc prints, or with any of

this other stuff....it's like there's a conspiracy or something to

microfilm a newspaper & throw it away. Like there's a bottomless pit

of money & space to store everything on earth. So....ah, where was

I?? Well, digital is the same way.....I was at the Smithsonian in 1997

for a conference on archiving photo collections in the digital

age...it was sponsored by SCMRE/CAL...that's the professional

development wing of the Smithsonian...probably one of the best

paper/object conservation labs in the country. NARA and the IPI, and

researchers in plastics, data storage etc. were all there as speakers.

At the time, the general message was "don't do it (digitization), it's

too soon...it's a mistake, let someone else make that mistake, not

you..." it was like a mantra....and yet that didn't stop them...so,

look at American Memory, NAIL etc. And then get a copy of that report

to congress by the LOC about what they see their role as being in the

"digital age"....it's not all fiber printing, I'll tell you that

much....in the end what it is, is using materials for ACCESS and using

storage for preservation.....and what this means now is very close to

what got people upset about the Corbis/Bettman thing...it's putting

everything safely away underground or in a vault forever, and limiting

access to "surrogate" copies--i.e. scans or prints.

 

<p>

 

I should add here that we're involved in similar type program as

well....I don't know if it's good or bad, but it's the way things are

going--online.

 

<p>

 

If you want to read an interesting article on accelerated aging tests

and variables in inkjet inks & longevity....pigments v.s. dye sets,

and pollutants...I can probably dig the links out for you...needless

to say it wasn't as optimistic as the advertisements make it

sound....a c-print or an RC print looks pretty darn good in comparison

to some of this stuff.

 

<p>

 

I left out the lab part though...yeah, you could farm it all

out...just today we were getting a PO together for about 10 murals and

assorted prints that we need done...in the old days (last year) we'd

get this done using trad. materials....4x5 bumped up to 8x10 and using

ciba mural papers, or some b&w rc, maybe c-prints if the exhibit was

short term. Now, it's all 4x5's drum scanned and everything done on a

lightjet printer using either cibas or b&w mural paper. the cost

including the scans and a wide array of mounting, including to MDF and

Sintra, and laminates as well? Just a little more than $5k....that's a

good deal....and probably will be a better product in the end as well.

 

<p>

 

I don't think it's going to kill LF from an enthusiast's point of

view, but from a commercial lab viewpoint, or a studio....it's coming

along fast now. As always, my opinions only.

[jim_galli4]

James, Yes. I've been disappointed with virtually every computer

thingy so far because of the "up-front" hype. I'd get something and

learn it and say "that's it??" "Hell I thought this thing was going

to wash the car while I was in bed at night."

 

<p>

 

On a deeper note...I think the whole debate revolves around

personality types, giftedness, and values. What drew me to this hobby

in the beginning was that if I had the right combination of gifts, a

good eye, good problem solving skills, some mechanical abilities, and

some common sense, there were really no other issues (called

$$money$$) that would divide the haves and have-nots, the big boys and

the rest of us. A good analogy is the drag racing sport. Years ago a

father and son could put together a scrappy looking rail job with a

flathead that was about as good as anybody elses. Never did, but it

looked like fun to me. But in the intervening years I watched as it

became a sport that you had to either be a millionaire or have a

corporate sponsor. I fear that will happen in large format artistic

photography. I hope it doesn't.

 

<p>

 

On giftedness FWIW. There are those folks that just think in computer

algorithms. Computer stuff is fun and easy for them, while cameras

and darkroom craft is not. The possibilities on the horizon look

exciting to them. I'm not in that group. Computers frustrate me to,

well, fury. While traditional camera craft is a satisfying and

relaxing outlet. I'll keep doing what I'm good at a while longer, and

I know the computer folks will keep pressing ahead.

 

<p>

 

Meanwhile, as you say, a balanced approach that was weighted somewhere

in reality would be refreshing.

[jonathan brewer]

What's going on between digital and film in Europe, Australia, and

South America, everywhere? I'd be interested in hearing what Armin

Seeholzer, Paul Shiliger, and the rest of the world have to say about

the issue.

[qtluong]

I picked up an Acer scanner at Office Max for $30 (thirty dollars),

and used a $200 epson printer and a 500Mhz PC (probably worth

$250 today) to make a 12x18 print that most people find as

satisfying as one made by a $200K printer (Lightjet) and

a $60K scanner (Tango). Like with the rest of photo equipment,

many people would like to have you believe that you need the

latest and greatest to do good digital work. Sure, it makes it

easier, and in some cases it is necessary, but most of the time not.

[armin_seeholzer]

Hi all

 

<p>

 

Here in little Switzerland is the situation like this. Many of the

older professionells stay with the film and the old labor way. From the

younger pros are almost all in digital.

I just got an AD from a big Photostudio and I was then taking with thad

boss because he was selling 2 Sinars P to abgrade his digital equipment

he told me he works to 95% Digital now and he started 5 years ago with

it!

Bad I also know thad many of them have hard times to survive, because

of the large investment they did!

I`m as parttime pro like not to invest in something thad is in 1 year

old. And thad Magazin for that I work most they still want MF or LF

slides only for portraits and little pictures they accept 35mm slides.

But of course I have also meanwile 2 scanners and a Nikon coolpixs 990

and an almost usebell printer, but in my case I like the darkroom more

then the digiwork, but it will be in future a coexistence in my case.

But the man point will be how many labs will survive in the future, I

think not to many here in good old swiss!

But film will go on for a while!

[xx]

fyi--west coast imaging has a free Piezography print sample that you

can order, I found it to be way below the quality hype that I had

heard. I don't think I will mind having to go to digital prints, if

ever, however, I am worried that with all the photo papers being

discontinued or reduced in availability, that I will be forced to do

so before the digital quality is up to snuff.

[thilo_schmid]

James,<br>

<br>

I think "Digital" has already conquered the professional studios. And

this has much to do with the fact that Pre Press went digital quite

some time before. If the source of almost all commercial print

products is a

digital picture, that it seem logical and foreseeable that a complete

digital production line has more advantages than a bright

light "darkroom" or the disappearance of the ecologically harmful

chemistry.<br>

<br>

I think that the situation is different for Fine Print and Amateur

Photography. The former did not need to invest into digital equipment

as long as there is not a significant quality improvement (which is

still an ongoing discussion). The latter will not invest into

digital equipment as long as the price-performance ratio has not a

clear advantage

<u> and</u> it is much easier to handle. "Easier to handle"

does not

mean digital vs. conventional darkroom, it means that you can store

some 300MB

of information on a single film sheet within a fraction of a second.

Connecting

computer and storage devices may not be an obstacle in a studio but

definitely

is in the field today. Imagine traveling with digital LF-equipment!

This all

might be solved in the future somehow. Maybe we can store terabytes

of data on

sugar-cube sized storage devices some day. But this is still science

fiction.

And neither the Fine Print nor the Amateur Photographer feels

comfortable with

the marketing statements, that a digital picture needs less

information to be

competitive with a conventional one. This might be true at first

sight. But for

me, one reason to use LF is the fact that you can recognize more

details each

time you look at the pictures, even after years.</p>

<p>But the digital trend will have an impact on all photographers. On

the one

hand, it is quite inexpensive now to invest into conventional

photography with

all the professional studio photographers selling there whole

equipment. On the

other hand, the variety will change. There will be less options on

conventional

an more options on digital photography. Nobody will be able to

prevent this.</p>

<p>It may sound funny, but technological progress is a problem for

digital

photography on the long run. Think of the storage tapes you used to

use in 1990

to back up your hard disk. Ever tried to read one on a current

computer? Not a

problem, because you will no longer need the data on them. But what

about your

pictures? Can you take it for granted, that a 4mm-, 8mm- or DLT-Tape

can be read

in 10 years? Not only a problem of the physical devices, but you also

need the

right device drivers for the operating systems in use then and

application

software that packed the data on the tape in a particular manner.

Even the

organic material used to record data on CD- and DVD-ROMs is

suspicious not to

last 10 or 20 years. You even might have trouble reading your 5 Years

old

CD-ROMs, because they have had  recorded on devices with much

more physical

tolerance than the current high-speed-models allow. So you will have

to convert

your archive from time to time to keep up with the technological

development. A

cost factor not calculated by most engaged in digital photography and

probably

fatal for stock photo agencies. Of course, it's never been easier to

backup your

photo stock. But that may not be an advantage, too...</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

[john_griffin4]

It would be a good idea, if we want to see the future, to look how

the digital process has changed the world of audio. Digital recording

and replay came into the domestic market in the early 80's - we were

told that the CD produced 'perfect sound forever' - you could chuck

away your record players and vinyl. For the mass market consumer this

was indeed the case and CD had a demonstatable advantage in sound and

convinience over your average all in one tower system. However in the

upper regions of the audio world all was not well if you owned an

expensive high definition (true Hi-Fi) it would reproduce better

sound - quite simply the CD standard was found to be too low a

standard to capture all the detail on a recording. Today there is a

large body of people in the audio world who stick with vinyl -

because it sounds better. There are now emerging new higher

definition digital audio formats - HDCD,SACD DVDA which aim to

improve on the original 'PERFECT SOUND FOREVER' - to satisfy the more

descerning ear. As a group LF photographers are analagous to 'high

end' audio enthusiasts we are concerned with issues of detail , tone

and colour fidelity which are simply not in the realm of consumer

photo market. It's taken nearly 20 years to get from the original CD

to the possibilities of the new format - we are perhaps 5 years into

digital. I still see people buying expensive record players well into

the forseable future and there is much evidence that the market is

growing and will exist alongside other formats. In the same way I can

not see traditional wet methods of photography disapearing - it's

just another path. Technicaly it all comes down to a simple principle

(in audio and photography) the storage and reproduction in

traditional methods is a continuous tone method - magnify an anologue

sound wave or a density transition from light to dark as much as you

like and in theory it should be a smooth line . Do the same with a

digital signal and by it's nature it is stepped. More sampling and

the steps are smaller but they are still there and at the moment with

digital imaging you have to spend a lot of money to get the high

sample rates throughout the tonal range of an image to get close to

the wet process. Will it ever be cheap though? - if consumers demand

better imaging then yes but to be honest the quality I can get from a

Nikon 4000ED 35mm scanner (with admitedly a lot of photoshop

knowledge) is more than most consumers will ever need and is well up

my professional needs on jobs using 35mm. I will never go into a

darkroom again to do 35mm (there has been a watershed from my

previous Nikon LS2000/Epson Photo 750 to my present 4000ED/890photo)-

I can see and appreciate a good wet print alright but I'm more

interested in the image than the surface - it's now good enough!

The distance is still big between what I can get with a desktop

flatbed ( even with my command of photoshop) and a lambda/LED print

and what I would expect from a cibachrome or a fiber B&W print - give

it another 5 years!

BTW I have a moderatley expensive CD player and record player but I

can't say one is better than the other - they are just different.

[andre_noble4]

John G.: But here's the question, are LP's still being manufactured

to this day? I don't think so, but I may be wrong. andre

[john_griffin1]

Yes LP's are still manufactured today and there are quite a few

specialist firms who are reissuing special pressings of old

recordings. The other factor is the huge amount of records in

existing private collections - enough to see the medium into the

future. My question would be how long are the major manufacturers

going to keep making LF materials ? - particularly the 'specialist'

B&W emulsions and papers? - I hope (and am sure)there will be a

similar small specialist industry keeping it going.

John

[pete_andrews]

"The grain size of a good film may be of the order of a few microns.

The pixel size on a CCD is orders of magnitude larger." -

Rubbish!<br>A 4000dpi scanner has a pixel spacing of 6.35 microns, not

even one order of magnitude larger.<br>Another thing that the

anti-digital lobby fail to mention is that a single pixel can show 255

shades of grey, or 16.5 million different colours, whereas an

individual film grain or dye-cloud can be just one colour.<br>By all

means, let's debate the different qualities of film versus digital,

but let's get our facts right when we do so.

[dk_thompson]

Yeah...some people do still put out LPs, but it's a very small niche

market. Not a profitable one that much...in my offtime I do some

freelance work and it's mostly commercial work for small recording

labels. I started off working mostly for vinyl recordings, but in the

past decade or so this has tapered into CDs mostly. Even people who

like the idea of putting out vinyl, will still most likely do a cd

package because vinyl doesn't sell. The major distributors will not

carry it, and it's pretty expensive compared to pressing & packaging a

cd. Like 'em or not, CDs are dirt cheap to manufacture, and from a

design persepective, cd booklets, tray cards, the discs

themselves...all are open to more possibilities...

 

<p>

 

I collect records as well, going back to 78's. There are still

companies that make high-end turntables for 78's, there are still

folks who collect cylinders etc. too...there will always be

enthusiasts out there for this type of material...you should see some

of the things patrons are interested in here at the museum...thread

counts on military uniforms, etc. We collect TVs as well, and have a

good representation of the technology going back to the Baird

shortwave tv's of the 30's. There are people all over the world into

early tv's, no matter how obsolete the technology....to debate a

specific trend in technology is nothing new...it happens all

throughout history, no matter what the subject is.

 

<p>

 

LF will live on in the same way...BUT what is important now is that

alot of you all say that a 35 mm scanner or a digital slr is good

enough....well *maybe* for some things, but I see it definitely

lacking as far as the perspective control you get from a view camera.

The only digital interface allowing you full control is a scanning

back...and the limitations there are pretty big. All these other

capture backs are very similar to the early digital slrs doubling or

tripling focal lengths....and then reducing the amount it takes to do

a movement as well....a tiny little shift becomes a mile....it's all

compromise in the end with these backs. Either you need all new lenses

, all new lighting gear, or both.

 

<p>

 

 

What has changed though, is what the clients need in the end, and what

the styles are as well....so that sorta brings you closer to the LP

vs. cd analogy or even beta v.s. VHS...or even farther back in time,

78 vs LP. The thing that will dictate this in the end is what the

majority of the public flocks too....and the die-hard enthusiasts and

collectors will always stick by their chosen medium as a "better"

thing. My opinions as always.

[jorge_gasteazoro3]

"Another thing that the anti-digital lobby fail to mention is that a

single pixel can show 255 shades of grey, or 16.5 million different

colours, whereas an individual film grain or dye-cloud can be just

one colour."

 

<p>

 

That is rubbish also! each single pixel can "depict" 225 shades of

gray, so does each grain of silver. Further more each grain of silver

can depict an infinity number of shades of gray depending on the

intesity of the light that falls on it. The capability of depicting

the number of shades does not mean you have all those shades in one

pixel at one time. So please do not make digital to be more than it

is! that is exactly the problem with digital and the complaint of the

poster, you all come out and make these statements which a lot of the

time are ludicrous....

[thilo_schmid]

Jorge,<br>

<br>

a grain of silver appears either black or not a grain of silver at

all (some are

joking, that this is *real* digital while what is thought to be

Digital

Photography is an <b><i>analogous</i></b> energy level on the CCD,

which is

interpreted against certain thresholds to form a digital signal).

Although it's size may vary with the light captured, those "shades of

gray" are built

with several layers of grain. A typical B+W Film has between 20 and

40 layers of grain. Combined with the

grain size, a tiny spot on the film may be able to differentiate much

more than 256 levels of gray and at a certain macroscopic level, film

is a continuous tone recorder, as the

density-curves in the data sheets do visualize.<br>

<br>

But what is it all about, if a human being is not able to

differentiate much more than 500 levels of gray

under optimum conditions? Well, the answer lies in the Positive

Process,

something which Digital not only lacks "The Sprit of Soul",

but definitely

has shortcomings today.<br>

Conventional  film leaves it up to you, how <u>and when</u> you

will spread or compact densities onto the paper. A

Gradation "5" is able to differentiate the tiniest density-

changes on the

film. This might open new perspectives for partial enlargements -

often years

after the the shot has been taken with a specific "picture"

in mind. Although Digital Sensors are able to record more than 256

levels of gray, it is still much more cumbersome

and limited to retrieve specific gradation effects (not to speak

about partial

enlargements at all) even in 16-Bit-Mode of Photoshop, because each

operation causes a recalculation of the whole image data - a negative,

on the other hand, is always the same source. Or have you ever tried

a Splitgrade in Photoshop? Of course, some things are easier to

achieve in

a Digital Darkroom (e.g. masking), but some other are not.

 

Regards,

[jorge_gasteazoro3]

Thilo, it has been a while since I studied solid state physics, and I

beleive you are correct, with the developer action the grains will

show as black or none, with the layers creating the grays.

nevertheless from your post I think you do agree with me that the

simuation of grays by a CCD is analogous to the layers you mention,

thus, an array of CCD has to simulate those layers of silver grain

you mention.I beleive that those layers of silver grain are capable

of depicting way way more than 225 shades of gray, so I am still

convinced that Pete Andrews's statement was incorrect. OTH thanks for

shedding light (pun intended)on the subject.