Planning for the LF future in a realistic manner

[cxc]

I started shooting large format a couple years ago, just as a

hobbiest, and I hope to continue for another twenty years or so. My

cameras are decidedly entry-level. The time has come that I want to

get a really nice 4x5 monorail that I can use conveniently in the

field; Technikardan and Arca-Swiss are currently the top contenders.

 

Currently I use nothing but film, and prefer it that way. But it

seems nearly certain that the sea change to digital will engulf LF

sometime during the next twenty years. Probably sooner than later, I

will need/want to go digital, be it for convenience, quality, cost,

necessity, whatever. How should I let that likelihood affect my

planned camera purchase in the next six months?

 

Ideally I'd hope that someone came up with a digital back shaped

exactly like a film holder, so it wouldn't matter what camera I

used. How likely is that? Bare in mind that I rarely enlarge

greater than 16"x20", so I won't be needing the mega-resolution top-

end pro stuff.

 

I've noted a couple of cameras that are already on the market and

leaning towards digital: Linhof's M679, and Sinar's P3. Here at

photonet there is quite a bit of derision and sarcasm directed

towards these cameras; is it simply an emotional reaction or are they

really headed down the wrong path? In particular, both are smaller

than 4x5; do the mechanics of large format digital make it likely or

even certain that a size other than 4x5 will be preferable? I want a

camera I can take in the field, that doesn't need an attached

computer, that doesn't need to be plugged in, that doesn't have an

unwieldy 20lb. battery pack.

 

I haven't really investigated the scanning backs currently

available. Presumably something simpler, cheaper, more portable, and

better will emerge soonish. But will it work conveniently with a

Technikardan? And will it work better with the 23 than the 45?

 

Note that I am not bringing up any of the typical issues of digital

vs. film quality; so long as there is a reasonable choice, I expect

to remain with film. But when the choice becomes (IMO) unreasonable,

I will be prepared to go with the flow. Should I count on buying

another whole new camera then, not worrying now, or are there issues

I should take into consideration now, to make any future digitization

easier/cheaper/better?

 

Sorry to be a little long-winded, but I hope people will find this

posting stimulating.

 

TIA,

CXC

[michael_phlin_jahapne]

Film rules and its easy to use. Until backs get easier and cheaper than scanning, its all film, all the way

[kelly_flanigan1]

The first 4x5 digital back I saw in use was in 1995. Today the backs have come down to only 15K or less. Why not still use film and scan the film?

[ed_candland1]

That's a hard question to answer. You�re asking us to look into the future. Digital/computer technology changes in such a rapid pace it's hard to know what's going to be standard in 10-20 years. I suspect that fact is part of what's behind much of the anti-digital feelings people have. There's something nice and comforting about silver photography, where things are done much as the have been for years and years. Where you can spend your time learning your craft/art instead of chasing technology. Anyway to answer your question both the Technikardan and Arca-Swiss are wonderful cameras and there's really nothing you can do to prevent obsolescence in a rapidly growing technology. I would think digital backs would fit the cameras that are being made today for some time.

Ed,

[jeffrey_scott]

One of the advantages of a LF camera is the graflock back. I would certainly hope that future digital backs(DB) would utilize this feature making it possible to mount a DB on any camera so equipped. There already are DBs that fit in a camera just like a film holder, the Betterlight scanning backs and I believe there is at least one other brand but the make escapes me at the moment. Get whatever camera you desire and do not worry about future compatibility.

[jay_de_fehr]

Hi Christopher.

I believe that your question is unanswerable, partly because it requires a long range prediction of short term trends, and partly because it is contradictory in nature. You say that you prefer film and want to use it for twenty years, and then say that inevitably you will want/need to go digital. I can't imagine a circumstance in which a hobbyist would NEED to go digital. If you're worried about the availability of film, you would be better off to learn the process of sensitizing your own plates, as was the practice 100 years ago, than trying to predict the compatibility of current equipment to that available twenty years from now. In any case, most experts agree that film production is in no peril over the next 20 years. If you WANT to go digital, you can certainly do that now, or at any time in the forseeable future, and accept the 18 month obsolescence average for digital technology. You needn't overly concern yourself with the technological trends of equipment manufacturers. There are people today making Daguerrotypes with a process nearly as old as photography itself, and no technological advancement in the following history of the medium has offered a superior image, so I question the inevitability of the digital advantage from a quality standpoint. As for convenience, I'm not clear on how one can be inconvenienced by one's hobby. That sounds like a contradiction in terms. If you simply want a digital camera, there's no need to try to justify it as an inevitability, or a necessity, after all, it's your money, and your time, do with it as you please. Photography is only as equipment sensitive as you choose to make it. Good luck, and enjoy whatever equipment you end up with.-jdf

[david b]

I am intersted in this discussion, as I am in the same situation. Any digital capture method e.g. digital backs, are going to be obsolete very quickly - next year it'll be half the price / twice as good etc etc.

I think the current answer is film capture and scan/digital output.

[cruiserparts]

Chrisotpher,

 

No matter what, if you purchase either the Technikardan or Arca-Swiss and

decide to sell it in the future - for a "digital large format camera" (whatever that

is) - you will probably get a decent price for either one on the used market

(with proper care, of course). In such cases I would consider the difference to

be the cost of using the equipment for that time period. You may never go

digital, so buy what meets your needs now.

 

jon

[bob_salomon]

Why would this be a factor?

 

The TechniKardan (and all other Linhof 45 cameras as well as the TK 23)

accept Hasselblad backs with the proper Linhof adapter so any digital back

for a Hasselblad is easily used on them. Additionally backs like the Better

Light also fit all Linhof cameras the same way a film holder or a Graflok

accessory fits any 45 with an international back.

 

What could be different are the lenses as digital lenses will perform better for

electronic work then regular large format lenses. But these are readily

available today.

[janko_belaj]

<p>Christopher,</p>

<p>on your place, I wont think about *that* future question. I'm not familiar with Linhof and Arca

and with equipment for that systems, but I know that the standards in digital photography (at

least in Europe) are Nikon, Hasselblad (6*6) and Sinar (scan back).</p>

<p>I know also that the main problem today is overheating of digital capture media which must

result in eider heavy and big backs/cameras or in pictures with ugly but necessary noise.</p>

<p>In such long therms (10-15-20 years) lot of things might happen, but also can be lost in

developing (like lot of fine digital ideas, ie: "e-film"). Today we have a lot of big digital backs (16

or more MPix) but are not produced by ex-leader (Scitex/Creo-Scitex/Creo) who decided not

to use imperfect CMOS senzors. For how long? If they want to stay in game they will have to

take Kodak's steps and start pleasing users with improved cheaper and easer to cool CMOS.

(and I think I have read somewhere that that is happening right now)</p>

<p>I'm afraid that you will have to wait for true answer next 10-15-20 years and that you will

have to make shots with classic film and enlarge it chemical or digital way and that you (and me,

and most of us) will have to leave digital large format photography to the rich big studios. One

few years old IDG investigation (I'm not sure if that was ever published) came with calculation

that digital back which will produce picture like 4x5" slide will cost over 100K usd... and that might

be made in 1st quarter of todays decade. Hey, that is tomorrow and noone have idea how to

"feed" and cool such monster. I'm staying with ortho b&w film for my pleasure and 14 Mpix

Kodak/Nikon for stupid catalogs...</p>

<p></p>

<p>Janko</p>

[michael_kadillak6]

People in general only feel bad about what they don't do and you alrady stated you comfortability with wet photography. To attempt to rationalize a future decision on this subject considering what the other contributors have already stated about how it may evolve is just adding way to much stress to the process. As long you have the passion for large format, get your camera and get along with it. You have much more important things to concern yourself with like expressing yourself with the camera. As Bob said, at some price/quality threshold down the road, digital will accomodate you so don't worry about it. Think of it as an additional future garage on the house you need to just go out and purchase. Sure can't hurt. As a side bar, the Technikardan is on sale at a great price. Happy shooting.

[ed_candland1]

>>As a side bar, the Technikardan is on sale at a great price.>>

 

Where?

[bob_salomon]

">>As a side bar, the Technikardan is on sale at a great price.>>

 

Where?"

 

HP Marketing has been offering the TK at greatly reduced prices (also the

Technika 45 models and the Technorama 617 cameras and lenses) from any

U.S. HP Marketing Corp. dealer for several months now. Simply contact an

HP dealer for the price. You may need to call them to receive the prices. All

HP dealers are listed on our web page.

[cxc]

Thanks everybody for the wide range of replies. Of course I was foolish to think anyone could see 20 years into the digital future -- what was I thinking?

 

I guess my real concern is that it is hard for me to believe that 4x5 film will be available forever, no matter how many times I hear that it is not in danger.

 

BobS, thanks for the solid facts on the TK.

 

And where exactly is that TK sale taking place?

 

CXC

[bob_salomon]

"And where exactly is that TK sale taking place? "

 

From any HP Marketing dealer in the U.S. we have more then 900 dealers.

Contact anyone of them for prices. They all can sell it at the speacial prices.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Christopher,<P>You might want to tke a look at this website <A HREF = http://

www.cameras-scanners-flaar.org/Arca-Swiss_4x5largeformatcamera/Arca-

Swiss_4x5_camera_gate.html> http://www.cameras-scanners-flaar.org</A>

before making a decision about which camera to invest in. Lots of other solid

information there as well.

[chris_patti1]

I disagree with the assumption that digital will become available for LF hobbyists. Given the quality that is apparently being achieved with full 35mm-sized digital sensors, commercial photographers may never demand LF-sized digital sensors. And if that is the case, I doubt that companies will make the investment to develop LF digital just to appeal to the hobbyist market. With film, technological advances that were heavily demanded in the 35mm market could be cheaply applied to larger formats giving LF photographers quality options that are probably well beyond what the market would demand if they had to be developed separately for LF. I don't know that this will happen for digital. It may be, for example, that the current digital scanning backs are an expensive, dead-end technology that will be overcome by MF digital when that matures.

[ed_candland1]

Chris, I think what your saying is part of the original question. Will current 4 x 5s be compatable with future digital backs? I think maybe we should talk view cameras here and not LF. What we may end up with is cameras smaller than 4 x 5 that have movements/perspective control, that are digital with quality at or better than what is seen in large format. There's already signs of that today. The reason we shoot LF film today is because of quality and control. Not becuase we get great joy from hauling heavy cameras around or at least that's how I feel. I think at this point it's anyones guess as to where the future leads.

[chris_patti1]

Ed: I agree with your points, but I'm not so sure that perspective control will ultimately justify cameras with movements. With the digital editing program I'm using (Picture Window) I am able to do any perspective control that can be done with camera movements much more easily. That leaves plane of focus control as the only justification for movements, and, assuming we're going to be using smaller cameras with shorter lenses, that may be much less important too.

[ed_candland1]

Yep you might be right. That's why I added the /perspective control. At first I typed just movements. I was thinking of maybe some in camera digital control, but your right it could be after capture. Now I'm getting depressed. ;-)

[j.w.]

Although digital, post-image capture geometry/perspective manipulation has been possible since the advent of Photoshop and similar applications, there is one fundamental flaw in using post-image capture for perspective control.

 

This flaw is in assuming that post image capture can reveal any more "information" than was originally captured by the image capture device (whether film or transistor cell). The field of Information Theory shows us what limitations there are in any information channel (of which photography is a part). The bottom line is this: if you "stretch" an area of an image in Photoshop, you have to "dither", or approximate image points that were not there in the original file. If this portion of the image is 300 dpi, once stretched, there's no more information present than what was there originally. Your software just has to "add in" hypothetical pixels, possibly by some kind of averaging or approximation scheme. What ultimately limits the image resolution of this portion of the image is the optical resolution at the "film" plane. Thus, performing the perspective manipulation at the "film" plane, during image capture, will aways yield the better result.

 

Assuming one is involved in large format (and it's hypothetical future high-quality digital replacement) out of a desire for the highest degree of quality one can afford to access (and one's personal photographic vision is compatible with), what would define the parameters around the desire to switch to a non-chemical image collection process? Certainly obsolescence is an issue; however, I don't think sheet film production will cease in the near term. The bigger issue is: can transistor image cells render a wider brightness range, and more accurate color palette, than film, at comparable resolution? Right now, the state of the art says: no. Making CCD or CMOS transistors smaller in size, higher in yields and density, higher in optical sensitivity, all the while keeping costs commensurate with the marketplace means that we will probably not see 4" by 5" image sensors. Yes, we may see a smaller format sensor, built into a camera with mechanical (read: optical) perspective control, but it won't be "digital 4x5". Will such a product be marketted for the specialty LF market? It depends on how influencial our market is perceived, in dollar terms. With the current disinformation being diseminated via the popular magazines (sales brochure forums for the manufacturers), unless there is a defining moment for the "LF" (read: highest quality) photographer, it won't happen. Problem is, the marketting gurus keep redefining what "high quality" means. All you have to do is pick up a 5 year old photography or digital media magazine, and read the outdated ads and reviews. Is what was promised back then now obsoleted, or did what was promised ever come to pass? Why are digital point and shoots still being marketted as superior to film-based SLR's? Most digi-whacks at my place of employment see no benefit in using "one of them old fashioned cameras". You see, the marketteers have done a better job at "mis-educating" the masses than you or I have in real education pertaining to what photography is really all about. Its been said before: we don't need smarter cameras. We need photographers with a smarter vision.

 

The fundamentals of physics, optics and photography really haven't changed. Its the perceived values in the market place that have changed. Hopefully, we're into large format because we can see through the smoke and mirrors that the wizard is manipulating.

[david_burke5]

I agree with the premise that one should focus on the art and not the equipment.

 

The beauty of large format photography is its simplicity. The camera essentially is a box with bellows used to control perspectives and depth of field. The price of the camera is proportional to its ease of use.

 

One can make very acceptable pictures without having to enlarge 4X5 of 8 X 10 format pictures just use contact sheets.

 

The size of CCD on the digital back. (even the Sinar) is much smaller than the surface of a comparable film format and therefore requires enlargement. In my opinion digital is not a true large format apparatus.

 

Although the dynamic range of a digital CCD is superior to films, this is very theoretical, becasue judicious use of filters will makes up for the difference. (i.e. using red filter to darken sky, using the Zone system to optimize your B & W pictures)

CCD unfortunately suffers from Digital aliasing since all of the CCD�s are aligned geometrically unlike the silver halides in a film and the pigments of the retina.

 

What is not mentioned in the discussion is that if one converts a large format from film to digital you also requires a digital lens because of all the colors have to be focused in one plane (CCD) and not the three layers of the emulsion of the films.

 

Not that I can read Tealeaves, but if I dare to speculate with the future of large format photography. (i.e true large format made with digital sensors with the size of 4 X 5, 8 X 10) with at least 36 bits depth, (to reach true color) the size of the digital files (even compressed) would be too prohibitive and a compromise would be to take the picture with a film and then scanning it if a digital file is required. (If you do not mind Terabytes files).

 

As a Neurologist having studied the mechanism of vision, throughout evolution nature compromised the large amount of data required to see a clear picture by only using high definition vision in a small area in the retina, and the brain, and the saccades of the eyes movements is giving us the illusion that we have high definition panoramic vision where in reality only a small part of the eye is capable of high definition imaging. .

 

 

David