Two years later, any change in your opinion on Digital vs Medium Format?

[maurice_bryant]

Awhile back I asked if I should fear the digital revolution. With

new multi-million pixel cameras coming out every few months, will

medium format cameras still be able to hang on for a few more

years? Especially for us hobbyists? What about you professionals

out there? I must admit, that I like the potential ease of image

storage for digital cameras, but I value lens interchangeability, the

ability to handle a wide range of ISO's (I've never gone above 1600,

but it's nice to have a choice), and simplicity of medium format

cameras. Thoughts anyone?

[artie]

look into the Creo-Scitex digital back available for med or lge format. It's distributed by Sinar Bron. Especially the Leaf Cantare XY pretty impressive back.

It's quite easily the best there is right now on the market.

[todd frederick]

Without getting into any technical issues (and especially since I'm "technologically challenged") I think the whole debate over digital vs film is like deciding which is better between watercolor and oil paintings...it's a non-issue.

[huw_evans1]

Yawn! No offence intended, but this gets discussed so often on so many forums that it gets difficult to take it seriously. Admittedly the state of the art has been changing at such a rate that the question always seems relevant, but nevertheless my impression is that most views expressed continue to comprise one or more of the following basic components:

 

1) ZZZZZZZZZZ.

 

2) a) Join the real world! Digital is already superior in every way and those who think otherwise are living in the dark ages.

 

b) Join the real world! Film will always be superior in every way and those who think otherwise are living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

3) a) Digital will take over but it's no where near good enough yet.

 

b) Digital will take over and the revolution is imminent.

 

4) There are likely to be fundamental problems which will prevent digital improving beyond certain limits.

 

5) Market forces at work will lead film manufacturers to discontinue more and more product lines until we have no option but to use digital whether it's good enough or not.

 

6) Sufficient of a market for conventional film will remain, although some familiar emulsions may disappear.

 

7) The issue is not EITHER digital OR conventional, as the two are so different. Both will continue to be used. Painters didn't throw away their brushes simply because photography came along.

 

8) Why are you playing around with tiny formats like MF? You need at least 11x14" to get a decent image.

 

...And maybe a few more that I can't think of right now.

 

My own thoughts on the matter are basically 1,4,6, and 7, but mostly 1. I sincerely hope, however, that I don't wake up one day to discover that the correct answer was 3(b) and 5!

 

Huw Evans (hobbyist, MF/LF user, and occasional luddite).

[alberto pastorelli]

My opinion ? ...Maybe (maybe...) the ......"Digital vs 35mm Format?" would be more appropriate.

...even if (actually) the 35mm is still the winner.

And, Medium format, is still..an other world.

ciao

Alberto

[Robin Smith]

"potential ease of image storage for digital cameras"

 

The archiving of many large multi mb images is not trivial in my opinion, and I wonder whether it will ever approach film's stability, without constant maintenance. How many versions of popular software have you used already? Film still has a lot of virtues, particularly for the amateur.

[edward_c._nemergut]

Although not entirely related to your question, there is a good discussion of scan detal (and digital camera detail) here:

 

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

[ron_shaw]

The above mentioned url is way out of date, and doesnt come close to the state of digital imaging today. Check these sites for more up to date info: http://www.imagingspectrum.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/portraitcomparison.htm?L+scstore+smvh4826lsdffd678d6+975675797 http://www.lonestardigital.com/index.htm http://www.steves-digicams.com/default.htm http://www.imaging-resource.com/INDEX.HTM

[doug elick]

I agree with the previous poster who stated that Digital Photography is just another tool. I believe all mediums have their strong points and disadvantages; digital is no different. I am quick to add though, that I do not consider the use of a digital camera "Photography"; I usually refer to it as "Digital Imaging".

 

Photography is about capturing an image or a moment in time that actually happened. Though there is an infinite number of ways to capture the same moment, in the end, the photo reflects the photographer's interperitation of reality. With the advent of digital imaging, one can no longer trust that the image they are viewing is representative of an actual event or place.

 

I liken digital "photography" to painting; one can use imagination to create a scene that existed only in the artist's mind. I think the problem most die hard cellulose 'n silver halide photographers have with the digital revolution is that digital images are so realistic the average Joe cannot distinguish a PhotoShop manipulated image from the real thing. The National Geographic cover of the pyramids is a perfect example.

 

Imagine for a moment if some revolution in painting technique allowed brush and canvas artists to create images of such startling reality that they were mistaken for actual photos. You would hear the same uproar as we have over digital.

 

Keep in mind that (again), digital cameras are nothing more than another tool in the bag. I have a feeling that 99% of the consumer grade shutterbugs out there will be taking photos with digital that are just as bad as their 35mm counterparts. Remember, if your average point and shoot type was given a Rollei SLR for a day, chances are his roll of film will still be full of trite and poorly composed shots; digital is no different.

 

I was talking with my non photography literate friend today, and we wound up discussing portrait studios. Without prompting, he felt the need to interject how he really dislikes how dull and lifeless the photos Sears and mall Santa Claus's crank out are. He told me he thought they were digital and asked me if he was correct (he was). My point here is that even the "untrained" eye can detect a difference in digital prints and that there's something "not quite right".

 

 

The revolution is coming, but that doesn't mean we will have to chuck our Rollieflexs in the dustbin.

 

 

D.M.E.

[edward_c._nemergut]

The link I list above (http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

) is by no means "out of date." (I wonder if people see the copyright

1996 on the test image and assume the page is 5 years old).

Nevertheless, the article (originally written 3/2000) has been updated

as recently as 1/2001. It provides a excellent technical discussion

of color detail, intensity detail, MTF, etc... Practically speaking,

it compares up to a 8000dpi drum scan, an LS-2000 and a Sprintscan

4000 (to name a few)--all (as of 3/2001) top of the line desk top

scanners (at least

until the new Nikon 4000 somes outin April)...

 

Nevertheless, not an out of date discussion at all... (please read the

article next time, Ron)

[erin_argast2]

Digital, though much improved, is still inferior. Try blowing a

digital image up to billboard size, and you'll see what I mean.

Digital is like Polaroid...handy for test shots, to check exposure,

lighting, etc. I would not try to earn a living with digital. If you

do, you'll be driven out of business by MF, and LF, film users.

[peeter_vissak]

Has anybody used in practice the 18-million-pixel 6X6 DCS Pro Back?

I'm not asking about the price (consequently the cost of the images), but quality.

Quite recently it was said, that digital has a long way to go to match anything serious in the traditional imaging world. Is the DCS Pro a step closer already or is it still a modelling/proofing toy?

Me -- I'd hate to turn totally on to digital. Loading a roll into the camera is still like switching on the fever...