Replacing MF with digital??

[nick_england]

Ok, ok, I'm sure there's been a post on this before, but I must have

missed them.

 

I own a medium format setup, an RB67 etc etc, and use that

occasionally for shooting stuff for hotels, corporate brochure work

etc, but only when the client asks for trannies.

 

About 85% of my work is event photography, gigs, editorial, fashion

etc, where my Fuji S2 is used for everything, and in all honesty,

the RB67 isn't really being used that much anymore. I bought it when

I went freelance, and based on the advice of a colleague MF diehard,

but never really got comfortable with it. Beautiful output onto film

though..

 

I'm thinking of selling off the lot, and upgrading to an Eos 1D Mark

2, a 10D backup, some prime lenses and telephoto lenses, in other

words, going fully digital with Canon.

 

I've read the posts about digital being almost comparable to MF, and

that the 1D is pretty much the only camera capable of doing this in

resolution terms (not interested in the new Kodak DCS), and was

wondering if anyone has switched from MF to the 1D, and how is the

result.

 

I know you can also output to slide from a digital file, and then

scan the tranny to blow up an image to whatever size from there if

necessary, but I haven't been able to try this out yet.

Anyone got any experience of this too? How is the quality of the

final output?

 

Thanks for any replies.

 

Nick

[db1]

So let me see if I have this straight.

 

You are going to shoot digital and make a digital file.

 

Then you are going to turn that digital file into a slide.

 

Then you are going to scan the slide and make it a digital file again?

 

Do I have this correct?

 

I'm sticking with film from the get-go.

[nick_england]

Sort of..

 

It would be shooting the image digitally, turning it into a tranny, and then scanning the tranny to output as, for example, a bus stop poster, advertising street posters, or to something larger, where the 40mb or whatever the Eos 1D shoots at wouldn't be able to handle this because the resolution ain't enough, but whereas scanning the output tranny to whatever size would be fine.

 

An art director in an ad agency I work with said making a tranny from digital output, and then scanning it for that purpose is fine.

 

Is this wrong, as it's the first I've heard of it, and got me thinking about the possibilities of going fully digital?

[kelly_flanigan1]

Converting a raw digital file into a slide adds another round of possible contrast buildup; loss of shadow and highlight detail.....

[Ed_Ingold]

Medium-format is clearly superior to a DSLR. At 4000 dpi, a 6x7 image yields nearly 100 Mp, compared to 12-14 Mp for full-frame DSLR. The question is, "is the output of the DSLR good enough for the application?" Often the answer is "yes."

 

You seem to be sketchy on the concept of a digital work flow. You can produce a print of any size directly from the digital image file. You do not have to rescan the file from a print. Finally, transparencies from digital files tend to be of "business presentation," not photographic quality.

[mskovacs]

<i>I've read the posts about digital being almost comparable to MF, and that the 1D is pretty much the only camera capable of doing this in resolution terms</i><p>Don't you mean the 1Ds? That little "s" is a $3500 premium. I don't want to start a flame war but I've seen 1Ds output in high-end print and I still prefer scanned MF. Most people are obsessed with lack of grain (1Ds indeed delivers vs. MF) but I am more impressed by colour, tonal gradations and detail which I still think MF/LF have in spades.

[paul utkin]

Selling RB67 will not add a lot to the price of 1Dmk2.

 

Keep it for occasional gigs that may require good quality and use 1Dmk2 for all the rest. I saw 645 slide generated from 4mp digital and it looked like crap. That`s my personal opinion and I don`t ask anybody to share it.

[paul utkin]

Speaking about Kodak DCS -

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3815522295&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

 

That`s what I call a nice deal. Too bad it wasn`t me who got it.

[lucas_griego]

Nick,

I also have an RB or two around (in fact they've just come back from a shoot in Bali). I keep them because the quality is top notch coming out of them - and they are real workhorses. The majority of my interior clients still ask for trannies. (though granted hauling second RB back up bodies is can be a drag for assistants and overall add to weight of baggage at the airport)

 

I have done the occasional interior on my S2 but to be honest I never found the files even after the desktop work/sharpening etc. nearly as impressive as a clean well executed trannie. Not to mention composing a shot on the postage stamp size viewfinder is a not a great option. Easy to miss stuff that needs to be styled like that.

 

Size does matter for some clients - I mean the physical size of the camera - many AD's and such are still very old school - they equate professionalism with the size of gear. In my experience I've found many that don't take DSLR too seriously. Right, wrong or indifferent I'm not there to change his views on DSLR I am there to make money, keep a client and provide beautiful shots.

 

A client never ooh'd and ahh'd over a file shown on a lap top - they could give a rat's ass about an image on screen - they get them all day long - e-mails, internet, powerpoint presentations. It holds no allure for them - and I've always thought they tended to equate it with 'less skill' - whether it's true or not - it's a case where perception v.s. reality can affect your income.

 

On the other hand when I break out my super slim light box that goes in my book and pop the MF trannies on there - they eat it up. Reason enough for me to keep it - the clients keep coming back - it's got more 'pulling power' I guess you could say.

 

Something sounds out of whack about shooting digital - outputting to trannies and then scanning those back to digital. It makes no sense. Why the cost and extra work? Where is the gain? I'd be interested in an explanation of this one. Many times art directors know just enough to be dangerous. lol.

 

As well I second the comment that by selling the RB you'll add precious little to taking down the price of a DSLR.

[paulrumohr]

There is a reason your client(s) ask for transparency. They have a workflow that

accomodates it, and are used to it.

 

You will not be able to create transparencies from a digital camera that matches the film

that comes straight out of the RB.

 

Your quality will suffer. Your client or their prepress people will notice it. They may or

may not think it is an issue and may or may not comment on it. You may or may not be

asked to do their next job.

 

It is really up to you whether or not you want to risk this. You will have to decide for

yourself if you're up to dealing with the consequences of delivering work of a quality level

sub par to what you've been providing.

 

"I know you can also output to slide from a digital file, and then scan the tranny to blow up

an image to whatever size from there if necessary, but I haven't been able to try this out

yet. Anyone got any experience of this too? How is the quality of the final output?"

 

This post reminds me of a pre-digital question that I once asked in my youth-

 

If I shoot a 4X5 transparency of a really good 4X6 RA-4 print, will it look just as good as if

I had shot the original in 4X5?

[elliot_n]

Supplying an art director with an 8"x10" transparency output from a digital file is not

an uncommon practice.

[scott_eaton]

Actually........if you shoot digital, and out-put to larger format film via a decent film recorder the process results in little loss of information. With a MF or LF film recorder that's properly calibrated all the information shot with the digital camera will be placed within the workable density range of the film so it can be scanned.

 

Shooting original slide film will yield a sharper image, but you'll still have the dilema of shooting conditions not being favorable for film.

 

What you see with digital capture is what gets written to film, so, there's little loss of quality provided the film recorder is calibrated right and you *are not* getting 35mm out-put.

 

This has nothing to do with the quality differences of your client preferring original film or digital capture.

[richard_burke1]

My S2 which I love, provides me with 18-22MB compressed TIFF's. When

I need the last word in quality, my Mamiya 7II provides 112MB compressed TIFF's. NO COMPARISON. Showed me any DSLR that can do this.

[patricks]

hm, you bought something based on 3rd party advice and it is not working. now you are asking for more advice, from people you don't know at all... </p>

 

my first recommendation would be to go to <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php">rob gabraith</a>. a lot more pros hanging out there that can understand better what the requirements are in the industry. </p>

 

Secondly, the Canon 1DMkII is a brand new model, expect some teething problems. I keep hearing about how it doesn't focus in low light, even w/ flash assist, etc, etc. you might not want to bet your professional reputation on new/unproven gear. </p>

 

Lastly, why not consider 645 (Hassy, Contax or Mamiya) and use film alt. digital back... </p>

 

i'm sure you'll figure it out.

[lucas_griego]

"my first recommendation would be to go to rob gabraith. a lot more pros hanging out there that can understand better what the requirements are in the industry. "

 

... yeah no sense in hanging out here with the chopped liver.

 

: )

[r._odinal]

I also think you must mean the 1D"s", which is the nicer, more pixelized, and more $$$ version. About $7k for the body alone. If you've got the cash, or you can stick your clients to get the money back, great. Obviously the digital workflow will be cleaner (if you don't do all that intermediate converting/scanning stuff), but it's still arguable whether or not the "quality" will beat your 6x7 negatives.

[nick_england]

Hey, thanks for all the replies.

 

Maybe I'll stick with the RB67. I mean, it's a real pain in the arse camera to use, but I've got to admit, the final output is fantastic, and I sort of figured that what you have all told me was going to be the case. Scanned trannys still beat digital output when real photographic quality dictates it.

 

A digi back for a 645 body is also a possibility, but as I only went freelance a year and a half ago, that'll take me some time!

 

Still, love the S2 and the digital side of my work, and may well try seeing what happens by outputting a tranny from a 35mb tiff..

 

Does anyone know, by the way, it there's a viewfinder with a built in metering system available for the RB67? Aside from the bulk and weight issue which I've got used to, the lack of a built in meter really pisses me off. I've been told they are available, but no amount of scanning the net has given me any leads.

 

Thanks a million..

[qiang_lin]

"I know you can also output to slide from a digital file, and then scan the tranny to blow up an image to whatever size from there if necessary, but I haven't been able to try this out yet. Anyone got any experience of this too? How is the quality of the final output?"

 

There is no information of the image is added in this process (only degradation), what you get is worse than output directly from the file.

[antonio_carusone]

I personal hate digital cameras. I think they are ruining film cameras and film itself. I will

never ever use a digital camera for work. Thats that just me.

 

But it is your choice and I wish you luck if you do switch over.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I personal hate digital cameras. I think they are ruining film cameras

and film itself. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Yawn.

[wuyeah]

well, i am not gonna disguss about which is better but for my personal experience. i used to have canon 1D, it is a fine machine and faster than any MF. from every perspective there is no reason for me to go back to film or my MF. I played with it everyday for a month and have thousands of photos, in the end...i got bored...well, i am not professional so i when i see something i want to shoot, i keep shooting with all the mode, function, aperture and shutter speed until i got the result i want. during the process i learn a lot about science of camera just by playing but there is something missing too. the end, i retuened my 1D and stay with film, another reason that somehow when i shoot film result always comes out better. usually is the other way around, but for me is different. i missed the dark room, i miss the feeling of waiting what is in my camera, i love the estacy that i got a good photo. for those reasons i stay with film and wait until a cheaper price and better digital camera to come out. there is no rush for me to go with pro digital, before that day comes i will practice and have fun with film camera to let my camera knowledge grow. your experience or need might be very different than mine, i recommand you to buy one and play it everyday before the store return day comes, that way is much better than rent a pro digital camera. at least you got all your money back. i still keep with my canon s400, sometimes you just need something small in your pocket and take unimportant pictures to have fun.

[antonio_carusone]

Hey �[� Z, You gotta be the biggest snob on this board. Probably the most annoying as

well.

[paul utkin]

Nick,

 

what planet are you from? :)

 

http://search.ebay.com/rb67-prism_W0QQfromZR8QQsokeywordredirectZ1

[nick_england]

Mars.. From under a rock :)

[paul utkin]

Nick,

 

just let it go, concentrate on the creative side and keep your money for something else. I get same desease from time to time, mostly about studio equipment and frankly it adds very little to final result comparing to the amount of money dumped into it.

 

S2 and RB67 is a great combo and whoever gave you this advice knew what he was speaking. Keep it like that. I seriously doubt if you really need 10 frames per second from 1Dmk2. You also don`t need non-interpolated 11mp from 1Ds becouse you have your RB67 for such work.

 

Just try to give it a calm thought - what really do you need to improve to take better photographs? It`s a very simple question, isn`t it? :)