tom_kieren

I'm baffled by the controversies aired here as this is my first exposure to this chat group. I feel like I should get a

Ph.D. in photographic process in order to feel confortable discussing some of these issues.

As an architectural/interiors photographer using a Sinar F2 4x5 camera with a roll film back, I and many others in my

professional still use primarily film because either the clients request it (refersing their earlier preference for digital) or

because if it ends up being cheaper to use than a digital front end camera process - given the much greater PS time

and cost (if you charge for it) from using a prof'l level digital camera and related equipment, process. A few more

sophisticated architects can be quite fickle about the use of specific types of cameras (depending on the age or

generation of their art director or the latest buzz about new cameras) but most don't even care which front end

process the photographer uses since all they want is a CD at the end of the process and they couldn't care less how

you acheived it as long as the client's perceived required level of quality is met and evident in the final printed image

in a website, proposal or publication. I know major arch firms that remain 85% film based but even they don't discuss

the issue (as we do) whether film or digital front end equipment and their respective results are "better". It, in my

humble opinion, is very personal, situation specific, and hopefully based on the evidence we photographers have or

don't have regarding what will give the client the best results. Bottom line: what is important is which process gives

you the best level of quality for what the client says he or she needs and later applauds, and thereby also gives you

a competitive advantage in your marketplace. From a purely business point of view, what good is bulking up and

using an expensive digital camera if it doesn't ultimately give you a competitive advantage in the eyes of the

customer?

As a result of my limited rentals of digital cameras, my personal observation is that film is still superior to and less

expensive vs. the digital front end process. As an aside, many at B&H Photo continue their argument that "why go

digital when good professional film gives you, right out of the box, the roughly 26mp equivalent - which they add most

digital cameras can't even approximate.... Same for dynamic range, color saturation, three dimensionality". Keep in

mind that my market is to architects and construction companies, publications, designers who have little need

for 'quick turnaround' vs. art directors who want instant feedbacks as in a fashion shoot or daily sports news

newspaper environment. I might also add that the annual NPR NY Times roundtable broadcast "seminar" (by a host

of acknowledged experts) on this topic, still leans in the direction of film in terms of its technical end-results achieved

for a variety of end uses. The debate rages.

Having said all that, I hope to make my first purchase of a new Nikon 26mp full-frame DSLR digital camera when it

comes out in a year or so! - so I too can enter the grand experiment you folks are inmeshed in. Keep up the good

discussions. Eventually, I'll figure out a fresh way of identifying what is "right" for my clients' needs as time

progresses, as I start full scale technical experiments and evaluations. All the best. Tom Kieren

I have a Schneider 75mm , 150mm and a 47XL lens and for architecture and even large interior spaces, I tend to use the 47XL for 90% of my shots - without a center filter but with a 120 roll film back for most of my shots. Now I am considering purchasing a Schneider 38mm XL lens for even wider angle shots.

Does anyone have a relative comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of using the 38 vs. the 47XL lenses for my type of photography? Also, what is the inherent integrity/quality of the Schneider 38XL lens per se? Thanks Tom Kieren