peter brown - www.peterbro

Thanks for your responses guys, I appreciate it.

Danny & Scott,

yes, I too had heard that the build quality of the Linhof was better than the

Fuji and for outdoor work this must be an added benefit. Certainly something

to weigh up when choosing a system. I'm not so sure Linhof's new outdoor

colour range will help with my photography, but it's an interesting concept ;-)

I have seen the 250mm lens advertised on RW's website for UKP 1,640. The

Linhof website is also listing them as being available. Is it really true that

these are not being produced? Perhaps the 250mm (if it's available) being

slightly shorter than the Fuji 300mm will be easier to focus?

Thanks for the link for the LF lens adapters Scott, that could open up

possibilites.

Also comparing prices on RW there doesn't seem to be that much difference

for a camera and three lenses on either system, although he has got a

special on the Fuji and 90mm at present.

Dick, I will be using the 617 for many different subjects from architecture to

landscapes, but probably outdoors most often. I have been down the 4x5 LF

view camera route with 612 holders (I certainly don't want to go to 5x7), and

this method is not practical for me. I want an easily portable, stand alone,

range finder system and the Linhof or Fuji will meet my needs. Thanks for the

suggestion though.

Kind regards

Hi all,

Does anyone know of any comparison reviews between the Linhof

Technorama 617S III vs Fuji 617 available on the web - or can you comment

on differences between these two camera systems?

I'm interested in ease of use, loading film, lens changing, handholdability,

which camera has the more accurate viewfinder for focusing, etc?

I have decided to purchase one of these systems and would appreciate any

user comments.

Thanks for your time,

Kind regards

Peter Brown

No worries Jorge. Let's call it a mis-understanding and leave it at that.

No offence taken and none intended.

<p>

Perhaps if you're ever in Australia we can share one of those Fosters.

<p>

Regards

Peter

Jorge,

<p>

Thank you for your replies. As you say this could go round and round. I also

agree with you that this has got slightly off the topic, although it is about LF

negatives/transparencies being scanned and then printed digitally which is

what the original poster was interested in.

<p>

I don't agree with your other arguments, but that's neither here nor there, as

we don't all agree on everything - thank goodness!

<p>

I do however take offence at your aspersion that I am not a LF photographer

don't practice this craft and that I wouldn't know how to make a contact print.

<p>

IF you had taken the time to look back at some previous threads you would

have noticed that I have contributed to this forum on a number of occasions,

about a number of different posts, including P/P processing, camera

equipment, philosophical discussions and even, heaven forbid, digital topics.

<p>

I am not opposed to traditional LF work nor am I particularly in favour of

digital LF work. I am open-minded enough to be able to have an adult

conversation on a variety of photographic subjects, for and against.

<p>

I think when posters' start making PERSONAL derogatory comments about

one's abilities or knowledge, it is very sad. I thought we were having a

thought-provoking discussion, but I was obviously wrong.

<p>

I would normally not send a reply such as this to an open forum Jorge, or

even attempt to justify myself to you, but as you have questioned by abilities

and character on the public forum, then I will respond in kind.

<p>

Here is a brief background on my ability to make comments on this forum, for

your information and for anyone else who may think along the same lines as

you.

<p>

I have been a practicing, professional photographer since 1971. I have

worked in the United Kingdom, Europe, the USA, Australia and New Zealand

in this capacity. For the last 41 years I have earned my living from this

CRAFT! My images have been reproduced in a number of international

magazines, company profiles, editorials and many of my fine art prints have

been sold and hang on walls around the world . I have been involved in

advertising, corporate, industrial, travel and tourism, documentary, fashion

and underwater photography as well as having a lot of experience with

alternative processes, infrared, polaroid transfers, platinum/paladium, toning,

hand-colouring etc, etc.

I have used Sinar 4x5 and 8x10 equipment, Rollei 6x6, Hasselblad, Pentax 67,

Mamiya 67, Nikon, Contax & Canon 35mm. I have used, please forgive me,

digital backs and cameras. I am proficient in a number of computer software

graphic programs including Photoshop which I have been using since the first

version.

<p>

I print using tradional methods (not so much lately) and, please forgive me

again, digital. I can process and print my own negatives and transparencies

and yes, Jorge, I do know how to make a LF contact print - wow!

<p>

I currently own an Ebony 45S and LF lenses which unfortunately I have to

sell, due to worsening opthalmic problems. This is one of the reasons I have

been investigating digital or auto-focus MF cameras, NOT because I don't like

LF or can not do it Jorge.

<p>

I will continue to contribute to this forum if I think I can make a worthwhile

comment, and I certainly will not be told by you that I should cease to

participate in any posts.

<p>

With respect.

<p>

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

<p>

Peter L Brown & Lucy Geijskes - ABN 72 854 940 849

Photography ~ Web Site Design ~ Illustration ~ Graphic Design

<p>

Tropical North Queensland - AUSTRALIA

' Warmed by the sun and kissed by the sea '

<p>

Mail: PO Box 1416 MBA Qld - Australia 4880

<p>

eMail me at: photo_illustration@bigpond.com

You can view some of my editorial images at: http://www.contax.ch

You can view some of Lucy's images at:

http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/lucyg_illustration/index.html

Our website at: wilderness-images-gallery.com will be up soon.

<p>

If you'd like to read my review on the wonderful Ebony 4"x5" large format

camera go to:

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/cameras/ebony-45s.ht

ml

<p>

Hi Jorge,

<p>

Well, didn't I tell you we'd agree to disagree. It's nice you are so passionate

about your traditonal printing methods and prepared to stick up for the old

way of producing prints - thanks great.

<p>

[snip>The quantities you talk about selenium, silver, etc are in no way as

damaging as those of Arsenic and other hevay metals used in the chip

industry<[snip]

<p>

That's like saying you are only slightly pregnant. A heavy metal, is a heavy

metal, is a heavy metal, . . . .

<p>

[snip]>Lets address the trees issue, you are going to tell me that computers

do not cause paper waste? heck can you remember the stacks and stacks of

paper next to a printer? how about the ease to "test" different things, this

causing people to print, and print, and print...so when a darkroom worker

tries to optimize to waste less paper, a digital worker is printing away until

the las pixel looks just right!<[snip]

<p>

These people are wasteful or uneducated workers Jorge, you'll get them in

any industry. Any testing can be done perfectly well on-screen without

needing to print, until the final print is needed to be done. One of the

advantages of digital is that you can edit right down to a pixel (all on-screen)

- try burning or dodging one film grain?

<p>

>[snip]For now to my opinion there is a distinct difference between a contact

print from a 12x20 negative and one from a printer[snip]<

<p>

That is because Jorge, you cannot mke a 12x20 contact print from a digital

printer.

<p>

Why do opponents to digital printing insist on comparing everything to 12x20

contact prints? If you want to make comparisons, then compare apples to

apples, not oranges! Perhaps a more accurate comparison would be to

compare a 12x20 print from a cold head enlarger to a digital print, perhaps

both taken on the same or equivalent format, then make an evaluation. It's

no good comparing a traditonal 35mm film enlarged image to a traditional

12x20 film contact print - that's just silly. So why try to do the same when

comparing digital output? Smoke and mirrors perhaps?

<p>

[snip]> The funny thing to me is that people working with digital technology

are making their outmost effort to make their output look more and more like

photography. <[snip]

<p>

I'm not sure who you are referring to here or quite what you mean by more

like photography, but those people should just stick with traditional prints

don't you think? I produce prints digitally, from a tradtional B&W negative or

colour transparency and make prints which are easier to produce and are far

better than traditional prints. I don't TRY to make then look like photography

because that is what they are. Prints made from a photograph.

<p>

I have also made beautiful, grainless, smooth toned prints from a digital

camera which are far nicer than an equivalent print from a grainy film camera.

Having acheived this beautiful, smooth, sharp print I certainly don't want to

make it look like it's been taken on a low contrast, grainy, piece of film. Why

would I? - I could use a tradtional camera and film to achieve that look.

<p>

What a fun discussion ;-)

<p>

Who can say the swamp does not have the magic of the mountains?

<p>

With respect

Hi Jorge

<p>

No need for apologies, it is your right to disagree with me and this is what

makes this LF forum so interesting and informative. I think we will probably

end up agreeing to disagree in the end ;-)

<p>

[snip]>do you know how much damage chip manufacturing has done to the

enviroment? 100 years of silver printing has not come close to the 20 year

damage that chip manufacturer has done! <[snip]

<p>

Jorge, I'm not sure where you got your statistics from, but that statement

seems pretty vague to me. I'd love to see your source and references? Did

this include the cost of packaging, the manufacture of the chemicals, the trees

that were cut down for the paper, not to mention the effects of silver washed

into the water system, the effects of heavy metal chemicals such as selenium

on the environment and the health of users? I could go on, but I think this

would be a pretty pointless exercise, statistics can only show so much.

<p>

So, perhaps accepting that both processes produce environmental harm,

maybe the only difference is that digital printing produces less waste. All

corrections can be done on-screen and if you have a properly calibrated

monitor the first print will unlikely need any further correction, therefore

wasted paper & prints is keep to a minimum. When it comes to duplicating

your print then the savings are even better. Just type in the required number

of prints and press print. In a few minutes you will have any number of

identical prints being produced - try that in the darkroom ;-)

<p>

[snip] > Of course if I look I can get fairly reasonable prices for computer stuff,

even prices that will be less than a darkroom. BUT!! and a big but it is, is that

if I buy a $500 4x5 enlarger, it will still be working properly in 10 years....try

that with the electronics of today!< [snip]

<p>

I am still using a Mac computer for PS work, which I bought nearly NINE years

ago (top of the range then), it still works with my current printers, it is still

going strong, I have never had to have anything fixed on it and it will

hopefully still work well for more years to come. Admittedly, it won't do what

my more recent G3 with lots of RAM and faster processor will do, but it's

certainly given me good value for money. My current computer is almost five

years old and once again I have not had one thing go wrong with it - maybe

it will last for ten years as well. I have a friend who has one of the first

Macintosh computers made (and that's certainly more than ten years old) and

it still works fine!

<p>

[snip]> Not to mention the fact that in 1 hour I set up my enlarger and I up

and working...try that with your piezography software!< [snip]

<p>

I don't actually use piezography so I can't comment on that product, but I just

timed myself on how long it took to start the computer, load in my software,

open the image in Photoshop, press print and watch as my 13"x19" B&W

print finshed printing. This highly complicated procedure took 9mins 34

seconds! A full colour print would take three or four minutes longer and all

done in daylight, without inhaling smelly chemicals or getting chemicals

absorbed into my skin! My clean-up time is 20 seconds! That's how long it

took to switch off the printer and computer.

<p>

But like I said at the beginning Jorge, we'll just have to agree to disagree,

because I love digital printing, I love the results I'm getting and I will continue

to use my computer and digital printer to produce my work. I may occasionally

venture back into the dark (ages?) when I feel nostalgic or want a hit from a

chemical cocktail, but that will not happen often.

<p>

I wish you every success with your traditional printing and would love to

catch up in ten years time and see how we are both doing then. You'll

probably be printing digitally and I'll be back in the darkroom ;-)

<p>

It is better to have travelled and got lost.

<p>

Than never to have travelled at all.

<p>

<p>

With respect

<p>

Brian, as you were obviously referring to my post, here is my response;

<p>

[snip]> You mean the best that can be said of digital is that it looks just as

good as traditional?> [snip]

<p>

Well, actually I think digital prints are better than traditional prints but that is

purely a subjective thing. Just like some people say there's no difference

between German or Japanese glass. Does that mean we don't buy German

lenses anymore, just because they are the same as the Japanese lenses but

cost three times as much?

<p>

There is much more to digital printing than just getting it as good or better

than a tradtional print. I disagree with your comment that digital printing is

more expensive than traditional printing. Have you done a side by side

costing, comparing apples with apples. I have, and the digital print cost is by

far the cheaper way, not to mention that it can be done entirely in daylight

(no darkroom costs) it is more environmentally friendly (no special disposal

needed) and it is far quicker.

<p>

Being faster means a lot to the working professional where time is money.

Being able to tweak an image easily and duplicate it perfectly over and over is

a godsend in professional work. I'm sure, even as a weekend printer, the

advantages of easy dupilication of prints and quicker printing would be an

advantage, not to mention less waste and cheaper print costs.

<p>

Photoshop is not that difficult to learn in my experience, but everyone is

different, some people find riding a bike difficult.

<p>

I'd suggest that you stick with your traditional darkroom printing if it has been

working perfectly for the last seven years and is causing you less trouble

than the digital printing.

<p>

There are those who are happy to continue to use old technology and there

are those who wish to progress with the new technology. I'm sure if you are

happy getting good prints with your traditional methods there is absolutely

no reason for you to change.

<p>

For my own work the digital printing workflow is easier, faster, more

controllable , less expensive and time consuming and the results are just as

good, perhaps even better, but now we're getting subjective again.

<p>

Best of luck with your tradtional printing.

<p>

---

<p>

"If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is STILL a foolish thing"

- Bertrand Russell

<p>

With respect,

Jeffrey,

<p>

Welcome to the Ebony club, you will enjoy your camera better each time you

use it. I have the 45S and it is superb, as you say, the movements are truly

amazing. Unfortunately due to ongoing opthalmic problems I am having to

leave "the club" and have to sell my beautiful LF camera & lenses.

<p>

I'm sure you will get many years happy shooting and good luck with your new

camera.

<p>

----------------

Quality is remembered, long after the price is forgotten.

<p>

Kind regards

Hi J Norman

<p>

I have always printed B&W traditionally until fairly recently when I started to

print some 13"x19" black & white prints using the Epson 1290. In comparing

the digital prints with the traditional B&W prints there are no differences at

this size and at normal viewing distances. If anything the digital prints may

have a nicer smoothness between tones.

<p>

I have also seen B&W digital prints done on the Epson 1160 4 colour printer

using the MIS multi-tone inks and the duotone/quadtone prints are

exceptional.

<p>

I did an experiment recently asking people (non-photographers) if they could

notice any difference between the digital and traditional prints and if they

could, which did they prefer? From this small sampling (33 people) no one

could notice any discernable difference between the prints and no preference

was given for one or the other. As these are the people who are buying the

prints, that is good enough for me.

<p>

I'm sure you'll get plenty of posts from the traditionalists telling you that the

old chemical prints are still better, but in my experience with prints up to 120

x 170 cm, there is no discernable difference at normal viewing distances. I'm

sure if you use a 20x loupe you will notice the differences, but who views

prints like this, except photographers?

<p>

There are a huge selection of papers for the digital printers and even

traditional watercolour and general art papers can be printed on. In fact

there are a number of companies now producing papers especially for their

beautiful qualities when printing B&W.

<p>

Your experience with colour transparencies will be repeated, if you print a

good scanned LF black & white negative or positive and print using the latest

digital printers. Even if you convert one of your colour LF transparencies to

B&W through Photoshop and do the adjustments for tone and contrast, the

end results will astound you - well worth a try.

<p>

-------------------------------------------------------------------

<p>

"If you place the imperfect next to the perfect,

people will see the difference between the one and the other.

But if you offer the imperfect alone,

people are only too apt to be satisfied by it."

<p>

- Alfred Stieglitz - photographer

<p>

Kind regards

This looks remarkably like a troll to me, ("would need a separate tank to

regulate the air in the bellows" & "waterproofing everything would help"), but

if the poster is serious which I doubt, it is at best a rather naive question.

<p>

As a professional wildlife photographer for many years, I can say that using a

4x5 for this is virtually out of the question, unless you drug the animals or get

them to move very, very slowly. An RZ 67 or Pentax 67 is possible, but not

easy.

<p>

As a professional divemaster and underwater photographer I can say that I

have NEVER heard of anyone doing UW photography with a LF camera. This

would be almost impossible and sounds idiotic to me. Even using MF with a

good compact housing is difficult unless conditions are favourable.

<p>

As Paul says above, you could only take one image at a time if it were

possible, so what do you do, dive down, shoot once and then surface, wait

the appropriate surface time, then dive again and take another shot? I'd

stick to using the LF on the surface if I were you.

<p>

--

Never test the depth of water with both feet.

<p>

Regards

Hi Hank,

<p>

I have used the Sinar system for professional studio and location work for

many years and although I cannot comment on the cameras you have listed,

but I can comment on the Ebony 45S (the 45 version of the 23S) which will

function in a very similar way to the 23S. I agree with Ellis that the monorail

designs will provide you with more movements that is for sure, but the Ebony

design is an excellent compromise and hybrid field camera/monorail design.

<p>

The movements on the S series Ebonys are more than enough for field

photography (which you say you will be using it for) and being a non-folding

design, the only thing you need to do for setup is put the camera on a tripod,

unlock the standards and move them apart for focus, composition, etc. It's

that simple! Any lens you want can remain on the camera when closed and

packed.

<p>

If you are looking at architecture or studio work the monorails will have the

edge interms of more available movements, but for field work, IMHO the

Ebony range can't be beat. Trouble is, I'm like Paul and am biased towards

the Ebony.

<p>

--

Quality is remembered, long after the price is forgotten.

<p>

Kind regards

Thanks guys, for all the comments so far.

Lucus,

thanks for that comprehensive review. I probably don�t do quite as much

�shooting on the fly� as you do, although I do cover a lot of the same areas

you do and my focus for many years has been travel/tourism & documentary

photography - you can see some of my Asian documentary portraits at

ww.contax.ch - look under photographers / Peter Brown. I couldn�t link

through to the url you gave me with your images. Is there something

missing?

Scott,

yes I�ve been seriously looking at the GX680 especially since the release of

version III. You�re not talking about Danny Burke are you? I have seen some

of the recent threads on the 680 and I�m quite impressed, but I mocked up a

model with the dimensions given for the camera and it�s bloody big! Probably

no bigger than my Ebony 45S with the Fuji 210 lens but still seemed quite

bulky. I�m still very interested though and if your friend wouldn�t mind I�d very

much like to discuss the camera.

Phillip & Eric,

thanks both of you for the info on the digital backs. I�m definitely keen to look

at this option but probably not until the end of the year when I hope the

quality is better and the price is less. I mainly wanted the option of being

able to add a digital in the future and have the combination of using film and

digital capture. Eric you made some good comments on the RZ accessories

and there are some good features to consider.

Anthony,

thanks for your thoughts on the lenses and the use of the mm scale for DOF.

I�d be interested in your comments on the 75mm shift lens? Also do you (or

anyone else) have experience with the shift/tilt adapter for the short barrel

lenses?

I appreciate everyone�s input. Sorry my responses are 12 hours behind -

that�s what come with living �downunder� ;-)

Kind regards

Hi all,

I am currently using 4x5 equipment (an Ebony 45s with a Sinar zoom 120

holder) and have previously used the Rollei 6006 system and the Pentax 6x7

system. I have many years professional experience with these cameras in

the studio and in the field.

I don�t currently own any MF gear but I want to reinvest in a system which

will allow me to use digital backs (in the near future) and which will be easy

to use as a field camera. I know what the P67 is like and probably won�t go

down that road again, and I am inclined to have another look at the Rollei

6008 i, Hasselblad or most likely the Mamiya RZ 67.

I like the 6x6 format and the images I got from my Rollei system were sharp,

contrasty and had a beautiful range of tones, in many instances on a par with

some of my 4x5 images. I think the lenses for these cameras are excellent.

The thing which puts me off the Rollei and Hasselblad systems, are the price,

availability & cost of parts and service (I live in Australia) and being restricted

to 6x6 as the largest format size.

I have been looking at the RZ 67 Pro II and I must say that I am impressed

with the statistics. I have used the older version of the RB67 many years ago

and got good results from it, but perhaps no better than the P67. I believe

that recent advances in optics and electronics have put the RZ on the same

level as the Rollei/Hasselblad in terms of quality optics and ease of use.

I would like to ask for comments on the PRACTICAL use of the RZ Pro II

system (lenses, accessories, weight, bulk, ease of use, etc), as primarily a

field camera, with emphasis on landscape and macro work (about 1:5 to 1:1)

on 3D subjects with some studio work (about 30% of the time)?

Are the electronics on the RZ reliable enough to take some abuse (treking,

dust, rain etc) and is the camera generally sturdy enough for field work? I

know there are pro nature shooters using the RZ in the field, but I�d like to

hear from actual users on this forum who have put the RZ through it�s paces

in the field? How do you find it stands up to this type of use?

I�d appreciate any comments, pro or con from anyone who has used a digital

back on either the RZ, Rollei or Hasselblad systems?

Please don�t have a flame war on which is the best, Hassie or Rollei or

Mamiya, I am more interested in the reliability of the RZ as a field camera and

it�s possible future use with digital backs.

Thanks in advance.

Kind regards

That's not relevant to my question Dan.

<p>

See my last reply, ten posts above:

<p>

[snip]. . . .I'm sorry, but I think some of you are misunderstanding my

question. In my original question I asked; "I'm wondering what you all think

of this concept and whether this is what the future holds for LF photography,

albeit in a more compact and easier to handle setup."

<p>

Note that I said " . . .the future . . ." and ". . . in a more compact and easier to

handle setup." - NOT with the current technology and equipment available. . .

. .etc, etc, etc. [snip]

<p>

With respect

Hi Michael,

<p>

I use the Ebony 45S with the universal bellows and I find that the Nikkor

65mm f4 works fine with these bellows and the IC runs out before the

bellows does. If I was going wider I would probably look at getting a WA/bag

bellows and a wide angle fresnel, but I agree with Danny and for the SV 45U

where you have the ability to use longer lenses as well as the wides, I'd be

inclined to stick with the universal bellows which are very flexible.

<p>

--

Quality is remembered, long after the price is forgotten.

<p>

Kind regards

Hi Ellis,

<p>

I enjoyed visiting your site and congratualtions on designing and

implementing a easily navigated and interesting site. I looked at it with IE

v5.01 and Netscape v4.6 on a Mac G3/56k internal modem and on OS 8.6 with

a very poor phone line connection. The images loaded quickly and there were

no broken links or any other problems.

<p>

Colours tones and contrast of images were as I would expect and looked

excellent on my 19" La Cie monitor and on my Apple multiscan 17". The

windows resized well on both monitors.

<p>

I liked your choice of colours and the overall impression is of a clean,

professional, well-designed and easily navigated site.

<p>

Good luck with it and I hope it drags in the punters.

<p>

--

Don't squat with your spurs on!

<p>

Kind regards

This photographer (Frank Grisdale), is doing some interesting "artistic" things

with digital capture:

<p>

http://www.photoeye.com/Gallery/forms/index.cfm?id=84413&image=1&imag

ePosition=1&Door=2&Portfolio=Portfolio1&Gallery=2

<p>

Kind regards,

Erik,

<p>

If you are doing photography commercially with this as your main source of

income then go digital all the way - forget traditional work, you will be left

behind your contemparies.

<p>

If you are doing photography for yourself and have not much interest in

earning your living with it, then a combination of both would be a good

choice.

<p>

After over thirty years of traditional photography (professionally, as my only

income) I am changing more and more to digital capture and output and the

traditional methods have been relegated more for my own personal work.

<p>

Kind regards

Yes Andy, I agree that the initial cost will probably be quite high, but I know

that I have spent thousands of dollars on good quality LF gear and

equipment to output my images to prints, as well as the ongoing cost of film

and processing. I wonder if we looked at our LF expenses and compared

them to the equivalent for digital capture and output whether the difference

would be so great?

<p>

More contenious questions ;-)

<p>

Kind regards

I'm sorry, but I think some of you are misunderstanding my question. In my

original question I asked; "I'm wondering what you all think of this concept

and whether this is what the future holds for LF photography, albeit in a more

compact and easier to handle setup."

<p>

Note that I said " . . .the future . . ." and ". . . in a more compact and easier

to handle setup." - NOT with the current technology and equipment available.

<p>

After Joe's post I then suggested we rephrase the question; "Thanks Joe,

you may be on to something - perhaps the question should be re-phrased: Is

this a glimpse of the future for LF "FILM" or the way in which we will record

our images? "

<p>

Comments about the exposure time or moving objects being omitted, are no

more relevant than talking about LF images which contain water which looks

more like mist than water or leaves that are so blurred from movement that

they are unrecognisable.

<p>

My question was not about what is available NOW, but what will be available

IN THE NEAR FUTURE! It's not about whether he is a good photographer or

not, whether we like or dislike his photographs, in fact it's not even about

whether he choose the right equipment for the job or whether he was doing

it for his own "promotional" reasons or not.

<p>

What I was interested in, was hearing comments about whether you think

this type of image capture will be what we will use for LF field photography in

the future and if so how soon will we likely be using it. Perhaps it is just too

much of a contentious issue to get unbiased replies.

<p>

Anyway, thanks everyone for taking the time trying to answer my ambiguious

questions.

<p>

" Who am I to blow against the wind? "

<p>

- Paul Simon / Graceland

<p>

Kind regards

Thanks for all the comments,

<p>

I agree with Bill's & Howard's assessments and from my own research I also

believe that a sturdy, portable digital back for 6x9/4x5 (without cables,

laptops, etc) is not too far away and the output will equal or better our

current film quality.

<p>

We are already seeing traditional camera makers such as Ebony introducing

new cameras which will be compatible with digital backs, for example the

"new" 6x4.5-6x12 'Finesse' with facilities for digital & film use. Other

manufacturers are also introducing prototypes as well.

<p>

This is a contentious issue particularly with die-hard film users and there will

always be early developers who lead the way and those who sit and wait,

but one thing is for sure, digital capture is here now - we'll just have to wait a

couple more years to see who is riight and who is wrong.

<p>

"Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better"

- Samuel Johnson (1755)

<p>

It was great hearing your views - thanks.

<p>

Kind regards,

Hi Bill,

<p>

Yes I agree with your sentiments. I think that the time frame is probably

about right too.

<p>

You say; " . . .it seems most of the chip makers are putting their recources in

the larger markets such as 35mm and MF systems." - this is most likely correct

but the plus side to this is that the innovations which occur here, will flow

fairly quickly to LF shooters too, I would imagine. There are a lot of

professional LF shooters who work outside the comfort of the studio and I'm

sure the manufacturers will accomodate them too, which will in turn benefit us

"landscape photographers".

<p>

But who knows, perhaps those advances in 35mm & MF will be so good that

we'll give up LF all together!

<p>

- just kidding! ;-)

<p>

--

"Where there is an open window there exists limitless opportunity."

<p>

Kind regards

Pat and others,

<p>

I didn't mean to encourage comments on the man's actual photography ability

or technique and I think that whether we like his photographs or whether the

quality (at this early stage) is better than a traditonal LF hand-made print is

irrelevant.

<p>

The fact that this photographer has taken the step to transport what is

essentially a still-life digital studio camera setup, out into wilderness to see

how it performs, is pushing the boundaries of technology and it is these

"pioneers" who set the stage for the future.

<p>

I agree that currently, film is still the best medium to produce a high quality

enlarged image of a wilderness area, but I am also open-minded enough to

acknowledge that this gentleman is trying a new approach and I for one

would not be surprised to see, as Joe says, digital eventually replacing film.

<p>

Let me ask this question;

<p>

If the price becomes comparable (or cheaper), the quality and the means by

which we can capture an image digitally, becomes as easy and as good as LF

film capture, would there be any reason NOT to move to digital capture

instead of film?

<p>

--

"There is nothing permanent except change."

<p>

Kind regards

<p>

Peter Brown

Thanks Joe, you may be on to something - perhaps the question should be

re-phrased:

<p>

Is this a glimpse of the future for LF "FILM" or the way in which we will record

our images?

<p>

Although I disagree with your thoughts that; "accessible & practical LF digital

is a long way off still." Having been amazed at the speed at which digital

technology has developed, especially in the last few years, and with the

advances in nano-technology I'd be more inclinded to think that accessible &

practical LF digital may not be as far off as we think.

<p>

Kind regards

<p>

Peter Brown

<p>

--

Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.

Hi all,

<p>

I just had a look at Stephen Johnson's site about his project to digitally

photograph the US national parks - 'With a New Eye'. What makes this

unique is that he is using 4x5 digital backs to do this! He is using a Sinar-X

4x5 view camera, with Dicomed 4x5 and Better Light digital inserts, and the

Apple Macintosh PowerBook 540c, 3400c, and G3 series computers, items

usually associated with taking still-life studio images.

<p>

This setup allows the taking of images in color, black and white, and infrared

with extremely high resolution and dynamic range (Dicomed: 6000x7520

pixels, 130MB files with more than 9 stops of exposure latitude and the Better

Light: 6000x8000 pixels, 142MB files with more than 10 stops of exposure

latitude.)

<p>

Obviously the examples on the web site do not show the quality of his

images very well, although they look impressive, and I'm wondering if anyone

has seen the originals and cares to comment on them.

I'm also wondering what you all think of this concept and whether this is

what the future holds for LF photography, albeit in a more compact and

easier to handle setup.

<p>

I realise that carrying all this gear into the wilderness to take images seems

like a lot of effort, but maybe this is how the photographers of the past felt

like when lugging their heavy 8x10 (and larger) cameras, tripods and plates

around (I'm sure I once saw an image of one famous photog & his mule

carrying a lot of gear).

<p>

On another 'pro' photography list I subscribe to, many of the commercial

photographers have commented of late about the demise of a number of E6

processing labs and how the push for digital is quickly overtaking the demand

for film. Some of the recent threads here too have noted the discontinuation

of some LF size films.

I think Stephen Johnson's project is a glimpse into the future of LF

photography (or is it already here) and I would be interested to hear others'

comments.

<p>

You can visit his 'parks project' web site at:

<p>

http://www.sjphoto.com/parks_project_photos.html

<p>

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

<p>

Kind regards

<p>

Peter Brown

<p>

-----------------------------------------------

<p>

Festina lente - hurry slowly

<p>

- Latin proverb