Digital STINKS (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

Thanks for the link Brian. The results he is getting from that scannner are absolutely staggering. Obviously some huge improvements have been made in the ability of fairly inexpensive flatbed scanners ability to scan transparencies. Just look at the astounding difference in shadow (and overall) detail. Of course, I realize they are coming from different resolution originals, but the difference is still amazing. Look at the noise in the roof line of the digital shot.

Thank God. I finally feel like I'm not alone. I sure need to look into one of these newer scanners.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

It's pretty obvious that 4x5 sheet film will still have far greater quality than a 10mp digital camera like the D200. No surprises in that article.

I see HUGE differences between scanned 4x5 sheet film and images from my Nikon D70, even if they are only blown up to 11 x 14.

That said, I really have to get motivated to drag out my 4x5 view camera! Then I have to develop the film myself, and then scan it and deal with rather large files. A pain. But the results really are amazing. I have two 11 x 14 prints on my wall at work from scanned 4x5 negs that were printed on an inkjet printer converted to black and white archival ink. Looks fabulous! A fellow large format hobbyist could not believe these prints were inkjet! Just another example of how photography is changing.

The one thing that won't change, however, is that creativity is at the heart of photography. The hardware is nothing more than the tools to achieve what the artist sees and help communicate it to others.

 

[Scott Kimball]

But it isn't a fair comparison. Comparing a sensor size equal to the negative size is the only way to be fair. The D200 sensor is only 23.6mm x 15.8mm... hardly a contest against a 4x5 receptor, no matter if it is digital or analog.

When you compare a true, uncropped 35mm size sensor at 8 - 12 MP against a fine grain 35mm filmstock, the results will be a better match.

-Scott

 

[Rob Gillespie]

I'd like to see it compared against PhaseOne's 40-odd megapixel medium format back. Surely a more reasonable comparison.

I think what Rockwell, bless him, is trying to say though, is that if you want that real definition then large format film is still king and it can be had for a price less than a D200 would cost you. The 4mp jump from D70 to D200 is insignificant next to the power of the force what large format can offer. Of course, that doesn't take into consideration the set up times and convenience, but if the quality is that critical to you then such things wouldn't be that much of a concern. What it does take though is more skill and time, which brings us back to John's argument.

 

[Rob Gillespie]

*dupe*

 

[JohnRice]

Of course a 4x5 transparency is going to have advantages over the D200, but you guys seem to be missing what is also said about the differences between how the image is captured digitally. Besides, look at the infinitely better gradation and lack of noise in the scan. I think his comparison is more valuable than you might think. You have no idea how often I am forced to shoot something digitally that I would never have considered shooting on 35mm. If the issue were only going from 35mm to digital, there wouldn't be much problem, as far as I'm concerned.

Besides, the argument of "digital is easier" holds absolutely no water for me. 35mm is easier than medium format. Medium format is easier than LF. It's always been that way. So Rob, get motivated and drag out that view camera! Dammit! :p)

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

John,

I don't want to get into a heated debate over whether technology matters much (in large part due to my respect for you and your work), but suffice to say we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd add that even though you're claiming that the few of us non-pros do not get what you mean I believe you do not really understand how the software field really works (and the many implications that I prefer not to dig into) and thus do not really see what some of us are really saying. No, I never claimed it to be a perfect comparison -- and indeed, qualified so already -- but again, this is perhaps one subject that is too personal to debate over. I'd much rather keep things more positive and learn what I can and enjoy photography as an outlet for what little artistic sense I may yet have.

Peace...

_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

Actually, it makes no difference if it is a valid comparison. If they are both situations where cheap is becoming all that matters, there is something wrong.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Well, next time I go to Yosemite, and I see something like this, I can guarantee you that I will have my view camera with me!



(sorry for the low quality of this jpeg image)

 

[JohnRice]

That's really nice Rob.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Thanks John, I appreciate that.

 

[AjayM]

This may be a better comparison, pro-level vs pro-level instead of consumer level vs pro-level.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

Here a 39MP digital back on a MF body get's just a bit closer to 4x5 that is drum scanned.

The Ken Rockwell comparison is just silly in so many ways, back in the film days equipment was always cheap, it was the cost of film/developing that cost a fortune, so yes, you can build yourself a nice large format system for less than a D200, but at $3'ish a pop of the shutter the "savings" are gone very quickly. Even past that, it's no big suprise that a large format negative scanned at a high resolution is capable of more than what came off a tiny (well relative to the film version) consumer level digital sensor.

Film is dying very quickly, more and more studios are dumping the view cameras for high MP digital backs on medium format bodies (such as the Phase One products) because whatever small amount of detail they give up is made up for in relation to cost and ease of use among other things.

 

[JohnRice]

I, for one, can say, that the cost "savings" for something like this is often a figment of the imagination. I chould shoot the volume of work I do for probably 10 years and not match the cost of this equipment which would have been replaced long before that. Now, I should point out that I have virtually eliminated the use of 4x5 film, largely due to its cost. Now, when I shoot architecture, it is typically with roll film on the view camera, except in the rare cases I don't have wide enough coverage for a given shot, when I go to 4x5 for the wider angle of view I can get.

Basically, my philosophy comes down to this. I can go to a high MP medium format back, which would also require spending additional money for wider lenses, and still not be able to cover all situations, and have the pleasure of having to work that much more to pay for the stuff, which I will be wanting to replace in about 3 years and start all over again.

Let me give you some hard core numbers. The type of work I do that would benefit from the purchase of this type of equipment runs less than 10% cost of film and processing, meaning less than 10% of the total invoice is for film and processing. Now, I am not considering the stuff I would shoot with a 35mm style D-SLR, because that is a completely separate investment I have already made, which has mde absolute sense to do. So, let's say that the investment for the digital equipment is 30K (which I think is conservative, considering there would most likely be new MF bodies and/or lenses involved), that means I have to do 300K of that type of work (where I would have shot MF or LF before) just to break even! If you think many photographers are going to do that kind of business (remember, this is in addition to the stuff shot on D-SLR, or for me, roughly half of my work) in 3 years, or even 5 years, you are kidding yourselves. How many of you make 200K a year? If I did, hell yeah, I'd buy a 40MP back and the equipment to go with it. I know plenty of photographers who did and 75% of them have one thing in common. They went out of business.

 

[JohnRice]

Oh yeah, regarding the "ease of use" issue. You have no idea who much more time is required working on the computer with digital. I am always amazed how fast the digital shoots go. I tend to feel like I'm ripping off thhe customer. They probably take half the time I typically take when I'm shooting film, except I have more time than I saved to look forward to working on the computer. This is not just my opinion, but I hear it from all the wedding/portrait photographers I know. They thought it would save them these huge amounts of time, and it has reduced or eliminated certain things, but the amount of additional time they spend working on the computer has more than offset time savings they get elsewhere.

Now, having said that, there are definitely benefits. A while back a magazine called me one morning to tell me an ad I was doing (hadn't even shot yet) was due by the end of the day. I rushed in, set it up, shot it, designed the ad, exchanged emails with the client a couple times to make some changes, got it approved and had it to the magazine, all within about 3 hours. That wouldn't have been possible with film. I do also like not having to run around town dropping off and picking up film when I shoot digital. I just wish so many people didn't insist on me using digital all the time.

 

[AjayM]

Ok, and I can point out a number of studio's out there that blow through $10k worth of film in a week. It's not hard for a $50k digital back to become cost effective when you're snapping off 100 shots in a couple of hours.

You're $30k investment could be very high, or it could be very low. $10-15k will get you into a 25MP digital back, that will snap onto existing equipment (from popular MF manufactures).


Well we must be talking to different pro's then. It's amazing to me how all the 'pros' hate digital, yet every day/year/whatever more and more of them are dumping film.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Ajay,

I don't doubt what you say is true of the pros in your area/market, but that might not necessarily apply to John's area/market though.

Here's one aspect that would certainly be different from the software field -- at least for now. John probably can't realistically shoot stuff outside of his physical area on a regular basis. OTOH, in the software field, most products can indeed be developed almost anywhere not "on location". Also, it might not make business sense for John to devote too much effort/time into a wide variety of markets depending on the size/scope of his business -- and his specialty/market might be vastly different from the pros you're talking about. Certainly, when you say these pros snap off 100 shots in a couple hours w/ the larger formats, that tells me these pros *might* not even be in the same kind of business as John -- if they're *only* snapping that much w/ digital and not w/ film before, then maybe they're actually falling into the trap that John was originally talking about.

John,

I definitely agree (and I'm sure most everyone else here does too) that something is definitely wrong if cheap is all that matters. In that case, I'd do what's been suggested and look for better clients instead. And if/when good clients no longer exist, then maybe it's time to consider doing something else for my profession. Indeed, in our field, (good/talented) people do often change jobs for such reasons.

_Man_

 

[AjayM]

IMHO it's true for most markets, witness the death of anything film related, and it's starting to snow-ball bigger and bigger. Kodak right now is dumping all sorts of products from film related areas, walk into the local 'pro' photo store and I can buy lab equipment for pennies on the dollar. This is all stuff that would immune to the "consumer" market (consumers 99.999999% of the time don't both buying developer, paper, or an enlarger, etc, etc). And this is all going away because more and more of the market is going away because people aren't buying.

Digital hasn't truly replaced film in terms of quality, especially when talking about medium and especially large formats, but most people are willing to make the trade off to go to digital. Included in that group of people are those who won't stand for a 'big' loss of quality, regardless of what it gives them in return (otherwise everybody would shoot polaroid), and 'big' is relative, check out the link I posted above, the differences there are pretty decent, yet digital still wins for that photographer.

And as you mentioned, it's not for everybody. If film works for somebody and they're happy to use it, all the better. But let's not gloss over what is happening in the market, or make wild comparisons (consumer sub 35mm digital vs pro-level 4x5), etc.

 

[JohnRice]

And show me where I said all, if even any pros hate digital. I was merely stating that all the ones I know were rather surprised at how much time they end up spending on the computer, and that thhe time savings ended up being little, if any. Now remember, I am talking about wedding & portrait photographers, so the volume of shots they are dealing with is far greater than I do.

Excuse the sarcasm, but I have clearly stated some of my background and qualifications and you just come in here and contradict everything I say that you don't agree with, ignore the things you do agree with and claim I said things I didn't. If you question the quality of my work or my experience and understanding, you are welcome to check my Web Site for some more examples and a little more on my background. I would like to make clear that I was one of the more involved people in the early days of electronic imaging, before it was even digital. I traveled all over the country, including to NASA, Apple Computer and my alma-mater RIT, to teach them about the technology. I am also quite willing to point out that I am no big time businessman, nor do I want to be. I want to do work I am proud of and make a decent living. Unfortunately, the two are difficult to bring together.

 

[JohnRice]

I forgot, there are no longer any feature films, shorts or television shows produced on film stock. Yes, digital is a massive revolution. My point is that it is not what most people think it is. This thread only supports that, as far as I'm concerned.


Think I'll go have a beer.

 

[JohnRice]

That is absolutely right. I understand what you are saying. OTOH, hopefully you see my point that to develop software, a person must have a certain degree of knowledge that doesn't just appear when they buy a computer. I don't know if you have any idea how many people think buying a digital camera makes them talented or creative. Of course, we get back to the bottom line that they probably aren't worth dealing with anyway. One client put it best (I can't remember if I already said this) with digital, his shots are just as bad as they were with film, he just finds out a lot faster. I wish more people realized that.

FWIW, I can say without hesitation that I will be very happy when the days comes that digital equipment which can actually do what I need it to has also become reasonably priced.