I am sure it is great, but the cost alone will keep medium format alive a long time. It will be a nice chioce for the professional who can afford it, but even then that will limit it to only a few. Monte Johnson.

Quote:
I am sure it is great, but the cost alone will keep medium format alive a long time. It will be a nice chioce for the professional who can afford it, but even then that will limit it to only a few. Monte Johnson.

Even if I could afford it, I wouldn't. Digital has nothing to offer me at this point in time.

Quote:
Even if I could afford it, I wouldn't. Digital has nothing to offer me at this point in time.

39 mega pixel and digital has nothing to offer you???

I can not afford 30 thousand dollars right now but in 5 or 6 years that same back may be down to 5 grand... I talk to many older photographers and younger photographers (I am 45) I find that the real reason many established photographers resist is "Fear"... I have met many people from many different professions who do not want to learn how to turn on a computer because they are afraid of looking like a novice in front of younger people. Many people think that digital photography will instantly make there photographs look like the pro's....That is when I get a big laugh when my doctor comes up with his brand new dx2 and asks me why his pictures still do not look as good as mine. They fail to relies that most all the same principals of photography remain the same, sure you can enhance things in photo shop but that is no different than when you learned to manipulate film in the dark room. Only now It is faster and less messy if you are willing to put forth the effort ... I Learned on film 30 years ago, but digital is more complex and offers new challenges.

Nah. Digital continues to make deep inroads into the film market, but film will be around for some time yet.

Robert, I think that is it in a nutshell. Many including myself would not spend that kind of money for digital. I feel even on the high end film still offers more for the money. Monte Johnson.

In the feb issue of RangeFinder is an article that may have some relevance to this discussion.
A client felt he needed a 100 mb file to get the quality he wanted for a 12x16 advert. The photographer was only able to supply a file that, if I remeber correctly, was 39 mb.
After cropping, the file was reduced to 5mb. The print was perfect. BTW, the 12x16 print was FEET, not inches.
How much are we, including apparently art directors, as consumers being buffaloed?
Jusdt asking.

>>I can not afford 30 thousand dollars right now but in 5 or 6 years that same back may be down to 5 grand...<<

David,

I tested some of the first high resolution medium format backs when they came out more than 5-6 years ago. The resolution has climbed some but the prices have not gone down. The reason is that medium format digital is NOT a consumer product, so the "rules" that apply to what amateurs are buying are not applicable. Medium format digital is not likely to acquire sufficient sales volume to drive the prices down. And finally chips that big in physical size will be proportionally more expensive because they get so few out of a standard silicon wafer.

Monte,

Most of the pros who are using the expensive high-end MF digitals are NOT buying them. Most are leased, and the lease payment just becomes a part of your overhead, the nut you have to make each month to pay the bills before you can pocket some profit. No different than leasing studio space.

Ronk,

Buffaloed? By whom? Mostly by and to themselves I am afraid.

Quote:

Are you one of those people who would dance on its grave?

Reading this months (UK) Profentional Photographer would give a good insight as to why many pros still use film, some have gone back to it partially after being 100% digital for a while.

Quote:
39 mega pixel and digital has nothing to offer you???

... I Learned on film 30 years ago, but digital is more complex and offers new challenges.

Why? 39 Mpx is nothing. I shoot 95% 4x5, and 99% of that with Velvia - I can easily pull a 1.5 GB scan out of that. I've been doing photography since 1973, and I haven't lost my passion for the processm nor have I become bored and seeking "challenges". I'm very happy with what I do. I'm also proficient, altough not an expert, in Photoshop, but I dislike spending time in front of a computer to do my art. BTW, I've also been a senior programmer/analyst for 15 years or so; so I am not intimidated by computers.

Last night, I was looking at some 4x5 trannies I just got back from the processor - I can't begin to tell you how excited I was.

No, digital has nothing to offer me.

How do you get your prints made?

Quote:
No, digital has nothing to offer me.

Robert I do not shoot large format so I can only guess the excitement you feel, but I do shoot medium format and I can say from what I see at 3200 dppi scan 39 meg digital I belive would not compare. At 4000 or over they produce some very inpressive prints with great detail. I have scaned 4+5 negs before for someone else and as you know they produce an impressive file. Monte Johnson.

David, that is true and I have no doubt professional can lease high end digital as part of their operating cost. For the rest of us we work with what we can afford . I believe digital has some to offer for many, but medium format still is a good value for guys like me and many others you love what BW film gives or film in general. I think it always comes back to the fact that they are different formats. 39 meg digital camera is probably not much different in image quality then like the Canon 5D. I have come to belive it is going to be computer software and advanced sensor chips that make the difference with digital not how many megs it produces. You are the expert with digital experince here and have gave me many good reasons why you use them. All valid, but you also came from a film world and I can bet at times you miss it a little. Monte Johnson.

Ronk

Get it right, it was Jan issue of rangfinder, the print was color, and the file was a 4.2 meg jpg in color printed at 50dpi... awe hech the story is at...

Rangefinder artical

http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Jan06/digital.tml

Sorry, thanks for the correction.

Monte,

What this comparison between digital and film really comes down to is "information". And in this regard size does matter, the more size in the recording area the more information, which is why an 11x14 inch print made from a 120 2 1/4 film image looks better than an 11x14 made from 35mm if all other factors are equal.

Size is what is defined when you use megapixels as a measure, it is so many pixels by so many pixel multiplied. But with physical size of each pixel varies, and the quality of the image is not appreciably affected within the practical variation of sizes that are actually used, so you have an APS physical size chip with 12MPX and a 24x36mm chip also with 12MPX the images will be very comparable when reproduced to the same print size.

39MPX is over 3X the amount of information as a 12.8MPX Canon EOS 5D, and the resulting images will be very distinctly better in image quality at the same print size, more detailed, smoother, about like the difference between what your Rollei can reproduce and making the same image with a 4x5 camera.

Digital software control of images does have some quality results in terms of the accuracy of fidelity with the subject photographed, particularly in terms of color. But that is very limited by the gamut digital works within and the fact a digital record of a subject is pure information, each pixel has a particular XY location and just three number values that identify the color and its brightness - period!

David, when you put it in those terms it makes sense to me. So the 39 meg camera is 3X the size of the Canon 5D. In terms of size this means more detail in print at the same size print made from both cameras. As you increase sensor size and megapixels where is the point where it stops being a benifit in print quality and image quality? Monte Johnson.

David,
Why would you want to start this debate again? Haven

If you'd read David's post carefully, you'd know it had nothing to do with "digital vs. film".

Mr. Gilchrist,

I have been doing photography all of my life since age 19 in 1952. So I had almost 40 years of film photography under my belt when I saw the handwriting on the wall, written by no less than Ansel Adams himself, that digital would be the future, so I committed at the beginning of 1990 to digital. I'd made the shift from film to the hybrid of scanning within a couple of years and fully digital not long after.

I have nothing against film at all, how can I, I still work a lot from a very large library of images on film I built up over 40 years of active photography, like many others like myself who have been doing photography for a long time that I hear from frequently.

I say what I do in response to some ideas presented here to help in an understanding of the functional similarities and differences between traditional photography and digital. I feel I have something positive to offer if for no other reason than I've put more time and effort into digital than all but a few experienced full-time photographers, and long enough overall as a photographer to want to share with others what has afforded me a good life's work.

If I rub you the wrong way, I am sorry, but its your problem. You are free to ignore what I have to say.

David
I think Mr. Gilchrist Was probably referring to me.. And I am instigating a little, but I like a good heated debate. Now that film equipment is getting ridiculously low, I am considering the purchase of a enlarger and setting up a B&W dark room just as a novelty. Seeing as how I had my first darkroom back in 1977 I think it would just be for fun. I enjoy rattling people like Mr. Gilchrist

David,

I don't know that it matters one way or another, the content of the message got its just desserts. I too enjoy verbal jousting although these days so many shy away when an exchange gets heated. They should read the biographies of Abraham Lincoln's early political career, he had a very sharp tongue and wrote some withering pieces calling down his competitors, but always most politely.

I agree that as long as there is a revolution going on with great degrees of change affecting people's interests there will be strong opinions cropping up from every side. If it is engaged in thoughtfully, everyone benefits from a better mutual understanding of what is going on and how it affects different individuals for different reasons.

I was not directing my comments to David Brooks. Rather, they were directed to the person who started the post.
Somebody said that this was not another digital versus film debate, I beg to differ with you on that. The post was titled medium format dies a digital death, then a picture of film in a casket is put up. Sirs please tell me how is that not a debate or rather a bait.
I have no problem with digital, where I have a problem is when others want to spread what they perceived to be the truth and if you do not agree you are either wrong or ignorant.
I do own a digital camera but as it so happens I much prefer to use film and scan the neg for the more important pictures. I know some of you know why I prefer a scanned neg.
I get angry with this debate coming up all the time because I know that there are a lot of great knowledge and experiences that could be shared rather than this subject over and over.

That there is a debate, an ongoing dialogue or conversation about film versus digital simply reflects a period of great change in photography. Many individuals may be conflicted themselves and may not have a comprehensive conceptual idea of what is the same between digital and film and what is different on an objective basis, and many may also not be entirely clear how to relate their personal feelings and attraction to photography relative to digital or to film, it is not an entirely mechanical thing as many use terms such as "like" and "love" to describe how they relate to various aspects of photography.

That you are angered by the fact it is a debate, that it is contentious at times is really your problem in not being tolerant of the diversity that exists in how people think and behave, so I believe then it is your choice of whether to accept people as they are or to not engage. I get frustrated and irritated myself, but if I want to contribute I have to accept the fact everyone is not like me, and realize it is foolish to assume anyone else should meet any expectations I have.

This is a free and open forum, so it is what all of its constituents make it to be, not what anyone thinks it should be. That it works for some is attested to by the fact of their participation, and the fact it continues to grow indicates the forum is attracting more people who find value in being involved. You have the choice of being involved or not, but you should not expect it to be anything other than what everyone posting causes it to be by their participation.

Quote:
How do you get your prints made?

Quote:
No, digital has nothing to offer me.

How do I get my prints made? All my color prints are made on a Chromira printer on Fuji Crystal Archive (a traditional RA-4 paper), by West Coast Imaging, except for a select few that are done on Ilfochrome. All my B&W work is done on traditional fibre paper (although I shoot very little B&W). However, you are making the same mistake many other people make - DIGITAL photography is a different technology than DIGITAL printing. The question was about DIGITAL photography. Why should I care about this little 39mpx sensor - I can get 1.5GB of information from my 4x5 trannies.

Quote:
Robert I do not shoot large format so I can only guess the excitement you feel, but I do shoot medium format and I can say from what I see at 3200 dppi scan 39 meg digital I belive would not compare. At 4000 or over they produce some very inpressive prints with great detail. I have scaned 4+5 negs before for someone else and as you know they produce an impressive file. Monte Johnson.

I just got a Nikon F5 to supplement my 4x5 work. I've got a new scanner for it as well - a Konica Minolta 4500II Elite. For my LF work, I have some of the images drum scanned (Heidelberg Tango), and I can tell you those scans are pretty impressive.

If you scan a photo

Yes a scanned image from film is digital, but a scanned image from a medium format negative printed at the same size print as a 6to 10 meg camera gives a much different result. I am saying from experience a 645 neg scanned at 4000 dpi and printed to 16x20 will blow away the same print shot with todays digital camera. I do not know about the 5D and some of the high end digital backs, but I have seen results printed to 16x20 from 6 meg cameras. Not impressed. Monte Johnson.

Sorry I forgot to login. I am only saying I like the results I get from scans vs digital images fro cameras. If I could afford the high end digital then I would have to see for myself the results. Monte Johnson.

Monte,

>>I do not know about the 5D and some of the high end digital backs<<

Then maybe you should wait until you have seen what 12 megapixels and higher reproduces in large prints.

There is a difference between digital and analog film images in terms of the quality of the image information that gives digital an advantage. Film images are made up of information created by the organization of noise, the grain in the film, the finer the grain the higher the information to noise ratio. With digital the information to noise ratio is extremely high at the sensors lowest sensitivity setting, noise is almost entirely absent.

So, if you have an image file of 16x20 inches at 300dpi from scanned film and another 16x20 @ 300dpi file made from a digital camera capture there will be MORE pure image information in the latter than the scanned from film image which will contain a considerable portion of that information that is noise.

David, I would have to say you have more information on this then I do. I have only seen 6 meg cameras to compare with. If this is true then it may be worth the price of the 5D. I try not to go where I have not been. In time someone here will have the 5D then I will see this for myself. Only then will I change my mind. If I could afford a camera like the 5D I would have to use right along side of my film cameras, but I as many do not have the ability to spend that kind of money so I am happy for now with where I am. The time may come when I can see this move as justfied but for now I feel 3200 needs a lot of justification. I do know your experience out weighs mind by many years so I do not disregard your thoughts here. Monte Johnson.

Monte,

You can download full resolution image examples of the 5D for free. And while you are at it, download also some Nikon D200 images. Although this is not the same as shooting images yourself, it will give you a pretty darn good idea of what is possible with a good 10 or 12MP digital camera.

Frans Waterlander
pixographer

Monty
I have a 44in X 68in print I recently made from a 8mp Canon 20D (RAW) printed on a new Epson 9800 with the paper that came with the printer (not there best photo paper 720dpi) And everyone that has seen it has been very impressed. I first interpolated the image to a size of 1.5gig before printing. Perhaps the 6mp camera image was not processed properly or any number of other factors can affect print quality. However I do feel that optimum image quality from a APS-C sized censor will top out at around 8 to 10mp Raw any more that that on that sized sensor will begin to have other issues that effect image quality, and the same could be said for full frame sensors at around 20mp RAW. Medium format will not top out until around 50 or 60 mp in compressed RAW however when transform a Raw 50mp to uncompressed tif you will have a 1.5 gig image to work with. Will 1.5 gig non-interpolated tiff be enough for you?

Okay, I can buy into what you present here, but BW film still holds me to where I am. I know digital can produce nice images. I do not doubt that, but BW coversions from digital cameras are still not the character that different BW films produce. Yes they make nice BW images. Just different thats all. As I have said before. Digital cameras will be here for some time to come. I will just enjoy film for a little longer. Monte Johnson.

Quote:
In the feb issue of RangeFinder is an article that may have some relevance to this ....

I think alot of people have a different threshold on what is 'perfect', sombody told me that they got a decent result from a digital compact that they blew upto 4x5', this was in a thread where I was explaining why there is a much large gap quality wise between film compacts and digital compacts than there is between Film SLRs and DSLRs. Now the spec of that digital camera is not much different to the spec on mine, but 5x4' I wouldn't use 35mm for that even an SLR with a decent lens nor would I use a DSLR 6x7 at least for that sort of enlargement (if I had a 6x7 that is, so I would never go that big) I also have been shown low res inkjet prints on normal paper and herd, look at the quality of that, to which I said 'Thats rubbish'!

Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however do not forget about viewing distance, I can blow up your 6mp picture to 16ft X 40 ft (billboard) and from a distance of 200 or 300 ft driving down the highway the image will look quite sharp. Nearly all large format prints are viewed from a greater distance. I think the next gen of digital sencors should concentate on wider lattitude and color gaumets than more mega pixels.... Not saying that I want them to stop increasing the resilution of cameras.

>>Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder<<

That idea is offensive to anyone who creates art. What if the beholder has NO taste?

But your point about viewing distance is a concept too few understand and is well worth repeating in as many ways as possible.

The thing about this whole thread is that it is as much a waste of time to talk about film vs. digital as it is to talk about about painting vs. drawing. They provide you with two different outcomes that you either prefer or you don't. I'm mean heck, when film was all that was around did you guys debate endlessly about which is better color or b&w? Or did you debate tmax vs. ilford? Enjoy what you use, do it to the best of your ability, and allow others to do the same. Each have a unique look and feel. Both can be beautiful. But for either to be beautiful there needs to be someone crafting that image that is passionate and knows what they are doing. Enough said. David, say hello to the Cracker Barrel Headquarters for me. That is one delicious restaurant chain.

J. Ivar,

Where really do you think I am? I have never seen a Cracker Barrel Restaurant that I can recall, and I am sure there isn't one anywhere near me because I know the area well.

Debate is never a waste of time, unless of course you believe thinking is a waste of time. To engage in debate most people find they are thinking about what they are debating more critically and reflectively than they would otherwise, and in the process probably discovering more about what they are doing and why than they would if never challenged by some controversy.

In a way its a bit like commuting to work. Most people take a route because they think it is maybe the shortest or takes the least time. But maybe you meet someone who takes a quite different route for other reasons. You get into a debate that makes you think, and even question, and you might even try another route, and with that experience discover the shortest and quickest route you've been taking involves a stressful and boring trip each day, that another longer, slower route is more enjoyable and you're less tired and worn out when you arrive. There can be a lot of positive things discovered, even about yourself, through a little debate.

Sorry for the confusion David. The Cracker Barrel comment was meant for David Sardi whose bio says he is from Lebenon, Tenessee. That is the homebase for a restaurant chain called Cracker Barrel. I realize with the two Davids it gets confusing so I will try to refer by first and last name from now on. As for your comment about debate I agree with you, however, there are good debates and there are fruitless debates. Debating which is better is a fruitless debate. Debating the merits of both and how each work in what ways is a very good debate, but unfortunately as I have seen it, the other David was not opening a topic for fruitful discussion, but rather throwing tomatos for his own enjoyment. Does he have that right? Absolutely! Do I have the right to state that I feel it is fruitless and juvenile? Absolutely! If Mr. Sardi were interested in discussing how his artistic vision fits well with the tools that digital gives him and engages us in a "good" debate over its merits, I think this would be a very information and idea rich thread. But as long as his post amount to a few exclamation points, some cutesy little happy faces, and some basic tombstone clipart, it is fruitless in my opinion.

So for my contribution to what I consider a "good" debate is this: I think one of things that people forget about photography is that it is full of people with a vastly wide array of styles and interests. Some are portrait photographers who only interest is to be able to create the best quality headshot at the most cost effective price possible. Others are weekend warriors who take photography as a serious hobby and try to make all their images as best as they can be. And others still are "fine artists" who try to create work that is unique and of the finest quality (and other variations of photographers as well). All three of these "kinds" of photographers have differing interests and goals and to debate which is better, digital or film, is fruitless when people have different goals in mind. What works for one might be horrible for another and vice versa. It would be like a soccer mom, a drag racer, and a retired couple discussing which car is best. They all have reasons why their car is the best one based on their interests. None are wrong. So instead of all of us beating film vs. digital over each other heads, why not have a discussion of which form we like, why we like it, and why we think it fits our style of photography the best. Atleast this kind of a debate is productive, informative, and unoffensive. What do you think?

(and thanks for letting me get on my soapbox)

It's not the first time that the identity of our Davids has been confused. Maybe we should start being more specific, using "David B." and "David S" to keep them sorted out. For sure, one thing you can't rely on is the reply sequence to the posts!

That said, what I get from J's and David B's last posts is that you both value Robert Frost's philosophy of the road "less traveled by", and that it's pointless to argue over which road. It's an individual choice. Frost knew that, and it's evident in the body of the poem more than in just the last two lines. It's been my own philosophy of photography, which is why I lived for five years near the Grand Canyon and never really photographed it. I couldn't see tossing my work on top of the huge pile that's already there, So, I spent my time on the back roads and in the out-of-the-way places, trying to create something unique. Now that I live in Tennessee, I'm trying to continue on that path. But some of the places where people go are just so damn beautiful that it's hard to resist!

By the way, David B., if you've never been in a Cracker Barrel restaurant, you don't know what you're missing!

J. Ivar,

A very interesting article In These Times titled "Men Growing Up To Be Boys", a dissection of contemporary culture I think explains a lot of why so many in David S's generation are the way you describe.

That he at least participates at some level is a hopeful sign. I think any debate is fruitful if it expands the participant's thinking and view of reality. At 73 that I discover something different I had not thought of on a pretty regular basis I think provides me with good assurance the exercise debate provides is generally good even if the content drifts occasionally into the inane.

Bill,

You remind me of an article I wrote 15 years ago when I was editor of PhotoPro magazine about photography in your state. So, very likely I have been to a Cracker Barrel restaurant. Sadly my dietary limitations I am sure would not permit me to enjoy the local cuisine of your state today.

BTW just in case that people are not aware Tennessee has a rich history in photography. The very famous Senator from Tennessee from the Watergate drama was a very accomplished photo enthusiast, and I visited with him in Knoxville as part of my research for the article. And besides Cracker Barrel your state was then home to one of the country's largest portrait studio chains, as well as one of the largest commercial photo studios specializing in furniture, etc., etc.

Back roads are often photo gold mines, as well as enjoyable to travel upon, especially if you have to tolerate the contrary of overcrowded freeways very much. But sadly here in California even some of the back roads are getting crowded, especially when vineyards are built along those roads and attract wine tasters in tour buses.

David B,
To confuse matters even more, I am also a David B. :>)))
I remember the article--in fact I believe I still have all the copies of Photo Pro. It was an excellent magazine and
I miss it.

Dave,

Unfortunately PhotoPro lacked a skilled professional publisher who was really knowledgeable about the pro photo business and it did not get that essential support. Otherwise it could have succeeded. But it was a valuable lesson personally, and taught me that I am not one to flourish in the world of corporate management, and although the issues I produced were I think a good start in terms of content, that was the only satisfaction I am afraid I got from packaging the editorial content. Sadly I did not learn the lesson well enough and took on editing another magazine a short time later and had an even worse fight with a publisher that was even less qualified and more difficult. I am glad I am semi-retired and no longer driven by ambition<S>.

David Brooks,

Thank you for always providing a level headed response. As for David S. and his generation being "men raised to be boys", I would venture to say that I am actually younger than him (29 to be exact) and do not share his belief in the ultimate wisdom of digital. I think there is a perception that younger people prefer digital as they are raised on it. I disagree. I think that it is primarily the mid 30's, 40's, and 50's age folks who like it so much. I have found that people my age and younger, when looking for "artistic" photography, much prefer classic b&w film photographs. Why? Because the common often times fails to be interesting. And digital images (color at that) are such commonplace and typical to younger people that they do not come off as art, but an advertisement. People of my generation (29 and younger) are not amazed by technology because our whole lives have been about technology. The newest gadgets are to us just more gadgets. We are not from a time where t-max 100 was a "next generation" film. It was the film of our childhood, an old school film if you will. I believe that as generations age, "artists" will be working in digital to be sure, but also in a number of long forgotten photographic mediums. Why? Because, yes you can create effects on computers that look like classic processes, but there is not and will never be anything like the real thing. In a world where almost everything is mass produced and artificial, my generation and those that follow increasingly look for real, authentic, and as we call it "retro". Why, because unlike older generations who longed for the days when technological advancements would happen, we long for the ability to create something unique. Something that we create with our hands and not with the push of a button. Just my thoughts.

73???
Maybe we should just call you the old man

J. Ivar,

I can understand your perspective from your particular experience of the world and photography. However, I am one of those old timers, not all that much younger than Ansel Adams and his colleagues to not have many years knowing and working alongside some of them. Ansel was quite fascinated by new photographic technologies and the possibilities they offered, including digital. In fact it was a comment Ansel made about scanning and digitizing images that convinced me to get involved back in the late 80's. And after 40 years of film and a wet darkroom I was ready for new tools that would support capabilities that had only been imagined before. But also, much of my success professionally came from doing special effects photography.

However much of what I do digitally is really a hybrid based on scanning film images, including silver-based B&W negatives produced originally in the classic manner.

What has meaning to each of us as far as photography and its practice goes is very much an individual thing somewhat or a lot different from everyone else because in some ways or many what we have experienced and know is really a different world. That's very evident in what all the most gifted talents in photography in the past have left us in the photographs they made of all their very different worlds.

J. Ivar

This fruitless and juvenile post sure has created many responses. Perhaps I should throw a few more tomatoes just to liven things up a little.