Hazards of shooting digital medium format

perkeleellinen · Oct 19, 2010

Another related issue is 'function creep' whereby older equipment becomes obsolete because it cannot function in a future environment. Even without physical failure, there's a chance of functional failure - you can't do anything with the files in 10-15 years time because no one can make use of them.

hpulley · Oct 19, 2010

That's true too. A faded photograph can still be seen but I have 'faded' mag storage I cannot read which is much younger. Microfiche and good archival prints will last longer that most mag and even DVD storage. Even if the DVD lasts, will there be a reader for it when my grandchildren open the shoebox in the attic? You must constantly backup and move forward all your digital media and it is vulnerable. Prints and negs/chromes are too of course but in different ways.

M.A.Longmore · Oct 19, 2010

benjiboy said:
If she left my Hasseblad on the front lawn and went into the house, she wouldn't live to be thirteen

.
If she was using my Hasselblad, without a camera strap.
She wouldn't live to make it into the house.

First rule of photography I always teach, Use A Camera Strap !

Ron
.

perkeleellinen · Oct 19, 2010

This is going a little off topic, but I think the big problem is the 'delete' button. I'm a historian by trade and we fear a future where the quality of our data will be much reduced. Government files will always be backed up but what of the shoebox it the attic full of letters written hundreds of years ago, forgotten photos, old dairies. Nobody writes anymore they email and blog and then they get bored and delete the lot, same with photos - only the dedicated snapper backs up, most photos never leave the mobile they were taken on. I often wonder where our future material will come from.

hpulley · Oct 19, 2010

Jeff Widener didn't really like his picture of Tank Man, imagine if he'd deleted it...

Q.G. · Oct 19, 2010

Re costs: the equipment needed to run a photographic business, back then and now, costs about the same as, not much more than, the cars we drive.
Compared to other 'fields of sport', professional photography, even using those expensive digibacks, is rather cheap.

Mainecoonmaniac · Oct 19, 2010

I think you're correct with inflation calculated into today's currency is probably true. But some photographer's have bought analog gear and have used it for decades. I think things will be equal if digital photographers could use their gear for decades also. I do shoot both but lean towards the analog side. Also not accounted for is the cost relearning the camera's interface, buying new computer gear to post process digital images and training for computer applications used in a photography business.

Q.G. · Oct 19, 2010

Even when changing to 'fresh' equipment every few years (which you really don't need, no matter how often new thingies are introduced), the costs are relatively low.
Computers and the like? Cheap, cheap, cheap...

But yes, compared to someone using the same cameras and lenses as 30 years ago (and no reason not to), the costs of new gear are quite considerable.

lxdude · Oct 19, 2010

benjiboy said:
As far as I recall Flash Cubes were triggered electronically, Magi cubes chemically.

I thought it was piezoelectric. I don't know it for fact- that's just what I thought after trying to figure out how it worked when I was a kid. The camera poked a lever up into the bottom of the Magicube and that released a strong spring that whacked something else.

M.A.Longmore · Oct 19, 2010

lxdude said:
I thought it was piezoelectric. I don't know it for fact- that's just what I thought after trying to figure out how it worked when I was a kid. The camera poked a lever up into the bottom of the Magicube and that released a strong spring that whacked something else.

.
I was 10, and I wanted to find out how a MagiCube worked.
I poked something into the bottom of the cube to trigger the
mechanism, while holding it in my hand. I found out that they
generate about 1,000 degrees of heat instantly !
I think that's when I got interested in natural light photography.

Ron
.

lxdude · Oct 19, 2010

Ron LarFor4X5 said:
.
I was 10, and I wanted to find out how a MagiCube worked.
I poked something into the bottom of the cube to trigger the
mechanism, while holding it in my hand. I found out that they
generate about 1,000 degrees of heat instantly !
I think that's when I got interested in natural light photography.

Ron
.

Yep, that's the part I left out!

M.A.Longmore · Oct 19, 2010

lxdude said:
Yep, that's the part I left out!

.
I knew you were holding back some details.
We're like brothers from another mother !
Don't hold back, tell us about your shenanigans.

Ron
.

Worker 11811 · Oct 19, 2010

Ron LarFor4X5 said:
.
I was 10, and I wanted to find out how a MagiCube worked.
I poked something into the bottom of the cube to trigger the
mechanism, while holding it in my hand. I found out that they
generate about 1,000 degrees of heat instantly !
I think that's when I got interested in natural light photography.

Ron
.

When I discovered that, I went and found my dad's jeweler's screwdriver and used it to pop off every Magic Cube in the house.

Boy! Was Dad pissed when he found out!

lxdude · Oct 19, 2010

Ron LarFor4X5 said:
.
I knew you were holding back some details.
We're like brothers from another mother !
Don't hold back, tell us about your shenanigans.

Ron
.

Well, there was the time I took apart my electric clock to see how it worked. I somehow failed to consider the need for certain preparatory steps prior to the endeavour.
A bright flash of light, a small hole in the blade of the screwdriver and little balls of molten solder rolling into my lap reminded me of the advisability of removing the cord from the wall socket first.

lxdude · Oct 19, 2010

Then there was the time I decided to climb up a 40 foot tree at my friend's house. I slipped and fell, landed on my back and got the wind completely knocked out of me, but was otherwise uninjured.

Good thing I'd only climbed up about four feet.

lxdude · Oct 19, 2010

Worker 11811 said:
When I discovered that, I went and found my dad's jeweler's screwdriver and used it to pop off every Magic Cube in the house.

Boy! Was Dad pissed when he found out!

I did that too!!

hpulley · Oct 19, 2010

lxdude said:
I did that too!!

If you guys have kids I'd watch your camera equipment very carefully!

clayne · Oct 19, 2010

Looks like we've hit that unsubscribe moment.

lxdude · Oct 19, 2010

perkeleellinen said:
This is going a little off topic, but I think the big problem is the 'delete' button. I'm a historian by trade and we fear a future where the quality of our data will be much reduced. Government files will always be backed up but what of the shoebox it the attic full of letters written hundreds of years ago, forgotten photos, old dairies. Nobody writes anymore they email and blog and then they get bored and delete the lot, same with photos - only the dedicated snapper backs up, most photos never leave the mobile they were taken on. I often wonder where our future material will come from.

Our common history, so much more fragile than we realize.

The delete button is something mentioned regarding photojournalism too. Sometimes an insignificant photo becomes significant later. The famous Monica Lewinsky with Bill Clinton photos are often cited as examples. Will all today's images be stored the way negatives have been, and if so, will they be accessible?

I'm sad that what will be lost is the collective record from the pictures ordinary people take. I have pictures from the past 40 years or so that I thought little of at the time, but which have a lot of value to me now. They show people who are now gone, places which are now gone or have been forever changed. They show how things looked, how we looked then. I now wish I had taken many more pictures of just ordinary things. I find a lot of young people are fascinated to see how things looked "way back in the olden days" like say, 1990.
Now, pictures are taken constantly, especially by the young folks. But will they be preserved?

Not too long ago I found Kodachromes of my first Christmas, with my parents looking so young and my brother all of 5. He turned 60 last week. The color is vivid and true. The cover of a book which I still have today looks the same as it did in those pictures. Those slides have spent the last 50 years in Keystone slide trays on a high shelf in a closet, in this house. Being up high, they have been subjected to considerable heat during the summer, and not a whole lot less in the winter. But they're beautiful.
Some of the jpegs on floppies I took 10 years ago with a Sony Mavica corrupted within 3 years. I do have an archaic device called a floppy disc drive with which to extract them, but a lot of them won't open or only do partially. And a scan of a print put on DVD in '03 doesn't open either.

In contrast, I don't have to open images on the old slides-just the boxes they're in.
No decoding needed-they're in "direct optical read" format.
But then, so is the oldest photograph in the world, still "readable" after more than 180 years. Without even having to be recopied periodically.

M.A.Longmore · Oct 20, 2010

.
An EMP would delete a lot of our digital history.

chriscrawfordphoto · Oct 20, 2010

The high end commercial shooters buying these expensive digital medium format systems don't see the price as a ripoff or a 'scam'. Some of these guys shot over $100,000 worth of film and processing a year before going digital. A $50,000 camera? Dirt F--kin cheap, even if it only lasts a year. Of course, you can use it for many years. If I had enough business to justify it, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Commercial clients demand digital capture because all the layout work for print ads, catalogs, brochures, etc...not to mention websites...is done on a computer. If they have a film photographer shoot something, the film has to be scanned first, and that's on the photographer because these clients won't pay for it. I use a digital SLR for commercial work, and 35mm and 120 film for my fine art work. I sell a lot of my fine art stuff for stock uses off my own website, and scanning is no biggie for me for those people because I had to scan it to put it online in the first place....so the file's ready to go. I just collect the $$$.

Q.G. · Oct 20, 2010

lxdude said:
Then there was the time I decided to climb up a 40 foot tree at my friend's house. I slipped and fell, landed on my back and got the wind completely knocked out of me, but was otherwise uninjured.

Good thing I'd only climbed up about four feet.

The hazards of shooting digital medium format, 'ey?
Boy...! They should warn kids about it!

hoffy · Oct 20, 2010

chriscrawfordphoto said:
The high end commercial shooters buying these expensive digital medium format systems don't see the price as a ripoff or a 'scam'. Some of these guys shot over $100,000 worth of film and processing a year before going digital. A $50,000 camera? Dirt F--kin cheap, even if it only lasts a year. Of course, you can use it for many years. If I had enough business to justify it, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Commercial clients demand digital capture because all the layout work for print ads, catalogs, brochures, etc...not to mention websites...is done on a computer. If they have a film photographer shoot something, the film has to be scanned first, and that's on the photographer because these clients won't pay for it. I use a digital SLR for commercial work, and 35mm and 120 film for my fine art work. I sell a lot of my fine art stuff for stock uses off my own website, and scanning is no biggie for me for those people because I had to scan it to put it online in the first place....so the file's ready to go. I just collect the $$$.

Makes perfect sense Chris! And in reality, who are these products aimed at?

The big problem, which is highlighted in the movie, are the cashed up amateurs. I know its more prevalent in the Digital SLR world, how many amateur photographers do you see carrying around big white lenses? I know a few professional sports photographers who have been shooting around the 30 year region. Even as short as 10 years ago, it was a BIG DEAL for them to buy a Canon 300 F2.8 and L lenses were the strict domain of the professional. Now, you go to a motorsports event and see how many of these white lenses are floating around the general public these days.

I know from personal experience that there are quite a few people laying down Serious cash to GET IN TO digital SLR photography (its not uncommon, from people I have known, to lay down $5-$10K to get started). This is just ridiculous. I suppose, there is one added bonus. In 5 years time when they get over it and buy the next big thing, there will be an absolute flood of top line camera equipment on epay and in second hand stores

2F/2F · Oct 20, 2010

Digital medium format's exorbitance is relative. It is highly exorbitant to those of use (i.e. most of us) who are not high-end professionals. Film makes better sense for us, and by a long shot. However, for professional photographers taking in much money, possibly one or two shoots pays for a medium format digital system if you are really high end. I would say that most of us have a far worse monetary return compared to what we have invested in our film equipment that do most high-end professional shooters who use digital medium format.

To me, the real scam is in the camera companies having convinced the average Jack and Jill photographer that an excellent-quality digital SLR, and a new one every few years, is more suitable to their needs than 35mm film. To these people, digital ought to be seen as exorbitant...but it is not! Therein lies the great digital scam/con, IMHO. It is not serious commercial/professional photographers who are scammed by digital, but the average consumer and amateur photographer.

markbarendt · Oct 20, 2010

2F/2F said:
To me, the real scam is in the camera companies having convinced the average Jack and Jill photographer that an excellent-quality digital SLR, and a new one every few years, is more suitable to their needs than 35mm film. To these people, digital ought to be seen as exorbitant...but it is not! Therein lies the great digital scam/con, IMHO. It is not serious commercial/professional photographers who are scammed by digital, but the average consumer and amateur photographer.

Exactly.

Hazards of shooting digital medium format

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency