The digital revolution caused a glut of Hasselblad cameras and equipment at the time I bought mine. Now that surplus from professional photographers has been absorbed so the market is going back up for those cameras and lenses. If it was not for the digital revolution I would still be only shooting 35mm and I would not have my Hasselblads, Graphic, Graflex, WideLux and darkroom. I would only be thinking about them.
Is this based on direct experience or via third parties through reviews, blog posts and other internet born proclamations?
Because in my direct professional experience, images from digital cameras at around 50MP with good glass like Zeiss or quality tilt-shift types printed at 30x40” are pulling away from a good print from 4x5, at least in color.
My sole reason for shooting film in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 is the hand made black and white print, it’s well worth the effort.
As far as the price of gear creeping up, I keep track of it for insured replacement value reasons and the really good stuff like Apo Sironar S lenses is indeed creeping up. Hasselblad lenses seem to fluctuate by as much as -10 to +10 percent.
Top quality / modern darkroom equipment has become more scarce and the prices reflect that.
For example my first Saunders LPL 4550 XLG VCCE was $450 at an estate sale in 2013, it was in mint shape and came with four carriers and lens cones.
My second one was $950 in 2015 via a camera dealer in California, still in mint shape and about the same accesories as the above.
But my third one was a whopping $2,200 last week. Now it is literally brand new with the impossible to find stabilized power supply ($600 new ) but man, that hurt!
As for large format camera used prices, they are still dirt cheap so I bought both my Chamonix 45N2 and Gibellini ACN45 brand new.
... I've not run into any photographer who argued digital was superior to 4x5, but I suppose it's inevitable it will catch up someday.
And your point is?It's based on what others have told me about their personal experiences. I've not run into any photographer who argued digital was superior to 4x5, but I suppose it's inevitable it will catch up someday. I don't talk with many photographers (non of my friends are really into it), so it's possible that day is here and I'm just not aware of it.
Reminds me of that Barbara Streisand song: "Feelings, nothing but feelings..."Either way, in my experience digital B&W can't compare at to B&W film--whether scanned or printed in a dark room. Color seems to be a different story, though I do feel color film also adds a much a nicer quality to colors than digital. For whatever reason the trend in a lot of the digital photography I see today is ultra-contrasty ultra-sharp appearing images. I guess maybe it's similar to the fad with Velvia--personally I was/still am more into the look of prints from Portra and Ektar.
couldn't agree more.That's a good thing. It's way better than today's mega pixel race where photographers update camera every few years. I remember a few years back I bought some MF and LF cameras for very little money compared to today's prices. I knew the value of them from the 80's and I have a feeling that some photographers were dumping their old gear to go digital or upgrade their current digital gear. I thought the analog gear market would never recover. Again, if my predictions may be wrong. I bought a Burke and James 5x7 camera for $200 4 years ago.
im sorry but there is so much that is wrong with this statement ,, sure the technology of "digital" will catch up to the resolution of film
but that isnt what photography is. at a certain technical " how big can i blow this up" argument i guess it is important. i have a local colleague who
stitches together enormous digital files to get even bigger digital files for trade show stuff for clients who rely on "details" but i think in the end it is all
smoke and mirrors because you can see one thing and your brain tells you its another. the classic example of this is
that dumb email that went around IDK 10 years ago that was all completely mispelled and it said something like " if you can read this, it is kind of funny
cause there isn't one word even remotely spelled correctly " and it was like 2 paragraphs long ..
personally i couldn't care less if digital can be as resolved as a 11x14 chrome / negative image .. i will never own a computer as long as i live
that has that much memory or hard drive / scratch disk space .. and what is the point, to take photographs of your puppy or cat doing something "cute"
or a sunset ? obviously these are meaningful photographs to a lot of people and i mean no disrespect .. in my lifetime i have been around 3 puppies
and a gaggle of kittens and the more sunsets and rainbows the better, it shows we are still on this planet ... but as far as i am concerned
puppies and unicorns farting rainbows isnt' really what photography is about.
its about something that cant' be explained. and you can do that with a scrap of paper and some light.
And your point is?
Reminds me of that Barbara Streisand song: "Feelings, nothing but feelings..."
Is your maths right ? My B&W 5x4 high res scans are 250mb, my 10x8 1gb, that's close to a factor of 10x larger, colour scans would be 3 times larger. The issue here is software interpolation, when I did my Photography MA (2001/2) I shot one project with a 2mp camera and made superb A3 prints, most of the print quality came from the Canon printer driver.
You have to remember how most commercial images are used, mostly magazines or other publications, and of course website, bill boards etc are actually printed al quite low resolutions and can be made from 35mm images.
So scan a 10x8 B&W or Colour negative or positive and you'll very easily out perform a 100mp back.
Ian
If I were interested in digital backs, a digital Hasselblad back costs $60,000US which I neither afford nor justify. So why waste my time looking at digital 4"x5" much less a 8"x10" digital back.
If I were interested in digital backs, a digital Hasselblad back costs $60,000US which I neither afford nor justify. So why waste my time looking at digital 4"x5" much less a 8"x10" digital back.
It's just a medium format digital back. You can put it on Hasselblad or a large format camera. I doubt they would ever make a sensor as big as 4x5 or 8x10. The medium format digital backs are not even as large as 6x6 film.
I'll never get one either. I just find it interesting. Must be the nerd in me!
I doubt they would ever make a sensor as big as 4x5 or 8x10. The medium format digital backs are not even as large as 6x6 film.
I bet that's because nobody calls that a "digital photography" any longer. Digital is just a "photography" now, and it's rather us here who are distinguished by the rest of the world with a "classic" or "analog" attributes.
I doubt they would ever make a sensor as big as 4x5 or 8x10.
Now, this is interesting.
https://www.megapixelsdigital.com/digital-backs-on-wooden-field-cameras-fun-in-the-sun/
These digital backs are for rich cats. But take a look at the digital and analog comparison. If you shoot digital and your highlights are blown out, there is very little chance for recovery. If you shoot BW neg film, a photographer can recover highlights in the darkroom or event through scanning if your highlights aren't "bullet proof".
So true. But realistically, I think shooting film isn't always practical. I have shot commercial work since the film days, but I'm sure it's all digital. I'm sure all commercial photographers have probably ditched their LF cameras. I was able to pick up a Sinar 8x10 P for about $600. I'm sure it was a commercial shooter that couldn't use it anymore. Back then, I saw few on eBay. Now, they're harder to find. But that does not necessarily mean that there's a demand or there's a shortage either.Yet another reason to shoot film.
So true. But realistically, I think shooting film isn't always practical. I have shot commercial work since the film days, but I'm sure it's all digital. I'm sure all commercial photographers have probably ditched their LF cameras. I was able to pick up a Sinar 8x10 P for about $600. I'm sure it was a commercial shooter that couldn't use it anymore. Back then, I saw few on eBay. Now, they're harder to find. But that does not necessarily mean that there's a demand or there's a shortage either.
My opinion too. That's why my opinion is analog photography has now matured into a fine art process like etching and lithography. That's fine by me!For mostly everything else — "art", landscape, portraiture, architecture, etc. — film is a realistic option.
No need to say, but this is my opinion.
Cheers,
Flavio
If I were interested in digital backs, a digital Hasselblad back costs $60,000US which I neither afford nor justify. So why waste my time looking at digital 4"x5" much less a 8"x10" digital back.
Yet another reason to shoot film.
So true. But realistically, I think shooting film isn't always practical. I have shot commercial work since the film days, but I'm sure it's all digital. I'm sure all commercial photographers have probably ditched their LF cameras. I was able to pick up a Sinar 8x10 P for about $600. I'm sure it was a commercial shooter that couldn't use it anymore. Back then, I saw few on eBay. Now, they're harder to find. But that does not necessarily mean that there's a demand or there's a shortage either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?