LF digital article in PHOTO Techniques

David Brown · Feb 19, 2005

After the reaction to Pop Photo's article on the Nikon F6, I am surprised that I have not seen a thread on the article in the current PHOTO Techniques mag about digital scanning backs for LF.

"A traditional, large-format photographer believes that digital has surpassed film quality. At least at the high-end."

Not to start an "issue" here, just curious that it hasn't been mentioned. Is it too "off" to even comment on?

Cheers, y'all.

David

WarEaglemtn · Feb 19, 2005

How do you make a contact print from the pixels?
Will the back make better pictures from stand development or do you have to get a JOBO processor for it?
What happens when you want a 6 hour star trail photograph when it is 20 below zero?

Ian Grant · Feb 19, 2005

David Brown said:
"A traditional, large-format photographer believes that digital has surpassed film quality. At least at the high-end."

David

Sure, and actually having seen my advertising and commercial photographer friends at work, there may be some truth in the statement under controlled conditions and at a very high cost.

However Shaun has set up a Grey Area for discussing the interface between Digital and Analog which can be found here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And Wareaglemtn it would be possible to make a contact print from Pixels I was going to bid for a film writer on ebay on Thursday, £22,000 when new about 10 years ago, it sold for just over £600 and took 5"x4" Darkslides or a Roll film holder

However this Forum is for photographers still practising the dark arts, tinkering with the alchemy of films, papers and developers.

Ole · Feb 19, 2005

The big problem - apart from cost - is finding a 5km long power cord. That, and carrying the PC and extra hardware into the mountains in unpredictable weather.

I think I'll stick to film a while longer.

Jorge · Feb 19, 2005

Well David, I am not sure why it has not been mentioned. In my case perhaps because I have not seen the magazine here in Mexico. OTOH it gets old talking about this. I sincerely doubt that a digital back can have better quality than film in LF. To spend $22000 on a LF back that will give me almost as good or "as good" quality than film, seems to me a foolish expense. So, I dont worry about it anymore, I keep doing what I know what to do, and if I ever see an ink jet/lightjet/film recorder print that equals the quality of my pt/pd prints. Then I might reconsider digital as something to ad.

jmailand · Feb 19, 2005

It states in the article that the minimum exposure time for thing is 32 seconds as it scans across the exposure plane. Thus it only see's one area (scan line) of the photo at a time. I don't see how this improves on film, pixels aren't everything. Digital has its uses, but the outright lies that have been used to market the technology have turned me off. I think the main reason for the big digital push is that you have to buy (consume) a new digital camera every couple of years, thus making camera company's rich. So far I've mostly used my digital camera to take pictures for EBAY auctions so I can upgrade my film cameras.

Aggie · Feb 19, 2005

That was the back at the LF conference in Monterey. Yeah I want to tell everything I focus on it is time to stand absolutely still so I can scan it for a long period of time. They were quoting up to 15 minutes starting at 30 seconds for each scan. Only good for studio work in my opinon. At the price of the back, I can buy a very nice lens, some lights and an ULF camera to do the same thing, and not worry that it will be obsolete next week.

BTW most the time that booth was not visited.

Jim Chinn · Feb 19, 2005

I love how they run these articles about LF digital backs, or making 30x40 inkjet prints, or taking your negs down to have them Scanned on a Tango scanner and never realy get into the costs of such endeavors.

I remember an article in View Camera about someone producing stunning B&W inkjet prints from scanned 4x5 negatives and then printed via a laser type enlarger. The scans were $250 each, I think a print cost (one single print!) $100 to produce. And this was all to get an image as good as a normal traditional print.

First, can that process get any more complicated compared to a contact print?

Second, when will these authors quit glossing over the costs of hardware, software, and upgrading every couple of years?

For the professional who will save $$$ in the long run with digital pixelography I understand completely. But I get tired of every article regarding digital pixelography never discussing the disadvantages compared to real photography.

jimgalli · Feb 19, 2005

.........................yawn................................................

Joe Lipka · Feb 19, 2005

Now you can work with this extra long scanning time that Aggie mentioned. About fifteen years ago I saw some work where the subject (a model) moved throughout the scan creating some totally abstract images. That was novel.

But I think jimgalli summed up the entire thread succinctly.

donbga · Feb 19, 2005

David Brown said:
After the reaction to Pop Photo's article on the Nikon F6, I am surprised that I have not seen a thread on the article in the current PHOTO Techniques mag about digital scanning backs for LF.

"A traditional, large-format photographer believes that digital has surpassed film quality. At least at the high-end."

Not to start an "issue" here, just curious that it hasn't been mentioned. Is it too "off" to even comment on?

Cheers, y'all.

David

If I could afford it I would buy one in a heart beat.

Don Bryant

LF digital article in PHOTO Techniques

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency