Or maybe 17/16 camera?
Aesthetically. I don't like the look of scanned film. If you are going digital, go digital with a decent sensor.Aesthetically, or financially? I made up to 44" inch color prints, what are my darkroom options? ~_o
I don't use HDR and my digital files have as much if not more DR than film.No, HDR is merely a crutch for lack of exposure latitude.
I don't use HDR and my digital files have as much if not more DR than film.
The only thing that gives modern FF sensors a run for their money is FP4 developed in PyroCat. And that is using semi stand development.
I'm not going to entertain this any further. Sensors have come a long way since the D70 guys.
I used sensors when I programmed the science platforms on Voyager I & II to take the Jupiter approach movies and Red Spot movies. I will not be interested in them for photography until film is not available or I am scuba diving.
I'm curious on pricing too. Seems that the race between Fuji and Hassy has brought down the digital MF prices considerably and this might just be the ticket...
hey moore's law - the capabilities will double, the price will decrease by half.... eureka, it's a waiting game!
Someday... obsolete low capacity 50MP Hasselblad digital backs. Someday.
Someday... not that far in the future, in a gentrified part of a city, there will be a "Retro Boutique" and in there will be a cardboard box labeled "Photographica/$1". In that box will be a plethora of Canon EOS camera straps, Nikon lens caps, Tiffen UV filters, and ... obsolete low capacity 50MP Hasselblad digital backs. Someday.
I do not want obsolete digital equipment.
I feel I have gotten my four dollars worth out of the Canon Rebel 6.3 MP camera I bought with a broken lens release button (for 4 dollars) . it is handy for quick Facebook posts.
It was just announced but I very much like the idea of a digital back that is useful on all those older cameras. Very interesting!
I don't know of anybody going digital to save cost and succeeding;most went broke and gave up.Those two studios may no longer exist, but I'm sure equivalent ones do - either in modeling, fashion, whatever. So, let's say they use 100 rolls of Provia 100F per day at a discount $5/roll. That's $500 per day just for film, then there are the processing costs (their own darkroom and chemicals or send the film out). Then the overhead cost of un/loading all the film backs, purchasing, etc. There's also the question of what the final format/media the image will appear in (scans for a magazine?) and related costs. Even if they don't use 100 rolls a day, I think their film-specific costs are easily $500/day. In 30 days that's $15,000.
With the digital back they need a computer system, software, and skilled people to produce the final result. However, the equipment and software is mostly a purchase perhaps once every few years. If the digital back is paid for after one month of not using film, then the continued savings more than pays for the digital part of the process, including the staff.
Maybe I'm totally wrong. Maybe even the Hasselblad bean counters and market researchers got it wrong also.
Even if that Hasselblad digital back was free, gratis, no charge, it still would not be of the slightest use to people who want to transform light sensitive surfaces into pictures by embedding optical images into them.
False.
I use my Hasselblad V system to make black and white images I print in my darkroom that are sold to collectors, interior designers and other outlets. I use the previous generation CFV50c 50MP digital back ( paid $11,000 ) on the same system to make color images for clients who use them for commercial purposes. They work great together, not missing the square format in the digital either since the digital back is far less forgiving of lenses than film.
I am looking into this new back but could easily just keep on with my current one.
You've responded to Maris, who consistently attempts to make his chemical images seem more valuable by claiming photographs originated digitally aren't photographs. He insists that only chemical imaging is "photography" and only prints made via chemical imaging processes are "photographs."False.
I use my Hasselblad V system to make black and white images I print in my darkroom that are sold to collectors, interior designers and other outlets. I use the previous generation CFV50c 50MP digital back ( paid $11,000 ) on the same system to make color images for clients who use them for commercial purposes. They work great together, not missing the square format in the digital either since the digital back is far less forgiving of lenses than film.
I am looking into this new back but could easily just keep on with my current one.
Maris has an opinion that he expresses in a well written manner. To my knowledge he has attacked no member personally; not have I ever read him argue that his images are more valuable than anybody else's, however you define valuable. No one here should have to endure personal attack.You've responded to Maris, who consistently attempts to make his chemical images seem more valuable by claiming photographs originated digitally aren't photographs. He insists that only chemical imaging is "photography" and only prints made via chemical imaging processes are "photographs."
Dan, your reply to Maris' typical nonsense might have value for anyone reasonable reading this thread, but it will have no impact on Maris. His agenda is impermeable to reason.
I would think that two limitations of such a back on a V series are 1) focus accuracy, 2) dust on sensor. Possibly also 3) camera shake when used handheld (namely, is it worse than with a film back?)I use the previous generation CFV50c 50MP digital back
Maris' agenda is utterly transparent. Denigrate digital photography, thereby attempting to elevate his own chemical imaging work. I accurately described his approach. No digital photographers should have to endure baseless attacks on their work.Maris has an opinion that he expresses in a well written manner. To my knowledge he has attacked no member personally; not have I ever read him argue that his images are more valuable than anybody else's, however you define valuable. No one here should have to endure personal attack.
You can buy a lot of films for $15,000 plus tax that this back costs.
I never saw a post from Maris, guess I have this person on ignore. Seems with good reason.
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?