Well, it's official.

You LF photographers are no longer the benchmark for quality.
Those who have seen the magazine Phototechniques over the past few years have seen its' drift to digital photography. The latest issue proclaims, on the cover " For highest quality, use digital." The article inside is by a LF landscape photographer, who claims his light meter and cable release will now sit on the shelf, gathering dust, as he has gone to a digital scanning back. He claims the back gives him quality equal to, or better than, film, and that the death of film is nigh. So, all you LF people out there, throw away your film and sell your cars or use your savings to spring for a scanning back, which will be obsolete in two years. You are no longer getting the highest quality! (Uh huh)
How many can afford the $15,000 scanning back that he uses? I just hope his camera never tips over! At least a film camera could be repaired, I wonder what would happen to his scanback?
I found many good articles in this magazine over the years, although in the latest issue, two articles are reprinted from the May June 2005 issue almost verbatim. (Digital infared photography, and, for the best B&W, start with color.) I mean, how lazy can you get? Do they think no-one will notice? What crap.

PT used to be THE BEST magazine out there for darkroom enthusiasts. Unfortunately over the years it has become a piece of crap.

I remember reading it in the '80s and '90s and clipping most of the articles to save. I particularly liked the formulary Q&A column.

But now it's become just another rag kissing up to their digital advertisers.

What a shame.

I went to grade school in the '50 and I am still waiting to fly around in my personal jet hover craft flying machine like they said everyone would by the '60's. Oil and gas cars would be obsolete. I predict the more digital there is the more people will long for something tangible and real. Is there a substitute for oil paints and clay and glass?
Curt

I just had another thought. I was not able to do personal photography for a couple of decades, One tour of duty in Vietnam, college, university, Art Center, Brooks, a career in medical imaging, and now I find that I can buy all of the equipment I never could afford. I like my notebook, but it's a tool for researching. The more photographers who dump analog and switch to digital the better. As long as they spread the equipment and supplies to the one's who want to pursue the craft. "The craft of photography." "The craft of digital", the digital just doesn't sound right. When I was in Junior high I had courses in woodworking, metalworking, electronics, and electricity, small engine repair, leather working, and plastics shop where we made all kind of items. I had to teach my son these at home because there aren't shop classes anymore. Instead they teach the theory of wood technology, whatever that is. It's a sham. No wonder the technology is going elsewhere. Here in my town we had a small foundry that made man hole covers. It went and along with it was the knowledge of the worker who did that really hard work. When a craft, or trade is not practiced and supported it will eventually disappear. I apologize for the long wind.
Curt

jamnut said:

You LF photographers are no longer the benchmark for quality.
Those who have seen the magazine Phototechniques over the past few years have seen its' drift to digital photography. The latest issue proclaims, on the cover " For highest quality, use digital." The article inside is by a LF landscape photographer, who claims his light meter and cable release will now sit on the shelf, gathering dust, as he has gone to a digital scanning back. He claims the back gives him quality equal to, or better than, film, and that the death of film is nigh. So, all you LF people out there, throw away your film and sell your cars or use your savings to spring for a scanning back, which will be obsolete in two years. You are no longer getting the highest quality! (Uh huh)
How many can afford the $15,000 scanning back that he uses? I just hope his camera never tips over! At least a film camera could be repaired, I wonder what would happen to his scanback?
I found many good articles in this magazine over the years, although in the latest issue, two articles are reprinted from the May June 2005 issue almost verbatim. (Digital infared photography, and, for the best B&W, start with color.) I mean, how lazy can you get? Do they think no-one will notice? What crap.

Click to expand...

I have not read the article since the magazine has not made it this far down yet, but here is the thing, most likely the guy was given a back to evaluate and he "new" toy syndrome Kicked in. There are some qualities to scanning backs that at first sight might seem to be "advantages", no film holders to carry, instant preview of the image, on demand variable film speed, far more shots capability than with film- I will leave the issue of quality for later.

So lets start with no film holders and the ability to take many shots. Lets say that a scanning back with a lap top weights as much as 4 8x10 film holders. Nor a heavy load, but then film holders can be a god send at times. About a year ago I was trying to take a shot that required I cross a small stream, I thought nothing of it and on my first step I put my foot on a rock covered with moss and landed on my ass, since I carry my camera in a F64 back pack the brunt of the fall was borne by the holders which are on a compartment on the outside of the pack. SO once the cussing stopped I crossed to the other side and open the pack to check the holders, as it turned out I had only broken the dark slide of the outside holder, even so it was still usable and I am still using it to this day. I weight 180 pounds, add another 40 pounds for my pack, you will see that the holders absorbed the fall of about 220 pounds of weight. This is pretty impressive IMO. I would like to see how a scanning back and lap top would have fared in this situation.

Normally I carry 4 holders, rarely do I use all 8 shot I have. Now with the MIdo holders I have 16 shots, I dont need any more film for a day shoot, certainly I dont need the capability of making 200 shots.

Batteries, ok so now I have a scanning back and lap top, if I drive 3 hours to get to a place I want to photograph, get there and find out I ran out of juice I am going to be mighty pissed. Carrying spare batteries for my meter is a small thing, carrying spare batteries for a lap top is not so easy and cheap.

Instant preview, so far as I know, I have yet to find a fellow LF photographer who sets up his camera to see how the shot will look. Most of us have trained ourselves to identify the things we like to photograph and have a pretty good idea of what we will get, besides, it does not get any more instant that looking at the ground glass, why do I need a lap top? So I can desaturate and play with the image? Is this really and advantage?

Dust, in the US you guys have these nice paved roads, even in national parks. Not so here in Mexico, there are times and places I have gone where even the inside of the car has a layer of dust. When I am ready to photograph I just dust off the outside of the dark slide and I am good to go. How many cans of air would I have to carry to make sure my scanning back is dust free? God only knows.

Quality, ok, lets say the hype is true and the scanning back has the same quality as a 4x5 film, actually lets concede this point and say it is even better than film....how much better? Is the quality so much better to justify an expense of over $15000? I really, really doubt it. Now lets not forget this is 4x5. Most field cameras weight about 5 to 6 pounds, my 8x10 weights 9 pounds. Nothing, there is not digital back out there that can match the quality of an 8x10 negative or slide! In my case 4 extra pounds in weight give me at least 5 fold quality increase, does this scanning back do the same for 4x5? Once again I doubt it.

So, after this long ass response the bottom line for me is that this is one area where digital has an up hill battle, the cons outweigh the pros by far for the normal LF shooter, I can see for a studio shooting 100 sheets per day where this would pay for itself, outside of a studio....the scanning back is a hindrance more than an advantage.

According to http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html the effective resolution of the human eye is around 576 Megapixel. A 4x5 camera with a good lense is capable of resolving around 500 MP onto film. God only knows what the resolution of 8x10 or larger is.

Enough said.

You LF photographers are no longer the benchmark for quality.
Those who have seen the magazine Phototechniques over the past few years have seen its' drift to digital photography. The latest issue proclaims, on the cover " For highest quality, use digital.

Actually, kids, that's wrong. I mean you're both wrong.

One can blithely argue whether digital or LF is higher Quantity, but not Quality.

Simple resolution is to photography what loudness is to music. Want better music, turn it up. Want better photography, turn it up.

A great picture, or a great photographer, cares about many things, but seldom cares much about resolution. Resolution merely needs to be adequate to the job. Nobody has ever made a good picture great by having more DPI. Nobody could ever make a great picture merely good by having lower DPI.

Quality is about the sum of the parts of a picture, especially the feeling of the viewer. Quality is about the what you sense when you look at a picture a year or two after you made it. It is about how you are changed by having the picture on your office wall. Quantity is about... turning the noise down so you can get back to what you're interested in.

I wonder what the DPI of an Albert Bierstadt painting is ?

.

back

Jorge-ditto for the cold New England winter. Hoe long you think those batteries are going to last?
Peter

I have become really perplexed at the direction of Phototechniques. They want to be a magazine for all photographers and pixelographers, yet for the digital crowd thier is probably far better information in one of the dozens of digital rags ou there. Every issue contains at least one article such as the one mentioned proclaiming the end of film or implying that traditional practioners are becoming irrelevant.

I guess their niche is to try to get film photographers to switch eventually to digital. I don't know how that is going to do anything but produce a steady decline in readership. For what little I dabble with digital, I feel I get better information from a dedicated digital magazine.

I used to subscribe but let the subscription lapse a few years back. I have not bought a copy since. I used to pick it up at Borders to read Vestal's column over a cup of coffee, but a couple issues back he pulled out the tired and worn, "digital and traditinal are the same, its about the results" card. I have not even looked through the September/October issue.

It is also interesting to note that on the shelves of the Borders I go to the following magazines always sell out: Lenswork, B&W Magazine, all except one or two View Camera and Black And White Photography. The ones that seem to sit on the shelves are Phototechniques and Camera Arts. Last nite there were 12 copies of Phototechniques and almost an equal number of Camera Arts on the shelf, all the old issues.

df cardwell said:

...Quality is about the sum of the parts of a picture...

Click to expand...

Excellent post.

*If* more is better film still has a bigger footprint (colour and tonal range) and can resolve more detail (samples per inch). Digital has more options or versatility (dodging, burning, sharpening, contrast etc...). Any magazine or expert who states digital is better, without a qualifier, is FOS.

Jim Chinn said:

I have become really perplexed at the direction of Phototechniques. They want to be a magazine for all photographers and pixelographers, .

Click to expand...

They don't seem to be entirely sure what they are. There is often a reader's poll at the end of the mag that solicits opinions about whether to include more digital or more film etc. Preston Tinsely (the publisher) writes about being fully dedicated to continuing to try to meet the needs of traditional photographers...."for now". Try using a caveat like that in your marriage vows!!

The article mentioned above clearly states that price is a deal killer for many as well as scanning times no quicker than 40 seconds and often far, far longer (if I remember accurately...I don't have the issue at home here.). Deal killer is right!

I don't always agree with Jorge, but his speculations above are spot on as far as I'm concerned.

I saw that scanning back up close and personal. It has so many problems inherent as to make that claim laughable. One is you have to have dead flat no wind at all to take the picture. If you think the wind gives us luddites problems the scanning back goes completely haywire with it. Two if something flies, walks or drives through the scene, again haywire time. Three, if the clouds move, again haywire time. If the shadows move again haywire time. Now with those things in mind think of how long that scanning back takes to take in the scene? It was at least 20 minutes for a small sampling, but the full [picture took nearly 45 minutes. How long outside will mother nature stand still for a scanning back? Indoors, things stand still better, but even the manufacturer said it had inherent problems noise especially if the equipment was not properly cooled down. (thank you hubby for asking that critical question, I had no idea about). Life expectency of the set up was only a couple of years at best if it was casual usage. What would it be if it were more than casual? Economically the whole thing from the view point of this frugal Dane is that it Sucks!

PT was a very good magazine, but is being swayed again by the advertisers who are full of digital marketing. It is in their interest to have digital touted as the best.

So when are they going to come up with a portable generator no bigger than a 4x5" sheet film holder, to power the digiback when you're ankle deep in ice water 50 miles from the nearest power outlet?

Aggie makes a good point. I also read the article and noticed the excessively long time it takes a scanning back to make a pass over the image area. It seems to be a rather impractical piece of equipment for anything except maybe still life scenes in the studio. For $15,000 I have a hard time believing even professionals could justify buying one considering its limited applications. I couldn't help but think that the author of the article had some sort of hidden agenda going on. Using this thing for outdoor photography must be an exercise in patience and sheer willpower.

Thats a very high price to pay for a vertical photocopier. Still, fools and their money...

df cardwell said:

I wonder what the DPI of an Albert Bierstadt painting is ?

Click to expand...

I think Bierstadt is measured in HPI (hairs per inch), or perhaps BPI (brushwidths per inch). If you want DPI in painting, I think you have to go to Georges Seurat or Chuck Close. Rothko is measured in BPP (blocks per painting).

Lee

I have used a couple of different scanning backs, and can assure you, they are NOT for outdoors use, the first one I used had to have a high powered Mac tied to it, it had been designed for the medical imaging industry and was a complete joke, that sold for over $40K new, even in the studio setting it was difficult to use due to the scan times, and when your studio is close to a busy street with truck traffic, the softness of the image was quite noticiable...the second one I was able to use, was not longer tied to a computer, but the battery drain was terrible, you could take exactly two images before you had to charge the batteries, at that rate, you would have had to spend over $2k just to have enough batteries to do a standard still life or art shoot, and you still had the problem with ambient motion from the cars going by the studio...

In conclusion, fun toy to play with, if someone else owns it, but not at all practicle for real world usuage..

Dave

Satinsnow said:

In conclusion, fun toy to play with, if someone else owns it, but not at all practicle for real world usuage..

Click to expand...

Definitely not for the ankle-deep-in-glacial-mel****er shots, then...

Melt-water, when written in one word, seems to upset the automatic censorship circuit. It seems APUG won't let us time exposures using a wris****ch, either?

mel****er

I have just finished a two day workshop where us traditonal large format types were mixed with the digital brigade. I was shooting both 8x10 and 5x7 (same camera with reducing back) and there was a few folks shooting with an RB/RZ with scanning back. While I am not doubting the quality of the results that can be had with the scanning back; the hassle and time it takes to make an image made it look as if my 8x10 Tachihara had a motor drive.

Mike