Neil Gould wrote:

. . . . . . . . . .
I agree that digital usage doesn't mirror film. That's true in more ways
than just printing images. But, if we're talking about MF users, we're
talking about people who *do* intend to print their images, no?

Very true, and agree completely.

So, the
issues surrounding that function are important, and have differences
between these media. My wife is a big fan of art shows, and since I have
to tag along, I spend most of my time talking to photographers. I'm
alarmed by the number of folks trying to sell ink jet prints for hundreds
of dollars in the same way that optical prints have been sold.

It bothers me as well, and I see too many poorly done examples.

I usually
start chatting with these folks about the archival quality of their
prints, and find that many of them don't have a clue about whether their
shots will be the same color next year that they are today. Wait until
someone drops big money on one of those images only to have it fade to
yellow in a couple of years!

Probably a few too many rely on the statements of manufacturers. I have only
rarely seen people who try to properly prepare their images so they will
last, and that use good quality paper. The reality is that really high
quality inkjet prints are not cheap, and only some people will spend the time
and money to get the best results. Then the very slight cost savings is not
much better than having a lab do chemical prints. Some of the better work
includes a fade guarantee, almost like a warranty, and that might become the
accepted norm in the future.



OTOH, with digital, the best thing to do is always shoot at maximum
resolution in the event that at some point one wants to produce a
maximum sized enlargement. One of the consequences of this are that
quite a bit of time will be spent downsampling those 20 MP images
for use at 4" x 6" or smaller. This isn't going to be a one-jump
move if you want any control over the quality of the results. Then,
there's storage, and archiving.

I find that almost everyone I know with digital cameras uses the
medium to low quality settings. Yet when they describe their cameras,
nearly all of them mention how many MPs, and what features enticed
them to buy that particular digital camera. Of course, digital SLR
bodies are more of an enthusiast market, much lower volume, and
different usage patterns.

Again, this is true for the casual shooters. For those of us getting paid
for their images, we can't afford to get stuck with a low-resolution shot
that the client might want to enlarge. And, that translates into a lot of
editing time for small prints.

Absolutely, and one of the main reasons I stick to film for work. I hear from
nearly every advertising and editorial photographer I know that the editing
time of direct digital puts them in front of the computer for too long, and
it is tougher to justify billing out computer time to clients.

Editing on a light table is fast. While there are some people who have
learned fast editing on the computer monitor, they are the exception.
Computer editing is a linear process, while light table editing is
non-linear.

Some clients want direct digital, though the reality is that the request is
often because they think that since it is new, it is better. Another issue is
that they think the turnaround time can be faster, though there is not often
a need to have the images faster. There are many work issues to consider, and
turnaround time is only one. The issue of digital backs is often approached
through a rental or lease program, though even then a very high volume is
needed for good return on investment.

Quality can keep medium format going, but the quality needs of many have
decreased. When clients are willing to now accept fairly small image files,
even scanned 35 mm seems like very high quality. Photographers who shoot for
publication and advertising only need to cover a two page spread, and rarely
that much. While I think the quality of medium format over smaller formats is
apparent, it is unfortunate that the extra quality is lost on many end users
(clients).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com