A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Large Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Medium and Larhe Format :: which way



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 22nd 06, 11:50 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Medium and Larhe Format :: which way

I just read that a half decent 39megapixel back for a 5x4 is about $US
40,000.

So I need some guidance please.

I shoot only Black and White and want to produce prints in my own "wet or
dry" darkroom up to 20x24 inches.

I have a field 5x4 with 4 lenses and 20 DD slide film holders.

This logic may be wrong but here goes.

If I go the digital road I need the 39mp back and gutsy computer system,
software and a printer with capabilities up to 24 inches.

Scanning back 40k
Computer and software to handle high end digital 5k
Printer 4k

Roughly 50k -- so if I choose to continue with a traditional approach and
shoot 600 sheets of Efke 100 per year @ about $480.000 per year and store
5 years worth of paper in the freezer at say 2000.00 and buy a stockpile
of chemistry for another 2000.00 I'm estimating roughly if I allow 10,000
for the next 5 years on consumables it will take me about 20 - 25 years
before I reach the expense of the scanning back alone. Not accounting for
depreciation.

Now what is the advantage for me as Joe average 5x4 black and white
photogrqpher. I already have or could easily equip a full darkroom for
next to nothing and my camera/lenses will never need replacing apart from
mechanical failure. The enlarger I have is as fine as the day it was made,
the processing system will outlast me and nothing needs updating.

I suppose I shouldn't have posted this as many people will now stay with
traditional photography and it will cost me more for nice cast offs from
digital explorers.

  #2  
Old January 22nd 06, 01:45 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Medium and Larhe Format :: which way

Steve wrote:
I just read that a half decent 39megapixel back for a 5x4 is about $US
40,000.

So I need some guidance please.

I shoot only Black and White and want to produce prints in my own "wet or
dry" darkroom up to 20x24 inches.

I have a field 5x4 with 4 lenses and 20 DD slide film holders.

This logic may be wrong but here goes.

If I go the digital road I need the 39mp back and gutsy computer system,
software and a printer with capabilities up to 24 inches.

Scanning back 40k
Computer and software to handle high end digital 5k
Printer 4k

Roughly 50k -- so if I choose to continue with a traditional approach and
shoot 600 sheets of Efke 100 per year @ about $480.000 per year and store
5 years worth of paper in the freezer at say 2000.00 and buy a stockpile
of chemistry for another 2000.00 I'm estimating roughly if I allow 10,000
for the next 5 years on consumables it will take me about 20 - 25 years
before I reach the expense of the scanning back alone. Not accounting for
depreciation.

Now what is the advantage for me as Joe average 5x4 black and white
photogrqpher. I already have or could easily equip a full darkroom for
next to nothing and my camera/lenses will never need replacing apart from
mechanical failure. The enlarger I have is as fine as the day it was made,
the processing system will outlast me and nothing needs updating.

I suppose I shouldn't have posted this as many people will now stay with
traditional photography and it will cost me more for nice cast offs from
digital explorers.

I think it is safe to say that there will be about zero amateurs buying
this camera. For those few pros that really do need the resolution the
camera might be very attractive. A large part is the scanning cost,
remember most pros are going to need a digital file. There is also the
time factor. Neither of this is an issue for you.

For me as much as I think digital cameras are a good idea I would not
buy one of those even if it cost $10K. But this does not mean I think
the people who are buying it are wrong, well at least not all of them.


10 years ago a 6 MP DSLR cost $12,000 now it cost something like $700.
The point here is that if you are buying a $40,000 camera you better
get your moneys worth in the first two to three years. Digital camera
prices have been dropping something like 30 - 35% a year, if this
continues, and it might not, then that $40,000 camera will be $10,000
in five years and about $2,500 in 10 years (I might buy one then).

Scott

  #3  
Old January 22nd 06, 02:53 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Medium and Larhe Format :: which way

In article ain,
Steve wrote:

Roughly 50k -- so if I choose to continue with a traditional approach and
shoot 600 sheets of Efke 100 per year @ about $480.000 per year and store
5 years worth of paper in the freezer at say 2000.00 and buy a stockpile
of chemistry for another 2000.00 I'm estimating roughly if I allow 10,000
for the next 5 years on consumables it will take me about 20 - 25 years
before I reach the expense of the scanning back alone. Not accounting for
depreciation.

Now what is the advantage for me as Joe average 5x4 black and white
photogrqpher. I already have or could easily equip a full darkroom for
next to nothing and my camera/lenses will never need replacing apart from
mechanical failure. The enlarger I have is as fine as the day it was made,
the processing system will outlast me and nothing needs updating.

I suppose I shouldn't have posted this as many people will now stay with
traditional photography and it will cost me more for nice cast offs from
digital explorers.


Its a good analysis on your part, I doubt you will use that much paper
and film in one year so your cost of staying with conventional will
probably be even less. There also comes a point when one decides
one does not want a 20x24 of every image one shoots. A few are nice....
or you have to have storage for all those images.....lots of archival
boxes.

--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com
  #4  
Old January 22nd 06, 03:08 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Medium and Larhe Format :: which way

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:50:19 +1000, Steve
wrote:


Now what is the advantage for me as Joe average 5x4 black and white
photogrqpher. I already have or could easily equip a full darkroom for
next to nothing and my camera/lenses will never need replacing apart from
mechanical failure. The enlarger I have is as fine as the day it was made,
the processing system will outlast me and nothing needs updating.



No advantage to the Average Joe. The Average Joe does
not need a $40 thousand camera.

The Average Joe has much more important and sensible
needs for his $40 thousand. Like, say, a Ford Expedition or
a Cadillac Escalade.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
  #5  
Old January 22nd 06, 04:57 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Medium and Larhe Format :: which way

I think that one possible interpretation of the recent popularity
of digital cameras is that most people are satisfied with lower
quality than I thought they would be. Consequently, the
desire to produce quality 20x24" prints might be for your own
satisfaction. Even more to the point, maintaining a rate of a
few hundred 20x24's per year might be a high estimate.

Even if it is not, I doubt that the cost of paper and ink is much
less than the cost of B&W photo paper and chemicals
(particularly if you mix your own developers).

Doubtless some adjustment in the price and performance of
high end digital backs will be seen over the next years. Still,
economies of scale need a large number of users; the
highest quality is likely to draw only a few users.

Another point to consider is that such an expensive back
would probably entice you to explore color, as well. If you
really only want B&W why not wait a while and see where the
market takes us.

Still, it is hard to argue against trying the latest new gadget.

  #6  
Old January 22nd 06, 06:06 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Medium and Larhe Format :: which way


Peter wrote:
I think that one possible interpretation of the recent popularity
of digital cameras is that most people are satisfied with lower
quality than I thought they would be. Consequently, the
desire to produce quality 20x24" prints might be for your own
satisfaction. Even more to the point, maintaining a rate of a
few hundred 20x24's per year might be a high estimate.I would disagree with you on the reason for the popularity of digital cameras but I agree that people are satisfied with lower quality then one would hope.


First consider the average person who is buying a digital camera. The
average person had be taking their roll of 800 ISO print film to
someplace like Wal-Mart and getting 4 x 6 prints made. I have seen the
results of this workflow and it is not pretty. For 4 x 6 prints even a
3 MP camera will produce much better looking prints then 800 ISO print
film and there is much less for places like Wal-Mart to mess up.

But I have also noticed that people in general are willing to make
prints that are softer then what I would like, and I see this on both
the film and digit side.

For me a good 20 x 24 inch prints needs around 43 MP, and good sharp
pixels at that. This is a print resolution of 300 ppi, which is a
level I had to go below. A lot of people seem perfectly happy with
print resolution much lower then this for large prints.

Even if it is not, I doubt that the cost of paper and ink is much
less than the cost of B&W photo paper and chemicals
(particularly if you mix your own developers).

Doubtless some adjustment in the price and performance of
high end digital backs will be seen over the next years. Still,
economies of scale need a large number of users; the
highest quality is likely to draw only a few users.

Another point to consider is that such an expensive back
would probably entice you to explore color, as well. If you
really only want B&W why not wait a while and see where the
market takes us.


He could try color now for very little investment. A $500 flatbed
scanner should be more then enough for to produced great looking color
prints when used with a 4 x 5 camera, there are any number of place to
send out to for making large prints.

Scott

  #7  
Old January 22nd 06, 06:34 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Medium and Larhe Format :: which way

You've been woefully misinformed. One can purchase a digital back for much
less than $40,000. Try about $8,000.

You didn't include the cost of building a darkroom. Your "Joe Average"
wouldn't have the space or the equipment on hand to produce 20"x24" prints.
Even with the cost of traditional darkroom equipment on the decrease, to
completely equip a darkroom with the proper equipment to produce the size
prints you're talking about would be a considerable cost.

The only fair way to do a cost comparision is to include all the equipment
and resources needed with a digital system as well as a traditional wet
darkroom. The problem with most people who claim that switching to digital
is too expensive is that they're forgetting how much money they've already
invested in wet darkrooms.

Start from scratch and compare costs.

Having said that, enjoy making whatever kind of prints you like with
whatever system you choose, no one is forcing anyone to switch over to
digital equipment.

John Emmons

"Steve" wrote in message
news
I just read that a half decent 39megapixel back for a 5x4 is about $US
40,000.

So I need some guidance please.

I shoot only Black and White and want to produce prints in my own "wet or
dry" darkroom up to 20x24 inches.

I have a field 5x4 with 4 lenses and 20 DD slide film holders.

This logic may be wrong but here goes.

If I go the digital road I need the 39mp back and gutsy computer system,
software and a printer with capabilities up to 24 inches.

Scanning back 40k
Computer and software to handle high end digital 5k
Printer 4k

Roughly 50k -- so if I choose to continue with a traditional approach and
shoot 600 sheets of Efke 100 per year @ about $480.000 per year and store
5 years worth of paper in the freezer at say 2000.00 and buy a stockpile
of chemistry for another 2000.00 I'm estimating roughly if I allow 10,000
for the next 5 years on consumables it will take me about 20 - 25 years
before I reach the expense of the scanning back alone. Not accounting for
depreciation.

Now what is the advantage for me as Joe average 5x4 black and white
photogrqpher. I already have or could easily equip a full darkroom for
next to nothing and my camera/lenses will never need replacing apart from
mechanical failure. The enlarger I have is as fine as the day it was made,
the processing system will outlast me and nothing needs updating.

I suppose I shouldn't have posted this as many people will now stay with
traditional photography and it will cost me more for nice cast offs from
digital explorers.



  #8  
Old January 22nd 06, 07:25 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Medium and Larhe Format :: which way

On 22 Jan 2006 04:45:15 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

A large part is the scanning cost,
remember most pros are going to need a digital file.


Just curious but why do pro's need digital files ?

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net
  #9  
Old January 22nd 06, 07:30 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Medium and Larhe Format :: which way



Steve wrote:
I just read that a half decent 39megapixel back for a 5x4 is about $US
40,000.

So I need some guidance please. . . . . .


Okay, so maybe considering who buys these might make a bit more sense.
Outside of Charles Cramer, who is selling fine art photography, the
average digital medium format back buyer is shooting commercially. A
high volume production studio, as in food or product photography, could
probably justify the cost of that back just on the volume of images; not
because it saves them money (maybe), but it will save them time.

Larger camera stores and studios that do rental to professionals are
also getting these backs. They are charging around $600 a day, including
one camera body and one lens; the photographer would be supplying the
laptop or memory storage. Given a busy enough area (metropolis), the
rental house could probably make back their investment in the first
year, if not much sooner. The typical body and lens, with a film back,
might have rented for under $100 a day. This particular business model
has been done in the motion imaging world; a good example was when the
Aaton Minima came out and a few bought the camera then helped offset the
cost by renting it out.

Then there are a few photographers buying these directly. To justify the
cost, they see what they have been paying for high end scanning. The
high end scanning was billed out to the clients, but rarely at much of
any mark-up. Replacing the scanning with the digital back means the
photographer can charge the client for the back usage, and collect the
money directly (rather than charging the client, then paying the lab for
scanning). So the justification is that the digital back would create an
extra income stream. Unfortunately, this has not working out to as much
as the rental model of business for some, so it might take 18 to 36
months to make this profitable. With the longer time period quite
likely, many photographers taking this path has chosen a lease plan for
the digital backs. The advantage of the lease plan is also in tax
deductions for operating expenses, and that some lease arrangements
allow an upgrade path when new technology arrives.

So how could an amateur or part-time photographer justify getting one of
these? The only way I could see that working is that the photographer
would need to turn the purchase (or lease) into a business activity.
Similar to the movie gear concept, the easiest method would be providing
the back to others for rental.

Ciao!

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

  #10  
Old January 22nd 06, 07:31 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Medium and Larhe Format :: which way


"John" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan 2006 04:45:15 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

A large part is the scanning cost,
remember most pros are going to need a digital file.


Just curious but why do pro's need digital files ?


Often their clients demand digital. It fits the clients' workflows.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.