Market for LF gear?

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:28:39 +0100, "Bandicoot"
wrote:

"rafe bustin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:15:59 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

[SNIP]

I dare say, there is a crying need for
someone like Nikon, Minolta or Canon
(or that calibre) to make an up-to-date
and affordable LF film scanner.

There's a huge opening between the Epson
4870/4990 and the drum scanner and
Creo/Scitex class machines ($5K to $15K
and up.)


I don't know - given what a good medium format film scanner costs, and
assuming that a LF one costs more to make per se, and then (a lot) more
still due to having (even) smaller production and sales volumes, I'm not
sure that there is much scope to produce them to sell at very far below your
$5k figure. Sure it would be nice, but I'm not going to hold my breath.


OK, here's some wishful thinking then.

Is it possible that the lack of affordable
LF scanners is holding back the appeal of LF
in general?

I mean... that question sounds presumptuous,
and even offensive to film Luddites. On the
other hand, not every LF shooter is a film
Luddite.

In other words -- might there be more folks
partaking of LF photography, if Nikon made an
LS-12000 for, say, $2K-$4K?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:28:39 +0100, "Bandicoot"
wrote:

"rafe bustin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:15:59 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

[SNIP]

I dare say, there is a crying need for
someone like Nikon, Minolta or Canon
(or that calibre) to make an up-to-date
and affordable LF film scanner.

There's a huge opening between the Epson
4870/4990 and the drum scanner and
Creo/Scitex class machines ($5K to $15K
and up.)


I don't know - given what a good medium format film scanner costs, and
assuming that a LF one costs more to make per se, and then (a lot) more
still due to having (even) smaller production and sales volumes, I'm not
sure that there is much scope to produce them to sell at very far below your
$5k figure. Sure it would be nice, but I'm not going to hold my breath.


OK, here's some wishful thinking then.

Is it possible that the lack of affordable
LF scanners is holding back the appeal of LF
in general?

I mean... that question sounds presumptuous,
and even offensive to film Luddites. On the
other hand, not every LF shooter is a film
Luddite.

In other words -- might there be more folks
partaking of LF photography, if Nikon made an
LS-12000 for, say, $2K-$4K?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

rafe bustin wrote:
: On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:28:39 +0100, "Bandicoot"
: wrote:

: "rafe bustin" wrote in message
: .. .
: On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:15:59 -0700, David Nebenzahl
: wrote:
:
: [SNIP]
:
: I dare say, there is a crying need for
: someone like Nikon, Minolta or Canon
: (or that calibre) to make an up-to-date
: and affordable LF film scanner.
:
: There's a huge opening between the Epson
: 4870/4990 and the drum scanner and
: Creo/Scitex class machines ($5K to $15K
: and up.)
:
:
: I don't know - given what a good medium format film scanner costs, and
: assuming that a LF one costs more to make per se, and then (a lot) more
: still due to having (even) smaller production and sales volumes, I'm not
: sure that there is much scope to produce them to sell at very far below your
: $5k figure. Sure it would be nice, but I'm not going to hold my breath.


: OK, here's some wishful thinking then.

: Is it possible that the lack of affordable
: LF scanners is holding back the appeal of LF
: in general?

I doubt it. As it stands now LF is gaining in popularity amoung the hobbyist.

: I mean... that question sounds presumptuous,
: and even offensive to film Luddites. On the
: other hand, not every LF shooter is a film
: Luddite.

I don't understand why you consider people that still use film as luddites.

: In other words -- might there be more folks
: partaking of LF photography, if Nikon made an
: LS-12000 for, say, $2K-$4K?

I doubt it. People that use LF do so for the quality.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

rafe bustin wrote:
: On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:28:39 +0100, "Bandicoot"
: wrote:

: "rafe bustin" wrote in message
: .. .
: On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:15:59 -0700, David Nebenzahl
: wrote:
:
: [SNIP]
:
: I dare say, there is a crying need for
: someone like Nikon, Minolta or Canon
: (or that calibre) to make an up-to-date
: and affordable LF film scanner.
:
: There's a huge opening between the Epson
: 4870/4990 and the drum scanner and
: Creo/Scitex class machines ($5K to $15K
: and up.)
:
:
: I don't know - given what a good medium format film scanner costs, and
: assuming that a LF one costs more to make per se, and then (a lot) more
: still due to having (even) smaller production and sales volumes, I'm not
: sure that there is much scope to produce them to sell at very far below your
: $5k figure. Sure it would be nice, but I'm not going to hold my breath.


: OK, here's some wishful thinking then.

: Is it possible that the lack of affordable
: LF scanners is holding back the appeal of LF
: in general?

I doubt it. As it stands now LF is gaining in popularity amoung the hobbyist.

: I mean... that question sounds presumptuous,
: and even offensive to film Luddites. On the
: other hand, not every LF shooter is a film
: Luddite.

I don't understand why you consider people that still use film as luddites.

: In other words -- might there be more folks
: partaking of LF photography, if Nikon made an
: LS-12000 for, say, $2K-$4K?

I doubt it. People that use LF do so for the quality.

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 05:21:15 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:

rafe bustin wrote:

: OK, here's some wishful thinking then.

: Is it possible that the lack of affordable
: LF scanners is holding back the appeal of LF
: in general?

I doubt it. As it stands now LF is gaining in popularity amoung the hobbyist.

Great. Maybe some of those hobbyists would
prefer film scanning to enlarging?


: In other words -- might there be more folks
: partaking of LF photography, if Nikon made an
: LS-12000 for, say, $2K-$4K?

I doubt it. People that use LF do so for the quality.


The two aren't mutually exclusive. On the contrary,
without film, no need for a film scanner grin.

Let me put it this way. I feel my involvement with
LF may be at a crossroads. I refuse to deal with
an enlarger and wet processing.

The advantage (for me) of the larger film format
is largely offset by the difficulty of turning that
film image into big, sharp, digital images.

I wonder if I might be better off with 6x7 or 6x9,
because in that case I'd still be able to scan the
film on my LS-8000, with much better scan quality.

IOW -- the camera has to be seen as part of a
larger toolchain. 35mm and MF segue nicely to
digital darkroom, but LF still has serious issues.
The Epson 4870 is not quite the ticket, and yet
I'm reluctant to deal with a drum scanner.

Worked my way into a corner, you see...


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

"rafe bustin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 05:21:15 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:

rafe bustin wrote:

: OK, here's some wishful thinking then.

: Is it possible that the lack of affordable
: LF scanners is holding back the appeal of LF
: in general?

I doubt it. As it stands now LF is gaining in popularity amoung the
hobbyist.

Great. Maybe some of those hobbyists would
prefer film scanning to enlarging?

That's my bet, Rafe. Digital has been the liberation of color printing, and
therefore color (film) photography. But for B&W ... well, let's talk again
in a few years.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:48:37 -0500, "jjs"
wrote:

"rafe bustin" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 05:21:15 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote:

rafe bustin wrote:

: OK, here's some wishful thinking then.

: Is it possible that the lack of affordable
: LF scanners is holding back the appeal of LF
: in general?

I doubt it. As it stands now LF is gaining in popularity amoung the
hobbyist.

Great. Maybe some of those hobbyists would
prefer film scanning to enlarging?

That's my bet, Rafe. Digital has been the liberation of color printing, and
therefore color (film) photography. But for B&W ... well, let's talk again
in a few years.


BW is only "behind" because there's far less
of a market for it. I don't think there are
serious technical obstacles to BW digital
printing. The RIPs and ink sets are here.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
rafe bustin wrote:

BW is only "behind" because there's far less
of a market for it. I don't think there are
serious technical obstacles to BW digital
printing. The RIPs and ink sets are here.

BIG YAWN

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"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

rafe bustin wrote:
: On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:48:37 -0500, "jjs"
: wrote:

: "rafe bustin" wrote in message
: .. .
: On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 05:21:15 -0500, Frank Pittel
: wrote:
:
: rafe bustin wrote:
:
: : OK, here's some wishful thinking then.
:
: : Is it possible that the lack of affordable
: : LF scanners is holding back the appeal of LF
: : in general?
:
: I doubt it. As it stands now LF is gaining in popularity amoung the
: hobbyist.
:
: Great. Maybe some of those hobbyists would
: prefer film scanning to enlarging?
:
: That's my bet, Rafe. Digital has been the liberation of color printing, and
: therefore color (film) photography. But for B&W ... well, let's talk again
: in a few years.


: BW is only "behind" because there's far less
: of a market for it. I don't think there are
: serious technical obstacles to BW digital
: printing. The RIPs and ink sets are here.

In my never humble opinion one of the problems with B&W inkjet printing is the lack
of silver in the inks. By themselves the digital b&W prints look good but when placed
next to a silver print the difference is clear.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

rafe bustin wrote:
: On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 05:21:15 -0500, Frank Pittel
: wrote:

: rafe bustin wrote:

: : OK, here's some wishful thinking then.
:
: : Is it possible that the lack of affordable
: : LF scanners is holding back the appeal of LF
: : in general?
:
: I doubt it. As it stands now LF is gaining in popularity amoung the hobbyist.

: Great. Maybe some of those hobbyists would
: prefer film scanning to enlarging?

I'm sure some are looking to scan the negatives.

: : In other words -- might there be more folks
: : partaking of LF photography, if Nikon made an
: : LS-12000 for, say, $2K-$4K?
:
: I doubt it. People that use LF do so for the quality.


: The two aren't mutually exclusive. On the contrary,
: without film, no need for a film scanner grin.

If you print with an enlarger you don't need to scan. :-)

: Let me put it this way. I feel my involvement with
: LF may be at a crossroads. I refuse to deal with
: an enlarger and wet processing.

: The advantage (for me) of the larger film format
: is largely offset by the difficulty of turning that
: film image into big, sharp, digital images.

: I wonder if I might be better off with 6x7 or 6x9,
: because in that case I'd still be able to scan the
: film on my LS-8000, with much better scan quality.

: IOW -- the camera has to be seen as part of a
: larger toolchain. 35mm and MF segue nicely to
: digital darkroom, but LF still has serious issues.
: The Epson 4870 is not quite the ticket, and yet
: I'm reluctant to deal with a drum scanner.

: Worked my way into a corner, you see...


: rafe b.
: http://www.terrapinphoto.com

--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------