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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|