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.


Here's the answer in a nutshell.

If LF film, be it B&W, Color Neg or Color Pos, turns your screw, stick
with it.

If, OTOH, you can afford to spend $40K for a digital back & it's the
tool you need to express your vision, go for it.

Of course, this ain't gonna' satisfy either side, so another billion or
so electrons have to die without anyone changing their opinion one whit.

John Emmons wrote:

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

And just who exactly sells a **39MP** digital back for $8K?

isnot 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.

Yup, what he said.

Let's see the photo will be part of an ad, one ad might incorporate
half a dozen photos. A graphic artist will to the layout using their
software of choice, but they will need the image as a digital file.
Graphic artist like to work with large high-resolution images, it makes
them easier to cut our from the background and place it the layout and
still have it look somewhat natural. What starts as a 20MP image might
well end up only 1 inch by 1 inch on the final layout. And from
experience I can tell you that arguing with the graphic artist that
they do not need a 20 MP image for something that will end up 1 inch
square in the final print will get you no where.

Scott

On 22 Jan 2006 07:57:05 -0800, "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.

I believe that we all tend to believe others believe as we do and most
photographers aspire to have a higher level of quality in their
images. The average consumer has little if any ediucation or interest
in the arts. Most men would rather watch a good hockey game than go to
a gallery and most women would rather play with needle-&-thread making
crosstitch as an "art".

In the end, original thought and inspiration are both rare and
underappreciated.

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

Better Light sells 4x5 backs starting at $6,495.00. with 52 megapixels. They
go up to $17,995.00 for the highest resolution.

I've seen them in use in the field, the photographer in question uses his
with a Linhof camera and I doubt that he has $40,000 invested in his entire
system, which includes a Mac laptop.

Even if the entire system costs $40,000, where that number came from I have
no idea, you have to compare that against an entire film based system
including building and equipping a darkroom, something that is rarely done
by folks who hold some sort of grudge against digital technology.

A studio specialising in food or product photography can recoup their
investment in a scanning back in a matter of months, especially if you
include all of the expenses involved in a film based operation. Waiting for
film processing, testing, Polaroids, messengers, back up copies, scanning to
suit the customer's needs instead of what anonymous people on a newsgroup
think their needs are, etc.

The amateur photographer doesn't care about recouping their expenses.

I fail to see the problem, if you think that digital 4x5 is too expensive,
then don't buy one. Just be fair when making the comparisons.

John Emmons

"no_name" wrote in message
. ..
John Emmons wrote:

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

And just who exactly sells a **39MP** digital back for $8K?

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:41:32 -0600, John
wrote:


In the end, original thought and inspiration are both rare and
underappreciated.


Historically, "original thought" would get you
stoned to death, crucified, or burned at the stake.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 17:34:09 GMT, "John Emmons"
wrote:

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.

It doesn't take a lot. A decent enlarger and some trays in a kitchen
or bathroom can work. The space doesn't have to be a dedicated
darkroom.

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.

B-&-H

Omega LPL 4550XLG Enlarger - $2250
Nikon 63/2.8 - $200
Nikon 135/5.6 - $360
Sounder 20X24 Easel - $500
Safelights, trays, tanks, tongs, a printwasher and a few accessories
for the enlarger, letsay $750

A one time investment of $4060

Dell Precision 670 w/dual 1905FP's - $5,612
Epson 4990 Pro - $500
Adobe Photoshop CS2 - $583

Hopefully the digital images would be printed by someone using a Durst
Lambda or a Fuji Frontier. If printing digitally any printer capable
of a 20" width is going to be around $3000 or more.

Also note that in DI you have computers, printers and software that
gets upgraded/replaced every 2~3 years. Often more frequently.

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.

My D-5 w/lenses cost me $800 on the used market. I've made well over
10,000 prints with that and a Nova Quad. Both are still in fine
working order and will probably be so for the next 25 years.

Start from scratch and compare costs.

And factor in depreciation and upgrading of computer, software,
printer and digital camera along with very expensive inks and papers.

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.

Well it seems that the market sure is trying.

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

"no_name" wrote in message
. ..
John Emmons wrote:

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

And just who exactly sells a **39MP** digital back for $8K?

I'm second in line with no_name! It better not be a scanning back with a
wheelbarrow full of support crap.

"John Emmons" wrote in message
...
Better Light sells 4x5 backs starting at $6,495.00. with 52 megapixels.
They
go up to $17,995.00 for the highest resolution.

John, is that a scanning back?

"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote in message
...

Historically, "original thought" would get you
stoned to death, crucified, or burned at the stake.

Not as often as modern myths would like you to believe. Remember, those who
wrote such things and the latter 'net people who post such things have their
own agenda and are desperately reaching for sources of authority which are
cumulatively wrong. So it might be better for you to post a specific
example.