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 |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
digital bubble to burst? ideal cameras?
Very likely true, maybe in boxes from China. I see nothing wrong with
scanning, or digital printing, except for B/W. Possibly you've never seen a digital black and white print made by someone who really knows what they're doing, e.g. George DeWolfe. Since taking George's digital black and white printing course at the Palm Beach Photographic Workshops a couple years ago I've been scanning my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives and printing B&W digitally. I do the same with my 6x7 negatives if the print won't be larger than 8x10, hardware limitations of my relatively inexpensive scanner prevent me from making quality prints larger than that from 6x7 so I still use my traditional darkroom for that very limited purpose. I think the greatly enhanced control, the ability to make tiny changes impossible in a traditional darkroom, the ability to easily experiment and see different possibilities instantaneously on the monitor all add up to a preferable way, for me at least, of making black and white prints. I participate in a group of large format photographers that has been meeting once a month for 8 or so years now. Three years ago only one person in the group printed black and white digitally, today only one person doesn't. "Gordon Moat" wrote in message ... Bob Monaghan wrote: The repairability issue Gordon raises is a double-edged sword IMHO. You can take a broken mechanical part to a machinist and get another one made, if at a high price. A donor camera or two can supply parts for many camera repairs. Most mechanical cameras only need CLA and a few minor parts (springs, foam..) to be good for another 20 years or so of amateur use ;-) My feeling is that the labour costs will be more than any parts. So what I meant by my statements was that the individual would need to substitute themselves for the labour. This is another learning curve that only a few will achieve successfully. . . . . . . . . . . . . By contrast, proprietary chips used in many electronic cameras means they are unrepairable and unsupported as soon as the supplies of chips runs out. And for digital cameras, I have found that it quickly costs more to repair a 2 or 3 year old (Kodak) digital camera than it would cost to buy a working replacement on EBAY, or an even better current model with higher resolution ;-) I think that with the higher end Kodak digital SLR bodies, many of those had shutter failures die to heavy usage. While I imagine that chips fail, or develop dead cells (like some LCD displays), I thin a bigger issue might be software support. Already, Kodak offers that on their newest digital SLRs and digital backs, but how long would they really support an older product. I think film will continue to be available in 120 format for my lifetime anyway, but in fewer emulsions. We may have to have it scanned to print or display. Very likely true, maybe in boxes from China. I see nothing wrong with scanning, or digital printing, except for B/W. If larger size chips - both in resolution to 64MP or larger, and with larger sites for lower noise, so MF format in size - become mass produced, the costs could easily be significantly less than today's $20k digital backs. Just as we now have organic LED displays at much lower costs for cellphones, we could have some kind of organic photosensor array which could also produce a cost breakthru. Organic photosensor . . . sounds like colour film! But at the density where 16 MP is on a 22mm square die, as with Foveon's CMOS process devices, Carver Mead the designer has noted that they are already being limited by the basic physics (size of sensor area, light wavelength size, noise levels etc.). Easier to control noise in CCDs, though CMOS is cheaper to produce. Perhaps the Phillips seeming technology for LCD displays could be applied to stack smaller chips into larger pads arrays. Of course, noise becomes more of an issue as the chip size scales up more, though Imacon and a few others are working one better ways to address that. Anyway, I think 48 MP might be a more reasonable limit, and Sinar might reach that soon. So a low noise 64MP sensor is rather more likely to be MF in size than 35mm in size. At that point, you need MF sized lenses to cover the image (unless we get a "lenslet" breakthru there too) ;-) Microlens technology? With CMOS, it is very necessary. With CCD, it might also help, though another solution might be software within the device. Again, Imacon is working on a few methods that address noise and other issues largely through software and careful current control. ---- Personally, I think we are about to see the "digital bubble" burst. The low cost of the volume consumer 5MP and above cameras doesn't leave a lot of margin for stores and distributors, nor a lot for mfgers to use to prop up R&D for high end low sales volume products. And for most consumers, I am not sure that more than 4 or 5 MP is going to be needed for mostly emailed photos and webphotos anyway, yes? ;-) Sure, but I don't think many of those buyers were in the regular photography market much prior to that. It might impact disposable film camera sales, though so far the indications from sales volume is that it has not. Perhaps that is odd, but I don't think the small digital P&S cameras get used like film cameras. Many electronics retailers in California now have disposable film cameras hanging on racks next to the printers, and next to the digital P&S cameras; and they are definitely selling and needing to be restocked often. So what does that tell you about usage? So will the majority of consumers stick with their paid-for digicams, or will they keep "upgrading" and replacing them every 12 or 18 months as the digital sales model now requires? ;-) Mostly when they break, or the storage media is somewhat obsolete (floppy disk cameras). If they hold on to the good enough 4 and 5 MP cameras, then the digital camera bubble seems ripe for bursting, yes? ;-) Well, there is a whole new crop of somewhat small 8 MP cameras, and the smaller cameras still seem to be the better sellers. I better qualify this by mentioning that this is California, which is a manufactured materialistic area/society/culture, so other areas may have different buying and usage patterns. It might be better to look at what is happening in Japan. Convenience and ease of use is in camera phones. Already large in sales volume, they just need zoom lenses, some type of variable focus, and some type of flash combined in one unit. When the combination becomes more common, it will impact digital P&S camera sales. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com grins bobm -- ************************************************** ********************* * Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 * ********************Standard Disclaimers Apply************************* |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
The thread that mentioned the 44mm square digital sensor reminds me of one solution to the MF digital "problem". Let's think like marketeers and simply declare that MF is smaller! That's the ticket. If you can't meet the medium's high standards, redefine and lower the bar! (Seriously, this thread concerning digital is something of a watershed for this group, and IMHO, digital is still struggling to reach the summit. Can we revisit it in, say, two years?) |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
"Raphael Bustin" posted:
"... there's no need for 16 million pixels to make a 4x6" print when our printers really only have an effective contone resolution of, say, 250 dpi. ...." WHY should the user be limited to a 4" x 6" print? I may want to make 40" x 60" displays .... or maybe even larger. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
Bob Monaghan wrote:
actually, Carver Mead is Mr. CMOS and Mr. VLSI, see for example, awards: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conw...ectAchiev.html or http://www-cad.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ne...AMPresent.html and physics is physics ;-) Still reminds me of the attitude towards heavier than air flying machines once held by many who should know. ;-) |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
ideal cameras? Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF?
Neil Gould wrote:
That's what this discussion is about: even those who bought a 35 mm format based digicam to replace their 35 mm film only find themselves using that thing more and more instead of (!) their MF too. I think that once the novelty aspect wears off, and they're looking at the images they shot years ago with MF side by side with their digicams, only the most jaded photographers are going to shrug off the loss of quality. There's no novelty aspect involved. It's all down to two things: convenience, and the fact that they can get away with it. You know, a lot of images are not produced solely to be enjoyed by the maker. MF actually is losing to 6+ MP 35 mm based digicams... Wake up, MF! Or enjoy your well deserved eternal rest six feet below... It's a bit of a stretch to say that MF is *losing* to digicams. People don't typically buy bunches of midrange to high-end equipment on a daily basis. If they already have MF, then it's only logical that the current trend is to buy digicams. But, I don't see these as competing media, in the same sense that digicams and P&S cameras compete. Well, if the result of this logical buying decision is that the already owned MF gear is used less, or even not at all anymore, one could argue that there indeed is competition. If the result also is that people now rather spend the money they might have spent updating their aging MF gear spend it on new digital products (because now it starts to make sense), i'm sure the MF manufacturers would think there is competition too. People trying to sell their MF gear (for whatever reason) noticing how prices are at an all time low might blame this on something competing rather succesfully too. We'll see how it all plays out. I don't see a lot of alternatives to LF... certainly not digital. I do. I know quite a few photographers (and art directors) who don't bother using movements much because it's so easy to "fake it" in Photoshop. They must be nearly blind. That practice would make me wonder why they needed LF in the first place. Yes. The answer will be that in the past digital post processing simply was not an option. They could have done most of the tricks in the darkroom. But not as easy. Not by far. Carrying a camera with movements was the preferred option over trying to straighten slanted verticals by tilting the easel, lens and negative holder. By the way, don't sell digital postprocessing short: you really do not need to be nearly blind not to notice the magic that can be produced with the right software. So give them a digicam that produces plenty pixels (and they're being handed out right this moment), and they won;t bother with those heavy, awkward things again, ever. It sounds like the best decision for them. But, they sound more like digital novices to me. I don't think they're typical of LF shooters. Why don't you think so? You know, many photographers use tools to get the job done. And if the job can get done with less hassle, they would not think for one single moment if that would make them any less of a typical LF shooter. It's a rather awkward term anyway, "typical". In a situation like that of today's photography, where things are in full motion, the "typical" of today is the "rather excentric and quaint" of tomorrow. Based on what you're presenting, I'd have to say that we should all dump our gear now! ;-) No, no! The religiously inclined among us should pray to whatever supreme being they like that MF digital back manufacturers are given good sense, and/or that our present MF gear will be usable (i.e. lasting film and spare parts supply) for a long time yet. The not so religiously inclined among us should hope for the same. (I'm not sure where the difference lies, but hey! that's another matter entirely. ;-)) I'll continue to shoot MF film, and have given up on any notion of buying a digital back. Even if there was a 64 MP back for $2k, it would not be of great interest to me (yeah, I'd buy it anyway). Says it all... ;-) I just don't think that the benefits of digital are well-matched to the benefits of MF. They are different benefits. And as such not well matched indeed. Still, there is a choice, and people actually do decide, no matter how ill matched the benefits. The thing is how the majority decision will go, and how one part of the "electorate" can decide for another part of the electorate. Yes, for all the reasons already discussed. Do i like it? Now there's quite a different matter... So... are you going to stop shooting MF film? If not, why not? I'm currentl shooting MF film. But stopped printing. I scan all film, because then there's so much more you can do with it, and it's all so much easier to do. And yes, as soon as i think digital quality can meet my needs/wants, at a price i am willing to pay, i will start using "full digital", and stop doing that messy film business. When that will be? Who knows? But will we MF shooters have to start hoarding MF spares anyday soon? Long before we too are ready to switch to digital? |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
ideal cameras? Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF?
Neil Gould wrote:
OTOH, I see no problem scanning MF or LF. Right now, that's pretty much the best of all worlds. Exactly what I wrote in another post a while back. We're on the same page, here. While i too am a "scanner", i'm not on that "i see no problem" page with you. While i thought developing film was terminally boring, scanning film really "outbores" that by far. And i still have to develop those films too...! |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
ideal cameras? Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF?
Gordon Moat wrote:
[...] It could be that the only Hasselblad camera production occurs at Fuji, with the H1 and Xpan becoming the only product lines. This would then be badge engineering trading solely on the Hasselblad brand name. At that point, it becomes a luxury product, and is likely to never return to a larger market, unless they start making digital P&S cameras (like Rollei). Just a note: Hasselblad is still producing most of the H1 too. They are still very much a manufacturing company, not just an office in which brand name resides. They tried clocks, haven't they? ;-) Yeah, surprised they haven't done sunglasses yet, though Zeiss has the optics name over Hasselblad recognition. The fitted leather bags for their cameras are already hinting at the shift to luxury only products. Hasselblad is not new to the "brand merchandising" game. You may want to have a look at what goodies the Hasselblad Boutique is offering. The boutique, now on the internet (http://www.agoreklam.net/?Hasselblad_Boutique), has been selling things like this for years. ;-) [...] Or a Panasonic plastic lens in a camera badged Leica... ;-) Yeah! It is coming, and I will not be too surprised when it happens. Well blow me down if it hasn't happened already...! Fuji was Leica's preferred digido partner, before they teamed up with Hasselblad and produced that panorama-Leica, the XPan. Yeah, bet that did not make Leica management too happy. They weren't. They fell out with Fuji, which set their compact and digital camera plans back a good few years. I don't see it as all or nothing, so I guess that is largely where we differ. I see medium format cameras surviving as a niche product, much like large format. However, if the film is no longer produced for these cameras, then they will become nice things to stick on a shelf, and no more new sales. Well, where i think you are wrong is thinking that MF can survive as a niche product. It's future lies not in being a niche product. Being a niche product was their past. What we see happening is not a reduction from "main-stream" to niche products, but an evacuation of the niche: did it offer not very much in the past, the niche is now really running low. What we see is not well-fed plain dwellers retiring to some well stored safe but tiny resort, but habitual niche dwellers losing their sustenance. (or some other insane mixed and incomplete metaphor like that ;-)) Maybe, but I see a change, rather than an extinction. ALPA is not high volume, nor high profit, yet they are still in business. [...] Hasselblad and Rollei and Mamiya and.. too are small volume firms still in business. But how about the future? ;-) One thing that would be nice if your extinction prediction is correct is that used medium format should drop to really low prices, like a slightly used Hasselblad with normal lens for under $US 300, Mamiya RZ67 for $200, Rollei 6008 for $250, Bronica anything for $100 . . . . . maybe I should start looking at those Estate Sales . . . . . . . Or... People start hoarding, and prices will go through the roof? ;-) |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
jjs wrote:
The thread that mentioned the 44mm square digital sensor reminds me of one solution to the MF digital "problem". Let's think like marketeers and simply declare that MF is smaller! That's the ticket. If you can't meet the medium's high standards, redefine and lower the bar! Start spreading a rumour: now that a suitably sized sensor will become available, Rollei will introduce a digital back for Baby Rolleiflex :-) -- Lassi |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
ideal cameras? Omega 120 surprise convertible lens RF?
Hi,
Recently, Q.G. de Bakker posted: Neil Gould wrote: I think that once the novelty aspect wears off, and they're looking at the images they shot years ago with MF side by side with their digicams, only the most jaded photographers are going to shrug off the loss of quality. There's no novelty aspect involved. It's all down to two things: convenience, and the fact that they can get away with it. You know, a lot of images are not produced solely to be enjoyed by the maker. I was looking at it more from the aspect of pride in one's work. You may be right that the largest portion of the bell curve is occupied by people satisfied with doing as little as they can, or with the fastest result regardless of quality. But, I'd rather think otherwise of MF shooters. We've already sacrificed convenience for quality. MF actually is losing to 6+ MP 35 mm based digicams... Wake up, MF! Or enjoy your well deserved eternal rest six feet below... It's a bit of a stretch to say that MF is *losing* to digicams. People don't typically buy bunches of midrange to high-end equipment on a daily basis. If they already have MF, then it's only logical that the current trend is to buy digicams. But, I don't see these as competing media, in the same sense that digicams and P&S cameras compete. Well, if the result of this logical buying decision is that the already owned MF gear is used less, or even not at all anymore, one could argue that there indeed is competition. Whether one uses their MF gear less is an unanswered question. I use my 35mm gear less because of the digicam, but that has no impact on my use of the MF gear. If I need MF quality, I have no alternative. So, unless I'm really different from most, the fraction of time the MF equipment gets used is impacted by other factors. If the result also is that people now rather spend the money they might have spent updating their aging MF gear spend it on new digital products (because now it starts to make sense), i'm sure the MF manufacturers would think there is competition too. It's too early to say whether this is a long-term or short-term trend. Perhaps some people have made a complete commitment to digital photography (I know a few). However, those that have *not* abandoned film are not likely to buy a digicam every 6 months. How often are you planning to update your digicam? I know quite a few photographers (and art directors) who don't bother using movements much because it's so easy to "fake it" in Photoshop. They must be nearly blind. That practice would make me wonder why they needed LF in the first place. Yes. The answer will be that in the past digital post processing simply was not an option. They could have done most of the tricks in the darkroom. But not as easy. Not by far. Carrying a camera with movements was the preferred option over trying to straighten slanted verticals by tilting the easel, lens and negative holder. By the way, don't sell digital postprocessing short: you really do not need to be nearly blind not to notice the magic that can be produced with the right software. You do need to be nearly blind not to notice the artifacts produced by radical post-processing. ;-) I'm not selling post-processing short by suggesting that nothing beats a clean original, be it digital or film. So give them a digicam that produces plenty pixels (and they're being handed out right this moment), and they won;t bother with those heavy, awkward things again, ever. It sounds like the best decision for them. But, they sound more like digital novices to me. I don't think they're typical of LF shooters. Why don't you think so? You know, many photographers use tools to get the job done. And if the job can get done with less hassle, they would not think for one single moment if that would make them any less of a typical LF shooter. Well... why shoot LF in the first place? Certainly not *just* to avoid grain? I suspect that one wants to achieve the best possible image quality, but that quality comes at a cost of convenience and speed. The job that can get done with less hassle by shooting digitally is inappropriate for LF, anyway. Those trying use digicams for the jobs that are appropriate for LF must be misinterpreting their use, lack the visual literacy to understand the requirements of the job, or suffer some other problem such as having too little money or interest to do the job right. It's a rather awkward term anyway, "typical". In a situation like that of today's photography, where things are in full motion, the "typical" of today is the "rather excentric and quaint" of tomorrow. Ah, this is a different matter. I think that the introduction of digital photography has stirred the pot, but when things settle down, I think there will still be an appropriate use for MF that can't be satisfied by other options. Based on what you're presenting, I'd have to say that we should all dump our gear now! ;-) No, no! The religiously inclined among us should pray to whatever supreme being they like that MF digital back manufacturers are given good sense, and/or that our present MF gear will be usable (i.e. lasting film and spare parts supply) for a long time yet. Not to worry. As I see it, new MF films are still being introduced, and as long as people buy them, they'll be available. Personally, I think the new Portra films are great, and they're from a company that many think is past its prime in terms of innovation. So... are you going to stop shooting MF film? If not, why not? I'm currentl shooting MF film. But stopped printing. I scan all film, because then there's so much more you can do with it, and it's all so much easier to do. And yes, as soon as i think digital quality can meet my needs/wants, at a price i am willing to pay, i will start using "full digital", and stop doing that messy film business. OTOH, I've not printed lately, either, but I still buy optical prints from the pro lab, and appreciate that they are of observably better quality than the best inkjet prints I can make or buy. But, that decision was made after a foray into color printing in the '70s, long before digital. I may get back into printing b/w one day... (my wife asked if she could sell of the darkroom gear... NOT!!!). So, it's the best of both worlds. Neil |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
MF future? ideal cameras?
"Lassi Hippeläinen" posted:
"... a digital back for Baby Rolleiflex :-) ..." Hey ... that's actually a pretty interesting idea! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Formula for pre-focusing | Steve Yeatts | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 22nd 04 02:55 AM |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |