Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

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*************************

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?)

"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.

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.

;-)

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?

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...!

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?
;-)

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

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

"Lassi Hippeläinen" posted:

"... a digital back for Baby Rolleiflex :-) ..."

Hey ... that's actually a pretty interesting idea!