Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

you go to China/India outside the big cities. The infrastructure to
develop film is there, and medium format films from an existing if modest
base of Seagull TLRs and chinese made Folders and so on. You can buy 120
rollfilms because of " " . You can get the film processed and printed in
most towns. So buying a pro MF camera fits into the existing
infrastructure.

You go to the same towns outside the main cities with your digital DSLR.
You fill up your memory stick(s). You show up and ask the local lab for
prints. They ask what are these stick things? Where is your film ;-)

So you decide to download to a PC and store on CDROMs. You go around town
looking for CDROMS. What are these plastic things used for, tea coasters?
No CDROMs.

So you decide to upload directly to your client via the Internet. You look
for a place that will let you do that. But without fiber runs into the
countryside, you have to rent a satellite channel or download images over
a slow telephone line. Think you can get permission to use a satellite
link, and find someone who will help you out? No, huh? ;-)

Yes, you could bring a portable PC with you, and you could add a CDROM
burner, and you could bring a series of batteries and chargers, and you
could bring your own printer and all that, and the manuals for all this
stuff, and you could bring your own satellite dish for uploading, and on
and on.

But my point is the existing infrastructure for film is a benefit to
users of rollfilm users, while digital camera users will have to create or
wait for a digital infrastructure outside of the main cities on the coast.
In the film case, they only need to invest in the camera kit, with a DSLR,
they need everything, including all supplies and printers and a PC and all
that. Big difference, esp. if you are trying to travel light ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

you go to China/India outside the big cities. The infrastructure to
develop film is there, and medium format films from an existing if modest
base of Seagull TLRs and chinese made Folders and so on. You can buy 120
rollfilms because of " " . You can get the film processed and printed in
most towns. So buying a pro MF camera fits into the existing
infrastructure.

Are you sure? You've been there and had MF processing work done locally? (It
sure sounds like you are guessing here.) And I suspect that until very
recently a Seagull was far more of a luxury item (in terms of percentage of
annual income) than a Leica or Hassy kit is to us.

You go to the same towns outside the main cities with your digital DSLR.
You fill up your memory stick(s). You show up and ask the local lab for
prints. They ask what are these stick things? Where is your film ;-)

So you decide to download to a PC and store on CDROMs. You go around town
looking for CDROMS. What are these plastic things used for, tea coasters?
No CDROMs.

You've forgetten mail order.

(Actually, you've switched from talking about locals doing photography
locally to travellers visiting, and thus gotten yourself confused.)

So you decide to upload directly to your client via the Internet. You look
for a place that will let you do that. But without fiber runs into the
countryside, you have to rent a satellite channel or download images over
a slow telephone line. Think you can get permission to use a satellite
link, and find someone who will help you out? No, huh? ;-)

Yes, you could bring a portable PC with you, and you could add a CDROM
burner, and you could bring a series of batteries and chargers, and you
could bring your own printer and all that, and the manuals for all this
stuff, and you could bring your own satellite dish for uploading, and on
and on.

In case you haven't noticed, there are tiny portable gizmos with a 40GB hard
drive that holds 2800 1Ds RAW images, 95 rolls of 220 film, at a tiny
fraction of the weight and bulk of film (about the size of 5 rolls of 220).
Take two, one for backup, and you're still travelling lighter than MF. And
you don't have to worry about your film getting zapped at the airport. (And
getting the particular film you like won't be possible locally.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

MikeWhy wrote:

Bob, I'm absolutely speechless, still groping for words. :-) OK. Zeiss
really did manage to do this with their lenses, but just didn't bother to
publish the details.

They were testing film, not lenses.
And they did publish their findings on how the films they tested performed.
Right?
;-)

(Bob Monaghan) wrote in message ...
see
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/
48D8F331DF48EE72C1256CEF002B0240 (why do they need such a looong string?)

quoting the article:

In contrast, our procedure is based on typical photo conditions like
outside sunlight, exposures controlled by normal camera shutters, focusing
done with the normal focusing aids of the camera, standard film developing
by a normal photo finisher, and of course, using normal Carl Zeiss
photographic camera lenses. In other words: we use equipment and
techniques which are readily accessible and our results are therefore
relevant to every photographer.
endquote:

so contrary to David's complaint, these 200 lpmm resolution levels were
achieved under "typical photo conditions" as outlined above and "our
results are therefore relevant to every photographer" ;-)

grins bobm

Interesting that they claim better resolution for TMX than Kodak does.

Cheers,

Dan

On 24 Jun 2004 23:30:57 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:


you go to China/India outside the big cities. The infrastructure to
develop film is there, and medium format films from an existing if modest
base of Seagull TLRs and chinese made Folders and so on. You can buy 120
rollfilms because of " " . You can get the film processed and printed in
most towns. So buying a pro MF camera fits into the existing
infrastructure.

Why does the film need to be processed on location?

You go to the same towns outside the main cities with your digital DSLR.
You fill up your memory stick(s). You show up and ask the local lab for
prints. They ask what are these stick things? Where is your film ;-)

No need for prints (at least not right away) with a dSLR.
How many minilabs still use all-optical processing?

So you decide to download to a PC and store on CDROMs. You go around town
looking for CDROMS. What are these plastic things used for, tea coasters?
No CDROMs.

Why do you suppose these would have to be purchased
on location?

So you decide to upload directly to your client via the Internet. You look
for a place that will let you do that. But without fiber runs into the
countryside, you have to rent a satellite channel or download images over
a slow telephone line. Think you can get permission to use a satellite
link, and find someone who will help you out? No, huh? ;-)

Yes, you could bring a portable PC with you, and you could add a CDROM
burner, and you could bring a series of batteries and chargers, and you
could bring your own printer and all that, and the manuals for all this
stuff, and you could bring your own satellite dish for uploading, and on
and on.

Do you bring your camera manuals with you on a
shoot, bob? Get real.

"Portable PCs" are called laptops these days, and
they're small and light and portable, and take power
wherever there's AC mains to be had. Most have
universal power supplies, 50/60Hz, 90-220V.

And if weight/size/power are an issue, there are
excellent devices for backup storage as well.
How much do you need? Will 40 Gigabytes do?
In a package 2"x3"x5" weighing about 5 oz and
which runs on four AA batteries.

But my point is the existing infrastructure for film is a benefit to
users of rollfilm users, while digital camera users will have to create or
wait for a digital infrastructure outside of the main cities on the coast.
In the film case, they only need to invest in the camera kit, with a DSLR,
they need everything, including all supplies and printers and a PC and all
that. Big difference, esp. if you are trying to travel light ;-)


You really have a way of distorting the scenario
in favor of what you know and love.

For a similar-length trip (be it a day or a week or
a month) I can't see any advantage in film over
digital -- or vice versa -- even by this narrow
criteria you now suggest, ie., in terms of media
storage or processing "on location."

And to suggest that, in the coming few years,
China would do better to expand their "optical
enlarging" and film-processing infrastructure,
as opposed their digital and internet infrastructure...
well, I'll just let that pass.

Don't sell the Chinese short. They don't want
your hand-me-down 1950s technology.


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

On 24 Jun 2004 23:16:44 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:


Now if Foveon and National Semiconductor can produce a 16 MP device and
demo it four+ years ago, how long before they or somebody else starts
making production volumes of 16MP sensors? Fuji is making 22 MP sensors
now, though at small volumes.


Exactly. How long? Why is Foveon still
going nowhere... nearly four years after that
press release that you keep refering us to?


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

In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote:

Why does the film need to be processed on location?

Not on location per say but a very good idea, in a place where
it can be picked up and dealt with on an across the counter
basis.

You go to the same towns outside the main cities with your digital DSLR.
You fill up your memory stick(s). You show up and ask the local lab for
prints. They ask what are these stick things? Where is your film ;-)

No need for prints (at least not right away) with a dSLR.
How many minilabs still use all-optical processing?

All optical? For mini labs to survive they need some digital
capability. There are quite a few that still print from film, and
don't scan the negatives, but that justs a portion of their over all
process.

So you decide to download to a PC and store on CDROMs. You go around town
looking for CDROMS. What are these plastic things used for, tea coasters?
No CDROMs.

Why do you suppose these would have to be purchased
on location?

It depends on where the photographer lives I guess. It depends on alot of
factors. I would think that major cities one could get just about anyting one
desires.

Do you bring your camera manuals with you on a
shoot, bob? Get real.

Depends on the camera, how new it is....I bought a new F100
last week, read and shot with it Thursday. Processed my test 35mm slide
film Thursday in my Jobo. Took it to my wedding shoot Saturday
I felt confident but took the manual just in case. Sometimes it helps.


For a similar-length trip (be it a day or a week or
a month) I can't see any advantage in film over
digital -- or vice versa -- even by this narrow
criteria you now suggest, ie., in terms of media
storage or processing "on location."

I can, I see the potential for having all my images erased
in some manner off the hard drive. Or the event of having CD's
damaged by the heat. Or the sensitive digital camera developing alot of
other problems. Of course YMMV.
--
The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential
of a Blank canvas.

This is a provision for the mind's eye.
I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home.

"Raphael Bustin" wrote in message
...
On 24 Jun 2004 23:16:44 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:


Now if Foveon and National Semiconductor can produce a 16 MP device and
demo it four+ years ago, how long before they or somebody else starts
making production volumes of 16MP sensors? Fuji is making 22 MP sensors
now, though at small volumes.


Exactly. How long? Why is Foveon still
going nowhere... nearly four years after that
press release that you keep refering us to?

Actually, they're moving increadibly fast. Following their 3.4 MP sensor,
this year they've come out with a 1.5MP sensor. Now, that may not seem an
improvement, but, being the sleazy snakeoil salesmen they are, they call it
a 4.5MP sensor. At which point people assume they've been doing something
the last 5 years (when actually they haven't), and think they've got a 4.5 x
3 MP sensor. So you see people talking about the new 13.5MP Foveon sensor.

Give it a while, and it'll be 40.5MP. And without Foveon's having done
anything at all.

Really impressive.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

From: "Ken Hart"

I've got an advertisement for Kodak Endura paper (color) that gives the life
as 100 years in the light .... I've got another
advertisement for Kodak inkjet printer paper that gives the life as 100
years _for_the_paper_ (not the image).
When a manufacturer rates two of their own products with widely different
specs, that seems to say something.

The Kodak print life numbers use radically different assumptions than the
Wilhelm test conditions so you have to divide by roughly 5 to make an
equivalent comparison.

Specifically, both Kodak and Wilhelm see the images fading at the same test
point with accelerated tests but Wilhelm assumes typical viewing intensity of
450 lux while Kodak assumes 120 lux, and both assume fade is linearlly
proportional with light, so Kodak gains about a factor of four just by by
assuming dimmer viewing or display lighting.

And Wilhelm's "fade" point criteria is where the color density has dropped
enought that a trained observer can see the difference between the original
print and the displayed one, which is around 7-10% density loss for most
colors. This is the "museum" test. Kodak feels the image still has value so
long as you can recognize the people on it (their wording, more or less) and
accepts 18-30% loss of density before considering it "faded", the so-called
"family snapshot" test.

So divide the Kodak numbers by five and you're in sync with the Wilhelm numbers
The Kodak 100 year estimate comes out to 18-22 years when the same paper is
tested by Wilhelm.

Bill

In article , Fil Ament
wrote:

In article ,
(one_of_many) wrote:

Typical dumb-ass comment. Answer the question. Show some intelligence.

Come on John; is that the best you can do :-D

Well, if it isn't Gregory Blank playing anonymous again.