Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

How has Fuji duped people into thinking that Frontier prints are the "gold"
standard of digitial printing? Inkjets look better.

Neil Gould wrote:

That depends on how they're printed. A 20"x20" Frontier print doesn't cost
much. An optical print does, at least around here. If you only consider
the cost of materials, there wouldn't be much difference. But, labor is
significantly different between these two methods. But then, so are the
results.

Neil

nobody nowhere wrote:

I may sound a little thick, but are you saying or implying that given
the same digital MB file, the commercial print would necessarily
generate a visibly better image quality (for the same print size) than a
good inkjet printer?

Yes. However, it would not be cost effective to only run one print off a commercial
printing set-up. Even some CTP systems (like latest Heidelberg) only begin to
become cost effective at 200 or more prints.

"Better image quality" does not, of course,
necessarily mean wet look, or other similar artefacts. I recall
another pro in this very NG, who, sometime ago, said that he replaced
his 150K printing system with an Epson 7600 (or so), because despite the
huge difference in price, the quality of the image was the same from
both printers.

The 150k system sounds like a colour laser set-up, since that is a fairly common
price range. If I were to compare colour laser technology to inkjet, I would state
that the colour range should be better on high end inkjet systems. An Epson 7600
(and larger 9600) are high end systems. Depending upon how many large prints
someone wants, it might be more cost effective to go with a larger system, such as
from Encad or Roland. There are better high end inkjet systems than Epson.

If I remember correctly, he may have said that at least
for some subjects the Epson produced better image quality than the
expensive commercial printer.

You might be confusing what exactly is a "commercial printer". While it is possible
to get some even more expensive Xerox branded systems for the cost of supplies
only, these are largely the type of machines for quick print locations (Kinkos,
Copy+, etc.). To see what I mean about printing technologies, either look into
Heidelberg, or check out the latest from Creo:

http://www.creo.com/global/products/color_screen_calibration/staccato/default.htm

Definitely feel free to contact them for more information, including printed
samples. They are a very friendly company to work with, and a great information
source. Heidelberg are at:

http://www.heidelberg.com

Obviously, there are many more companies than these two, and even AGFA have a very
large presence in the Graphic Arts and Printing community.



Incidentally, I visited your site, and liked your photos very much.

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed them.


They are just that, true photos (a rare thing nowadays), as I would like
to be able to do (when I grow up... :-)). They convey the emotion or
feeling associated with the real life scene. If I may say so, they
show talent, professionalism, and feeling.

Wow . . . I will have to get a larger hat size now . . . . ;-)

In exchange for these
(really sincere) compliments, would you tell us what cameras/scanners
you used ?

Okay, I am guessing you are just curious about what equipment was used for the
images I have posted. I should mention that I consider the gear largely just a
means to an end, and that I do not keep notes on specifics. With that in mind, I
can often recall what I used for many of the images, so here goes . . . . . . .

Most of the images on my web site originated with 35 mm equipment, largely chosen
on lens selection and ergonomics. Some of the older images were done with a Leica
M3 and a few 50 mm lenses, and sometimes a 35 mm f2.0. A larger portion of images
was done using various Nikon SLRs and manual focus lenses, usually no longer than a
180 mm. The majority of those 35 mm images were done hand held, though sometimes on
a tripod. I have also used some Yashica 35 mm gear, Canon manual focus and
autofocus, and some Pentax manual focus. I choose Nikon gear largely on the vast
availability of rental gear, and large selection of used gear at decent prices.
Lenses quality is vastly more important, and when a lens does not satisfy my
vision, it is not kept.


With medium format gear, I have used Bronica 645, Mamiya 645, Contax 645,
Hasselblad 6x6, Rollei 6x6 (6008i), Mamiya 6x7 (usually RB67), Pentax 6x7 and a few
old oddities that do 6x9. Most of these were rented, some borrowed, and a few
owned. I would need to check more, but I think it is fairly safe to state that most
of the medium format images I have posted are either 645 or 6x6 originated, and
mostly cropped. Most of these only had the standard lens in place when I used them,
the exceptions being the Mamiya 645, of which I had a fairly large kit, and the
Contax 645, which I rented with two lenses. Unfortunately, I use a category system
of organizing images, so it is hard to state which camera was used for which image.

General comments about all these; I found the Contax 645 and Rollei 6008i the most
ergonomic and easiest to use hand held. The Hasselblad system is much more common
with rental places, though I have never really liked the ergonomics hand held. The
old Mamiya 645 was a system that I got used, and was never entirely happy with it.
I sold it out of frustration, and it almost made me not like Mamiya at all. After
renting an RB67 a few times, I have a greater respect for the Mamiya system, though
and RB67 is tough to use hand held. The Bronica ETRS, and ETRSi, are somewhat
common amongst some pros I know, and light enough for hand held shooting. They tend
to work better with the grip, and are unfortunately somewhat loud on the shutter
release (mirror sound). Nice prism finders, and decent lenses make the ETRSi are
little workhorse camera. The question of future continued Bronica production, and
possible lack of parts support, means these might not be good systems to continue
using. Of course, that might be true of other companies in the near future.

I also use some odd old gear, like folder cameras, Polaroid pack film cameras, an
SX70, and some strange box contraptions. These are all mostly creative experiment
cameras, and are chosen for unusual results, rather than the ultimate in resolution
or colour.

With large format, I have used Toyo and Calumet. These are largely used with Nikon
lenses, though I have had the opportunity to assist on shoots, in which I was able
to use some Sinar and ArcaSwiss gear, largely with Schneider lenses, though a few
times Rodenstock. Not sure if I have any images posted from large format usage. I
use to do more large format when I was shooting architecture, but I rarely do that
anymore. The assisting was usually for product photography, though much of that has
moved to scanning back systems, or is just not done that often anymore.

Scanning experience ranges from Polaroid, Nikon, Canon, and Imacon film scanners,
to Howtek and Heidelberg drum scanning gear. The flat scan systems I have used
include older Scitex, AGFA DuoScan and Linotype Hell flat scanners, which are still
very good systems. Newer flat scanner experience has been with Epson and Canon,
though these are usually just borrowed/rented when needed (not very often). As I
get more involved in Polaroid imagery, it is looking that I may need to add a
permanent flat scanner to my office gear.

I am still working on the latest update to my web site, including more Polaroid
imagery, and more medium format work to be displayed. Most of that is colour
imagery, though I retain a fondness for B/W. It is unfortunate that few clients
want B/W anymore. The last work B/W was done for a band:

http://www.bigtimeoperator.com click on Gallery; all images except those from the
movie Pearl Harbor where shot by me. This is largely all 35 mm and hand held.

Thanks for the nice comments, and feel free to ask more questions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

Gordon Moat wrote:

I suspect this is why Hasselblad's new Hong-Kong based owners (and
former
Hasselblad distributor) bought control of the corporation, yes? Just
as
Hasselblads sell well in Japan (with Zeiss glass, anyway), so it is
likely
that they will sell well in China under the new reduced WTO tariff
regime.

So, this might save the future of Hasselblad and Zeiss in medium
format. I
wonder if it will work well, and if any other companies will succeed
in
that
emerging market.

This all is assuming that Chinese consumers will not want to go the same
way
consumers in the "west" are going today.

Now on what ground is that assumption built?

Your assumption implies that differences in culture might indicate a
difference
in buying habits in China.

Not at all!
Telling, though, that you might think that... ;-)

You're displaying something very common: the believe that people / countries
who are (perceived to be) just beginning something will go the same route
other people / countries that already are well on their way in that
particular something have taken.

Now why would that be? Why would those newcomers not get in at the point we
are today?
Why, when (lets exagerate a bit ;-)) the "rest of the world" now wants to
throw away their ancient film using cameras and replace them with digital
thingies would some "starter nation" want to begin "at the bottom"???
I can tell you: they won't!

Tough to tell about that. One thing that comes to
mind is that in the western world a popular phrase is "time is money",
while in
China, a more common thought is "time is free". I think that shows some
differences in cultures.

Never seen today's Bejing, or Shanghai...?
;-)

Neil Gould wrote:

My point is that they *do* have good brand recognition in pro video. As
digital still cameras are derivative of that technology, and as Panasonic
is one of very few primary manufacturers of digital sensors, their name
*should* be more of a draw than Fuji. So, it's marketing. Good enough for
Leica, indeed.

You know, Panasonic was not "first choice" when Leica was looking for a
partner. Fuji was.
But they went and spoilt it all by making a 35 mm rangefinder camera that
was in direct competition with Leica's main-stay product... Exit Fuji.
And then (!), suddenly, did the name Panasonic acquire a good ring in
Leica's managerial ears...
;-)

Neil Gould wrote:

I guess I'm a little uncertain how Fuji plays into this at all.

They've partnered with Hasselblad to manufacture the H1.

And before that to manufacture the TX-1 / X-Pan.

I can see that you are not "racially prejudiced" when it comes to
equipment, and do not discriminate between various formats, brands,
scanners etc. I noted with interest that you hire some equipment, when
I, as an amateur would only buy, even if nowadays it is really difficult
to re-sell equipment one no longer needs or wants. Thanks for the offer
of answering further questions, I shall take you up on that!

In article , Gordon Moat
writes

Okay, I am guessing you are just curious about what equipment was used for the
images I have posted. I should mention that I consider the gear largely just a
means to an end, and that I do not keep notes on specifics. With that
in mind,


--

nobody

Recently, Q.G. de Bakker posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

My point is that they *do* have good brand recognition in pro video.
As digital still cameras are derivative of that technology, and as
Panasonic is one of very few primary manufacturers of digital
sensors, their name *should* be more of a draw than Fuji. So, it's
marketing. Good enough for Leica, indeed.

You know, Panasonic was not "first choice" when Leica was looking for
a partner. Fuji was.
But they went and spoilt it all by making a 35 mm rangefinder camera
that was in direct competition with Leica's main-stay product... Exit
Fuji. And then (!), suddenly, did the name Panasonic acquire a good
ring in Leica's managerial ears...
;-)

I can easily understand that, from a marketing perspective. Fuji has
considerable penetration into the world of film. A collaboration between
two major names in film would make the marketing of new photographic
products easier. Panasonic is all but invisible in that realm.

However, digicams are not film, and their quality and performance have
little to do with film. Thus, a collaboration with a company deeply rooted
in digital imaging *should* be A Good Thing for Leica. I can't say much
for the performance of the Lumix line, as I've only had my hands on one
FZ10 in a store that lacked storage media (both the camera and the store).
I can tell you that the manual user interface on the Lumix makes a heck of
a lot more sense than the one on my Nikon. I figured it out in a few
moments without access to a manual. Not much chance that someone will be
able to do that with the Nikon. ;-)

Neil

I, as an amateur would only buy, even if nowadays it is really difficult
to re-sell equipment one no longer needs or wants.

Is it really so? I've been buying stuff from ebay and the bidding on some
equipment has been feverish. I just bought an item and there were 16 other
bidders.

Neil Gould wrote:

I can easily understand that, from a marketing perspective. Fuji has
considerable penetration into the world of film. A collaboration between
two major names in film would make the marketing of new photographic
products easier. Panasonic is all but invisible in that realm.

Ah, no, it wasn't anything involving film that Leica needed Fuji for.

Since Leica has no digital-know-how, they were looking to use that of Fuji
to get Leica started on the digital path.

When they fell out over the X-Pan / TX-1, Panasonic was selected as
partner/supplier of technology.

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

I suspect this is why Hasselblad's new Hong-Kong based owners (and
former
Hasselblad distributor) bought control of the corporation, yes? Just
as
Hasselblads sell well in Japan (with Zeiss glass, anyway), so it is
likely
that they will sell well in China under the new reduced WTO tariff
regime.

So, this might save the future of Hasselblad and Zeiss in medium
format. I
wonder if it will work well, and if any other companies will succeed
in
that
emerging market.

This all is assuming that Chinese consumers will not want to go the same
way
consumers in the "west" are going today.

Now on what ground is that assumption built?

Your assumption implies that differences in culture might indicate a
difference
in buying habits in China.

Not at all!
Telling, though, that you might think that... ;-)

You're displaying something very common: the believe that people / countries
who are (perceived to be) just beginning something will go the same route
other people / countries that already are well on their way in that
particular something have taken.

Actually, I would more expect that they would not follow the same market
direction as other countries. I believe that each individual region needs to be
considered on the basis of its' own culture. With that in mind, China is a very
large place with many differing cultures, ethnic groups, and population
densities. I would imagine the start of marketing any product in China might be
in the major cities, and there again you would have several cultures
intermingled in any large city in China.



Now why would that be? Why would those newcomers not get in at the point we
are today?

Too early to give an answer on that. They are apparently picking up on mobile
phone usage, and on text messaging. However, internet, e-mail, and personal
computer usage are much lower percentage saturation in China than in western
economies.


Why, when (lets exagerate a bit ;-)) the "rest of the world" now wants to
throw away their ancient film using cameras and replace them with digital
thingies would some "starter nation" want to begin "at the bottom"???
I can tell you: they won't!

Okay, I will take that bet. In two years, if China is not predominantly digital
imaging (not camera phones), then I will buy you a disposable P&S digital
camera. If they are mostly a film imaging centre in two years, then you buy me
a P&S film camera. Fair enough?



Tough to tell about that. One thing that comes to
mind is that in the western world a popular phrase is "time is money",
while in
China, a more common thought is "time is free". I think that shows some
differences in cultures.

Never seen today's Bejing, or Shanghai...?
;-)

Have you been to China recently?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!