There is also that new Seitz scanback that takes one second to do a shot; much faster than a Betterlight. Unfortunately much more expensive. The really crazy one is the Anagramm scanback, which is 1020 MP. That one seems to only be used for documenting fine art for museums; sort of a replacement for a Cruse scanning camera.

There are a few weird realities: the average laptop monitor is only around 1 MP, and even larger monitors are barely 2 MP. High Definition televisions are barely a few Mega Pixels at best. Show anyone an image on any of the newer monitors or HD displays, and people are impressed by the quality. The average person doesn't seem to understand about resolution, megapixels, nor why an image on a monitor/display can seem better than a same size print. We could probably shoot many things on HD camcorders, pull the stills, and meet the needs of many clients (small printing, internet display).

Most of the time a 4x5 is overkill, especially for publication usage. The benefit to me is that I make use of the movements. The benefit to the client is that the images can be printed any size they might need. I have used tilt/shift lenses on smaller cameras, but it is not the same thing, nor the same approach. I would be happy to use a chip on my 4x5 camera, but not a scanback, and not something double 35mm sized. Of course 4x5 is not appropriate in every situation, and that is why I use many other cameras, including HD video when appropriate.

Shapps, do the math again with a new medium format view camera that works well with those backs, a modest collection of "digital" lenses that get my wide angles and image circles back, and the cost of admission is considerably more than the prices you mentioned...which are beyond my reach anyway.

Adrian, your points are well taken and I love your thoughts about trust. I'm also happy for you that you have the liquidity to drop the big bucks on a high res solution so you don't have lease hanging over your head during a dry spell. With a busted old car and a looming wedding my resources are a bit thin even though I've been working a lot more lately. Life happens, I guess.

quote:

Shout out to the person that said that Mk3 files don't hold a candle to 4x5.

That was me. If your 6x7 chrome scans look better to you than your P45+ output does then...well that's pretty depressing. My SinarX 4x5 and lens collection beat what I got from my RB67 but I haven't used them all year on a paid gig. Sad.

quote:

Originally posted by KWSmith:
[qb] Adrian, ...If your 6x7 chrome scans look better to you than your P45+ output does then...well that's pretty depressing. [/qb]

Kevin, for some reason Adrian will not accept the obvious: that his digital pictures are way better than his past film ones. I have followed his evolution from when he started to post on this forum, and his latest images are way superior. Who cares about that flare, and his statement about shadows sound strange as they keep so much more information in digital than in film. Plus, for those like Adrian working in available light, digital color balance quality and purity get much higher. Last, resolution is just not a pixel vs. silver halide count: digital images are so smooth (grainless) they will go further. When was a 35mm film format ever compared to MF as the 1Ds Mk3 is nowadays? Or why did 4x5" became completely obsolete against hires MF backs?

Being different for the sake of will get some people make strange statements in their intent.

A.W., before hitting back think it's nice to be good, but better to be nice.

The mechanical part of processing film might not be a great learning tool, but the decisions you have to make before and after are.

Shooting transparency film with an entirely manual camera and "taking" it to the lab is as unforgiving as you can get.

You are than in a world where auto levels, etc. don't exist. talk about a learning experience!

[/qb][/QUOTE]Kevin, for some reason Adrian will not accept the obvious: that his digital pictures are way better than his past film ones.[/QB][/QUOTE]

That is entirely true as long as you are the one granted the absolute right to decide what is "better".

It's kind of like, should typewriters be taught in school..

I already listed the pros and cons. Of course fil has more lattitude but one thing I really do not like is digital's lack of smooth graduation - especialy from dar to darker. Film does not do the same. A perfectly exposed 6x7cm color slide of a subject within film's lateral range looks to me superior than the same thing shot on digital.

Not sure how people can see how my work has changed since I went digital. My old website has not been updated for about a year and the new one has 70% interiors shot on film.

I still shoot on the same angle lens and ithout lighting. The format has changed slightly but otherwise I see no difference in my work. Then again, I could never spot the "style" that people said I had anyway.
I am not sure anyone can make judgements about 39mp cameras based on web images they have seen.

Maybe spotting the difference between film and digital should be tought in school - or at least on this forum

Adrian

quote:

Originally posted by English:
[qb] It's kind of like, should typewriters be taught in school.. [/qb]

We'll there's no copy, paste, instant deleting of content and spell check on a typewriter so if your goal is to be a writer it definitively requires more discipline on the old Corona, discipline is a great thing in my book, your mileage may vary.

On the film vs. digital issue, I am with Adrian, is digital "sharper"? Sure it is, after all it is ones and zero's while analog is entirely something else, with those so much "sharper" ones and zero's you loose "nuance" and I like nuance in my images.

This reminds me of the ridiculous LP vs. CD argument. Albums have terrible S/N ratio that people quantify as "warm", when in reality is just noise. My father was an acoustic research engineer at Bell Labs and I grew up learning about it.

Grain is evil. If you can't get digital to look better than it's equally formatted film size, then you must be doing something wrong in the exposure and/or post processing. In most cases smaller size digital sensors will outshine larger film formats.

Adrian,

Whether or not you have film images on your new site, they do look much better than your previous site. Are they better scans, or is it that they're just larger? However the IQ (image quality) is slightly hampered by something on your new site. The details on some have a crushed appearance. Perhaps the Flash image scaling?

is so many of you are so confident that digital is in all ways superior then why are you so damned insecure about it when someone disagrees?

I could give a rat's A$$ what anyone shoots, but if people want to debate it, I'm game.

''Grain is evil.''

Evil is a construct of our minds or a part of the state of being that allows its opposite to be appreciated. I'm not so sure its opp is digital though.

I am not talking about grain, I am talking about that ultra smooth gradation you get with film. With digital I always find that transition into shadow areas is less smooth. Banding must be an issue with digital because software has a button to try and fix it. I can't ever remember getting moire with film either.

All I am saying is that the smooth gradation is something I think film does much better - even though there is less detail in the shadows.

Like the poster says, stop being so defensive when someone says something is not perfect about digital. Most of the great photographs you have ever admired in your life were shot on film/printed on paper. Did you look at them and think "now, if only they had shot this on digital...."


Adrian

Adrian,

Exposing digital requires more exposure than chrome film. 50% of the information is in the brightest stop of the capture. If you underexpose or even correctly expose you run the risk of banding in the 3/4 tones and midtones. Hence its best to Expose to the Right.