The switch from a full MF kit to Prosumer DSLR, is it worth it?

[F5user]

Well, in reference to Mattlock,

it's true... you save a helluva lot of $$$

but i guess, it really depends a lot on where the demand is.

eg: i'm based primarily in Frisco, california... and do lots of shots for the fashion and archi schools there... and well, 80% of the clients still demand film.

But back in my homeland here, it's the otherway with almost all of the wedding studios now switching to digital with a rare few still using med and large formats... sigh..

Oh well, i guess it's whether you can be bothered to take advantage of the wonders of Photoshp, and do the tweaking that would be non-existant in film photography. Yes, the versatility is there, but when the going gets tough, ie: lots of business with clients demanding exceptional quality, i found myself best relying on gd ol provia, and let my employer do the tweaking for the few clients who demanded digital.

And in my opinion, no offence meant, no matter what you do with your digital prints after hours of tweaking with or without interpolation from a 6 or 22mp full framed back, etc etc, it can never ever be the same as film/slide. Sorry.. but that's just it. Move on yes... but move to where the demand is, and not technology brings u, i feel. =) And honestly, unless photography's a rice bowl issue for u, digital equipment is NOT an investment. (equipment depreciation, bla bla.) Think about it, The EOS 30d's already in the process of final development together with a newer version of the MachII, just that they're not announced beyond Japan, and New york.

Oh yeah.. one more thing, yups.. regarding the digi mformat backs, mamiya isn't the only company doing it, currently Phase has different backs for the M645, RZ and EVEN the RB backs. Imacon has a tremendous number of adapters available for their backs for the 645 systems ranging from mamiya to even bronica, and Leaf is also supporting the 645 and 6x7 family very very well. BUt then again, they're still (*&^&*( expensive and the rental market is still new to singapore (Pro photo) unlike the states where you can rent the back for the RZIID for 50 USD a day.

cheers.
=)

 

[mattlock]

well film characteristics can be duplicated through curves and selective colour saturation and those settings can be easily saved and used to batch process digital files
it's a different workflow but as with all computer related things there's a steep learning curve but once you get over that hump life starts getting groovy

I am aware of the other digital backs but mamiya's back is the most tempting value-wise and actually within reach (as opposed to phase one!)
and considering he's using a Mamiya Pro TL I really doubt he has the cash to buy a phase one

Digital is an investment even if it's not a rice bowl issue
just the things you learn about photography from the instant feedback of digital and the shots you save yourself from messing up make it worthwhile already,I feel.

and what's this about a 30d?
haha how come I didn't hear about it

 

[F5user]

I guess in the end, it's really up to him though...

whether he does have the time to master ps and yeah, though u do learn from the instant results digi provide, i feel the screw ups through film are still part and parcel of good phototaking... but then again, perhaps i'm just a traditional ol ah pek horr... =)

Mamiya's backs are well, attractive in a sense, but the thing i hate and so hate about them is that their adapters are EX and almost impossible to find, if u do change to a different system. And well, professionally, the Leaf seems to be the one of choice here, costing much much less than the phase which i agree sucks due to its near COE pricing.

Commercially, digital will always be up and coming, but i guess i'm just not based in a market which sees much use and trust of digital technololgy at the moment. :think:

Can't really say too much about the 30d or the model similar to this with a diff name, (cause i know my other fellow colleagues from canon frequent this site) , but yes... it's under development, and is slated for release in around 12 - 15 mths... around the same time span from the 10d to the 20d. But isn't this expected of canon who often floods the market with products right?

anywayz.. happy shooting!

 

[student]

As someone mentioned, it is really up to you to decide.

For me. I go the other direction. I don't even shoot digital.

But I had mentioned several times, if I am going professional, meaning depends on photography for a living, I will switch to digital in a second!

It is not the dynamic range.
It is not the grain.
It is not the enlargement.
I don't need instant feedback. I don't need the seduction of instant graification.
It has nothing to do with the cost of digital equipments. Bah!

To me it is the process. I think of photographers like Mr Tan Lip Seng in Singapore, and Galen Rowell (deceased) who had mastered the art of seeing and photographying. At the instant of of pressing the shutter it is all done. The slides shows the photography skills. I aspire to that. I aspire to see the beauty in my viewfinder and the skills to put that into film. I do not aspire to great computer skills to "improve contrast, apply gaussian curves whatever that may mean (frankly, I don't bother)". I do not aspire to have mediocre photography skills but great digital imaging skills to produce beautiful images.

To many, the end result is all that matters.
To me, the process is important, because it is a process of self discovery and impoving my visceral sensations.

I think of Edward Weston. With the simplest of equipment, he produced photos that were so profoundly beautiful. That is what I aspire to. I need to know as I advance in my photography, I have learnt to feel, and see, and capture all that in an instant. A decision. No turning back. Wrong assessment, and the beauty before me is but a memory. No LCD to tell me, hey take it again! A challenge!

But as F5user mentioned, if I have to make images to put bread on the table. The answer is so painfully clear!!

 

[vader]

Someone tell me pls, can a digicam do good black & white pics? Or is there good standards in a pic taken by digicam and then printed by inkjet printers. I'm not so good in PS although I use PS...This is what makes me hold back in getting a DSLR.

thanks.

 

[F5user]

In reference to student's post above:

"I do not aspire to great computer skills to "improve contrast, apply gaussian curves whatever that may mean (frankly, I don't bother)". I do not aspire to have mediocre photography skills but great digital imaging skills to produce beautiful images."

well said, well said.. do what u feel is right and comfortable.

As what a hassy master (Pai seh.. forgot name)once said:
"Digital photographs are nothing without the computer."

Cheers.

 

[mattlock]

for me it's important of course to get the photo down without resorting to digital
Nick Knight himself says that he can recreate anything during production, the old school way
But at the same time he's one of the most cutting edge photographers, having no qualms about using digital technology
no one said that digital is an excuse to throw away technical photographic skills

a lot of it also depends on your philosophy towards photography
I tend to go towards the "end result is all that matters"
photography tends to be a lot about the subject matter, when people look at a photo they will ask "how did you do it" if it's something difficult looking...I mean... painters hardly get that sort of question. they create something and people care more about what their painting has to say rather than "how long did you take to create the painting"
to me it doesn't matter if it took 20 hrs to create a photo or 5 minutes, or if someone else prints the pictures for you. that's an old debate that's been over with
Richard Avedon's photos were printed by other people.

I do agree that the process of film photography is fun, I still enjoy the ten hours I spent at one go in the darkroom slaving over a few prints,
but I don't have time for that already, I rather spend the ten hours now creating more pictures.

if you still like the physicality of film go ahead and keep your 645 kit but the quality of digital print-size-wise is on par with 645 already, and of course it's more flexible than MF based on 1)size 2)weight 3)shutter noise 4)speed 5)iso choice
digital has a steep learning curve (totally different workflow from film) but as a digital convert I'm sticking with my recommendation for digital.

Also, you can create amazing black and white pictures with digital
I finally figured out how to do it, and I did a 13x19 print with the epson 2200 that day with gorgeous tones. play around with the channel mixer in photoshop, once you get a firm idea of colour theory and how the tools in photoshop work you can do many things for black and white in photoshop that would have been a big chore manually (getting a flashed film effect, solarising, etc etc)

 

[student]

Someone tell me pls, can a digicam do good black & white pics? Or is there good standards in a pic taken by digicam and then printed by inkjet printers. I'm not so good in PS although I use PS...This is what makes me hold back in getting a DSLR.

thanks.

I think it is not correct to ask whether digital equipments can do good B&W.
I have seen beautiful B&W IRIS prints. I have also seen beautiful very nice B&W inkjet prints.

It is a matter of personal preference. I happen to prefer the traditional silver prints. They speak more to me. Your prefrences may differ.

However I have seen same pictures printed on IRIS versus platinum/palladium. While the IRIS's was really beautiful, it pale when compared to the platinum.

 

[mattlock]

kinda like the difference between mineral water and tap water
it's gotten to a point where you can barely tell the difference unless you spend your time poking your nose right up to the paper and trying to figure out the grain

 

[Barret]

Okay, well i have more or less decided. Being an Adobe certified Expert, my photos have always been half digital half traditional. more often than not i will still scan my MF slides, as i like making massive blowups (consistantly larger than A2). And i really have no problem with PS at all.

I think from the discussion here, the traditional workflow will contiune to have its perks, while the digital workflow will also have its advantages, its a matter of weighing both processes.

I read that some one mentioned a Phase scan back, now digital backs are somthing i have alwasy considered, second hand they are realtively cheap, round 10k ish. so its very worth considering. but in terms of flexibility on a MF camera, film still rules in this department. i cannot imagine needing to shoot at ISO 400 constantly, on digital backs.

I will be checking out the H1D, soon since pro photo is launching it soon, so that might give me the best of both worlds. Then again its going to put a hole though my pocket.

I would probally stick to my 645 for now, and continue to scan my film and print from film. as it would be consistantly better quailty than any consumer digital..

Now comming to digital black and whites, lightjet and inkjets do a very decent job these days, the kodak lightjet machines produce stunning A2 sized black and whites. and more over i can even get decent b/ws with my epsons. its a matter of compromise. And for me i need the size, i cant stand small nitty gritty photos, so digital workflows are almost always cheaper.

So in conclusion, sicking with my 645 gives me flexibility in both traditional and digital work flows, and from my past digital experience i have no problems with it. I agree than its all about the fun, rather than the quailty, but thats an added perk. Maybe like everyone else i have becomed overly concerned about the technology behind the hobby rather than the art behind it all.

 

[Barret]

Someone tell me pls, can a digicam do good black & white pics? Or is there good standards in a pic taken by digicam and then printed by inkjet printers. I'm not so good in PS although I use PS...This is what makes me hold back in getting a DSLR.
thanks.

Vader, yes a digital cam can do nice black and whites, its more dependent on the printing. cos through the digital process you lack out the darkroom printing fun, but of course theses photoshop which once mastered i know can acheive near similar results, if anything it is a whole lot more consistant.

If you caught my last exhibition, some of the photos were taken using a 1D mk 1, converted in ps, and processed of course. beautiful really. all printed on kodak light jet machinese, at instand digital (shenton way)

Okay everyone who heard that i used a 1D doesnt mean i have one haha.

 

[Barret]

Someone tell me pls, can a digicam do good black & white pics? Or is there good standards in a pic taken by digicam and then printed by inkjet printers. I'm not so good in PS although I use PS...This is what makes me hold back in getting a DSLR.

thanks.

Someone tell me pls, can a digicam do good black & white pics? Or is there good standards in a pic taken by digicam and then printed by inkjet printers. I'm not so good in PS although I use PS...This is what makes me hold back in getting a DSLR.
thanks.

Vader, yes a digital cam can do nice black and whites, its more dependent on the printing. cos through the digital process you lack out the darkroom printing fun, but of course theses photoshop which once mastered i know can acheive near similar results, if anything it is a whole lot more consistant.

If you caught my last exhibition, some of the photos were taken using a 1D mk 1, converted in ps, and processed of course. beautiful really. all printed on kodak light jet machinese, at instand digital (shenton way)

Okay everyone who heard that i used a 1D doesnt mean i have one haha.

 

[student]

kinda like the difference between mineral water and tap water
it's gotten to a point where you can barely tell the difference unless you spend your time poking your nose right up to the paper and trying to figure out the grain

You are quite right, but not absolutely so. It is not the grain as you mentioned. There are other factors.

A similar example is this. Take your favorite CD (preferably something that can really test your Hi-Fi)

Play it on a system such as the Bose that you can get for a few thousand dollars. You will probably find it quite/very good (at least for most of us!)

One week later, take the same CD and play it on a REALLy high end system (won't mention names), and my guess is that for most of us, we will not be able to tell the difference.

However if you can rig up the two systems side by side, and play the same CD on a side by side comparison, the difference, even to us ordinary folks, will be palpable!

I have not seen Barrett's exhibition. I am sure the prints are very, very, good. However it will be interesting to see how the pictures will be in true silver prints. We will never know because the images were captured on pixels instead of silver grains.

In the case I mentioned of IRIS versus platinum, the platinum prints just made the IRIS prints like a high school production, instead of one made by a master.

I am not sure how the light jet compares to the IRIS. SOmeone may enlighten me please?

 

[F5user]

From Barret:

"Maybe like everyone else i have becomed overly concerned about the technology behind the hobby rather than the art behind it all."

well said well said


though yes, understandably, the end product still matters, it's still the art behind the whole thing that imo, matters most. If you're a hobbyist, i guess that's what counts.. if it's a bread and butter issue, then by all means go for it.

btw.. I'm drooling over the new G5 powerbooks in the US market liao.. ooooo

 

[student]

btw.. I'm drooling over the new G5 powerbooks in the US market liao.. ooooo

That is news!

While I am not a digital buff, I am thinking of making enlarged negatives from digital files, for contact prints.

I am drooling too!

How much is it in the US?

 

[mattlock]

is the art behind photography the process or is the art behind photography the image?
Do you take the viewpoint of photography more as a film or more as a material like a fabric?
One watches a film and can tell whether it's good or not depending on whether it affects them through the story, and the quality of the film stock is secondary. Star Wars on its old film stock and graininess does not make it any less a great film
A great story on 16mm film or digital is still a great story, what material its printed on is a secondary issue (still important of course but secondary)

if you take the viewpoint of a fabric then that's understandable, silk feels much lovelier than satin, there are differences in texture and colour

The post production issues of photography are not the true process of photography, you can still go out there and take a beautiful photo using your old school techniques (the way digital filmmakers still have old school film production values)
Unless you live by Ansel Adams' rules, the art of photography is in much more than the material quality of a print.
Also note that photoshop does what film does but gives you more flexibility
you choose different films based on their curves, their contrast, their colour preferences (fuji goes greener kodak goes more yellow)
All photoshop does is give you much more flexibility in your ability to control these elements. You get more variables. it is a tool. as with any tool, it does not create the image but the person behind the tool creates it.
and if you don't have a unique vision in your work using either film or photoshop will do nothing for you

 

[Barret]

I am not sure how the light jet compares to the IRIS. SOmeone may enlighten me please?

Well iris is bascially still semi inkjet technology really, while colours and lightfastness are suberb when you are looking for really accurate colours nothing beats light jet. gives you about 80% accurate which is considered good! If your iris printer is calibrated and re calibrated to your files then the output might be considerabily better than lightjets, but there are other issues. see below

Light jet on the otherhand is like a mix of dyesub and laser processes. so technically its faster, colours are decent and accurate, and black and whites are suberb.

Both iris and lightjet prints have lightfastness of over 60 years, so we would probally be dead before we can actually see the colour running, (provided they are kept in reasonable conditions.)

Now, the reson why i favour lightjet machines is that the clibration is much much easier, and you dont have to own one to ensure realtively accurate colours. As for iris printers, you would need to claribrate your whole work process to your colour space inorder to ensure everything turns out fine.

bottom line, if you have enough cash to buy either systems, get a iris printer, but if you are sending your photos out for large prints where you have little or no control over colour calibration , send it to a lab which does lightjet.

Instant digital at shenton way does an excellent job, they use kodak lightjet machines which are suber, and can print up to B0 on size, suberb.

they charge by the sq inch

 

[hongsien]

Vader, yes a digital cam can do nice black and whites, its more dependent on the printing. cos through the digital process you lack out the darkroom printing fun, but of course theses photoshop which once mastered i know can acheive near similar results, if anything it is a whole lot more consistant.

If you caught my last exhibition, some of the photos were taken using a 1D mk 1, converted in ps, and processed of course. beautiful really. all printed on kodak light jet machinese, at instand digital (shenton way)

Okay everyone who heard that i used a 1D doesnt mean i have one haha.

Hi Barret,

Sorry, I didn't see your pics at the exhibition as I didn't go at all..........but can you tell me if yourblack and white prints from the digital prints have very similar shadow details as good fibre based prints from 35mm film that is? (I don't want to compare it with larger format B&W films yet)....thanks! I am looking and waiting till the timeis ripe to make B&W prints from my negs.......maybe I should just try at your recommended printing shop at the CBD?

Hong Sien

 

[Barret]

Hi Barret,

Sorry, I didn't see your pics at the exhibition as I didn't go at all..........but can you tell me if yourblack and white prints from the digital prints have very similar shadow details as good fibre based prints from 35mm film that is? (I don't want to compare it with larger format B&W films yet)....thanks! I am looking and waiting till the timeis ripe to make B&W prints from my negs.......maybe I should just try at your recommended printing shop at the CBD?

Hong Sien

Digital being digital there is less dynamic range than negs especially b&ws, so you really cannot expect very much out of a digital black and white, When i said very very good i meant visually appeling. After dark room techniques, dodging and burning, typically subtle shadows are loss.

but comparing a print from a slide to a print from the scanned slide, there is some loss od detail still.

But that could just be my scanner.

by the way instant digital is located at

60 Robinson Rd
01-00 OUB building
singapore 068892
Tel: 63230111

Very professional, but rather expensive for small prints, only large prints are worth it there, talking larger than S12Rs

they also do a good deal in seond hand dslrs, they sold off a 1Ds at 9k brand new and a kodak Pro N at 6 k, a few months ago. so they are good!

missed out on that pro N really, i went in just a few mins late!

 

[student]

is the art behind photography the process or is the art behind photography the image?
Do you take the viewpoint of photography more as a film or more as a material like a fabric?
One watches a film and can tell whether it's good or not depending on whether it affects them through the story, and the quality of the film stock is secondary. Star Wars on its old film stock and graininess does not make it any less a great film
A great story on 16mm film or digital is still a great story, what material its printed on is a secondary issue (still important of course but secondary)

if you take the viewpoint of a fabric then that's understandable, silk feels much lovelier than satin, there are differences in texture and colour

The post production issues of photography are not the true process of photography, you can still go out there and take a beautiful photo using your old school techniques (the way digital filmmakers still have old school film production values)
Unless you live by Ansel Adams' rules, the art of photography is in much more than the material quality of a print.
Also note that photoshop does what film does but gives you more flexibility
you choose different films based on their curves, their contrast, their colour preferences (fuji goes greener kodak goes more yellow)
All photoshop does is give you much more flexibility in your ability to control these elements. You get more variables. it is a tool. as with any tool, it does not create the image but the person behind the tool creates it.
and if you don't have a unique vision in your work using either film or photoshop will do nothing for you

Many, many wise statements here!

For a hobbyist like me, the entire process is meaningful. For me, traditional darkroom has the "craft" feel to it. There is just more a chance of "danger" to it than the computer.

At the end of it, the end product is also very more important to me. But someone had said that the journey may be more important than the destination. Of course I take pride when made a good photo. But the process... Your viewpoint, taking movies as an example, is that the end product is the more important one. I respect that absolutely. My prioprities differ slightly.

Barret's explanation of Light jet and IRIS is mouch appreciated. The example I quoted was a print from New York, apparently from a top IRIS printer in US. Despite that it pales beside the platinum print. Here I think Mattlock's point that the material on which the image is printed on may not be important may be argued.