• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Digital Large Format

Hi, this is my first post here, (from DPReview.com)
I am considering the alternatives for Large Format Digital Photography, but firs a bit of background.

I will be moving back to New York after 9 years in Latin America (wife works for UNICEF) and want to start looking for assignmets in what I used to do there which is photography of art work for galleries. Film (4 x 5 and 8 x 10 transparencies) is not out yet in this corner of the photo business just yet, so I will get my Sinar ready...

The question is -- I know that this is the architecture forum, but it was the cosest relation I coul find -- which way to go? scanning or one shot backs?

Because I will be starting I don't think I could justify $30k for a one shot back, but I have a back-ready Mamiya 645 AFD with lenses, so I think that could wait to find a PhaseOne 22 megapix affordable back, say, a year from now.

What I am considering for now is a Betterlight 4000E-HS that is just $6,500 and USB 2, so 4 times faster than earlier models.

Anyone here in this forum reseraching the same solutions?

--Are Tota lights good for the scanning backs and/or one shot PheseOnes?
--Can PC be obtain with the one shot backs? (may be problems with the angle of insidence of light in wide angle use)
--Is image quality better with 4 x 5 optics compared to the Mamiya AFD?

Thanks, and "yorishiku onegaitashimasu"

LeonardoBarreto.com
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Welcome Leonardo!

Glad you joined. Hope you get great answers here.

I moved your post here to be in the correct forum.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Yes, you are right Kumar, the Betterlight is a wonderful camera. A perfect match for art reproduction, as long as the picture is not stolen or the museum closed while the picture is being taken! Seriously, for the price it IS a steal.

Still, having been out of N.Y. for 9 years, I'd do a lot of checking on the market before buying new gear. I know some artists still insist on transparencies for archiving and some galleries want digital files for showing to clients.

Spending a couple of hours calling some galleries in N.Y., will update you as to the current choices you might have. One thing about the Betterlight is that it is limited in use for a lot of other assignments. What it does do it does at the best price possible.

Let us know what your findings are. Also perhaps others might be able to shed some light on this.

Asher
 

Anita Saunders

New member
I can't recommend particular models as I haven't been lucky enough to experience them, but one-shot was really introduced in the first place to accomodate objects/people that cannot stand still. Since art work is not going anywhere and you won't be having clouds moving by etc then I imagine a scan back would be perfectly suitable.
 
leonardobarreto.com said:
The question is -- I know that this is the architecture forum, but it was the cosest relation I coul find -- which way to go? scanning or one shot backs?
utside the studio.

Because I will be starting I don't think I could justify $30k for a one shot back, but I have a back-ready Mamiya 645 AFD with lenses, so I think that could wait to find a PhaseOne 22 megapix affordable back, say, a year from now.



What I am considering for now is a Betterlight 4000E-HS that is just $6,500 and USB 2, so 4 times faster than earlier models.

Anyone here in this forum reseraching the same solutions?

--Are Tota lights good for the scanning backs and/or one shot PheseOnes?
--Can PC be obtain with the one shot backs? (may be problems with the angle of insidence of light in wide angle use)
--Is image quality better with 4 x 5 optics compared to the Mamiya AFD?

Thanks, and "yorishiku onegaitashimasu"

LeonardoBarreto.com
scanbacks :
i think they still are very static, although some people seem to work with them also outside the studio

prices :
for sure,- the prices of 17 and 22mp backs will come down soon.....

wide angle color shifts:
in general you shouldnt expect problems here with dalsa sensors ( leaf + sinar/ emotion ) and constant problems with kodak sensors ( imacon + phaseone ).

image quality from lenses:
4x5" lenses will hardly match the mamiya 645 lenses,- what will be equal or better are the "digital" lenses from schneider and sinar/ rodenstock, especially here the HR lenses.
 
D

Doug Kerr

Guest
Hi, Leonardo,

I'm just kibitzing here, and I don't (yet) closely follow what's going on in this corner of the world of digital phtography.

You said:

which way to go? scanning or one shot backs?

Could you please fill me in on the difference.

Thanks.
 
Finaly I find this posts

Thank you every one, since I'm new here -- I think we all are -- I had to do some looking to get to my own thread, but at last, getting here I find that "I've got email !"

Lets see, first let me give Doug, a background: There are two ways to capture images in formats larger than Canon/Nikon, digital backs with one shot sensors (made by Kodak, Dalsa) and can be used in many systems considered MF or LF (Medium or Large Format) in cameras from a 4 x 5 Sinar to a 645 Mamiya. This are one shot because the can use continuos light AND flash. The developmet of this is mooving fast from 6mp to 16mp, then 22mp and now more than 30mp which may -- or may not -- encrouch in to 8 x 10 territory.

On the other side there is a much less know -- but appreciated by a small group of photographers -- that has a completely different approach. This "scanning backs" are inserts all most the size of a 4 x 5 Polaroid back that has a set of tree sensor with color filters for Red Green and Blue and scan the film plane to capture the image.

The "problem" with scanning is that you have to use a stationary camera to shoot stationary subjects. Even tree leafs are a bit problematic here.

The advantages are: a abundance of resolution. True non-extrapolated color information resulting in truer capture of the same. And a lower megapixel per dollar than the one shot backs... --for now, that is--.

The good news is that new models using USB 2 are now 4 times faster than earlier ones, and, for example, the 4000E-HS is only $6,495 and can produce 53MB RGB the one shot leaders, PhaseOne P 30 and P 45 have 31 and 39 megapixels respectively but the P 30 costs $30k and the p 45 $35,995.00 (http://www.vistek.ca/marketing/procentre/phase_one_solutions.aspx#P45)
 
You mean normal 4x5 lenses, eventhogh scann a larger surface and are not retrofocus are not a match to 6x5 optics? that is an interesting notion. We are not talking about LF lenses used on PhaseOne backs, but on Betterlight scanning ones, no?
 

JimCollum

pro member
the limitations to a betterlight are pretty similar to the limtations to large format in general. you end up hauling your laptop in the field. but give up film holders.. all in all, it's about the same as a 8x10 outfit in portability. things moving can be a problem.. as it can with film and 4x5/8x10. i hauled one around SE Asia and didn't regret it for a moment... and came back with images i could not have with film (using their pano adapter).

http://web1.omniblog.com/_smartsite/modules/local/blog/blog_display.php?cmd=show_blog&user_id=10004&type=cat&map_id=1004 is an online portfolio of se asia images. .most with the betterlight.

some say it's hard to capture moving water.. it's just that the scanning back captures motion differently than film. blurred water is a film artifact of time..

http://web1.omniblog.com/_smartsite/modules/image/image_page.php?a=cz1jJmlkPTE4NjQmbT00MDAw

is an example of a scanning back artifact of motion. Both the film and scanning back representation of moving water are both artifacts of time.. the film blur is just one we're used to seeing.

i've found very few subjects i'd normally take with 4x5 or 8x10 field camera that weren't possible with the betterlight. i guess the major exception are very long exposures. if you are used to taking very long exposures with film, then it's not going to work as well with the betterlight

jim
 

JimCollum

pro member
Asher Kelman said:
Jim,

I love that Betterlight! Garrapato Beach is phenomenal. The water was done in post!

Oh wow!

nope.. water was as was taken. the pano scanned from right to left (actually, the sensor is stationary, the camera rotates precisely on a platform driven by the back and betterlight software). as the waves are coming in (straight towards you), the line of capture is moving to the left.. so as each line is captured, the wave is a little closer in.. as aresult, the wave looks like it's moving to the right . the color of the image is because it was captured without the IR blocking filter.. so both visible and IR light was captured (that's why the vegetation is so pale). not using the IR filter serves two purposes for me.. i like my color's mute, and it makes for a faster scan (i'm pretty sure it was about 3 min for the full scan.. the original is 58,000 pixels across

jim
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
"Seems to be a fairly well known stock photographer. Among other things finalist in PDN 2005 favorite stock photo (only one vote though :) "

It's always great to get info like that. Good find Don!

Asher
 

Don Lashier

New member
> Good find Don!

Actually very simple, I added .com on his ebay handle and tried http://www.barwickphoto.com, got his full name there then googled. I suppose it -is- possible that someone is impersonating him but before making a purchase this big I would call him or at least communicate via email. Plus he's not a new member so someone would have had to be thinking -way- ahead. I was puzzled at first by all the purchases of "dummy" cell phones, blackberry, etc., but this makes perfect sense as stock props.

- DL
 

Ray West

New member
If buying on ebay, check previous 'buyers' comments. He only has ten sell comments, all for cheap tat, afaik.

Run, don't walk.

Why not phone the barwickphoto.com number? Are they genuine? Getting one sale at nearly $30k for little effort is an easy criminal option.

ebay is good, ebay is bad, be aware it has greedy sellers, and greedy buyers.

Do not believe what I or anyone else say, check it out for yourself.

Asher - re. my previous thread re b&s on this forum, association, 'pro', whatever.

Best wishes,

Ray
 
glad to be here

Jim, not even 10am here in Mexico, finished my cafe con leche and logged on to the Open Forums to visit your fine work.

But back to the mechanics of things. You mentioned "not using the IR filter serves two purposes for me...."

Can tell me a bit more about an IR filter, specifically, do I need to use one with tungsten hot lights with art work photography?

The other question is: Do you use the new USB2 backs and also what should I expect in capture times for studio controlled situations? 4 min? or less/

Thanks
LeonardoBarreto.com

ps P45 kit has 0 bids ...
 

JimCollum

pro member
thanks for the feedback!

there are normall two IR blocking filters supplied with the camera.. one for daylight, the other tungsten. the only difference is that the tungsten filter cuts out even more IR light (and also makes exposures a little longer). if you are doing art repro.. then you'll need the filters.. otherwise the IR will shift your color's dramatically (if you look on the beach in that pano, you'll see some light green kelp.. in true color, that's pretty dark brown).

I use the USB box.. and it makes a world of difference. 6000x8000 scans take about 30 seconds (given you have enough light, which is pretty controlable in the studio).

you should give Mike Colette a call at Betterlight (or email). he's the owner. they provide the best support i've seen in any product.

jim

leonardobarreto.com said:
Jim, not even 10am here in Mexico, finished my cafe con leche and logged on to the Open Forums to visit your fine work.

But back to the mechanics of things. You mentioned "not using the IR filter serves two purposes for me...."

Can tell me a bit more about an IR filter, specifically, do I need to use one with tungsten hot lights with art work photography?

The other question is: Do you use the new USB2 backs and also what should I expect in capture times for studio controlled situations? 4 min? or less/

Thanks
LeonardoBarreto.com

ps P45 kit has 0 bids ...
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Everytime I see Jim's images I feel like I need to call Betterlight and order one of their backs. But then I think about carrying a laptop in the field and that prevents me from doing it. In terms of resolution, a scanning back outdoes anything out there right now. I like the P45, but even though the tests show that it can match 4x5, I still feel more inspired with the scanning back. Eventually, that is an important aspect of what I do and of what we do if you follow the same approach. I have been very inspired by the cameras that I have used so far and I want to keep this going!

One of the things I like most about the scanning back are the "mistakes" that the back makes, which in fact become a new way of presenting the world as an image. The subsequent waves patterns in Jim's panorama is a good example. It isn't very different from using a very long exposure with film and gettting blurred surf. Certainly, the resulting images look very different from one another, however both use a specific aspect of the medium to show the world differently than it appears to our eyes.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Alain you are so right about the value of different approaches to taking an image use different artifacts to give their signature. I still think an angel is assigned to certain people's camera!

The laptop doesn't bother me as the demands are not great. A large hard drive and the lightest laptop one can buy. When I'm in a hotel that doesn't have a safe, I may lug all my lenses and my lap top in two bags!! Luckily that is rare. It hapenned twice on my last trip. So getting a new lightweight PB would be no real burden.

I guess the Betterlight setup would weigh liitle more than the lenses we now carry!

Asher
 

JimCollum

pro member
When travelling in SE Asia, it really wasn't something that restricted me. in some senses, it established a 'presence' in a way that people didn't mind staying out of the image while scanning. since most of the shots were in very early, overcast light, scan times tended to be 3-4 min (the longest was a12 minute pano scan.. but we were alone there.. so not a problem). i think my biggest problem was having brought both the 4x5/Betterlight outfit, and a full Canon 1dsmk2 outfit (of course.. the fact that this was our honeymoon brought some unique issues up :^)

except for the pano adapter, i can haul my full 4x5/Betterlight outfit around (Ebony SV45Te, 4 lenses, scanning back, cables, laptop, fiters, cleaning brushes) in a medium size f64 backpack.

jim

Asher Kelman said:
Alain you are so right about the value of different approaches to taking an image use different artifacts to give their signature. I still think an angel is assigned to certain people's camera!

The laptop doesn't bother me as the demands are not great. A large hard drive and the lightest laptop one can buy. When I'm in a hotel that doesn't have a safe, I may lug all my lenses and my lap top in two bags!! Luckily that is rare. It hapenned twice on my last trip. So getting a new lightweight PB would be no real burden.

I guess the Betterlight setup would weigh liitle more than the lenses we now carry!

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
Jim got me into using the Betterlight and pointed this thread out to me, so I thought I'd post a few shots of some typical motion artifacts so folks can see additional examples of what can happen.

I am nowhere near as accomplished with using the Betterlight as Jim is, but am learning more every day. I did some building shots (wouldn't call them architecture!) last week and the detail is simply stunning -- better than anything I ever got from 4x5 film and I shot a lot of that! I hope to post some of the building examples with detail crops on the blog soon. I carry my Arca-Swiss view camera, five lenses, Betterlight outfit (camera, battery and control-box) and laptop in an F64 8x10 bag. This leaves plenty of room for other gear -- like film if I suspect single-frame capture will be needed.

Anyway, here is a link to my blog with images and descriptions of the motion artifacts as well as some IR comparisons you may find interesting. All are from a May shoot in Yosemite (give it a few seconds to load the page): http://web1.omniblog.com/_smartsite/modules/local/blog/blog_display.php?cmd=show_blog&user_id=102&type=cat&map_id=1011

Cheers,
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jack for what I see, the Betterlight and the Cooke Portrait lens are a fantastic combo.

I can't get most of the pictures on the IR landscapes to load.

The rainbow effect I didn't see on Jim's pictures of the beach. The corrections you made were by cloning?

I see this is a big challenge.

Maybe we should have a thread on Shooting water with scanning backs. After all the appearance can be so unique and wonderful while this rainbow atifact here is a real bummer!

Asher
 

Jack_Flesher

New member
Asher Kelman said:
Jack for what I see, the Betterlight and the Cooke Portrait lens are a fantastic combo.

I can't get most of the pictures on the IR landscapes to load.

The rainbow effect I didn't see on Jim's pictures of the beach. The corrections you made were by cloning?

I see this is a big challenge.

Maybe we should have a thread on Shooting water with scanning backs. After all the appearance can be so unique and wonderful while this rainbow artifact here is a real bummer!

Asher

Hi Asher! I think the host site was under a demand load -- the images seem to loading fine now.

The corrections I show the crops of are not done by cloning, but globally on a layer in Photoshop. (I can provide more specific detail if there is interest.) However, this does not eliminate the more severe rainbows as seen in the moving foreground water and those require specific treatment -- and cloning is certainly one option.

The Cooke is a phenomenal lens -- it generates a look that is unlike anything else I have seen from filters or Photoshop operations. Its major shortcomings are it is big, heavy and expensive. But for me, the investment was worth it, though I do not always carry it in the bag with me. It is *really* fun in the studio!

Cheers,
 
Last edited:
Top