Dear Dean,
may I answer as below to your points:
1. It is expensive but when you are writing "over-priced" your are suggesting that we manufacturers are making huge profits on the back of photographers. There is much more to this to be understood when speaking about prices in this high-end segment of the market:
- there are huge R&D costs involved in a digital back: to break-even it needs already a few hundreds (more near a tausend then to 500) sales.
- the costs of a digital back does comprise also the costs of software developements: this part is a very big part in the total price.
- it is a VERY small market, with small I mean a few tousands of potential.
- the margins are calculated as in any other company dealing with high-technlogy, and be sure that those margins, due to the intense competition in this field, are calculated to the very minimum.
2. Here we have to define what is "film-like" meaning? Is film more natural than digital? I doubt it! What makes you say that a "film-like" image is better then a "digital-like" one? Does the silver halogenide elements of film make it more natural, or the pixels of the used sensor?
This being said, I pretend here that a good digital file looks at least as close to film in rendition and resolution, sharpness than any film format.
3. I agree: do not misunderstand me, I was a film photographer and had to take my time too, to change to digital. For me, the aspect of analog that is getting lost ist the "educational element" which it has (had) when people were forced to think when exposing their films, then processing them in their labs.
But basically, you have the same tools in a capture software of a digital back, as before with your film camera: a lightmeter by means of a tonal curve which is even more precise and allows you to really have a precise "Zone System" metering and total control of your image and knowledge from the begining how it shall output. You DON?T NEED to "pop" a few shots to have one good, when using your controls the software gives you.
4. I am not sure if I understand you well, but a 6x17 film quality is easily reached by any 22 MPx or higher res sensor, by croping it to this ratio. Believe me. I have a few friends shooting on the 6x17: after having tested my digital back, they have decided to go digital.
5. I must disagree here strongly: it is a new technology, admited. But the point is to know if it gives you the quality you need. And by looking at the numbers and figures available, more of 90% of the commercial images are produced digitally today, in the most advanced countries. This certainly does not mean that digital is not mature or of less quality.
And no, you don't need to buy each time the latest and newest digital back, with a higher resolution, when it hits the market: as long your equipment gives you the quality you need, then you should make use of this equipment. Did photographers buy and invest in each new analog camera, when they came out? No they were still continuing using their Sinar Norma when the Sinar p came, then the p when the Sinar p2 was introduced. This just to speak about Sinar cameras.
6. I agree with you 100%! Film still have its place, certainly, in some areas. The question is, how long will the manufacturers produce film and how long will you be able to process at a reasonable price. I think it is time one gets aware of this.
7. I don't think that is an issue in digital: all serious photographer have their storage medium and files are usually stored at different places.
Film can be scratched, can get humidity and does not last longer than a digital file, if you take the same care of it as for your film.
Beside this, digital files are much more and faster accessible than a film, if one make use of one of the nmerous softwares available.
8. you got this point, but then this is valid only whe you are shooting on location and with the available sun light: in a studion with flash or tungstene, you would be stuck as well. But IMO, a professional won't go out without enough batteries, like a professional won't go out without film. That's only my opinion.
9. I totally disagree with this thinking: a photographer remains a photographer. If you don't see the image in your view finder or groundglass you will never see it! Composition, perspective, lighting, sharpness distribution remains the same, capturing the right moment, etc ... and Photoshop or any other post-processing (being it analog in the lab or digital on the computer) will not help a lot here.
Digital is as much an art as film, only the capture medium is different. It needs excatly the same skills to vizualize an image and make it interesting for the observer.
10. the same when comparing a sailboat with a steamboat, indeed! There will always be people playing acoustic guitar, like there will always be people sailing. This is good and should be so.
I certainly don't want to downplay the beauty of film, but am thinking at the same time that one has to go with its time and look forward, especially when a new technology brings so many advantages.
But I doubt that I will convince you.
Best regards,
Thierry
Thierry....I agree that digital backs of the calibre you speak of are incredibly good, but you may have overlooked a few points.
1. The cost of such backs are ridiculously overpriced and far beyond the realm of most of us.
2. At least with film I have it in one...no need to be chained to the computer using PS for hours on end trying to give the image a film like quality.
3. LF and MF film still has something magical about it......one has to think more about what one is doing, unlike popping off a hundred shots in the hope that one or two might measure up.
4. Take the 6x17 format for instance....who wants to stitch together 18 shots in three rows of six to arrive at what a single frame can deliver in one.
5. Film has been developed over some 150 years and has a history attached to it, whereas digital technology tends to be a hurried medium where the camera you buy today is worth two bob tomorrow.
6. Digital certainly has it's place, but so does film....there's something special about going out and shooting one or two frames, then waiting several days in anticipation of the result. Nothing quite excites one like a large transparency.
7. What can you do with a file that has been corrupted? My negs will easily outlast any digital file.
8. If there's a power outage and your batteries are flat , you're stuffed!
9. Using film and chemistry is an art.....all you need to do with digital is point the camera in the right direction, fire the shutter, have a look at results on your laptop, fiddle it in PS and it's all over.
10. The same could be said for musical instruments......there's the enhancement of an electric guitar, then there's the purity of one that is acoustic. When the lights go out, all you will hear is the acoustic.........
