In Search Of Excellence

[Georg R. Baumann]

But I am not here to convince anybody. I know that my view may seem to be biased.

No no, don't you worry about that for a second, I have come to know you as someone who does produce a very balanced view of things, and I am sure everyone here appreciates that big times!

I see it as a positive side effect that you are at SINAR hence can explain details and aspects to us in that context as well.

See, I was wondering about that Bejing Museum Project as well, when Klaus said, this is not the kind of picture he was talking about. I can imagine that they place the utmost importance on IQ in such a project in deed.

Btw. I did not have a chance to meet or talk to Rainer, hence had no idea about his music background, nice to hear! I too was influenced early by the likes of Stockhausen, RIP Karl Heinz, and was using my ATARI Computer and a simple sequencer to experiment with algorithmic compositions in the digital realm. If I look at my humble Rig today, I mean yeah, talk about an orchestra in a box, one of these days I'll get myself the entire Vienna Symphonic Library, the CUBE. I am sure he knows about that thingy as well.

Let me stick for a moment with music here, because there is a nice analogy in term of technology. Not sure whether this still is a topic passionatley debated, some engineers started to mix ITB (in the box), in opposite to an analog summing of channels via a console for example. So they used the digital mixer capabilities of the likes such as Sequoia, Nuendo and so on. Then a debate started about the quality difference between those ITB mixes and analog summing, whereby the apostels of analog claimed ITB to be cold and sterile in comparison to thei summing and final touch. - In my own opinion, this was often a severe exageration. - However, there was some truth in both sides of the camp as far as I am concerned.

For some music ITB was perfectly suitable, for other styles it was less ideal, still damn good though!

Today, I believe with the advance in CPU power and other related advantages in Software, the gap has been closed considerably in that resepct.

I would like to think, MFDB is where ITB was a few years ago, very powerful and convenient clearly pointing towards the future of things, just a few years later mixing in the box has improved massively and there is really no need anymore for analog style recording, it is a species on the brink of extinction to my best understanding.

Exactly this I personally think of Film as well, again, I might be wrong on that, but in a few years we might have difficulties to even obtain filmrolls, seriosuly, I could see that happen easily.

In Music there are still analog consoles around, very expensive ones, but talk to the manufacturers and ask them about their headaches. Mathematics has allowed to reproduce old gear in form of Software on a scale and precision that even surpasses the original in certain aspects, and it is getting better by the minute.

May be we are on the brink of seeing that in MFDB as well, or better, it has started already as Thierry demonstrated with this Example of Bejing.

With all respect, and while others here are much better informed than I am, this is my own conclusion I have drawn so far with the limitted experience and information I have at hand.

Then again, I am always open for new insights.

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

Sinarback eMotion 22 (22 MPx) first generation, if I remember it rightly.

Thierry

What he is able to do with 22MP or even 16 MP DB's, I think this work here is a very good example, ...

http://photoawards.com/07/contests/winners_detail.asp?id=38697

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Attracting others to join in....

P.S. Important side note....

I was talking to Nicolas and Asher about that, and I would like to point your attention to something and ask for your cooperation in that respect.

If you fellow colleague have a good contact to Leaf Aptus, Hasselblad or Phase One, and know of someone who you might think suitable to join here like Thierry and Lorenz from Sinar did, I think this would enrich perspectives and discussions on matters of excellence.

I have the hope that people here are professional enough to not allow such a discussion to become a pissing contest between manufacturers, as we more strive to discuss photography and the related technology available to us from broader aspects than technology alone.

Discussions like Kodak is prone to color cast, Dalsa is prone to center fold are fruitless, and can lead to brand bashing and polarisation.

Thierry in particular has provided us with a lot of informations and has done so without always having his SINAR hat on, in opposite, but luckily, he is here as well to answer questions when it comes to Sinar products.

If we could attract the "Thierry's" from Hasselblad, Phase One etc. to spend time with us here as well, this surly would enrich the perspectives in my book.

So... if you know them, and share my view here, please invite them to OPF.

Thanks!

 

[Klaus Esser]

Dear Klaus,

Yes, I am saying that: a SB 54 H used in 16-shot mode with the respective digital HR (high-res) lenses do surpass a 8x18 transparency in terms of modulation and tonal values. I have seen it with my eyes, otherwise I would not claim this.

Museums, galleries, libraries, etc ... around the world have switched to multishot digital years back. Be sure that they have made their quality tests very intensively before making this switch. I don't know what means the word "etats" but suppose you refer to finances? Yes and no: to invest for those institutions it is not that easy. Each investment must be of proven value and takes months of tests and comparisons between existing and new systems: I have been involved in many of those testing processes.

Just to mention one of them: the "Forbidden City Museum" of Beijing did invest in 4 Sinarback 54 H systems (on Sinar p3 with digital HR lenses) a few years ago, when the SB 54 H came out. Previously they were using film (obviously), 8x10" for reproduction of hundred of years old huge paintings. When I say huge I mean with a few meters width. They have now completely switched to digital. The result being that they show now these paintings on Mac Cinema displays in a public gallery, under glass: the public has access to all these reproductions on about 8 Cinema Displays and can zoom in details of those paintings at 1600%!, and admire the very smallest details. I was told by the museum curator and all the employes that they could never have done this with analog.

But I am not here to convince anybody. I know that my view may seem to be biased. I don't think it has something to do with the "kind of photography" you are taking, but obviously with IQ first for many, then costs and workflow advantages. For some the factor "costs" is of first importance, of course, and it makes no sense to invest Euro 30'000.- (sorry, but I stick to this figure for the ultimate high-end system, even MUCH less with the current Sinarback 54 H multi-shot 16 mode) if you are shooting a couple of images every month. I did not mean to enter the debate "what you need and what you can afford", that's something different, possibly not less important for some or many, but different.

How long takes a multi-shot: well, if we speak about this, then we have to include as well the chemical processing. A 16-shot multi-shot exactly takes 16 times the time your power packs need to recycle, typically about 30 seconds maximum, when you are using flash light, and 16 times your exposure time + about 16 x 1 sec. for the digital back to be ready between each shot.

Multi-shot is obviously limited to static subjects.

Best regards,
Thierry

Good morning, Thierry!

We don´t need to debate over that - because it´s very simple: if one can afford such a system he will buy it. I could afford it but i wouldn´buy it.
I pointed out that this is a very personal view of mine and describes my own experiences.

Regarding museums the situation is very clear: they have all the time to use multishot, use the correct light for that and heavy gear to fix the camera rock-steady.
And they have to do reproductions of artworks - that´s something quite different from landscapes and even from average prof. photoshootings. i sometimes did reproducing big paintings on 8x10". There´s no need for multishooting at all . . ;-)

When we come to multishooting: our discussion started with outdoor-shooting rep. landscapes. Not reproduction in museums.
I didn´t really understand you explanation of the time to make a multishot - but it seems to be clear it can´t be done in let´s say 1/60 or 1/30 sec. I understand it takes at least more than 30sec, right?
Can you imagine what that means for landscapes with wandering clouds, ocean-waves, waterfalls or wind in trees?
I can - shoooting landscapes by using a DSLR on a nodal-head making 200 exposures and getting a gigapixel picture show the same problems . . . but for a fraction of money . . ;-)

In the end there are advantages of highend digital cameras - no question. I see the advantages in shooting people/fashion - that´s what i use 1DsMkIII and H3D for. That´s a kind of photography you can´t obviously do on LF and digital it´s easier and more comfortable as analogue MF - no question.
Simply the amount of shots and postprocessing makes digital favourable - and the scalability of H3D shots for example.

But for stills and especially landscape!? In my eyes there´s no real advantage of highend digital over highend (!) analogue.

I don´t know how much profit it brings shooting landscapes!? That´s not my business. But i guess it maybe less than in advertising business and in productshooting for catalogues of some hundred or thousands of pieces (using analogue film for that kind of jobs would be very stupid).

So in my mind it´s a question of good calculation how fast even "just" 30000.-€ for just ONE camera/back and maybe 3 lenses makes landscape-shooting profitable compared to a 3-5000.-€ LF camera including a set of at least 3-5 VERY fine lenses and some MF magazines of 6x9 - 6x17cm.
Not to forget the advantages of having full movement of lens-/film-planes for perspective corrections or dof expanding.

Please don´t get me wrong, Thierry!
I don´t have in mind to scratch on digital highend in general or on Sinar or Hasselblad or P1 or Leaf or Seitz or BetterLight and others in special! In fact i´m thinking about buying a back for my Hasselblad V system and also have no problems to pay around 500.-€ a day to rent a H3D set. So you can see i´m not a hardcore-fighter for analogue per se . . .

best, Klaus

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

The longer I listen to you guys, the more I want the best of both worlds.

Out of my guts, I am attracted to a unique product and had a brief conversation with Mr. Oldani a minute ago that we hopefully continue soon.

Interestingly enough, it can operate as well with a digital back from SINAR or others.

http://www.alpa.ch/index.php?path=products/cameras

 

[Thierry Hagenauer]

Good day Klaus,

Yes, I know: multi-shot is exclusively for static subjects. My point was and still is: one too often hears and reads that digital does not have the same quality as film in general and as the ultimate film 8x10" size in particular: that is simply not true.
And yes, a 16-shot capture needs about 30 seconds. But then, do not forget your process and scanning time needed to get where you are when shooting digital, straight out of the box.

I did mention museums, simply to emphasize the fact that when this decision is taken, it is out of quality concerns and needs, the ultimate possible. But multi-shot is of course not only chosen in those places. To name a few: car photography, food (though very critical sometimes, due to movements), jewelry (and all fine detailed subjects in general), stills and studio photography in general.

Also landscapes photographers do use digital, not multi-shot technology of course, high-end or dslr. I have been shooting landscapes with 8x10" and know what it means, in terms of quality but also concerning the disadvantages: weight, protection from the wind, need of processing the negs or tranies before the latent image is affected by heat or humidity, film loading on location, etc .... I loved it, but would not and never go back to these times, although I still owe a Sinar f2 8x10". Today you can do the same with a 33 MPx CCD sensor, a little small and light view camera, you can stich, if needed, you can tilt/swing and adjust the sharpness plane as you have been used to do before on a 8x10" camera, you can correct perspectives exactly the same way as before, etc .... In fact, I should not say this, since Sinar is still selling 8x10" cameras. But that is just me and my thoughts.

Best regards,
Thierry

Good morning, Thierry!

Regarding museums the situation is very clear: they have all the time to use multishot, use the correct light for that and heavy gear to fix the camera rock-steady.
And they have to do reproductions of artworks - that´s something quite different from landscapes and even from average prof. photoshootings. i sometimes did reproducing big paintings on 8x10". There´s no need for multishooting at all . . ;-)

When we come to multishooting: our discussion started with outdoor-shooting rep. landscapes. Not reproduction in museums.
I didn´t really understand you explanation of the time to make a multishot - but it seems to be clear it can´t be done in let´s say 1/60 or 1/30 sec. I understand it takes at least more than 30sec, right?
Can you imagine what that means for landscapes with wandering clouds, ocean-waves, waterfalls or wind in trees?
I can - shoooting landscapes by using a DSLR on a nodal-head making 200 exposures and getting a gigapixel picture show the same problems . . . but for a fraction of money . . ;-)

Please don´t get me wrong, Thierry!
I don´t have in mind to scratch on digital highend in general or on Sinar or Hasselblad or P1 or Leaf or Seitz or BetterLight and others in special! In fact i´m thinking about buying a back for my Hasselblad V system and also have no problems to pay around 500.-€ a day to rent a H3D set. So you can see i´m not a hardcore-fighter for analogue per se . . .

best, Klaus

 

[Klaus Esser]

Hi Thierry!

"My point was and still is: one too often hears and reads that digital does not have the same quality as film in general and as the ultimate film 8x10" size in particular: that is simply not true."

Right! One should not generalize that. But in my eyes it´s simply too expensive. And at 8x10" - i´m not convinced. You cant´t really compare a multishot digital to a one-shot analogue.
Btw.: it should be not overseen that you can shoot bracketed as well as multishoot also analogue.
Did you ever combine 3 different exposures on 8x10" to one picture? Each 16bit drumscanned?
That´s hardcore, i know, but it´s possible. And it knocks you!
Even a 6x9cm bracketed shot set of 6 exposures combined to HDR and processed for printing is an experience everybody should have who declares analgue inferior.
It´s more effort, right. Much more. But again you get it at a fraction of the price!

"And yes, a 16-shot capture needs about 30 seconds. But then, do not forget your process and scanning time needed to get where you are when shooting digital, straight out of the box."

I meant the pure exposure-time.

"I loved it, but would not and never go back to these times, although I still owe a Sinar f2 8x10". Today you can do the same with a 33 MPx CCD sensor, a little small and light view camera, you can stich, if needed, you can tilt/swing and adjust the sharpness plane as you have been used to do before on a 8x10" camera, you can correct perspectives exactly the same way as before, etc ...."

Yes - i agree again. But you can get a perfect 8x10" with a set of perfect lenses for a fraction of the price . . .

See - the technology is very clear to me. And i fully agree with you. But i agree also with people who say that an Audi A8 or a Maybach is an exellent car and is preferable over all others . . . but my Renault takes me to the same places . . less comfortable, ok, but . . . ;-)

In professional photography like food, jewels and so on and studio photography in general i agree is an advantage in highend digital - but still an investment. It just has to be profitable.

Using analoge film on the same level as highend digital means to handle analogue film in a highend way. That means drumscanning - no question.
And my personal experiences are that when i use 6x9cm, 4x5" and 8x10" scanned on a drumscanner i´m at least not behind the quality of a x-times more expensive digital system.
In the 8x10" case i´m ahead of it - there´s no question at all when it comes to enlargement.
It´s much more effort, of course - but photography isn´t meant to be simple . .

best to you, Klaus

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

It´s much more effort, of course - but photography isn´t meant to be simple . .

Hmmm, I beg to differ on that point. Why not?

Take the hassle and bullcrap of software to deal with when we go into printing. There we will no doubts see massive improvements in usability of drivers and RIP's in the next few years, hopefully yesterday that is.

In terms of your car analogy, I would go deeper and think of it like analog being like a Nissan Micra, ok admittedly with leather seats and digital being something like an Austin Martin. Really, ....just kidding.

Still, personally I am tempted to use both for the time being, mainly digital, but occaisonally analog, also because I develpped an interest into analog to a degree, and yeah, this is your fault Klaus!

However I would not go down the road of developing and scanning myself, it is just too much to take on board all at the same time in my judgement.

Analog is excellent if you have a background education in that respect, like my friend Soren from Alaska, (note to self: invite Soren to OPF) who has learned the craft himself many years ago, darkroom, operating drumscanners, all that stuff, he does it blindfold so to speak. He also agreed that this craftsmanship can not be taught in a weekend or two, this requires simply more than to know how it works and to operate the gear, it requires a lot of experience and to develop a great deal of films until you reach the point of excellence in developing and scanning.

 

[Erie Patsellis]

I will add that for the work I do, primarily product/catalog type work, my old scan back is just fine, thank you very much. Nothing I shoot is reproduced any larger than full page, and higher resolution just becomes bigger files.


Now would I like a high res Photophase/Betterlight/Sinar back, hell yeah!

Will I spend a years salary on one, hoping to recoup my investment, nope. I am looking for an affordable higher res scan back, though they seem to get scoffed up pretty quickly these days. I found the sweet spot for my work is a 4x5 P and a PhaseOne Studiokit back. Large sensor sites, good ole' LF lenses work fine (though my componon enlarging lenses get quite a workout as well), etc....


erie

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You cant´t really compare a multishot digital to a one-shot analogue.

When exposure time is an issue, e.g. with non-stationary subjects, I agree. Taking that to an extreme: http://www.gigapxl.org/project.htm

On the other hand, http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

Bart

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Thanks Bart,

yeah I heard these figures Clark concluded as well somewhere before and that is the reason why I am thinking analog is a species on the brink of extinction.

Medium format film: about 50 digital camera megapixels are need to match Fujichrome Velvia in 6 x 4.5 cm.

Large format: more than 200 digital camera megapixels are need to match 4x5 Fujichrome Velvia film. How much more needs further testing.

No doubts ~50MP or more are around the corner already, 200MP may be in what 2-3 years? At the same time try to imagine the latest macintosh and solid state drives in 3 years available in a Laptop, let aside advances in Software and 64 bit adaption of applications.

At the same time, chip technology might go a different way altogether, some developments in this area do look very interesting and may be we see a completly different approach in 3 years concerning high ISO, low noise and high MP count.

That the next Canon MK IV blah will have closer to 50MP is written in stone, whether IQ can play catch up with MFDB is very questionable to me at the moment.

Having said all that, a decent DSLR and the comfort in Tele and other applications is nothing I would want to miss, and I am having a hard long look when Nikon comes out with the D3x which might even be announced on the photokina, asssuming a 24 MP version. The latest Lenses 24 mm and T/S optics do look like excellent pieces of Glas in deed.

What we have at the moment is 33MP with a Sinar, so a couple of stitches and bingo. However, it sure would be a better solution to have 200MP or more in one DB.

Hi Erie, and thanks for chiming in here! You refer to your "old scan back". What is it you are using?

 

[nicolas claris]

Medium format film: about 50 digital camera megapixels are need to match Fujichrome Velvia in 6 x 4.5 cm.

LoL!

I would be very happy to read Thierry's comment on this kind of "free" assertion…

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

LoL!

I would be very happy to read Thierry's comment on this kind of "free" assertion…

Good morning Nicolas, did you read the link Bart posted, or did you just see the statement that I quoted?

I found this site rather comprehensive in it's methodology of testing and subconsequent conclusions.

 

[Erie Patsellis]

George,

I'm using a Phase One Studiokit, and looking for a Photophase or PowerPhase (as soon as I can sell off some unwanted odds and ends from the other, non moneymaking hobbies).

the Studiokit is only ~9mp, does nice full page work, with careful uprezing, and careful shooting to reduce/elimate cropping a double truck ad is doable. I started shooting commercially about 20 years ago, when the norm was mylar mask on the groundglass for rough composition to match layouts and you got it in camera or not at all, and I still tend to shoot that way, very little post compared to most of what I've been hearing, 5 mins to check levels and ensure I didn't blow any highlights is about it. I've been teaching my studio partner how to shoot this way, as he's still amazed at the fact files are basically ready to go with nearly no retouching. (he's young, shoots like he's holding a machine gun...)



erie



erie

 

[Klaus Esser]

Thanks Bart,

yeah I heard these figures Clark concluded as well somewhere before and that is the reason why I am thinking analog is a species on the brink of extinction.



No doubts ~50MP or more are around the corner already, 200MP may be in what 2-3 years? At the same time try to imagine the latest macintosh and solid state drives in 3 years available in a Laptop, let aside advances in Software and 64 bit adaption of applications.

At the same time, chip technology might go a different way altogether, some developments in this area do look very interesting and may be we see a completly different approach in 3 years concerning high ISO, low noise and high MP count.

That the next Canon MK IV blah will have closer to 50MP is written in stone, whether IQ can play catch up with MFDB is very questionable to me at the moment.

Having said all that, a decent DSLR and the comfort in Tele and other applications is nothing I would want to miss, and I am having a hard long look when Nikon comes out with the D3x which might even be announced on the photokina, asssuming a 24 MP version. The latest Lenses 24 mm and T/S optics do look like excellent pieces of Glas in deed.

What we have at the moment is 33MP with a Sinar, so a couple of stitches and bingo. However, it sure would be a better solution to have 200MP or more in one DB.

Hi Erie, and thanks for chiming in here! You refer to your "old scan back". What is it you are using?

Well Georg, may be . . , could be . . , in the future we will have . . , the next generation . . and so on - Georg: we´re living NOW.
And 200mpx and a lot more is already possible. Without costing a fortune. On film.

Or do you know even a oneshot 50mpx camera? I don´t.

"analog is a species on the brink of extinction."

No - on the contrary. Take a closer look on reality: MF and LF today is as affordable as never before.
And it lives an ongoing renaissance among those who want highend-quality without having to sell grandma´s house for devices which underlie extremely short innovation cycles.

Now we have to sepetare one theme from the other:
highend commercial photography and average daily fees between 2000.- and over 10000.-€ - where investing in cameras/lenses of 30000.-€ is profitable after some months and producing terms needs highend quality. Costs don´t matter. Time counts.
or on the other hand art-oriented landscape photography or other art-oriented photography where you shoot beautyful pictures and try to sell them afterwards. At prices which are far away from commercial photography´s usual prices.
Unless you´re a famous artist and your pictures are shown at Guggenheim´s . . . ;-)

Approving all the understandable enthusiasm about what digital highend can provide today - in the end what counts is how profitable it is.

And when i get 30mpx digital at at least 5 - 7 times the costs i can get 200mpx for by just having more efford . . . then one should better think over what´s adequate regarding the kind of photography he´s doing.

Of course mpx isn´the only important numbers - handled in an elaborated way you can get at least the same results in tonal range or/and colour range from analogue as you can get from digital.

BUT: it´s more complicated as shooting digital. That´s right. No question. It needs more knowledge and experience and takes more time.
In commercial photography shooting-/producing-time is a very vital factor. Here digital highend is a gift! Of course.
In technically/reproductional oriented photography or in scientific-photography also. Here counts an effordless way to get highend and reproducable and reliable results.

In art-photography digital highend often is used just because of it´s clean and sometimes - to be honest - a bit artificial attitude which can easily be driven to interesting states in terms of expressing something "cool" and "clean" - as we see it in car-photography´s backgrounds which are shot digital and are postproduced sometimes to a unreal clean and crisp look. To be honest: i like that very much as a kind of art!

"analog is a species on the brink of extinction"? No definitely not for photographers . . ;-)

best, Klaus

P.S.: i mentioned that before - stitching is the word when it comes to REAL highrez . . .
Stiching with a good DSLR and a good nodal-head. With shooting bracketed and using HDR you can reach unexpected results. At avarage costs for equipment. Sorry Thierry . . ;-) for my insisting in the cost-aspect.

I often meet photographers shooting backplates and HDR-spheres for car-"shootings" . . some use HDR Spherons and H3D - and some are using 1DsMkII/III, 5D or D2x/D300 or even 20D on a nodal-head and WW-lenses and shoot spheres and/or backplates of some hundred mpx. In perfect quality.

I did a highrez shot as test with a 20D and a 30 years old manual Nikon 85mm using a nodalhead
fov is app. 140deg, spherical projection:

 

[Klaus Esser]

LoL!

I would be very happy to read Thierry's comment on this kind of "free" assertion…

Hi Nic!

Giving those statements like the ons in the link alway is a bit critical . . ;-)

In fact the question alway is: how do you scan a tranny.

Because we are arguing digital on highend-levels we have to use highend-level in analogue also. That means - i mentioned it before: drumscans.

Now here´s the numbers:

a 4,5x6 50ASA tranyp. scanned @4000dpi - which is adequate - results in 9449x7087px.
Which means 67mpx. And - depending on the scanner - a hell of dynamics.

Now let´s say: ok, that´s nice numbers - but what about grain?

ok - despite the fact that film-grain can be compensated as can digital noise (which always IS compensated) i consider a loss in quality due to the grain of let´s say 25%.
That still leaves us 50mpx.
Even IF we consider al loss of quality by grain at 50% (stupid, but let´s do it) we still have 33,5mpx.

A drumscanner - i bet you know that - has a mikroskop-lens which is razor-sharp in the word´s meaning. Reads out grain by grain. And shows the real resolution of the lenses.
The density a drumscanner can read out shows an extraordinary wide dynamik range.

When we talk about dynamics - a range of 3 or more bracketed shots on MF you surely can imagine in what the scans of them result in a hdr-file . . .

And: when wer´re talking of pixels, let´s not forget the amount of pixels resulting in a 4x5" scan . . :
20000x16000px=320mpx.
And were talking about a really sharp read-out in a drumscanner.

Of course here are two technologies which consequently aren´t really comparable. The "direct reading" chip and an "indirekt reading" film/scan. There´s loss by "storing the light on film", processing the film and then reading out the "stored" light of course.

The main-questions are:

How big is the loss? And: is it big enough to justify enormous costs?
I mean: depends . . ;-)

best, Klaus

 

[nicolas claris]

I mean: depends . . ;-)

Hi Klaus, that's your conclusion and I make it mine easily also…
Your agruments about drumscans are easily understood and I can't disagree with that, but you just forgot another main ring of the chain! the film and how it has been exposed and develloped (here I assume we could compare shots from the same good/bad photog)…

Now facing reallity, four all our print (offset) work we do 99,9% of the time work with my own digital pictures and clients are happy.
But we have an order for a 20th anniversary book of a company… so we have to use some stock photos, 24x36 to 6x6 slides… the hardest thing is to find:
- a good drum scan
- a man who knows how to use it!

We got to send the file to Paris…

Back to my statement on the statements… I still would be glad to know the advice from Thierry who is in the know on the tech aspects… from one side at least…

Thanks anyway for your always interesting analysis and posts…

 

[Klaus Esser]

Hi Klaus, that's your conclusion and I make it mine easily also…
Your agruments about drumscans are easily understood and I can't disagree with that, but you just forgot another main ring of the chain! the film and how it has been exposed and develloped (here I assume we could compare shots from the same good/bad photog)…

Now facing reallity, four all our print (offset) work we do 99,9% of the time work with my own digital pictures and clients are happy.
But we have an order for a 20th anniversary book of a company… so we have to use some stock photos, 24x36 to 6x6 slides… the hardest thing is to find:
- a good drum scan
- a man who knows how to use it!

We got to send the file to Paris…

Back to my statement on the statements… I still would be glad to know the advice from Thierry who is in the know on the tech aspects… from one side at least…

Thanks anyway for your always interesting analysis and posts…

Hi Nicolas!

Let´s not forget: my argumentation isn´t aimed to commercial photography like you do for your clients and i do for mine. Here the "rules" are clear. Rarely files have to be printed lager than A2@300dpi.
The average size i think is A4. And here 16mpx are on the safe side, 22mpx give a good reserve.
For A2 39mpx is just fine.

But what about guys who shoot beautyful pictures and want to sell them to "usual" people?
I´m not much in that business - but a lot of photographers do.

And landscape is a very fine kind of photography in my eyes. Printing it big and selling it to shops or galleries or so surely could be a business.

Now the question rises: how big printing? And: what file-size do i need for which print-size to get optimal results?
The third question is: how much do i have to invest to deliver a quality good enough for the preferred print-size?

Comparing technologies on a technology-base is only one aspect.

But regarding highend-technology on digital side has to regard highend-technology on the analogue side also. And that of course means perfect handling of film - highend processing and highend scanning.

Often - and that makes me so insisting - i see highend or at least hightech on the digital side compared and stated as superior over low-end/lowtech handled analogue films. Processed in a mass-lab and scanned on an average flatbed-scanner.
No wonder when digital comes out "superior over analogue" . . .

That´s like comparing a Porsche and a Lada (sorry, Lada-owners) just because both are motor vehicles.

Again: analogue handled as hightech isn´t per se inferieor to digital. Especially not when we compare the price-range of both compared parts.

Regarding comparable prices that would mean to compare an exellent (!) analogue 4x5" with an exellent (!) lens for about 2500.-€ and a digital camera for about 2500.-€ . . . do you get an exellent (!) digital camera with an exellent (!) lens for 2500.-€? Which additionally provides shift/tilt?
I doubt.

And a 22mpx multishot digital back superior over an 8x10" tansp.? No. I compared a H3D 39mpx to a Velvia 50ASA 8x10" scanned @2000dpi . . . The Hassel had no chance at all - which is physically not really surprising!
Ok - i didn´t do multishot. I did only one shot with the 8x10" also . . . Combining 2 or 3 different exposed 8x10", generating HDR of it and use tonemapping would let a 22mpx even multishot look really poor, i bet! Would be nice to compare such a hardcore shootout . . .

But smaller a H3D is in deed as an 8x10" P2 . . .

I´m mentioning the H3 because it´s the one i often rent. I didn´t ry a Hy6 yet.


best, Klaus

 

[Erie Patsellis]

my take, as a commercial shooter, graphic designer and day job as both a pressman and prepress operator, two issues that always bother me about the resolution/dynamic range arguments:

1.) using a standard SWOP inkset on coated paper, 150 line screen, 300 dpi is all you need, anything over that just increases file size (and pisses off prepress people).

2.) using same inkset and paper, at best, you can get 4 stops worth of information to the paper, supplying wide dynamic range images takes the decision out of your hands, the prepress operator has to choose between highlight detail, shadow detail or reducing contrast. Personally, I'd rather be the one making the choice as a photographer.


A full bleed 8 1/2x11 image needs 300x8.7x11.2, about 29 mpx. In reality, comparing a single shot back to a scan back is like comparing apples and cows. There's so much difference between the two capture methods, the only thing in common is the end result, a digital file. I'm home at lunch at the moment, but will expand on this train of thought when I get home from work.


erie

 

[nicolas claris]

Hi Klaus!
In fact most of my clients do ask me each year about 10 large prints (printed wit Durst Lambda by Dupon one of the top lab in Paris) about 2 meters wide (on the long side) (not talking billboards here) I started that with 16.7 Mb 1Ds2 files… just amazing, now the 21 Mb files of the 1Ds3 and soon with the 33 Mpix made with the Hy6 and Sinarback 75 LV… I have only 2 words: try it for your next job!
Then you'll be able to compare with other MF backs you have used before… and let'us know.

I am not able to argue further more to film/digital as my experience with film is not good enough… and in fact not really interested in that kind of sterile discussion…
You are right saying that this is not our cup of tea… as for my work both the 1Ds3 and the Hy6 deliver the files I need for my clients -)

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'm not sure if you do or don't agree with the 2 positions you mentioned. I'll assume you do.

1.) using a standard SWOP inkset on coated paper, 150 line screen, 300 dpi is all you need, anything over that just increases file size (and pisses off prepress people).

You left out the Q-factor (whether one uses 1.5 or 2 is subject to one's 'religious dogmas/beliefs').

2.) using same inkset and paper, at best, you can get 4 stops worth of information to the paper, supplying wide dynamic range images takes the decision out of your hands, the prepress operator has to choose between highlight detail, shadow detail or reducing contrast. Personally, I'd rather be the one making the choice as a photographer.

A difference between 1% and 95% reflectance (or D-max=2.0, and D-min=0.022) represents an output dynamic range of 6.57 stops, not uncommon for a photographic print. In fact D-max can be a bit higher on glossy paper, and optical brighteners can boost the brightness a bit more. To get such a dynamic range on paper, one needs to capture quite a bit more, due to losses in the conversion process and tonemapping playroom.

Bart

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

I am bold enough to try to summarize and comment on conclusions Klaus has drawn. - Please, correct me if I am wrong buddy! -

1. The pricing of high end digital gear is a problem for professionals outside a in deed very small scope of assignments where only time counts and not costs. I would guess these are not even those who are payed 2k or below per day but rather those above 5k per day. Here, speed and results are of the essence and not costs of production, hence digital high end is a no brainer.

2. The rest of us face a dilemma of ROI, return on investment, however, and this is my personal opinion, this is only one way of looking at it, "In search of excellence" has no price tag, well it bloody well has a high price tag, but it is not only about ROI in this respect.

However, Klaus is right in my opinion on the depreciation and development speed of gear. I for example have a close eye on the D3x which is supposed to have 24MP, and I intend to use that one for stitching, or a canon ____fill in anything suitable in the below 10K range.

3. Here it is tricky, analog.

Sure, there is no doubt on what a LF file can produce Klaus. I know that. But, and this is the crucial part, at the same time you need to have a) the knowledge/experience of development and b) the knowledge/experience of scanning to achieve high end results in a file that you can work on in PS.

And it is exactly here that we face a simliar dilemma when you think about costs Klaus. A single 8x10 pop costs me in high end service something inbetween 80-100 euro until I have a PSD file. That is a single shot Klaus!

Ok, we can learn doing all that ourselves, no doubts, and please correct me if I am wrong, but given all aspects fo the craft, think about developing an 8x10 once I used a ND Grad etc., there is a lot to learn before I can confidently say, yeah, I develop and scan everything you possible throw at me to the highest possible standards. And to reach that point of excellence takes how long? 6 month doing nothing but that day in day out? Or even more? I do not have the time for that, who has?

So we are dependant on specialists to develop/scan for us at a high price considering the additional learning curve in LF analog involved.

If my guestimates are not totally of the wall, I would think that before you are confident in what you produce, you probably invested around 30% of the SINAR costs, if not more, of a let's say a 30K Sinar into ****ed up films, developments and scans already, that is not taking time or 10K investement into analog gear into account here, so you easily would end up at 50% of costs.

You on the contrary have the distinct advantage to have the experience and knowlegde, can do it yourself, and yes, of course I can see that point!

But many of us who pursue a professional level came in on a sidetrack, do not have a formal education in photography, and certainly have not 50 years experience to show for. Hell, in my case it is a meager 4 years if I push my CV. LOL

Yes Klaus, we live now, and the speed of developments in digital is mindblowing, we talk cycles of 8-10 month in CPU technology, and yes, I bet +50MP are already in a drawer somehwere at Hassy, Phase one, Sinar, whoever.

Ok all that happens much slower in the smallish photography market compared to computing, because the big shots do not take us serious, that's us endusers AND manufacturers like Sinar etc.

Their order capacity is just not interesting enough to allocate significantly more ressources into R&D.

Pheew.... just my € 0,02 euro (which is more than $ 0,02 ...a true statement in deed, recently stated here by a very prominent OPF member)

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

A difference between 1% and 95% reflectance (or D-max=2.0, and D-min=0.022) represents an output dynamic range of 6.57 stops, not uncommon for a photographic print. In fact D-max can be a bit higher on glossy paper, and optical brighteners can boost the brightness a bit more. To get such a dynamic range on paper, one needs to capture quite a bit more, due to losses in the conversion process and tonemapping playroom.

Can I rent you for say 4 weeks straight, 10 hours a day?

Hmmm... forget that, I could not afford it.

 

[Michael Fontana]

George

4) You might add to your list that not all the clients nor want, nor need huge files:

In my pers. case, a A-3-/300 fits for 99 % of the customers, as its going to be printed in magazines, books, etc very rarely bigger than that. For the rest, no problem to stitch - have experienced the printing of a 3 stitch-image to 170 cm-size, looks very good.

So here, to 99%, going bigger looks like being a overkill; in quite a few terms, apart of ROI. Anyway 99 % of the clients would not notice a difference

5) There's quite a huge amount of time, we do spend, when changing systems, to learn/use it, get it optimised, etc. Basically, we should count them as costs, too. Did you ever counted the hours spend in fora like OPF? looking at your monitor-squary eyes when going to bed?

Jumping the upgrade-spiral very often means to boost these costs. Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of these fast cycles, and rather try to find a midterm-stability. Because these cycles just implement tecnical issues, but I'm much more interested in enhancing my visual language, exploring it to get the right feeling or °instinct° for the use of all these instruments.

Stitching enhanced my visual language more than having a MF-back; I'm sure about that.

Don't get me wrong; there's no alternative to a proper capture - but its not about MP only.
It has a lot to do with - in my case - feeling the space and understand how to translate it into a 2-dimensional picture.

Excellence is a keyword, in that domaine, too!

 

[Klaus Esser]

Hi Klaus!
In fact most of my clients do ask me each year about 10 large prints (printed wit Durst Lambda by Dupon one of the top lab in Paris) about 2 meters wide (on the long side) (not talking billboards here) I started that with 16.7 Mb 1Ds2 files… just amazing, now the 21 Mb files of the 1Ds3 and soon with the 33 Mpix made with the Hy6 and Sinarback 75 LV… I have only 2 words: try it for your next job!
Then you'll be able to compare with other MF backs you have used before… and let'us know.

I am not able to argue further more to film/digital as my experience with film is not good enough… and in fact not really interested in that kind of sterile discussion…
You are right saying that this is not our cup of tea… as for my work both the 1Ds3 and the Hy6 deliver the files I need for my clients -)

Hi Nicolas!

"I have only 2 words: try it for your next job!"

I´m doing it already for years at average once a month - H3D 39mpx. Fine thing! Great quality.
Casmera with 3 very good lenses about 50000.-€ (inluding tax).
The Sinar i didn´t test yet - but i honestly can´t imagine that it miracoulosly makes native 200mpx from 39mpx . . does it? ;-)

"Then you'll be able to compare with other MF backs you have used before… and let'us know."

I used Leaf Valeo and Aptus and PhaseOne and Imacon and BetterLight and even a Dicomed (in the "early times" ;-) and still own a Leaf Lumina - which wasn´t too bad in her days.

Btw.:
My first fully digital commercial job i did in 1996 - with a 6mpx Kodak/Canon which was around 50000.-DM those days. Everybody was enthusiastic and told me "who will ever need more than 6mpx? This is giantic! You can print 18/1 (wall-prints) without problems from the files - analogue isn´t by far as good as that. And completely dead anyway."
Guys started to sell their first class analogue equipment and bought this 50000.-DM device . . and the devices around it.
Around 1998 an interesting 2nd-hand market with top digital equipment grew up.

Sounds familiar, does it . .

What i didn´t try yet is the Seitz scanback-6x17 with provides about 170mpx with one 1sec. scan.
Examples which i saw were GREAT (not only in size).

best, Klaus

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

It has a lot to do with - in my case - feeling the space and understand how to translate it into a 2-dimensional picture.

Thank you for that Michael, you hit the nail as far as I am concerned!

In deed, all those "technicalities" and software/hardware cycles cause one side effect, we have less time for what we really want to do, isn't it?

I experience the very same in electronic music, talk about updates, upgrades, faster here, better ad/da converters there, and before you know it, you are enslaved at a screen dealing with fixing and upgrading more than anything else, I learned to hate it with a vengance!

What you say is so important in deed, even if I would use PS 5 now and would have used my time improving my ways of translating what I "see", whereby "seeing" incorporates the entire spectrum of human perception, I would have more ROI on my time in deed.

Thankfully, I learned that lesson already in music, and I won't be trapped into that **** again. I invest in the next 8-12 weeks into gear for photography, colormanagement, computing, printing etc. and that's a job tough enough to make informed decisions, after that is behind me, I am not even looking at the news anymore for the next three years on the level I am doing now. It is just too time consuming, and frankly, boring as Hell! LOL ;o)

This "feeling the space", I think I know exactly what you mean, and it is nothing that comes that easy, it is like a sense that needs to be nurished and cultivated, isn't it? You give it your attention and time and effort, and it develops, you neglect it, in the worst case you loose it!

I am trying to make decisions now that keeop me going the next 36 months, roughly, I am not saying I will not continue to keep track whats happening, but certainyl on a much lesser level, my time is best spend.... out here...

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

What i didn´t try yet is the Seitz scanback-6x17 with provides about 170mpx with one 1sec. scan.
Examples which i saw were GREAT (not only in size).

I tried... to get one.. delivery time.... the earliest 8 weeks, I think in the real world rather 3-4 month.

The investment risk is also considerably high, this is a very small company in deed....

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

My first fully digital commercial job i did in 1996 - with a 6mpx Kodak/Canon which was around 50000.-DM those days. Everybody was enthusiastic and told me "who will ever need more than 6mpx? This is giantic! You can print 18/1 (wall-prints) without problems from the files - analogue isn´t by far as good as that. And completely dead anyway."
Guys started to sell their first class analogue equipment and bought this 50000.-DM device . . and the devices around it.
Around 1998 an interesting 2nd-hand market with top digital equipment grew up.

Sounds familiar, does it . .

I think/hope we will have more than one beer together in Papa Joe... Klaus Esser= Photographer and Advocatus Diaboli.

 

[Klaus Esser]

I think/hope we will have more than one beer together in Papa Joe... Klaus Esser= Photographer and Advocatus Diaboli.

Yep! Until then have a look here:

http://www.fotomancamera.com/gallery.asp
and here
http://www.photogalleryprints.com/c...grapher/9/Bernhard_Hartmann-Piscina_Al_Mare_I

best, Klaus

 

[Erie Patsellis]

I'm not sure if you do or don't agree with the 2 positions you mentioned. I'll assume you do.



You left out the Q-factor (whether one uses 1.5 or 2 is subject to one's 'religious dogmas/beliefs').



A difference between 1% and 95% reflectance (or D-max=2.0, and D-min=0.022) represents an output dynamic range of 6.57 stops, not uncommon for a photographic print. In fact D-max can be a bit higher on glossy paper, and optical brighteners can boost the brightness a bit more. To get such a dynamic range on paper, one needs to capture quite a bit more, due to losses in the conversion process and tonemapping playroom.

Bart

Bart,
On our 4 color setup, our Dmax is quite a bit lower (I'd have to look up what the targets are, 1.74 for black sounds close, but my memory is always suspect) and consequently the contrast range, what I have found is that post linearizing, 5 stops is about it, exclusive of pure black and white, pretty much what you said, as pure white and pure black are incapable of showing texture (zone 0 and zone X, if you're so inclined)

Linearity between 1% and about 8% is generally not as good as it could be, though typical of most smaller offset presses (we run a Heidelberg GTO 42). From 91% or so up, the slightest press issue will block the highlights, you and I may know that it's doable, but I don't see too many sheets getting tossed if the targets are within .15 points, once again theory vs. real world)

If I shoot to maintain 5 stops, and work closely with the designer/prepress people, I can say with 100% confidence, what you see is what will print, any more and 99% of the time, either highlights blow or shadows block. This is of course, my experience in the middle of nowhere, and were I working with some people more tech savvy, I could explain to them how to reduce dot gain on press, etc. (I've given up, run what they tell me, how they tell me, and collect a paycheck, not even worth wasting my breath)

Now you know why I'm working so hard to get more commercial clients and be done with printing....


erie