Author Topic: A digital 'medium format killer'? (Read 6240 times)

xtolsniffer · « **on:** February 15, 2008, 12:39:06 PM »

Perhaps someone can fill in the details on this, but I was laughing so much I didn't take in many details. Last week, Amateur photogrpher ran a review of a Canon digital camera (one of the expensive ones I think - see, I wasn't paying much attention), and tested it against an RB67 with a 90mm sekor. The conclusion, that the resultion of detail was the same. Actually, looking at the admittedly poor quality magazine reproduction, it looked pretty clear to me that the RB67 had the edge. The conclusion? That now that digital has the resultion of MF, we can all forget about medium format and film. It was so heartening that a cutting edge camera and lens costing 5,000 pounds can almost better a 25 year old design that I picked up mint used for 250.
Pass me another roll of velvia.......

seekingfocus · « **Reply #1 on:** February 15, 2008, 05:01:58 PM »

Well actually, I was reading this review from the Luminous Landscape just yesterday... comes to the same conclusion- as have many others over the past few years. BUT- is resolution the ONLY thing we are looking for when we take photos?

Also, remember that resolution, grain, sharpness, practical size of prints, etc. are all very different issues. So, while you might say that digital (for around $5000-10,000) does indeed have the approximate resolution of medium format film, it's up to you to decide weather or not it's other properties hold up against the final product/price ratio and what you are trying to achieve.

He makes this conclusion towards the end of the article:

Quote from: Luminous Landscape

A Question of Size

As mentioned at the start of this article, at a standard printing resolution of 240 ppi the 67 file can produce a 27X36" print, while the 1Ds can only produce an 11X17" print. Yet, as we've seen above the smaller file displays higher resolution. This is confusing to some, but size and resolution are separate issues. Bigger is not always better, and in this case definitely is not. But of course the ability of a 6X7 scan at 3200 PPI to make a print almost two and half feet wide is not to be underestimated. An 8000 ppi drum scan can produce a billboard. If you regularly make really huge prints then this is worth considering.

This is an indisputable advantage of working with a larger file. But no amount of ressing up, using Genuine Fractals or any other form of digital legerdemain is going to create new bits that aren't there in the first place, whether from scanned film or a digital camera file. Just consider whether or not those bits contain real information.

My experience is that 1Ds files produce excellent Super B prints (13"X19") with no ressing up, and with just a slight bit of interpolation can make very good 20X24" prints. The 6X7 files on the other hand can easily make 30 X 40" prints. How important this is for you will help determine your decision. Since my sale and exhibition prints are never larger than 20X24" I find the 32 MB files produced by the 1Ds more than adequate.

-Jason

gothamtomato · « **Reply #2 on:** February 15, 2008, 05:58:27 PM »

Plus, and call me kooky, but digital pictures never really look like they are quite alive.

And IMO, digital has foisted so much sameness upon us, that it almost mind numbing. You can take the work of most of the photographers currently working in magazines, and you cannot tell them apart. How sad is it that there are sooooo many magazines now, but yet the editors are so visually illiterate, that they can't seem to publish much beyond the bland.

They are serving technology, rather than letter technology serve them.

RandomHamster · « **Reply #3 on:** February 15, 2008, 08:08:09 PM »

"Plus, and call me kooky, but digital pictures never really look like they are quite alive."

I agree, I shoot both film and digital at the moment and while my digital isnt 'cutting edge' (its an old Nikon D1x) I struggle to find the spirit of a shot in digital, no matter how much photoshop wizardry I can call upon. I like my Digital but I will always shoot film alongside it as even my Bessa R with a russian lens can create shots with more 'life and soul' than the digital.
I wonder if it will end up as digital dominating for high res 'sharp' flat pictures but film for more arty shots.
In a gallery I visited the other day over half the images displayed were film and apparently they were still the better sellers. Gives some heart doesn't it?

Francois · « **Reply #4 on:** February 15, 2008, 10:37:04 PM »

The main reason why digital always ends up looking the same is simply because they all work the same way. Whether it be a CMOS or a CCD, they all rely on a Bayer matrix. This grid of RGB patches is in a standard pattern. Also, they are all on the same substrate and all use similar technology. Since each camera comes with a fixed sensor, all pictures taken with the same camera will all have the same basic rendering. With film, you literally have thousands of possible combinations.

As for resolution, while the latest EOS might not have the same resolution as a frame of fine grain 6x7, it's getting close to what a 35mm can put out.

In my province, there is a company that manufactures the CCDs for Mamiya (among other things they make). Their top resolution color CCD is 115 megapixels... it gets your thinking caps screwed on tight... If anybody is interested, they are Dalsa Semiconductors

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2008, 12:43:37 AM »

Great timing on this post (even if I'm about to steer it in a slightly different direction for a second) because I've recently re-discovered digital after 5 years of not giving it a second glance and I must say, I'm getting hooked again.

Before you start getting concerned let me reassure you that my reasons for this about-face are predictably perverse and high among them is the fact that low-end digital can be spectacularly crappy something that's just fine by me.

The thing is I'm too busy with 2 young kids and a stupid job to do photography the way I want to. Aside from a short holiday last March with some friends, I haven't been able to put in any serious shooting time for nearly 2 years. To compensate I scratch my 'photo itch' by doing things which take up less time at one sitting: helping run this website, doing the podcasts, taking a lot of snaps of family Wenn, reading photo-related material, getting to know more and more photographers and so on.

However, even with small amount of film I do manage to shoot I'm finding that my turnaround time from taking the pictures to arriving at finished scans/prints can be 3 months at best and - on occasion - more than 12. While this is the way it is and while I've (just about) accepted that it's my lot for now, I do really miss the excitement, creativity, experimentation, the ongoing education and the 'show and tell' of my previous existence as a photographer. I think of my photography these days as being nothing more than treading water.

Recently however I was given an HP 514 iPAQ Voice Messenger (the rest of us would call it a phone) with a 1 megapixel camera onboard. So what, right? Millions have people have phones with cameras in them and most are way better quality than 1 megapixel. Well, here's the cool bit; my phone come with GPRS and WiFi which means that wherever I am (within reason) I can take a photo and then email it to a person or a website and have it online in seconds. Very cool. The fact that the cam is so low-res actually frees me from any concerns I would otherwise have had about crossing over to 'the dark side'. Half the time I'm shooting blind anyway because it only takes a moderately bright sun for the 'viewfinder' to become useless, so on those occasions it's a case of point and hope more than anything else.

How proud of me those Lomographic Society people would be (miaow!).

Worth pointing out at this juncture that I came to film photography via toy cameras and have only relatively recently taken glass lenses even vaguely seriously, so when I say the camera phone is crappy, I'm not being a snob. It's never been about high resolution or razor sharp focus for me; it's been about the feeling I get from using film and that's why digital is of absolutely no interest to me at all for serious work (see, I just called it 'work' finally...took me 5 years, but I suppose I'm starting to take things seriously at last).

The final component of my conversion back to digital is that I'm a complete web geek and not having a regular flow of film images to put 'out there' on the Interweb has been a pain. So I've completely embraced the whole shoot-then-upload process that has become available to me since getting the iPAQ a fortnight ago. If nothing else using the phone underlines for me the difference between digital and film photography and reinforces the gulf between them - within the context of my life and my prejudices. On one hand there's the ubiquotous, casual, disposable, shallow, ugly output of digital. On the other there's the challenging, increasingly exclusive, mysterious (still), tangible and ultimately beautfiful output of film.

...and if my only problem with film is that I don't have time to work with it as much as I'd like then it's wonderful to be able to snap away with my stupid digital phone/camera/whatever and get things up online so that I can still tell a story through my photos...just not as elegantly. I've been uploading photos to my own blog at http://edwenn.tumblr.com the best of which get re-posted on Fickle. Here are three of my faves so far (small versions because I really shouldn't be posting digital snaps here)

Oh and as for the topic that I steered this thread away from; the fact that digital MF is now as good as film MF. I'll let the tech geeks worry about that sort of thing. I know which I prefer and always will do and it's got nothing to do with 'quality' or pixel numbers...also the comment someone made about the price difference DID make me smile a lot.

RandomHamster · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2008, 02:12:38 PM »

Hi Ed, Yep, the camera phone thing is cool, to be able to take a snap and instantly send it to freinds or family when Im working away is definately good but I agree, mine is only 2.3 mp and I dont hanker after the newer fancier ones because thats not why I use it! Its point and pray only!!!
Given the choice I would rather use polaroids but since I cannt yet use a teleporter to get them there the same day its a no no! Digital is fun, convienient and it takes good shots and yes I admit I use it more than my film cameras at the moment but I am still looking to get more film cams and not digital (hopefully a mamyia soon). There is definately a romance to film cameras that digital lacks and that is what keeps me going!...On to ebay...

Francois · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2008, 05:11:46 PM »

Well, as you heard, camera phones are getting better by the day

Here is a picture of a prototype top of the line 115 megapixel folding flip phone

Comes complete with a large 4x5 inch high brightness display, quick dial, sun shade and everything you can think of!

(I know it's a bad pun but I just couldn't resist posting it)

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

seekingfocus · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2008, 07:09:04 PM »

Ha! That even beats the "camera phone" featured on the Flight of the Conchords:

Though can it compete with the camera/phone/tv/toothbrush?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkzNOEiW4M8 (a bit long... skip to around 1:40 maybe)

-Jason

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2008, 09:48:14 AM »

Thanks guys, great posts. A big help in making me feel less like a sellout

LT · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2008, 10:38:23 AM »

Quote from: ed.wenn on February 18, 2008, 09:48:14 AM

... making me feel less like a sellout

bloody sellout.

what's next on the Wenn agenda? Memorycardwasters.com?

david b · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2008, 11:11:27 AM »

Pixelprofligacy.com please.

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #12 on:** February 19, 2008, 01:32:25 PM »

How about:

digitalstillisntasgoodasfilmbutcircumstanceshaveforcedmetouseit.com

...can't beat a snappy URL like that.

RandomHamster · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2008, 07:34:29 PM »

Ed, that is definately a must for a site name!!!

and francois, quick...where can I get one?!

Francois · « **Reply #14 on:** February 19, 2008, 10:14:37 PM »

When I thought of this, I imagined myself on the bus with a graflex to my ear... and the look on people's faces

Ed, you're definitely on your way to the world's longest URL

check this useless link out just for fun

http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com

Totally useless, totally pointless.

[edited the URL to make the thread more readable]

xtolsniffer · « **Reply #15 on:** February 20, 2008, 09:16:36 AM »

how about 'www.Iusedtogetthroughalotoffilmbut nowI havechildren.com?

Mind you, I have managed to bond a manfrotto ball head to my daughter's pushchair, it makes an interesting tripod for my RB67.

Francois · « **Reply #16 on:** February 20, 2008, 03:11:21 PM »

Very few people know it but my prototype camera phone uses a new state of the art memory card system called "type 55". But considering the resolution, it takes up to one minute for the image to be visible

We are expecting new "developments" in the underlying "processing" technology to reduce this time

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #17 on:** February 21, 2008, 04:16:44 PM »

Quote from: xtolsniffer on February 20, 2008, 09:16:36 AM

Mind you, I have managed to bond a manfrotto ball head to my daughter's pushchair, it makes an interesting tripod for my RB67.

For real?!

Cool!

Francois · « **Reply #18 on:** February 21, 2008, 11:12:57 PM »

It's also good to train the kids to use a big RB67 at a very young age

Just don't have them eat chocolate cake at the same time as they work on the camera

xtolsniffer · « **Reply #19 on:** February 22, 2008, 08:11:33 AM »

Fortunately the RB is too heavy for my four year old to run off with, though he does like looking down the waist level finder. Of greater concern is that he loves looking through the Pentax spotmeter and runs off with it at every opportunity to 'spy on things with it'. He is a bit confused though that there is no instant picture on the back of the RB after I've let him push the cable release, he can't get his mind around having to send the film away. And as for the darkroom, with the obviously fascinating mix of electricity, water and toxic chemicals, that is a BANNED PLACE.

xtolsniffer · « **Reply #20 on:** February 22, 2008, 12:35:34 PM »

Getting back to the orginal topic, the camera on test was a Canon EOS-1DS Mark III, and going from the letter in this week's amateur photographer, I wasn't the only one to think that the image from the RB67 looked better.