What for how much to get going? From digicam to shift back!

[Asher Kelman]

We all have different budgets. For the moment, imagine one starts competant to do the work that the camera setup would alow.

Now for these given budgets ranges, what equipment, (including lens), would you get and what extra in capability would this buy?

Pick one or more of the following approximate price brackets you have experience with!

A. $700- $1200 presumably real estate listings

B. up to $5,000

C. up to $15,000

D. up to $25,000

E. up to $35,000

F. up to $50,000 or more!

Sure I'd like to get a wonderful setup but what is the real reason for paying more money.

Please cover things like, need for shift, need for rotating back or not, shot to shot times, ISO rating and so forth

Now, for the architectually naive, please explain how each setup fits into your chunk of the Architecture ans interiors market.

Asher


I tried to make the upper range a little more realistic

[marc gerritsen]

Hi Asher
I moved from A to D in a matter of 4-5 years, not talking about film cameras only digital.
Started with a Nikon 5000 and ended up with a Hasselblad H2d wich will be converted to
a H3D within the next month or 3. With each upgrade I could get better clients, and each
upgrade was also easily paid for by the extra money I earned.

My plan
Towards the end of this year or so I will probably move to E. Since the H3D back can be put
on a view camera, I might upgrade to a shift system with Rodenstock lenses. I am not sold
on that idea a 100% yet, as I don't know how my way of working will be affected. Working
with an slr system is very fast and maybe a bit of extra time in postprocessing for tilt.

With a tilt/shift camera I will probably work a lot slower, but I might end up with files that are
less distorted, I still do not know this for sure. I have searched the web extensively to see if
someone can show me a photo of a building shot on a slr and illiminated distortion in post
production and a photo shot where it is done with tilt/shift. Sofar no one seems to have shot
a proper comparison and I have found only anecdotal evidence that one is preferred over the other.

When the Rollei Hy6 has been on the market for about half a year or so and all the hick ups
are straightened out I might even switch over to that system with a Leaf or Phase 1 based back.
Although I am happy with the Hasselblad files, I would eventually like to get more range with
better noise control, unless of course Hasselblad delivers on their promise to equal all other
brands on this issue.

cheers
Marc

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Asher
I moved from A to D in a matter of 4-5 years, not talking about film cameras only digital.

Started with a Nikon 5000

Price point A; up to $5000: So that was film with a Nikon 5000 scanner?

Price Point D; up to 25,000: so that Hasselblad H2d was perhaps in the range of
Hasselblad (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=5517&A=details&Q=&sku=398962&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation) H2 Camera Kit[/URL] with Viewfinder HV90x, Magazine HM and 80mm f/2.8 HC Lens $8000
and Digital back, say $10,000-$17,000?

which you will be convert to

Price point E. an H3D within the next month or 3.

With each upgrade I could get better clients, and each
upgrade was also easily paid for by the extra money I earned.

My plan
Towards the end of this year or so I will probably move to

Price Point E, up to $35,000: The H3D

Hasselblad H3D-22 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=5517&A=details&Q=&sku=463798&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation), 22.2 Megapixel, 36.7 x 49.0 mm sensor, SLR Digital Camera (The body, DB, view finder and 80mm 2.8 lens) $27,000
$27,000

This is an integrated system with built in lens corrections for light fall of, color shifts and distortions!

Of course we must add the to be envied Ultra-Wide Angle 28mm f/4.0 Auto Focus Lens for H3D Camera ONLY for the bargain price (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=5518&A=details&Q=&sku=465596&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation) of $3,875!

Total $30,875! For a mere $5,000 whiloe you are at it you can go from 21MP to 31MP and have bragging rights! I'm sure you can get hte whole Shebang for well under under $35,000!

Since the H3D back can be put on a view camera, I might upgrade to a shift system with Rodenstock lenses. I am not sold on that idea a 100% yet, as I don't know how my way of working will be affected. Working with an slr system is very fast and maybe a bit of extra time in postprocessing for tilt.

With a tilt/shift camera I will probably work a lot slower, but I might end up with files that are
less distorted, I still do not know this for sure. I have searched the web extensively to see if
someone can show me a photo of a building shot on a slr and illiminated distortion in post
production and a photo shot where it is done with tilt/shift. So far no one seems to have shot
a proper comparison and I have found only anecdotal evidence that one is preferred over the other.

Yes, a paired test would be helpful!

Still, we know that Photoshop cannot create pixels that are not there! So when the top of a converging tall building is made orthogonal, the upressing in the narrow portion might be unoticed in an 8x10 but as you enlarge it, the picture for sure must soften in the corrected areas. For high-end architecture, certainly, that is undesirable.

When the Rollei Hy6 has been on the market for about half a year or so and all the hick ups are straightened out I might even switch over to that system with a Leaf or Phase 1 based back.

Unless a 3rd party makes an adapter plate, using a Phase One back will be impossible as only Sinar and Leaf are in the consortuim (with Sinar badged as Rollei in China etc).

Note that DB Shift requires attention to presence or absence of micro lenses and lens-back pairing combinations so that there are not unacceptable colr or vignetting aberrations!

Although I am happy with the Hasselblad files, I would eventually like to get more range with better noise control, unless of course Hasselblad delivers on their promise to equal all other brands on this issue.

I think I'd look seriously to holding out a little beyond your 3 months upper limit!

By June I expect the Sinar or Leaf version of the Hy6 will be available. All DB have potential issues with the CF (Center fold line) issue, the junction of the two sides of the sensor. Right now, sinar has solved this. Leaf partly AFAIK and will no doubt do it completely. All DB need to be chosen for the characteristics needed for your work:

High ISO

Shot to Shot timing

Micro lenses

Moire

Single v. Multishot

and so forth.

So I'd wait and see, how the Hy6 proves itself.

With the Leica M8, it took just 2 weeks to find the issues and another 2 for Leica to find solutions.

That's fast!

No doubt Leaf and Sinar can easily match that and meanwhile Phase One, Pentax and who knows, even Canon will not be sleeping!

Let's see what PMA brings us!

Asher

[leonardobarreto.com]

Asher, if I'm not mistaken this is a post from April 06. (in dog/computer years is, what 6, 7 years ago? LOL)

How do you think the situation is now?

The medium format is so slow compared to other sectors of the digital field.

* ZD basically never materialized in the US, and Mamiya is yet to totally wake up.
* We are waiting for the Pentax the onepiece affordable.
* Waiting for the AEROBUS of DB too. (Sinar-Rolley-et all)
* Hasselblad keeps the count up after the letter H and so is the sticker price.
* Collaterally, Canon did NOT come up with the 1DsMk3 that was the "PhaseOne/Leaf killer"

I check eBay every now and then for used and refurbish P 25's et all, and it seams to be less of them offered. Also, prices doesn't seam to be coming down so fast. I got mine at the end of last year for 14k with one year warranty and almost not used (pelican case and other goodies) from Calumet.

This is good news for me because my investment is not loosing value so fast -- I think --, but not for my friend Asher that wants the MF DB world deflated.

On the other hand I had the chance to test my back under same conditions (studio) with a friend's 1DsMk2 and the difference was really difficult to detect --allthough there is --.

Back to the reasons why the field is not "de gentrifying", we can speculate:

-- A MF ccd size is really expensive to produce.
-- To produce super clean images out of the ccd requires know how, artistry and good luck.
-- The market is reduced and serviced by PhaseOne, Leaf and Hasselblad.

and finally: Photographers that need a MF don't want a "cheap" MF. This are working pros that want to use the price of this equipment to distance them from the rest... I don't know

Any way, Asher: Are you now more inclined to go for the Leica? interesting choice, no?

I have an idea... get the M8 and MFDB

saludos, leonardo

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Leonardo,

We should see the Sinar and Leaf versions of the Hy6 MF platform starting in May/June.

For me, I have spent a lot of effort with an M8 and one 28mm lens and got hooked but had to return the camera to Solms. My new 50 1.2L has distracted me since then and I have been playing with a number of exotic non-practical slow alternatives which will surprise you and I will write up soon.

The 1D Mark III if it indeed delivers an extra 1.5 to 2 stops as suggested by Canon, then it becomes a major new tool, if you happpen to light Canon redition of skin tones. I happen to be very impressed. A 1DIIII would keep me very happy for anything that moves.

For architecture of course, MF/LF digital (39MP Sinar. for example) will be king, but a lot of people might be stitching with the 1DIII. Using only the center of the lens, the stitches should be better than with the full frame 5D and the 1DsII and even 1DsIII when it arrives.

With a heavy tripod and solid head, pano stitching has reached a level of sophistication that allows us to think of workflows for HDR with each shot by bracketing and stitching several rows to outclass a MF back. Of course, a 39MP back will IMHO be better, but today, we can reasonably plan to do professional work in an alternate system to the highest standard.

The fact that the 1DIII will allow for real time viewfinder checking of focus, means that we can expect all the shots to be pretty well perfectly focused and exposed.

Still, for my pocket, the M8 with a 28mm Summicron will make me a happy man.

Asher

[Michael Fontana]

Asher
as the 1 DS-2 & good lenses are "big" enough for 99 % of the shots, at the moment, I personally don't see any major advantage of a update. For the margin of 1 % I might stitch, with the PSA or some multi-rows with software.

In the field of MF-backs, developement is still going on strong. One might buy a back, to realise a few month later, that it was to early.

On the actual MFbacks and cams, there's still a lack of shiftlens; therefore some might opt for the recently released Arca Swiss R, plus a back

http://www.profot.ch/profotch/img/arca-swiss_R.jpg

[Asher Kelman]

That Michael, is something a lot of people are after, especially for architectural work. The Gottshalt and the new Technical Camera by Fotoman http://www.fotomancamera.com/product/20061214174340DmaxfrontLG.jpg

The Fotoman Dmax has 25mm shoft left and right of the digital back and 25mm up and down rise and fall of the lens itself.

Multi Film Format: 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 6x12 via removeable film backs
Film Size: 120 & 220
Accepts many Digital Backs (Phase One, Leaf, Imacon, Jenoptik, Sinar)
Focus Method: Helical Focus Mount or Ground Glass
View Finder: 120 degree with Interchangeable Masks
Body Material: 6061 T2 Aluminum Alloy
Body Dimensions: TBA
Weight: TBA
Price: Forecast at approximately 2,700.00 USD

Asher

[Michael Fontana]

yep, that looks good, too, and isn't to expensive.
Which lenses are used on the board? And how wide?

[Asher Kelman]

Yes, you have a lot of choice!

FUJI
65/5.6 SW/SWD
75/5.6 SW/SWD
90/5.6 SW/SWD
90/8 SW
105/8 SW
125/8 SW and longer

RODENSTOCK
45/4.5 APO Grandagon
55/4.5 APO Grandagon
65/4.5 Grandagon N
75/4.5 Grandagon N and longer

35/4.5 Digital APO Sironar
45/4.5 Digital APO Sironar
55/4.5 Digital APO Sironar
90/5.6 Digital APO Sironar and longer

SCHNEIDER
38/5.6 Super Angulon XL
47/5.6 Super Angulon
47/5.6 Super Angulon XL
58/5.6 Super Angulon XL
65/5.6 Super Angulon
72/5.6 Super Angulon XL
75/5.6 Super Angulon and longer

24/5.6 APO Digitar
35/5.6 APO Digitar
47/5.6 APO Digitar
60/4.0 APO Digitar
80/4.4 APO Digitar
90/4.5 APO Digitar and, of course, longer!

[leonardobarreto.com]

Hi Asher. I will soon have a year to virtually know you, the OpenPhoto forum and the other people here (joined July 30th, 2006) and I have profited from the knowledge of posting and reading here. I think that traffic is a bit slower pace than in other popular forums, but a lot more specialized and image oriented, so, thank you for that.

Hi Leonardo,

We should see the Sinar and Leaf versions of the Hy6 MF platform starting in May/June.

** That will be interesting to see in real life, I think that the concept has been debated intensely, so we have to wait and see.

For me, I have spent a lot of effort with an M8 and one 28mm lens and got hooked but had to return the camera to Solms. My new 50 1.2L has distracted me since then and I have been playing with a number of exotic non-practical slow alternatives which will surprise you and I will write up soon.

** I will stay tuned and wait for that. (also NY images..)

The 1D Mark III if it indeed delivers an extra 1.5 to 2 stops as suggested by Canon, then it becomes a major new tool, if you happpen to light Canon redition of skin tones. I happen to be very impressed. A 1DIIII would keep me very happy for anything that moves.

** There was rumor about a 1DsM3, is that what you are referring to? I think that they are having problems with the optics limiting advancement in sensor. In other words, the limits in Canon lens system is a problem to produce more real resolution with more than 16mp.

For architecture of course, MF/LF digital (39MP Sinar. for example) will be king, but a lot of people might be stitching with the 1DIII. Using only the center of the lens, the stitches should be better than with the full frame 5D and the 1DsII and even 1DsIII when it arrives.

** I was doing images of really hard to shoot art work (http://www.joseebienvenugallery.com/images_swartz.html) of an artist that does kinetic work with wires. Here the 22mp was necessary and stitching not practical. (I did 18 images from the time the artist finished installing and before the guests where to arrive to the opening so that the images where processed and uploaded with Dreamweaver to the galleries site)

With a heavy tripod and solid head, pano stitching has reached a level of sophistication that allows us to think of workflows for HDR with each shot by bracketing and stitching several rows to outclass a MF back. Of course, a 39MP back will IMHO be better, but today, we can reasonably plan to do professional work in an alternate system to the highest standard.

The fact that the 1DIII will allow for real time viewfinder checking of focus, means that we can expect all the shots to be pretty well perfectly focused and exposed.

Still, for my pocket, the M8 with a 28mm Summicron will make me a happy man.

*** Asher: I'm sure your's is the happiest pocket in the world.

good luck

Asher

[Michael Fontana]

Hi Asher.
........... I think that traffic is a bit slower pace than in other popular forums, but a lot more specialized and image oriented, so, thank you for that.

I don't mind this place not to become overpopular, as some popular ones went bad. No names :-)
I hope you all can agree.

[leonardobarreto.com]

Michael, that is exactly what I said. I just went to see the pro section of one such sites -no names- and there the level was not at all pro. I should also say that sites like that are good and necessary for a lot of people,- the majority even - and it is not good to diminish them because they are what they are.

[Asher Kelman]

Leonardo and Michael,

You are the guys we value. We're here for real photography, but we're not effete snobs. We have fora to contain less experience and we move posts to try to maintain the thrust of professional discussion.

This is a platform to build on. If we get one new professional every two -4 weeks Nicolas, and the rest of the team are happy. I've excluded 38% of registrants. This past several weeks it's gone up to 60%.

So this way we grow slowly but can maintain and build a character and still attract people who's lives and hearts depend on high standards.

Whenever you can share your own experience, it provides the real matrix for us to thrive. My job is not to sell stuff as other sites, (not that we won't ever) but to be a solid place to visit, get answers and exchange.

Asher

[Asher Kelman]

Back to the large architectural/landscape scene: we are as you point out at a transition. A back one buys now could vanish tomorrow. We have low volume high cost backs. The need for highly accurate systems is most important for architecture but also for shooting high-end large groups of people.

Leaf has quality issues that they may or may not have solved with the center "book fold", the consortium for the Hy6 seems like a medieval arrangement between different fiefdoms. If they come up with an "open" IBM PC model, where one can plug in whatever module is best for you, then I see an evolution of a superior system and every lower cost components.

I personally think that for many jobs, the maturing stitch software tools can make the call for these more expensive systems mute.

The advantage of MF has been


Dynamic Range: This has been the hardest quality for lesser cameras to match. Fuji for B&W wedding photography competed well. Now bracketing and Photomatix for still shots does the same thing. With the 1D Mark III, this now appears to be part of the 14 BIT dual DIGIC 3 advantage to delver the extra 1.5 stops to close the gap.


Image quality (color, tonality, contrast or "look" of a system: This will always be subject to one’s artistic taste. Nikon, or Fuji or even the 14n/c Kodak cameras have their devout followers, despite Canon's otherwise "superior" offerings. However, the arrival of SilkyPix, LightZone and so many other RAW developing solutions allows the discerning photographer to get the "look" they want anyway.


Higher detail capture in large fields of view: Here, it's difficult to argue with 39MP of single shot capture. I think that Sinar and Phase One are perhaps the state of art in commercially available upper end backs. The H3 gets an extra kudos for integrated lens correction software. I don't think that a 21 or 24 MP 1DsIII is going to match this when it arrives by March 2008.


Professional Quality RAW Processing Software: The release of Capture One software for 35mm format cameras, albeit without overlay capability in live shoots, elevated the already high status of the Canon and Nikon flagships.

For many, the top MF models are beyond reach. Used MF backs make sense. But where are they? I hardly see any for sale!
Leonardo, you went that route. Was it a good decision? Did you get all the support you needed and do they respect your used back for getting upgrades?

Asher

[Michael Fontana]

>y job is not to sell stuff as other sites, (not that we won't ever) but to be a solid place to visit, get answers and exchange.<

This sounds like a good definition.

Back to topics:

Talking about Sinar; since April first, (no joke) they' ve a new CEO, Mr Keller, he last worked, as Chief Operation Officer in Solms (Leica), but he came to Sinar through Jenoptik, the new owner of Sinar.

He states "Sinar stands before a new start.... ("Sinar steht vor einem Neuanfang) whatever this means.
Giving up the 4/5-system, the Sinar-domaine - on longer terms?

Beside that, he 's aware of your >For many, the top MF models are beyond reach.<, too and welcomes the HY6, beeing sold by Leaf and Franke & Heidecke as well, as "this will bring the costs for such a cam down, to find a new clientelle".

Ok, the last message is clear; I stll have my buts: compatibilty between these back/cam systems, and "eas of use" or spontaneity, that we liked on the DSLR's, after years of carrying heavy Sinars - I still have 3 of them - arround, taking pola's, then shifting a bit to the right, doing another pola, shooting the 4 trannies....etc.

[leonardobarreto.com]

"Leonardo, you went that route. Was it a good decision? Did you get all the support you needed and do they respect your used back for getting upgrades?

Asher"

It was a risky decision because I was moving to NY with no client base and no capital. But I think that it was a good one.

But first about the actual purchase. As you probably noticed from my postings, I researched the solutions available then, that included 8x10 film, Betterlight and Mamiya ZD. When I got to NY I quickly discovered that 8x10 is way in the past. The Betterlight investigation was the one that provided the must fun since I got accepted in to the forum of owners of the poppies --as poster-- and I got in to a long and exiting argument with the scanning back crowd -- considering my poor english and tendency to be "agent provocateur" it was good they never banned me--. The conclusion was that a scanning back, in very, very few words, was not practical and as expensive as others.

Then I met my good friend Tom Powel that is one of, if not the, top art work photographers in NY, and he gave me this important piece of info.: "no one needs more than 50 Megs."

Anyway, my first advice is to research before spending 14k ... but having the back and using it in the real world I can say that there is a more prosaic advantage to having one, and that is the beast itself. Is as if you go on a safari with your friends and you bring the elephant rifle. That will put you on the elephant shooting party next morning. This is good news if you really want to shoot big game, for one. But you better know how to shoot one when stampeding towards you at 100 m/h..

Now back to how I got it. After the research, I concluded that PhaseOne was good enough (I know that if I say the best one they will accuse me of trolling) and that it had to have Mamiya mount --because I had the camera and 3 lenses-- so I looked for weeks in eBay just to get an idea of prices. It is interesting to see that there are much LESS P 25's there now, no idea why.

The other important decision is the size of the sensor. (for me the larger size, but not the most resolution was the optimum choice, also the size of sensor is 9 microsomething, even larger than P 45)

The idea of actually getting one on eBay is intriguing, but probably not recommended, so I googled until I found a good priced one in california (Bearimages http://www.bearimages.com/), they quoted me a price, then I found something as good here in NY but decided to walk in Calumet just to ask. There, Irwin Miller gave me a better deal that included training, one year warranty, partial financial help (they had a promo. with no interests or payment for a year) and a "hot swap" thing where if the back needs servicing they lend you one. He explained to me that even if you get one on eBay or from a flee market, you can "register" it with them for support. (i don't know the details of this since it is not my case, but you can call them if interested)

It is interesting to see that the price that I paid seams to be holding -- amassing thing considering this some form of computer equipment prone to the obsolescence cruel laws -- and the new P+ models don't have any new capability that demising the old backs. This are very solid with no moving part machines (the Leafs have fans that give them an air of more vulnerability). They are part of the upgrade program too.

If I had to doit again and from scratch I may go with an H 25, this is the same but only thetered model, and Hasselblad V mount, perhaps. And shop for optics on eBay. I think you can find one of these backs for 8k. They use FireWire power, are very solid and compact and have the large size sensor... I do almost all my photography connected to the computer. The CaptureOne software is so good (I have no experience with other ones) that takes away a lot of the stress from shooting under pressure. You want to shoot from computer: press return, from camera: press the shutter release. Want to unplug: just unplug or plug again. All files are organized for you by Phase One and the raw is so elastic in the curves and levels that you don't need a light meter...

Questions..

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks, Leonardo, that's so helpful. I wonder if the Calumet plolicy applies here in Los Angeles. I'll visit them and see!

You mentioned "I may go with an H 25, this is the same but only thetered model, and Hasselblad V mount, perhaps.".

Do you mean that P25 is only usable tethered or that it can be used tethered, unlike your current Phase One back.

BTW, what size files do you get.

Asher

[leonardobarreto.com]

Asher, there are now 3 Phase One "size" 25, the P 25+ is basically a P 25 Mk2, but the H is a different machine. It has the same specifications but H shoots wired to the computer ONLY(I want a brake from using the tethered word) and the P 25 can shoot wired to the computer or portable -- thats why the "P", as in PSP Play Station Portable ;-) --

The P has three things extra: one slot for a battery --on the right hand side-- of which my camera came with two (batteries, that is) and a twin battery changer, a slot for Compact Flash on the left side for shooting to flash memory, and a not so hot lcd (hot in the sense that my LUMIX comes with a much better one) and four buttons for the interface that is Phase One simple.

The other difference is that the H's come only in Hasselblad V mount (but they can be used with 4x5 type cameras) and I'm not sure if you can fire the camera from the computer etc.

So the P is a much more versatile back, but the H at a good price is a way to get the large size sensor with the biggest sensel size (9 microsomething ), a 63 MB file per click @ 8 bits 127 MB @ 16 bits etc.

The other good thing is that you can have a good time shopping for old Hasselblad optics from the good old times, when they were made by Carl Zeiss and not Fujifilm.

The down side is having to only shoot tethered to the computer. I think that your 17 inch Mac may be too big to take on the helicopter yacht shooting hough, but not so for architecture..

[Ray West]

Hi Leonardo,

I'm not in the market for this gear, but what type of computer, or operating system? It is possible to get a pc not much bigger than a 3 1/2 hdd, these days, including the 3 1/2 hard disk, or smaller, so being connected is not necessarily much of an issue. Now, with the sort of pendant track ball, as used for presentations, then it may become suddenly very usable.

Best wishes,

Ray

[leonardobarreto.com]

Ray, I use Mac, but I think that the CaptureOne comes in PC. It would be nice of Apple to put a FireWire in the ePhone --after all the device apparently runs on OSX-- and a large enough battery to shoot a digital back.

The problem is that they got burned too badly with the Newton, but one such device with to-day technology would not be so bad for photographers.

[Klaus Esser]

Hi @all!

I´m using several digibacks by renting them for what i need them on a daily or weekly base. I don´t intend to buy one for that reason.
One of their shortcomes is to work with a back on a view-camera and doing subtle tilts when shooting products. Here i like 4x5 and 8x10" much better - you can control tilts and Scheimpflugs muchg better on a big screen.
The resolution is anothjer word. I showed the 8x10" shot in another thread here. You can´t get this quality with even the most expensive backs.
A way is - as we all know - stitching from multiple shots. But: you absolutely don´t need more than a good dslr to do that with perfection.
Multiple shots are not alway possible - a digiback for about 30 grands is absolutely NOT, what i would prefer over analogue.
There is NO digiback on the market today - at least no one-shot - that equals a 4x5" tranny of 50ASA scanned on a drumscanner by a professional. Not to speak of a 8x10" . . . .

So my decision was to rent a back only when i really need it and working analogue on MF/LF or with stitchings of a 1Ds.

Professionals have to earn their livings with their gear and have no money to burn . . . :-) ;-)

best, Klaus

[leonardobarreto.com]

If you add up the cost of a drum scan plus one day, or week rental ($600/day) The other day I made 18 photos of sculptures, so that would be $100 per shot = $2,400 in costs alone. and half a day renting and going to DUGGAL... If you work half the days in a month, lets say 10 days.. that's $24,000 but you have to include $10 per 8x10 film and $10 development another $3,600 so you can almost buy a new back every month.

The good thing of having the equipment is that you can learn how to use the software really well. I have had the PhaseOne for a few months now, and I'm only beginning to get conformable with it.

With film you have all the information but at the end you are "imaging" your original with a device, the scanner, that is not much different than the digital camera. The transparency has to be good, THEN the scann has to be good, and you pay another "photographer" to do the second part that is as important.

So, in principle the two step method could be better, but in practice the direct way wins because has "less moving parts", or a far less degenerative process.

On the other side, I want to go back to 4x5 film for my personal work, I don't want to take --and risk-- the P 25 to the industrial remote places where I get my inspiration. I may use c-print negs. and print directly in to c-prints...

[leonardobarreto.com]

The way I see it, business wise is like this:
$14,000 to be paid in 2 years (this is reasonable arbitrary timing)

That is $583 a month. This is the going rate for a back for one day.

The back is justifiable if you work one day every month and not have to pay for rental.

So, the second day in the month that you take the back to work you save $500, and so on.

and, at the end of the 24 months you own it.

[Klaus Esser]

If you add up the cost of a drum scan plus one day, or week rental ($600/day) The other day I made 18 photos of sculptures, so that would be $100 per shot = $2,400 in costs alone. and half a day renting and going to DUGGAL... If you work half the days in a month, lets say 10 days.. that's $24,000 but you have to include $10 per 8x10 film and $10 development another $3,600 so you can almost buy a new back every month.

The good thing of having the equipment is that you can learn how to use the software really well. I have had the PhaseOne for a few months now, and I'm only beginning to get conformable with it.

With film you have all the information but at the end you are "imaging" your original with a device, the scanner, that is not much different than the digital camera. The transparency has to be good, THEN the scann has to be good, and you pay another "photographer" to do the second part that is as important.

So, in principle the two step method could be better, but in practice the direct way wins because has "less moving parts", or a far less degenerative process.

On the other side, I want to go back to 4x5 film for my personal work, I don't want to take --and risk-- the P 25 to the industrial remote places where I get my inspiration. I may use c-print negs. and print directly in to c-prints...



Hi Leonardo!

Right: digital is more comfortable. But is this the aim? To have it comfortable? ;-)
Right: you have to scan transparencies. I own a drumscanner - butalso there´s professional scanservice around in every bigger city.
Wrong: drum-scanning is hardly comparable to a digital camera. Depends on the size of the transparencies. It reaches farer.

Funny enough, what you say, i agree with you: most photographers i know do their "personal work" 4x5 or 8x10 analogue. Even it they own a digiback.

Why? ;-)

I have some clients who ask me to shoot analogue. For some reasons. 1) Resolution - for very big prints, for complex composings f.e. 2) for more comfortable selecting pictures on a big lighttable where some people can gather around and look, sort, match, arrange pictures in groups and so on, fashion-/peopleshootings as examples.

I understand that. It´s hard to go through lets say five hundred shots of one day shooting to pick the best expression of a face or the most elegant moving of a model, to group the best pics together and make a story out of them when you do it on one or even two displays.

In the end it comes to the opponents: practicability and moderate costs or exclusivity at a slightly higher costs for material/lab.
Not to forget from the photographer´s view: usually in 2earlier days" ;-) the trannies went to the client and he used it for what he wanted it. He gave it to the people who made a professional pre-press and printing job.

Nowadays the photographer needs far more time to select, postpro and organize the pics after the shooting. For no higher fee as before!
It takes new and high investments in high-end equipment and it also takes more time in postpro for the photographer . .

The only win for the photographer is to have a look at the results imediately . . but usually we did that with Polaroids anyway . . so, where is the REAL win?
Time? No.
Costs? No - not really.
Safer production by imediate controlling? Mabe. We did it with polas anyway. And it´s awfull having people jumping to the display after each shot to see what they look like . . ;-)

No - i personally prefer a slower, more concious, concentrated way of working analogue and having the possibility of getting REAL highres by scanning highres from a REAL highres trasparency.

I would say simply: digital is good food, analogue at high level is haute-cuisine . . . ;-)

best, Klaus

[leonardobarreto.com]

Klaus, I like where you have taken this thread, in many ways I agree with you, I love to look in the the focusing glass of a 4x5, the sound of the shutter: so small for such a large camera. Its like having a bull from a ring in its nose. Then carefully inserting the film holder and quickly checking all systems: *close up compensation: -2/3, *lens closed and cocked *flash cord detached from meter, attached to lens, check, f/stop stopped up, check, click. Other side, click, Norma, Normal + 1/3. And then comes the fun part --no pun intended-- of saving all the plates in the film box (for the reader that doesn't know how cut film comes, there are two boxes and a sealed envelop, you open one box, then another, then cut with your hands the envelope --all of this in absolute darkness or with your hands inside a bag --and find the emulsion side with notches on the top left) so that the lab knows that the "top" is Normal: hold that please, the "second" -1/3 push etc etc.

I used to like doing that, but it made me two things, one: proud that I could shoot a large format, and second: very stressed while I did it.

With black and white is the same thing, I spent my university years working as a newspaper photographer and did all my developing and printing. At the time the only thing was real paper base and took forever to wash and dry, but had nothing to do with the multi contrast plastic that came after.

Photography has never stopped. The makers of the number one newspaper camera, the Graplex, made here in NY, didn't see it coming. First Rolleyflex, then the 35mm format. Death came fast for that camera. At the end people where happy with the teeny tiny new negatives and didn't care that the Pacemakers and Speeds produced much better negatives.

Is this good? probably good and bad. For example: film base photography is less ecologically friendly with all the chemicals, some containing silver and other heavy metals. But at the end, it is all the same. If you have talent, you probably do well in digital as you did in film.

Personally, I always loved Polaroid because I like the instant gratification of the instant image, but I'm also a pessimistic type, so the absence of the trips to the lab to get the e-6 developed -- always, always thinking that they will all be black, burned and crashed (usually they where not)-- is another one of this good things.

[Asher Kelman]

Leonardo and Klaus,

If you wish to ever venture back to Polaroid even for sentimentality, you had better buy the film now before it is all gone!

Asher

[leonardobarreto.com]

How long is going to last after you buy it and it is all gone?
I suppose that photographers that did the large size wet glass plates got attached to shooting with them.

[Klaus Esser]

Klaus, I like where you have taken this thread, in many ways I agree with you, I love to look in the the focusing glass of a 4x5, the sound of the shutter: so small for such a large camera. Its like having a bull from a ring in its nose. Then carefully inserting the film holder and quickly checking all systems: *close up compensation: -2/3, *lens closed and cocked *flash cord detached from meter, attached to lens, check, f/stop stopped up, check, click. Other side, click, Norma, Normal + 1/3. And then comes the fun part --no pun intended-- of saving all the plates in the film box (for the reader that doesn't know how cut film comes, there are two boxes and a sealed envelop, you open one box, then another, then cut with your hands the envelope --all of this in absolute darkness or with your hands inside a bag --and find the emulsion side with notches on the top left) so that the lab knows that the "top" is Normal: hold that please, the "second" -1/3 push etc etc.

I used to like doing that, but it made me two things, one: proud that I could shoot a large format, and second: very stressed while I did it.

With black and white is the same thing, I spent my university years working as a newspaper photographer and did all my developing and printing. At the time the only thing was real paper base and took forever to wash and dry, but had nothing to do with the multi contrast plastic that came after.

Photography has never stopped. The makers of the number one newspaper camera, the Graplex, made here in NY, didn't see it coming. First Rolleyflex, then the 35mm format. Death came fast for that camera. At the end people where happy with the teeny tiny new negatives and didn't care that the Pacemakers and Speeds produced much better negatives.

Is this good? probably good and bad. For example: film base photography is less ecologically friendly with all the chemicals, some containing silver and other heavy metals. But at the end, it is all the same. If you have talent, you probably do well in digital as you did in film.

Personally, I always loved Polaroid because I like the instant gratification of the instant image, but I'm also a pessimistic type, so the absence of the trips to the lab to get the e-6 developed -- always, always thinking that they will all be black, burned and crashed (usually they where not)-- is another one of this good things.



Hi Leonardo!

I see, you realized the ironics in my words :-) !

A client - ArtDirector - made me think deeper about client´s psychology than ever before:
We had a briefing about a job for a big mobilephone client here in Germany and i suggested to shoot some testimonials digitally. Seemed the most logical way to me.
Than he said something very interesting:
"This client lives and works in a digital world. Everybody can buy a digital camera to shoot people in many ways. So digital media is very common with them. Maybe they start to think about shooting tzestimonials in a way like "look - it´s so easy these days, isn´t it . . why the hell don´t we try it ourselves? Why spending THIS much of money for a photographer? Why is that so expensive?" and so on." That´s what he said. Than:
"To really impress clients of that kind you have to build some miracoulos things around them which they don´t know! Digital they know - in every kind".
Analogue, with manual metering light, making Polaroids and bigger formats - shooting a portrait for instance on 4x5" - that´s miracoulos to them! They´ll adore you as a master of Oz kind and i bet, costs are no objects . . . "

Wise guy he is. It went exactly this way: i did some shots on 4x5" and some portraits and the stills on 8x10" and the main in 6x6 - and what can i say: the faces of some junior art directors and young, clever and smart guys and gals at the client´s you should have seen when they were shown the 8x10" transparencies . . . :-) :-) "Lighttable? What´s that? We don´t have it here". That really was amazing :-) .

In a world of fast and streamline media, it´s clever to be "different". Not only by the quality of your work, but also in doing things NOT like everybody else.
Often people don´t want to be "mainstream", as the "masses" ;-) - they want to wear mechanical watches, wear pure lambswool or collect old guitars (like me :-) ) instead of microprocessor-controlled and fully automatized modern axes which all sound the same . . they love to play this guitars with 40years old amps and so on . .
They listen to 50s Jazz on vinyl and tube-amplifiers drive their horn-type speakers built as they were build in the 50s. And sound better than 75% of modern constructions. And sometimes are VERY expensive and exclusive.

That´s what i realized and why i don´t feel a real advantage in working exclusively digital. In the end it is a combination of "making of" and a "special" touch which should be in every photograph.

best, Klaus

[Michael Fontana]

Klaus,

you made some points, I'm not in the boat for a digiback, too, and pretty aware of the pro's and con's of digi.

But we' ve to admit too, that digi gave us some positive things:

Just a example, from my own experience, I feel freer, the shots are more spontaneous; a example I'm sure you know yourself: its much easier with digi to have humans within architecture shots. In the analog era, while setting up the Sinar, taking polas, shifting, etc, the non pro models became so unnatural, so mostly, it was better to have it done without.

Today, you set up the cam, knowing to be at the right angle towards the building, having the fine light for that specific house, material, and poeple walk through, you press the buttons, and can make your choice later.

http://imago.macbay.de/montespluga/without_strobes.jpg

Apart from the people, settings the strobes for that hall would have been good fun, too ;-)

As for the costs: I know some photographers, who didn't bill for postpro; they didn't made it very long .....

[Klaus Esser]

Klaus,

you made some points, I'm not in the boat for a digiback, too, and pretty aware of the pro's and con's of digi.

But we' ve to admit too, that digi gave us some positive things:

Just a example, from my own experience, I feel freer, the shots are more spontaneous; a example I'm sure you know yourself: its much easier with digi to have humans within architecture shots. In the analog era, while setting up the Sinar, taking polas, shifting, etc, the non pro models became so unnatural, so mostly, it was better to have it done without.

Today, you set up the cam, knowing to be at the right angle towards the building, having the fine light for that specific house, material, and poeple walk through, you press the buttons, and can make your choice later.

http://imago.macbay.de/montespluga/without_strobes.jpg

Apart from the people, settings the strobes for that hall would have been good fun, too ;-)

As for the costs: I know some photographers, who didn't bill for postpro; they didn't made it very long .....



Hi Michael!

I didn´t mean digital at whole - i meant especially digi-backs for use with lf- or mf-cameras.
In the 1DsMkII or a Mamiya ZD range there´s no question to have one as a photographer.

But they´re costs and handlig are o.k. I find 30000$ for a back isn´t a good relation to what it gives me as an advantage. The only thing you save is film and devellopement. That´s to the client anyway . .

Humans in achitectural shots i´m doing with a lf shot of the building and then with the 1Ds from exactly the same point (tripod-head) again concentrated on the people. Then compose it with the lf.
Works great - you have an identical background, even if you shoot the person with a tele, so compsing is easy.

best, Klaus

[Michael Fontana]

ok, Klaus

I agree, keeping my 3 Sinars - from 5 I had.
Still got a copy of that rare Sinar Handy, which I like very much: one shift-direction only, but ultra-fast setup:

http://imago.macbay.de/montespluga/handy.jpg

[Klaus Esser]

ok, Klaus

I agree, keeping my 3 Sinars - from 5 I had.
Still got a copy of that rare Sinar Handy, which I like very much: one shift-direction only, but ultra-fast setup:

http://imago.macbay.de/montespluga/handy.jpg

Yes - fine stuff!! Is that the Chinese shiftable 4x5"? Gaoersi or Dayi or so? Cause you said "copy".
They´re reliable and fast. You can attach a 6x9/12/14/17 back.

best, Klaus

[Michael Fontana]

No, this is from Sinar, the same who build the Hy6 MF, and its called Sinar Handy.
Very few were built, in the 80's?? 90's, so you will hardly find information about it.

It was my travelling kit...with a 65, 90, 120mm, it was box approx. same size as my actual 1 DS-2-bag, one even can shot handheld, with it, as it has a graffle ;-)
Focussing is done on the lens itself, like he cambo's.

[leonardobarreto.com]

I don't think we disagree in general terms, just some different personal strategies and stile. All photographers solve problems their own way. I don't discard film at all, and the cost of the back is what stops me from using it as for urban landscape, but for every day work, I can't complain. My clients are impressed when they see the files, and this are people that have digital cameras and they have attempted to do "in house photography", but even if they had a PhaseOne the results would be bad. There are other factors contributing to the success or failure of the assignment like lighting, choosing the angle, interpretation of the subject etc, etc. Digital is just a different instrument, like electric guitar as opposed to acoustic guitar. Why would we say that the only good is the electric, or the other one? There is a time and a moment for each.

[Klaus Esser]

"There is a time and a moment for each."

Yes - absolutely!

"like electric guitar as opposed to acoustic guitar"

well, ough - you do very (!) different things on an electric guitar as you do on an acoustic one . . . ;-)

Not to speak of Jimmy Hendrix´ interpretation of "Star Spangled Banner" in Woodstock . . :-) on his Stratocaster and a Marshall stack (one of the highlights in playing electric guitars) but there´s a big difference in using the both types of guitars and also a big difference in expressions they make by their functionality . .
Or listen to an acoustric nylon-string of Laurindo Almeida playing BossaNova or Andrés Segovia playing a nylon-string classic guitar which is basically the same construction and then listen to a Telecaster played over a MesaBoogie . . . :-)

It depends heavily on the style of music and your feelings, which guitar you choose. As it is in photography . . :-) :-)


best, Klaus

P.S.: of course i understand you very well . . ;-)

[Georg Baumann]

A client - ArtDirector - made me think deeper about client´s psychology than ever before:
We had a briefing about a job for a big mobilephone client here in Germany and i suggested to shoot some testimonials digitally. Seemed the most logical way to me.
Than he said something very interesting:
"This client lives and works in a digital world. Everybody can buy a digital camera to shoot people in many ways. So digital media is very common with them. Maybe they start to think about shooting tzestimonials in a way like "look - it´s so easy these days, isn´t it . . why the hell don´t we try it ourselves? Why spending THIS much of money for a photographer? Why is that so expensive?" and so on." That´s what he said. Than:
"To really impress clients of that kind you have to build some miracoulos things around them which they don´t know! Digital they know - in every kind".
Analogue, with manual metering light, making Polaroids and bigger formats - shooting a portrait for instance on 4x5" - that´s miracoulos to them! They´ll adore you as a master of Oz kind and i bet, costs are no objects . . . "

Wise guy he is. It went exactly this way: i did some shots on 4x5" and some portraits and the stills on 8x10" and the main in 6x6 - and what can i say: the faces of some junior art directors and young, clever and smart guys and gals at the client´s you should have seen when they were shown the 8x10" transparencies . . . :-) :-) "Lighttable? What´s that? We don´t have it here". That really was amazing :-) .


I find this an outstanding story in deed! <big smile!>

To a degree it reminds me to an experience in a music store many years ago. It was short after the release of a new all-in-one workstation Synthesizer. You know, one of those where you push a single button and a whole orechstra blasts full tutti.

I had not seen a Boesendorfer Concert Grand for quite some time, let aside played on one, and there she was, in her full glory, calling me like the sirens in Homer's Odysse.

There was a considerable crowd around a chap who pushed buttons on this new wonder workstation and all kind of miraculous copy cats of at the time popular bands were emluated by pushing a few buttons. Aaaawwww, Oooohhhh... and more Aaaawwwww.

Obviosuly it was ok to try instruments in this shop, a few people played on guitars, a few were torturing a drum kit somewhere in the back.

I admit, a concert grand has a magic pull on me, and I found myself sitting at this beautiful instrument and playing Ravel, then Rachmaniniov, then Oscar Peterson, and a little Joh Sebastian. I did not realize the space around me, as I was concentrating on the instrument, and when I looked up all the crowd from the wonder-workstation had disappeared and stood around the Boesendorfer, and you heard nothing but the Boesendorfer in the shop.

I somewhat blushed and left the shop laughing. <grins>

[leonardobarreto.com]

Over the weekend I had my b'day present that came from eBay, a baby Century and also my Mamiya 645 AFD/P25 --most of the time I live it at my studio-- so I had the two "guitars". Although I didn't have much time because week ends are not time for me but for the two dogs, the 5 year old, and the wife, I had time to shoot one 120 roll with the 6 x 9 and a few captures with the PhaseOne. The "unplugged" camera was an experience.

Has anyone seen the new big trend in bicycles that have no brakes and no gears? fixies, I think they call them. The beauty is in going to the basics of the thing itself and with it "playing" --in this case, going about New York City w/out brakes-- as connoisseurs.
I sat with my tripod and the baby viewcamera at the end of a pier waiting to catch the ships that go by in the Hudson while noticing the number of other people with SLRs and DSLRs in their hands with big zooms as "the other 10 speeds, 2 brakes" cameras.

"It is a zen thing", I read in a The New York Times resent article about fixies. And that is what it is to shoot with a camera where everything has to be set before shooting, like an old canon.

On the other side, I took some images of my kid in the apartments couch with the 80mm f:2.8 and I felt like a Jimy Hendrix. I was shooting with the camera tethered to my PowerBook and had access to the images in the 15 inch display, the MF view finder is like a huge bright window and I could keep an eye on the moving subject and a power shutter release under my finger...slack, slack.

[Michael Fontana]

all these questions overlap with some stitching tests and my first "commercial stitches" - with a hombrew nodal point adapter.

I definatly decided to go that stitching route, and not for a digiback:

- one point is the money spend, as for most of my clients, a digiback would be a overkill: architecture revue's don't require bigger than A-3. To be flexible, I had to add a whole new set of lenses as well, apart from the digiback.

- the stitching software has progressed very much. Only a few years ago, stitching was sort of painfull experiment, by selecting common points in different shots, hoping the app not to crash. Today, this is done automatically - no point-peeping hazzles' anymore. With batchfeatures, one might render several stitches or a huge one overnight.

- Today's computer have enough ressources, to stich within a reasonable amount of time; and without blocking the puter completly. I was able to render a stitch meanwhile working on a 500 MB-file in PS.

Going the stitching route means too, that I can use all my °exotic° lenses, as the distagons, zuikos, or the canon 50 macro, good lenses that I' ve in use for single shots as well. This gives me the flexibility, to choose the image angles, the aspect ratio wide/height, appropriate to the object.

A downside of stitching are moving objects, but I' m not shooting so may. For these very rare occasions, keeping a sinar makes sense.

For the ease of use, I'll buy a nodalpoint-adapter.
Any comments about your experience with the different brands?

[Klaus Esser]

all these questions overlap with some stitching tests and my first "commercial stitches" - with a hombrew nodal point adapter.

I definatly decided to go that stitching route, and not for a digiback:

- one point is the money spend, as for most of my clients, a digiback would be a overkill: architecture revue's don't require bigger than A-3. To be flexible, I had to add a whole new set of lenses as well, apart from the digiback.

- the stitching software has progressed very much. Only a few years ago, stitching was sort of painfull experiment, by selecting common points in different shots, hoping the app not to crash. Today, this is done automatically - no point-peeping hazzles' anymore. With batchfeatures, one might render several stitches or a huge one overnight.

- Today's computer have enough ressources, to stich within a reasonable amount of time; and without blocking the puter completly. I was able to render a stitch meanwhile working on a 500 MB-file in PS.

Going the stitching route means too, that I can use all my °exotic° lenses, as the distagons, zuikos, or the canon 50 macro, good lenses that I' ve in use for single shots as well. This gives me the flexibility, to choose the image angles, the aspect ratio wide/height, appropriate to the object.

A downside of stitching are moving objects, but I' m not shooting so may. For these very rare occasions, keeping a sinar makes sense.

For the ease of use, I'll buy a nodalpoint-adapter.
Any comments about your experience with the different brands?

Hey Michael!

I fully agree with you!

"For the ease of use, I'll buy a nodalpoint-adapter.
Any comments about your experience with the different brands?"

For travelling and wandering with light-weight cameras as the 20/30/5D without battery-grip there´s the NodalNinja - very light, cheap (about 150.-€), collapsable.
For cameras a bit heavy like 1Ds or D2x or 5D with grip i would suggest a more sturdy one. From cost/effectiveness there are some arround 300-500€.
I have a Manfrotto modified: as a base i use the 438, the famous and nearly unbeatable MN300N and got a L handmade from sturdy alloy with a very sturdy and flexible vertical camera-move device which is more reliable as the original Manfrotto SPH with heavier cameras and lenses.
The Manfrotto is heavy and clumpsy, but very good and fast and sturdy.

To shoot high-res pictures, a motorized/computerized head is unavoidable in the end - though you can make it with a manual head also, of course. But with some hundred exposures - eventually with bracketing - one tends to forget one or another exposure somewhere in the middle . . . (at least i tend to do so . . ;-) ).
The cost for horizontal moving nodal-heads start at arround 1000.-€ and a hor/vert computerized head like the PixOrb is arround 3000-6000.-$ . . .
That´s lots of money - but you´ll compensate it with saved time and constant exposure-rows.
The electronic Seitz-head is arround 1500.-€ as i know and is a good buy - moving and firing the camera is very flexible and precise. It wait´s a moment before releasing the shutter after mirror-up and you can adjust sequences. But it moves only horizontal.

Take a close look at Google for panorama-heads or QTVR gear.

best, Klaus

[Michael Fontana]

Thanks, Klaus

The Seitz-head is available without the drive, too. At the moment, it's my favourite, as it seems to be very precise (= no corections during stitching) and looks to hold the 1 Ds-2 well, by having dimensions (L x W x H) 150 x 190 x 240 mm & weight of 0.85 kg. I'm not to keen to buy the heavy Manfrotto with needs to changed it, as some others did, too. .

Googling for these info's is giving all sort of (biased??)infomations