EBONY out of business by the 30th of June.

[Theodoros]

Gregory Crewdson did change from 8x10" to a Phase One digital back (a recent interview here, good read if you like Crewdson's work: http://petapixel.com/2016/05/18/interview-gregory-crewdson/). So not all famous artists use film, and Gursky does have a digital post-processing workflow like most film shooters have today.

Of course Gursky has a digital post processing workflow... A very advanced one too (which is pretty much secret as he usually uses two film cameras with different focal length on each for one capture) ...they all do!

Obviously what Gregory is doing (awesome job by the way) is very different to Gursky's demand for detail and  (primarily) targets  to record lighting in a manner that it maximizes the impact on social subjects... I guess his average picture requires a technique which involves maybe 50 or 100 shots  in different lighting each as to create one... Very different to what people (usually do) with digital backs don't you think?  I can't see any of the advantages that MFDB makers promote for their backs in his pictures... Neither they promote 20-25 stops of DR, nor the "plastic" look that his images have... (to the contra...). Obviously it is a product of visualization that involves less demand for detail and easier workflow manipulation...

[Theodoros]

It's too bad you never travel to NYC. You have some impression of me that I don't think is correct and I think a couple pints of beer could clear it up.

We could even do your desired test (it's one I've done many times) so you can see why these Cultural Heritage Digitization teams (and many more) use high-res phase systems .

Doug... don't make laugh please!  Where is the comparison with an MFDB there? It's another advertising video of yours with people holding cameras in their hands, talking about Phase one etc... You are a minority in the area (to Hasselblad and Sinar multishot) and you know it! It is of course under business laws for one to convince (mostly ignorant) institution representatives as to sell (and then use the stuff to advertise himself) but was there competition present when you did the demo? Was there any comparison?  ...don't make my laugh please! 

Just tell me this... why don't you arrange a test through P1's representative here where one can use alternative stuff and compare? Why did Yair refused the comparison with the Leaf 12RII back three years ago when he suggested (I still have the mails) to bring a back for me to test (with respect to my -at the days- 528c 16x imacon back) and at the last minute he refused the call and suggested for me to travel 50 miles away (to the P1's distributor's place) and only have some shots with the back without comparing it?  Do you know what happened when I tried the same back (the 12RII) a few months later from another of your customers that bought it? Do you want to know? ...i'm sure you don't! 

Please Doug, either provide some comparisons with a multishot back for scanning film, or leave us in peace, or take the call for a bet... You loose your equipment, I loose mine!

P.S.
I'll be using the following for the bet...
-A sturdy old view camera
-One standard with frame removed and Rollei 6008 (MF) fitted instead
-Schneider 150mm f4.6 APO micro lens fitted on
-Rear standard frame replaced by self made film carrier
-Diffusor glass behind film frame
-Fluorescent 5600K lighting (CRI >97 Osram Dulux L valves) behind the diffusor (and film)
-A self made bellows mounted on the lens on one side and on the film carrier on the other side
-The sinarback 54H back mounted on the Rollei
-Sinar's old Capture shop 6.1.2 software with my own profiling

You use whatever you want...

I'll be shooting the film at 1:1 magnification in 16x multishot mode and do the scanning by moving the standard's side shift and up down shift mechanisms... you do whatever you want... I'm all yours...  ...or leave us in peace and go sell some (rubish for the job) single shot stuff elsewhere!

EDIT: The standard I will be moving for scanning on the film surface is the one that the film carrier is on... Camera will be kept constant for the whole process... Film to be scanned size choice is yours, whatever you want! Focusing on mine will be by using LV through Sinar's software with the focusing aid scale it provides.

[Doug Peterson]

You are a minority in the area (to Hasselblad and Sinar multishot) and you know it!

Your information is around a decade out of date. At least in the US. I can't speak to Southern Europe.

[Theodoros]

Doug... don't make laugh please!  Where is the comparison with an MFDB there? It's another advertising video of yours with people holding cameras in their hands, talking about Phase one etc... You are a minority in the area (to Hasselblad and Sinar multishot) and you know it! It is of course under business laws for one to convince (mostly ignorant) institution representatives as to sell (and then use the stuff to advertise himself) but was there competition present when you did the demo? Was there any comparison?  ...don't make my laugh please! 

Just tell me this... why don't you arrange a test through P1's representative here where one can use alternative stuff and compare? Why did Yair refused the comparison with the Leaf 12RII back three years ago when he suggested (I still have the mails) to bring a back for me to test (with respect to my -at the days- 528c 16x imacon back) and at the last minute he refused the call and suggested for me to travel 50 miles away (to the P1's distributor's place) and only have some shots with the back without comparing it?  Do you know what happened when I tried the same back (the 12RII) a few months later from another of your customers that bought it? Do you want to know? ...i'm sure you don't! 

Please Doug, either provide some comparisons with a multishot back for scanning film, or leave us in peace, or take the call for a bet... You loose your equipment, I loose mine!

P.S.
I'll be using the following for the bet...
-A sturdy old view camera
-One standard with frame removed and Rollei 6008 (MF) fitted instead
-Schneider 150mm f4.6 APO micro lens fitted on
-Rear standard frame replaced by self made film carrier
-Diffusor glass behind film frame
-Fluorescent 5600K lighting (CRI >97 Osram Dulux L valves) behind the diffusor (and film)
-A self made bellows mounted on the lens on one side and on the film carrier on the other side
-The sinarback 54H back mounted on the Rollei
-Sinar's old Capture shop 6.1.2 software with my own profiling

You use whatever you want...

I'll be shooting the film at 1:1 magnification in 16x multishot mode and do the scanning by moving the standard's side shift and up down shift mechanisms... you do whatever you want... I'm all yours...  ...or leave us in peace and go sell some (rubish for the job) single shot stuff elsewhere!

EDIT: The standard I will be moving for scanning on the film surface is the one that the film carrier is on... Camera will be kept constant for the whole process... Film to be scanned size choice is yours, whatever you want! Focusing on mine will be by using LV through Sinar's software with the focusing aid scale it provides.

Sure Doug... whatever... how about talking on the bet instead of avoiding what gets you in the corner? 

[Doug Peterson]

Sure Doug... whatever... how about talking on the bet instead of avoiding what gets you in the corner? 

Glad to do a test with you whenever you're in NYC. No need for a bet – I don't have much need for a 12 year old Sinar back.

[Theodoros]

Glad to do a test with you whenever you're in NYC. No need for a bet – I don't have much need for a 12 year old Sinar back.

LOL...... why don't you present some comparisons then with one of the thousand Sinarback 54H  that are in N.Y.?  Or aren't there? 

[Theodoros]

Listen Doug... It may be good policy for P1 to address their stuff to amateurs and then some fashion pros (which is what the backs are best for) as to do the same thing that they do with DSLRs (but better).... But this doesn't give you the right to make claims in a ground that your products can't cope with by creating impressions that "a better than a D810 back on what a D810 does is a the better back for any job".... The truth is that for what a D810 (or other) is rubbish.... equipment that is designed to improve on the D810 will be better for that only... It will still be rubbish for what it can't do...  As simple as that...

Ask the other thousands of pros that do different than what DSLRs do if I'm not enough to tell you, or POST COMPARISONS that will prove me wrong... Never the less, it's not good marketing to create an "army of trolls" that try to turn "the day into a night" or "white into black" in web forums... It maybe temporarily an income provider... but in the long term it can be the "death" of you... Just my two cents... 

By the way... I used to think more of P1 before the incident with Yair (and me testing later myself the 12RII with respect to my -at the days - 528c) happened... It's then when I realized that P1 doesn't care at all for photographic quality or advancement but only to sell (by using all unethical methods  (respect above all)  with respect to competition possible) then the incident with Rollei came (which proved the luck of respect to photographic history) and then the "spit on the face"/blackmail to their older users (and on film users too) that completed the picture... 

it's strange Doug... How can a company claim to resolve film better than others... if THEY DON'T ALLOW USERS TO USE FILM THEMSELVES? ...is that a joke? Is that logic? Are Gursky and the rest of today's masters that only use film as to  maximise detail foolish Doug?

...and after all, what difference does it make if one uses another maker's single shot back for digitizing film? Why do the rest propose multishot for the job although they have hi-res single shot? Aren't you using the same (Cmos) sensors? Are CCD sensors better Doug? ...are the CCD sensors that P1 uses still made?   

Please ignore no more real questions and only respond "on the surface" as to "cover" the conversation so that fewer look at it (usual tactics)... If one can respond to arguments, then he can respond to all arguments... and you already have left hundreds non answered back up...

[BJL]

Its not a speculation its an estimation based on the following:

1. Out of all makers that ever made a 35mm camera, only Leica bothered to make a new film release of the m camera from 2000 after (the ones you mention out of Nikon are both past designs). Obviously, Leica's release is more aimed to support Leica's image and tradition than provide profits to the maker.

That was my point with the "only two Nikon SLR's" comment – though at the fringes, several brands of 135 film rangefinders are still going, and the inventory available second hand is huge.

2. The latest releases of Hasselblad, all support film and then there is a wide base of Medium Format cameras that are not compatible with modern MFDBs, or difficult to support, or financially unwise to do so... Much of this equipment is both capable, but makes sense as a choice for users of DSLRs as it is easily accessible and cheap to invest on if purchased S/H, but gives access to film, ability to familiarize with MF to young photographers and high resolution access if scanned. So, many think of it as an alternative as to have instead of MFDB next to their DSLRs...

Yes, I almost mentioned that the modular back-body design of some MF system means that it is relatively easy to keep making backs for bodies that are kept economically viable mostly by their use with digital backs.  Unfortunately the MF market has moved to a very low volume, high price situation, so buying a body and a few lenses to go with those film backs is too expensive for a lot of the artists and hobbyists who want to work with film. The more affordable MF film options - integrated bodies like the Pentax 645, and all the non-AF systems –  are long out of production.

4. 120 film is used on many later HQ film releases from major cinema studios because of the looks and tradition...

Some movies are still being shot on 65mm ("120" or close enough) film, but I am quite sure that far more of the movie productions still using film at all are using 35mm film stock (as in "super 35mm"), so that part of the film market is if anything a factor in favor of 135 over 120. Here is what is still available from the only remaining provider, Kodak: http://motion.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedFiles/Motion/Products/Product_Information/Kodak-Motion-Picture-Products-Price-Catalog-US-Prices_May_2016_V5.pdf

All and all, 120 film seems a good compromise for quality/resolution, it is much cheaper than sheet film to use, not much more expensive than 35mm, easy to develop, offers much better quality than 35mm film if scanned, doesn't give away much as far as IQ is concerned to sheet film, it is easily accessible, easy to develop, it is compatible with many excellent lenses and thus makes more sense than the rest.

The choice of best "compromise for quality/resolution" is very personal. Clearly for you 120 wins, but in the film era, the vast majority even amongst enthusiastic, dark-room printing hobbyists had come to use 135 rather than 120, so I do not see that it would be reversed now.  As far as cost: as noted above, equipment cost has become even more massively in favor of 135 gear.


I am not arguing that 135 will in fact outlive 120; just pointing out that the evidence and arguments are not so clearly on the side of 120 as you make them sound.  It might instead come down to how long the supply of affordable second hand gear persists.

[Theodoros]

As I said before it's an estimation... IMO, film will continue providing the "exceptional look" it does, but it needs larger areas to really expose it to the degree that detail is "enough" out what is required for the "exceptional look" to be presented... 35mm cameras where a necessity during the past as there was no alternative, but I can't see enough balance of "real photographers" with respect to "just users" which would care to keep using film today (IMO/judgement)... To the contradict, I can recall from the past the "real photographers" starting with 35mm film, but then advance to 120 as soon as they could... I believe the digital MF market shrinkage is irrelevant, there is a huge wide base of older (S/H) stuff that can support the advancment by itself...

By the way, I also believe that the (new) MF shrinkage isn't real... It has a lot to do with the past (and some of today) policies of MF makers to "trade" older digital equipment and then vanish it from the S/H market so that there is no accessibility to it... This has had a direct effect in shrinking the "market base" considerably and also, to keep selling prices higher than they should be, which had a side effect for the market to shrink...

If makers would have kept prices down to real profit and wouldn't announce "false prices" that include a "discount" for trading older equipment... which of course would lead to equipment cost as much as it does "with the trade discount", but without one have to trade anything... then by now, the MF market would be up to 50,000 units a year...

I guess MF makers have developed the bad habit to "tear their own eyes off" for some reason... The (stupid) "golden boys of marketing" (crap) they hire, don't even know how important "market base expansion" is... Basic laws of marketing... go figure! 

[Rob C]

I have no intention of getting involved in fights. All I'll say is that I used both 135 and 120 film formats all my professional life, but the choice of format was always based upon the needs of the job I had to do.

Straightforward stuff was best handled on a Hasselblad if only because it required fewer shots, and so a single roll would nail it; if it was a more complicated set of images such as a fashion shoot, I'd usually opt for the Nikon because shooting thirty-six exposures to get a maximum of two or three wasn't hard to do. And so much easier to process. Multiply that logic over a dozen dresses and it makes even more sense to shoot 135. And a bonus: not having to change film so often added the value of continuity to a shoot.

Roib C

[Theodoros]

I have no intention of getting involved in fights. All I'll say is that I used both 135 and 120 film formats all my professional life, but the choice of format was always based upon the needs of the job I had to do.

Straightforward stuff was best handled on a Hasselblad if only because it required fewer shots, and so a single roll would nail it; if it was a more complicated set of images such as a fashion shoot, I'd usually opt for the Nikon because shooting thirty-six exposures to get a maximum of two or three wasn't hard to do. And so much easier to process. Multiply that logic over a dozen dresses and it makes even more sense to shoot 135. And a bonus: not having to change film so often added the value of continuity to a shoot.

Roib C

Well... nobody is fighting here (other than Doug who thinks that whenever one criticizes P1 or its policies and backs it up ...he is under penalty for heretical behavior), after all subject has changed...

So, do you think there is a resemblance with the past? Isn't the difference that while in the past 35mm images could "pass" (because there was no alternative for the price), these days DSLRs can improve on detail?  My point is that 35mm film doesn't cope with today standards of required detail (yet has some advantages in the looks - but customers don't care on that), but 120 film, can add the detail that 35mm is missing... (and even be used for very large prints if digitized properly). And additionally, I find an excellent balance of "detail to presentation ratio" with 120 film, which I think is a more "photographic approach" than the "over-detail / over - contrasty" photographic approach of DSLRs (or MFDBs with a similar to DSLRs approach on what looks should be like)  that some tend to praise for being important... IMO, there is too much "compression" happening with 35mm film, 120 seems just right to both get rid of the compression and offer an excellent combination of looks & detail...

[Rob C]

Well... nobody is fighting here (other than Doug who thinks that whenever one criticizes P1 or its policies and backs it up ...he is under penalty for heretical behavior), after all subject has changed...

So, do you think there is a resemblance with the past? Isn't the difference that while in the past 35mm images could "pass" (because there was no alternative for the price), these days DSLRs can improve on detail?  My point is that 35mm film doesn't cope with today standards of required detail (yet has some advantages in the looks - but customers don't care on that), but 120 film, can add the detail that 35mm is missing... (and even be used for very large prints if digitized properly). And additionally, I find an excellent balance of "detail to presentation ratio" with 120 film, which I think is a more "photographic approach" than the "over-detail / over - contrasty" photographic approach of DSLRs (or MFDBs with a similar to DSLRs approach on what looks should be like)  that some tend to praise for being important... IMO, there is too much "compression" happening with 35mm film, 120 seems just right to both get rid of the compression and offer an excellent combination of looks & detail...

If you've noted some of my posts in other threads you'll know I am a very keen fan of film - always was and probably always will be, even if I never again find the opportunity to use it. I usually try to 'degrade' my digital pictures precisely because I wish to avoid the unreal look of digital (when compared with the look of film) knowing, the while, that both are unreal. It's just a matter of the false reality with which one grew up, and still finds comfortable, compared with the newer version which I do not appreciate very much.

What I do appreciate, now that I am no longer a working photographer, is not having to spend any more money on film and chemicals in order to pursue what's now no more than a time-passing hobby. A different world.

On your second point, no, I don't agree that I see that effect as a matter of principle. However, I do see differences with all film formats when the degree of enlargement is high enough in each case.