Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: John Chayka on December 12, 2008, 09:37:01 am
-
A lot of smart people out here and here's the situation. Have HBlad 501CM with 3 lenses, Nikon D300, 200 and Kodak DCR SLRN (old 14mgpx still takes good pix) with a host of Nikon quality glass. Also have two 4x5s w/ Schnedier and Nikon glass. Things are getting too confusing and expensive (and depreciating too quickly). Used to do just B&W with 4x5 - loved it- reduced all the variables and was able to make quality prints that held up just fine to 16x20.
Do 90 % Landscapes. Now enjoy color again,. So... want one system that will do quality digital color and quality B&W.
D300 just isn't sharp enough for landscapes after using a 4x5. Kind of a pursist and don't want to be manipulating images in Lightroom and Photoshop- except for basic dodging and burning, spotting, etc. Don't even like to crop
Which way would you go (1) highest quality, easiest on the pocketbook and SIMPLICITY
Like the Hlbad beccause it's basically manual and foolproof - so another Hlad body (503) with a Digital back ? - What back recommended??
Go to the New Nikon D3x and keep the Hblad for B&W?
4x5s are getting cumbersome for a 53 year old
-
A lot of smart people out here and here's the situation. Have HBlad 501CM with 3 lenses, Nikon D300, 200 and Kodak DCR SLRN (old 14mgpx still takes good pix) with a host of Nikon quality glass. Also have two 4x5s w/ Schnedier and Nikon glass. Things are getting too confusing and expensive (and depreciating too quickly). Used to do just B&W with 4x5 - loved it- reduced all the variables and was able to make quality prints that held up just fine to 16x20.
Do 90 % Landscapes. Now enjoy color again,. So... want one system that will do quality digital color and quality B&W.
D300 just isn't sharp enough for landscapes after using a 4x5. Kind of a pursist and don't want to be manipulating images in Lightroom and Photoshop- except for basic dodging and burning, spotting, etc. Don't even like to crop
Which way would you go (1) highest quality, easiest on the pocketbook and SIMPLICITY
Like the Hlbad beccause it's basically manual and foolproof - so another Hlad body (503) with a Digital back ? - What back recommended??
Go to the New Nikon D3x and keep the Hblad for B&W?
4x5s are getting cumbersome for a 53 year old
I hope you can forgive the bias, but as a regular contributor to the Medium Format Digital Backs & Photography forum...
I shot with a Hasselblad 500C/M and Phase One P45+ back for quite some time--it is an excellent combination that will deliver stellar results. If you already have and love the body and lenses, it's hard to see how you would be disappointed with taking it digital. I love the Nikon and all, but the glass just isn't the same (nor are the sensels).
If you don't mind a coarser screen and single-channel histogram, consider the P45--it can be found used or refurbished for sigificantly less.
Just my 0.02,
-Brad
-
nikon or canon w/ zeiss? D700 or 5D2? MF/tech camera will yield better result, IMHO, but not for the price...
simplicity - stick to film and make optical prints...no scanning, no computer, no batteries, no tech support, no firmware, no extra crap that adds up to extra $$$ subtly over the years
again, just my humble opinion.
-
I think if you go digital and don't want to do/learn software editing you will be quite disappointed with the results. The looks that film used to do for you chemically, combined with darkroom techniques, you now need to know how to do on your own in a RAW program. If you don't your photos will look boring, washed out, and devoid of character (you see a lot of that nowadays). On the other hand, if you master the editing you can get results that far surpass what you can get with traditional film, at least with the same amount of effort, not to mention cost. If you do go for digital I'd try to afford a digital back, especially since you'll be comparing it to 4x5 film. If you're sticking with film but want something more convenient than large format either stick with your hassy or get something bigger like 6x7 or 6x9. JMHO based on years of shooting film and then transitioning to digital.
-
I think if you go digital and don't want to do/learn software editing you will be quite disappointed with the results. The looks that film used to do for you chemically, combined with darkroom techniques, you now need to know how to do on your own in a RAW program. If you don't your photos will look boring, washed out, and devoid of character (you see a lot of that nowadays). On the other hand, if you master the editing you can get results that far surpass what you can get with traditional film, at least with the same amount of effort, not to mention cost. If you do go for digital I'd try to afford a digital back, especially since you'll be comparing it to 4x5 film. If you're sticking with film but want something more convenient than large format either stick with your hassy or get something bigger like 6x7 or 6x9. JMHO based on years of shooting film and then transitioning to digital.
This has been discussed a great deal and if you shoot in volume for commerce, digital is much more expensive than film, probably 2 to 1, minimum. Factor in computers, software, many many hard drives, and many hours on the various learning curves and then add it up.
Including the cost of the cameras. It's almost funny that the world goes ga ga over a $3,000 5d2 (which is actually a great price) but back in the film days $3,000 would buy one hell of a an amazing 35mm camera.
There are things you can do with digital that are more difficult with film, but nothing in the digital world, at least at the higher levels is easy.
If you are going to go digital before you put your hard earned money down test all of the cameras in real world conditions. Don't go into a dealer showroom and shoot a mfdb file on a tripod with 10,000 watts of strobe and compare it to a Canon or a Nikon, unless you shoot that way in real life.
Take all of the cameras out in your particular envrionment and shoot the hell out of them because a noisy, blurred or out of focus 50mp camera file will not look as good as a 10mpx file that is in focus and expsoed without massive noise.
Also if you shoot 100 images a day with film, with digital factor that to 200 because everyone shoots digital almost always 2 to 1, (sually more) I guess because we can. Once you have your 40, 400, or 4000 files then set down with the manufacturer's software and try to process them. This is where the rubber meets the road.
Don't write the check till you do the test, for any of these cameras, because once you open the digital door, your not only buying hardware, cameras, lenses, computers, drives, your also going to walk into that black hole of time where days, weeks months get sucked away, calibrating monitors, learning a half dozen convertors, becoming a semi photoshop master and understanding that DAM isn't a word you use when you stub your toe.
Be clear that the moment you buy into any digital system it's just like buying a new car. You turn the key and the price drops a 1/3 in value. You drive it around town for a few months and it drops to 1/2.
If your prepared for this then go for it but test in REAL WORLD conditions first and never look at the glossy camera brochures. Never.
And also be careful of any information you get of any forum, because forums have more agendas than a Senate sub committee.
-
I shot with a Hasselblad 500C/M and Phase One P45+ back for quite some time--it is an excellent combination that will deliver stellar results. If you already have and love the body and lenses, it's hard to see how you would be disappointed with taking it digital. I love the Nikon and all, but the glass just isn't the same (nor are the sensels).
If you don't mind a coarser screen and single-channel histogram, consider the P45--it can be found used or refurbished for sigificantly less.
What Brad said. I also currently shoot the P45+, but on a Mamiya -- and I used to shoot 4x5 too, but like you I'm getting older and the relative convenience of the SLR has a lot of appeal. Admittedly I do miss the camera movements on occasion, but have found the workarounds more than adequate. You already own the Hassy 500 outfit, you know it and its lenses are great for your B&W film needs, so IMO it makes total sense to add a decent DB to it assuming you can live with the manual operation. Regardless of which brand of back you choose, as long as it is relatively current model you should be able to have the mount converted in the future should you want to change to a more modern system -- so not much of a downside there.
However, while the current model MF DB's deliver image quality very close to scanned 4x5 film, they are not particularly "easy on the pocketbook." An alternative might be stay with film and get a decent MF scanner like the Nikon 9000. I personally still prefer the look of B&W film over digital conversions for B&W images, so still always carry a few magazines and rolls of Tri-X in conjunction with my DB. I scan that on the 9000 and love the results. Of course the direct digital workflow is far more convenient to scanning film, but for the "look" I get on B&W, it's worth it to me.
Best,
-
Might you miss the movements of the 4x5 if you went the Hasselblad route? Maybe think about a camera that will allow you to use tilt/shift lenses.
-
I would stick with film. I only shoot commercial jobs on digital, because that is what the clients expect and there is usually a big enough budget for retouching. For editorial and personal work I shoot film.
Good luck with all of this.
-
A lot of smart people out here and here's the situation. Have HBlad 501CM with 3 lenses, Nikon D300, 200 and Kodak DCR SLRN (old 14mgpx still takes good pix) with a host of Nikon quality glass. Also have two 4x5s w/ Schnedier and Nikon glass. Things are getting too confusing and expensive (and depreciating too quickly). Used to do just B&W with 4x5 - loved it- reduced all the variables and was able to make quality prints that held up just fine to 16x20.
Do 90 % Landscapes. Now enjoy color again,. So... want one system that will do quality digital color and quality B&W.
D300 just isn't sharp enough for landscapes after using a 4x5. Kind of a pursist and don't want to be manipulating images in Lightroom and Photoshop- except for basic dodging and burning, spotting, etc. Don't even like to crop
Which way would you go (1) highest quality, easiest on the pocketbook and SIMPLICITY
Like the Hlbad beccause it's basically manual and foolproof - so another Hlad body (503) with a Digital back ? - What back recommended??
Go to the New Nikon D3x and keep the Hblad for B&W?
4x5s are getting cumbersome for a 53 year old
Depends on your pocketbook and your goals!
Let me start by saying if your target is 4x5 film quality, then be prepared to spend mucho bucks, there's no cheap solution and even then, imho digital just hasn't caught up with film's tonality yet.
The most cost effective way for you to get better results with what you already have is to buy a $200 Hasselblad to Nikon adaptor and use your Hassy lenses on your Kodak or get yourself a couple of the new Zeiss ZF lenses, you'll be very surprised when you see what that camera's capable of. Honestly I don't see the need for D3x for what you have in mind, learn the slr/n and for certain things it will be as good as it gets in 35mm world for now and its iso 6 long exposure feature in unique with dslrs too. Just make sure to do a custom WB before each shoot and convert with Kodak's own software for best results. The next step up for me would be a MFDB, you can even start with the lowly, used Kodak Pro backs, which I think are still credible and capable of excellent quality to any of the 30 mp+ backs that exist on the market today, your pocketbook's the limit. I have tried and own several of them, imo they're all good if you know what you're doing, so buy the one that's most accessible and the company's software makes most sense to you.
Digital is like film, if you do your job well in advance then there's not much for you to do in post beyond the basics, on the other hand you have more leeway with digital when you make mistakes or are just plain lazy at times.
-
A lot of smart people out here and here's the situation. Have HBlad 501CM with 3 lenses, Nikon D300, 200 and Kodak DCR SLRN (old 14mgpx still takes good pix) with a host of Nikon quality glass. Also have two 4x5s w/ Schnedier and Nikon glass. Things are getting too confusing and expensive (and depreciating too quickly). Used to do just B&W with 4x5 - loved it- reduced all the variables and was able to make quality prints that held up just fine to 16x20.
Do 90 % Landscapes. Now enjoy color again,. So... want one system that will do quality digital color and quality B&W.
D300 just isn't sharp enough for landscapes after using a 4x5. Kind of a pursist and don't want to be manipulating images in Lightroom and Photoshop- except for basic dodging and burning, spotting, etc. Don't even like to crop
Which way would you go (1) highest quality, easiest on the pocketbook and SIMPLICITY
Like the Hlbad beccause it's basically manual and foolproof - so another Hlad body (503) with a Digital back ? - What back recommended??
Go to the New Nikon D3x and keep the Hblad for B&W?
4x5s are getting cumbersome for a 53 year old
Stiching is annoying - but not half as annoying as a 54 camera - get a fancy pano head, the best nikon T/S, lense and use that SLRn - not simple though
or get a used 22mp back for the blad and correct verticals in PS - even landscapes have verticals - pretty simple
If you are obssesed with purity get an alpa and digiback
I dont think digital tricks are impure - just economy - which is less pure an ND grad or an HDR digital exposure - a movement in camera or a movment in PS - they are all just tecnology some new some old
composites could be considered impure but they are possible with both film and dig
S
-
What Brad said. I also currently shoot the P45+, but on a Mamiya -- and I used to shoot 4x5 too,
Best,
In writing this I just had a client select an image I shot with the p30+ earlier in the year.
Compared to the Nikon and Canon files I've been shoot for most of the year, I looked at this file and went wow, what a difference, looks like 4x5., so I'm not immune to the bigger is better syndrome.
Of course this shot was almost static, had a billion watts of strobe and was one of those setups that is pre planned, pre posed and had an hour for lighting rather than 20 minutes that you get on something like a lifestyle shoot.
Just remember all of these cameras shoot way, way different and though personally, I look at the p30+ file and go wow that's a big difference, I also know hat the 1ds3 of the same file, same lighting, same conditions will fly by the client without issue. Had the same image been shot at anythng higher than 200 iso with continuous light, the difference would have been in the 5% range at best, so buy wisely.
I'm not pushing a brand or format but just be clear that the switch to digital is expensive and consuming and the very first thing I would do after I bought my D30 or my H3dII50mpx system is build yourself a very nice and comfortable digtial station that you enjoy working in because your going to find your time will go from 30% of the time on the computer to 70% of the time.
I will do some remodeling soon of one of my offices so I just feel better when I pull those 14 hours a day doing post work.
I'm thinking of doing the csi miami look where everything mounts on glass, has streaming golden light and I hire hot chicks to walk around with calibration tools measuring all of my files to insure I'm within the "numbers".
-
Just wanted to add that many of us are working Pro's that shoot for commerce and our job is to satisfy clients in every way possible. In that respect most of us here are backed up against the wall to shoot digital for a variety of reasons. I simply have no choice but to shoot digital because that is exactly what they want and they want it yesterday. I also went MF for many reasons but the big one is clients turn images into what it may not be originally intended for. I have several clients thinking this is for a brochure and turns out to be the size of a 18 wheeler in there buildings or somewhere else. For me it is a lot about covering myself with files that can handle anything thrown at it in respect to different media usage. So we all have different priorities and needs. So i would suggest thinking in terms of the way you work and the final results you need to help satisfy your needs for yourself and if for commerce your clients. But i would not just write a check either , test everything you can out and also try the software for some of these systems. Some software you may really like to work with and others you can't remove from your system fast enough. I am down to one raw converter now and could not be happier than getting everything paired down to make my life and workflow much easier on me and still find time to be with my wife and kids. As some have said digital may seem less expensive but computers , software and gear are not cheap in the long run. Just as a example my MacPro has the fastest drive around and loaded with 6 drives inside it and tons of Ram, this comes at a great expense to push files around and any MF system you buy will not be inexpensive no matter what anyone tells you. So do your homework and your research but at the end of the day it is your money to spend , so make a purchase that makes sense.
-
Make life easy for yourself. Stick to film and 4x5.
Or maybe a scanning back?
If you think you'll hate messing around on the computer and learning RAW converters and other programs, then maybe it's not such a great idea to go digital. However, you might like it, and become hooked to the digital workflow and kiss film goodbye.
-
I also like film a lot. For smaller amounts of shots and more artistic stuff as opposed to have to get it done NOW like in journalism, Plain film works fantastic. I like Fuji, YMMV of course.
The bigger you go with film, the harder it is to deal with the price differences as well as go back down to something smaller. When we first started, we all looked at good 35mm and thought it was great. Now we look at 35mm as good for trips and family photos and so on after being spoiled by medium format. Large format just blows the whole equation wide open. You can get a silly amount of quality for not a lot of money invested. Large format digital is hugely expensive by comparison.
Sometimes low-tech beats high-tech.
Plus, a good scanner essentially turns 4x5 into digital. Maybe not quite as easily, but it does work surprisingly well if you aren't obsessed with pixel-peeping. 2400DPI is honestly fine if the thing is that large. That's over 100MP and just barely showing any grain in most cases. Not bad for a typical cheap scanner. The only downside is, of course, it's orders of magnitude slower than dropping the file from a memory card onto your hard drive.
-
The only downside is, of course, it's orders of magnitude slower than dropping the file from a memory card onto your hard drive.
True, but how many sheets of film can you shoot in one day? Scanning at 2400 dpi on a cheap scanner will take quite a few minutes, but the lower rate of frames shot I believe does compensate for it. So it's not so bad after all, as long as you don't let your scanning fall behind and pile up.
shutay
-
Which way would you go (1) highest quality, easiest on the pocketbook and SIMPLICITY
John,
I shoot a heap of landscape work for exhibition and shoot commercially also. I use digital for my commercial work, film is dead here and digital is a fact of life...
I have come from 4" x 5" also. I think only big $$$ on something like the Alpa system (has movements) on the Sinar back came close in my judgement to the look and feel of large format film. 35mm did not when enlarged to exhibition size (I do big prints).
I have stayed with film - 8" x 10" film for my landscape work. It is much better for long exposures - I do a lot of night work and digital cannot do this at all... Film is much more restrictive after shooting digital commercially, but I actually like those restrictions in a way.
There is no clear answer for you, it's what stacks up best and you are right to be confused. Take a lot of time, read this forum and test everything in your situations that you shoot in and then take it through to the end product...
Murray
-
AND...
if you are silly enough to join the MFDB club,
don't make any decisions based on gear that is 'coming soon' even if it has been promised and dates given for its arrival.
The manufacturers have been atrocious at delivering software and hardware upgrades on time and working properly. Some important links in the chain have turned up years after they were promised leaving us all with endless work arounds and holes in the systems and workflows...
Only buy a system that is available and working properly when you part with your cash...
Murray
-
John,
I have stayed with film - 8" x 10" film for my landscape work. It is much better for long exposures - I do a lot of night work and digital cannot do this at all... Film is much more restrictive after shooting digital commercially, but I actually like those restrictions in a way.
Murray
Just to be clear Murray's comments apply to most digital backs, but some backs, (obviously biased - see signature), can do long exposures quite well. A Phase P+ can expose for an hour at 63F/17C or three hours at 32F/0C and can do so without reciprocity failure. When compared to 4x5 or 8x10 the apertures required for sufficient depth of field are also smaller which will reduce your needed shutter speed. Also, you can use a laptop as a fast Polaroid even for long exposures. Open a stop or two, under expose by two stops using shutter speed and then push two stops in C1. The "Polaroid" results will be startlingly accurate to final exposure and will let you catch composition, exposure, or focus problems before committing to the final shot. Overall a much better long-exposure experience IMO.
Of course there is something neat about leaving a piece of plastic coated with silver behind a lens all night and processing that image by stripping away loose silver. And film can be exposed for hours, days, or weeks if desired. My only point is that film is not the unquestioned king of long exposures anymore.
Doug
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com) | Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
-
Just to be clear Murray's comments apply to most digital backs, but some backs, (obviously biased - see signature), can do long exposures quite well. A Phase P+ can expose for an hour at 63F/17C or three hours at 32F/0C and can do so without reciprocity failure. When compared to 4x5 or 8x10 the apertures required for sufficient depth of field are also smaller which will reduce your needed shutter speed. Also, you can use a laptop as a fast Polaroid even for long exposures. Open a stop or two, under expose by two stops using shutter speed and then push two stops in C1. The "Polaroid" results will be startlingly accurate to final exposure and will let you catch composition, exposure, or focus problems before committing to the final shot. Overall a much better long-exposure experience IMO.
Of course there is something neat about leaving a piece of plastic coated with silver behind a lens all night and processing that image by stripping away loose silver. And film can be exposed for hours, days, or weeks if desired. My only point is that film is not the unquestioned king of long exposures anymore.
Doug
Doug Peterson, Head of Technical Services
Capture Integration, Phase One & Canon Dealer (http://www.captureintegration.com) | Personal Portfolio (http://www.doug-peterson.com)
If you can, Go RENT for sure...!!
That is a no brainer if possible.
Also there are very nice deals on MFDB , But I think they will get even better in the new year when the affect of the economy and or 5DII *:+} will even be more apparent , supposedly.
The ball is definitely in your side of the court unlike before when the MF dealers were bully-ish..
Good Luck
Snook
-
I do a lot of night work and digital cannot do this at all...
Murray, I'm going to elaborate this point with you as did Doug -- and don't get me wrong, I loved shooting large format and think it still has a solid place in photography. That said, my P45+ back can do 1 hour exposures at normal temps, longer in cold climates, and contrary to film it has ZERO reciprocity failure at any selected ISO. So while I won't get 12-hour star trails, I can certainly do "night work" with it. The bigger plus is if I want to do a 12-hour exposure, I can always slap a film back on
Cheers,
-
Do 90 % Landscapes. Now enjoy color again,. So... want one system that will do quality digital color and quality B&W.
John, do you mind focusing on ground glass like with your 4x5, or do you need to have a viewfinder? I may have the perfect solution for you, since I was facing the same situation.
-
John, do you mind focusing on ground glass like with your 4x5, or do you need to have a viewfinder? I may have the perfect solution for you, since I was facing the same situation.
David - I'm not picky and can learn with anything, used a simple 8x loupe with 4x5 on ground glass - please let me know what your solution was/is
First - thanks to all for all the feedback- again smart and professional folks out here
1. Just upgraded to a Quad Core processor, Vista 64 and Adobe CS4/Lightroom 2.1 - was slow with dual core/4mg ram and D300 files so I'm sure would be slower with larger files
2. Don't care at all about FPS, matter in fact too easy to take too many "snappy" pictures
3. Currently have an Epson v750 Pro Scanner- wondering if that is good enough. Nighmare thnking about scanning old Kodachromes. Scanned the B&Ws for website (from the moutned prints) and lost alot of tone
Again thanks to all for feedback - some tremendous work out here
And to think E Weston just used $ 300 camera and a simple tungsten light
-
And to think E Weston just used $ 300 camera and a simple tungsten light
Careful here there are some old dogs here. Been there have the T-Shirt. LOL
-
John,
I basically custom designed a Hasselblad flexbody so that it could mount a PC-Mutar. The PC-Mutar enlarges the image circle of certain Hasselblad V lenses up to 113mm (e.g., the Hassy 40IF with 78mm image circle becomes a 40IF with 113mm image circle). I also added additional movements to this camera, so that it could have swings and tilts at the same time. I get up to about 30mm of shifting (or rise/fall) and about 28-degrees of tilt/swing. It works exceptionally well with the 40mm IF lens, and also with the 50, 60, 80, and 100 V lenses. You can use the shifting capability to make high precision stitched images as an option. I also have 24mm of extension built in when needed for close up or macro work. Of course, if you do not need the larger image circle, you can still use it with more limited swing/shift capability without the PC-Mutar. In this case, it will take all of the V lenses from 30mm fisheye to 500mm telephoto. Of course, it cannot use the FE lenses, since this camera does not have a focal plane shutter.
So, basically, I have created a compact "view camera" that is able to use my Hasselblad V lenses. It will work with any digital back that supports the Hasselblad V mount (ie, almost everyone, such as Sinar, Phase, Leaf, and Hasselblad). The camera itself is extremely lightweight and compact, about 2 pounds, with dimensions of about 6x6x5 inches. If you are serious about having such a camera, just PM me and we can work out the details to make one for you.
-
the SLR/n is your best digital solution right now if you are shooting landscapes. my D3 doesn't touch it at ISO 160.
-
oh, and I would keep the hassy for posed shots, but get a D3x (the D3 is the "sharpest" camera I've ever used), but keep the SLR/n for sunny says with a tripod cause the is no digital camera right now that beats the real look of the SLR/n.
-
That said, my P45+ back can do 1 hour exposures at normal temps, longer in cold climates, and contrary to film it has ZERO reciprocity failure at any selected ISO. So while I won't get 12-hour star trails, I can certainly do "night work" with it. The bigger plus is if I want to do a 12-hour exposure, I can always slap a film back on
Cheers,
Jack and Doug,
point taken on the P+ backs, I don't own one but my understanding is that the image quality is not that great at long exposures?
Don't want to start a brand war though...
Also, one great advantage of digital backs in landscape work over large format film is the ability to stitch (as mentioned earlier in this thread). Stitching panoramas with 'longer' lenses is particluarly useful as a way to avoid distortion and achieve super wide fields of view...
Murray
-
point taken on the P+ backs, I don't own one but my understanding is that the image quality is not that great at long exposures?
I've not seen anything deleterious in 2 to 3 minute exposures in protected environments. Obviously with longer exposures other factors like wind or ground vibrations can (will) create an additive softening effect on the image, but then that is part and parcel to time exposures regardless of format, medium or camera. In many respects wind can be much worse for large format than MF because the bellows acts like a vibrating sail
-
I have stayed with film - 8" x 10" film for my landscape work. It is much better for long exposures - I do a lot of night work and digital cannot do this at all...
Murray
I have to agree with Jack, I have had great results with using Phase One digital backs at night. Most of my entire personal portfolio is comprised of night photography, and feel that I have an advantage in terms of dynamic range and capture time with a Plus series back. I would only have time for three or four shots a night if I were to use sheets of NPL, 160S or T64 for a 4x5. MFDBs allow me to cover an environment with quicker exposures (5mins max), rather than an hour for each image. The main reason why I have chosen to use a digital back is because of color temperature manipulation. Compared to 4x5 scans on an Imacon X5 vs a P45+, the P45+ allows me to shift temperatures that would be impossible to do with a scanned sheet of film.
Murray, I'm not too sure what people have told you about Phase One backs, but the image quality is outstanding, IMHO
-
I have to agree with Jack, I have had great results with using Phase One digital backs at night. Most of my entire personal portfolio is comprised of night photography, and feel that I have an advantage in terms of dynamic range and capture time with a Plus series back. I would only have time for three or four shots a night if I were to use sheets of NPL, 160S or T64 for a 4x5. MFDBs allow me to cover an environment with quicker exposures (5mins max), rather than an hour for each image. The main reason why I have chosen to use a digital back is because of color temperature manipulation. Compared to 4x5 scans on an Imacon X5 vs a P45+, the P45+ allows me to shift temperatures that would be impossible to do with a scanned sheet of film.
Murray, I'm not too sure what people have told you about Phase One backs, but the image quality is outstanding, IMHO
Yes,
I find the main drawback of my Sinar the lack of ability to shoot architecture and interiors (mycommercial work) beyond 30sec (now I am going to have my Sinar bretheren and the Phase team after me ), as far as the exhibition work goes, I'm working with stars usually out around 5-10 hours. So, out there it's a level playing field, film is the only way...
By the way, what is the noise like at a 1 hour exposure on a P+ back, and how does any built in noise removal reduce resolution?
Murray
-
By the way, what is the noise like at a 1 hour exposure on a P+ back, and how does any built in noise removal reduce resolution?
First off a disclaimer -- I'm not sure exactly which P+ backs do long exposures, but for sure the P45+ and P25+ do. That said, the built-in NR for long exposures is a dark-frame subtraction, which does not harm resolution in any appreciable fashion. It does however tie the back up for double whatever exposure you do, so a 1 hour exposure takes 2 hours total...
-
Not perfect but this is a solid MFD "starter" kit. I have no affiliation, just came across it this afternoon:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Phase-One-P20-Digital-...1QQcmdZViewItem (http://cgi.ebay.com/Phase-One-P20-Digital-Back-w-Mamiya-645-AFD-lenses_W0QQitemZ170287154464QQihZ007QQcategoryZ710QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
-Josh