Medium Format Renaissance thanks to digital?
Kelso Lundeen
Mead's thoughts on the limits of CCDs -- all this seems to indicate
that medium format is still alive and kicking.
Is it possible that digital is the best thing that's happened to MF
photography in a long time?
Kelso
Mxsmanic
news:90d2acb8.02032...@posting.google.com...
> Is it possible that digital is the best thing
> that's happened to MF photography in a long time?
I don't know about that, but I think that for a majority of
previously-discouraged photographers, including myself, digital
technology encourages a reawakening of interested in photography--one
that can eventually lead to MF (as it did in my case).
My previous frustration was with labs and prints. In the past, the only
way to see your photos was to print them (for negatives) or project them
on a wall (for slides). Digital photography changed that. In my case,
though, and in the cases of some other people, digital photography
produced curiosity about film again, and scanning film gave even better
results than a digital camera, while keeping things in the digital realm
(beyond film development). And the quest for ever-greater quality
naturally leads to ever-larger formats.
Robert Monaghan
about as small as they can get for noise/wavelength of light issues, so
higher megapixel sensors of the future will presumably be larger, so
implying medium format sizes. This assumes a doubling of current 6 MP
sensor resolution as seen in the 16 Megapixel Foveon chips (22 mm square);
interpolating to a 44mm square chip for a 64 MP camera sensor (CMOS..).
Since folks are used to 2:3 or TV shaped rectangles, I also infer a change
in aspect ratio rather than "wasteful" squares will be used...
My guess is that 16 MP will be very popular, esp. at Natl semiconductor's
CEO's projected price points of under $10 in 3-5 years (assumes millions
made, not unreasonable, as market would include cell phone cameras and
even recycled ("disposable") cameras at the minimart (non-silver
polluting paper and no processing). My main concern is a large enough
demand or application which demands such high quality - possibly HDTV?
But given so many apps in med fmt and even LF are being done with 16 MP
or smaller sensors, I think we have to assume another consumer or military
app for demand for a 64 MP sensor to get costs down.
The other alternative I can readily see is multiple 16 MP chips and
software to stitch together a larger "equivalent" sensor, presuming a
beam splitter setup on a digital back (but not color based, as now, if
using X3 RGB sensors?). Make sense? Big advantage is the individual
sensors would be cheap (cf Nat'l Semi - $10 or less..) versus custom
larger sensor. The stitching software is already here. This could be
an alternative path if the larger sensor is not made inexpensively enough.
========
even if we don't get digital backs, the low cost of coming MF film
scanners and pretty decent quality digital printers will benefit many
amateur photographers, esp. if you like panoramic or larger print sizes.
currently, panoramic prints are pricey, but as printers get larger, and
take unlimited length papers (continuous) in 11" (wider in future?)
one can anticipate a lot more panoramic photography, possibly using
stitching of digital or scanned film images...
I am less optimistic about LF, since many of the big volume shooters
are converting to digital backs, and no longer buying $10-20,000+ of
film and paper per year. I think some specialty films will also be lost
in med fmt as film makers focus on digital and cut costs elsewhere (like
pro Plus-X just cut, like SO-132 duplicating film just cut, like...)
But I think there will be a number of happy amateur photographers eager
to get buys from pros going digital, and maybe more interest in
photography with 40 million digital cameras expanding the number who take
it up as a hobby? Who knows, perhaps many more will "upgrade" to medium
format and special effects like limited DOF which will be missing from
many consumer fixed lens P&S digital cameras (as with today)...
bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Southern Methodist University, Dallas Tx 75275 *
* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/index.html *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/index.html *
joeomar
really is dying from digitalis"). For some of us, the hassle of film
processing discouraged us from getting heavily involved in photography.
I've owned 35mm since high school (25+ years), but it was digital that got
me interested enough to move up to MF. Maybe this trend is just beginning,
since good quality digital is relatively recent and fairly expensive. I
think that as the cost/quality ratio of digital decreases, more people will
continue to get involved in photography, and if the percentage of them who
move to MF is fairly constant, then MF will increase proportionately.
Especially since there are digital solutions in MF, such as film scanners
(and digital backs for the REALLY wealthy) that allow the user to retain
some digital capabilities while still getting much better quality than a
6-megapixel digital camera.
"Kelso Lundeen" <KelsoL...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:90d2acb8.02032...@posting.google.com...
Gordon Moat
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> I am more hopeful since reflecting on Mead's observation that sensors are
> about as small as they can get for noise/wavelength of light issues, so
> higher megapixel sensors of the future will presumably be larger, so
> implying medium format sizes. This assumes a doubling of current 6 MP
> sensor resolution as seen in the 16 Megapixel Foveon chips (22 mm square);
> interpolating to a 44mm square chip for a 64 MP camera sensor (CMOS..).
> Since folks are used to 2:3 or TV shaped rectangles, I also infer a change
> in aspect ratio rather than "wasteful" squares will be used...
The video world does have some existing chips for true 16:9 aspect ratio. These
are currently called 2/3" chips, based on the shortest size, though all these
use a prism and three of these sensors. Fake wide screen is possible in lower
priced video equipment by clipping, resulting in a lower true horizontal
resolution (perhaps resolution may not be the best word for this).
>
>
> My guess is that 16 MP will be very popular, esp. at Natl semiconductor's
> CEO's projected price points of under $10 in 3-5 years (assumes millions
> made, not unreasonable, as market would include cell phone cameras and
> even recycled ("disposable") cameras at the minimart (non-silver
> polluting paper and no processing). My main concern is a large enough
> demand or application which demands such high quality - possibly HDTV?
Hollywood, and broadcast television, are making a transition to digital content
delivery. Satellite and cable transmission limitations will control the maximum
quality, though these devices have much lower quality requirements than the
printing industry (outside of newspapers). According to SCRI and others in the
industry, the roll out of digital content delivery is running behind schedule,
and it is getting tougher for many companies to afford the conversion, both
stations, and content creators. Economic considerations could shelve many
promising technologies.
>
> But given so many apps in med fmt and even LF are being done with 16 MP
> or smaller sensors, I think we have to assume another consumer or military
> app for demand for a 64 MP sensor to get costs down.
Quite a bit of the current catalogue photographers are using some form of
digital equipment. It seems that many clients are quite happy with the results.
Company marketing and communications departments rarely are aware of the
technical aspects of images shot for catalogue, and other uses. I have seen
large image prints made from 4 MB files, because the Marketing department wanted
to use that particular shot; and no amount of upping the resolution with
software made the image any better.
>
>
> The other alternative I can readily see is multiple 16 MP chips and
> software to stitch together a larger "equivalent" sensor, presuming a
> beam splitter setup on a digital back (but not color based, as now, if
> using X3 RGB sensors?). Make sense? Big advantage is the individual
> sensors would be cheap (cf Nat'l Semi - $10 or less..) versus custom
> larger sensor. The stitching software is already here. This could be
> an alternative path if the larger sensor is not made inexpensively enough.
Maybe not stitching, but a prism and multiple chip set-up. This would be similar
to many 3 chip digital video camera currently on the market. The prism could
easily fit in the same space an SLR mirror currently occupies, even on smaller
35 mm gear. The price of 3 chip DV camcorders continues to go down, so perhaps
this technology will transfer to still equipment.
The advantage is then to colour accuracy. Each chip would be able to separately
capture either Red, Green, or Blue. With larger chips, even more accurate colour
transitions could be captured.
>
>
> ========
>
> even if we don't get digital backs, the low cost of coming MF film
> scanners and pretty decent quality digital printers will benefit many
> amateur photographers, esp. if you like panoramic or larger print sizes.
> currently, panoramic prints are pricey, but as printers get larger, and
> take unlimited length papers (continuous) in 11" (wider in future?)
> one can anticipate a lot more panoramic photography, possibly using
> stitching of digital or scanned film images...
Printers drop quite a bit in price about every six months, but I do not see many
medium format film scanners, nor drum scanners, dropping much in price. I hope
you are correct in that assumption, since I would like to get one in the near
future.
Dye sublimation printers are going down in price. These are at the high end
currently, but the introduction of these types of printers in smaller output
sizes could mean larger, affordable types in the near future. These types also
tend to be a bit cheaper on expendables, despite the higher original cost.
A representative of one of the larger inkjet makers once told me that they
nearly give away the printers. The reason for that he gave as the profits are
returned from expendables like ink cartridges and paper, so it is worth it to
sell the printer at nearly no profit.
>
>
> I am less optimistic about LF, since many of the big volume shooters
> are converting to digital backs, and no longer buying $10-20,000+ of
> film and paper per year. I think some specialty films will also be lost
> in med fmt as film makers focus on digital and cut costs elsewhere (like
> pro Plus-X just cut, like SO-132 duplicating film just cut, like...)
I have heard several local pros openly wishing for a back for their 4" x 5"
cameras. Many just want it to replace Polaroid gear, though once again, the
catalogue guys would like a rentable, or affordable solution.
>
> But I think there will be a number of happy amateur photographers eager
> to get buys from pros going digital, and maybe more interest in
> photography with 40 million digital cameras expanding the number who take
> it up as a hobby? Who knows, perhaps many more will "upgrade" to medium
> format and special effects like limited DOF which will be missing from
> many consumer fixed lens P&S digital cameras (as with today)...
The amateur shooters will drive the affordable solutions. I doubt if high priced
MF digital backs are doing that well on the market for the companies making
them. The change in DoF, issues of colour accuracy for items going to print (not
inkjet), and generally high cost of acquisition, seem to push these into a niche
market, rather than technology that will trickle down to consumers, or be mass
produced.
Already, few companies seem willing to sell a full frame 35 mm chip camera body.
Will there ever be a market for full frame medium format digital? I think we
will see it, but it will not be affordable.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Robert Monaghan
I will also be interested to see if the larger numbers of digital cameras
and computer literate=upscale consumers will translate into larger numbers
of folks upgrading to medium format in the future. I hope so, but....
the stats so far suggest that med fmt sales have tanked, largely, I think,
because people have been convinced that digital is the logical upgrade
from 35mm rather than med fmt. Similarly, large numbers of pros switching
to digital for speed and costs etc. have reduced the medium format
marketplace in Japan since 1999 (dropped 36%) and USA (drop of 50% in last
year). This is one reason I think it is important for film users to point
out that digital is not higher quality than LF or MF, or even 35mm in many
cases, though it may be good enough for many undemanding users and uses...
If a 3 to 6 MP camera costing kilobucks is going to have this kind of
impact on med fmt and LF sales, what will a 16 Megapixel camera costing
$100 do in 3 to 5 years? This is as good or better than $20k LF/MF digital
backs today. I suspect there will be huge losses to P&S and 35mm SLR
shooter numbers too, who are only holding off now as you can buy a pretty
decent film rig for $295 at Wolf/Ritz and $10 film and processing ads etc.
or because they aren't able to work the computers and photoshop...
My suspicion remains that if we have 40 million digital camera shooters,
only one in a thousand needs to find medium format to double MF sales etc.
Similarly, the narrow DOF and quality of MF and LF portraits may lead to
continuing a pro niche for MF and LF, along with traditional uses like
architecture etc.. Kodak at hasselblad seminars in the past suggested
circa 2/3rds of MF users would not get enough benefits to justify going
digital (though at 1998 prices..).
My other "guess" is that we will see numbers of people interested in
photography moving to medium format precisely because it is NOT a fully
digital electronic venue, but one in which artistry and technique are
crucial. The rangefinder renaissance in 35mm is a similar trend back to
mechanical and photographer dependent cameras (minimal electronics..).
If so, then we should see some consumers start to get tired of being
burned and constantly upgrading. We have already seen sales of PCs and
numbers of PCs in the home declining (below 40% now).
The only real concern is not that used MF gear will get cheaper, as it has
due to pros switching to digital. Rather, my concern is whether the needed
film and processing and related services will continue to be available at
an affordable cost. I am also worried that some of the big MF names like
hasselblad and rollei, who are making big bets $$-wise with limited corp.
resources, may not survive the transition period but leave us with lots of
orphan cameras?
Conversely, in the next few decades, something like 3.5 billion people
will be making an economic transition that will photography a potential
hobby for them (vs. 850 million USA/EU/Japan/misc. today); so we may see
a resurgence in interest in medium format overseas too, even while the
majority of consumers there are going for P&S, some fraction will still
upgrade to MF (and LF)...
dang, predicting the future is confusing ;-) grins bobm
James Fairchild
loved-one and grasping at any sign of hope, however remote.
Sobs and whimpers.
Jim
"Robert Monaghan" <rmon...@smu.edu> wrote in message
news:a7rf6a$mkv$1...@post.cis.smu.edu...
Gordon Moat
> the stats so far suggest that med fmt sales have tanked, largely, I think,
> because people have been convinced that digital is the logical upgrade
> from 35mm rather than med fmt. Similarly, large numbers of pros switching
> to digital for speed and costs etc. have reduced the medium format
> marketplace in Japan since 1999 (dropped 36%) and USA (drop of 50% in last
> year). This is one reason I think it is important for film users to point
> out that digital is not higher quality than LF or MF, or even 35mm in many
> cases, though it may be good enough for many undemanding users and uses...
What are the unit sales for digital cameras last year (not percentages)? Are the
unit sales for digital cameras equal to the unsold numbers of MF cameras (based
on previous MF yearly sales numbers)?
Marketing departments love to use percentages to inflate the situation. Almost
all products last year experienced percentage sales drops over the previous
year, some worse than MF camera equipment, and some better. There are lies, damn
lies, and statistics . . . .
>
>
> If a 3 to 6 MP camera costing kilobucks is going to have this kind of
> impact on med fmt and LF sales, what will a 16 Megapixel camera costing
> $100 do in 3 to 5 years? This is as good or better than $20k LF/MF digital
> backs today. I suspect there will be huge losses to P&S and 35mm SLR
> shooter numbers too, who are only holding off now as you can buy a pretty
> decent film rig for $295 at Wolf/Ritz and $10 film and processing ads etc.
> or because they aren't able to work the computers and photoshop...
One hope of low end digital was to spur lagging computer sales. A more current
hope is that low end digital will spur inkjet printer sales, and photo printer
sales. Current surveys and research by PMAI indicate that many digital camera
users do not print, or rarely print, any images.
> My other "guess" is that we will see numbers of people interested in
> photography moving to medium format precisely because it is NOT a fully
> digital electronic venue, but one in which artistry and technique are
> crucial. The rangefinder renaissance in 35mm is a similar trend back to
> mechanical and photographer dependent cameras (minimal electronics..).
Technology backlash. It has happened many times in the recent past, with many
products. When life seems too complex, many go towards a simpler way of doing
things. Those of us on the photo NGs may know computers well, and understand how
to work digital cameras, but many average consumers do not.
>
>
> If so, then we should see some consumers start to get tired of being
> burned and constantly upgrading. We have already seen sales of PCs and
> numbers of PCs in the home declining (below 40% now).
Technology backlash once again. Another aspect is that the gadget one paid lots
of money for, is often the attraction of a "Clearance Sale" six months later,
and often at a substantial price reduction. People like to perceive some value
in the products they get, and resale value does factor into that, even for some
not intending to resell.
>
>
> The only real concern is not that used MF gear will get cheaper, as it has
> due to pros switching to digital. Rather, my concern is whether the needed
> film and processing and related services will continue to be available at
> an affordable cost. I am also worried that some of the big MF names like
> hasselblad and rollei, who are making big bets $$-wise with limited corp.
> resources, may not survive the transition period but leave us with lots of
> orphan cameras?
Some of the companies may stop making bodies, and give up on the market. I think
it would be more likely for the famous names to be acquired by larger companies,
niche interest groups of investors (i.e.: Texas Pacific Group), or perhaps even
Hermes.
>
>
> Conversely, in the next few decades, something like 3.5 billion people
> will be making an economic transition that will photography a potential
> hobby for them (vs. 850 million USA/EU/Japan/misc. today); so we may see
> a resurgence in interest in medium format overseas too, even while the
> majority of consumers there are going for P&S, some fraction will still
> upgrade to MF (and LF)...
>
> dang, predicting the future is confusing ;-) grins bobm
I think there is a real danger of error by reading too much into last years
data. Last year was an economic slump for much of the Western world, and sales
were down in many products. A better indicator would be five or more years of
data. Unfortunately, in a world more heavily focused on quarterly earnings
results, a year seems like a long time, and five years is an eternity.
Robert Monaghan
What are the unit sales for digital cameras last year (not percentages)?
Are the unit sales for digital cameras equal to the unsold numbers of MF
cameras (based on previous MF yearly sales numbers)?
from http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/economics.html
Medium & Large Format: (Japan) (world)
Total Shipment Local Shipment Exports
1999 60k 25k 36k
2000 50k 16k 33k
2001 49k (97.9%) 16k (100%) 32 (97%)
Digital Cameras:
Total Shipment Local Shipment Exports
1999 5,088k 1,499k 3,589k
2000 10,342k 2,949k 7,393k
2001 14,800k (143.1%) 3,900k (132.2%) 10,900k (147.4%)
basically, total MF/LF worldwide sales of 50k units is only a day's
digital camera production, which is growing at 43% per year (47% outside
Japan). Others have claimed that a significant number of these cameras
are high end digital cameras, not just low end webcams...
my guess would be that the high end digital cameras (and backs) probably
correspond to much more than the losses in MF new gear sales, so it is
new recruits upgrading from 35mm to digital, and MF pros switching to
digital and all that...
given circa 15 million digicam sales (base is over 40 mil) then we may
have some "hope" that if only a tiny fraction of these folks develop an
interest in photography, and upgrade to med fmt or LF, then there will
be a "renaissance" in MF and LF, including the retro-revolution as you
noted...
kauai82
That would be the best way to determine the state of MF while it is in
transition with the digital revolution, I would think. If the sales in MF
are tanking and the demand for 120 film is low then 120 film prices will
stay low for a few years as the back log is sold off and expiration dates
come due, but then the price of 120 film will skyrocket as it becomes a
limited category. I have a Teac reel to reel audio tape recorder that still
works and sound great, but I have not recorded any new reels in quite a
while because blank reel to reel tape costs a fortune and a blank CD-R disk
goes for about 50 cents a piece. I believe that film sales are down overall,
but what about 120 film in particular ? Matt
Gordon Moat
> from http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/economics.html
>
> basically, total MF/LF worldwide sales of 50k units is only a day's
> digital camera production, which is growing at 43% per year (47% outside
> Japan). Others have claimed that a significant number of these cameras
> are high end digital cameras, not just low end webcams...
I think that Nikon and Canon would have firm numbers on high end digital SLR
sales. I think that a good portion of those likely went to news gathering
organizations, who probably rarely used MF gear. The much larger unit sales of
digital do not seem to show any direct correlation with the drop in unit sales
of new MF gear. I think that a similar increase in unit sales of P&S, APS,
and/or 35 mm SLR sales could also be inferred to impact MF sales.
Without a direct survey, and hard evidence, I do not see a statistical, nor
logical correlation between the rise of digital unit sales, and the drop in MF
unit sales. Proper research may confirm your speculation, so perhaps someone in
the academic community would be interested in properly researching this.
>
>
> my guess would be that the high end digital cameras (and backs) probably
> correspond to much more than the losses in MF new gear sales, so it is
> new recruits upgrading from 35mm to digital, and MF pros switching to
> digital and all that...
If the number of high end Canon and Nikon digital SLR bodies is equal, or
greater than the drop in unit sales of MF equipment, then that may be a better
assumption, and speculation. I could see some doing a switch in that direction,
but I find it hard to believe that some are ditching $2000 and up MF gear for
$600 and under digital P&S cameras.
>
>
> given circa 15 million digicam sales (base is over 40 mil) then we may
> have some "hope" that if only a tiny fraction of these folks develop an
> interest in photography, and upgrade to med fmt or LF, then there will
> be a "renaissance" in MF and LF, including the retro-revolution as you
> noted...
Likely a better scenario. I wonder if there was a 15 million unit drop in film
sales, or a percentage drop equivalent?
Any increased unit sales for inkjet printers, paper, or cartridges? My printing
industry association sources indicate drops in paper sales, though consumer
products are a small percentage of total sales.
Any increase in computer sales, or sales of photo editing software (PhotoShop et
al)?
I have read in several sources that digital photo kiosks for printing pictures
from digital cameras, is the next big revenue hope for the industry. We shall
see.
Mxsmanic
news:3CA29EA5...@attglobal.net...
> Any increased unit sales for inkjet printers,
> paper, or cartridges? My printing industry association
> sources indicate drops in paper sales, though consumer
> products are a small percentage of total sales.
I've been told by a specialist in waste treatment (chemicals from labs
and stuff) that the advent of digital photography is driving a huge
increase in chemical paper sales. Apparently a lot of people take
zillions of digital pictures and then decide to have a lab print them
chemically, or something. In any case, he says the business overall is
doing great, which implies that a lot of people are still shooting film
and/or making traditional chemical enlargements.
Mark Boon
> Guten Tag Professor Bob,
>
> >
> > I am less optimistic about LF, since many of the big volume shooters
> > are converting to digital backs, and no longer buying $10-20,000+ of
> > film and paper per year. I think some specialty films will also be lost
> > in med fmt as film makers focus on digital and cut costs elsewhere (like
> > pro Plus-X just cut, like SO-132 duplicating film just cut, like...)
>
> I have heard several local pros openly wishing for a back for their 4" x
5"
> cameras. Many just want it to replace Polaroid gear, though once again,
the
> catalogue guys would like a rentable, or affordable solution.
>
The digital back for LF is excellent for still life.
However, I can't say the same thing for portrait.
To get good quality for LF, the scan will take about 2-3
minutes.
It kinda like old portrait taken at the turn of the century.
:)
Robert Monaghan
that would be interesting, but AFAIK, the stats from kodak and fuji
rarely pull out individual division sales, possibly for competitive
reasons (if big sales growth in one area, might draw competitors?)...
the other problem is that as high volume users of MF switch to digital
to save $$, which is a lot of film per studio given need to save $20k+
in a year or so to justify the costs and depreciation of digital, you
have some major hits in some of their favorite catalog & studio use
films, but rather less for the films the rest of us amateurs use etc.
the big hits start in 2005 AD, per Kodak's projection of declining film
sales; I expect the big hit will be in 35mm sales as low cost 16 Megapixel
CMOS cameras come in, direct printing etc. The other killer hit vs. film
will be switch to digital light projection in theatres, dropping need for
thousands of miles of film each year (75% of film stock is for movie
industry, 16% medical/specialty imaging, 5% pro, rest consumer per
kodak per poster).
I don't think 120 films will suddenly disappear, but I think lots of
emulsions will disappear, such as black and white and color slides, which
are only 4% of consumer stock sales etc. We continue to lose LF and other
specialty films (slide duplicating contrast contol film SO=132 just
dropped; plus-X professional now going, kodachrome slow films gone, VPS,
ektar 25 ASA etc.). Tmax is not a replacement for plus-X in my book, even
if Kodak thinks so ;-(
the large number of films today is result of years of pre-digital
investments and pipeline of products. My bet is the number is at its high,
and will decline from here out as non cost effective products are dropped
from film lines, with the big hit coming when the movie film stock
production drops hugely - it is what is keeping $$ in the division for
production of the other stocks, and its loss would presumably force lots
of cost cutting in a "sunset" film division at kodak (if they don't spin
off the film biz to concentrate on digital)...
time will tell... ;-) bobm
Gordon Moat
impressive. I hope the cost comes down in the near future. Even rental of these
is not cheap.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Gordon Moat
Resources Bureau is much tougher than the EPA, and many manufacturing and
chemical using businesses are slowly leaving. The effect of pushing
tougher standards is to drive the smaller businesses away, so I wonder if
these will last much longer. Cleaner alternatives are not always
affordable, and there may be some increase in costs. Hopefully, a larger
volume may bring some drop in prices.
The Fuji Frontier system is being adopted at many locations in California.
There may be fewer places doing this work in the future, but those that
are left may do a larger volume of work.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Robert Monaghan
attributed the losses in high end film (MF/LF..) sales to the switch to
digital. This is a marketing research issue, not really academic interest,
and the PMA and others presumably have the surveys and stats...
I doubt many pros are going from $2k med fmt cameras to $650 digital P&S;
but I believe a lot are going to 6 MP cameras and some number to $10-20k
digital backs. Those who are switching to digital are selling older MF
gear and enlargers etc., hence the drop in used MF prices for high end
hassy and rolleiflex kit and big enlargers (4x5..) and minilabs in MF etc.
more importantly, I think those amateur photographers who would be assumed
to have upgraded to med fmt in the past are not doing so now, but are
"upgrading" to digital cameras, following the hype in the photo mags and
promotion and sales of digital cameras in many outlets and venues. My
understanding is that perhaps 80% of USA MF sales are to amateurs (even
in major lines like hassy), so to explain a 50% drop in sales, you have to
look beyond just the pros not buying MF.
this is particularly difficult for the industry now, as many camera stores
which sell pro gear in our area, anyway, have focused on the needs of the
pros for film labs and gear sales of MF/LF etc. and rentals. The low end
consumer stuff goes elsewhere, and the serious amateurs are tolerated but
not cultivated IMHO, so if the pros switch to digital, their film sales,
rentals, used gear sales, and many specialty lines will have minimal
sales. After all, the hassy report states a 50% drop in MF sales overall
in USA (not just hassy, down "only" 30%); and lots of our camera stores
seem pretty marginal places overall. I doubt they can compete against
circuit city or ritz or B&H for camera prices, nor do they have the
background for supporting digital (repairs..) and the rapid obsolescence
of software and gear could be pretty daunting in a business where stock
has typically appreciated in price if you sat on it ;-) yes? ;-) Not any
longer in digital, 6 months and its out or you are out - of business ;-)
we live in interesting times - but I don't think future of pro stores
looks particularly bright in the digital age - do you?
Robert Monaghan
Hmmm? ;-) The photo industry sources I have seen suggest that there is a
lot of surprise at how many digital camera users NEVER make prints, just
email via internet to relatives and web use.
Similarly, lots of outlets are converting to digital ink prints from
chemical ones, see mf/processing.html for complaints of folks who thought
they were getting chemical prints, but they were digital ink prints, and
the labs were limiting quality as scanning to small file sizes and
printing etc. They the labs didn't think this important enough to warn
MF users about ;-)
I suspect that there is a large amount of paper and ink for printers being
sold to digicam users, but for home or office use rather than make trips
to the minilab to get chemical prints or digital prints? As for minilabs,
the trend seems to be to go digital ink prints on regular papers to
minimize costs and pollution, all of which goes against traditional silver
papers sales.
But this is a time of transition, but note that there was 2% or so more
film sales in USA (lower margins) [down world overall], so it could be
that prints are up and look good in otherwise weak economy? ;-)
Gordon Moat
> yes, but the original survey groups (in Japan) indicated that they
> attributed the losses in high end film (MF/LF..) sales to the switch to
> digital. This is a marketing research issue, not really academic interest,
> and the PMA and others presumably have the surveys and stats...
I did not see much about MF equipment and film sales in PMAI reports. They
generally treat film as a whole market area, and digital as another market area.
Market research reports are known to under/over emphasize issues. Japan is very
tech oriented, and much more of a throw away market (witness the portable phone
industry), however, many in Japan are also interested in "nostalgic" equipment,
especially famous names.
>
>
> I doubt many pros are going from $2k med fmt cameras to $650 digital P&S;
> but I believe a lot are going to 6 MP cameras and some number to $10-20k
> digital backs. Those who are switching to digital are selling older MF
> gear and enlargers etc., hence the drop in used MF prices for high end
> hassy and rolleiflex kit and big enlargers (4x5..) and minilabs in MF etc.
Switching to a 6 MP "35 mm" digital is one thing, but the digital backs do not
require dumping most MF gear. Since the back just attaches, the replaced items
would be Polaroid backs (which are dropping in price on the used market), and
roll film. It is unfortunate that Kodak and Fuji do not report sales figures
specifically by film size.
I think the digital darkroom has replaced the traditional darkroom for many pros
several years ago. Prior to getting my degree in 1998, our upper division colour
photography based classes were based on a digital (film and drum scanning)
workflow. PhotoShop skills have been a requirement for many pros (and students),
since PhotoShop 3 came out. None of this is new to pros, though it may be new to
consumers.
>
>
> more importantly, I think those amateur photographers who would be assumed
> to have upgraded to med fmt in the past are not doing so now, but are
> "upgrading" to digital cameras, following the hype in the photo mags and
> promotion and sales of digital cameras in many outlets and venues. My
> understanding is that perhaps 80% of USA MF sales are to amateurs (even
> in major lines like hassy), so to explain a 50% drop in sales, you have to
> look beyond just the pros not buying MF.
Makes you wonder how many just went to DV, and skipped digital stills entirely.
The cost of DV gear has dropped substantially the last few years, and this gear
is often seen at many events, and with vacationers. So I guess that may be
trading a c. $2000 camera, for a c. $2000 (or less) DV camcorder.
There is also quite a bit of used gear for amateurs to buy. Why buy new, when
plenty of good used gear is available, especially on EBAY. This too eats up MF
sales, especially when the overall economy is down, and people are watching
their money more.
>
>
> this is particularly difficult for the industry now, as many camera stores
> which sell pro gear in our area, anyway, have focused on the needs of the
> pros for film labs and gear sales of MF/LF etc. and rentals. The low end
> consumer stuff goes elsewhere, and the serious amateurs are tolerated but
> not cultivated IMHO, so if the pros switch to digital, their film sales,
> rentals, used gear sales, and many specialty lines will have minimal
> sales.
Similar in southern California. Many things now have the "digital" badge on
them, even tripod that do not use batteries ;^)
> After all, the hassy report states a 50% drop in MF sales overall
> in USA (not just hassy, down "only" 30%); and lots of our camera stores
> seem pretty marginal places overall.
The biggest changes I have seen is that 35 mm gear is still available, MF gear
is rarely on display, and many places now handle miniDV video gear.
I got a note from Mamiya about checking out a Mamiya 7II at a local vendor. I
took the nicely done card to the dealer, and found out that they did not even
have one for me to check out. Bottom line of local stores is that people want to
see what they are buying, and these stores provide convenience. The bigger
stores are catering more to the lower end, faster selling gear, which I think
will impact MF sales greatly.
> I doubt they can compete against
> circuit city or ritz or B&H for camera prices, nor do they have the
> background for supporting digital (repairs..) and the rapid obsolescence
> of software and gear could be pretty daunting in a business where stock
> has typically appreciated in price if you sat on it ;-) yes? ;-) Not any
> longer in digital, 6 months and its out or you are out - of business ;-)
Several stores here will match B&H prices. B&H does have the advantage of having
quite a range to select, and this superstore concept may put some local stores
out of business.
Few stores that sell computers, let alone digital cameras have anyone that can
explain anything beyond what is written on the side of the box. This will
eventually lead to technology backlash. I know several people who were early
adopters of digital cameras, saw them become lower quality, high depreciation
gadgets, shelved them, and are now looking at film cameras. Unfortunately, most
of those people are looking at 35 mm gear, and not MF.
>
>
> we live in interesting times - but I don't think future of pro stores
> looks particularly bright in the digital age - do you?
They will likely move towards video gear, which does fairly well locally. Many
pro shooters are adopting the Platypus style of work, and picking up video
camcorders. Still others are bypassing service bureaux by setting up their own
scanning and editing digital darkrooms. Catering to these needs could ensure
survival of pro stores.
I think that only the larger, and more flexible stores will survive. Adapt, or
become extinct. I really think that digital backs and bodies is still in the
early adopter stage, since scanning is still an affordable and efficient
workflow. Catalogue and product shooters can use the speed up of digital only
workflow, but only those with quite a bit of work can justify the costs
involved.
Kelso Lundeen
> Makes you wonder how many just went to DV, and skipped digital stills entirely.
> The cost of DV gear has dropped substantially the last few years, and this gear
> is often seen at many events, and with vacationers. So I guess that may be
> trading a c. $2000 camera, for a c. $2000 (or less) DV camcorder.
>
> There is also quite a bit of used gear for amateurs to buy. Why buy new, when
> plenty of good used gear is available, especially on EBAY. This too eats up MF
> sales, especially when the overall economy is down, and people are watching
> their money more.
>
This, in my mind at least, is an interesting observation: the idea
that folks might be "skipping digital still photography" and heading
straight to digital video.
I think part of the core issue -- apart from the film versus video
debate -- is really the nature of the image itself. It wouldn't
surprise me at all to see some statistic somewhere or someone make the
case that still photography itself is on the wane thanks to digital
video.
For various reasons, people seem to prefer video as the "catch-all"
mode of remembering and capturing moments. That's not to say that they
don't take snapshots -- or even use disposable film cameras -- but I
know many people who would easily spend 900 bucks at Best Buy for a
Canon or Sony miniDV but who would balk at spending the same amount
for a digital still camera. And who would *never* even think of
spending that much for a 35mm camera. (Because the 35mm SLRs are for
pros and they don't want to be a pro or worry about all that stuff,
they just want to take pictures.)
In my own small world, many of my friends would much rather capture
events on "video" than take snapshots -- either film or digital
snapshots. They tote their expensive Canon miniDVs everywhere they go.
If the want images of the baby, it's video that they're after -- not
snapshots.
My point here (I think) is that there's many different ways of putting
a statistical spin on this debate. Personally, I think what's really
changing isn't the media onto which images are placed, but the actual
meaning of the image -- the nature of the image -- and what it means
to "make an image" (or a sequence of images). People take great care
in establishing their own personal "nostalgias." This includes -- I
think -- deliberation about how to capture their memories and
establish their own histories. I think -- or at least I've thought at
various times -- that the "still image" itself no longer has a
prominent place in many of our own personal histories.
Just my two cents ...
Gordon Moat
> In my own small world, many of my friends would much rather capture
> events on "video" than take snapshots -- either film or digital
> snapshots. They tote their expensive Canon miniDVs everywhere they go.
> If the want images of the baby, it's video that they're after -- not
> snapshots.
Same observation in my area. Interestingly, I know several wedding photographers that are now
offering video, or strictly shooting video. Their claim is that they get paid more. The advent
of low cost computer editing equipment allows one to put together a nice wedding video (if
somewhat cheesy on occasion). Many people seem to like watching events on television, rather
than flipping through a book, or looking at a slide show.
>
>
> My point here (I think) is that there's many different ways of putting
> a statistical spin on this debate. Personally, I think what's really
> changing isn't the media onto which images are placed, but the actual
> meaning of the image -- the nature of the image -- and what it means
> to "make an image" (or a sequence of images). People take great care
> in establishing their own personal "nostalgias." This includes -- I
> think -- deliberation about how to capture their memories and
> establish their own histories. I think -- or at least I've thought at
> various times -- that the "still image" itself no longer has a
> prominent place in many of our own personal histories.
I think you have hit upon it exactly. Photography is a way of recording history, for some
people. Too many people think, and live, just for the moment . . . too much of an instant
gratification, fast food state of mind. Slowing down just a bit, and enjoying what life can
offer, and discovering the past, can enrich peoples lives, but many choose to ignore this.
Those that do not ignore this, can find an interest in photography, and still images.
Television and movies have become a big part of peoples lives, and putting ones own images on
the television has become very simple. Film cameras, especially MF, are not as simple, nor as
user friendly. I think that the popularity of P&S cameras, and to some extent Auto Focus,
illustrates there is a market for increased user friendliness. MiniDV camcorders are not much
different to control than a VCR, and most people do not care about the blinking "12:00".
Mxsmanic
2d6904d8.02032...@posting.google.com...
> It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some
> statistic somewhere or someone make the case
> that still photography itself is on the wane
> thanks to digital video.
After a century of still photography and moving pictures existing together
without conflict, I should hope that everyone would have realized by now
that neither medium is likely to eliminate the other. Still pictures and
moving pictures have two entirely different purposes, so there always has
been room for both, and nothing about digital technology is likely to change
this.
> For various reasons, people seem to prefer
> video as the "catch-all" mode of remembering
> and capturing moments.
Home video tends to be just as bad as home photography, except that you have
to sit and watch it for much longer periods.
> ... but I know many people who would easily
> spend 900 bucks at Best Buy for a Canon or
> Sony miniDV but who would balk at spending
> the same amount for a digital still camera.
Equipment geeks go for the technologies that provide the best excuses to buy
lots of expensive gear; and video is a lot more expensive and complicated
than still photography.
> And who would *never* even think of
> spending that much for a 35mm camera.
In general, to get the video equivalent of a given level of quality in still
photography, you simply add a zero to the price. So a $1500 still camera is
in roughly the same range as a $15,000 video camera.
> In my own small world, many of my friends
> would much rather capture events on "video"
> than take snapshots -- either film or digital
> snapshots.
And how often do they actually watch all the cassettes they've recorded?
> If the want images of the baby, it's video
> that they're after -- not snapshots.
For people with kids, I recommend _both_ still cameras and video cameras.
They each have their own purpose. Still cameras provide frozen instants of
time with very high quality; video provides sound and motion. It's nice to
be able to see both, thirty or forty years later.
Mxsmanic
3CA4B8E4...@attglobal.net...
> Interestingly, I know several wedding photographers
> that are now offering video, or strictly shooting
> video. Their claim is that they get paid more.
They also spend an order of magnitude more money on equipment, if they are
going for the same quality that they pursue in still photography. Video is
ruinously expensive; and unlike still photography, pro video equipment is
much more likely to be simply out of reach for the average amateur.
Q.G. de Bakker
> They also spend an order of magnitude more money on equipment, if they are
> going for the same quality that they pursue in still photography. Video
is
> ruinously expensive; and unlike still photography, pro video equipment is
> much more likely to be simply out of reach for the average amateur.
I'm not sure about that at all.
Consumer digital video quality is stunning. It beats broadcast quality,
pro-video from a couple of years ago easily. And it isn't that much less
than today's pro-video too.
Mxsmanic
a82muj$ncm$1...@reader1.tiscali.nl...
> Consumer digital video quality is stunning.
> It beats broadcast quality, pro-video from
> a couple of years ago easily. And it isn't
> that much less than today's pro-video too.
It will work in a pinch. But, as with still photography, there is still a
difference between good consumer gear and pro gear. The distinction of
video is that paying for that extra little bit of quality costs a _lot_ more
in video than it does in still photography. And, in both cases, much of it
has to do with things other than image quality, such as the ability to
withstand a drop to a concrete sidewalk, or the ability to tolerate a
downpour, and so on.
I tried video for a while about ten years ago, but it was too much trouble
and expense to get results I liked. Even the best video images are streaky,
smeared blurs compared to a decent still image. And have you ever looked at
stills from a motion picture? They look worse than APS!
Douglas Tourtelot
image and sound between good consumer (or pro-sumer) and pro is pretty much
the same, unless you are watching on a 56" HD Plasma display. The real
difference is "wearability." The pro stuff is meant to be knocked around
and then thrown into the back of a van, often without a case, for a dash to
the next story. The consumer stuff can't do that. The other thing is that
SOTA video gear dies of obsolescence very quickly and falls into the hands
of eager consumers, who pretty much, when they are done with it and the next
level has filtered down from broadcast, throw the old stuff away. My 500C/M
is 31 years old and still works exactly lick it did brand new. You'll find
30-year-old video stuff in a museum!
D.
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vD5p8.135574$Gf.13...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Q.G. de Bakker
> I tried video for a while about ten years ago, but it was too much trouble
> and expense to get results I liked. Even the best video images are
streaky,
> smeared blurs compared to a decent still image. And have you ever looked
at
> stills from a motion picture? They look worse than APS!
Indeed they are. What else would you expect?
But don't judge todays video by standards from 10 years ago. I quit video
when the Sony M3P was considered a quite reasonable quality professional
video camera. It is shamed by yesterdays cheap non-digital hi-8 consumer
cameras. In all respects, not just image quality.
Mxsmanic
%D7p8.134471$ZR2....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> My 500C/M is 31 years old and still works
> exactly lick it did brand new.
Ah, but the makers of digital cameras are trying hard to change that. They
want you to buy a new camera body every 6-12 months, just as you are
obligated to do with your PC.
Robert Monaghan
which tends to be the problem, that is, watching video or film 30 or 40
years later, or even showing the kids first birthday videos at their high
school graduations. Many of those older videos are no longer usable, the
magnetization has randomized, or access to formats no longer easy or
cheap. As with other digital systems, you have to have kept up with format
conversions for all those old systems to still be usable. I used to work
in a media library with lots of media players kept lovingly and
prayerfully operational (now adding our laser disk players to that list)
so they could continue to provide access to older films, stereo imagery
etc. magnetic wire recordings (of Goebbels, no less) and so on. Film also
has problems, with early color slide films from 30-40 years ago and E-4
etc now fading away. But I think that the superiority of still images
becomes clear when you start looking at folks making family albums, with
the old black and white photos still very nice, while the later film and
videos have already begun to fade away. Sadly, too few of these resources
are being saved. We have a major USAA film festival sited here on campus
to provide $$ to try and save old movies, big name contributors, but only
a small fraction can or are being saved or converted to nonflammable
films. I have also had to replace "archival" CDROM media which had begun
to fail after less than 6 years, raising my suspicion about how really
archival many of the current media and inks will turn out to be. These
costs are usually ignored by digital and video fans, but are real
issues...
there used to be a major series of articles in every issue of Modern
Photography mag. on 8 and 16mm film movie making etc.; but that craze
seems to have also passed ;-) I'm glad I'm not paying $1/minute costs for
film and processing for using my 16mm underwater film camera anymore ;-)
At our college graduation ceremonies, though, I do see a lot of digital
videocams in use, and sometimes envy them (as in low light situations
where the clearest view is from looking over a digivideocam user's
shoulder to look at the LCD screens, not podium!). Whether the images will
still be viewable or last into the next century, we'll have to wait and
see ;-)
Robert Monaghan
incidentally, this archival issue is getting to be a concern for my
museum friends too; some of the color prints from the past are far
less stable than the old black and white prints, and are problematic.
What have you got when the print fades away? What does the art gallery do
when you complain (refunds? copy print?)...
Even some of the modern artists work, with folks like de Kooning and
others using mayonaisse to get a particular look and gloss to their paints
and pollock with house paints that are now flaking off etc., are all
facing some serious long term preservation issues.
perhaps the future will be well documented in cross indexed digital files,
but I think we are going to leave a lot of holes for our own time period
Gordon Moat
extensive restoration and preservation, helped by emerging technology.
While studying for my art degree, we were presented with some photos of works by
Picasso. These were somewhat three dimensional canvas experiments of his. I
remember one that had a guitar shape, made of cardboard or heavy paper, hung off
the canvas. This painting did not survive many years after its creation.
Luckily, a B&W photo of the work documented this piece, so that it could be
shared with others.
It will be up to each of us to consider our own personal histories. Preserving
some aspect of our history allows us to share that time in the future.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
John Garand
Lundeen) WROTE:
>All this talk about "film versus digital" and "Hasselblad V's" and
>Mead's thoughts on the limits of CCDs -- all this seems to indicate
>that medium format is still alive and kicking.
>
>Is it possible that digital is the best thing that's happened to MF
>photography in a long time?
>
>Kelso
Why not. Add fully automated cameras and point and shoots to that
mix. The popularity of the Voightlander 35mm RF can not be solely
attributed to the lens quality/price point (bodies are another story).
It seems that some people have decided to avoid full automation and
take matters into their own hands (so to speak). This is a good thing
(TM) for all larger than miniature camera formats.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----