|
|
Digital
Imaging In my 35mm v. Medium Format Part II, I alluded to the idea that I would sell out my medium format kit to return to an entirely 35mm based kit, a hypocritical comment to make especially after trumpeting the virtues of the larger film format. But digital excites me and represents an epiphany in thought that is the same league as when I discovered 35mm format was in fact not the end all be all in photographic reproduction. Or when I discovered that although the Japanese could probably out engineer the rest of the world combined, they’re bloody dismal when it comes to making listenable mass market stereo components (hence my descent into that netherworld of audiophilia some years ago). An audio aside Not until the British said enough is enough and decided to do something about the dastardly digital CD format did things open up so that the potential of digital could be realized. Arcam was first out the gates with their Black Box digital to analog converter (DAC) and though certainly a modest improvement over what the Japanese had been forcing down consumer’s necks (Sony being among the worst offenders) it opened the eyes of other quality hi-fi companies to what could be done once digital was understood. Keith O’Johnson of Reference Recordings and Spectral fame (also designed one of Avalon’s top speakers too) was among the early pioneers in understanding some of the problems with digital and did much to alleviate digital artifacts with his astronomically priced single box player from the early 1990s. He was even aware of jitter (timing variations or defects often found at the bit level of CD’s data stream) before the term jitter was even coined. From there digital gained steam and once the mighty and highly respected Mark Levinson company decided to tackle it, they came out with some tour de force reference components that all other digital products would be compared to for almost a decade (the No. 30 and 31 transport and DAC units). Now everyone would work to extract all that was possible from the digital format and the CD would gain mainstream acceptance among the audiophile gentry (having already conquered vinyl within five years of introduction among the mass consumer market). But before ending this rather long look at audio in what is supposed to be a photography related essay, I should note that digital was misunderstood by the audiophile community from day one. You must realize that vinyl and digital have different strengths and weaknesses, almost the opposite. The mantra of the day when vinyl was king was the source first then amplification then speakers. This was because of the minute voltages dealt with in analog amplification and the audiophile wanting the best sound reproduction had to ensure that he had the best stylus, the best tone-arm, the best turntable, the best phono preamp he could afford to ensure integrity of the delicate analog signal before evening sending it to the preamp for a beefier voltage to be sent to the power amp and ultimately the speakers. So you get an idea of why the source was first back then, you can’t clean up something downstream when everything is being fouled upstream as Ultra High Fidelity magazine would say. Vinyl also has weaknesses in the low frequencies with an often soft and bloated mid bass while the high frequencies, though extended well beyond the CD format are also laid back. Vinyl is very much a mid frequency champ and audiophiles would have built a sound system to attenuate the weaknesses of analog – meaning an amplification and speaker system with an overextended bass and strident treble. So when an unsuspecting audiophile put in a CD player into his analog enhanced sound system, he would hear too much bass and piercing highs and not realize that digital with better-controlled and deeper bass and subjectively extended highs was simply revealing his system orientation. A CD based sound system would entail an amplification and speaker integration that is slightly warmed up in the highs with clean and fast bass to take advantage of the more extended lows. Basically, audiophiles had to find out the strengths and weaknesses of analog and digital before producing components that could deal with both effectively. What this essay is actually about Digital has been around for quite some time with Kodak being the major pioneer in the high end and very expensive pro market with the Canon and Nikon based DCS SLR bodies. Though some newspapers changed wholly to digital in the mid 1990s and digital was gaining more widespread acceptance due to convenience and print deadline factors, the price of the Kodak DCS SLRs were just too prohibitive for ordinary freelancers or serious amateurs to consider. Nikon changed all that with their first Nikon-only design (previously collaborations with Fuji and Kodak had produced a few bodies) in the D1. Now the D1 is not exactly state of the art anymore with its 3 megapixel CCD but it’s certainly not low res either. What makes the D1 so attractive is its impressive build quality since it is based upon the F100’s magnesium alloy skeletal structure (despite its F5-like appearance) meaning it can take few knocks here and there and weather a rain shower or two. And then there’s the small matter of price, although still beyond the reach of most photographers, it is at $5000 US very much within the reach of a great many professionals who buy their own equipment and for the many newspapers that purchase pooled equipment for their staff. Keeping in mind that the Kodak DCS bodies that would compete against the D1 were priced 5-6 times as much without necessarily being a better camera overall. This shot across the digital bow from Nikon signaled to other companies that digital competition would get fierce and competitive and Fuji and Canon worked quickly to introduce their own digital SLR competition that in some ways outperform the D1. We also had Contax announce a 6 MP SLR based upon their new N1 film SLR. This digital camera is not slated for mass shipping until Spring 2001 but it seems that Contax didn’t want to get caught short in the digital arena hence the vapourware-like news release (no product in sight for months to come but Canon did the same thing with their D30 too). I think 2001 will be very exciting because we will be entering into the second-generation phase of the new breed of digital SLRs based upon the Nikon D1 mold. Kodak will have to do a major rethink of their DCS series to compete effectively because right now they’re pricing themselves out of the market. 2001 will see Canon introduce a full 35mm frame sized CMOS sensor based upon the film EOS 1v camera body. I fully expect Nikon to follow suit and not lose any ground gained from the D1 by announcing a D2 which will also be a full 35mm frame CCD based 6 MP SLR. There is even a rumour that Nikon is working on a cheaper and higher resolution camera then the D1 that will not be as robustly built – perhaps a F80 based digital SLR – and not be as expensive. If true, it would be tremendous news for Nikon users to have something other then the Fuji S1 Pro to choose from as the S1 is based on the discontinued F60 and cannot make use of AFS or VR lenses. Once 6 Megapixel cameras become the norm there should be a big surge in film-based photographers going fully digital and I suspect that that is what Daryl Benson, a noted Canadian landscape photographer, is waiting for. In the a recent issue of Photolife Magazine, he states that he will go digital in about three years time and perhaps 12 MP cameras will be available within that three year time frame. Whatever the case, I myself look forward to seeing the 6 MP cameras and suspect that this when I would want to make the plunge towards a fully digital setup. A 6 MP camera will not be cheap though and this where the idea of liquidating the Bronica kit comes into play as the means to achieve the digital end. If a 6 MP camera can produce excellent, grain-free image files that with a bit software manipulation from the likes of Genuine Fractals, can produce outstanding images at poster sizes, then there is no compelling need to shoot a film based medium format system. Faster flash sync wouldn’t be an issue since the Nikon D1 already syncs at 1/500 and I would benefit from being able to use more widely available Nikkor lenses that go far wider and far longer then could ever be achieved with the Bronica kit. What are some of the advantages to digital?
For the time being even if I were to go digital, I would still keep the F100 body around for those times that shooting film makes better sense then to shoot digital but that may not last for too long. A recent example revealed the potential of digital in a small but important way. I emailed a cousin in Edmonton some images of my son and she mentioned printing some of them off for our grandmother to enjoy viewing via her inkjet printer. The images I sent to her were low resolution JPEGs and I wondered as to what kind of quality she could have obtained from file sizes optimized for email over a telephone line rather then a large TIFF file for higher quality printing. But the fact that she did so indicates that only the truly anal (or just serious amateurs) concern themselves with absolute image quality whereas everyday consumers are not beholden to technical matters such megapixels and dpi. This is the power of digital, that had I had my own digital camera, I could have sent images of my recently born daughter to all of my friends and relatives within minutes of the occasion instead of having to wait for the film to be processed and printed and then scanned for emailing. There are times though that having a 4x6 print in the hands or for a family album makes better sense then to print such small images yourself. Most wedding photographers would probably not go fully digital until scale of economy makes digital imaging and printing comparable to that of film. If I had a spare 20 or 30 grand
burning a hole in my pockets Then I would also like a Nikon Coolpix 990 or Canon G1 top consumer level digital camera for traveling. Add the wide-angle and telephoto attachments and you would be well covered in a very compact package that would fit into a modest fanny pack. Only the CP 990 or G1 would suffice due to their ability to mate with an external dedicated flash (the G1 is superb in this regard with its dedicated hotshoe mount) and only these two units as I prefer Nikon or Canon products over other makes. After this then the smallest digital point and shoot would be a nice optional item to have as a 24/7 accessory (24 hours/7 days a week) just incase you come across the shot of a lifetime and need a camera quick and dirty. The Canon S100 based upon the film Elph camera is perhaps the closest to this idea of a 24/7 camera with any pretension for image quality. Four cameras that would pretty much cover all the photography that I would want to do but what about my poor Bronica medium format kit? If a certain type of product came onto market then I would certainly reconsider keeping the Bronica but at this time I know of no such product available or being developed. What I want is a digital filmback that is self-contained and compatible with the super capacity IBM Microdrives. I want it to be well sealed against the elements and robustly built and I want it to simply mate to my Bronica SQ-Ai bodies with no other adjustments or modifications required. I want the battery pack to also be located within this imaginary digital filmback, which would necessitate a larger then normal filmback but try to keep it within reasonable limits. I want the ability to change ISO settings on the fly as required. The ability to do the same with color balance would also be nice. A small LCD screen for image previewing and reviewing would be nice too and perhaps mandatory given one of my points of digital’s advantages. I want all this in an AFFORDABLE package that mere middleclass mortals can afford. Although digital filmbacks are available now they are not what I would consider field acceptable since these backs require a permanent latchment with a computer as well as a large, continuous power source (never mind their Mercedes C class-like price tags). And of course my digital back must have a superior sized CCD or CMOS sensor that enables the kit to generate a huge file size per image for high quality enlargements. Otherwise there would be no point to keeping a medium format based digital rig. Maybe someday this type of back will be available and perhaps even faster then Silicon Film can develop their vapourware backs for certain Nikon and Canon bodies. But I think by the time anything like this is made available I will have sold off the Bronicas for a future Nikon D2 SLR body. Digital is here and now and the benefits of it will develop far faster then anything film can provide. Just as the major recording labels dispensed with vinyl production I think Fuji and Kodak will work towards weaning the consumer off of film and relegate film production to specialty companies who are convinced that digital represents an evil to be avoided at all costs. To suggest that film will still rein supreme in five years time is a head in the sand mentality and I for one do not envision myself picking sand grains out of my ears. By that time digital will have evolved to such an extent that its superiority will be unquestioned. In a similar vein, audio is on the cusp of another revolution with the advent of the 24 bit and 96 KHz recording and playback standard that most declare as being on par with the master tape and blows away any vestiges of analog superiority over digital. Now let’s just hurry up and get there already. Comments from a reader - something digital photographers may not have thought much about,
|
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
  |
|
