THE GANG OF FOUR
Chris Sanderson, Michael Reichmann, Charles Cramer, Bill Atkinson
Bill is on the right, the fellow with the speed streaks.
These were caused by his having to run into the shot from behind the camera
in less than 1/500 sec. after pressing the shutter.
What a guy!
In March of 2006 I purchased aPhase One P45medium format back in Hasselblad H mount. This was an upgrade from a P25 back – 22 Megapixels to 39 Megapixels, among other improvements. My friendBill Atkinsonalso upgraded from a P25 to a P45 at the same time, andCharles Cramersimultaniously purchased his own P45, his first digital back, after shooting 4X5″ film for the past 30 years.
The three of us decided to inaugurate our new gear with a shoot together in the redwoods of Northern California, but not before adding my friend and frequent shooting companionKevin Raber, who happens to be the VP of Marketing for Phase One in the US. A description of that shoot, and some photographs from it can be found inCounting Ants, an essay on shooting with a view camera and the P45 back.
Of course when you put four photographers and a bunch of new equipment together you’re inevitably going to get their collective testing juices going. We’d hoped to do some on-location equipment tests, but variable weather and other time pressures meant that we had to put this off until after our shoot inRedwoods National Park.
What We Tested
A couple of days later, after taking care of some other matters in the Bay area, I returned to Bill’s studio, along with Charlie, and videographer Chris Sanderson. Kevin wasn’t with us, because he had other commitments, but also because we felt that his presence would be inappropriate during testing of his company’s products. But, before leaving Kevin left us with a P25 and a P30 back for testing.
We tallied up what equipment we had available that day and found that we had the following for testing….
Phase One P45back(s): 39 Megapixel
Phase One P30back: 31 Megapixel
Phase One P25back: 22 Megapixel
Canon 1Ds MKIIwith Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8: 16.6 Megapixel
Canon 5Dwith with Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8 : 12.7 Megapixel
Canon 1Dswith with Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8 : 11 Megapixels
Linhof 679cscamera with Rodenstock HR digital lenses: Various backs
Linhof 4X5camera with Sironar HM lenses: Drum scanned film
Linhof 4X5camera with Sironar N lenses and BetterLight Super 6K scanning back
Hasselblad H1with Hasselblad H lenses: Various backs
Mamiya 645with Mamiya lenses: P45 39 Megapixel and drum scanned Velvia
As for the testers – all three of us are middle aged and have each been doing photography for some 30 years or more. We all have worked with film formats from 35mm to 4×5″, and have done extensive colour as well as B&W darkroom work. We all have been working within the digital environment since the mid-1990’s. All three of us teach photographic workshops and seminars, and write regularly for major photographic magazines in the US and abroad.
Bill Atkinsonis a scientist by profession and one of the original developers of theApple Macintoshcomputer and its software. He is also one of the world’s leading experts on colour profiles and printing. His printer profiles need no introduction to anyone familiar with the world of inkjet printing.Charlie Crameris a highly regarded large format landscape photographer and photographic educator. Both Bill’s and Charlie’s work can be found in galleries and print collections worldwide, and they frequently teach seminars and workshops together.
Michael Reichmann,the primary author and publisher of this web site, teaches photographic workshops and seminars around the world, and is a contributing editor toPhoto Techniques Magazineas well as a regular columnist forAmerican Photomagazine. He is a consultant to the photographic industry and a frequent speaker at international conferences. His books, prints and portfolios are found in museums and galleries as well as private collections.
Chris Sanderson, director ofThe Video Journalwas also in attendance. Chris filmed some of our testing activities as well as our prior shooting trip toRedwoods National Park. Some of that footage is also found on our availabletest disk. Chris has been an award winning commercial film and video producer as well as a still photographer for some 30 years.
So, with some 100+ years of photographic experience between us, and with Bill wearing hisDr. Sciencehat, we set out to do some testing.
The Tests, The Conclusions, and The Disk
Below are some web-sized crops and samples from our comparisons. We also have a short essay from Bill on the testing methodology, along with comments from each of us on what we see.
But, for what may be the first time anywhere, we are providing readers not only with these scaled down samples and our observations, but the raw files as well, so that you can do your own comparisons and draw your own conclusions.
TheLuminous Landscapeis making availablea DVD diskcontaining almost 4GB of raw files taken with each of these cameras, medium format backs, and lenses. Files from the film drum scans are also provided. Included as well are 30 day free trial copies ofCapture Onesoftware for both OSX and Windows. With this C1 raw conversion software you are able to process all of the raw files provided, including those from the three Canon cameras.
Bill, Charlie and Michael have also included sample raw files fromRedwoods National Parktaken with their P45 backs. Bills were with a Hasselblad H1. Charlie’s with a Mamiya AFD, and Michael’s with a Linhof 679cs and Rodenstock lenses.
The disk is a DVD-ROM, which can be used on an PC or Mac computer with a DVD drive, anywhere in the world. This is a data disk, not a video DVD. But, we have also included a Quicktime video produced by Chris, showing a bit of our location shoot in the Redwoods as well as our test session at Bill’s studio.
The disk is currently in preparation (video editing, artwork, printing, duplication, packaging, fulfillment) and will be available for shipping on or before June, 15. This disk is available through this site’sonline store. It is priced at US $9.95, plus S&H, until June 15th, after which time it will be priced at $14.95 + S&H. It is alsoavailable free until June 15th, 2006, as part of new subscriptions toThe Luminous Landscape Video Journal, or with renewals by current subscribers.
Available until June 15, 2006 for just $9.95 + S&H,
or free with a subscription to The Video Journal
Bill Atkinson’s Observations
Comparing nine different digital and film backs
We wanted to test the image quality of different digital and film backs when used to photograph the same subject.‚ We also wanted to compare different lenses with the P45 to see which lenses were better.‚ We also wanted to test some of our lenses at all different apertures to learn what happens to image quality as the lens is stopped down.
How the captures were made:
A still life was set up in my studio where it would not be disturbed.‚ The scene was lit with two 150 Watt Philips CDM continuous light fixtures bounced from umbrellas.‚ Studio strobes would have ruled out the BetterLight comparison.‚ Each shot was composed so that “goal posts” 15.5 inches apart were just visible at image left and right.‚ Exposures were made at equivalent exposures at the lowest ISO, and most of the test images used in comparisons were exposed at f/11 for a good compromise between depth of field and diffraction losses.‚ At ISO 50, the exposure was f/11 at 0.5 seconds.‚ A heavy studio tripod, mirror lockup and self-timers or cable releases were used for all exposures.‚ Each camera that had auto focus was manually autofocused on the left side of the dollar bill.‚ For the BetterLight captures the software focusing tool was used on the same spot.‚ We didn’t manage to get exactly the same crop or angle on all shots.‚ Several of the shots had to be redone due to focusing, cropping or exposure errors.‚ One error that we did not have time to correct, is that the Velvia 645 shot was composed to fit the slightly smaller rectangle of the P45 sensor, instead of using the full 645 film area.‚ This will make the Velvia 645 look a little worse than it could be.
All RAW captures are available.
Since the quality and variety of software tools for developing raw files are still improving rapidly, we have made all the unprocessed raw camera captures available so that you can make your own comparisons between digital backs and processing software.‚ The files are too big for mass downloading, so they are being offered by Luminous Landscape on a data DVD which includes an Excel spreadsheet “Capture Info.xls” with complete details for each capture.‚ Hopefully these published raw files will also be useful to the designers of raw developing software.
Developing the RAW captures:
For this series of comparisons all raw files were developed in the released version of Capture One Pro 3.7.4.‚ I had already developed one series with a pre-release version of 3.7.4, but found several important bugs so I had to redo them all with the final released version.‚ I also developed a complete series in Raw Developer 1.4.7 which delivered noticeably finer detail, but at the expense of more color aliasing and other interpolating errors, so I ended up choosing to use Capture One 3.7.4.‚ At this time Adobe Camera Raw and LightRoom do not yet support the P45, but I would like to try them when they do.‚ Each capture was processed by Capture One Pro 3.7.4 with camera default settings except white balancing on the third gray patch of the color checker.‚ No tonal adjustments were made, and all sharpening and noise removal were disabled.‚ Each capture was processed to 16 bit ProPhoto RGB with high quality at camera resolution.‚ Charlie scanned the two Velvia film comparisons on my Tango drum scanner using the NewColor software.
Comparing different sized images:
All captures were made such that the 15.5 inches wide “goal posts” in the test scene approximately filled the width of the frame, but to make comparisons I still had to compensate for differences in image size and offset.‚ To accomplish this I started by setting Photoshop’s image interpolation preferences to bicubic.‚ Then I chose the cropping tool and set the crop size to 8000 x 6000 pixels at 360 dpi.‚ Then for each developed capture I stretched the crop width to just touch the “goal posts” on the left and right.‚ After setting the crop width, I then centered the crop on the color checker cross bar.‚ After performing the crop I dragged each of the nine images into a new layer of a Photoshop comparison document.
Photoshop Adjustment Curves for comparisons:
Each different digital or film back or lens resulted in images with somewhat different contrast and color.‚ Because it is very difficult to visually distinguish between contrast and actual resolution, I needed to normalize differences in contrast and color.‚ To accomplish this I added individual R,G,B adjustment curves to each image to bring the red, green, and blue channels of each of the six ColorChecker gray patches to the following standard ProPhoto RGB values:‚ 37,‚ 65, 103,‚ 144,‚ 190,‚ 241.‚ These are equivalent to the ColorChecker’s Lab_L values of 20,‚ 35,‚ 51,‚ 66,‚ 81,‚ 96.‚ This made some of the image colors a bit weird, especially the Velvia images, so please do not judge these images by their color.‚ However normalizing the six neutrals better allowed me to compare the actual resolution of the different digital and film backs.‚ With all nine image layers plus nine adjustment layers the resulting file size was 2.1 gigabytes, so I also prepared a few different crops of just the central portions.
What a can of worms! In order to clearly see the differences between the captures, it was important to sharpen the developed images. I made various attempts to sharpen each image “to taste,” but found the process entirely too subjective. It was all too easy to sharpen a little more or less and bias the results. So I decided to disable sharpening in the raw developing software, and sharpened all the digital captures in Photoshop with a fixed amount of USM 200 1.0 0. For the two film scans I backed down to 200 0.6 0 to keep them from getting too edgy. I considered giving extra sharpening to the Canon captures since their sensors include an antialiasing filter, but how much extra? Please take these sharpened JPEGs with a grain of salt. If you don’t like these JPEGs pleaseorder the DVDwith all the RAW captures, process them with your own favorite raw processor, sharpen each to taste, and draw your own conclusions.
Nine Backs Comparison:
At first I tried to rank order the nine digital and film backs according to their image quality but I ran into a number of stumbling blocks. The whole area of sharpening is quite subjective with no clearly correct method, and different sharpening will change the outcome of any ranking. Contrast plays such an important role in perceived resolution that normalizing the six ColorChecker grays was necessary, but that normalization impacts any comparisons of color and tonal gradation. There are many different variables to consider in image quality, including resolution, grain or noise, color fidelity, and smooth tonal transitions.
For some photographers, statements comparing the image quality of different cameras are an emotional powder keg almost as sensitive as racial or gender comparisons. Any ranking I might make would likely ignite a flame war so I have decided not to rank the nine backs. I have accurately described the procedure used to make these JPEGs and you are welcome to draw your own conclusions. However, for any critical comparisons I recommendordering the DVDwith all the original camera RAW files and making your own personal comparisons
The above files are partial crops from the full raw files. They have been reduced here to fit on the page and therefore don’t show the differences as clearly as would larger files. If you click on each of the small JPGs above you will be able to view larger versions at 100%, which make the difference more visible. We suggest that you open a second browser window (preferably on a second screen) and then compare two devices that you are interested in.
If you are on a Mac, and using Safari, set your preferences to enable tabbed browsing, and then Command-Click on the small images you’re interested in comparing. You can now tab back and forth between them for instant comparisons.
Below are the nine backs again, but in closer detail.
Canon 1DsCanon 5DVelvia 645Canon 1Ds MKIIPhase One P30Phase One P25Velvia 4X5Phase One P45Intentionally Left BlankBetterlight Super 6K
Four Lenses Comparison:
The four lenses tested on the same P45 all performed very well at f/11.
There were some differences in contrast between lenses, but once these were normalized with adjustment curves, the differences in resolution were much smaller and possibly within the range of experimental error such as focusing.‚ If I had to rank the lenses from good to best, they would be: Mamiya 120 Macro, Hasselblad 120 Macro, Apo Sironar HM 100, Hasselblad 50-110 Zoom.‚ Based on these tests, I do not concur with Michael’s earlier conjecture that the quality of the P45 captures would be lens-limited.
Mamiya 120 Macro
Hasselblad 120 MacroApo Sironar HM 100Hasselblad 50-110 Zoom
Highlight Warning Threshold:
At first we tried to use the camera’s blinking highlight warnings to determine the test exposures.‚ We found that the Canon images all came out about a stop overexposed because the threshold for the blinking highlights was higher than for the Phase One digital backs.‚ When we developed the captures it was obvious the Canon captures were overexposed and needed to be reshot at the same numerically equivalent exposure as the Phase one captures.‚ The final exposures were either ISO 100 for 1/4 second at f/11 or ISO 50 for 1/2 second at f/11.‚ My personal conclusion is that when shooting Phase one backs I will trust the blinkers, and with my Canon cameras I will back off one stop from the blinkers.
Lens Aperture Testing:
We tested all different lens apertures for the Mamiya 120 Macro, the H1 120 Macro, and the H1 50-110 Zoom.‚ All of these raw files are on the DVD, but are not displayed here.‚ The short answer is no big surprise:‚ Avoid using f/32 or f/45, and use f/22 when you need the depth of field.‚ If you don’t need depth of field, use f/16 or f/11.
Charles Cramer’s Observations
Comparing different cameras and lenses using the P45 back – What system gives the optimum results?
The part of these tests I was most apprehensive about was how my Mamiya system would stack up against the Hasselblad and the Rodenstock/Linhof systems.‚ My Mamiya is the least expensive of the various ways to host the P45 Phase One back (about half the cost of the Hasselblad).‚ Bill has described the test setup, and you will notice in the jpegs below slight variations in aiming and size.‚ All were exposed at f/11, 1/2 second.‚ My Mamiya 55-110mm zoom would not focus as close as the Hasselblad zoom, so we used the Mamiya 120 Macro for this test.‚ Initially, we did notice contrast differences between the systems—and the images with more contrast therefore appeared sharper.‚ But, once we “normalized” the contrast of each test to a standard (using the six patches on the Color Checker), the differences between systems were minimized.‚ I was shocked to see that—in my opinion, none was clearly superior to any of the others!‚ There are subtle differences, and arguments can be made in favor of one or the other.‚ But they are so close that I am now quite content with my‚ Mamiya. (After all, I’m the only one with a second zoom lens—a 105 to 210mm!)
We invite those who want to know more to get the DVD with all the tests and raw files, and compare for yourself.‚ The conventional wisdom on the net is that the sensors are clearly outperforming available lenses—and I believe the results of these tests contradict that.‚ Another shocker was that Bill found his 50 to 110mm zoom performed slightly better than both the 120 Macro and the 80mm prime Hasselblad lenses.‚ Bill Atkinson and I have done a few comparisons of the Mamiya 55-110mm zoom and Hasselblad 50-110mm zoom , and didn’t find any significant differences between those lenses, either (in one test, we preferred the Mamiya!)‚ These four images here are processed as described by Bill, with no sharpening in Capture One, and then an application of Unsharp mask in Photoshop of amount 200, radius 1.0, threshold 0.‚
Phase One P45 back with Apo-Sironar-HM 100mm lens on Linhof 4X5 CameraPhase One P45 back with Hasselblad H1 and 120mm Macro lensPhase One P45 back with Hasselblad H1 and 55-110mm Zoom lensPhase One P45 back with Mamiya 120mm Macro lens
Comparing 4×5 Film and the P45 back
As a recent convert to digital from large-format, I am still concerned with what I might be giving up in quality.‚ But, continuing advances in RAW processing software have led to improvements in the developed digital files, narrowing the differences between the P45 and 4×5 film.‚ Last month, onwww.outbackphoto.com, I described the sometimes dramatic improvements in fine detail that “Raw Developer”‚ (from www.iridientdigital.com ‚MAC only) provided in exposures of 1/2 second or longer. This was due to over-zealous noise reduction in Capture One, resulting in low noise ‚but also a “smudging” of fine detail in areas of low contrast.‚ Now, Capture One, with version 3.7.4‚ has changed (quoting the release notes) “the reference point (zero) on the Noise Suppression slider…to include more details”.‚ And it can now provide fine detail on long exposures on a par with Raw Developer.‚ This is a also a great lesson in the importance of saving‚ your RAW files.‚
I have included three jpegs here showing a small section of the dollar bill from our tests.‚ One is from the 4×5 Velvia exposure, and the other two are from the P45 Hasselblad 50-110mm zoom lens exposures, developed in Capture One and Raw Developer.‚ You’ll see that, in a few of the shorter fine lines, Capture One tends to create some artifacts—instead of a line, we get an outline.‚ Raw Developer gives a more “film-like” result, with better ultra-fine detail.‚ However, Raw Developer does have have some color fringing problems with these fine lines.‚ I have turned on the “color smoothing” in Raw Developer about a third of the way up to reduce this. These are fairly minor differences, and you’d have to make an awfully‚ big print to actually see these differences.
For these last three jpegs, the latest version (3.7.4) of Capture One was used.‚ Processing of these files is identical to the method Bill Atkinson has outlined in his writeup of the tests.‚ For Raw Developer, I turned sharpening off, noise reduction on—with color smoothing at 10, and luminance smoothing at zero.‚ Unsharp Mask was applied in Photoshop (amount 200, radius 1.0, threshold 0) for the digital captures, and for the 4×5 film-amount 200, radius .6, threshold 0. The film responds differently to the USM, and would have obvious halos if sharpened the same as the digital. As Bill has written, trying to decide on the right sharpening is very subjective. We felt this was a good compromise for these jpeg comparisons. But, if you disagree,get the RAW filesand scans-and try it at home!
Intentionally Left Blank4X5 drum scanned film P 45 developed with Capture One V3.7.4P 45 developed with Rawdeveloper
Michael Reichmann’s Observations
Whenever I publish any sort of product test, review, or comparison, I can almost hear beforehand the inevitable comments that are going to be made on the various online discussion forums. You know the ones I mean.
It’s always therefore tempting to head the instant critics off at the pass by trying to anticipate their gripes, claims of bias, and other postures designed to either deflate the position being put forward, or to defend their own favourite hobby horse. But no amount of armour will adequately defend against these errant knights. So, just to cover some of the issues that are bound to be raised, here is a brief FAQ…
Q: Who paid for this comparison test?
A: We did. We each spent many hours of our own time (especially Bill) traveling, shooting, conducting the test, collating the results and analyzing them.
Q: Why Phase One backs and not those from Leaf, Imacon, or Sinar/Eyelike?
A: Because this is the back that we each happen to own.
Q: Did the three of you get your backs from Phase One?
A: No. We each bought our back from retailers, with our own hard-earned money.
Q: Did Phase One pay or provide any incentive in any way for this test.
A: No. Err, wait a minute. Hmm. I think Kevin bought us dinner one evening while we were shooting together. Plus a bottle of wine. Guess we must be cheap dates.
Q: Why did you use Canon cameras in the comparison and not Nikons?
A: Because that’s what we own and had available to us on the day of the test.
Q: Will you do a similar test again with other backs and cameras?
A: Probably not. We live in different countries and on different coasts, and don’t get together that often. Also, we did this test first and foremost for our own edification regarding our own equipment. Sharing it with others came afterward.
Q: Why are you charging for thecomparison diskif the test was done without commercial motivation?
A: Because disk preparation, artwork, materials, replication, packaging and fulfillment don’t come free.
So, with that out of the way, I’ll conclude with a few observations and comments of my own.
Bill and Charlie have mentioned that they did some processing comparisons on the P45 files usingRaw Developeras well asCapture One. This came about because there was some initial concern that C1 was producing results that were losing high frequency detail, especially with long exposures. It was. In fact we had stumbled upon something that Phase One were not aware of – that their then current software was not optimized for the very high resolution of the P45. It was mistaking high frequency detail for noise, and suppressing it.
Following Bill and Charlie sending sample files to Denmark it wasn’t many days before Phase One issued an update to C1 software (3.7.4) which now largely addresses the issue. Now, by moving the noise reduction slider in C1 to its lowest position, very fine detail from the P45 back is no longer suppressed. Phase One claims that they are still doing work in this area and that future releases of C1 will do an even better job of addressing it.
After many hours of staring at files and making comparisons, one starts to get punchy. If you purchasethe comparison file diskyou may end with the same trauma. And what you’ll also find, and which Bill alludes to in his comments, is that with varying degrees of sharpening it is possible to make these different files very difficult to compare. Sharpening has little to do with resolution, but it plays a large role in the appearance of an image and ones perception of howsharpit is.
I also invite you to not just pixel peep when you get the raw files, but to also make prints. Make prints that are real-world, and at the print resolutions and sizes that you are familiar with. This is the true test.
What I See
I see the resolution differences between the 4X5″ drum scan and the P45 as quite minor, but with a slight edge still going to the drum scanned film, But when you consider the time and cost of shooting film, processing it, and then scanning, the advantages of a 39MP back like the P45 are compelling. And, because there’s always someone with a different opinion, it’s worth mentioning the anecdote that a colleague of Charlie’s, who owns an Aztek drum scanner, commented “why are you comparing the P45 to the inferior Tango scans?” Charlie took him up on the challenge, and while on a scanning target the Aztek proved a little sharper, on one of the 4X5″ Velvia images from our test set-up Charlie says he could see no real difference between scans from the two machines. Needless to say, inexpensive desktop scanners will perform at a lesser level than either of these drum scanners, and I would expect in this instance to see the 39MP digital file show a clear advantage.
So if we have a close race between a 39MP back’s files and a 4X5″ drum scan, where does that leave us? A traditional enlarger made print can’t hope to compare, and so we now appear to have a new ball game, with top-tier medium format digital close to equaling 4×5″ large format. And to my eyes images from the 16Mp Canon 1Ds MKII are awfully close to those from drum scanned 645 format Velvia. (Don’t confuse the texture added by film grain with detail. Also, try different sharpening approaches with each and see the difference that this can make in perceived resolution).
As for the other camera and back comparisons, the only real surprise is that the P30 ended up below the P25 in the area of resolving power. The other rankings are as expected. The superiority of the Betterlight scanning back is no surprise, but when you figure in the shooting limitations that a scanning back has over a one shot, its small resolution advantage doesn’t appear to me to be all that compelling. On the other hand other aspects of a scanning back’s image quality are not to be denied.
The lens comparisons were an eye-opener. I think it’s fair to say that once we’re dealing with top-ranked lenses, the difference to be seen in real-world photography begin to be quite small. The shocker for Bill and me was how well the Hasselblad 50-110mm zoom performed, actually outperforming the 120mm Hasselblad Macro, a theoretically superior lens.
Which only goes to show that the evidence of ones eyes are always to be trusted over theory, opinion, and so-called common wisdom.
What We Didn’t Test
This test was about resolution. We did not look at or evaluate dynamic range, colour accuracy, noise, or any of several other performance parameters. Not that these aren’t interesting, or even important. For some applications one or more of these may be even more important than resolution. But to have included them would have made this test much more complex and time consuming than any of us had time for.
The sample raw files on thecomparison diskdon’t address all of these questions, but by working with them you will likely be able to draw some conclusions for yourself. You are welcome to explore your findings onthis site’s discussion forum.
Note as well that the disk contains some raw files taken at various apertures. This will allow you to judge for yourself the effects of diffraction when using very high quality lenses and a demanding sensor.
The Great Luminous Landscape
2006 State-of-The-Art Shootout
Available until June 15, 2006 for just $9.95 + S&H,
or free with a new subscription or renewal to The Video Journal
TheLuminous Landscapeis making available a DVD-ROM containing almost 4GB of raw files taken with each of these cameras, medium format backs, and lenses. Files from the film drum scans are also provided. Included as well are 30 day free trial copies ofCapture Onesoftware for both OSX and Windows, (including a 10% discount offer, should you decide to purchase C1). With this C1 raw conversion software you are able to process all of the raw files provided, including those from the three Canon cameras.
Bill, Charlie and Michael have also included sample raw files fromRedwoods National Parktaken with their P45 backs. Bill’s were with a Hasselblad H1. Charlie’s with a Mamiya AFD, and Michael’s with a Linhof 679cs and Rodenstock lenses.
This disk can be used on any PC or Mac computer with a DVD drive, anywhere in the world. This is a data disk, not a video DVD. But, we have also included a Quicktime video produced by Chris, showing a bit of our location shoot in the Redwoods as well as our test session at Bill’s studio.
The diskis currently in preparation (artwork, printing, duplication, packaging, fulfillment) and will be available for shipping on or before June, 15. This disk is available through this site’sonline store. It is priced atUS $9.95, plus S&H, until June 15th, after which time it will be priced at $14.95 + S&H. It is alsoavailable freeuntil June 15th, as part of all newsubscriptionstoThe Luminous Landscape Video Journal, includingThe Big Kahuna, orrenewalsby current subscribers.
Discussions of this article, the testing, and the disk are welcome on a dedicated section of this site’s discussionforum, which has been set up for this purpose.