| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2005 04:43:21 PM · #26 |
You got it exactly right, spazmo: LF photography is practically a religiuon to serious practitioners. "A state of meditation" is exactly what one has to attain to reach the limits of the possible.
One thing you didn't mention: since a "wide angle" lens on a 4x5 camera is 90 or 70 mm (90 mm lens on 4x5 film = approx 28 mm lens on 35mm cameras) there is MUCH less depth-of field available for a given angle of view. This requires extremely small apertures for good DOF, plus manipulation of the relationship of film plane to lens plane to increase sharpness on a desired image plane. These beasts are HARD to shoot with. The small apertures and long exposure times also introduce reciprocity failure in all but optimal lighting conditions. With 4x5 transparency film, if the calculated exposure were, say, 5 minutes, then a one-stop bracket would be something like 15-17 minutes.
The following image was shot with a 70mm lens on a Sinar P 4x5 camera, Ektachrome Profeessional, and required a 30-minute exposure:
Total time to create the shot and make the exposures: approximately 6 hours...
If anyone's interested in a description of how the relationship between film plane, object plane, and lens plane affects sharpness and DOF, just ask me.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2005 10:56:55 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by swagman:
I don't think fine artists will die out of the medium. There will always be those who realise it's better to take the time and get the shot right in one, without relying on PS to manipulate it right.
|
how is taking a shot on film and editing in in a dark room different from editing a picture in photoshop? dark room skills and digital dark room skills can make a bland picture grand. |
|
|
|
01/05/2005 07:41:22 AM · #28 |
I like that almout religious feel about medium format, as some of you put here. But can't you have that in a digital medium format like, as Hasselblad or other digital backs? is such a better image in a medium format than in a 22 mp image from Phase one for example?
And for the pros a personal doubt: is it really needed for publicity intents the medium format for lage prints, as an outdoor? Could'nt you do an outdoor look very good from a 11 mp from a Mark II DSRL, or a Kodak DSRL?
|
|
|
|
01/05/2005 07:56:44 AM · #29 |
DieHappy
With the advent of 35mm and motor drives, a lot of people became 'snapshooters'. More people, nowadays, with the popularity of digital cameras, have become the same. They don't take the time to consider all the aspects of their composition.
Darkroom editing, whether digital or physical, can improve a photograph, and make a good negative / capture better. If the 'negative' is poor, editing will not give you a 'grand' image. It may give you an improved image. Any manipulating other than minor ones become noticable and, for me, detract from the image.
I recall a quote from a printer who did much of Adam's works (though I don't recall his name). He laughed at the number of people who woul come in and ask him to make them a print like Ansel Adams'. His reply?
'Give me a negative like Ansel Adams, and I'll give you a print like Ansel Adams'.
I'm not against manipulating an image, but to get a 'grand' image, one must have an excellent negative (digital or physical).
|
|
|
|
01/05/2005 08:01:28 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by jimsapp:
Large format film and processing are costy. I used to shoot 4X5 and 8X10, but it got too expensive. High resolution digital is soon going to rival large format film. Top end SLR's already rival medium format film. |
Not for at least 20 years
|
|
|
|
01/05/2005 09:29:35 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Nuno:
I like that almout religious feel about medium format, as some of you put here. But can't you have that in a digital medium format like, as Hasselblad or other digital backs? is such a better image in a medium format than in a 22 mp image from Phase one for example?
And for the pros a personal doubt: is it really needed for publicity intents the medium format for lage prints, as an outdoor? Could'nt you do an outdoor look very good from a 11 mp from a Mark II DSRL, or a Kodak DSRL? |
I was definitely NOT referring to medium format in my previous posts. Other than physically having a larger camera, shooting with most MF cameras differs little from 35mm or a DSLR.
What I was referring to was the process required when shooting with a Large Format (4"x5" or larger sheet film) camera like a Sinar.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2005 09:37:14 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Originally posted by jimsapp:
Large format film and processing are costy. I used to shoot 4X5 and 8X10, but it got too expensive. High resolution digital is soon going to rival large format film. Top end SLR's already rival medium format film. |
Not for at least 20 years |
20 years out is a long way when we are talking about technology. I do believe it will be a long time before digital cameras will rival the detail that an 8x10 camera can get. This has as much to do with market demand for this type of camera as the technology to produce it. I think once you get up to the 20-30 MP range there will be very little demand for higher, for many people 5 MP seems to be enough.
Ironically it is digital technology that is making 4x5 more attractive, at least to me. Getting the negatives developed is pretty easy, there is a place even in our small town that will do that. It is making the prints that is the problem. There is at least one scanner now, that if we are to believe the reviews, can do a good job on a 4x5 negative, was about $1000 if I remember right. So you could take the negative, scan it and then send out the digital file to be printed.
There are some pretty good deals on used 4x5s out there and so I thought about doing this, for just a bit.
In the end when I get a hankering for a hi-res photo I do it with stitching, not the same I know but a whole lot cheaper.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2005 10:00:24 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Nuno:
I like that almout religious feel about medium format, as some of you put here. But can't you have that in a digital medium format like, as Hasselblad or other digital backs? is such a better image in a medium format than in a 22 mp image from Phase one for example?
And for the pros a personal doubt: is it really needed for publicity intents the medium format for lage prints, as an outdoor? Could'nt you do an outdoor look very good from a 11 mp from a Mark II DSRL, or a Kodak DSRL? |
I was definitely NOT referring to medium format in my previous posts. Other than physically having a larger camera, shooting with most MF cameras differs little from 35mm or a DSLR.
What I was referring to was the process required when shooting with a Large Format (4"x5" or larger sheet film) camera like a Sinar. |
I use two Hasselblad 501CM cameras with film. Once the image is processed, I scan it into my computer with the Nikon 8000 film scanner.
The Hasselblad is by far a superior digital image compared to my Nikon D1x cameras, mostly from the resolution perspective. The file is 64MB, so I expect that it should be better than the 17 MB RAW file from Nikon, based upon image information alone. I can easily see the difference. Once I receive the Nikon D2x, it will be interesting to compare these two formats again.
Even if I take the Hasselblad image and make it into a web-based JPEG, it is still a superior image, IMHO.
Here are two samples:
Three 6x6 Images stitched together
Satellite Antenna
Message edited by author 2005-01-05 10:01:50.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 07:23:49 PM EDT.
