PDA

View Full Version : To go LF or not



KristerH
22-Apr-2013, 14:05
Hi everyone.

I am rather new to this forum and its a great source of information for someone
who is contemplating on getting into LF and film.

I started out with film a long time ago, both 6x6 and 4x5. It was all analog and the prints were made in the gloomy red light of a darkroom.
After looking at a large amount of LF pictures on the internet I can still not make up my mind. Are they good enough when scanned an digitalized ?
I don't have the energy or will to once more spend my days in a dark room producing prints.
Is there any of you gentlemen who could be kind enough and send me a scanned original from a 5x7 or larger so I can make up my mind.
It would be very appreciated.

Thanks

Krister

SergeiR
22-Apr-2013, 14:17
Not enough energy to even do a little search on forum then?

Might be wrong path to dab into LF then.

KristerH
22-Apr-2013, 14:27
Not enough energy to even do a little search on forum then?

Might be wrong path to dab into LF then.

:)

I have read a lot on this forum. The "problem" is that you only see web pictures.
Some of them are posted in a bigger format so you can look into more detail and then I am not so impressed.
Sorry if I did not put the words right. English is not my native language.
If I can find the answer by looking around I will.

Kirk Gittings
22-Apr-2013, 14:28
Hi everyone.

I am rather new to this forum and its a great source of information for someone
who is contemplating on getting into LF and film.

I started out with film a long time ago, both 6x6 and 4x5. It was all analog and the prints were made in the gloomy red light of a darkroom.
After looking at a large amount of LF pictures on the internet I can still not make up my mind. Are they good enough when scanned an digitalized ?
I don't have the energy or will to once more spend my days in a dark room producing prints.
Is there any of you gentlemen who could be kind enough and send me a scanned original from a 5x7 or larger so I can make up my mind.
It would be very appreciated.

Thanks

Krister

You cannot make this decision based on looking at the web (unless your intent is just to post on the web). The web is NOT where LF shines (if that is what you want to do don't bother with LF). LF shines in prints-both digital and traditional.

KristerH
22-Apr-2013, 14:30
And by the way, that was a very nice answer to someone who is new on this forum.
Thank you.

KristerH
22-Apr-2013, 14:32
You cannot make this decision based on looking at the web (unless your intent is just to post on the web). The web is NOT where LF shines (if that is what you want to do don't bother with LF). LF shines in prints-both digital and traditional.

Thank you.

Thats why I am asking for a full res scanned picture so I can see for my self.

Kirk Gittings
22-Apr-2013, 14:37
Sorry maybe I wasn't clear. You need to see an actual digital print.

KristerH
22-Apr-2013, 14:45
Sorry maybe I wasn't clear. You need to see an actual digital print.

Kirk.

My idea was to print the file on my ink jet printer and see for my self.

Have you made any comparisons, side by side, with scanned LF and modern digital backs ?

Kirk Gittings
22-Apr-2013, 14:54
Yes I have. Now I only print b&w, but I know from personal experimentation that I could make prints that satisfy my standards from a P45+ back or larger. Having said that there is much about shooting film even if scanning it for digital prints that is personally very satisfying as a practice (and hugely less expensive). I also have been able to make small prints to my standards in a pinch from simple stitches from DSLR files.

Now about printing someone else's file. Have you dialed in a profile on the ideal paper for that image? Of course not. If not the print will not be as good as that intended by the original artist. Not all digital papers, inks and profiles are the same or equal in quality. Its like borrowing someone else's negative and printing it with a different light source, paper and developer etc.

You need to see the finished print by someone.

Lachlan 717
22-Apr-2013, 14:58
Hi, Krister, and welcome to the Forum.

Perhaps you could outline what you're after as a final image, especially outlining what you feel is "missing" from digital capture? Also, what size are you intending to print, and on what machine? What are you going to scan the Neg with?

You see, the Neg is just part of the answer to your question…

FOr what it's worth, I consider a well scanned, well Photoshopped and well printed Neg will produce a B&W image of superior quality to any digitally-captured file.

Brian C. Miller
22-Apr-2013, 14:59
Welcome to the forum, Krister!

Here's my recommendation: don't bother with a view camera. If the equipment doesn't allow you to do something that you can't do with something else, then don't bother with it.

Cameras are tools used to produce photographs. That's it. I imagine that you are using a digital camera right now. Does it satisfy you? If yes, don't pick up a view camera. If no, then you need a view camera.

Do you need front movements for focus control? Do you need rear movements for perspective control? Do you need shift? If not, you don't need a view camera.

You mention 5x7 or larger. Why? Is it for print size? I've seen a good 17x22 produced from a 12Mp camera. Is it for something else that these formats can give you, rather than 4x5 or medium format?

The reason I picked up a view camera was for the movements to provide better focus and perspective control. When it comes to what quality a view camera can give you, you really need to see the print itself. Not on the web, but physical paper in front of you. Do you still have your LF negatives? Then do the sensible thing and send one of the negatives out to be wet printed, and then have it drum scanned and printed on a digital printer. Then you will be able to decide for yourself what you really want to do.

It all depends on what you really want to create, and that should be the largest factor.

Jac@stafford.net
22-Apr-2013, 16:32
I started out with film a long time ago, both 6x6 and 4x5. It was all analog and the prints were made in the gloomy red light of a darkroom.

Red safe-light? That was way, way long ago. Are you older than 80 years?


After looking at a large amount of LF pictures on the internet I can still not make up my mind. Are they good enough when scanned an digitalized ?

Good enough for what, please?

David Lobato
22-Apr-2013, 16:52
Do you have your 4x5 negatives from those bygone days? If so, then have one scanned. Do you know Photoshop? If you do, then work on the scan to your taste. Then print it. Better if you have a silver print from the negative for comparison. You will then have your answer for using digital methods.

My experience is that the quality is possible but, as in many things, the more effort you put into crafting it yourself the more gratification you will have.

David Lobato
22-Apr-2013, 16:58
Another approach would be to find galleries that display digital prints from large format film. Check out LF photographers' websites and search for show locations and dates. Your answer may be easier to come by this way.

Jody_S
22-Apr-2013, 17:18
Hi everyone.

I am rather new to this forum and its a great source of information for someone
who is contemplating on getting into LF and film.

I started out with film a long time ago, both 6x6 and 4x5. It was all analog and the prints were made in the gloomy red light of a darkroom.
After looking at a large amount of LF pictures on the internet I can still not make up my mind. Are they good enough when scanned an digitalized ?
I don't have the energy or will to once more spend my days in a dark room producing prints.
Is there any of you gentlemen who could be kind enough and send me a scanned original from a 5x7 or larger so I can make up my mind.
It would be very appreciated.

Thanks

Krister

Hi Krister, and welcome to the forum.

As others have now pointed out (I think), if print quality (how do you define print quality?) is all that matters to you, go buy the newest Nikon instead. If you are not printing larger than 1x2m or so, you won't see an improvement with the view camera. And your work flow will be much more familiar with the Nikon. Of course the Nikon will cost a lot more money to purchase, but large format catches up when you count the cost of film and developing, drum scans, etc.

I don't have the energy to do much darkroom work either these days, fortunately I don't have to do so. I scan my negs and use Photoshop for editing, and I have them printed by someone else. I use large format because I like old cameras and especially lenses, and I like the creative process of using a view camera. I don't care that much for pressing a button on an image-making computer like the newest Nikon, and trusting that the result will look like a photograph.

Ken Lee
22-Apr-2013, 17:24
Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/RangerDetail.html) is a photo made on 5x7 with a fine lens and medium-grain film, scanned with a consumer-grade scanner.

Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/8x10Detail.html) is a photo made with an OK lens on medium-grained 8x10 film, scanned with a consumer-grade scanner. You can extrapolate down to 5x7.

In the end you'll have to decide based on your own subjective criteria.

Jac@stafford.net
22-Apr-2013, 17:36
That is truly a Holy Sh*t demonstration, Ken!

genotypewriter
22-Apr-2013, 18:14
Are they good enough when scanned an digitalized ?
I don't have the energy or will to once more spend my days in a dark room producing prints.There are some good scans here:
http://www.flickriver.com/groups/large_format_color/pool/interesting/



Is there any of you gentlemen who could be kind enough and send me a scanned original from a 5x7 or larger so I can make up my mind.The problem is there's no such thing as an original. Decent scanners produce files that are rated between 4800-6400dpi typically. Even at 4800 dpi, a full 4x5" scan would be approximately ~418 megapixels which would amount to around 520 megabytes saved as a high quality JPEG. It's unlikely that you're going to find many people willing to do this.

However, I happen to have a 100% crop from a 6400dpi scan I did using a decent $650 scanner in the link below:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/6806479707/

In hindsight I could've actually scanned that very slightly better. With techniques such as wet-mounting, you can get even better contrast. This is the best I can do for you at this stage.

Hope this helps.

SergeiR
22-Apr-2013, 18:28
:)

I have read a lot on this forum. The "problem" is that you only see web pictures.
Some of them are posted in a bigger format so you can look into more detail and then I am not so impressed.
Sorry if I did not put the words right. English is not my native language.
If I can find the answer by looking around I will.

You missed thread then, where people posting large size scans :)

Kirk Gittings
22-Apr-2013, 20:55
Do I need to say it?

Kirk Gittings
22-Apr-2013, 20:58
You can't measure the quality of a file or a print or your pecker based solely on resolution or dpi.

He needs to see a real live p.....rint. :)

KristerH
23-Apr-2013, 01:25
Thanks everyone. Very helpful.

My question for a scanned file was maybe a little stupid.

Ken Lee - I looked at your web site and it answered a lot of my questions. Thanks
I am amazed when I see the amount of knowledge people are prepared to organize an share.
You make the world a better place.

Lenny Eiger
23-Apr-2013, 10:25
Kirster,
I would say go for the 4x5. I've done extensive testing on the capability of 6x7 negs vs 4x5. The print quality from a scanned 4x5 is amazing. (And no, the latest Nikon digital does not come anywhere close, its a ridiculous contention. Certainly not in b&w.) A drum scanned 4x5 is a thing of beauty, and it does exceed what medium format can deliver, in terms of smoothness. As many have mentioned, it has a lot to do with what you want to create. If you want to make something that looks like a Frederick Evans platinum print you need a decent-sized piece of film.

There are a couple of additional issues. I happen to like shooting with a view camera. It slows one down, there is extra depth of field and the whole process of looking at the ground glass and using a tripod seem to make the photography a bit more considered. That isn't to dismiss the great work done by street shooters, journalist and others. It's just a look that I like. This is the main difference.

The other thing is that it takes at least as long to produce a great print with an inkjet printer than it does from a darkroom. The process is very similar, one makes a print and then looks at it, decides if any adjustment is required, if so, then makes another. It's true that one doesn't have to be in the dark to do it, but it takes at least as much time, costs easily as much, etc.

Kirk is right, you have to look at prints. You have to look at great prints and decide for yourself what makes them great and them try and reproduce those qualities in your own images.

I hope this helps,

Lenny

perfectedmaya
23-Apr-2013, 19:44
Kirster,
I would say go for the 4x5. I've done extensive testing on the capability of 6x7 negs vs 4x5. The print quality from a scanned 4x5 is amazing. (And no, the latest Nikon digital does not come anywhere close, its a ridiculous contention. Certainly not in b&w.) A drum scanned 4x5 is a thing of beauty, and it does exceed what medium format can deliver, in terms of smoothness. As many have mentioned, it has a lot to do with what you want to create. If you want to make something that looks like a Frederick Evans platinum print you need a decent-sized piece of film.

There are a couple of additional issues. I happen to like shooting with a view camera. It slows one down, there is extra depth of field and the whole process of looking at the ground glass and using a tripod seem to make the photography a bit more considered. That isn't to dismiss the great work done by street shooters, journalist and others. It's just a look that I like. This is the main difference.

The other thing is that it takes at least as long to produce a great print with an inkjet printer than it does from a darkroom. The process is very similar, one makes a print and then looks at it, decides if any adjustment is required, if so, then makes another. It's true that one doesn't have to be in the dark to do it, but it takes at least as much time, costs easily as much, etc.

Kirk is right, you have to look at prints. You have to look at great prints and decide for yourself what makes them great and them try and reproduce those qualities in your own images.

I hope this helps,

Lenny

i will take your advice seriously, as i am a newbie in printing, i am always thinking using digital printer will speed things up as we have lots of software to help in digital darkroom. I also thought it will be alot cheaper.

I guess it will be futile to ask why it takes as much time, effort and money to make a good print from a digital printer and from a enlarger.. but if you don't mind to elaborate, please kindly do so.

:)

Jim Andrada
23-Apr-2013, 20:23
I think that the problem is that we have so much great software. Each program has an immense learning curve, and becoming proficient takes longer than it used to take me to learn to print in the darkroom. The other aspect is that it is very difficult to get perfect correlation between what you see on screen and the output from the printer. Of course you can use more software (with it's own learning curve of course) to bring monitor and printer closer, and then you can get rather expensive monitors that will make it even closer. But in the end, looking at a printed image will still be different than looking at an image on screen. A backlit display is different than a reflective piece of paper, which has color and texture of its own, and the whole experience of looking at one is different than looking at the other.

Having said all that, in my experience, the modern displays and printers and software will indeed get you technically (but maybe not artistically) very close, and you should definitely use a color managed workflow. BUT - no matter how perfectly the print technically matches the screen, in the end you have to think about what you want the print to "say" and the only way I know to do it is to print, then think - should the cropping be a bit different? Should the contrast be a bit stronger or weaker? Does the subject need a bit of retouching?

So many creative decisions to be made and so I think it is rare that you will be satisfied with the first print. Maybe at first, but after looking at it in different lighting and thinking about it, I think you will want to try some variations before deciding that you have done it!

And no matter - a few weeks will go by and you will think of something else that should be changed.

Bernice Loui
23-Apr-2013, 22:25
The image making tools and methods of choice, be it digital or film (analog) depends on what your expectations and image making goals are. This decision should be made based on a good and deep understanding of the strengths and limitations of what each tool-set and process has to offer and their limitations.

There is far more than simply format size, resolution and ... to what makes a expressive image.

Expressive images can be made using a pin hole camera, iPhone to a 16x20 view camera.

Resolution and "sharpness" alone are not going to make an expressive image, it requires much more than that. Know film offers a different set of advantages and problems compared to digital and the same applies to digital.

What I will say is sheet film can offer more than simply resolution/sharpness, it can offer tonality, contrast range and image quality that is distinctly different than digital. To get the most from either, a mastery of the technical aspects are required to some degree. Beyond that, the images created depends more on the individual artist, who they are and their life's experiences.

Do visit a local art museum that offers a display of traditional view camera photography. This can give some idea of what the sheet film/silver gelatin print process can offer.

Regardless of the process of choice, Digital or Film. The choice should be driven by what your expressive images require.


Bernice

JeRuFo
24-Apr-2013, 04:27
Since the process of making the final print is very important to you, I would focus on your workflow. If you shoot a lot, then developing, selecting and scanning it all can be a pain.

The camera has been adressed a lot already and is probably equally important. A view camera takes time, if you are a quick shooter or don't have much time on site, then a view camera is not the way to go.
But since you're obviously set on making an informed decision, I would just go out and buy a cheap view camera and see what you like and don't like about it. LF can get you great resolution and tonality, but you have to make the effort with every shot to get it out. It's not particularly hard, it is just a little more labour intensive.

George Pappas
24-Apr-2013, 05:52
Kister,

I will add to what many others are saying here. Using a view camera is about much more than image quality, it is a very different way of seeing (and photographing) the subject. For many people, it is a large positive for this reason alone. For others, this makes the view camera very slow/hard to use and does not suit either their subject matter or temperament. This is issue is more important for you than ultimate image quality; if shooting with a view camera won't agree with you or the kinds of subject matter you photograph, image quality won't matter.

JeRuFo had an excellent suggestion - get access to a simple view camera outfit and use it for a little while - then you will know if it can indeed work for you.

Best Regards,
George

jnantz
24-Apr-2013, 06:25
SNIP


I started out with film a long time ago, both 6x6 and 4x5. It was all analog and the prints were made in the gloomy red light of a darkroom.
I don't have the energy or will to once more spend my days in a dark room producing prints.

Thanks

Krister


hi krister:

you mention you don't really want to do darkroom work anymore ...
will you be having the film processed by a lab ? i am not sure where you are located
but where i am, there aren't as many labs remaining that process sheets of film ... so
you may actually end up in the dark room ...

good luck !
john

KristerH
24-Apr-2013, 06:36
Thanks guys.
I like this forum more and more as you are very "un technical" and more see the big perspective of this strange thing called photography.

I had to change direction late in life and went into photography 12 years ago.
For ten years it was hard work and Canon DSLR:s. Dead lines and stupid customers made me money but in the end I hated it all so I quit.
Sold everything and got myself a sailing boat. I have now sailed for three years and have finally found some well deserved peace and quiet.
Did not touch a camera until now. Three months ago I got myself a small, basic camera and suddenly photography was fun again. More fun than ever, so this is what I am going to do the rest of my life. Take pictures based on my own style and perspective.
I love to go slow and to think. My motives are mostly sort of quiet so LF will suit me fine. In my youth I had a Tachihara 4x5 so I know the LF philosophy.
I have an Alpa with an Aptus 75 digital back as well. Thats were this question started. My plan was to upgrade the DB to a modern high pixel back as I want to print large and love detail (the Alpa is also some 7 years old and have need for some repair) BUT !
After a few weeks of testing and thinking I have come to the conclusion that this kind of money, which I have to take from my hard earned bank account, is not delivering what I am looking for. It has no soul.
As I am a traveler my plan is to continue my journey, on land this time, and make, hopefully, great photographs along the way that can be books or exhibitions later on.
In this perspective it would be nice to return with good enough, quality vise, pictures. Thats why I am asking.
Even though I have an Alpa and a DB I am NOT a rich guy so money is a big part of the equation. That and the joy of owning the hole process makes me want to
develop and scan the film myself. Its part of the LF zen I think.
To develop traditional prints in dark room is not on top of my list, yet.

Bernice Loui
24-Apr-2013, 09:20
LFF can be "un technical" and "extreme technical" at times.. It depends on who replies and the topic of discussion.

Over the years, there have been many partners in crime that are working photographers, some truly enjoy making images for their clients, others meet their client's image demands but balance this with their personal work to keep their sanity and as a outlet for their creative minds. If one can produce images based on their passions and find an audience for their work, this may be the direction that meets your needs as a image maker. To be accepted and admired for one's work is pretty basic for many artist and as members of humanity.

Small image making tools (DSLR, 35mm film or etc) are ideal for responding to an event or occurrence to capture an image of what happened. LF works when the image comes to mind and the imaging tools are applied to create that image to share with others. This is the basic difference between the two methods of working and image making tools. Both can be equally effective at producing an expressive image.

To be truly effective at creating images of your expression it does mean owning the entire process. If there are others involved with the image making process, how does one communicate what their intent for the finished image may be? This is one of the reasons why I stopped producing images in color years ago and focused on B&W as this was a process and work-flow that can be controlled from loading film to dry mounting the print. It is how one can extend their ability to create their expression.

There is a marketing aspect of digital imaging and film based image making that is based on cycling money based on perceived need. Image makers are constantly propagandized to need the latest and greatest image making techno widget. This is good for the techno widget producers and not always good for those who make the purchase if they cannot truly justify the economics of purchase. That "shaper, higher contrast" lens, ultra mega pixel MF back, latest and greatest DSLR, nano fine grain film and... Ask one self do any of these have the ability to produce an expressive image on their own?


Be the image making tool digital or film, the road to expressive image making is a long and challenging journey. Learn from each step, each mile stone along this journey and at times look back at how these steps and points have connected into the creative and expressive of your creation.



Bernice




Thanks guys.
I like this forum more and more as you are very "un technical" and more see the big perspective of this strange thing called photography.

I had to change direction late in life and went into photography 12 years ago.
For ten years it was hard work and Canon DSLR:s. Dead lines and stupid customers made me money but in the end I hated it all so I quit.
Sold everything and got myself a sailing boat. I have now sailed for three years and have finally found some well deserved peace and quiet.
Did not touch a camera until now. Three months ago I got myself a small, basic camera and suddenly photography was fun again. More fun than ever, so this is what I am going to do the rest of my life. Take pictures based on my own style and perspective.
I love to go slow and to think. My motives are mostly sort of quiet so LF will suit me fine. In my youth I had a Tachihara 4x5 so I know the LF philosophy.
I have an Alpa with an Aptus 75 digital back as well. Thats were this question started. My plan was to upgrade the DB to a modern high pixel back as I want to print large and love detail (the Alpa is also some 7 years old and have need for some repair) BUT !
After a few weeks of testing and thinking I have come to the conclusion that this kind of money, which I have to take from my hard earned bank account, is not delivering what I am looking for. It has no soul.
As I am a traveler my plan is to continue my journey, on land this time, and make, hopefully, great photographs along the way that can be books or exhibitions later on.
In this perspective it would be nice to return with good enough, quality vise, pictures. Thats why I am asking.
Even though I have an Alpa and a DB I am NOT a rich guy so money is a big part of the equation. That and the joy of owning the hole process makes me want to
develop and scan the film myself. Its part of the LF zen I think.
To develop traditional prints in dark room is not on top of my list, yet.

Lenny Eiger
24-Apr-2013, 11:35
I guess it will be futile to ask why it takes as much time, effort and money to make a good print from a digital printer and from a enlarger.. but if you don't mind to elaborate, please kindly do so.
:)

Be glad to. The first issue is that most people don't know what they are looking for. PhotoHistory is not taught anywhere unless you go to school for Photography. There is often no "photo-appreciation" course at the local adult education place and even when there is, its usually taught by a person with a fairly commercial, or snapshot, mindset. Way too many pretty sunsets that add nothing. There are few who can explain the importance of some of the great printers, whether it be Sutcliffe, Frederick Evans, Steichen, Strand, Watkins, and later Caponigro, perhaps Tice, Richard Benson and a bunch of others. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list... If you want to learn printing well you could look at almost anything done in the PhotoSecession and understand the delicacy and subtlety that is possible. You don't have to print that way but they had an amazing understanding of "atmosphere". The key is you have to look, and study, great prints before you can make one (without doing it accidentally). It takes time to process what you see, and make up your own mind about what's right for you.

Once you identify a printing style that makes sense to you, whether it be an amalgam of two or three styles you see or something entirely different, then you have to get the technical working. Should an area be darker or lighter, do I need to burn something in? How are my negatives doing with relation to how I am trying to print? If you are doing black and white, there is all the issue of custom inksets, b&w inksets and profiling. I one follows this interest, most people end up buying the premium papers. I'm working with Kozo these days, Japanese paper made in centuries-old fashion. It's exquisite...

At any rate, once you know what's possible, and you get the processes down, it isn't that easy to get it, whether it be alt process, darkroom or inkjet. There are two things here... one is the basics of it taking 5-25 test prints to to get the print exactly right (for you). One hopes for 5, but the other day it took me 10 tries to get it just the way I wanted it.. Maybe I hadn't printed that style in a little while. One has to "understand" before one can "do".

A person once asked me how long it took to make the print he was holding. It was a platinum print I had made and he was asking about the platinum process. I was thinking about the wider perspective and answered, "three years." Some times you make a great print, then you look at it for months and realize that your approach wasn't just right for the image. Some times its the image that wants to speak for itself. I have a pushpin boards on my wall and when I finish a print I put it up there for a while. After you live with it for a while, you'll know. It will either grow on you, or you will have the "either it comes off the wall or I will have to move out" response.

Just like taking on a view camera, taking on a different level of printing deepens one's photography. It's not for everyone, but its a rich and beautiful experience when it goes right.

I hope this helps,

Lenny

Kirk Gittings
24-Apr-2013, 11:55
i will take your advice seriously, as i am a newbie in printing, i am always thinking using digital printer will speed things up as we have lots of software to help in digital darkroom. I also thought it will be alot cheaper.

I guess it will be futile to ask why it takes as much time, effort and money to make a good print from a digital printer and from a enlarger.. but if you don't mind to elaborate, please kindly do so.

:)

I agree with Lenny above. It takes time because really expressive prints are a process each time and what worked for the last print has little to do with the current print. Depending on the preponderance of tones in a given image a particular paper/ink combination may help the image "come alive". I oftentimes try different papers, rips and even inksets on a particular digital print just as I tried different developers, developer dilutions, dual developers, papers and toners etc. on many prints with silver printing.

Jac@stafford.net
24-Apr-2013, 12:42
Get a reasonably priced LF with a merely adequate lens. Shoot in B&W, develop it yourself in the kitchen using a cheap-enough daylight tank.

Then make POP (printing-out-paper)contact prints.

You will have not invested a lot of money, but you will have an enormous experience. Later, someday you can have your favorite images printed.

It worked for me.

Best,
Jac

perfectedmaya
25-Apr-2013, 02:04
Be glad to. The first issue is that most people don't know what they are looking for. PhotoHistory is not taught anywhere unless you go to school for Photography. There is often no "photo-appreciation" course at the local adult education place and even when there is, its usually taught by a person with a fairly commercial, or snapshot, mindset. Way too many pretty sunsets that add nothing. There are few who can explain the importance of some of the great printers, whether it be Sutcliffe, Frederick Evans, Steichen, Strand, Watkins, and later Caponigro, perhaps Tice, Richard Benson and a bunch of others. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list... If you want to learn printing well you could look at almost anything done in the PhotoSecession and understand the delicacy and subtlety that is possible. You don't have to print that way but they had an amazing understanding of "atmosphere". The key is you have to look, and study, great prints before you can make one (without doing it accidentally). It takes time to process what you see, and make up your own mind about what's right for you.

Once you identify a printing style that makes sense to you, whether it be an amalgam of two or three styles you see or something entirely different, then you have to get the technical working. Should an area be darker or lighter, do I need to burn something in? How are my negatives doing with relation to how I am trying to print? If you are doing black and white, there is all the issue of custom inksets, b&w inksets and profiling. I one follows this interest, most people end up buying the premium papers. I'm working with Kozo these days, Japanese paper made in centuries-old fashion. It's exquisite...

At any rate, once you know what's possible, and you get the processes down, it isn't that easy to get it, whether it be alt process, darkroom or inkjet. There are two things here... one is the basics of it taking 5-25 test prints to to get the print exactly right (for you). One hopes for 5, but the other day it took me 10 tries to get it just the way I wanted it.. Maybe I hadn't printed that style in a little while. One has to "understand" before one can "do".

A person once asked me how long it took to make the print he was holding. It was a platinum print I had made and he was asking about the platinum process. I was thinking about the wider perspective and answered, "three years." Some times you make a great print, then you look at it for months and realize that your approach wasn't just right for the image. Some times its the image that wants to speak for itself. I have a pushpin boards on my wall and when I finish a print I put it up there for a while. After you live with it for a while, you'll know. It will either grow on you, or you will have the "either it comes off the wall or I will have to move out" response.

Just like taking on a view camera, taking on a different level of printing deepens one's photography. It's not for everyone, but its a rich and beautiful experience when it goes right.

I hope this helps,

Lenny

tks alot.. always enjoy your post.

i have some homework to do now.. will go read more about PhotoSecession ...

i have been trying to find some great prints in Singapore.. as... like what you say, i must see one before i know what is meant by a great print.. will try harder..

tks alot Lenny and Kirk

jnantz
25-Apr-2013, 03:52
Get a reasonably priced LF with a merely adequate lens. Shoot in B&W, develop it yourself in the kitchen using a cheap-enough daylight tank.

Then make POP (printing-out-paper)contact prints.

You will have not invested a lot of money, but you will have an enormous experience. Later, someday you can have your favorite images printed.

It worked for me.

Best,
Jac

hi jac

good idea ... there aren't many POP papers being made today ...

(centennial stopped )
these days, it's mostly hand-made... either by oneself or by http://www.altphotoproducts.com/

probably making cyanotypes ( classic ) would be just as simple ... and no darkroom needed

Lenny Eiger
25-Apr-2013, 10:41
probably making cyanotypes ( classic ) would be just as simple ... and no darkroom needed

John,

I agree wholeheartedly. Cyanotypes can be very beautiful, are very inexpensive to make. Develops in water. They also come in colors other than blue, brown, for example, if you add a little sodium sulfite. You can do blue and brown, purple, etc. There's lots of resources on the net with recipes, etc.

Gum bichromate is also inexpensive. You can add any color you want using watercolor paint. You can also register three negs (shot with R, G and B filters) to make a real color print.

These prints usually take one tray to process. We can all find some space for a single tray... and it's a lot of fun.

Lenny

perfectedmaya
27-Apr-2013, 00:23
Kirster,
I would say go for the 4x5. I've done extensive testing on the capability of 6x7 negs vs 4x5. The print quality from a scanned 4x5 is amazing. (And no, the latest Nikon digital does not come anywhere close, its a ridiculous contention. Certainly not in b&w.) A drum scanned 4x5 is a thing of beauty, and it does exceed what medium format can deliver, in terms of smoothness. As many have mentioned, it has a lot to do with what you want to create. If you want to make something that looks like a Frederick Evans platinum print you need a decent-sized piece of film.

There are a couple of additional issues. I happen to like shooting with a view camera. It slows one down, there is extra depth of field and the whole process of looking at the ground glass and using a tripod seem to make the photography a bit more considered. That isn't to dismiss the great work done by street shooters, journalist and others. It's just a look that I like. This is the main difference.

The other thing is that it takes at least as long to produce a great print with an inkjet printer than it does from a darkroom. The process is very similar, one makes a print and then looks at it, decides if any adjustment is required, if so, then makes another. It's true that one doesn't have to be in the dark to do it, but it takes at least as much time, costs easily as much, etc.

Kirk is right, you have to look at prints. You have to look at great prints and decide for yourself what makes them great and them try and reproduce those qualities in your own images.

I hope this helps,

Lenny

Hi Lenny

sorry if i appear to ask the obvious.. your statement on 4x5 film winning 6x7 and latest nikon (which i assume D800E) in print and in terms of smoothness and you have done extensive test.. i wonder if there is any link to your test results..

i google alot, and nowadays you can see test comparing D800e to medium format and 4x5... alot fo conclusion stated that D800 is close or even on par with medium format.. but i notice they do not compare on tonality (guess it is the same as smoothness)..

tks alot in advance :)

Tyler Boley
27-Apr-2013, 09:47
... alot fo conclusion stated that D800 is close or even on par with medium format.. but i notice they do not compare on tonality (guess it is the same as smoothness)..

tks alot in advance :)

I recently made some 24 x 30 prints from files submitted by an excellent portrait photographer I've printed for on and off for years. I know he's been shooting digital for a long time. of course his file prep is always impeccable, I moved forward with the prints. Careful evaluation of both the B&W peizography and color prints really impressed me so I went back and looked at the metadata... D800.. very impressive. They almost looked like 8x10, but then they were studio portraits, not forests. There are no absolutes.. everything changes... everything "depends"..
That said.. I still shoot film, for a variety of reasons that apply to ME..

I didn't mean this to sound so obscure, there tends to be best ways to do things, but they don't apply to all. You have to have some idea of where you want to end up, and work backwards filling in the needs and tools based on that.
Tyler

Kirk Gittings
27-Apr-2013, 11:34
I don't have any real trouble taking simple stitched files (from a scene with relatively normal DR) from my lowly 5DMII hold their own next to my 4x5 enlargements in shows. I don't print large though.

Bernice Loui
27-Apr-2013, 20:21
Got chance to visit Lenny last week. One of the images I got to see was a comparison between Mamiya medium format, 4x5 and 8x10. Scanned, with enlarged sections side by side for comparison.

The 8x10 looked best of the three with the medium format third. This was most all about tonality, not about resolution.

There is a very strong marketing and user desirer to reduce a highly complex topic as image quality into a single number or item.. Sadly, this is not realistic or accepting of what is the harsh reality and facts of image quality.

Know there is an extremely strong marketing incentive and drive to sell digital imaging hardware and image making devices and process. The current fashion and highly marketable technology is digital. This means strong incentive to propagandize how good digital might be and put film down as inferior to the latest and greatest techno widget... This is specially true for what is put up on the web.

-Make your own choices on what fits your needs best and do not simply follow along based on what others say to write alone.

Two other realities that must be considered is there is no really good ways to make comparisons of image quality by web transmitted images as there are far too many variables involved. The other is what is the viewers point of reference? Ask who is putting forth their opinion and what are their points of reference.

As for the smaller format imaging device tools -vs; larger imaging device tools, this battle will never end and appears to be on going much like the Brand wars is very much alive and well to this day.

Pick the imaging tool and process that best meets your needs, expectations and work hard to learn all it is capable of so they can become a transparent means of your expression.... and great expressive images do not need to have "extreme resolution, sharp and ..." It is what they express and say to the viewer that matters.


Bernice



Hi Lenny

sorry if i appear to ask the obvious.. your statement on 4x5 film winning 6x7 and latest nikon (which i assume D800E) in print and in terms of smoothness and you have done extensive test.. i wonder if there is any link to your test results..

i google alot, and nowadays you can see test comparing D800e to medium format and 4x5... alot fo conclusion stated that D800 is close or even on par with medium format.. but i notice they do not compare on tonality (guess it is the same as smoothness)..

tks alot in advance :)

Lenny Eiger
28-Apr-2013, 01:21
i google alot, and nowadays you can see test comparing D800e to medium format and 4x5... alot fo conclusion stated that D800 is close or even on par with medium format.. but i notice they do not compare on tonality (guess it is the same as smoothness)..

tks alot in advance :)

It's an interesting idea. I am working on a new site, I think I put up the old one 7 years ago, it desperately needs updating. I might have a section for this kind of thing.

Honestly, I did the test for myself. I didn't have a sponsor, or an article I was writing for some publication. I wanted to know if I could stop lugging my 8x10 around and could use the 4x5. In fact, maybe I could even use the Mamiya... I was testing my processes, not attempting to set the rules for anyone else. They are my results and you have to take them with the appropriate "your results may vary".

That said, you are correct, it is the smoothness I was referring to. My main focus is tonality and so that's an important factor for me. I also like depth of field and LF lenses excel in that arena.

Finally, most of the reports out there are total bull. I have seen Luminous Landscape over and over again compare some $50,000 top-level camera with a consumer level scanner, or one with less than perfect technology. This has happened so consistently that it has made me wonder whether there is an attempt at an even playing field or not.

Bernice is quite correct:
"Know there is an extremely strong marketing incentive and drive to sell digital imaging hardware and image making devices and process.... This means strong incentive to propagandize how good digital might be and put film down as inferior to the latest and greatest techno widget... This is specially true for what is put up on the web. "

I remember going to a trade show a few years back and there was a well-known vendor selling their newest digital cameras. Phil Lippincott, the owner of Aztek and a great engineer (passed away a few years ago) turned to me and said, "How do you like those images?" And then he added, "We scanned them from 4x5's they supplied us. We had no idea they were going to use them for but there they are." They were 4x5 scans off a Premier used to advertise a 35mm digital camera!

Its true that digital gets better with every iteration. But I wouldn't trust anything I read in any comparison. When you get your printing skills to where you want them, give it a try. Rent one, or borrow a camera from a friend for a day. See how it does. I love my depth of field, I don't think that 35mm will ever get there - that's not its purpose. See if it works for you... However, what most people here would say is that beyond the technical capacities there is something very satisfying about shooting with a Large Format camera. So much so that we are all here endlessly yacking about it.

Speaking of endlessly, sorry for the long post. I'm tired and should be sleeping....

Lenny

John Kasaian
28-Apr-2013, 09:05
Forget taking your own pictures and just buy the post cards.
But if you do take your own, have fun doing it!:D

David Lobato
28-Apr-2013, 09:25
Bernice is quite correct:
"Know there is an extremely strong marketing incentive and drive to sell digital imaging hardware and image making devices and process.... This means strong incentive to propagandize how good digital might be and put film down as inferior to the latest and greatest techno widget... This is specially true for what is put up on the web. "

That's understandable since film cameras are commonly older than the photographer who's using it, small format film cameras used by younger people and many LF cameras older than most living people. The irony is that film cameras have been churning through multiple users over time, not the other way around as with digital cameras.

perfectedmaya
28-Apr-2013, 23:33
It's an interesting idea. I am working on a new site, I think I put up the old one 7 years ago, it desperately needs updating. I might have a section for this kind of thing.

Honestly, I did the test for myself. I didn't have a sponsor, or an article I was writing for some publication. I wanted to know if I could stop lugging my 8x10 around and could use the 4x5. In fact, maybe I could even use the Mamiya... I was testing my processes, not attempting to set the rules for anyone else. They are my results and you have to take them with the appropriate "your results may vary".

That said, you are correct, it is the smoothness I was referring to. My main focus is tonality and so that's an important factor for me. I also like depth of field and LF lenses excel in that arena.

Finally, most of the reports out there are total bull. I have seen Luminous Landscape over and over again compare some $50,000 top-level camera with a consumer level scanner, or one with less than perfect technology. This has happened so consistently that it has made me wonder whether there is an attempt at an even playing field or not.

Bernice is quite correct:
"Know there is an extremely strong marketing incentive and drive to sell digital imaging hardware and image making devices and process.... This means strong incentive to propagandize how good digital might be and put film down as inferior to the latest and greatest techno widget... This is specially true for what is put up on the web. "

I remember going to a trade show a few years back and there was a well-known vendor selling their newest digital cameras. Phil Lippincott, the owner of Aztek and a great engineer (passed away a few years ago) turned to me and said, "How do you like those images?" And then he added, "We scanned them from 4x5's they supplied us. We had no idea they were going to use them for but there they are." They were 4x5 scans off a Premier used to advertise a 35mm digital camera!

Its true that digital gets better with every iteration. But I wouldn't trust anything I read in any comparison. When you get your printing skills to where you want them, give it a try. Rent one, or borrow a camera from a friend for a day. See how it does. I love my depth of field, I don't think that 35mm will ever get there - that's not its purpose. See if it works for you... However, what most people here would say is that beyond the technical capacities there is something very satisfying about shooting with a Large Format camera. So much so that we are all here endlessly yacking about it.

Speaking of endlessly, sorry for the long post. I'm tired and should be sleeping....

Lenny

yes, i am also trying to find if it is possible to dump my 4x5 and use digital... i was considering 4x5 for many months, and then the tonality pull me over and i bought my first 4x5 camera (a sinar F)... i was lucky to get a old 4x5 enlarger (Durst).. but my printing sucks.. so over the months i forgot the tonality thing and i got alot of frustrations with film, especially 4x5, my negatives are not perfect, i saw marks introduced during development, the smelly chemicals, all the bottles and mess, the weight of the sinar, .. with LF, everything is just many times tougher than dslr.. i was on the verge to sell all my film stuff and go digital... especially now i have purchased a copy of niksoftware , which can do wonder in black and white.. simulate films..

then i suddenly remember the tonality.. and actually even the LF pics on this forum looks amazing when i compared to d800e works produced by some pro.. the tonality is just superior...

i considered myself fortunate to have encounter LF, which is the right tool for fine art.. sometimes i feel all pro fashion , landscape photog ought to go buy a LF and start to learn developing.. then they know what they have been missing!

looking forward to your test results, and yes, all tests are personal, and even those so called professional scientific tests do not convince all.. each should draw their own conclusion.. i will do my test when my printing goes better.. gonna start printiing soon.. i have still 4 sheets of kodak slides to shoot before i can clear away the many bottles dedicated for E6 and i can start some intensive bw printing.. :)

perfectedmaya
28-Apr-2013, 23:52
Got chance to visit Lenny last week. One of the images I got to see was a comparison between Mamiya medium format, 4x5 and 8x10. Scanned, with enlarged sections side by side for comparison.

The 8x10 looked best of the three with the medium format third. This was most all about tonality, not about resolution.

There is a very strong marketing and user desirer to reduce a highly complex topic as image quality into a single number or item.. Sadly, this is not realistic or accepting of what is the harsh reality and facts of image quality.

Know there is an extremely strong marketing incentive and drive to sell digital imaging hardware and image making devices and process. The current fashion and highly marketable technology is digital. This means strong incentive to propagandize how good digital might be and put film down as inferior to the latest and greatest techno widget... This is specially true for what is put up on the web.

-Make your own choices on what fits your needs best and do not simply follow along based on what others say to write alone.

Two other realities that must be considered is there is no really good ways to make comparisons of image quality by web transmitted images as there are far too many variables involved. The other is what is the viewers point of reference? Ask who is putting forth their opinion and what are their points of reference.

As for the smaller format imaging device tools -vs; larger imaging device tools, this battle will never end and appears to be on going much like the Brand wars is very much alive and well to this day.

Pick the imaging tool and process that best meets your needs, expectations and work hard to learn all it is capable of so they can become a transparent means of your expression.... and great expressive images do not need to have "extreme resolution, sharp and ..." It is what they express and say to the viewer that matters.


Bernice

hi

i think you are lucky to have met him.. seeing is most convincing..

those popular digital cameras (crop or ff) didn't offer better images, only convienence.. of course i know sometimes we need small cameras, like for sports photography.. but still it is somewhat a waste if a photographer never know there is a better tool out there..

Tyler Boley
29-Apr-2013, 10:43
..... and actually even the LF pics on this forum looks amazing when i compared to d800e works produced by some pro.. the tonality is just superior... ...

well I guess that s directed at me since I mentioned some pro with a d800e, don'tcha just hate those pros? Look, you think I was looking for those prints to be great because of how the files were captured? No, I went and looked at how they were made after being impressed with the prints.. and that's tonality, believe me. I live and breath tonality, whether successful or not. I've shot tons of 4x5, my main format is 5x7, shot a lot of 8x10 and some 10x12. I've made silver contact prints, platinum contact prints, and other alt processes, as well as now pushing inkjet as far as possible, happily.
In my experience dogma never resulted in creativity, learning, or results. But an open mind, dropping preconceptions, and a lot of hard work and honesty might help get there. I saw gorgeous results, I went to find what tools had been used, I learned something. Does it apply to me? No, I will stick with my Deardorff and drum scanner, but it sure worked for someone else with skill and an affinity for that particular approach.
Tyler
http://theagnosticprint.org/
http://www.custom-digital.com/
http://tylerboley.com/FineArtPhotography/landscapes/thumbs.html

perfectedmaya
29-Apr-2013, 20:00
well I guess that s directed at me since I mentioned some pro with a d800e, don'tcha just hate those pros? Look, you think I was looking for those prints to be great because of how the files were captured? No, I went and looked at how they were made after being impressed with the prints.. and that's tonality, believe me. I live and breath tonality, whether successful or not. I've shot tons of 4x5, my main format is 5x7, shot a lot of 8x10 and some 10x12. I've made silver contact prints, platinum contact prints, and other alt processes, as well as now pushing inkjet as far as possible, happily.
In my experience dogma never resulted in creativity, learning, or results. But an open mind, dropping preconceptions, and a lot of hard work and honesty might help get there. I saw gorgeous results, I went to find what tools had been used, I learned something. Does it apply to me? No, I will stick with my Deardorff and drum scanner, but it sure worked for someone else with skill and an affinity for that particular approach.
Tyler
http://theagnosticprint.org/
http://www.custom-digital.com/
http://tylerboley.com/FineArtPhotography/landscapes/thumbs.html

not directed at you really.. i won't dare to do so, as i myself is just a newbie in photography.. all comparison is only for my own interpretation .. i am not highly skilled in Photoshop... neither is the pro whose works i refered to.. i talked to him before.. he don't know much about photoshop..

sanking
30-Apr-2013, 11:41
well I guess that s directed at me since I mentioned some pro with a d800e, don'tcha just hate those pros? Look, you think I was looking for those prints to be great because of how the files were captured? No, I went and looked at how they were made after being impressed with the prints.. and that's tonality, believe me. I live and breath tonality, whether successful or not. I've shot tons of 4x5, my main format is 5x7, shot a lot of 8x10 and some 10x12. I've made silver contact prints, platinum contact prints, and other alt processes, as well as now pushing inkjet as far as possible, happily.
In my experience dogma never resulted in creativity, learning, or results. But an open mind, dropping preconceptions, and a lot of hard work and honesty might help get there. I saw gorgeous results, I went to find what tools had been used, I learned something. Does it apply to me? No, I will stick with my Deardorff and drum scanner, but it sure worked for someone else with skill and an affinity for that particular approach.
Tyler


The use of the term "tonalities" to differentiate digital work from film, or even smaller film from larger film, is being used inappropriately in the thread, IMHO.

B&W or color film has a continuous range of tones, and if printed optically this continuos range is retained. However, once film has been scanned the image is made up of pixels, and the range of tones is no longer continuous. Most scanners these days are capable of giving 16 shades of gray, or of other color, and that is far more than we need in most cases, but it is not continuous. And the tones are not different than those made with a digital camera where the file is made in RAW at 16 bits.

Image structure characteristics are graininess (which is the visual effect of unevenness in areas of the print that should be even) and definition (which is a composite effect of granularity, resolving power and sharpness). The effect is the same, in my experience, with both scanned film and digital files, assuming both are 16 bit gray scale. A given film, say TMY, is the same regardless of format, but the more you enlarge it the more pronounced are graininess and lack of definition.

I get just as much tonality from a Nikon D800e as from a sheet of 5X7 B&W film, but unless I do something really dumb in exposure or development the 5X7 sheet film will give superior image structure characteristics because it will have finer grain and more definition. The only question is, how big a print do we have to make to see the difference. At 16X24" with a Cone K7 Piezography print I might hesitate about image quality from a Nikon D800e compared to 5X7 TMY (drum scanned), but at 25X35" the superiority of 5X7 is clearly evident. At 11X14" you are wasting your time in comparing. My observations are entirely based on my own comparisons, using my own equipment, and in most cases after looking at the work on my walls over several weeks or months.

Sandy

ROL
30-Apr-2013, 17:16
Not enough energy to even do a little search on forum then?

Might be wrong path to dab into LF then.

I'm getting a little tired of "first responders" crapping all over relevant newbie questions.

KristerH's question seemed to me to be a very good one, encompassing a lot of issues that many in this thread have tackled sincerely. As possibly one of the ever dwindling few here who doesn't routinely scan LF film, it certainly piqued my curiosity, as well as bringing up a many other concerns of representing work on the internet. A (photographic) print is a print, a different class in the phylum of artistic endeavor than representation in electronic media, whether the image is captured by CCD or light sensitive emulsion, and output as ink dots, silver grains, or dye clouds. IMO, it's become way to easy to get caught up in the virtual world behind the screen, the way most photography is viewed and may forever be viewed, not recognizing that the way that most images used to be consumed was mostly in an intimate, tactile, physical form. Deciding on whether LF is right for you seems a more complex decision than ever these days.

Tyler Boley
30-Apr-2013, 18:08
The use of the term "tonalities" to differentiate digital work from film, or even smaller film from larger film, is being used inappropriately in the thread, IMHO. ...

you are right Sandy, I took it to mean in this context - aesthetically. Some systems, by nature, present tonal qualities I respond to more favorably than others, but I am surprised regularly at new possibilities. Tonal qualities expressing a high order of luminosity, or presence, subtlety, or other qualities hard to describe, are what I meant I "live and breath", an elusive goal. The implication in some of the posts seemed to me to be about that, rather than something more basic/measurable.
Tyler

Lenny Eiger
30-Apr-2013, 19:52
you are right Sandy, I took it to mean in this context - aesthetically. Some systems, by nature, present tonal qualities I respond to more favorably than others, but I am surprised regularly at new possibilities. Tonal qualities expressing a high order of luminosity, or presence, subtlety, or other qualities hard to describe, are what I meant I "live and breath", an elusive goal. The implication in some of the posts seemed to me to be about that, rather than something more basic/measurable.
Tyler

You know, I sure wish we could come up with some language we could all agree on about this. I have a very hard time explaining it to people without some appropriate words.

Lenny

sanking
30-Apr-2013, 20:15
You know, I sure wish we could come up with some language we could all agree on about this. I have a very hard time explaining it to people without some appropriate words.

Lenny

Lenny,

If you happen to have a copy of Kodak Publication F-5, Major Revison 8-90 BX, have a look at page 32-33 where you can see the image-structure characteristics from the effects of grain and definition at equivalent image size, of the various Kodak films in production at the time, ranging from Technical Pan to T-Max P3200. I believe you could see a similar result if you compared different digital formats, or digital and film formats of different size.

Sandy

Brian C. Miller
30-Apr-2013, 21:32
It looks like publication F-5 isn't available online.

KODAK PROFESSIONAL Black and White Films (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/databanks/filmDatabankBW.jhtml), index of publications.
Matrix of Kodak B&W films (PDF) (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e103bf/e103bf.pdf), with text descriptions.
Processing KODAK PROFESSIONAL Black-And-White Films (PDF) (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/edbwf/edbwf.pdf)
How to Process and Print Black-and-White Film (PDF) (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/aj3/aj3.pdf)

John Kasaian
30-Apr-2013, 22:05
So did the OP buy an LF camera or not?

Lenny Eiger
1-May-2013, 10:40
Lenny,

If you happen to have a copy of Kodak Publication F-5, Major Revison 8-90 BX, have a look at page 32-33 where you can see the image-structure characteristics from the effects of grain and definition at equivalent image size, of the various Kodak films in production at the time, ranging from Technical Pan to T-Max P3200. I believe you could see a similar result if you compared different digital formats, or digital and film formats of different size.

Sandy

You are correct, I have seen this failure myself, of image structure in the comparison of enlarging a 6x7, 4x5 and 8x10 of the same image to 40 inches. The "smoothness" of the 6x7 broke down at that size.

However, its the other part of the discussion I am most interested in. It does not appear that there are as many shades of gray in a digital file as there are in a scanned piece of b&w film. I am not sure I am correct about this. Perhaps its that the tonal qualities appear to be different. maybes its the commercial focus of the devices, or the IR screen, etc. Maybe its a lot of poor printers. Maybe we are all just imagining this. However, there does seem to be a consensus, at least here, that the tonal sets are different.

I remember having a conversation with Phil Lippincott about this. He didn't even have words to describe tonal functions, except for "fidelity" which I think is not really the issue.

I agree with Tyler on this:
"Some systems, by nature, present tonal qualities I respond to more favorably than others, but I am surprised regularly at new possibilities. Tonal qualities expressing a high order of luminosity, or presence, subtlety, or other qualities hard to describe, are what I meant I "live and breath", an elusive goal. The implication in some of the posts seemed to me to be about that, rather than something more basic/measurable. "

However, I think it probably is measurable, or at least there ought to be a way we can talk about it.

Lenny

Drew Wiley
1-May-2013, 11:45
Jac - what's with your red safelight remark? People still make those, buy em, use em. I generally work in total darkness, but
do have both red and amber safelights on hand for use with the appropriate films and papers. Cars still use headlights, just
like they did 80 years ago, and for the same reason as then.

sanking
1-May-2013, 21:29
However, its the other part of the discussion I am most interested in. It does not appear that there are as many shades of gray in a digital file as there are in a scanned piece of b&w film. I am not sure I am correct about this. Perhaps its that the tonal qualities appear to be different. maybes its the commercial focus of the devices, or the IR screen, etc. Maybe its a lot of poor printers. Maybe we are all just imagining this. However, there does seem to be a consensus, at least here, that the tonal sets are different.

Lenny

I am not aware of any study that claims a scanned piece of film has more shades of gray than a digital file made with a camera. If there is perceived superiority in the scanned film the reason is more likely because the film is much larger than the digital sensor. Would anyone seriously claim that a piece of B&W 35mm film, ASA 100, gives more shades of gray than a digital file from a full frame digital camera with the ISO set to 100?

Sandy

Lenny Eiger
1-May-2013, 23:15
I am not aware of any study that claims a scanned piece of film has more shades of gray than a digital file made with a camera. If there is perceived superiority in the scanned film the reason is more likely because the film is much larger than the digital sensor. Would anyone seriously claim that a piece of B&W 35mm film, ASA 100, gives more shades of gray than a digital file from a full frame digital camera with the ISO set to 100?

Sandy

Of course you are right. What do we call this? Whether its a comparison between 35 mm and sheet film or a small digital sensor... At times I have called it richness, described how the resulting prints were "more beautiful" but that all that language is very subjective. What is the technical term for this?

Definition doesn't appear to do it justice.

Is that it? It's got all us LF'ers lugging around big cameras, and even bigger ones. We are seriously concerned about this and chase after every bit of quality, buying every piece of equipment that could give us even a hint of an advantage. I have a story I tell about the number of shades a 1.4 of an inch of film can reproduce vs a full inch. Photographers get it. But there must be a better way to describe this phenomenon that's got a lot of us all chasing some ultimate goal.

Eloquence, anyone?


Lenny

welly
2-May-2013, 00:14
I've heard, on more than a few occasions on this forum, that there is no point in shooting with large format unless you're enlarging or you need the use of movements. Brian C. Miller in an earlier comment said: "Do you need front movements for focus control? Do you need rear movements for perspective control? Do you need shift? If not, you don't need a view camera."

I rarely use much in the way of movements - shift, rise and fall more than any other movements - but I'd probably say using tilts and swings, not that often, just occasionally. I haven't done much darkroom enlarging with my camera - at the moment my darkroom is still in (slow) progress. Could I capture the images I have done on my large format camera with a digital or other small format camera? Technically, probably yes. But could *I* have captured them with a camera other than my Toyo 4x5 or my Cambo 8x10? I would say no.

I believe I "see" differently when I'm shooting with large format. How can you not? After all, you're composing on a far larger surface - it's like watching a movie on a big screen as opposed to a smart phone. You see detail that you could easily miss on that smaller screen. On top of that, I far more enjoy myself when I shoot large format - I feel like I'm crafting an image rather than just pressing a button - and when I first get to hold a large negative up to the light to see if I've captured a good image, every single time, I get quite the buzz from it.

So, I guess Brian is correct, I don't really *need* a view camera, but I'd far, far rather capture images with a view camera than anything else.

John Kasaian
2-May-2013, 06:31
Jac - what's with your red safelight remark? People still make those, buy em, use em. I generally work in total darkness, but
do have both red and amber safelights on hand for use with the appropriate films and papers. Cars still use headlights, just
like they did 80 years ago, and for the same reason as then.

Drew, I use a short string of red Christmas led lights for red and a pair of ancient GE "guide" lamps (night lights that plug into the sockets) for amber OC. I do have a "real" safe light somewhere, but it's been so long since I last used it I don't know exactly where it is!

Drew Wiley
2-May-2013, 09:18
What do those gingerbread men dangling on your Christmas line taste like after dipping into the dektol?

Lenny Eiger
2-May-2013, 10:28
I believe I "see" differently when I'm shooting with large format. How can you not? After all, you're composing on a far larger surface - it's like watching a movie on a big screen as opposed to a smart phone. You see detail that you could easily miss on that smaller screen. On top of that, I far more enjoy myself when I shoot large format - I feel like I'm crafting an image rather than just pressing a button - and when I first get to hold a large negative up to the light to see if I've captured a good image, every single time, I get quite the buzz from it.

So, I guess Brian is correct, I don't really *need* a view camera, but I'd far, far rather capture images with a view camera than anything else.

I think the photography is different when you slow down and actually consider what you are photographing. Not that there isn't some value in the opposite, I just like considered (or considering) much more.

There is also the issue of depth of field... which is far greater with LF lenses. And for the moment, for lack of a better term, or set of terms, definition.

Lenny

Brian Ellis
2-May-2013, 11:46
I think the photography is different when you slow down and actually consider what you are photographing. Not that there isn't some value in the opposite, I just like considered (or considering) much more.

There is also the issue of depth of field... which is far greater with LF lenses. And for the moment, for lack of a better term, or set of terms, definition.

Lenny

Is there some reason why someone can't slow down with a smaller camera? I never quite understand those who think that everyone who uses a smaller camera just madly clicks away without considering what they're doing.

I know some photographers have to work that way to some extent - e.g. wedding and sports photographers - and most snap-shooters probably do that too. But there actually are many serious photographers who use smaller format cameras, particularly DSLRs, who don't do that. I can't speak for all of them but for me I really don't like to wade through hundreds or thousands of photographs on a computer monitor to find the best ones. I use a DSLR almost exactly the same way I used a LF camera, go slow, figure out what I want to do, then do it once maybe twice if I'm unsure of what will work best, then move on. I know many other former LF users who work the same way. In fact I have a friend who switched from LF to digital and goes even further. He puts a dark cloth over the camera.

Ken Lee
2-May-2013, 11:59
Is there some reason why someone can't slow down with a smaller camera?

With adequate presence of mind, we can use a smaller camera slowly and deliberately, but in so doing we are going "against the grain" so to speak. It takes a special effort, because the whole thrust of current equipment design, processing workflow and business/cultural influences encourage us to speed up wherever possible.

It's telling (and makes a humorous image) that someone might use a dark cloth (when otherwise unnecessary) to help acquire that presence of mind. I wonder how many photographers would do that (or ever think of it), had they not started out with LF.

I'm often reminded of the Merg Ross interview where he mentions that on some of his early photo outings with Large Format equipment, he would only bring enough film for (if recollection serves me) 5 photos over the course of an entire weekend. When every shot matters, we have to make every shot matter :cool:

Kevin J. Kolosky
2-May-2013, 12:30
"I'm often reminded of the Merg Ross interview where he mentions that on some of his early photo outings with Large Format equipment, he would only bring enough film for (if recollection serves me) 5 photos over the course of an entire weekend. When every shot matters, we have to make every shot matter."

What would really be a bummer - being very careful to use those 5 shots wisely over the course of the weekend and then on the way home drive by something like a Moonrise, Hernandez.

Lenny Eiger
2-May-2013, 12:44
Is there some reason why someone can't slow down with a smaller camera? I never quite understand those who think that everyone who uses a smaller camera just madly clicks away without considering what they're doing.


I think it has much less to do with the camera vs the tripod. It's certainly easier to see what you are doing with a ground glass. The marketing of smaller cameras is all about quickness and convenience. But there is no reason I can see that it couldn't be done differently, in fact I know a number of people who do it quite thoughtfully.

As to the small number of sheets of film that Merg said, there are a lot of little tricks that one can do. My first photo class had us all taping our 35mm viewfinders. We were to stop "looking at life thru a little hole" and engage with what and whom we were photographing. Not cropping is another obvious one. It's a great discipline, until you need to crop for a good reason. Then you should break the rule.

Lenny

Ken Lee
2-May-2013, 12:56
Along these lines, one of the best tips I learned (from Fred Picker, probably from Ansel originally) was to scout out the scene with a frame or viewing filter only: no camera, no tripod, no light meter.

No temptation to shoot, except under conditions like the one Kevin mentioned where the Moon is rising over Hernandez and we have to act instinctively. That's when all the training and discipline pay off, and those are the exception, not the rule.

Lenny Eiger
2-May-2013, 18:11
So, does no one have a better set of words to describe the "extra tonality" of larger negatives, more accurately called "definition" ?

If not, perhaps we should collectively invent some... who better than all of us here... anybody?

Lenny

Erik Larsen
2-May-2013, 18:34
So, does no one have a better set of words to describe the "extra tonality" of larger negatives, more accurately called "definition" ?

If not, perhaps we should collectively invent some... who better than all of us here... anybody?

Lenny

Perhaps smooth tonal gradient transitions? Perhaps not what you are referring to as "definition" but I find it equally vague and difficult to define. It might not be measurable and one of those things that has to be seen to understand or comprehend but hard to put into words. Just throwing out ideas?
Erik

Tyler Boley
2-May-2013, 19:03
I suspect this has wandered considerably from the OPs issues.. anyway, I don't buy it. I think it speaks more to the mindset of the worker, a LF guy will just be more attuned to that because of the culture that sprung 'm. Obviously it may be easier to get there from a big neg, particularly contact printed, but I've seen a lot of soot and chalk 4x5 work, grainy too. Conversely, Michael Burns, from whom I learned tons and tones, worked only 8x10, contact, eventually enlarged to 11x14 and 16x20, all Portriga #1. His work evolved into imagery requiring faster shooting and he got a Leica. He's such a meticulous worker that his 8x10 silver prints from 35mm have that same tonal quality as his LF work. Obviously at nose to print inspection, it's going to be a grainier and less sharp that his 8x10 contacts, that's a given, but he knows what tones to work toward. Same aesthetic brought from his LF work, and it's there.
If you don't know how to work it, doesn't matter what tools were used.
Tyler

David Lobato
2-May-2013, 19:09
It's also a matter of perception of contrast, low or high. Many of us recognize fine tonal gradations and love it when we achieve them. An old friend is tone deaf visually and does not seem to appreciate smooth tonality. He likes inky dark tones with high contrast and is a sharpness fanatic. As long as he can count the whiskers on a fly 10 feet away he will give the image approval. We get along despite our differences. I also had to explain to my son the silky tonality in a picture taken with my Commercial Ektar. He finally "got it" after some time looking at the photo. It's nice to help others to have that "A-ha" moment with a LF picture.

Btw many years ago I realized my 35mm Kodachromes had noticeably better compositions when I used a tripod. That was a decade before I took up large format.

KristerH
6-Nov-2013, 16:25
Ok. So I went analog. After some long thinking I realized that slow and thoughtful is for me. Chamonix 8x10. Made my very first sheet of film yeasterday. Will this be enough for big prints. Yes!

Thank you gentlemen for all your information and comments.



http://kristerhalvars.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/8x10-1.jpg

http://kristerhalvars.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/8x10-2.jpg

Daniel Stone
6-Nov-2013, 17:51
Peeping tom! Looking at nekkid(painted) ladies when they're unawares, and not in their underwears ;)!

Have fun!

pdmoylan
6-Nov-2013, 18:49
I shoot both 4x5 (for many years) and digital all in color.

There are three prominent issues I believe have not been addressed heretofore which, if I were to consider them, would easliy push in a clear direction of medium choice. These are the matter of movements, diffraction limits and and contrast depth.

Tilt lenses for DLSRs do not for me accomplish my desired objectives. Based upon the work of Hans Strand and a few others, medium format is the exception for gaining complete DOF in images within reasonable diffraction limitations. But the cost of MFSLR is frankly prohibitive for all but the most extreme risk takers. 2nd, diffraction effects IMHO become much more apparent with DSLRs at wider apertures, after say F8 and frankly you need F16 too often to get what I want out of a landscape, assuming you don't stitch using stacked focus techniques. SHooting 4x5 film up to f45 aperture diffraction does not have a deteriorating effect upon the images. Beyond f45 yes. So in essence, I see digital has having limitations in acting as you might want to obtain from 4x5 film.

Lastly, I have found that in a side by side comparison of 4x5 and digital, the color depth and contrast is much better with 4x5 and is much more readily handled on film. In high contrast situations, cleary digital wins that battle with broader DR. But in lower light, I have found over and over that 4x5 excels in punchiness and color contrast. I am not speaking here of saturation. This latter subject is hard to describe but do yourself a favor and take some typical for you images using both, whether B&W or color, and compare. I do like both mediums but at the end of the day if you can capture the same image characteristics on 4x5, you will prefer the result over DSLR.

PDM

Nigel Smith
10-Nov-2013, 17:48
So, does no one have a better set of words to describe the "extra tonality" of larger negatives, more accurately called "definition" ?

If not, perhaps we should collectively invent some... who better than all of us here... anybody?

Lenny

I suggest "Smoothality" :)

Ari
10-Nov-2013, 19:09
Tone-i-ness?

paulr
10-Nov-2013, 21:08
I recently made some 24 x 30 prints from files submitted by an excellent portrait photographer I've printed for on and off for years. I know he's been shooting digital for a long time. of course his file prep is always impeccable, I moved forward with the prints. Careful evaluation of both the B&W peizography and color prints really impressed me so I went back and looked at the metadata... D800.. very impressive. They almost looked like 8x10, but then they were studio portraits, not forests. There are no absolutes.. everything changes... everything "depends"..

I can second this. I used large format exclusively for a couple of decades. For the last year I've used the d800. The results, in print, completely defy my expectations. All my 4x5 darkroom prints look soft in comparison. Prints made from desktop-scanned 4x5 come close but do not equal it. I believe drum scanned 4x5 is better, but you'll only see the improvement in prints larger than 30 inches or so. If this is your rationale, be sure to consider the cost of these scans.

I think there are a few reasons to choose large format:
1. You prefer working with film and with the big camera. No other reason necessary.
2. You need movements that exceded what's possible with a tilt/shift lens, or you need movements across a lot of focal lengths.
3. You plan to make big prints--36 inches or larger, you want them as detailed as possible, and you can afford drum scans.
4. You plan to shoot mostly black and white. Converting digital images to b+w gives good results, but bw film still has the edge, especially in dynamic range.

If these don't describe you, I'd have a hard time making a convincing case for LF.

On a separate note, it's not my experience that printing digitally takes as long as printing in the darkroom. A color-managed system allows you to get very, very close to your final result before making a single print. There is no setup and cleanup. There are no separate stages for toning, washing, drying, etc. etc... The creative part of the process is identical, but the nuts and bolts are much more streamlined. Unless something goes wrong with the printer ... then you'll wish you had your darkroom back.

Ari
11-Nov-2013, 08:31
"Unless something goes wrong with the printer..."

Paul, I agree with everything you said; I was just wondering why, of any peripheral I've ever used, the printer seems to be the least reliable.
I've thrown out some decent printers, purely out of frustration, after I'd invested in the rest of the digital printing kit.
One's experience and ability seems to not matter, as I fear my printer could act up at any moment, flush out all of its ink, and make a horrible grating noise, before announcing that the computer cannot read the printer or something.

Sorry to interrupt, my rant is over now.

analoguey
11-Nov-2013, 09:27
Along these lines, one of the best tips I learned (from Fred Picker, probably from Ansel originally) was to scout out the scene with a frame or viewing filter only: no camera, no tripod, no light meter.

No temptation to shoot, except under conditions like the one Kevin mentioned where the Moon is rising over Hernandez and we have to act instinctively. That's when all the training and discipline pay off, and those are the exception, not the rule.

I think Ansel mentions that in 'The Camera'.


.
The first issue is that most people don't know what they are looking for. PhotoHistory is not taught anywhere unless you go to school for Photography. There is often no "photo-appreciation" course at the local adult education place and even when there is, its usually taught by a person with a fairly commercial, or snapshot, mindset. Way too many pretty sunsets that add nothing. There are few who can explain the importance of some of the great printers, whether it be Sutcliffe, Frederick Evans, Steichen, Strand, Watkins, and later Caponigro, perhaps Tice, Richard Benson and a bunch of others. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list... If you want to learn printing well you could look at almost anything done in the PhotoSecession and understand the delicacy and subtlety that is possible. You don't have to print that way but they had an amazing understanding of "atmosphere". The key is you have to look, and study, great prints before you can make one (without doing it accidentally). It takes time to process what you see, and make up your own mind about what's right for you.

Once you identify a printing style that makes sense to you, whether it be an amalgam of two or three styles you see or something entirely different, then you have to get the technical working. Should an area be darker or lighter, do I need to burn something in? How are my negatives doing with relation to how I am trying to print? If you are doing black and white, there is all the issue of custom inksets, b&w inksets and profiling. I one follows this interest, most people end up buying the premium papers. I'm working with Kozo these days, Japanese paper made in centuries-old fashion. It's exquisite...

At any rate, once you know what's possible, and you get the processes down, it isn't that easy to get it, whether it be alt process, darkroom or inkjet. There are two things here... one is the basics of it taking 5-25 test prints to to get the print exactly right (for you). One hopes for 5, but the other day it took me 10 tries to get it just the way I wanted it.. Maybe I hadn't printed that style in a little while. One has to "understand" before one can "do".

A person once asked me how long it took to make the print he was holding. It was a platinum print I had made and he was asking about the platinum process. I was thinking about the wider perspective and answered, "three years." Some times you make a great print, then you look at it for months and realize that your approach wasn't just right for the image. Some times its the image that wants to speak for itself. I have a pushpin boards on my wall and when I finish a print I put it up there for a while. After you live with it for a while, you'll know. It will either grow on you, or you will have the "either it comes off the wall or I will have to move out" response.

Just like taking on a view camera, taking on a different level of printing deepens one's photography. It's not for everyone, but its a rich and beautiful experience when it goes right.

I hope this helps,

Lenny


This has been a very interesting and educating thread, and this bit on printing kind of prompts me to ask this - should one necessarily know the printing style or darkroom printing technique to get to what you want -wouldn't it be better to know what you want from the image/print and then get it printed by a professional?
It comes from two assumptions/thoughts - photography mastery itself is something that involves considerable bit of time and expense - years, decades even. Adding printing to it seems to complicate the learning curve further?
Also, I think maybe it's best to achieve mastery over photography while maybe using services of a master printer? Something akin to a great F1 driver not necessarily being the best at 'setting the car up'?

/I'll be looking up the information above, of course - most of my learning is via forums like these. :-)

h2oman
11-Nov-2013, 10:33
This has been a very interesting and educating thread, and this bit on printing kind of prompts me to ask this - should one necessarily know the printing style or darkroom printing technique to get to what you want -wouldn't it be better to know what you want from the image/print and then get it printed by a professional?
It comes from two assumptions/thoughts - photography mastery itself is something that involves considerable bit of time and expense - years, decades even. Adding printing to it seems to complicate the learning curve further?

The answers to many of these questions probably depend on whether your interest and enjoyment come more from the final result, or from the process.

Allan B
12-Nov-2013, 11:51
Regarding: knowing the printing style before you start.

I have tried working with professional printers before. Sometimes it works great, but sometimes I would pick up a print and
it just "does not look right". Not the printers fault. It's a judgement call - subjective. Sometimes you don't recognize something
until you see it. Then you can say, I want the print darker or I want to burn (darken) the corners.

When you print the negative yourself, you gain control and you make the decisions. Even if you have a pretty good
idea of what you want and have pre-visualized the picture. It's often hard to tell exactly what you will like best, until you print
the picture and hold it in front of you.

It's the same reason that digital photographers shoot "raw" and then process the image.
Sometimes you need several versions of a picture so you can compare them and decide what you like best.

That's the fun and also frustrating part of photography, it's half science and half art and opinion.

analoguey
13-Nov-2013, 01:23
The answers to many of these questions probably depend on whether your interest and enjoyment come more from the final result, or from the process.

The final result, followed by the process - in that order. As long as I get the look I want, quite happy!


Regarding: knowing the printing style before you start.

I have tried working with professional printers before. Sometimes it works great, but sometimes I would pick up a print and
it just "does not look right". Not the printers fault. It's a judgement call - subjective. Sometimes you don't recognize something
until you see it. Then you can say, I want the print darker or I want to burn (darken) the corners.

When you print the negative yourself, you gain control and you make the decisions. Even if you have a pretty good
idea of what you want and have pre-visualized the picture. It's often hard to tell exactly what you will like best, until you print
the picture and hold it in front of you.

It's the same reason that digital photographers shoot "raw" and then process the image.
Sometimes you need several versions of a picture so you can compare them and decide what you like best.

That's the fun and also frustrating part of photography, it's half science and half art and opinion.


Definitely agree with most of what you say, I am mostly of the 'get it right in the camera' school of thought - maybe because of the digital way we look at things, and having used the digital medium a lot more!

miesnert
13-Nov-2013, 07:17
Regarding: knowing the printing style before you start.

I have tried working with professional printers before. Sometimes it works great, but sometimes I would pick up a print and
it just "does not look right". Not the printers fault. It's a judgement call - subjective. Sometimes you don't recognize something
until you see it. Then you can say, I want the print darker or I want to burn (darken) the corners.

When you print the negative yourself, you gain control and you make the decisions. Even if you have a pretty good
idea of what you want and have pre-visualized the picture. It's often hard to tell exactly what you will like best, until you print
the picture and hold it in front of you.

I always work with a printer, he is amazing at what he does. I do however make sure I am there while he is printing my pictures, together we comment on the prints and discuss possible corrections, this way I have full control over the result, and have a printer with much more knowledge and experience than I have about printing, putting his opinion in as well. The best of both worlds in my opinion.

Lenny Eiger
13-Nov-2013, 21:10
This has been a very interesting and educating thread, and this bit on printing kind of prompts me to ask this - should one necessarily know the printing style or darkroom printing technique to get to what you want -wouldn't it be better to know what you want from the image/print and then get it printed by a professional?

It comes from two assumptions/thoughts - photography mastery itself is something that involves considerable bit of time and expense - years, decades even. Adding printing to it seems to complicate the learning curve further?
Also, I think maybe it's best to achieve mastery over photography while maybe using services of a master printer? Something akin to a great F1 driver not necessarily being the best at 'setting the car up'? [/QUOTE]

As a person who has been one of these printers for many years, I can answer. Photography is a very complex subject. One appears to need a reason, something which drives you to look in one direction or another. One tunes their perception over years. Some people will talk about "seeing", others will talk about connection, concept, etc. There is a lot going on in a successful portfolio.

Printing is similar, or shall we say just another extension of the same thing. It takes years to tune one's eyes to be sensitive enough to print. It's like playing the guitar - it's easy for beginners. In those years there is a lot of taking of a photo, developing, printing, etc. You get to see the result of the light you were working in and how the things in life will be represented by the different printing mediums.

For me it was important to understand the different genres of photography and to know in which I wanted to live. That gives a broad context to both the shooting and the printing style. People can help you to define what you are looking for by asking the right questions. Working one-on-one with a printer can show you additional possibilities you may not have considered. It's far better than dropping it off to someone. Of course, in today's world we can send the print with fedex and discuss it in a videoconference. It's almost as good. Once a printer knows what you are after, then they should be able to get very close. In the end, it's often the image that decides.

Hope this helps,

Lenny

paulr
13-Nov-2013, 21:32
...this way I have full control over the result, and have a printer with much more knowledge and experience than I have about printing, putting his opinion in as well. The best of both worlds in my opinion.

This is great if you can afford it!

It's how movies get made, after all. The great auteur/director many not have a clue how to set up the lights. But he has a DP that he trusts; the DP has a team that she trusts; the team has manufacturers and tech reps that they trust, etc. etc...

I had a chance to work this way once. It was my first color project, the printer was a good friend of mine, and we had a grant to pay for his time. It was the best of both worlds, like you said. There were a few times when I thought we'd nailed it, and he convinced me we could do better.

It was also a good learning experience. I don't need his services as much as I did then, thanks to having gone through all that.

john borrelli
17-Nov-2013, 07:38
Interesting that the original poster has purchased an LF camera in the course of the life of this thread and with a nice image as well.

I don't think,as others have already said, that seeing an image over the internet is ever the best way to judge a format. I'm not even sure sending a file over the internet to then be printed is best either. I think viewing an LF color slide on a lightbox with a high quality 3x loupe is best. For me, I would show someone trying to make the LF decision a slide of an old building with a lot of texture. The image should be taken with a leveled camera and with the use of the correct amounts of movements all to render the building to look its best. There is definitely something about photographing this type of subject with LF gear that brings out the best in the subject. It seems to bring together all the advantages of LF photography into a single image, while at the same time minimizing the format's shortcomings. I like this type of subject in black and white as well but it is harder to judge all these qualities on a lightbox with a negative. Best of luck to the OP.

paulr
17-Nov-2013, 10:44
I think viewing an LF color slide on a lightbox with a high quality 3x loupe is best.

Except that it's unreleated to how anyone actually shows their work!

Finished prints of a similar type to the ones you plan to make should be ideal.

I can see a lot from high resolution scans on screen. But this is based on experience relating them to prints made from them.

Tyler Boley
17-Nov-2013, 14:32
Exactly, I still think you have to begin with well thought out decisions of what the final form of your work will be (prints, display, size, print type, etc..) and make all decisions about equipment and workflow working backwards from that criteria, basing each decision on it's contribution to that final end. We might love a particular camera, film or digital, but then also aspire to a final format for which the camera is unsuitable or overkill. Countless times I have print orders in sizes for which the customer's file is unsuitable. I'm always asked the possible size the printer and paper will go without concern for the quality of the file they've produced. Start at the end and work backwards.
With regard to working with a printer.. I come from a tradition mastered by artists who's printing was a powerful personal unique part of their work, even though my livelyhood depends on printing for others as best I possibly can, it's hard for me to imagine letting someone else print my work. There are many remarkable exceptions to this of course, great photographers working with printers. But just as I spent countless hours and dollars in a rental darkroom learning and printing, followed by my bathroom and basement darkrooms, I'd advise anyone interested to learn printing. Just because we're digital now doesn't meant the ability to learn printing is obsolete. There are several 17" excellent printers that cost less than my home darkroom did. I took workshops back then, there are workshops now. Even if you wind up working with a printer, your level of interaction to achieve desired results will be that much higher. You have to take responsibility for the quality of your original, whether it be film or file, and the more you can contribute to the outcome, even of you don't do the work, the more likely you'll get what you need.
Also, aside from all that, there is the issue of affinity with the gear. I take my best images, and am most immersed in a fulfilling way while working, with my 5x7. Someone I shoot with all the time is the opposite, he struggles with a 4x5 and fails to do his best work or enjoy the process, therefore more than willing to accept limitations and the final quality because the images excel.
I have worked with many who can't stand the thought of learning and dealing with the issues I do to print, and are happy to leave that to me, concentrating on their shooting. I completely understand, and there are many greats who never printed but worked with great master printers. There are many approaches to this, but the unavoidable is that the desired final form and it's quality play a major role in the decisions going all the way back to the camera choice. I hope I haven't complicated matters...
Tyler

smithdoor
17-Nov-2013, 14:51
1. If you are a machine gun photographer LF is not cheep
2. If you point shoot LF is not for you ever thing uses a light meter and most will need charts
3. If you are only looking for just few good photo LF is the only way to go

Good luck
Dave

analoguey
18-Nov-2013, 23:25
It comes from two assumptions/thoughts - photography mastery itself is something that involves considerable bit of time and expense - years, decades even. Adding printing to it seems to complicate the learning curve further?
Also, I think maybe it's best to achieve mastery over photography while maybe using services of a master printer? Something akin to a great F1 driver not necessarily being the best at 'setting the car up'?

As a person who has been one of these printers for many years, I can answer. Photography is a very complex subject. One appears to need a reason, something which drives you to look in one direction or another. One tunes their perception over years. Some people will talk about "seeing", others will talk about connection, concept, etc. There is a lot going on in a successful portfolio.

Printing is similar, or shall we say just another extension of the same thing. It takes years to tune one's eyes to be sensitive enough to print. It's like playing the guitar - it's easy for beginners. In those years there is a lot of taking of a photo, developing, printing, etc. You get to see the result of the light you were working in and how the things in life will be represented by the different printing mediums.

For me it was important to understand the different genres of photography and to know in which I wanted to live. That gives a broad context to both the shooting and the printing style. People can help you to define what you are looking for by asking the right questions. Working one-on-one with a printer can show you additional possibilities you may not have considered. It's far better than dropping it off to someone. Of course, in today's world we can send the print with fedex and discuss it in a videoconference. It's almost as good. Once a printer knows what you are after, then they should be able to get very close. In the end, it's often the image that decides.

Hope this helps,

Lenny[/QUOTE]

I dont think I have understood it fully, but maybe like with how a printed image has many times the impact of an on-screen viewing, this is something I'd have to experience for myself. I will try this next time

Kodachrome25
19-Nov-2013, 01:55
Just because we're digital now doesn't meant the ability to learn printing is obsolete.

Who is "We're"?

After using digital for 20 years in my profession I can say with full confidence that the most satisfying career move I have ever made is to go fully black and white film with prints crafted in a darkroom, no digital. I could care less why people use what they use or what they think is better. But do realize that there are long time users of digital like my self who simply no longer want to live their lives as artists using that method of showing their work.

The most important thing for me as a photographer is how much impact the resulting image has. And if I love the process of the darkroom better than the Lightroom ( Much++), then you had better believe the resulting work will be better.

miesnert
19-Nov-2013, 02:53
For people asking about examples of large format scans; this is about as high quality as you can go: http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/
(He works for Missimo Vitali and Gursky amongst others).

Edit: I do not now anyone at Castorscan, nor do I have anything to do with their business, I just thought it was an interesting Flickr profile.

smithdoor
19-Nov-2013, 08:24
I agree I not a profession but have been in photographic for over 40 years and did digital for about 15 years.
I just look at the photos I took 5 years using digital and one I found in a box made the old film way 21 years ago. I said to my self I am in the hobby for the good not the cheep and bad. Also I have one photo of my grandfather that was made in the 1880's in a crib it is still hear. The digital may just 7 year are fading fast.
I thing of digital like the machine gun 35mm shoots of 15 years ago let take a lot and pay you get few good ones and if loss the photo just make more.
Do not think that Ansel Adams photo wood be hear to day in digital his work is timeless
I have work with computers since the mid 70's and also use Photoshop since the mid 90's digital just is not good photography just another low cost for the scrap box of photos

Dave


Who is "We're"?

After using digital for 20 years in my profession I can say with full confidence that the most satisfying career move I have ever made is to go fully black and white film with prints crafted in a darkroom, no digital. I could care less why people use what they use or what they think is better. But do realize that there are long time users of digital like my self who simply no longer want to live their lives as artists using that method of showing their work.

The most important thing for me as a photographer is how much impact the resulting image has. And if I love the process of the darkroom better than the Lightroom ( Much++), then you had better believe the resulting work will be better.

Tyler Boley
20-Nov-2013, 11:40
Who is "We're"?

After using digital for 20 years in my profession I can say with full confidence that the most satisfying career move I have ever made is to go fully black and white film with prints crafted in a darkroom, no digital. I could care less why people use what they use or what they think is better. But do realize that there are long time users of digital like my self who simply no longer want to live their lives as artists using that method of showing their work.

The most important thing for me as a photographer is how much impact the resulting image has. And if I love the process of the darkroom better than the Lightroom ( Much++), then you had better believe the resulting work will be better.

not my point at all, the OP was looking for insight into whether or not to go LF, not the old digital vs analog argument. So he cares very much "why people use what they use or what they think is better", in fact he was specifically looking for those kinds of opinions. OK so I should not have used "we", the point remains, no matter what process is used in what part of the workflow, a major commitment to learning craft is still required, I was referring to printing specifically, and how knowledge of that may impact the original decision about going LF. I don't see how there can be any contention about commitment to craft.