Are you making money with LF?

[savantcreative]

Are there people out their still getting paid well enough to be shooting large format and film?

How is business these days. I pretty much shoot all digital commercially now.

Best regards

[Walter Calahan]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Unfortunately very FEW photographers really get paid well.

I had a film assignment last year shooting 8x10. Can't remember my last film assignment other than that.

[Vaughn]

My business is fine-art photography, which is 100% LF...and I make enough money to keep photographing, but the day job pays the bills and feed the kids.

My last commercial assignment was getting on the roof and then climbing up a couple of ladders to the top of the elevator structure on the County Jail to make a panaramic shot with the 8x10 (consisting of four 4x10's) onto color transparency film. This is the highest building in Eureka.

Vaughn

[savantcreative]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Unfortunately very FEW photographers really get paid well.

I had a film assignment last year shooting 8x10. Can't remember my last film assignment other than that.

I know it's a good but sad one.

The last time I did a commercial 8 x 10 shoot was about 9 years ago for Captain Morgans Rum in NYC. I had a feeling that it would be the last one even back then.
Do you shoot commercially?
Best

[David Luttmann]

All of my wedding and portraiture work is now digital based. Even landscape prints I sell have come from digital images or high MP stitched digital images. Some of the landscape prints I’ve sold have however come from LF negs, so yes, I guess I have earned some from LF.

[savantcreative]

My business is fine-art photography, which is 100% LF...and I make enough money to keep photographing, but the day job pays the bills and feed the kids.

My last commercial assignment was getting on the roof and then climbing up a couple of ladders to the top of the elevator structure on the County Jail to make a panaramic shot with the 8x10 (consisting of four 4x10's) onto color transparency film. This is the highest building in Eureka.

Vaughn

Stay with your art, man. I love having to climb on stuff when I shoot. The harder the better. It's like being a kid.
Best

[jnantz]

i get a handful of habs/haer assignments a year.
they are mostly LF, and i can't complain.

[Vaughn]

Stay with your art, man. I love having to climb on stuff when I shoot. The harder the better. It's like being a kid.
Best

It was fun, but climbing up 20' ladders leaning (not fixed to the building) against the upper reaches of the building with the 8x10 was a bit of a challenge. Then the roof of the elevator shaft was an uneven spongy rubber layer. At least there was no wind that day! The job originally was to be from a lower roof of the courthouse and only found out about the jail roof part when I got there!

But you are right -- I'll stick with the fine art aspect of photography (especially since my day job is taking care of a teaching darkroom for a university Art Department!), and leave the weddings and other commercial shoots to those who enjoy that aspect of photography!

Vaughn

[Kirk Gittings]

Up until October of 2006, I made my living with film and a view camera, now the commercial work is 95% digital. My personal work is still 95% 4x5 film.

[domenico Foschi]

I have been floating on the surface for almost 3 years.
Considering the doubts and fears I had,I have far exceeded my expectations.
Now it's time to glide effortlessly:) :)

[windpointphoto]

I have been floating on the surface for almost 3 years.
Considering the doubts and fears I had,I have far exceeded my expectations.
Now it's time to glide effortlessly:) :)

Ok, once again I'll show my ignorence. What's this mean?

[Brian Sims]

I made $170,000 last year from Large Format Photography. Here's how:

12326

[Colin Graham]

That's hilarious Brian. But is that one big bail incident or several tiny ones?

[Brian Sims]

But is that one big bail incident or several tiny ones? -- Collin

It's the output of an econometric model that predicts bail costs based on pre-LF photography arrest rates adjusted for age (research suggests that the older we get beyond 50, the less inhibited we are. This ensures that my LF profit margin will increase each year due to avoided bail.)

Anyone needing to justify their hobby (habit) to husbands or wives, can order the Large Format Profit Margin Spreadsheet (c) from me. A single license is $9,200.

[David Luttmann]

Up until October of 2006, I made my living with film and a view camera, now the commercial work is 95% digital. My personal work is still 95% 4x5 film.

Still with a 5D Kirk, or have you gone to another DSLR or MF backs?

[Ken Lee]

Brian makes an excellent point.

The cost of not doing something personally gratifying, is great indeed.

As one friend says of my LF interest, "It's cheaper than a psychaitrist". Another friend says, "It's much cheaper than a boat".

[vann webb]

^Yeah, but unfortunately, I had to buy a boat to keep the wifer "on board" so to speak.

[scott_6029]

Money - yes, a living....no...must keep day job :(.

[Kirk Gittings]

Still with a 5D Kirk, or have you gone to another DSLR or MF backs?

Funny thing about that. I figured at some point I may have to upgrade to MF, but even all my big national clients are very happy with what I am giving them......so I'll wait for the new 5D or the problems to get fixed in the 1DsIII and upgrade. Meanwhile its all gravy.

[John Berry]

Never have, never will.

[Stephanie Brim]

Nope, and probably never. But that won't stop me from trying.

I'm only 25 (or close enough to be considered such). I have plenty of time to shoot what I want before I get pulled into digital machine.

There's just something about film that digital can't replicate. Probably has something to do with the smell of chemicals and the feel of wet film between my fingers. I'm weird like that. I am glad to know that I'm not the only one afflicted with this ailment, though. :)

[eddie]

i do not pay my bills with LF photography but i do make a few bucks with photography.

i only shoot film. i sell some prints and shoot weddings, portraits and various small gigs (cars motorcycles etc). it is all word of mouth. if the client asks about shooting their wedding with digital i offer to provide them with some of my photog friends that shoot digital. i have never had anyone go to that way. they still hire me. i try to offset some of my photography costs is all. (i figure once i go digital i probably will never come back! same reason why i do not use a mobile phone......survived all these years without one and i know that once you get one you can not even leave the house without it). i mainly shoot 35 and 120 for wedding but have also shot a bit of LF wedding photos...even got a gig for oct. 08.

the main thing is it is my hobby. once your hobby becomes your job it is usually less satisfying! that is how it is in my current job. back in 1985 i needed to repair my own cars as i could not afford a mechanic.......i have been repairing cars ever since! done it all.....now i am doing body work DOH! and i no longer enjoy cars ina ny fashion except as transportation from on fun activity to another.

eddie

[Jrewt]

I've done a few jobs with LF since I started last year, but not nearly as many as I would like. However, I am all film at present! Me and my RZ are just barely scraping by, but I've only been at it a year. Hopefully, if I can build a big enough client base, I can make enough to actually shoot 4x5 and not go broke.. ;)

[SamReeves]

Nope! LF is purely a hobby, but digital pays the bills! ;)

[Christopher Breitenstein]

I usually break even at the end of the year. I can usually sell enough prints to pay for my film and paper habits.

yours;

[Gordon Moat]

Yes. My film and processing costs are zero cost (no mark-up) items, if that is what you mean about digital replacement. When I looked at lease rates, purchase, upgrade life, and additional computer needs, it made more sense to rent a MFDB when/if needed, though those times have been rare. Renting allows you to have the latest digital gear when you need it, and simply incorporate that expense into whatever is billed to each client. I do advertising related work and corporate work; somewhat anonymous compared to publication shooters or fine art photographers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[John Kasaian]

Ok, once again I'll show my ignorence. What's this mean?

I think it means that Domenico's photographs have been deservedly exhibited at some very impressive venues lately.

Buy one of his prints now before the prices go up!:)

[Ben Calwell]

$75, and I think it was sometime in 1985.

[Preston]

I shoot 4x5 primarily, and also 645. I sell prints only. Some years have been pretty good. Last year was dismal and the current year hasn't been too swift, either. It would be nice if my work would pay for itself, at a minimum.

Looks like I need to reevaluate things, doesn't it? :rolleyes:

-PB

[Robert Skeoch]

Anyone who thinks it's cheaper than a boat needs a bigger camera.
-
rob

[sanking]

Anyone who thinks it's cheaper than a boat needs a bigger camera.
-
rob


Anyone who has had their sailboat hauled out of the water in Trinidad and Tobago, or Barcelona, to have work done on the diesel engine would never say such a thing.

By almost any measure I know boating is a *lot* more expensive than photography. Hell, even the total price of a new Ebony 20X24" camera is only a down payment on a 40' sailboat.

Sandy King

[Robert Skeoch]

I guess it depends on your definition of a boat.... but yes a 40 footer would cost more.. might even be more fun if you had the right crew. LOL.
-rob

[Gene McCluney]

Are there people out their still getting paid well enough to be shooting large format and film?

How is business these days. I pretty much shoot all digital commercially now.

Best regards


I am a commercial photographer. I make about 85% of my income from 4x5 color transparencies. I shoot product shots in studio. My clients prefer transparencies over the digital captures I could offer them. Business is fairly good. I maintain my own processing lab at my studio for E6. I also will scan the transparencies for some clients.
I also do in-plant location photography on 4x5 transparency film.

[Frank Petronio]

A refinement to the question would be whether a client is choosing you because you use large format. And from a practical reproduction quality standpoint, there is less and less of a reason to. Instead you see people getting work using large format because of stylistic concerns.

I am not yet getting the amount of work I want/need but the inquires and estimates I've done have been because they want me to do work in 4x5 along the lines of my portfolio. Of course I shoot digital too but that is for more generic stuff - the large format stuff is a novelty because few other photographers use it for people photos.

[Jack Brauer]

Yes, almost completely from print sales through my website, with the occasional stock sale. It's 1/2 of my business, the other half being web development.

I do wonder whether shooting large format helps or hurts business. Surely the expenses would be lower shooting solely digital. On the other hand, the quality of large format lends a certain respect and probably reassures customers that they are buying high-quality prints (of course this is obvious in person, but online art purchases require a bit of faith). I am not shy about explaining on my website that I shoot large format; after all I lug the thing around on my back and I want people to know why.

[studmuffin]

I guess that I'm making a pretty good living shooting, and it's kinda large format. I shoot an Arca 6x9, but I have a Phaseone P45+ attached to it. I feel like it's the best of both worlds. Mathew Brady technology with a $35,000 digital back slapped on the back. For all you na-sayers, the back spits out a really nice 112 meg file. That's nothing to sneeze at.

[roteague]

For all you na-sayers, the back spits out a really nice 112 meg file. That's nothing to sneeze at.

So does my Konica-Minolta 35mm scanner - actually the file sizes are 200MB (at 16-bit). File size is meaningless.

[David Luttmann]

So does my Konica-Minolta 35mm scanner - actually the file sizes are 200MB (at 16-bit). File size is meaningless.

Actually,

For digital capture, it's not meaningless as the file size for digital capture is the base resolution. For film scans, file size is meaningless. A 99mb 16 bit file from a FF DSLR will do far better than a 225mb, 5200ppi scan of 35mm film. This can be evidenced by comparing a 30” color print from 35mm and from a FF DSLR like the 1Ds Mk2. That 99mb digital file trounces that 225mb film file. For film it’s meaningless…for digital it’s not.

[Donald Miller]

Actually,

For digital capture, it's not meaningless as the file size for digital capture is the base resolution. For film scans, file size is meaningless. A 99mb 16 bit file from a FF DSLR will do far better than a 225mb, 5200ppi scan of 35mm film. This can be evidenced by comparing a 30” color print from 35mm and from a FF DSLR like the 1Ds Mk2. That 99mb digital file trounces that 225mb film file. For film it’s meaningless…for digital it’s not.


That brings up a question that I have...if we were to compare apples with apples...large format film to an unlimited MP digital image...what quantity of MP in digital would equal a 4X5 negative or transparency image. I ask this question because I honestly do not know...

I do know that the so call gigapixel images far outstrip large format...supposedly beyond 8X10 film capture...Would a digital image of 160 MP possess more resolution than a 4X5 negative? Where would a 250 MP capture put it in comparison to enlarged 4X5 film? I do know that digital has other post processing tools that film does not have. I am getting set up to do large scale stitches and was wondering where I would fit into the scheme of things.

Thanks for any insight or information that you can share.

Donald Miller

[Turner Reich]

I make all of my money doing small black and white portraits for people who don't know what they are getting. I recently started making 3x4 inch contacts instead of larger prints to save money. I do it to pursue my Art photography, the personal work that I live for. Oh wait... I'm not Edward Weston, just a guy or gal with a real appreciation of an image, whether I'm a plumber, carpenter, brick layer, Oh wait... I'm not Brett Weston, I don't photograph to support a cause, the environment, it's fine on its own, Oh wait... I'm not Ansel Adams, I don't need an income I photograph what I like when I like, Oh wait... I'm not Paul Strand or Alfred Stiggglets....

I do photograph what I want when I want and don't need the income from LF photography. I'll leave that for later and since I'm old... Later is sooner than later.:D

[David Luttmann]

That brings up a question that I have...if we were to compare apples with apples...large format film to an unlimited MP digital image...what quantity of MP in digital would equal a 4X5 negative or transparency image. I ask this question because I honestly do not know...

I do know that the so call gigapixel images far outstrip large format...supposedly beyond 8X10 film capture...Would a digital image of 160 MP possess more resolution than a 4X5 negative? Where would a 250 MP capture put it in comparison to enlarged 4X5 film? I do know that digital has other post processing tools that film does not have. I am getting set up to do large scale stitches and was wondering where I would fit into the scheme of things.

Thanks for any insight or information that you can share.

Donald Miller

Donald, I've found that while the 39mp backs are close, 4x5 still has a slight advantage on large prints. As there is nothing more than 39mp to compare to, I've had to extrapolate from my testing a 48mp Better Light scan back. Because the scan back is true color as opposed to a sensor with a Bayer array, it offers higher rez than a 48mp Bayer sensor. The advantage seems to be about 25% extra in file size. So while a 48mp Betterlight exceeds 4x5, it appears that when I've stitched digital files, it takes an equivalent of between 60mp and 70mp to equal a 4x5 sheet of color film. This is a file size of about 10,000 pixels wide.

While people can talk about scanning at higher resolutions, etc, etc, when comparing inkjet output from my old Epson 7600 (this was tested a while ago by me), and printed at 360 dpi, the 65mp files appeared better. This was done on cottonrag paper on 11x14 crops from a 40x50 print. As I very, very rarely print larger than 30" wide (odd one at 40") for me, the digital file looked sharper, with better detail, acutance, and color accuracy. Because the files are so clean, they interpolate and sharpen better than the film file.

That said, if you mainly print to 16x20, then sheet film on a flatbed will look perfect at a much better cost point than these digital backs on a view camera.

[Donald Miller]

David,

Thank you for providing this information. So if I consider this than stitching 160 mp images should be somewhat higher resolution than the 5X7 film negatives that I shoot and 250 mp should be at somewhere in the neighborhood of an 8x10 negative.

Thanks again.

[David Luttmann]

David,

Thank you for providing this information. So if I consider this than stitching 160 mp images should be somewhat higher resolution than the 5X7 film negatives that I shoot and 250 mp should be at somewhere in the neighborhood of an 8x10 negative.

Thanks again.

That's about it. Unfortunately, many people just look at the file sizes of the scans they get, or think that the math doesn't work. I prefer to compare directly. I was very surprised that such a small digital file could exceed 4x5.....because for years we had been told (and I believed) that it would take 150mp to 200mp to equal 4x5. As more and more people actually compare as opposed to providing unconfirmed opinion, we’ll hear less and less unsubstantiated figures for comparisons.

That said, regardless of any resolution differences, I still have a blast photographing with a view camera…..as well as my Holga!

[Kirk Gittings]

IME and in similar testing I have done, David's summation is largely right. While I still prefer the character of 4x5 film for my personal work, in a pinch I have successfully used stitching to produce exhibition quality files which look good next to scanned 4x5 film prints. Cost comparisons are very valid in larger formats, but the quality is there.

BTW, Donald I have revisited your HDR method using Luminosity masks to get rid of some of the weirdness. It works pretty well.

[David Luttmann]

IME and in similar testing I have done, David's summation is largely right. While I still prefer the character of 4x5 film for my personal work, in a pinch I have successfully used stitching to produce exhibition quality files which look good next to scanned 4x5 film prints. Cost comparisons are very valid in larger formats, but the quality is there.

BTW, Donald I have revisited your HDR method using Luminosity masks to get rid of some of the weirdness. It works pretty well.

I think you hit on it well Kirk. Like I said, regardless of resolution, etc, etc, the film files look different….you referred to it a character. Some people will prefer one over the other, or use both to their best capabilities. I will never again shoot a wedding with film, but I’ll be using 4x5 B&W for as long as I can for landscapes! I like the way B&W film renders the scene straight from the scan. To get the digital file to have the same look requires a fair bit of post processing.

[Gordon Moat]

Actually,

For digital capture, it's not meaningless as the file size for digital capture is the base resolution. For film scans, file size is meaningless. A 99mb 16 bit file from a FF DSLR will do far better than a 225mb, 5200ppi scan of 35mm film. This can be evidenced by comparing a 30” color print from 35mm and from a FF DSLR like the 1Ds Mk2. That 99mb digital file trounces that 225mb film file. For film it’s meaningless…for digital it’s not.

I would question your eyesight if you think a 30" from any file from any D-SLR looks good; and yes I have seen many, including from (supposedly) masters of digital printing. File size is not resolution. The best of D-SLRs barely makes 60 lp/mm in true resolution. If you are going up in size more than 20x, then you are left with barely 3 lp/mm on the print. What you are probably assuming as resolution is actually sharpness, or edge definition.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Donald Miller]

IME and in similar testing I have done, David's summation is largely right. While I still prefer the character of 4x5 film for my personal work, in a pinch I have successfully used stitching to produce exhibition quality files which look good next to scanned 4x5 film prints. Cost comparisons are very valid in larger formats, but the quality is there.

BTW, Donald I have revisited your HDR method using Luminosity masks to get rid of some of the weirdness. It works pretty well.


Kirk,
Thanks for sharing that. I have used either/or but not the two combined...I will give it a go.

[David Luttmann]

I would question your eyesight if you think a 30" from any file from any D-SLR looks good; and yes I have seen many, including from (supposedly) masters of digital printing. File size is not resolution. The best of D-SLRs barely makes 60 lp/mm in true resolution. If you are going up in size more than 20x, then you are left with barely 3 lp/mm on the print. What you are probably assuming as resolution is actually sharpness, or edge definition.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Sorry, file size for digital capture is directly related to the resolution of the file. However, I was comparing the 1Ds Mk2 to 35mm color film. For that, if you think the film file will have better color, resolution, and smoother tonality than the 17mp DSLR at 30" then it's not my eyes that need checking! And you won't find many people who shoot with both in agreement with you I'm afraid!

[sanking]

[QUOTE=Gordon Moat;347734]File size is not resolution. The best of D-SLRs barely makes 60 lp/mm in true resolution. If you are going up in size more than 20x, then you are left with barely 3 lp/mm on the print. What you are probably assuming as resolution is actually sharpness, or edge definition.

Ciao!

[QUOTE]

Actually, slightly less than 3 lines/mm. 20X from a full sensor DSLR, where 60 lines/mm is the theoretical best possible, would result in just a tad more than 2 lines/mm.

As is well known, digital files are very clean and can be interpolated up and still look good. But not even the best interpolation software can create more resolution than is in the original file.

An apple to apple comparison of digital to film is quite complicated and must take into consideration the following factors.

1. The potential in resolution of the camera system in lines/mm, and the size of the sensor or film.
2. ISO of the film and speed at which the digital camera is used.
3. Effective resolution of the film scan.
3. Size of the final print.
4. Resolution of the output device.

File size, either a file produced from a digital camera, or one produced from a file scan, is totally meaningless. Yes, as Robert suggested, a 35mm scan at 5000 spi will produce a file size of around 200 mb, but to take full advantage of all that information would require a camera system that is putting 100 lines/mm on film, and scanner that is actually scanning at 100 lines/mm. Unless you have a Leica camera with a high quality Leitz lens on a tripod, used at optimum aperture, use a high resolution film, and have a drum scan made at 5000 spi, much of the information in the 200 mb file will be trash. To say nothing of film grain.

On the other hand, proponents of digital capture nearly always talk of sharpness, and effectively ignore the fact that anything over 15X from a full sensor DSLR is going to have very low real resolution.

In any event, based on the work I have seen, my own opinion is that a full sensor DSLR that can capture 60 lines/mm has a significant advantage over a 35mm film camera, except with very slow film and a high quality camera/lens system.

Sandy King

[sanking]

Sorry, file size for digital capture is directly related to the resolution of the file. However, I was comparing the 1Ds Mk2 to 35mm color film. For that, if you think the film file will have better color, resolution, and smoother tonality than the 17mp DSLR at 30" then it's not my eyes that need checking! And you won't find many people who shoot with both in agreement with you I'm afraid!

I think you must have mis-read Gordon's message. He did not compare 17mp DSLR to 35mm film, but merely stated that a full sensor DSLR is only capable of a maximum of 3 lines/mm at 20X. I think the point is that 4X5 fillm is capable of a lot more resolution than DSLR. If you print small enough it won't matter, but in prints 30" wide or more I don't believe any one would claim that DSLR equals 4X5. Or are you suggesting that?


Sandy

[David Luttmann]

I think you must have mis-read Gordon's message. He did not compare 17mp DSLR to 35mm film, but merely stated that a full sensor DSLR is only capable of a maximum of 3 lines/mm at 20X. I think the point is that 4X5 fillm is capable of a lot more resolution than DSLR. If you print small enough it won't matter, but in prints 30" wide or more I don't believe any one would claim that DSLR equals 4X5. Or are you suggesting that?


Sandy

My mistake. But I was comparing FF DSLR with 35mm. For that, at 30", the DSLR will look far better than a scan from color film. As to 30” prints looking awful from FF DSLRs….I’ve done 30” prints from the 1Ds Mk2 where other photographers actually argued with me that they were drum scanned MF 6x7. But you are correct….Gordon didn’t mention 35mm…..my bad :)

[Gordon Moat]

Sorry, file size for digital capture is directly related to the resolution of the file. However, I was comparing the 1Ds Mk2 to 35mm color film. For that, if you think the film file will have better color, resolution, and smoother tonality than the 17mp DSLR at 30" then it's not my eyes that need checking! And you won't find many people who shoot with both in agreement with you I'm afraid!

You missed it David, I said nothing about the film file and was strictly commenting about the digital file. I don't think either drum scanned 35mm film, nor any D-SLR will print a nice 30" image, and I have yet to see any print that changes my mind about that. If you think every pixel captures a line of detail, and that file size is an indication of true resolution, then we are not even on the same page of a discussion. Even if the sensor theoretically achieved one line resolution per pixel row or column, the majority of the current lenses don't resolve that well, especially not from Canon.

Further, take two shots with a 1DsMarkII (or MarkIII, or Nikon D2X), one hand held, and the other tripod mounted: both files will be the same dimensions, but the tripod shot will appear sharper than the hand held shot . . . this is an example of resolution. Granted that English is my second language, so if when I state optical resolution in a statement, feel free to suggest better terminology, and I will be happy to use it later.

The reality of the original topic and question here is that large format is more than enough, and sometimes too much for some printing usage. Even the largest of magazines is substantially under utilizing scanned large format. This is why smaller formats, film or digital, are quite good enough for publication. It is the movements of view cameras that allow an advantage over smaller cameras, not strictly the film area, especially when it is not being used.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Gordon Moat]

I think you must have mis-read Gordon's message. He did not compare 17mp DSLR to 35mm film, but merely stated that a full sensor DSLR is only capable of a maximum of 3 lines/mm at 20X. I think the point is that 4X5 fillm is capable of a lot more resolution than DSLR. If you print small enough it won't matter, but in prints 30" wide or more I don't believe any one would claim that DSLR equals 4X5. Or are you suggesting that?


Sandy

An apology to David on this. I could have stated it more clearly. Thanks to Sandy for stating this better.

[David Luttmann]

You missed it David, I said nothing about the film file and was strictly commenting about the digital file. I don't think either drum scanned 35mm film, nor any D-SLR will print a nice 30" image, and I have yet to see any print that changes my mind about that. If you think every pixel captures a line of detail, and that file size is an indication of true resolution, then we are not even on the same page of a discussion. Even if the sensor theoretically achieved one line resolution per pixel row or column, the majority of the current lenses don't resolve that well, especially not from Canon.

Further, take two shots with a 1DsMarkII (or MarkIII, or Nikon D2X), one hand held, and the other tripod mounted: both files will be the same dimensions, but the tripod shot will appear sharper than the hand held shot . . . this is an example of resolution. Granted that English is my second language, so if when I state optical resolution in a statement, feel free to suggest better terminology, and I will be happy to use it later.

The reality of the original topic and question here is that large format is more than enough, and sometimes too much for some printing usage. Even the largest of magazines is substantially under utilizing scanned large format. This is why smaller formats, film or digital, are quite good enough for publication. It is the movements of view cameras that allow an advantage over smaller cameras, not strictly the film area, especially when it is not being used.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

I see what you mean. I referred to the fact that on tripod or not, the file size for the D2X for example will always be 4288 pixels wide. The film file can be scanned at higher and higher resolutions....but the real rez doesn't increase. That is what I meant by the digital file size reflecting the max rez.

Your english is fine. My spelling however leaves a lot to be desired! :D

[sanking]

The film file can be scanned at higher and higher resolutions....but the real rez doesn't increase. That is what I meant by the digital file size reflecting the max rez.



Not necessarily. The real resolution of a film scan depends on how much information, in detail ,is carried by the film, and on the effective resolution of the scanner.

For example, a negative made with a Lecia camera and a high quality Leitz lens, on a tripod, with a high speed slow film like Adox 25, will have real resolution on the order of 125-60 lines/mm. That is at least 2X-3X as much resolution as you could get with a full sensor DSLR, and the grain is virtually non-existent in ASA 25 film, so it could be enlarged to 40" wide and still have about 10 lines/mm of resolution, much more than the top quality DSLR on the market today. This is not theory. I have seen such an image, scanned with a drum scanner at 4000 spi, and the drum scanner was the limit to resolution, not the negative.

You could scan this 35mm negative on an Epsosn V750, but any real resolution of more than about 40 lines/mm would be lost. However, if you were to do a drum scan with an Aztek Premier at 8000 spi you would capture all of the resolution of the film up to about 160 lines/mm.

Sandy King

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

hmmm.....maybe the name of this forum should be changed to dslrs and those who use them because they cannot use a LF camera. Funny how even a clearly LF topic is steered towars dslrs.

No offense Sandy but why don't you guys take it to a digital forum? I doubt this discussion is benefiting the person who made the original post, and as always was highjacked by someone who is utterly ignorant of LF.

[sanking]

hmmm.....maybe the name of this forum should be changed to dslrs and those who use them because they cannot use a LF camera. Funny how even a clearly LF topic is steered towars dslrs.

No offense Sandy but why don't you guys take it to a digital forum? I doubt this discussion is benefiting the person who made the original post, and as always was highjacked by someone who is utterly ignorant of LF.


That is true. The current comments do not reflect the name of the thread, but that changed long before I joined the discussion. So in the sense that the thread was hijacked, youi are correct.

However, as far as LF is concerned the comments are relevant since the comparisons, at least some of them, are being made between DSLR and LF, and that is perfectly appropriate for the LF forum, IMO. In this type of discussion, given that LF and digital are linked, it is hard to see how one crosses the line. For example, people are using P45 digital backs, which have a sensor size of only about 1.9"X1.4", on LF cameras. Is that not relevant to the LF forum? Best to not get to anal about what is discussed, IMO. If I have to err one way or the other, it is on freedom in allowing people to say what they want to say.

In any event, I don't fit into your category of those who have DSLR and can't use LF, for the simple reason that I don't own a DSLR, though I have a really nice little Canon G9 point and shoot!! But I don't talk about the G9 here. But also, I really do have some mediocre understanding of the use of LF, at least IMHO.

Sandy

[Clay Turtle]

Actually,

For digital capture, it's not meaningless as the file size for digital capture is the base resolution. For film scans, file size is meaningless. A 99mb 16 bit file from a FF DSLR will do far better than a 225mb, 5200ppi scan of 35mm film. This can be evidenced by comparing a 30” color print from 35mm and from a FF DSLR like the 1Ds Mk2. That 99mb digital file trounces that 225mb film file. For film it’s meaningless…for digital it’s not. Gee, Iwould have to see that to believe it, man where did I leave my hip waders?
So if I am understanding you correctly then the larger file is inferior to the smaller file because of the camera, ie the digital camera output is direct to digital while film is scanned? So it is then the scanning an image which is inferior?

[David Luttmann]

That is true. The current comments do not reflect the name of the thread, but that changed long before I joined the discussion. So in the sense that the thread was hijacked, youi are correct.

However, as far as LF is concerned the comments are relevant since the comparisons, at least some of them, are being made between DSLR and LF, and that is perfectly appropriate for the LF forum, IMO. In this type of discussion, given that LF and digital are linked, it is hard to see how one crosses the line. For example, people are using P45 digital backs, which have a sensor size of only about 1.9"X1.4", on LF cameras. Is that not relevant to the LF forum? Best to not get to anal about what is discussed, IMO. If I have to err one way or the other, it is on freedom in allowing people to say what they want to say.

In any event, I don't fit into your category of those who have DSLR and can't use LF, for the simple reason that I don't own a DSLR, though I have a really nice little Canon G9 point and shoot!! But I don't talk about the G9 here. But also, I really do have some mediocre understanding of the use of LF, at least IMHO.

Sandy

Sandy....quit quoting him....it renders my "ignore" selection useless. I'd say everyone here knows how to use a LF camera....and a DSLR is easy to use as well. Unfortunately, some people appear to think that using a LF camera requires some magical skill. They are fairly easy to use without any issue.

[David Luttmann]

Gee, Iwould have to see that to believe it, man where did I leave my hip waders?
So if I am understanding you correctly then the larger file is inferior to the smaller file because of the camera, ie the digital camera output is direct to digital while film is scanned? So it is then the scanning an image which is inferior?

In this case, for the color film use I mentioned, there just isn't 225 meg of data there to start with. You can scan it at 8000ppi on an Imacon if you like....you won't find any real gain. My reference is made with comparing a 1Ds Mk2 to 35mm Astia. Image was taken with my Bessa R2A and 35mm Leica lens. One scan was on my Nikon 9000, another on an Imacon at 8000ppi. This generated a huge scan.....but with no more info than the 4000ppi scan because it was grain limited.

Sandy is correct about B&W though....the extra rez is useful until grain becomes an issue....and Adox 25 has virtually no grain. 16x24 prints I've done from scans on my Nikon 9000 show that the print is scanner limited....not film limited.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk,
Thanks for sharing that. I have used either/or but not the two combined...I will give it a go.

My memory is failing, I remembered that was your idea!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

the comments are relevant since the comparisons, at least some of them, are being made between DSLR and LF

Are they? Why make such ridiculous comparisons? And this being a LF froum, who really cares about what those using dslrs think? If they think that a dslr is better than LF, nothing you say will make this person change his mind, specially since he is most likely comparing his dslr pics to his less than adequate LF pics.


For example, people are using P45 digital backs, which have a sensor size of only about 1.9"X1.4", on LF cameras. Is that not relevant to the LF forum? Best to not get to anal about what is discussed, IMO. If I have to err one way or the other, it is on freedom in allowing people to say what they want to say.

No one in this thread has mentioned a digital back for LF cameras, and being that there are only a couple of people in this forum who own them and use them, and they are not participating in this thread, this is a moot point. If Jim Collum (the only one I know who uses a digital back in this forum) was participating then it might be somewhat relevant. But we go back to dslr, you might think that I am being "anal", I like to think I am asking for a little courtesy and for you and the guy who cannot use anything else other than a dslr to take discussions about dslr somewhere else. Freedom to say what you want is not the same as you and more specifically the guy obssesed with dslrs to force the rest of the community to have to read about them.

Once again, a good LF thread has been ruined by this person who is has no idea about LF and has to bring back any discussion about LF to digital and dslr.

[windpointphoto]

Are they? Why make such ridiculous comparisons? And this being a LF froum, who really cares about what those using dslrs think? If they think that a dslr is better than LF, nothing you say will make this person change his mind, specially since he is most likely comparing his dslr pics to his less than adequate LF pics.

Once again, a good LF thread has been ruined by this person who is has no idea about LF and has to bring back any discussion about LF to digital and dslr.


Really true! I come here to gain knowledge, whether I agree or disagree on the opinions, on LF. I use LF for some things and digital for others. While I feel the quality on digital has improved greatly over the past few years it's still the photographer's choice. Unlike alot of folks I actually tested the issue with an 8x10 contact print and the same photograph in digital, printed and framed. Use what you're happy with and enjoy.

[David Luttmann]

Freedom to say what you want is not the same as you and more specifically the guy obssesed with dslrs to force the rest of the community to have to read about them.

Once again, a good LF thread has been ruined by this person who is has no idea about LF and has to bring back any discussion about LF to digital and dslr.

Someone brought this part of the thread to my attention. Evidently, some people aren't clever enough to use the ignore button.....even when they say they have. Maybe if these people actually read the whole thread, they'll see it was not me that started the digital part of it. As well, if they don't like it, they don't need to read it. Finally, it had nothing to do with LF vs DSLRs.....not sure where you got that, but we were talking about 35mm film scans. Maybe a lesson on how to read may help as well.

Finally, maybe another lesson on how to select the ignore feature is in order....as well as avoiding threads that have digital in the heading. Not sure why you keep reading those anyway!

[sanking]

The message of the OP was this.

"Are there people out their still getting paid well enough to be shooting large format and film?
How is business these days. I pretty much shoot all digital commercially now."

My take on his comment, and the subsequent messages, is that this type of discussion is entirely appropriate and relevant to the LF forum. I think when people find that digital replaces LF for commercial work it is an interesting subject of conversation to understand the pros and cons.

Take Kirk Gittings use of DSLR for much of his current commercial work with architectural photography. Frankly, my own thoughts would have been that this type of photography would have been one of the last places DSLR would replace a view camera. But Kirk is a professional photographer who works in this field and if anyone should know what works it is a person like him who has experience with both LF and DSLR. So I have read his remarks on the subject with interest, and have learned from them.

On the whole I find discussions where the pros and cons of different capture media are discussed both interesting and useful, especially when the discussion involves LF compared to some other type of capture, be that MF film, DSLR or digital back on a LF camera. As far as I am concerned, any discussion of this type is relevant to the LF forum.

And if it is not, there are moderators who can move it to the Lounge.

Sandy King

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

My take on his comment, and the subsequent messages, is that this type of discussion is entirely appropriate and relevant to the LF forum. I think when people find that digital replaces LF for commercial work it is an interesting subject of conversation to understand the pros and cons.

Is it enterily appropiate because you say so? Is LF being replaced with dslrs? And if it is, is it not a more appropiate place a dgital dslr forum to discuss this?
YOu say to understand the pros and cons, I hate to tell you this, but you are not going to change anybodies mind here. Either pro or con, I disagree with you when you say digital negatives are just as good as in camera negatives, but since we are never going to agree why waste the time and more annoy the rest of the people going back and forth.

My take on the OP is very different than yours, so right there we once again disagree.


Take Kirk Gittings use of DSLR for much of his current commercial work with architectural photography. Frankly, my own thoughts would have been that this type of photography would have been one of the last places DSLR would replace a view camera. But Kirk is a professional photographer who works in this field and if anyone should know what works it is a person like him who has experience with both LF and DSLR. So I have read his remarks on the subject with interest, and have learned from them.

Yeah, and you notice Kirk as a professional has the courtesy not to discuss dslrs here. Besides, I don't see him participating here other than making a couple of comments about Donald's technique, whatever that is. More importantly, there is a very big difference between Kirk and the "professional" wedding photographer. One knows what he is talking about, the other one does not.


On the whole I find discussions where the pros and cons of different capture media are discussed both interesting and useful

You do, some of us don't and since this started as a thread that had nothing to do with digital slrs it would have been nice if it was kept this way.


And if it is not, there are moderators who can move it to the Lounge.

This is true, and as I stated before another nice LF thread ruined and moved to the lounge as it happened to the one before.

[sanking]

Jorge,

You have your opinion. I have mine. But this is not your forum, and it is not mine. If the moderators don't consider the thread relevant to LF use, they are free to delete it, or move it to the lounge.

I try to be courteous in my exchanges with others, but I am not going to roll over and play dead because you, or Dave, or anyone else, does not agree with me.

If you don't like the discussion, ignore it. Or lobby the moderators to move it to the lounge.

Sandy King

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

You have your opinion. I have mine. But this is not your forum, and it is not mine. If the moderators don't consider the thread relevant to LF use, they are free to delete it, or move it to the lounge.

I try to be courteous in my exchanges with others, but I am not going to roll over and play dead because you, or Dave, or anyone else, does not agree with me.

If you don't like the discussion, ignore it. Or lobby the moderators to move it to the lounge.

Sandy King

Well sure, now I know to ignore it since it has gone to shit. The annoying part was checking the thread and seeing all this talk about dslrs.

I did not ask you to roll over and play dead, I asked you to have some courtesy since I thought you would be the more reasonable one to ask this, I guess you proved me wrong in both instances.

[Garry Madlung]

DLSRs do what a lot of the public thinks that LF can do. It just doesn 't do it as well. For a lot of applications, DLSRs are sufficient. If it's convenient for me, I will through in a few LF shot for my cleints, hoping that they will see the value in them. I'm sure that there are plenty of photographers out there who have clients who want and expect the resolution of LF. They're, perhaps, too busy to get into this discussion with the rest of us.

[jeffacme]

As a long time commercially driven shooter, mostly ads, I long for the days when I priced film in square feet and a good job was shot on 8x10. Those days are gone now and where my freezer once contained cases of 4x5 and 8x10 trans a lonely box of 4x5 EPP shivers in silence. Do I make money on LF I wish!

I have always felt that the difference is poetry not technology. What sets one shooter apart makes one studio more successful relates more to image content than pixels or film grain.

To state that LF still rules is to ignore the fact that a great shooter with 6mp can crush a neophyte with a 4x5. To state that a DSLR cannot produce a good 30" print is to be ignorant of what makes a good 30" print. I say it's poetry not pixels.

But if we must digress into the technical to bolster egos and make ourselves seem smarter I guess we must.

The whole leica on a tripod with 25 asa film, please, I'll take a 1ds mk3 and the universe of creative possibilities it offers off the tripod in a heart beat.

The I need 125mp to equal 4x5, get real, I have scanned bucket loads of 4x5 on my flextight and my rule of thumb is as follows.

4x5 = 125-150 MB of scanned info before EPP film grain becomes an issue. My p45+ produces 112MB of info per 8bit capture. Damn close and if you make big prints and really look the 4x5 is a hair better in optimum conditions.

MF trans = 60-70 MB of info before film grain becomes an issue. My mk3s produce 60MB of info in a far more flexible system, no contest for me and my clients.

35mm, forget about it DSLR capture has buried it long ago.

I am surprised to see no mention of dynamic range. I have never in 30 years seen the kind of dynamic range produced by my P45+ it is a revolution in image capture. No film I have ever shot is in the same room, period.

Fire away folks, but I would love to see this thread ended by those who are still making money with LF and not a dissection of our differences by those who only hold to one train of thought

Shoot whatever you want just make sure the poetry is there.

Oh yeah, anybody wanna buy a couple 8x10 Kardan Masters and a half dozen T stopped Schneider APO lenses?

[Once]

No, but could you lend me some?

[domenico Foschi]

No, but could you lend me some?

Hey, asking doesn't hurt, right? :)

[Gordon Moat]

Welcome to the group Jeff. Almost funny to diss comments about technology, then wax lyrically about technology . . . nearly poetry by itself.

I saw an exhibit at MOPA last year that was all 35mm. The images were very compelling, some quite moving, several printed large . . . and none who saw that exhibit complained about 35mm not being good enough; indeed, any comments were about the content of the images. Unfortunately we are in an age of perceptions, and showing up on most paid gigs with only 35mm would be frowned upon.

So we are in an era were some feel they need to impress others with their gear, at least professionally. There is an implied notion that when you spent large sums of money on gear, somehow you are adding value to what you shoot for the client. The portfolios of those at the top don't indicate what gear was used, and they don't need to because the images do enough of the talking. Professionally we need to be more than simply a rental house for our clients, though that might be simply my opinion.

If you want to sell your 8x10, you might try contacting Olaf Veltman (http://www.olaf-veltman.com/flash.php?plugin=gotflash) or Craig McDean, though I think both were using Sinar cameras (McDean also uses an RZ67 sometimes). Then you have others like Andric (http://www.andric.biz), or Mats Cordt (http://www.matscordt.com/). In fact, a glance through Lürzer's Archive 200 Best Ad Photographers (Fall 2007) indicates about a third of the top shooters using large format, all delivering digitally, and many doing their own post processing.

I attended an interesting seminar last year put on by APA, which featured ad shooter Dana Neibert. Prior to the start of that event, many other photographers were speculating on what high end gear this top level shooter used, especially since the accounts he was shooting could easily afford him the choice of anything. On top of that, he had only been a photographer for less than eight years. It was quite the epiphany for many of us to discover that he used an old Crown Graphic and one lens for nearly everything he shot, and an Imacon scanner . . . why was I beating myself up over gear; seriously, I have better gear than Dana Neibert . . . . . . So what all that led me to do was to think more about my images, and less about what gear I was hauling to a location (rented, leased, or bought).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Once]

Hey, asking doesn't hurt, right? :)

This is a friendly forum, right? The lucky ones help the rest of us, no..? :)

[jeffacme]

Hey Gordon, Yes many of my comments were aimed at stirring the hornets nest and then leading the discussion to what really makes a great picture.

You are right, especially in the commercial ad realm perception does lead many, myself included, to hi end techno geekery. Some of that is due to legitimate specs. It is nice to have 11x17 at 300 dpi res when shooting for AR or pubs even better to have a bit more for multiple ad spaces and cropping felxibility. The thing most AD's either don't know or have forgotten is that we never used all that 4x5 or even MF res anyway.

It is funny you bring up the mighty Crown Graphic. Mine with it's 127mm Ektar remains one of my favorite cameras. Almost my constant companion in the early years it still can make great pictures and having spent $50.00 for it and 10 film holders does speak volumes about the relationship between content and quality vs technical perfection.

Thanks for the welcome. As for the gear I could never really sell I might shoot 8x10 again someday.

[jetcode]

When I looked at lease rates, purchase, upgrade life, and additional computer needs, it made more sense to rent a MFDB when/if needed, though those times have been rare. Renting allows you to have the latest digital gear when you need it ...


I wanted to rent the latest Hasselblad 39MP at Calumet ... one small problem. They required a $30k deposit on a credit card yikes!

[roteague]

4x5 = 125-150 MB of scanned info before EPP film grain becomes an issue.

I find I can easily go to 325MB scans from 4x5 quite readily without grain becoming an issue; but I only shoot Velvia, and my scans are done on a Tango.

[jeffacme]

Robert, By becoming an issue I mean the point where I am enlarging film grain. I consider that the effective resolution of the piece of film in the scanner. Sure I can add more MB to the scan but I am only enlarging grain and what's the point. Velvia is great film but the color balance is biased and for my purposes not an everyday film. I would expect the tighter grain of Velvia in particular the 50 ISO to yield bigger files and if it works for you that is great.

I don't want debate all the finite details. It is my belief that dwelling on them keeps me from making the best picture I can. As I said shoot whatever you like just make sure the poetry is there

[roteague]

Robert, By becoming an issue I mean the point where I am enlarging film grain. I consider that the effective resolution of the piece of film in the scanner. Sure I can add more MB to the scan but I am only enlarging grain and what's the point.

I generally limit my scans to no more than 5000 dpi. It isn't so much the grain you get, but you start getting a bouncing effect caused by the space between the grains. A 325MB scan, which is about 2500 dpi, will easily produce any size print I need to do.


Velvia is great film but the color balance is biased and for my purposes not an everyday film. I would expect the tighter grain of Velvia in particular the 50 ISO to yield bigger files and if it works for you that is great.

Yeah, Velvia isn't a good film for doing commercial work, but works great for landscapes, which is all I do.

[David Luttmann]

As a long time commercially driven shooter, mostly ads, I long for the days when I priced film in square feet and a good job was shot on 8x10. Those days are gone now and where my freezer once contained cases of 4x5 and 8x10 trans a lonely box of 4x5 EPP shivers in silence. Do I make money on LF I wish!

I have always felt that the difference is poetry not technology. What sets one shooter apart makes one studio more successful relates more to image content than pixels or film grain.

To state that LF still rules is to ignore the fact that a great shooter with 6mp can crush a neophyte with a 4x5. To state that a DSLR cannot produce a good 30" print is to be ignorant of what makes a good 30" print. I say it's poetry not pixels.

But if we must digress into the technical to bolster egos and make ourselves seem smarter I guess we must.

The whole leica on a tripod with 25 asa film, please, I'll take a 1ds mk3 and the universe of creative possibilities it offers off the tripod in a heart beat.

The I need 125mp to equal 4x5, get real, I have scanned bucket loads of 4x5 on my flextight and my rule of thumb is as follows.

4x5 = 125-150 MB of scanned info before EPP film grain becomes an issue. My p45+ produces 112MB of info per 8bit capture. Damn close and if you make big prints and really look the 4x5 is a hair better in optimum conditions.

MF trans = 60-70 MB of info before film grain becomes an issue. My mk3s produce 60MB of info in a far more flexible system, no contest for me and my clients.

35mm, forget about it DSLR capture has buried it long ago.

I am surprised to see no mention of dynamic range. I have never in 30 years seen the kind of dynamic range produced by my P45+ it is a revolution in image capture. No film I have ever shot is in the same room, period.

Fire away folks, but I would love to see this thread ended by those who are still making money with LF and not a dissection of our differences by those who only hold to one train of thought

Shoot whatever you want just make sure the poetry is there.

Oh yeah, anybody wanna buy a couple 8x10 Kardan Masters and a half dozen T stopped Schneider APO lenses?

Always nice to read something from someone who has actually compared differences. Welcome.

[Donald Miller]

As a long time commercially driven shooter, mostly ads, I long for the days when I priced film in square feet and a good job was shot on 8x10. Those days are gone now and where my freezer once contained cases of 4x5 and 8x10 trans a lonely box of 4x5 EPP shivers in silence. Do I make money on LF I wish!

I have always felt that the difference is poetry not technology. What sets one shooter apart makes one studio more successful relates more to image content than pixels or film grain.

To state that LF still rules is to ignore the fact that a great shooter with 6mp can crush a neophyte with a 4x5. To state that a DSLR cannot produce a good 30" print is to be ignorant of what makes a good 30" print. I say it's poetry not pixels.

But if we must digress into the technical to bolster egos and make ourselves seem smarter I guess we must.

The whole leica on a tripod with 25 asa film, please, I'll take a 1ds mk3 and the universe of creative possibilities it offers off the tripod in a heart beat.

The I need 125mp to equal 4x5, get real, I have scanned bucket loads of 4x5 on my flextight and my rule of thumb is as follows.

4x5 = 125-150 MB of scanned info before EPP film grain becomes an issue. My p45+ produces 112MB of info per 8bit capture. Damn close and if you make big prints and really look the 4x5 is a hair better in optimum conditions.

MF trans = 60-70 MB of info before film grain becomes an issue. My mk3s produce 60MB of info in a far more flexible system, no contest for me and my clients.

35mm, forget about it DSLR capture has buried it long ago.

I am surprised to see no mention of dynamic range. I have never in 30 years seen the kind of dynamic range produced by my P45+ it is a revolution in image capture. No film I have ever shot is in the same room, period.

Fire away folks, but I would love to see this thread ended by those who are still making money with LF and not a dissection of our differences by those who only hold to one train of thought

Shoot whatever you want just make sure the poetry is there.

Oh yeah, anybody wanna buy a couple 8x10 Kardan Masters and a half dozen T stopped Schneider APO lenses?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your actual experiences... this has provided a refreshing breath of reason in the midst of what too often is a highly biased and prejudiced viewpoint at the expense of rational thought.

[roteague]

35mm, forget about it DSLR capture has buried it long ago.

That is debatable, and depends upon your point of view. I have both a D200 and an F6. I always choose the F6 over the D200 -- and there are still professionals using 35mm. You can stick with a DSLR, I'll stick with my F6.

[jeffacme]

That is debatable, and depends upon your point of view. I have both a D200 and an F6. I always choose the F6 over the D200 -- and there are still professionals using 35mm. You can stick with a DSLR, I'll stick with my F6.

Hello Robert, You are responding to "my" rule of thumb so whatever works for you is great. But I will stick to the ongoing evolution of digital capture and what has kept my studio successful and my clients happy. My comments describe the path I have taken and in my market LF is rarely an option these days. I see the real culprit as time, there is just less of it in the process today not to mention the dwindling availability of E6 processing. I could setup a line but for me that would be a huge mistake, much more costly and less productive than the next MF digital back. I need to be out shooting, not training a new lab tech.

Thanks to David, Donald, and Gordon for your comments.

[jeffacme]

Wow even though I agree with Marko's comment I am absolutely astounded that all those posts have been deleted. Can you say censorship? Sorry but this is BS, I am out!

[sanking]

Wow even though I agree with Marko's comment I am absolutely astounded that all those posts have been deleted. Can you say censorship? Sorry but this is BS, I am out!

What do you expect when some members want to censure the comments of others?

Not backbone from the moderators I hope.

Sandy King

[jetcode]

this hostility has been brewing for quite awhile and certain members are prone to an elitist point of view which they are assured buys them the bandwidth to trash others freely

moderators are dealing with this appropriately and shouldn't have to deal with this at all however I am looking for a forum that celebrates photography not a forum that celebrates format

as far as the DSLR phobes ... well I do hope they find some peace of mind soon

[David Luttmann]

this hostility has been brewing for quite awhile and certain members are prone to an elitist point of view which they are assured buys them the bandwidth to trash others freely

moderators are dealing with this appropriately and shouldn't have to deal with this at all however I am looking for a forum that celebrates photography not a forum that celebrates format

as far as the DSLR phobes ... well I do hope they find some peace of mind soon

Banning a certain forum member would have made this thread perfectly fine. Unfortunately, rather than getting to the root of the problem.......

[sanking]

as far as the DSLR phobes ... well I do hope they find some peace of mind soon

And others should show more knowledge and understanding of the preference many of us still have for film. There is no doubt in my mind but that if I were a commercial photographer making my living from advertisements, portraits, wedding, glamor shots, etc. I would own and use a lot of high-end digital equipment. The business is competitive and one must do what they have to do to survive.

However, this is a LF forum, and most of use who reside here do not making our living in the commercial world, and we have chosen to use LF for one of several reasons, of which the most important is probably quality. And of the people who use LF cameras for quality reasons the great majority do primarily B&W. This certainly describes my own work. I chose LF because of great detail and tonal values that it gives.

But, it is not always possible to use a LF camera so many of us use smaller, more portable cameras for some of our work where it is not practical to use LF. I have chosen to work with the Mamiya 7II when the 5X7 view camera can not go. If I could buy a DSLR for under $10,000 that could match the Mamiya 7II in terms of quality in a large B&W print I would do so in a second. Now, others may find that some of the features of DSLR suit their needs, say the ability to do HDR work in scenes of great contrast, or the ability to take multiple shots and stitch, or the fidelity of the color, or just the instant gratification capturing the image. I understand these creative features and recognize their value but I don't personally need or want them, certainly not when the trade off is quality in terms of detail. I primarily want a negative with a lot of detail that will give me the capability to make a large monochrome print as close in quality as possible to what I get from my 5X7.

Sandy King

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well put Sandy.

[David Luttmann]

I agree Sandy.

That isn't the issue though. For some people, utilizing some digital aspects of photography is important. We don’t need people with personal bias or an attack agenda to go after everyone that mentions digital printing, capture, processing, etc, etc just because they don’t like it. It is not up to them to police the forum and decide what is suitable and what isn’t. We don’t need to be told that we are stupid because we meter with a histogram from an LCD. Some of us are perfectly fine with integrating digital technology into part of our LF workflow.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with those who choose to print digitally, prefer to scan film for output, use the histogram on their LCD for metering, zoom in on an LCD digital back for focusing, discuss different inkjet papers, inksets and longevity, etc, etc. Unfortunately, there are a few individuals….one in particular….that destroys threads with that contain that information….even if the heading is digital. This is not open to interpretation as a simple review of the threads show exactly who causes the problems.

Rather than telling everyone they are wrong, stupid, etc, maybe it’s time for them to leave and let the rest us....those that can discuss topics without resorting to name calling and personal attacks at every opportunity.....enjoy discussing all the different aspects of LF photography and technique of capture and output.

[Don Hutton]

I agree Sandy.

That isn't the issue though. For some people, utilizing some digital aspects of photography is important. We don’t need people with personal bias or an attack agenda to go after everyone that mentions digital printing, capture, processing, etc, etc just because they don’t like it. It is not up to them to police the forum and decide what is suitable and what isn’t. We don’t need to be told that we are stupid because we meter with a histogram from an LCD. Some of us are perfectly fine with integrating digital technology into part of our LF workflow.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with those who choose to print digitally, prefer to scan film for output, use the histogram on their LCD for metering, zoom in on an LCD digital back for focusing, discuss different inkjet papers, inksets and longevity, etc, etc. Unfortunately, there are a few individuals….one in particular….that destroys threads with that contain that information….even if the heading is digital. This is not open to interpretation as a simple review of the threads show exactly who causes the problems.

Rather than telling everyone they are wrong, stupid, etc, maybe it’s time for them to leave and let the rest us....those that can discuss topics without resorting to name calling and personal attacks at every opportunity.....enjoy discussing all the different aspects of LF photography and technique of capture and output.David

What's with the "we this" and "we that" or has the Queen recently bestowed upon you some royal entitlement to the royal plural "we" are unaware of? You seem to have been harassing Jorge at every opportunity too - just about every time he makes a post, you respond (although you go to great pains to tell us he's on "ignore"... yeah sure)...

If you want to be treated like an adult, behave like one. Begging for the moderators to ban him???... School's out.

[David Luttmann]

David

What's with the "we this" and "we that" or has the Queen recently bestowed upon you some royal entitlement to the royal plural "we" are unaware of? You seem to have been harassing Jorge at every opportunity too - just about every time he makes a post, you respond (although you go to great pains to tell us he's on "ignore"... yeah sure)...

If you want to be treated like an adult, behave like one. Begging for the moderators to ban him???... School's out.

"We" refers to the numerous people Jorge personally attacks. As it is more than one, and I form part of that group, it cannot be referred to in the singular.

Not sure why that was difficult to understand....but now you know.

[Don Hutton]

I just hadn't realized that you had been elected the class rep. at the kindergarden.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Since Don quoted one of the clowns and I was forced to read the post, a few things strike me a funny. One, that apparently I have been doing all the attacking and they are lilly white.... as they saying goes, it takes two to tango, the fact that I am having a battle of wits with some unarmed people is not my fault.

Second, since I have put the gaggle of clowns on ignore, I have not responded to any of their comments since I don't read them, yet every time I post something there they are, hell even threads I start there they are. When you aregue with a moron, people looking at the argument don't know which is which, so in that vein I have decided to stop arguing with them and ignore them completely, yet they are still trying to argue with me judging by the number of times I see their names after my posts.....which only confirms what I have been saying all along, they are stupid and don't get it.

Third, QT and Ralph can ban me if they wish, this is only a forum and I don't spend as much time in it as the "professional" photographer who is most likely supported by his wife, judging by the time he spends on this forum. Yet, if there is going to be any banning, I would think that the fair thing to do would be to ban all sides not just the one who the cry babies want gone.

In the end this is a large format photography forum not a site dedicated to all formats, and specially not a site dedicated to dslrs because that is all they can use. Whatever is the opinion of my work by people in this forum, the undisputable fact is that I AM a large format photographer, all my photographs are made with LF cameras, something that cannot be said by the pretenders.

[Marko]

Don,

You have probably noticed this trend that David is talking about - it happened quite a few times just recently: there was a thread about using digital with LF (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=35297) that got moved to the Lounge precisely because of this type of behaviour. Then there is another current trend about the Nudes and there is also this thread...

As for the "We", well, as someone whose family, job and other such details were all dragged through the gutter in the course of these "discussions", I can certainly agree with David's assessment. And there were quite a few others as well.

I really doubt you would be so sarcastic and even insulting to those who complain about insults if you found yourself on the receiving end. Disagreement over something is one thing, shouting abuse and hurling profanities is quite another. Perhaps it might be easier and better for the health of the community to handle one individual (or perhaps two?) doing that than ending up with a board that nobody wants to risk participating in?

[sanking]

I agree Sandy.

That isn't the issue though. For some people, utilizing some digital aspects of photography is important.

Well, that is the issue for me. If a person needs to use digital for commercial work, or for any reason prefers to do so in personal work no one should have a problem with their decision.

The issue is that much of the comparisoin testing is inaccurate, misleading, and in some cases I would suggest deliberatly manipulated to show digital in the best light. This is especially true of much of the stuff that comes out of Luminous Landscape, which is commercially vested in pushing digital. One of the prime examples was that testing done a few years back in which the conclusion of the tester was that the DSLR he was using clearly beat 6X4.5 and Pentax 6X7. That testing was one of the poorest use of methodology I have seen, but the conclusion stuck and many people are convinced that current DSLR easily beats all MF, and that is just plain BS. There are many factors involved but for my own work Mamiya 7II is without doubt superior to 21 mp Canon DSLR in any print size over about 22 inches in one direction for B&W printing. At that size the resolution of the Mamiya 7II system is about 3X what you can get with the Canon, a maximum of about 3.5 lines/mm with the Canon to about 10 lines/mm with the Mamiya. I would certainly accept the fact that the 21 mp Canon offers some creative possibilities that you won't get from the simple Mamiya rangefinder, but as I noted before, I use Mamiya 7 in situations where LF is not practical, and don't want or need these features.

Sandy King

[Marko]

Or to put it in really simple terms:

My understanding is that the moderators are here to moderate and participants to participate.

If select participants are allowed to moderate the entire board using profanities and personal attacks as their main moderating tool, it should either be officially announced as a change of policy or handled appropriately. Ignoring it will not make it go away.

[David Luttmann]

Don,

You have probably noticed this trend that David is talking about - it happened quite a few times just recently: there was a thread about using digital with LF (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=35297) that got moved to the Lounge precisely because of this type of behaviour. Then there is another current trend about the Nudes and there is also this thread...

As for the "We", well, as someone whose family, job and other such details were all dragged through the gutter in the course of these "discussions", I can certainly agree with David's assessment. And there were quite a few others as well.

I really doubt you would be so sarcastic and even insulting to those who complain about insults if you found yourself on the receiving end. Disagreement over something is one thing, shouting abuse and hurling profanities is quite another. Perhaps it might be easier and better for the health of the community to handle one individual (or perhaps two?) doing that than ending up with a board that nobody wants to risk participating in?

I think that is precisely it. Why is it that every post of his has to be a veiled attack on someone. Notice the comments about my wife supporting me (she doesn’t). Or that I can’t be a real photographer because I’m on the forums all day (Actually, as my professional work is primarily digital, where else would I be but on the computer processing images when I’m not on a shoot…..and really, the question should be reversed….why isn’t he in the darkroom?)

He again calls people a moron & stupid. And finally, it is odd that he calls a number of people “pretenders.” How exactly are we all pretenders. We shoot with LF. We shoot with various formats. I’m not sure how that renders someone a pretender. He uses the DSLR comments to attempt to make out like he is just trying to keep those topics off the board….but you quickly see otherwise. It doesn’t matter what the topic is….he often resorts to the namecalling when he doesn’t agree.

Rather than accept the fact that people don’t always agree, he attacks you personally with insults and then somehow thinks he’s won an argument. That is what is most hilarious about the whole thing. We can see through all the contradictory posts that have been made. We can see when the story is twisted in yet another attempt to win an argument.

The sad thing is I think he believes it makes us angry….when in fact we are laughing at him and how sad it really must be!



Sandy, your post is bang on correct. A lot of us have had an issue with the methodology on the LL site!

[jeffacme]

Okay I'll come back just for a minute.

Don and Jorge why all the anger and sarcasm? Why can't you discuss these issues without insulting people?

Marko, I agree in principal but have to admit I like a spirited discussions with opposing viewpoints I don't mind if it gets a little heated.

Sandy, I would never tell you or anyone else for that matter what or how to shoot
It's your photography do whatever makes you happy and gives the results you want. Heck I used to shoot 1600 ASA 3M trans 35mm pushed to 3200 and dupe it to 8x10 for one client.

Finally, to all,what is large format anyway?
Does hanging a back on my 4x5 count?
If I use a quad stitch back?
Is it a film vs digital deal or square inches to megapixels?

Can I stitch together 300 mb of digital info using a DSLR?
Does my Crown Graphic count or is it view cameras only?