Have anyone got a large format assignments in 2011?:D Do anyone use it for commercial photography?:eek: For big posters, advertising etc.. Or maby it is digitalized - scan backs etc.. Please tell me how the LF is doing in digital slr age!
Printable View
Have anyone got a large format assignments in 2011?:D Do anyone use it for commercial photography?:eek: For big posters, advertising etc.. Or maby it is digitalized - scan backs etc.. Please tell me how the LF is doing in digital slr age!
My last one was in 2010. It was for a poster that was reproduced to about 40"x50." I will be shooting some portraits with LF this year but it is my decision, not my client's.
Its been about 4 years for me.
Excuse me for asking. The payment for your assignments was adequate (hight) to the LF equipment that you use? Or maybe it was low paid?
I am wondering is there a place for LF in commercial use anymore?
this is 2012, fuji has discontinued their 4x5 instant film and kodak filed chapter 11 yesterday. I know of one guy who sometimes gets to shoot 4x5 industrial work but not often.
The answer is no.
I do - everything here is 5x4:
www.simonkennedy.net
A friend of mine is an architecture photographer and she uses nothing but LF cameras with Film. LF still has a place in Architecture photography even though a lot of photographers shoot digital and correct the lines in PS. PS takes more time then doing it right from the beginning. Have done some commercial LF shooting in 2011 as well.
Dominik
Since the beginning of 2011 I've been shooting with 4x5', 5x7' and panoramic formats for a project wich follows the whole process of tranforming my town, Rio de Janeiro, on the next capital of Olympic Games on 2016.
Most of this work is made on b&w film and part of it can be found here: www.cidadeolimpica.com
On the future, I hope, we shall have books and expositions wich will explore the full power of those big negatives.
2011 i shot a campaign for american airlines on 4x5''. i got the job because i offered to shoot film. also 2011 i travelled through europe and the states to shoot caverns for wired magazine on 4x5''. after that they sent me to ecuador to shoot a drug submarine on 4x5''. fun. film for ever!
It's simply a matter of using the right tool for the job. LF film is becoming more of a unique tool than it has been but for those that have used it for ages it's very natural. Those just picking it up are learning the advantages.
No one wants anything other than files anymore and so how you get that file is far less relevant than the unique images you produce. For me at this point I would charge a big premium to shoot film as the workflow is more involved and there are no labs left locally so the film would have to be shipped off for processing. For my personal work the workflow is irrelevant.
Some art directors are aware of particular photographers' use of LF film and will hire them because of that. Yes, a premium or at least some line items in the estimate is appropriate for film, processing and quality scanning. In Chicago there are still labs like Gamma Imaging doing E-6 and drum scanning on a very professional level but time and $$ needs to be worked into the estimate and the assignment's time frame. For me that's local but you're right, you can't get 3-hour E-6 processing & delivery at a local pro lab everywhere anymore.
Kind of illustrates my point a bit. FWIW having worked and taught in Chicago a couple of months a year for the last twelve years, I have had allot of problems numerous times with Gamma and would never go back to them, which leaves what in Chicago? I'm asking because I don't know. IME labs are not what they used to be and few and far between. It used to be that there were good labs in every decent size city and we could get film processed before we left town and see what we did. Those days are largely gone. At least with a digital workflow I am personally in control of my product and my time and can meet tight deadlines.
I do not think that digital is faster because their picture quality is low and you have to spend lot of time using PS. If you scan LF film to raw and process in PS - you can do anything! I like to do it a traditional way but like you said everyone wonts files. Digital capturing is in my opinion not good way to go, and not faster.
Sorry but this is naive. I spent many years shooting film and scanning it for clients. Because of the scanning I spent that much more time on the computer, endless hours scanning and then spotting etc. etc. And look at my clients and tell me that my quality is low.Quote:
I do not think that digital is faster because their picture quality is low and you have to spend lot of time using PS. If you scan LF film to raw and process in PS - you can do anything!
Film is for me like a dogma. I know how to get what I wont, because film (generaly) is constant. Of course there are slight changes but they are marginal. FP4+ has been the same at least for 20 years - I know what I can get! But with digital I need a year to understand it, but after 2 years I have to buy a new one because the old one got less MP then the new one - and I have to start to learn it all over again. In that sens film is faster, I see the seen, I shoot it and I know what image I have. I do not have to reply the shoot or rapair it in PS
Good for you. I have no dogmas in my studio just tools. I shot film exclusively until about 5 years ago and still do. That's 50 years of shooting film, 33 years as a full time professional. Twenty+ years teaching it at the university level at a couple of the top schools in the country. Digital is just another tool and except for the odd project the only sensible tool in today's commercial market.
Actually doing it in Photoshop takes me far less time than it used to take to get everything perfectly parallel and perpendicular in camera. I'm not a pro though, maybe professionals who do architecture for a living and have an established system can do it faster in camera. For me, I've spent as much as 15-20 minutes photographing a window, for example, on the second story or higher and getting all the lines right.
But apart from that, the architectural photographers I know (all four of them : - )) don't just use Photoshop to get things right. They use a tilt-shift lens on their digital cameras. I just started using one as well and even with my limited skill I find that the combination of that lens and Photoshop is quicker (and IMHO at least as good) as doing it in camera with a LF camera. I'm frankly surprised that any professional architectural photographer would still use a LF camera.
What makes you think that you can't correct perspective with a digital camera? Have you ever heard of perspective correction lenses or Tech cameras? More dogma foolishness.Quote:
a lot of photographers shoot digital and correct the lines in PS.
And for what its worth I know top tier commercial architectural photographers all over the world and every single one of them started with film and now shoots digital. I don't personally care either way. I hear all kinds of hobbyist film shooters say things like I know someone who still shoots architecture with film. Well I don't and this is my business and I have broad contacts in the industry through professional organizations and teaching at two universities. Its images that count, but you are hamstringing your self in terms of workflow in todays market with film.
Ok you have got a tilt -shift lens but do you see what are you doing in your viewfinder? LF screen is big and you can mark points on it. I would like to see a comparison of two shoots of the same subject made by LF camera and digital with PS - I am wondering if you can see and fix all error in perspective using PS. Fix maybe so but find all of them? Maybe another person will see something else? - I have no experience with correcting perspective in PS so I am asking is it possible?
And about PS and commercial photography see this:
http://sztukatulka.pl/index.php/2012...hopowe-wpadki/
The site is in Polish but you understand what I am saying
BetterLight is still in business and selling lf digital backs, (and four of their six models are sold out). Given the cost of the backs, I'd guess most of them are sold for professional use.
If you go to the Arizona Highways photp submissions page, ( http://www.arizonahighways.com/photo...ubmissions.asp ), it states: "In order to achieve the high-quality reproductions in our publications, we prefer large format (4x5) transparencies, especially for the large scenic landscapes for Arizona Highways is famous. "
Using Live View on my camera I see the image on a 2" x 3" viewing screen that's backlit. It's of course not as large as a 4x5 inch ground glass but it's a decent size, certainly much better than just looking through the viewfinder. It's also brighter than a ground glass because it's backlit and I can magnify it to 5x or 10x, much like I'd use a loupe with a LF camera. It seems to work well.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by asking whether "you can see and fix all error in perspective using PS. Fix maybe so but find all of them." If you're suggesting that there's a problem seeing the errors, no that's not a problem. I'm afraid my errors are all-too-obvious. : - ) And there's no problem fixing them in Photoshop as long as you knew at the time you made the photograph that you'd need to fix them and left enough room to do so. Which is normally the case.
It actually isn't "perspective" that usually needs to be fixed, at least not as I use the term "perspective." It's two or more lines that should be parallel to each other but aren't, it's lines that should be parallel or perpendicular to the top, bottom or sides of the frame that aren't, that kind of thing.
I have 0 problem correcting perspective in camera with a t/s lens on a DSLR. 99% of the time no additional correction is needed in PS. All you do is use a level and a grid focusing screen. What a level and a grid? Yes a level held on the viewing screen just like I do on the ground glass of my VCs and a grid to view through. Revolutionary.....
I like a view camera because perfect perspective for me is one that does not conspicuous. The topic jumps out of the photography. View camera helps me to achieve that. PS procesed pictures looks all rigth for me but I feel that something is wrong - I can not point the finger but something is not right. It looks not natural for me.
Wow... That's simply not at all right. If you've ever struggled with a LF film camera, camera filters and accompanying filters on lights and over windows, filter factors, Polaroids, a film lab, a scanner, and then Photoshop you simply wouldn't say that. As far as quality, that only depends on the photographer, not the tools.
Kirk, I'm sorry to hear that Gamma has been a problem. I've apparently not used them enough in recent years to make a fully-informed assessment. My last E-6 processing was in 2010 and they did a great job with that batch. I began with them in 1973 when they were running their little orange cars all over the city and suburbs and I could have 2-3 runs per day coming to my studio with great results.
Current product work is done so much easier with Nikon, Canon or Schneider TS lenses but if a client needs extreme enlargement I occasionally break out the 4x5. I still enjoy some portraits with the LF camera in B&W.
Once again Lukasz. I have 0 problems getting "perfect perspective" in camera with digital. That is how I make my living.......
My most recent LF assignment was for a environmental learning center that wanted to show their members how the "old time photographers" made photographs. Most of these people were too young to have ever seen a view camera. It was actually fun showing kids how a "real" camera moves. What the kids loved was the upside down and backwards image. So it wasn't so much they wanted a LF photo, just a LF camera.
I don't think the majority of photographers have learned to use appropriate tools to create imagery. In 150 years plus people still are predjudiced relative to personal tastes. There are two routes taken usually, one is - I will not accept jobs that I can not shoot on film -with a LF camera so it can be enlarged to 62 x 42 feet. The second route- is any and all work is good that allows me to claim to be a pro....so I use my phone to take your facebook picture and you pay me $600.00 USD. Either way may work...the answer what right is you. If you expect top dollar for LF work that sucks butt, with my phone in hand I'll be laughing. I will state that an accomplished LF photographer is a being worthy of admiration and respect. :D
Łukasz, don't waste your time on this topic. There is a big difference between Europe and America. Particularly in the US in a certain area you will encounter some people living on a very fast lane, denying their own past, forgetting their life. Don't argue with them. It won't lead to anything but weird stuff. Just imagine the numbers: 50 years of photographic experience... Do you know the real age of the author?
Oh, before I forget, yes, I'm still doing LF. And MF. Only film, no digital. No, it's not because someone likes my nose, it is because film - as I shoot and process it - is a superior medium.
But hell, the majority and I understand your question, and I really don't like how it has been kidnapped again and turned into a fu..ing digital vs analog thread.
If this refers to me, let me explain, I have been an avid photographer with a darkroom since I was 10 (my father was an advanced amateur who wanted me to be a photographer). I had my first published work at 16. I am now 61. And FWIW I've been showing my b&W photography in galleries and museums since 1972 (at age 22-40 years) and making my living doing commercial photography full time since 1978 (starting at age 28-34 years). Additionally I've been teaching photography at the university level for 25 years.Quote:
There is a big difference between Europe and America. Particularly in the US in a certain area you will encounter some people living on a very fast lane, denying their own past, forgetting their life. Don't argue with them. It won't lead to anything but weird stuff. Just imagine the numbers: 50 years of photographic experience... Do you know the real age of the author?
Yes, Jens, it really is a pity that many threads do tend to degenerate, and often surprisingly quickly. So often, it seems to me, it appears to be forgotten that photography is really just about making images and that image making should be central, period.
This is all especially relevant to me at the moment. Currently it is a pleasure to be working closely with `a client' -- `collaborator' would be better -- who is simply interested in creating images. As usual, I'm using my heavy 4x5 monorail with all its attendant boxes and bits and pieces. We have lots of discussions and work slowly, perhaps making five images on a good day. But really, this long slow drawn out process is just the way we have decided to do it, and that is just fine. And, as it turns out, others who are reviewing our work are happy too -- the transparencies we give them are something they can sit down to and pass around, something to hold, and that's a little unusual these days, and pleasing.
So really, along with you, I also get a bit fed up with constantly hearing about `commercial realities' that make film based photography impractical. I can understand that some people have clients that may not put up with the delays and inconveniences associated with film, but that's certainly not good reason to imply that such clients don't exist. It seems to me that there will always be people who just want images, who are willing to quietly work towards them, and who are willing to wait a little -- thankfully, as I really wouldn't be willing to collaborate with anyone else.
Kind regards,
Richard
Hey Kirk, my Nikon has a very accurate digital level built into it. It works in both the horizontal and vertical positions. My Arca Swiss has them too but it's the old-timey bubbly thing.
Maybe the single important advantage I see in shooting film is having the tangible film record — usually a transparency. A disk or hard drive is for me much more likely to become lost, damaged or unreadable even with careful storage compared to my transparencies. In 40 years as a full-time photographer I have yet to have an important transparency become damaged or lost. My inclination is to treasure them more.
Setting that aside, I prefer the sure and quick satisfaction of high-quality original digital capture for most assignments. I can predict the color, place values and repeat if needed like I seldom can with film.
Yes, I continue to do occasional LF film assignments but the choice is at my discretion.
You must be blessed. I've had Fed Ex lose them, ad agencies lose them, magazines lose them and the same damage them more times than I can remember. Prior to doing my own scanning, when I had to send them out to be scanned by every publication, like in the 80's and nineties, my widely published transparencies from those periods look like they've been through a war.Quote:
In 40 years as a full-time photographer I have yet to have an important transparency become damaged or lost.
That's not the fault of film per se, it's the fault of the wrong people who had them in their hands, who have been lazy, who had no real interest, who did not value your work. Common problem in the fast paced America during that era, but it changed. Ironically professionals are more professional today and treat negatives and slides in a much more cautious way. Same story over here in Europe. However, I've selected the best labs with really careful people and never lost one single image.
The only film that had been lost was one from a Ferrari assignment, when we had some intruders in our offices who wanted to force me out of business by stealing everything they could get into their hands, and unfortunately this particular film was laying on the desk top while we had been out for lunch. It was my mistake, because I knew the threat.
Anyway, I am tired of reading the artificial nightmare stories about film that had been lost, burned, torn apart, lost colors, etc. etc.
What I can't stand is the attitude of some people: If you don't work digital, you have missed the path to the future, you are 'outdated', etc., etc., as if there isn't enough room for different approaches.
I really expect more tolerance, particularly in a forum like this one! As far as I remember carries the name LARGE FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY and not SENSOR PHOTOGRAPHY, Mr. Gittings and Mr. Moderator.
Could it be that you are participating in the wrong forum with your digital attitude? There are countless forums where you could shine, but please accept that a large amount of the members over here prefer film. There is absolutely no need to promote your digital stuff being superior.
We, humans are too used to being forced to pick one out of two options. As if there was no alternative or you couldn't pick both or reject both at the same time. See bi-partidism in politics, etc...
I see film and digital photography co-exist wonderfully. Shoot film, scan, retouch in PS, post in the www or go back to analog in the form of a print.
This past autumn I was asked to do a series of photographs in large format for a Catalan musician named Marc Parrot. His new album is based on the works of Segundo Chomón, an amateur film maker from the beginning of the century.
Parrot's manager thought it would be ideal to use the same medium used back then so she asked me to do large format photos with brass lenses.
I also see a trend in art directors in commissioning analog photography of any size out of coolness or trendiness.
I continue to shoot and process 4x5 transparency film photos of products for one of my clients. Have had 2 jobs in 2012. About 40 sheets consumed this year so far.
I just realized that I am wrong about that. One batch of 35mm slides sat on a client's desk in the sun for a few weeks. They paid a cash compensation and tried unsuccessfully to have 4x5 dupes retouched. I have also more than likely lost some 4x5 transparencies that were product shots that I don't care about. Other than that I have been very fortunate. A lot of my work went out as B&W prints to agencies and many times those came back looking like Columbo's coat but my negs are safe & secure.
I'm with you and Kirk on this and, like Kirk, I jumped all over scanning my own film and the film of others first as an additional revenue stream but mostly to understand the new age of digital that was coming down the road like a hurricane. It was so seamless to work into shooting digitally. It was more like putting a new film type into my camera than learning a new technology at that point.
i am delivering another habs job in a few days,
it was shot with a 4x5 camera
You may be mistaken and think that this is a sister forum to APUG. You might be happier over there.Quote:
I really expect more tolerance, particularly in a forum like this one! As far as I remember carries the name LARGE FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY and not SENSOR PHOTOGRAPHY, Mr. Gittings and Mr. Moderator.
When someone asks a question like this, I assume they want actual experience-not a pep talk. Personally I am not interested in telling LF photographers what they want to hear and reinforcing romantic ideas I don't see reflected in the market place. I personally only have loyalty to the truth as I see and experience it. LF is not a team sport with a cheering section. It is just a tool. I tell people my actual experience-where I am in the market every day dealing with clients across the country and stock sales around the world. My experience may not be the same as yours but is just as valid and I will continue to share it even when it doesn't fit your personal narrow idea of what should be discussed here.Quote:
Have anyone got a large format assignments in 2011? Do anyone use it for commercial photography? For big posters, advertising etc.. Or maby it is digitalized - scan backs etc.. Please tell me how the LF is doing in digital slr age!
Kirk
Very well put, I completely agree with your statement.
I shoot LF b&w film because, that is my hobby, I don't have to market my photographs as you do. You obviously know how to be successful in the current market and do your personal work, great admiration from me, I tried and couldn't do it.
Like you I have had my share of 4x5 transparencies lost, scratched or worst, a digital file has got to be better in any format.
I had a number of photographs with a magazine in your home state that were returned to me looking like someone confused the scanner and the shredder
I'm only an assistant, but I work with a number of commercial photographers. None of them use film for commercial work, and the whole support structure of using film has seriously broken down. Today's art directors expect to immediately be able to look at the captured shots on a big computer screen. Sure, as some people in this thread have proved, it is possible to find a client who'd like film, but the percentage is incredibly small. And it's a tough market these days for commercial photography without limiting your client base to such a small number of people.
The people who might still be able to make a go of it are the super successful 8x10" studio shooters who have the client list and history to convince their "we want the best damn the cost" clients that they should keep doing things the film way.
I love film photography. I've had a darkroom for 20 years, and I continue to use it. I hope that film will be around and affordable for many years for my personal work, but arguing with Kirk about the realities of commercial photography is really quite silly.
Let's not forget QT's post that Steve Jobs last Portrait was shot on film and Google posted that shot on it's website when Steve passed away.
But lets face it, for most commercial photography digital is the way to go. It's quick and its cheap. You can download it into your laptop, post-process it in Photoshop, and with a click email it off to where ever.
But film is not too far behind. If you do your own processing you could have your shots processed, dry, and on the scanner in about 1 hour 15 minutes after exposure - especially with an assistant to do the processing.
Thomas
I let go of HABS jobs a few years before the recession as there was so much better paying commercial work (and I still had kids in college) that I couldn't keep up with. In that time a guy moved into the state and took over that niche and he is really very good. I wish i had it back now!