Re: the digital vs film debate
I could never afford the P65+ myself, but I'm curious is it the fact that they are 60mp that makes them so great?What if you stitch say 4-6 frames from a Canon 5DmkII with a good lens, are you then going to be matching a one shot image from a P65+ given identical subject and lighting?I went to the Rodney Lough Jr. Gallery a couple months ago, there were 5 prints he shot with the P65+, the rest all 8x10 and either Astia or Velvia, I personally could not tell which was which in these uber large prints.
Re: the digital vs film debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Renato Tonelli
I pity the poor horse.
Kirk - can you stop that guy from beating that poor horse?
The horse is beyond caring.
Rick "with the horse, and everyone else who looks at photographs, except (some) photographers" Denney
Re: the digital vs film debate
daniel, why do you prefer film for your own work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DanielStone
I was up in Yosemite last month for a workshop, and went to dinner(at the gracious invite from Jim G.), and while dining, we enjoyed the artwork adorning the walls of the restaurant, many of which were from Charles Cramer.
While we were there, I was thinking "this looks TOO GOOD to be digital, even P65+(60mp) digital). Upon leaving after enjoying our meal, I asked one of the waiters who was cleaning up if he knew if the work was from digital or not(just a shot in the dark, I know :p), but he said that most of it was from film. Many of the shots were 5-10yrs old, or older.
I'm not one to speculate, but a person like Charles Cramer, who has shot sheet film for years(in 4x5 I know for sure, not sure if in 8x10), but is definitely a "in the know" guy about what can really be extracted from a LF chrome, either via dye-transfer, or drum scanning and output via lightjet.
But I know that the P45+ and P65+(along with other comparable backs from other manufacturer's) are capable of tremendous detail, and large dynamic range. In 1 shot too. Many of the people here in LA that I've assisted for are constant users of MFD, and they only use such because of the "film-look" vs 35mm digital.
but in the end, I don't really give a rat's @$$ if a photograph is made via digital or analog means. The vision of the artist is what counts, as I would hope someone viewing my work would see it.
But you can also argue that shooting MFD with the most whiz-bang equipment, and outputting those large files to a lightjet, or LF inkjet printer, is definitely capable of producing outstanding results. And it can save your back too :). Lugging a Master Technika or other LF camera around for hours, or days at a time, can be back-breaking. Carrying a kit of 30gb of memory cards that allows you a few hundred shots can be much lighter than having to cart around holders, changing tent, and other camping supplies(if you backpack away from the car overnight).
And he ain't a spring chicken anymore age-wise, remember that ;).
-Dan
Re: the digital vs film debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chris Strobel
I went to the Rodney Lough Jr. Gallery a couple months ago, there were 5 prints he shot with the P65+, the rest all 8x10 and either Astia or Velvia, I personally could not tell which was which in these uber large prints.
Each were comprised of 5 portrait shots which were stitched. The photographer felt the 8x10 prints displayed more detail and better tonality.
Re: the digital vs film debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dsim
Each were comprised of 5 portrait shots which were stitched. The photographer felt the 8x10 prints displayed more detail and better tonality.
You mean Rodney shot 5 captures per image with the camera in vertical orientation, then stitched?How'd you find that out?The people he had working in the pier 39 gallery were pretty clueless it seemed when asked technical questions about the photos.
Re: the digital vs film debate
Someone visited the gallery and talked to Rodney about it. I read it a while ago.
Re: the digital vs film debate
Re: the digital vs film debate
So his 12x enlargements from an 8x10 negative have greater detail and better tonality than his digital prints from a P65? That's certainly surprising. I've never enlarged any film even to 10x and been happy with the detail or the tonality. Of course my 10x enlargements have mostly been been 35mm and a few 6x7s, not 8x10, and it's been b&w negative film, not color slide film, but I still find it very surprising. Rodney and a lot of other people have sure peed away a lot of money on those P65s.
Re: the digital vs film debate
you guys are about as likely to buy a Mars land rover then to buy a 40,000.00 digital back.. I think the adapter to hook one to a LF cam is only 2200.00,, not to mention all new lenses for the venture..
just stick with LF and keep haggling and bitching about paying over 300.00 for a normal lens for your broken down 8x10" kodak cameras..:D
Re: the digital vs film debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve M Hostetter
you guys are about as likely to buy a Mars land rover then to buy a 40,000.00 digital back.. I think the adapter to hook one to a LF cam is only 2200.00,, not to mention all new lenses for the venture..
just stick with LF and keep haggling and bitching about paying over 300.00 for a normal lens for your broken down 8x10" kodak cameras..:D
:D
Isn't it funny how none of those trashing digital backs can actually afford one?
You'd think anybody smart enough to earn that sort of money wouldn't be stupid enough to actually buy those backs unless there just was something about them not readily obvious to the peanut gallery... ;)