Briot chucks 4x5 for digital

[Tom Westbrook]

Seemed like a fairly dull article to me, though I didn't read it all. Didn't see anything that you can't find elsewhere, even on the same site. I'd guess it's just to generate triaffic to the site. You know: take a few jabs at the film users and stand back and watch the fur fly.

I don't understand why he couldn't have taken the photo of Travis Terry at Canyon De Chelly with a 4x5 (see section 5 in the article). It's right by the side of the road, complete with parking lot (looks like the Tsegi Overlook to me). Maybe Travis was playing a really short song.

[Mark Sampson]

The answer is simple- convienience trumps quality every time. This guy may make his living selling "art", but it's really just another commercial photography business. And thus is more about selling than about art. Not that there's anything wrong with that; and seen in that light, switching to digital makes perfect sense.

[Bruce Watson]

Ken,

I've actually done it - by accident. I've had silver gelatin prints get rained on. It completely ruins them, and pretty darn quickly (hours, not days). The gelatin coating swells up, gets soft, and repeated rain drops then wrinkle it and in some cases push it right off the paper base. Ugly. Not to mention what this does to the paper base. Or how the print on top is now glued to the one underneath.

IMHO, no work on paper, be it a photographic process (coated), charcoal drawing, pen and ink, water color, pigment ink from an inkjet, books, whatever, can withstand rain and direct sunlight for long.

But why believe me, or what you read? You can test it yourself. Take some of your platinum prints outside and nail them to a tree and see what's left after a rain storm. You might find that what you've read, doesn't match what actually happens. Or maybe it does. But if you run the experiment, you'll know for sure.

I respect your decision to abandon inkjet for platinum. But I'm hoping you're doing it for artistic reasons more than because you believe that a platinum print will weather a physical storm better.

[Ken Lee]

Bruce - You are right. I will make some empirical tests, and let you know what I find. I will place some images outdoors on my back porch, facing upwards - while another copy will just sit in the office. I will also leave some in a window, where they get direct sun, but no raindrops. I don't have any silver prints that I can experiment with, so this will just be with Pt/Pd and Epson Ultrachrome.

I must confess that I chose the raindrops for dramatic effect, but hey, let's give it a try and see what happens. If you don't hear from me, look for me on those "large format fired clay tablet" forums ;-)

[Mike Butler]

Briot says not everything can be photographed with a 4x5, but he fails to mention that the opposite is true, too. What's he going to do the next time he encounters a dramatic near-far composition and sorely needs tilt, but the Technika is back in the studio on a shelf? His Canon 17-40L, though a fine lens, isn't going to get the job done.

Maybe those types of images won't really exist anymore. And maybe he's already hard at work on his next opus: "The Wonders of Canon Tilt/Shift Lenses."

Mike

[David A. Goldfarb]

Alain Briot: "No matter how much I admire how reporters used Speed Graphics to photograph boxing matches in the 40's (as well as many other subjects) I know that this time is long gone and that it will not come back . For years I have been carrying a compact medium format camera along with my 4x5 to photograph subjects which elude 4x5. "

Translation: "I'm a lazy person. I can't be bothered to learn to do something that is perfectly within the capacity of a normal human being. Anything that most people don't do anymore isn't worth doing."

[Joerg Colberg]

I was not getting into any digital-vs-film discussions but I can't refrain from commenting on Alain's article. I was utterly surprised to see how Alain can be happy with digital - if you look at those enlarged portions of the image, the digital ones are terrible! The noise is unbelievable, the colours are off in the unfocused area, and the fringing is beyond belief! This is quite amazing! And this is what you currently get from digital high-end equipment. Unbelievable. What junk!

[Mike Buehler]

I'm not an expert by any means but I see this as a good thing for those that use traditional materials. As more artists adopt this low quality mindset, those who strive to produce high quality work will command higher prices to those who truly appreciate it. Classic supply and demand theory.

my $.02

[ronald lamarsh]

I would like to second Mr Athertons statement " so what". I choose to follow my own path: if I change my equipment or subject matter everytime someone famous changes I'll never get anywhere. The bottom line is he changed for his own reasons according to his own perceptions for everyone to follow slavishly would be foolish. " Truth is to the wiseman what a wise man brings to Truth" Manly P. Hall

[CXC]

Personally I think if you are trying to make a living, you are insane, delusional, and/or stupid to use LF instead of digital. I think buyers make their choices based on the subject and interest of the image, not the relative resolution compared to some absolute standard. I think that any photographer good enough to actually make a living selling LF prints could make a better living selling digital prints. I think Mr. Luong is living proof of this.

I think the future of LF is with amateur retro-geeks like me.