Briot chucks 4x5 for digital

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL...that is right Brian, a digital SLR has the same quality as a 4x5, you just cant get close and examine the detail. cant you get that in your head?...... :-)

[Kirk Gittings]

David,

It is this forum in particular that your argument falls apart because we love fine detail. We look at prints close. That is allot of why we shoot LF. Until I was 50 I had 20/13 vision and did not need a grain magnifier to focus a print. My eyes are now older and I need reading glasses. I will bet that there are many people here like myself that take a high power pair of reading glasses to exhibits. I even took a loupe to the Ansel at 100 exhibit.

With a measley pair of 1.50 reading glasses I can tell the difference between a 1440 dpi print and a 2880 dpi print on an 11x14 mat cotton rag paper. With some images that small difference is important to me and I expect viewers (and especially my peers) to look at my images that close.

This normal viewing distance argument might wash on the "disposable camera forum" but don't expect much support here.

[Brian C. Miller]

Dave, I see you misread what I wrote. I printed the image to see what the actual size of the cropped area is on an 11x14 print. Making a print to see what the actual area of a print is does not constitute a test of resolution between anything, it is only what is stated: finding the actual area of a cropped image.

I'll state it again: I made the print to determine the area of Briot's cropped image.

That, and nothing more.

Based on what I saw on Briot's website and knowing how much detail an Epson 2200 can pack into a square inch, I have made a determination for myself about how I will spend my money. An $8,000 digital camera is not an effective option for me in my view, based on what I have observed. Perhaps a $1,000 8Mpix Canon would be an effective option, though. And I won't go comparing it to a film camera because its a completely different beastie!

You don't like my opinion? Tango Sierra! I spent four years in the Army earning my rights and defending yours. I will listen to your opinion, and I will voice my own. But as for keeping mum, it ain't gonna happen. I have only stated how I will spend my money, not what everyone around me should do. You want to buy the $8,000 camera? Fine! Bravo! May you make lots of money and have many happy clients.

[Eduardo Aigner]

Sorry, but I think his (Briot) images are really bad. No matter if they are digital or film.

[Ellis Vener]

"Perhaps I'm a bit naive or romantic, but since when is art about speed, ease and production? "

hmm maybe since photography on film was invented? Or maybe since painting frescoes on wet plaster was devised?

[Ellis Vener]

Having now read several of the David L, posts I have come to the educated conclusion that in at least two instances he just doesn't know what he's talking about.

#1 An Epson 2200 at 11x14 is printing at 720 dpi not 300dpi.

#2 it would be very odd if you were still doing critical work with a 72ppi resolution monitor, at least on a desktop CRT oe LCD.

He probably still thinks a monitor on an Apple OS needs to be set at a gamma of 1.8. HAH!

[Joerg Colberg]

I think there's one thing that I missed in my article about digital, and that's another misconception about digital. Fans of digital always claim that digital is much faster than film photography. Which is really only true as far as getting the out of the camera concerned. But typically, getting the raw digital photo is only a small part of the whole process as people have to spend time - often quite a bit of time - on making them presentable. It escapes me how the postprocessing time is excluded from th dicussion.

Maybe it's because the kinds of example that people come up with are the standard examples that apply to a very small number of cases. Which has become a fairly typical procedure in our kind of time- and money-based society. In this case, the professional who needs his photo right there and right now.

For all my digital work - a lot of interior architectural work which required painstaking corrections of perspective distortions and a *lot* of work getting the colours right - I have to say that I could have been *much* faster doing it using film. And a lot better - if and only if I had spent the money for the digital camera on a decent LF camera plus a couple filters and a light meter that also measures the colour temperature.

[Alain Briot]

Hello,

I found the responses to my comparative article, as posted on this thread, interesting.

I wrote an essay in response to these and to the many other comments I received.
This essay is titled "Tools of the Trade." Here is the link:

http://beautiful-landscape.com/Thoughts_11.html

Regards,

Alain Briot

http://www.beautiful-landscape.com

alain@beautiful-landscape.com

[Doug Dolde]

"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."

--David A. Goldfarb "

David - That is a totally stupid non sequitur if I ever saw one.

[Doug Dolde]

"Color scheme on his site is pretty bad. Doesn't bode well for the rest of his work if he can accept a site that looks that bad. A while back my son and I had a good laugh over his picture selling his collection with the wine glass and gloves. Guess it just proves we aren't very sophisticated. ;-)

http://luminous-landscape.com/about/illuminations.shtml

--hermit"

Hermit - You are confused. You are talking about Michael Reichmann's website and work but attributing it to Alain Broit. I guess your name says it all...