I totally sympathize with both Alan Briot's thoughts on this - the high-end digital SLRs and backs of today are a great complement to large-format film. I just got a Nikon D2X to use in parallel with my 8x10 monorail.
I expect the D2X to do double duty as a matrix light meter, as well as allow me to be more spontaneous. While the resolution is nowhere near 8x10 film, there are other possibilities (like night photography at wide-open f/1.4 at ISO 3200, or the occasional animal or bird, or exposure bracketing for a HDR merge in Photoshop) that are difficult or expensive to explore with film. (I intentionally did non mention zoom lenses
FYI, this was already mentioned in the misunformed "Briot chucks 4x5 for digital thread".
This is hardly surprising. Yours truly has been doing that for a while. AB himself used various small format cameras in addition to his 4x5, so the scoop is that he just replaced small format film by small format digital, a very sensible choice, but again, not really newsworthy.
I think AB wrote the article to soothe the souls of those who thought they'd be left holding the bag (with the 4x5 gear in it). Although why I don't know. I mean, does what AB (or anyone else) do or use really have THAT much of an impact on your photography and/or your equipment?
*If you answered "yes!" to the above, then I apologize in advance for pissing you off
The desciption of the first article on the Luminous Landscape homepage is:
"a famous landscape photographer switches from 4X5" film to a DSLR"
From the first article:
"Will I ever shoot film again? Well, I probably will for a little while longer but it is certainly proving to be an increasingly problematic choice provided the quality of the images I am getting from the 1DsMark II. "
From the second article:
"First, I do not plan to stop using, discard, sell or otherwise “chuck,” my 4x5 in favor of the 1DsMk2. In fact, if we look ahead several years, my guess is that I will be using 4x5 longer than the 1DsMk2."
Great big ol' fat Yaaawwwwnnn!
Thanks for the link Eric.
I can see why many would yawn at all this. The digital vs film debate can be a great big yawn.
However, I'm pretty concerned about large format film and traditional photographic paper availability. You see, I'm not an old hand like so many here. I've got years of work ahead of me with FP 4, HP 5, D-76, and Multigrade IV before I can seriously think about expanding my horizons. By the time I'm ready for Pyro, I'm sure it will be around. But will I be able to find film to dunk in it?
There's a group of nature photographers from my part of the world who hang out at a another online board. They're amateurs for the most part. Pretty dedicated to photography in their spare time. Quite a few own the top of the line DLSRs like the 1Ds2 and D2X. I get the impression they make more money than most photographers.
Anyhow, they were very enthusiastic about that first Luminous Landscape article. One of the moderators even suggested that the images got switched in the comparison.
I was able to post a link to this piece there because of your post here.
So, who cares, right?
These guys care about their photos. And most seem to have some money. A few may pick up a 4x5 and give LF a whirl. And buy some film. Maybe even do a little b/w in the fourth bathroom or guest house.
I'm not anti digital. I've got a D100 that I use a lot. There's room for both in this world. But it's important for the message to get out that a cheap old 4x5 can produce a far better image than an 8000 DSLR if you have the patience and motivation to use the tool correctly.
There. A boring thank you note for a "boring" thread.
Mac
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks