Jim,
Considering many shots for architectural work can extend into 30 seconds to a minute.....this may have more of a place in the equipment arsenal than I thought. 33 sec ain't bad. This is around the 55 seconds I got for my test shots.
Jim,
Considering many shots for architectural work can extend into 30 seconds to a minute.....this may have more of a place in the equipment arsenal than I thought. 33 sec ain't bad. This is around the 55 seconds I got for my test shots.
i don't really shoot architectural work.. but there are plenty that have been using the Betterlight back. I'm pretty sure Mike has some references, either on his web site, or by contacting him. You might find someone in your neighborhood that has the new unit.
Jim
Thank-you Jim. A simple and succint explanation. Better Light would do well to post a simple explanation of scan times and what to expect on their website.
I'll watch for your 'diary' on outbackphoto.
Eric, actually they do. If you go to http://www.betterlight.com/faq_sales.asp there is an answer to the scan time question as well as several others. After debating this purchase for some time (it ain't cheap) I got a 6000-HS about a month ago and am in the process of really finding out how to get the best out of it. One thing for sure, it is nice to use a 4x5 camera and see immediately what you got. Yes it's a little cumbersome to set up but then I've never thought of using a 4x5 as something to do in a hurry.
If you go to their home page and under the Applications tab select "Featured Applications" you can see the work of some of the landscape photographers who use this back. Of course Stephen Johnson does also.
Angelo
*sniff*
Why must I always sacrifice my precious wide angles when going digital.
Tho I suppose I could find a wider lens that doesn't need to cover as much for not too much scratch. But still.
Think of it as a supersized 6x7, then you are getting extra wide duty.:-)
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
It has worked extremely well for Stephen Johnson, because it has allowed him to do something "new" and "different" (very important for marketing your work, something that he is good at too). However, now that he has done it and occupied that niche, other photographers trying to do landscape with current LF digital equipment won't reap this benefit, but they still will be subjected to the inherent constraints and limitations of the gear.
I may have misunderstood you but it sounds like you're saying that it's all about how many megapixels Stephen Johnson has and that now that he's shot with 48+MP, it isn't new anymore. Maybe I'm naive but I've always felt what sells a photograph is the subject and the treatment. The equipment simply allows me to capture what I saw and transfer that vision to the other person.
When some people see my photography they ask if it was taken digitally, was the print made in a darkroom, was it done on a printer, etc. I answer, politely, by asking if they like the photograph, if they are moved by it. If they are then my response is "then really what does it matter how I made it". If they don't like it my response is "then what does it matter how I made it".
My point is that I think sometimes we get too caught up in the technicalities and forget the art.
Angelo
Well, the technicalites do contribute to the art.. otherwise very few would still be shooting large format. I feel that this format contributes something to my vision, as does using the Betterlight back.
If i were just creating art for it's own sake, and felt i needed to stop there, that would be it. But if i want to sell it, being 'good' isn't enough to market it. Once you look at selling, then a lot more than just the quality comes into play... often you need a 'hook' to get a buyer interested. Often that 'hook' is being the first at something.. which is what Stephen utilized to help market his images (as an aside, i like his work a lot.... you need to see the actual prints to really see this).
Hooks have been used throughout.. (shot with 4x5, shot with 8x10, printed on platinum, dye-transfer, cibachrome.. real siver, archival, etc)
jim
Uwe Steinmueller just posted another article on the Betterlight back:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/betterlight/betterlight_pointlobos.html
He shows some good cropped images as well as the standard moire fix for some of the false color inherent in scan backs. To bad bandwidth only allows a compressed jpeg crop instead of a full rez tif. And to think this 8000 pixel wide original is less than 40% of what their top model can capture at more than 20,000 pixels wide.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks