Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: New Luminouse Landscape Article

  1. #21

    New Luminouse Landscape Article

    "Can someone tell me how you use front and back tilts or swings by looking at a 2" LCD screen? I can't even really do it worth a darn when using a roll film back."

    You don't utilize the digital back on until you're ready to make the exposure. Composition, tilts, swings, focus, etc are all done the traditional way (except if you have a scanning back, which you can use for focus).

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London, ON, Canada
    Posts
    90

    New Luminouse Landscape Article

    As long as we are comparing what is essentially a close to LF image quality on a MF camera, to a LF camera, what about movements? Yes you need less movements for 645 format but you can still do more with a 4x5, which is what I find so fascinating about this medium.

    There are many images you simply cannot execute without the movements!

  3. #23

    New Luminouse Landscape Article

    "So it really fails to resolve well anything that moves, like water, clouds, people, etc."

    Your statement is not entirely true. If there is little wind, clouds reproduce wonderfully on a betterlight.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    833

    New Luminouse Landscape Article

    "And by specific weight, I'm talking units of resolution per unit weight that I have to carry when hiking into location. Consider what a sheet of 5x4 film weighs. Even consider what 200 sheets of 5x4 film weights (what I typically can use in three weeks in the field)."

    Weight of my Betterlight setup that I take into the field is a little more than what i'd be taking with film (using film holders). I'll photography my Betterlight pack.. but it does fit neatly into a F64 medium camera backpack. It's a lot less than an 8x10 field outfit.

    Parallel capture... i mentioned those restriction above... and fully agree that the setup isn't for everyone. If you shoot people or flowing water and like to slow down the shutter speed (which, by the way, is also altering time in order to produce an unreal artifcact.. just one that's been accepted as appealing).. then it's not for you. I have no more problem with wind and trees/branches than if i were using film. it's a pain in both cases.. and produces artifacts in both as well. For 90% of the large format landscape/architectural work that i see going browsing thru the books/magazines and web sites... my setup would work.

    It takes longer to set up than film, is less 'convenient'.. but since when are we (large format photographers) all that interested in 'convenience' :^)

    If i know i'll be shooting flowing water, or very quickly changing light, then i take film along with me.

    with the Betterlight, when i leave a location, i *know* i have the shot, properly exposed and in focus corner to corner.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    973

    New Luminouse Landscape Article

    While we don't know key aspects of the tests performed by Mr. Cramer et al (e.g., what type of lenses were used, etc.), the results seem consistent with what could have been theoretically predicted.

    Using 240 DPI (upsampled within Photoshop to 360 DPI) as the optimum input resolution needed for an Epson printer (see my post in this thread www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/504529.html#583554), the P45 maxes out at roughly a 23 x 30" print size, as does (for my taste) drum-scanned 4x5 chrome. If you compare 23x30" prints of the P45 versus 4x5 (as opposed to 30x40" used by Mr. Cramer) I suspect you'd see virtually no difference between the p45 and 4x5. The question is: are the benefits of digital (much faster setup time, less carrying bulk, greater depth of field, 2 1/2 additional stops of speed, immediate image feedback, etc.) worth $30K to you? If you are a pro or independently wealthy amateur who generates a lot of 23x30" prints, values the additional resolution due to its ability to minimize moire, or who needs to impress clients with an incredibly expensive camera, the answer might be yes. If you do mostly commercial or stock photography, or you are not sitting on a huge bank account, the answer is probably no.

    My concern is that the MF digital market appears to have too many players and a shakeout seems inevitable. Hasselblad/Imacon seems likely to survive since they offer both a camera system and digital backs, but Phase One and Leaf seem exposed (relying on discontinued camera systems from Contax, Hasselblad and potentially Mamiya, as Hasselblad is evolving the H1/H2 in a closed proprietary direction). Mamiya will almost certainly fold if the ZD is not a resounding success. Nor are we even certain that the MF digital market niche will have sufficient long-term critical mass to survive as Canon upgrades its high-end DSLR's. I'd personally need more clarity in the MF digital marketplace before committing a bunch of resources to it.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    20

    New Luminouse Landscape Article

    Sinar, Horseman and Linhof now have small monorail view cameras that are designed for digital backs. I guess PhaseOne and Leaf could make backs for those cameras.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12

    New Luminouse Landscape Article

    with the Betterlight, when i leave a location, i *know* i have the shot, properly exposed and in focus corner to corner.

    Wouldn't it just be a lot cheaper (and easier) to shoot a Polaroid? I dunno, but for me the beauty of LF shooting lies in its simplicity, which is a major reason I enjoy it so much. If I had to lug a bunch of batteries and a laptop computer in the field, I don't think I'd enjoy this hobby anymore. What's more, I love shooting in the rain and enjoy waterfalls and streams; I don't think I'd want to take my laptop out in that kind of weather.

    Maybe its just me but replacing LF with digital just seems to be a case of replacing something simple with something overly (and unnecessarily) complicated. Sometimes, it seems as if digital is a problem in search of a solution (example, the digital toothbrush.....WTF).

  8. #28

    New Luminouse Landscape Article

    hmmm..........

    Let me think this through:

    I have a nice 4x5 camera and lenses.

    1) I can purchase, shoot and process 10 sheets of color film for $50.00 tops, probably less. If I'm a B&W shooter its probably more like $20.00 or less since I process it my self.

    Or

    2) I can spend $20,000 to $30,000 for a high-end digital back, a laptop and accessories and go shoot all I want for "free"

  9. #29
    tim atherton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1998
    Posts
    3,697

    New Luminouse Landscape Article

    Or lets say you are shooting a project - absolute minimum you are shooting is 50 sheets a day and you are travelling for three months photographing say 5 days a week with travel etc

    That's roughly about $15,000 - so it doesn't take too many of those if that's the sort of photography you are doing.
    You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn

    www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog

  10. #30

    New Luminouse Landscape Article

    Bruce,

    Most new DSLRs actually have between 9 & 10 stops of dynamic range. With the latest from Canon, the 5D, I have run tests using Imatest to confirm 9.98 stops of DR. Many digital backs have 11 stops. With that in mind, film and digital capture are basically tied.

    James,

    As far as the "rubber" comment, you'll note that the screen view would have to be reduced by an order of 4 to 5 times for it to mimic the print. Remember, it was rezzed to 360 dpi & your screen is probably between 72 & 96 ppi. Reduce it to appear as it would on a 32x40" print, and you won't see a difference.....except maybe for some grain on the 4x5 film.

    Now the cost is a different matter. Doing commercial work, $20,000 is easy to justify. As an amateur or low volume shooter, it may not make sense.....although with film, processing & scanning costs, it still may. With shooting a couple of hundred color sheets a year, you'll easily spend quite a few thousand in film, processing, and scanning costs. You might make it up in 5 or 6 years.....now $20,000 doesn't seem that expensive anymore, does it!

Similar Threads

  1. New article: the 5x7 format
    By QT Luong in forum Feedback
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 7-Aug-2007, 09:14
  2. NY Times Photography Article
    By Eric Leppanen in forum Announcements
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 21-Nov-2005, 18:34
  3. New York Times Article
    By John Flavell in forum On Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27-Oct-2005, 09:36
  4. New article on starting LF at Luminous Landscape
    By Bernard Languillier in forum Resources
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 18-Oct-2005, 15:07
  5. Marvin Rand article
    By Donald Brewster in forum On Photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1-Sep-2005, 13:59

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •