Defininition of photography" The art or process of producing images by the action of light on surfaces sensitized by chemical process"
Long live Film !!
S
Defininition of photography" The art or process of producing images by the action of light on surfaces sensitized by chemical process"
Long live Film !!
S
Mr Petronio,
I agree that everybody here has the right to say what he thinks about other people photos, and articles.
I don't know M.Reichmann personnaly, no more than I know you. I saw his photos, and I saw yours. And I keep my opinion for me.
When you say "If only he knew how to make a decent photo with all those damn toys..." or "He should invest in some workshops. Atttending workshops, not trying to lead them.", you seem to strongly hate Michael Reichmann.
Once again, that's your problem.
M.Reichmann makes what he wants with his money, his opinions, and his photos.
You don't explain, or prove. You just affirm. You don't give arguments, you distill poison. What you write seems so disproportionate and exagerated that you probably miss your target.
That's nothing but an "ordinary oozing hate". Something very sad in the hierarchy of human feelings.
Jean-Louis LLECH
Funny how the word "digital" conjures up such harsh words and feelings around here. I shoot with an Ebony and a Canon and love both for what they each are able to do. And, if I could get a digital back like the Leaf Aptus or Phase One for $1000 or so, I'd be all over that.
Name calling and finger pointing is simply not necessary here. Let's all just be friends!Long live film and long live digital!
Andrew, if you think this is harsh, you ain't seen nothing yet. You'd get tarred, feathered and drummed out of town even if you only thought that word over at apug. Here, you don't need to pick your words... just your company!Originally Posted by Andrew Ito
Marko, that's ballyhoo... a pure joke...
Just read the topic "Is it possible to be a pro and not use digital today?" on APUG : 46 answers, and nobody was killed.
About 500 topics with the word "Digital" somewhere inside.
No blood on my screen.
Jean-Louis,
Well, yes, of course it is a joke. That's exactly what that big yellow smiley face at the end of my message denotes.
I promised myself I would never jump into one of these again...but here I am.... just a few comments...
I also have shot with Mike R, as many others have. I also read his website, as many others. I think Mike has some very nice images...lets face it, half the battle is getting in front of subjects of interest, and he sure does that! His style is a mixture of many discliplines, his taste vary, a nice mix of imagery in my opinion.
People are attracted to photography for many different reasons. Some simply want to record history, some want to make fine art, some want to fondle the gear, some like the process, for some, it justifies their travels, etc. etc. There is no question about it, Mike has strong interest in gear and has become fascinated with the digital evolution. As a result, he buys a lot of gear, and not just cameras, it's everything from capture to print. He is not being paid by anyone and spends countless hours sharing his findings with fellow photographers on his web site - for free. Whether his style or his "camera of the month" is in tune with what everyone else does is not relevant to what he is offering. Bottom line, I would be hard pressed to find a reason to knock him for his contributions to the photographic community. He is a tireless worker, and we all know the pay is not so great.
As for the digital / film issue. I too use both mediums. The desire and curiosity to compare is part of the natural curiosity and creative forces that drives photographers. However, IMO, there is some big holes in most of these comparisons. Without getting in rediculous detail of my insights, I do want to point out what I see as the biggest and most dangerous ommision....
In pre digital era, we used to compare film formats. Since the same film was available in all formats, the comparisons were pretty straight forward. Every jump in format, 35mm, MF, 4x5, 8x10 had the potential to offer 4x the overall recorded data, or in our terms, 2x the enlargement potential. However, even when these comparisons were being made, there was often not enough attention paid to DOF and to a lesser extent, lens resolution and venerable 1/R (max recordable resolution based on film and lens resolution combined). If all shots were compared shooting a flat test target or infinity subjects, then differences in overall resolutions are limited to lens MTF and film flatness issues. So overall, comparing modern vintage gear, the differences in formats were often very predictable. For sake of discussion, each format jump would offer a 1.7x advantge under this scenario, in other words, you could produce a print of equal shaprness as the smaller format, up to 1.7 larger.
But when DOF is introduced, the rules changed dramaticaly, as the lenses ability to resolve becomes degraded by aperture diffraction as a result of 2 extra stops of aperture required per format jump. (putting aside the other drawback - 2 stops loss of shutter speed) Now even with DOF, the scenarios can run the gamut of 35mm using f2.8 to acheive sufficient DOF, therefore MF = f5.6, 4x5= f11, 8x10 = f22. In such case, only 8x10 suffers some small diffraction penalty in regards to the equal jumps in potential enlargement factor. But the opposite scenario of 35mm starting at f11 to acheive sufficient DOF, well, here is where the numbers go astray.... as each jump up in format is now being heavily burdened by diffraction, so the value of the larger formats is greatly diminished. How diminished vaires based on how far up the in fstop you were forced to move...... Of course, each can be run through 1/R for details, but this is a general discussion.
Now in the digital arena, not ONLY do we have to make the exact same considerations as above, which still, are often completely overlooked....such as digital advocates comparing a 39MP shot with 8x10 film and showing the digital shot wins. And it makes sense, if the scene required heavy DOF, 4 more f stops for the 8x10, then, the 8x10 shot was so diffraction limited, it reduced the format to that of MF. On the other hand, if you compare 8x10 at infinity vs. 39MP at infinity, then it would be obvious that 8x10 is superior (assuming shutterspeed is not an issue). However, the comparisons are often made by digital enthusiast trying to boast digital..... NOT, film enthusiast trying to bash digital ...so motivation also adds to the confusion, and not all of it is intentional.
However, leveling the playing field, there is ONE huge advantage to digital capture in general. Unlike film, the digital evolution has been increasing the sensors pixel density. As this has happened so dramaticaly through time, such as Canons 6MP, 11MP and now 17MP on the same size sensor, its dramatic effect is often overlooked. When you 2x the sensors pixel density (4x the # of pixels in same physical area), it enables you to make a format jump (as in film era) while avoiding the drawbacks of added diffraction which the film format jumps experienced due to a need to double the lens fl to produce the same composure. Of course the lenses need to offer enough resolution to appreciate this benefit. Which is currently what the digital lenses address and future lenses will be attacking.
So ultimately, a highly dense sensor with enough pixels, to enable much shorter fl lenses, will offer 4x5 shooters tremendous advantages, mainly by gaining more DOF then currently possible..... for landscape photographers, where near to far subjects is a constant battle, this will be a huge gain. The 39MP backs have already approached this threshold, attacking the 4x5 gold standard of LF....and also defying the "MP vs. film size" analogy offered earlier in this thread.
So eliminating cost issues, pyaback issues, viewfinder issues, electrical logistics, etc., digital is now (with these new large MF backs) offering many benefits and if it develops some more and the price starts to fall, well.... less and less film will be used.
Please, no attacks on the film issue, I love film, I still think it will always have some great applications, specially for us landscape shooters who trek out into the woods with heavy packs and want limited gear to pack, easy recording medium, very reliable, no electrical issues, can be turned digital at a later date, when the logistics are more favorable (like sitting at our desks), movements, changing plane of sharp focus, etc. etc. etc.
35mm Digital View Camera
http://www.horsemanusa.com/vcc.html
Robert (Robin) Bourbonnais
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks