DSLR Stitching Again

[tim atherton]

Burtinsky uses an 8x10 and processes his stuff in his own custom lab. He is a master photographic technician. He is also a very good artist (IMO) for the subject matter he concentrates on. His 40" x 50" prints are incredibly detailed, even with your nose right in them and are clearly superior to 4x5 or the best direct digital capture available, though a Betterlight scan is close. This is my observation of the technical merits of his art.

Mainly 4x5 for a good while now, but he's working on going to the Hassy digi setup

[Jack Flesher]

Mainly 4x5 for a good while now, but he's working on going to the Hassy digi setup

Okay -- but the last large prints I saw myself were from his China shoot and they were all 8x10 (Phillips I think). I have not seen any of his 4x5 shots in erson, blown up large (I understand shipbreaking might have been 4x5?) Anyway, his 8x10's were impressive.

[ageorge]

Wow, that's a pretty stark and utilitarian perspective (and probably more so than you really meant). You draw a distinction between the process and the result that is meaningful only in the context of photography as nothing but a pure documentary science. If you're shooting pictures of furniture for an Ikea catalog, I'll accept that you can be utilitarian about the results. But if you really do care about self-expression, and you identify the B&W print as your statement of self-expression, it would be paradoxical (and probably disingenuous) for you to divest the result from the process by which you've produced it.

Realistically, self-expression is a process and not a result. It can't be the result of a purely technical process that has no meaning to you, because if you aren't personally invested in the process then how exactly can it be a self-expression?

I mean painters enjoy the act of painting as well as the final product; writers enjoy the act of writing, sculptors enjoy the act of sculpting, etc. And in a world where there are easier cameras to use than view cameras, the decision to express yourself with a view camera implies enjoyment of that instrument and how it's used, and if you get a wonderful print out of it then all the better.

Photography is 90% sheer, brutal drudgery! The other 10% is inspiration!! -Brett Weston

Realistically, self-expression is a process and not a result.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement above. As I said, people do photography for different reasons. It is obvious that our motivations for photography are polar.

[DrPablo]

I couldn't disagree more with your statement above. As I said, people do photography for different reasons. It is obvious that our motivations for photography are polar.

That's almost an amazing thing for me to read. I'm sort of stunned. It's like you saying you play chess because you like to beat people, not because you like the game of chess.

And it's NOT obvious that our motivations are polar. I, like you, am extremely motivated by producing a great photograph. The output is highly important to me, and it indeed constitutes a major output for my self-expression. So we're not doing it for different reasons. But where we differ is that I actually enjoy photograpy as an activity in addition to the photographs as I produce. And if, as you said, 90% of it is sheer, brutal drudgery, I guess that means I enjoy 100% of it and you enjoy 10%. Different strokes, I guess.

[Marko]

I don't sniff pixels or grain in images, instead I judge based upon formal aspects, composition, and context when I view any images. I have seen motor-driven pans stitched by George Lepp (yes, I know, a contentious name to some, but he did the prints) from E100VS and a Canon 1Ds Mark II that had no difference in amount of detail, colour quality, nor sharpness and contrast; had he not provided the information of which large print was 35mm film and which was 1DsMII, very few people would ever guess, nor correctly identify the source capture method; so what made no difference in the final prints?

Hi Gordon,

Always enjoying your posts regardless of how much I agree with what you are saying.

Yes it seems that many if not most of the "Names" seem to be controversial to some people. The main difference, IMO, and thus most likely the real reason being that the former did make names for themselves while the latter didn't. The Artist and the Critic, some would say, but I don't think that would be fair either, Detractor would be more likely. Indeed, when one looks at each issue of contention at hand, it is always the Name (or the criticized) doing something new and interesting (to some) while the Detractors mostly do the detracting while doing very little of anything else, at least anything of significance to anybody other than themselves.

Those who do attain some level of significance still criticize but rarely detract. And they certainly don't feel threatened by someone else's relevance.

So I think when people try to quantify imaging, and hack it down to numbers and equivalents, it misses why people like images at all. The implied message of the this-is-better-than-that-because crowd is that to do it any other way leads one down a path of disaster, soft images, and crap. So how come that implied message of a crap direction simply does not hold up? Why can we still get really good technical quality and compelling images when we are not using the cutting edge of technology? It just boogles the mind how anyone could produce a nice print from film.

It's a bit like religion. People needed to have reassuring explanation of the phenomena they either did not understand and/or were frightened by them but could not do anything about it. The whole thing is rather ideological in nature, it needs a dogma, not the reason, therefore there is no reason behind those "arguments".

The message of implied disaster/doom/crap is always the same, no matter which ideology and/or religion you look at and the reason is very simple: there is no message and there is no argument. One cannot, should not, must not argue with a divine, therefore there is no message either. There is only a huge detraction effort aiming exactly to undermine and derail any meaningful discussion about the subject of (supposed) divinity.

And if you look closely, that is exactly what is happening here too - whenever the talk takes direction toward digital or unorthodox/unusual techniques (and those are mostly digital too because digital naturally lends itself toward experimentation), there come a few activists with their snide little snipes and the whole discussion goes south after a few well placed posts. The point is they are not interested in the discussion, not the least bit, all they want is to undermine the talk about the hated subject, and that's exactly what happens most of the time.

The saddest thing of all is that these are mostly (relatively) educated adults, who have largely left their adolescent years behind them quite some time ago but still act as if they have not...

[tim atherton]

Okay -- but the last large prints I saw myself were from his China shoot and they were all 8x10 (Phillips I think). I have not seen any of his 4x5 shots in erson, blown up large (I understand shipbreaking might have been 4x5?) Anyway, his 8x10's were impressive.

Which China "shoot"? Most of the later factories stuff etc is all 4x5. (what's in the China. The Next Industrial Revolution book). I'm not sure about the Three Gorges work - I think he said it was towards the end of that work that he started using the 4x5 much more.

Basically 8x10 was just getting too clunky with all the travel and he could get what he wanted with his Linhof 4x5, colour neg and the best latest lenses. And now he's working on whether the latest Hassy set-up/back/lenses will give him what he wants - he felt for a lot of his work it did.

[ageorge]

You say this....

Realistically, self-expression is a process and not a result.

And then you say this....

I, like you, am extremely motivated by producing a great photograph. The output is highly important to me, and it indeed constitutes a major output for my self-expression.

I think you may just like to argue. I too suffer from this affliction to a degree. But when you can't even stick to you're own arguments, it's a sign that the affliction has reached another level. Put down the keyboard and seek help immediately

[DrPablo]

I think you may just like to argue. I too suffer from this affliction to a degree. But when you can't even stick to you're own arguments, it's a sign that the affliction has reached another level. Put down the keyboard and seek help immediately

I don't think that's at all self-contradictory, but that's probably because I see the result as simply the end-terminus of a process. It's not like an exclamation point, where the line is the process and the dot is the result. It's a continuum for me. In fact it's a continuum that extends beyond the result's final iteration, because I enjoy my photos and reflect on them years after I take them, not to mention sharing them with other people.

As for arguing, well, that's one process I don't enjoy -- maybe because I never expect someone to back down and tell me I'm right... Guess I'll stick to the camera

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon, you are missing the point. The pixels from a digital source are very different than from a film source. Digital capture withstands enlargement far better than film due to the ability of digital sources to maintain lower noise levels and better acutance.

The 50mp to 60mp figure is based upon my testing on prints. This has been backed up by many, many others. A 60mp Bayer sensor capture shows more detail on a 50" then does drum scanned Fuji Astia and drum scanned TMax 100. At sizes larger, it's still no contest...the film looks muddy from grain and lacks fine detail that appears in the digital source.

You feel free to have whatever doubts you wish, but what is seen on print cannot be argued with. I suggest you try.

Hello David,

I think we are down to likes and dislikes, and possibly our own visual capabilities and preferences. If you like printed results more from a Betterlight back than from film, I am not one to argue with that preference (same applies to stitching to get 50 to 60 MP). If you don't like prints from 4x5 at a certain size, then perhaps a more constructive answer would be to indicate how large a print is reasonable from 4x5.

I have worked in the printing industry for over ten years, and seen and handled thousands of images and prints. I also regularly go to museums and see printed results (RA-4, Cibachrome, various inkjet, silver gelatin, et al) from people who do better with those processes than I. No, I have not used a Betterlight back, though I have liked the results I have seen from one. No, I have not used the latest Hasselblad 39 MP back, but I have handled some files recently for a project, and I can tell you that they are not without problems; which will likely piss some people off, since it might be expected that spending so much would purchase perfection.

So is a 40" by 50" print from 4x5 always too large to avoid annoying problems? What do you feel is the largest size limit from 4x5 that does not fall apart?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[tim atherton]

So is a 40" by 50" print from 4x5 always too large to avoid annoying problems? What do you feel is the largest size limit from 4x5 that does not fall apart?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

40"x50" is the size Burtynsky is aiming for from many of is 4x5 negs - didn't look too muddy to me and he seems to do pretty well for sales...