My memory is failing, I remembered that was your idea!Originally Posted by Donald Miller
My memory is failing, I remembered that was your idea!
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Are they? Why make such ridiculous comparisons? And this being a LF froum, who really cares about what those using dslrs think? If they think that a dslr is better than LF, nothing you say will make this person change his mind, specially since he is most likely comparing his dslr pics to his less than adequate LF pics.the comments are relevant since the comparisons, at least some of them, are being made between DSLR and LF
No one in this thread has mentioned a digital back for LF cameras, and being that there are only a couple of people in this forum who own them and use them, and they are not participating in this thread, this is a moot point. If Jim Collum (the only one I know who uses a digital back in this forum) was participating then it might be somewhat relevant. But we go back to dslr, you might think that I am being "anal", I like to think I am asking for a little courtesy and for you and the guy who cannot use anything else other than a dslr to take discussions about dslr somewhere else. Freedom to say what you want is not the same as you and more specifically the guy obssesed with dslrs to force the rest of the community to have to read about them.For example, people are using P45 digital backs, which have a sensor size of only about 1.9"X1.4", on LF cameras. Is that not relevant to the LF forum? Best to not get to anal about what is discussed, IMO. If I have to err one way or the other, it is on freedom in allowing people to say what they want to say.
Once again, a good LF thread has been ruined by this person who is has no idea about LF and has to bring back any discussion about LF to digital and dslr.
Really true! I come here to gain knowledge, whether I agree or disagree on the opinions, on LF. I use LF for some things and digital for others. While I feel the quality on digital has improved greatly over the past few years it's still the photographer's choice. Unlike alot of folks I actually tested the issue with an 8x10 contact print and the same photograph in digital, printed and framed. Use what you're happy with and enjoy.
Someone brought this part of the thread to my attention. Evidently, some people aren't clever enough to use the ignore button.....even when they say they have. Maybe if these people actually read the whole thread, they'll see it was not me that started the digital part of it. As well, if they don't like it, they don't need to read it. Finally, it had nothing to do with LF vs DSLRs.....not sure where you got that, but we were talking about 35mm film scans. Maybe a lesson on how to read may help as well.
Finally, maybe another lesson on how to select the ignore feature is in order....as well as avoiding threads that have digital in the heading. Not sure why you keep reading those anyway!
The message of the OP was this.
"Are there people out their still getting paid well enough to be shooting large format and film?
How is business these days. I pretty much shoot all digital commercially now."
My take on his comment, and the subsequent messages, is that this type of discussion is entirely appropriate and relevant to the LF forum. I think when people find that digital replaces LF for commercial work it is an interesting subject of conversation to understand the pros and cons.
Take Kirk Gittings use of DSLR for much of his current commercial work with architectural photography. Frankly, my own thoughts would have been that this type of photography would have been one of the last places DSLR would replace a view camera. But Kirk is a professional photographer who works in this field and if anyone should know what works it is a person like him who has experience with both LF and DSLR. So I have read his remarks on the subject with interest, and have learned from them.
On the whole I find discussions where the pros and cons of different capture media are discussed both interesting and useful, especially when the discussion involves LF compared to some other type of capture, be that MF film, DSLR or digital back on a LF camera. As far as I am concerned, any discussion of this type is relevant to the LF forum.
And if it is not, there are moderators who can move it to the Lounge.
Sandy King
Is it enterily appropiate because you say so? Is LF being replaced with dslrs? And if it is, is it not a more appropiate place a dgital dslr forum to discuss this?My take on his comment, and the subsequent messages, is that this type of discussion is entirely appropriate and relevant to the LF forum. I think when people find that digital replaces LF for commercial work it is an interesting subject of conversation to understand the pros and cons.
YOu say to understand the pros and cons, I hate to tell you this, but you are not going to change anybodies mind here. Either pro or con, I disagree with you when you say digital negatives are just as good as in camera negatives, but since we are never going to agree why waste the time and more annoy the rest of the people going back and forth.
My take on the OP is very different than yours, so right there we once again disagree.
Yeah, and you notice Kirk as a professional has the courtesy not to discuss dslrs here. Besides, I don't see him participating here other than making a couple of comments about Donald's technique, whatever that is. More importantly, there is a very big difference between Kirk and the "professional" wedding photographer. One knows what he is talking about, the other one does not.Take Kirk Gittings use of DSLR for much of his current commercial work with architectural photography. Frankly, my own thoughts would have been that this type of photography would have been one of the last places DSLR would replace a view camera. But Kirk is a professional photographer who works in this field and if anyone should know what works it is a person like him who has experience with both LF and DSLR. So I have read his remarks on the subject with interest, and have learned from them.
You do, some of us don't and since this started as a thread that had nothing to do with digital slrs it would have been nice if it was kept this way.On the whole I find discussions where the pros and cons of different capture media are discussed both interesting and useful
This is true, and as I stated before another nice LF thread ruined and moved to the lounge as it happened to the one before.And if it is not, there are moderators who can move it to the Lounge.
Jorge,
You have your opinion. I have mine. But this is not your forum, and it is not mine. If the moderators don't consider the thread relevant to LF use, they are free to delete it, or move it to the lounge.
I try to be courteous in my exchanges with others, but I am not going to roll over and play dead because you, or Dave, or anyone else, does not agree with me.
If you don't like the discussion, ignore it. Or lobby the moderators to move it to the lounge.
Sandy King
Well sure, now I know to ignore it since it has gone to shit. The annoying part was checking the thread and seeing all this talk about dslrs.
I did not ask you to roll over and play dead, I asked you to have some courtesy since I thought you would be the more reasonable one to ask this, I guess you proved me wrong in both instances.
DLSRs do what a lot of the public thinks that LF can do. It just doesn 't do it as well. For a lot of applications, DLSRs are sufficient. If it's convenient for me, I will through in a few LF shot for my cleints, hoping that they will see the value in them. I'm sure that there are plenty of photographers out there who have clients who want and expect the resolution of LF. They're, perhaps, too busy to get into this discussion with the rest of us.
As a long time commercially driven shooter, mostly ads, I long for the days when I priced film in square feet and a good job was shot on 8x10. Those days are gone now and where my freezer once contained cases of 4x5 and 8x10 trans a lonely box of 4x5 EPP shivers in silence. Do I make money on LF I wish!
I have always felt that the difference is poetry not technology. What sets one shooter apart makes one studio more successful relates more to image content than pixels or film grain.
To state that LF still rules is to ignore the fact that a great shooter with 6mp can crush a neophyte with a 4x5. To state that a DSLR cannot produce a good 30" print is to be ignorant of what makes a good 30" print. I say it's poetry not pixels.
But if we must digress into the technical to bolster egos and make ourselves seem smarter I guess we must.
The whole leica on a tripod with 25 asa film, please, I'll take a 1ds mk3 and the universe of creative possibilities it offers off the tripod in a heart beat.
The I need 125mp to equal 4x5, get real, I have scanned bucket loads of 4x5 on my flextight and my rule of thumb is as follows.
4x5 = 125-150 MB of scanned info before EPP film grain becomes an issue. My p45+ produces 112MB of info per 8bit capture. Damn close and if you make big prints and really look the 4x5 is a hair better in optimum conditions.
MF trans = 60-70 MB of info before film grain becomes an issue. My mk3s produce 60MB of info in a far more flexible system, no contest for me and my clients.
35mm, forget about it DSLR capture has buried it long ago.
I am surprised to see no mention of dynamic range. I have never in 30 years seen the kind of dynamic range produced by my P45+ it is a revolution in image capture. No film I have ever shot is in the same room, period.
Fire away folks, but I would love to see this thread ended by those who are still making money with LF and not a dissection of our differences by those who only hold to one train of thought
Shoot whatever you want just make sure the poetry is there.
Oh yeah, anybody wanna buy a couple 8x10 Kardan Masters and a half dozen T stopped Schneider APO lenses?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks