Are you making money with LF?

[Once]

No, but could you lend me some?

[domenico Foschi]

No, but could you lend me some?

Hey, asking doesn't hurt, right?

[Gordon Moat]

Welcome to the group Jeff. Almost funny to diss comments about technology, then wax lyrically about technology . . . nearly poetry by itself.

I saw an exhibit at MOPA last year that was all 35mm. The images were very compelling, some quite moving, several printed large . . . and none who saw that exhibit complained about 35mm not being good enough; indeed, any comments were about the content of the images. Unfortunately we are in an age of perceptions, and showing up on most paid gigs with only 35mm would be frowned upon.

So we are in an era were some feel they need to impress others with their gear, at least professionally. There is an implied notion that when you spent large sums of money on gear, somehow you are adding value to what you shoot for the client. The portfolios of those at the top don't indicate what gear was used, and they don't need to because the images do enough of the talking. Professionally we need to be more than simply a rental house for our clients, though that might be simply my opinion.

If you want to sell your 8x10, you might try contacting Olaf Veltman or Craig McDean, though I think both were using Sinar cameras (McDean also uses an RZ67 sometimes). Then you have others like Andric, or Mats Cordt. In fact, a glance through Lürzer's Archive 200 Best Ad Photographers (Fall 2007) indicates about a third of the top shooters using large format, all delivering digitally, and many doing their own post processing.

I attended an interesting seminar last year put on by APA, which featured ad shooter Dana Neibert. Prior to the start of that event, many other photographers were speculating on what high end gear this top level shooter used, especially since the accounts he was shooting could easily afford him the choice of anything. On top of that, he had only been a photographer for less than eight years. It was quite the epiphany for many of us to discover that he used an old Crown Graphic and one lens for nearly everything he shot, and an Imacon scanner . . . why was I beating myself up over gear; seriously, I have better gear than Dana Neibert . . . . . . So what all that led me to do was to think more about my images, and less about what gear I was hauling to a location (rented, leased, or bought).

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Once]

Hey, asking doesn't hurt, right?

This is a friendly forum, right? The lucky ones help the rest of us, no..?

[jeffacme]

Hey Gordon, Yes many of my comments were aimed at stirring the hornets nest and then leading the discussion to what really makes a great picture.

You are right, especially in the commercial ad realm perception does lead many, myself included, to hi end techno geekery. Some of that is due to legitimate specs. It is nice to have 11x17 at 300 dpi res when shooting for AR or pubs even better to have a bit more for multiple ad spaces and cropping felxibility. The thing most AD's either don't know or have forgotten is that we never used all that 4x5 or even MF res anyway.

It is funny you bring up the mighty Crown Graphic. Mine with it's 127mm Ektar remains one of my favorite cameras. Almost my constant companion in the early years it still can make great pictures and having spent $50.00 for it and 10 film holders does speak volumes about the relationship between content and quality vs technical perfection.

Thanks for the welcome. As for the gear I could never really sell I might shoot 8x10 again someday.

[jetcode]

When I looked at lease rates, purchase, upgrade life, and additional computer needs, it made more sense to rent a MFDB when/if needed, though those times have been rare. Renting allows you to have the latest digital gear when you need it ...

I wanted to rent the latest Hasselblad 39MP at Calumet ... one small problem. They required a $30k deposit on a credit card yikes!

[roteague]

4x5 = 125-150 MB of scanned info before EPP film grain becomes an issue.

I find I can easily go to 325MB scans from 4x5 quite readily without grain becoming an issue; but I only shoot Velvia, and my scans are done on a Tango.

[jeffacme]

Robert, By becoming an issue I mean the point where I am enlarging film grain. I consider that the effective resolution of the piece of film in the scanner. Sure I can add more MB to the scan but I am only enlarging grain and what's the point. Velvia is great film but the color balance is biased and for my purposes not an everyday film. I would expect the tighter grain of Velvia in particular the 50 ISO to yield bigger files and if it works for you that is great.

I don't want debate all the finite details. It is my belief that dwelling on them keeps me from making the best picture I can. As I said shoot whatever you like just make sure the poetry is there

[roteague]

Robert, By becoming an issue I mean the point where I am enlarging film grain. I consider that the effective resolution of the piece of film in the scanner. Sure I can add more MB to the scan but I am only enlarging grain and what's the point.

I generally limit my scans to no more than 5000 dpi. It isn't so much the grain you get, but you start getting a bouncing effect caused by the space between the grains. A 325MB scan, which is about 2500 dpi, will easily produce any size print I need to do.

Velvia is great film but the color balance is biased and for my purposes not an everyday film. I would expect the tighter grain of Velvia in particular the 50 ISO to yield bigger files and if it works for you that is great.

Yeah, Velvia isn't a good film for doing commercial work, but works great for landscapes, which is all I do.

[David Luttmann]

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?

Always nice to read something from someone who has actually compared differences. Welcome.