slr "stitching back" for LF?

[sanking]

Lenny,

I think we have been around the block on this story as well. I could not disagree with you more about the quality of our current film offerings in LF. Some of the modern films, Fuji Acros, Tmax-100 and Tmax-400, are just outstanding. Even in MF with a top camera and lens like Mamiya 7 equipment one can easily make exhibition quality prints up to 20X24" , or even larger, with films like Acros and T-Max 100. To say nothing of what one can do with a 5X7" negative.

And if you don't like the modern T-grain films there are still plenty of traditional type emulsion films around, like HP5+, TRI-X 320, FP4+, Efke PL100, etc.

Yes, LF film costs a lot more, and no, it probably won't be around with the current level of variety for much longer, but what we have now is just outstanding, in my very humble opinion.

Sandy King

I'm in total agreement with you. With one minor exception. I think b&w film has already been destroyed already and I am carrying around an 8x10 camera - and getting older. It would be nice to carry something smaller. I need my quality so it has to be enough for me to put the thing down...

Honestly, I think they are going to force us into this. I think, despite some protestations to the contrary, that film will disappear. It's years out - a few I hope, and I can't tell you how many. But I think it's inevitable. I would love to see small manufacturers make film in this country - but I haven't seen any as yet.

Lenny

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,

I think we have been around the block on this story as well. I could not disagree with you more about the quality of our current film offerings in LF. Some of the modern films, Fuji Acros, Tmax-100 and Tmax-400, are just outstanding.
Sandy King

We certainly have. I don't think we need to go there again. Its just different. I didn't mean to re-make that point, only that it was that - that was driving me to carry around my 8x10.

Lenny

[Tyler Boley]

Another point that no doubt colors my opinion. I hear many in my generation saying they are ready to leave the big camera at home and find a better way. One friend said he was just sick of the big camera, the time it takes, the phutzing with it all, and more than ready to take a little camera out of his pocket and make an image, and move on.
But I'm afraid I'm just the opposite. I've done a lot of things over the decades, a few even legal, and I can think of no more lovely and fulfilling way to spend some time, out in the landscape, trying to drop my mental behavioral crap, let what's in front of me "in", work with the tools I know too well to even be consciously aware of... and live in the world of image and the senses.
Even if I come back with nothing, I could blow a lot of days doing that, and have.
So there's that...
This IS the large format list, I imagine a few here can relate.
Tyler

[Kirk Gittings]

Even if I come back with nothing, I could blow a lot of days doing that, and have.

So true. It reminds me of fly fishing, which I have been doing since i was about 5 or 6. On some of my most memorable days fly fishing, I have caught nothing. There is something almost Zen in the simple effort. I no longer need to shoot LF to make a living, but I NEED to shoot large format for more profound reasons.

[Lenny Eiger]

Another point that no doubt colors my opinion. I hear many in my generation saying they are ready to leave the big camera at home and find a better way.
Tyler

Once again, you are right... I do get frustrated by the weight of the 8x10, actually more the holders, lenses, etc., when I want to take it on a long hike. I want more and more to go far away, where the hand of man isn't so evident, and it gets harder as time goes on. There isn't quite so much time these days, resources, etc.

However, as you say, there is nothing like a view camera. As someone who has taught for many years, I would say there is nothing like a view camera to get someone to slow down, actually look at what they are photographing and connect with it, vs taking one more snapshot.

And there's nothing like the quality one can get from a 5x7 or 8x10 (or larger). I don't care what anyone says, what the math says, etc. The results are pretty clear... I guess I will say that I celebrate everyone's commitment to the view camera, what this list is for... May it live forever...

And maybe I just need to get a mule to help out from time to time.

Lenny

[dh003i]

John, Sorry to be so late in responding. The basic reason that I use tilt when I shoot with a view camera is to optimize depth of field. This can now be accomplished with digital using the software identified at the link below. Using this software, one can alter the point of focus throughout each (multiples of the same) exposure (consistant with the parameters of the chosen depth of field) and stack the images to arrive at a combined image with depth of field equal to a view camera without the attenuating diffraction issues that one might encounter when stopping a LF lens down beyond a certain point.

http://www.tawbaware.com/tufuse.htm

Best regards,
Don

.

One should note that when doing this, you need to take several pictures, with the plane of optimum focus progressively moving from "near the camera" out to infinity; i.e., shots with POF 1 ft from camera, 5 ft from camera, 10 ft from camera, 20 ft from camera, 40 ft from camera, 80 ft from camera, 160 ft from camera, infinity (or other intervals).

I bet this would take more time than just doing it with LF to begin with.