Digital Capture vs. Film Capture...the PRINTS...

[sanking]

These kind of threads (digital capture versus film capture, flatbed versus drum scans, pyro developer versus traditional developer) have a similar introduction, denouement and end. 1) Someone asks a fairly simply question, 2) then the so-named experts offer their opinions, and 3) finally someone gets tired of the exchange and offers the opinion (a truism used to put down other equally banal truisms) that photography is about art, not materials and technique, etc. ad nauseum. When #3 is voiced the discussion is usually ended because truisms are like articles of poorly articulated faith that many people would rather avoid.

I would say this. Do what you want to do. But if you come to this forum, allow people to discuss what they want to discuss, so long as it is done in a civil manner.

There is no need to shut off discussion about any relevant issue, so long as the exchange is civil. That is why the forum exists.


Sandy King

[Jim collum]

Jim, interesting notes! What do you use to connect the Aptus onto your 4x5? The problem with both large format digital and panoramic digital is that they are $, as apparant blamed on need so exact tolerances, but... groundglass also small to view then, is it not? Per the guy I spoke to at Shen-Hao when I picked up my 4x5 in their store in Shanghai it sounded as a possibility that they may be able to make a Mamiya to 4x5 adapter. They already make one for Hasselblad to 4x5, and it only permit horizontal stitching and has no ground glass. Thus simple to throw into camera bag also . The 4x5 groundglass is used for focus and then replaced by the adapter when take the shot. That should work, provided they get tolerance correct. Any thoughts?

I am curious how you find it to compose using your Aptus; The SW-D should come with an external viewfinder, but what about your 4x5? Also, in what situations do you prefer one over the other?
Anders

For the Aptus, there are a few different companies that provide 4x5 interfaces (i have the Mamiya Leaf back , so it would be similar to yours). The Kapture Group is probably the best/most accurate, as well as the most expensive. I've found an interface that is occasionally offered on ebay (PanoWide) that I bought ($300 vs $2000). It wasn't as well made.. but serves my purpose. As far as focus accuracy.. it comes with a sliding focussing screen. I did some extensive testing and have shimmed mine so that the focus is accurate (you really do need to focus with a loupe though.)

With the 4x5 LF (the Betterlight back), it has a pseudo 'live view' function. Since you're working with a laptop when shooting with this back, it actually makes focussing very accurate.

The SWD has a ground glass adapter that i use as well.. along with a loupe, focussing is pretty easy. The SWD is a very precisely made camera.


If you ever find yourself in the Santa Cruz, Ca. region of the world.. let me know.. you're welcome to try things out

jim

[Marko]

Sandy,

Collectively characterizing someone else's chosen way of working as "screwing around with {insert the technique here}" or "machine-gunning" or referring to something they say as "all that noise coming from {insert your technology here}-heads" can hardly be considered civil.

As one of those who "got tired of the exchange", I will say for the record here that my intention was to shut down - or at least ridicule - the abuse, not the exchange. If it takes a banal truism to stop a banal falsehood, so be it. My point was to use whatever tool fits the task anyway.

I believe expecting to read and participate on the forum without one's ears bristling at the insults should be a pretty reasonable expectation...

[sanking]

Marko,

Sadly you are shooting from the hip without a real clue as to why you are shooting at the person.

Absolutely nothing in my previous message was directed at you, or had your in mind, either explicitly or implicitly. If you re-read my message I expect/hope/believe that you will understand that not a single word of it was directed toward you.

Sandy King

Sandy,

Collectively characterizing someone else's chosen way of working as "screwing around with {insert the technique here}" or "machine-gunning" or referring to something they say as "all that noise coming from {insert your technology here}-heads" can hardly be considered civil.

As one of those who "got tired of the exchange", I will say for the record here that my intention was to shut down - or at least ridicule - the abuse, not the exchange. If it takes a banal truism to stop a banal falsehood, so be it. My point was to use whatever tool fits the task anyway.

I believe expecting to read and participate on the forum without one's ears bristling at the insults should be a pretty reasonable expectation...

[cobalt]

These kind of threads (digital capture versus film capture, flatbed versus drum scans, pyro developer versus traditional developer) have a similar introduction, denouement and end. 1) Someone asks a fairly simply question, 2) then the so-named experts offer their opinions, and 3) finally someone gets tired of the exchange and offers the opinion (a truism used to put down other equally banal truisms) that photography is about art, not materials and technique, etc. ad nauseum. When #3 is voiced the discussion is usually ended because truisms are like articles of poorly articulated faith that many people would rather avoid.

I would say this. Do what you want to do. But if you come to this forum, allow people to discuss what they want to discuss, so long as it is done in a civil manner.

There is no need to shut off discussion about any relevant issue, so long as the exchange is civil. That is why the forum exists.


Sandy King

Sandy, you have eloquently put what I've had in mind for quite some time. Yes, at times I've been somewhat guilty of splashing gasoline on the fire. I cannot find error in your stated position. (Unless you wanna count that $150 word, dee-know-mint! :-) )

As for the shot from the proverbial hip in response, well...

Sometimes it is best not to trip over midgets. I will try to practice what I preach in the future.

Sincere regards.

[Marko]

Hey Sandy,

I guess I was more critical of myself than you were - I wasn't arguing what you said, I was trying to clarify what I said and why.

Please take it as a clumsy expression rather than shooting from the hip.

Marko

[Marko]

As for the shot from the proverbial hip in response, well...

Sometimes it is best not to trip over midgets. I will try to practice what I preach in the future.

That's fairly easy, just try to keep your fingers off the ground and you'll be safe...

[sanking]

Hi Marko,

OK, point taken. And my message again, nothing I said was directed toward you.

Sandy

Hey Sandy,

I guess I was more critical of myself than you were - I wasn't arguing what you said, I was trying to clarify what I said and why.

Please take it as a clumsy expression rather than shooting from the hip.

Marko

[sanking]

Cobalt,

There are no $150 words in my vocabulary. I use words from my background, education and experience. I never use words to confuse other persons, but for precision within the construct of my own experience.

Sorry if you are offended.

Sandy

I cannot find error in your stated position. (Unless you wanna count that $150 word, dee-know-mint! :-) )

Sincere regards.

[Findingmyway4ever]

My favorite thing about digital is the flexibility of image manipulation in post-processing. I admit it. I love computers! I enjoy spending three hours on a computer optimizing an image in Photoshop. It's amazing what can be done with layers and masks after taking multiple captures on a tripod at varying shutter speeds. Actually, I think this does result in a better image. But, it wouldn't have to, in order to make a convincing case for the over-whelming change that digital has initiated.

You make excellent points about why I continue to keep my eye on the market for a digital camera...yes, maybe back to one you use as that was the best file I have ever seen in spite the qualms you know of with the camera.

One thing I do not agree with is the above context that you wrote. Go onto Flickr and see what I mean by doing searches for point and shoot camera users and very pricey or niche type camera users. In other words, take a point and shooter, a Canon 1DS MKIII shooter, and a Leica M8 shooter. The Leica user has a lot of the typical street type work, b/w, artsy looking stuff...but they don't do much process beyond what they intended to shoot. Same with the Canon 1DS MKIII users...you find say, landscape, wildlife, portraiture, etc. etc...but with very little post-processing. Then you take, name your point and shoot camera, and you have LOADS and LOADS of processing to the extent that I bet if they printed these web images, it'd be one big puddle of pixellated color or b/w. The point and shoot people are the real geniuses in the photoshop world. Afterall, that's where they spend their lives, beside going to school/work/hanging out with friends/etc...they are online chatting, and spending a major part of their life on the computer. They (not all, but a ton of them) have learned photoshop inside/out to the point that makes the pro shooters seem like amateurs when it comes to post-process/creative work.

Maybe I am young but of the old school tradition, do agree that manipulating to one's taste is ok, but not taking an image and making it entirely different than what was intended to be shot. In other words, say we blow out a photo, but we cover up the highlights with some fake sky or just plainly darken it if it is a b/w photo...I don't think this is necessarily bad, but at the same time, it's rather stupid considering you are the reason the photo came out the way it did...using a computer to cover up, subtract, or heavily manipulate "mistakes", is, IMHO, not photography. At the same time, who am I to say what is and is not photography. It's all a subjective thing, so there's no right/wrong, etc...but in my own opinion, I prefer excellent captures where little manipulation has to be done. This way, if one does want to become "creative", they can print onto different papers, use different inks, add a bit more intense color, etc. things that add some "flavor", but still keep the original context as intended to shoot and as properly shot, intact...

Oh...and cropping...that's another one where it feels weird to me when I'm cutting out of the picture...dunno what it is, but I'm terrible about being stone set on "the capture", whether a darn pole got in the way or a person got into the picture, etc...that's how photography works, and well, some of the best photos come from those moments where we take a photo, knowing the conditions are unfavoreable, only to get back home and see that we not only nailed down the shot, but even got a rainbow into the photo that was hidden from our natural vision while we were taking the shot.

I don't want to pose this as argumentative to what you said and at the same time, do not want to mis-interpret what you said. In other words, if I mis-interpreted the way you enjoy the photographic process, I am sorry. At the same time, if we were in the same room and viewing photos together, even if I didn't care for heavily processed work being shown to me, I wouldn't ever say anything negative about it, but would be actually asking questions about what you did to make it, etc. etc. Photography, regardless of anything is about the beauty and aggravation it brings to us. Therefore, all photographers, should always teach and learn, just as we should naturally do in life, as learners and teachers...