Since the firestorm on my introduction post to this forum, regarding this thread. There has been another entry on the topic, more of a continuum...
A dear friend asked if he could write a follow up on my blog. I've never had a guest blogger, but there's a first time for everything.
Written by acclaimed fashion photographer Jeff Berlin;
The Importance of Repeatable Photography
Have at it folks...
Jerry Avenaim
This isn't really a film vrs digital question, more a comment on the "spray and pray" approach that digital allows more readily than film. I've seen photographers run through whole rolls of 35mm film in seconds, hoping for one good shot. And, of course, someone could spend hours with their DSLR waiting for the clouds to part and bring them the total AA experience - but why bother? Just shoot a couple hundred pix while you're waiting and spend the next month going through the thumbnails...
Last edited by Robert Hughes; 13-Jan-2010 at 11:37.
Talking of film, us in the UK pay twice as much for the same film in america, its terrible the tax thats introduced to everything in the UK so it makes it very difficult to compete with photographers in other countries for commissions, rant over
I apologize to the admin for the double post. I completely spaced out about placing this in the Announcement Section last night. Scotch + Age = Huh?
Jerry Avenaim
A stupid question : are you sure it's taxes ? I went to the US two years ago, and bought as much Tri-X as the store had. It was about 1/3 of the street price in France. I also bought some HP5, from the same store... and it was at the same price (minus the dollar to euro factor) than in France !Originally Posted by stephenhunter57
Talking of film, us in the UK pay twice as much for the same film in america, its terrible the tax thats introduced to everything in the UK so it makes it very difficult to compete with photographers in other countries for commissions, rant over
I could give you my take on doing Large Format digital with a Better Light scanning back, should anyone be interested. I am having difficulty getting e6 processed (I do B&W myself) so bit the bullet & bought one.
http://www.betterlight.com/
Resolution, color saturation, acutance beat film (even when compared to my 8x10) hands down. Downside is long scanning time, having to use the lens more open since diffraction limits are problems degrading image so movements are critical, NOTHING can move (makes color fringing rather than a blurred object! so no waterfalls!), and camera rigidity (especially the back where you hang extra weight and a long cord) is important. Lastly, it weighs more but can take 30 or more images (has a 20GB internal hard drive) since you have to pack a computer... but probably not as much as 15 film holders!
anyone interested in more detail?
Very interesting, thanks for the post, would like to hear more ! How do you think it would handle night shots of which I do a lot? I'm not sure I understood the waterfall reference, does this mean that taking images where elements within the image are in motion is a no go? like fast moving clouds?
Do you think that given a final print size of 16x20 (or on occasion 20x24) the scanning back is he equal or better of a 8x10 colour neg?
Chris
Yeah, would love to hear about this. Not that I can afford one ($6k!), I'm definitely interested in how it works and some sample images!
I've been using one since 2001.. mostly for landscape
also you can go to http://www.betterlight.com/fullRes_zoomifyLIST.html and see traditional landscape images at 100%
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks