The LF look

[Brian Ellis]

in the shot that initially grabbed me it was both that parrelell lines stuff and depth of field. Sure I can do it in photoshop... I can superimpose image on image to get the focal depth right... in the shot would have only taken 15 layers or so.. then stretched it.. then tidied it up. Then wondered why it didn't look right.
Hell, I'm a photoshop whizz... give me enough computing power and acess to good imagery and I can give you a perfectly believable rendition of Mount Everest smack bang in the middle of Kansas without even picking up a camera... you want some UFO's with that???

Unfortunately I'm also one of those fools that actually hates photoshopped images. I take pride in knowing that my work is very rarely enhaned beyond the limits of my capture system. Guess I must be a photographer not a graphic artist huh?

I wasn't talking about moving objects into a photograph such as UFOs or Mount Everest. I was talking about making adjustments in Photoshop so that the subject appears more realistic (as opposed to how a photograph of a building looks when, for example, a camera without movements is aimed up at the top of the building from the ground). In other words, I was talking about the opposite of what you're talking about when you mention moving UFOs and Mount Everest into a picture.

While the movements of a view camera may have been used to alter the plane of focus (the depth of field or "focal depth" you mention) there are other ways of achieving that look besides using the movements of a LF camera. It's possible to do it to a limited extent at least in Photoshop or it can be done at the time the photograph is made with a smaller camera. So just seeing that look doesn't mean a LF camera was necessarily used.

In my previous message I wasn't demeaning LF photography and certainly wasn't saying that anything that can be done with a LF camera can be done equally well in Photoshop. I'm just suggesting that the two things you saw that led you to think there is a LF "look" perhaps weren't really peculiar to use of a LF camera.

[Brian Ellis]

photoshopping perspective control , ha dont make me laugh

lf is the only true way of doing this, photoshop just stretches the image

No, Photoshop doesn't just stretch the image.

[Noeyedear]

No I haven't myself.I assume you do this by making several passes on the scanner before doing the actual scan?

More a gentle blow with a hairdryer, to remove moisture from the neg and the glass.

Kevin.

[Noeyedear]

No, Photoshop doesn't just stretch the image.

I have not always been convinced about my Photoshop straightening, yes I can put a grid over it that says everything is level and upright, it still looks odd sometimes to me, sorted of twisted. Is there a trick to getting it right in Photoshop?

Kevin.

[Steve M Hostetter]

I think the difference is in the meticulous preperation and execution of the technical camera..

I also believe this thought is universal in every personal endeavor, from traveling 7 miles under the surface of the ocean (1960) to making a pizza with a distinct flavor ( Ray's in NYC )

steve

[Ken Lee]

The original question basically puts the cart before the horse.

It might be more instructive to ask: Why do some photographers prefer Large Format, even when other equipment is available ?

[Steve M Hostetter]

I believe the tools are basiclly the same to make pizza but it's the ingredient, temp, time, and passion for the finished product