MFDB vs Large Format - where are we today?

[Struan Gray]

The waves were coming straight towards the camera...

I hadn't considered that - I was assuming the panning speed was closer to the wave speed. In retrospect it makes more sense than the hideous cross rip you would need to make the waves break sideways like that.

In general, I am fascinated by different ways to capture time and motion in a still image. Cartoonists and artists have more tools than photographers, but slit and scanning cameras are fun. That the waves look 'odd' is the entire point. Hokusai wasn't exactly literal either.

[rdenney]

Personally, I still prefer the more traditional rendition of moving water over time that a single capture with shutter open gets.

In this image, the scanning effect is at least intriguing. But the point is that they produce different effects, and one will not always do for the other.

As I said In another thread, how we render subject motion is a gross effect, and freezing is also often an abstraction. All approaches can support an artistic visualization. Or not.

Rick "noting famous examples that demonstrate the focal plane shutter effect" Denney

[gnuyork]

This topic is opening up a can of worms for a heated debate. But as I mentioned in another thread, I saw an exhibit of a landscape photographer that had most of his images captured with 8x10 velvia or Astia and scanned with a color getter drum scanner and a few images of them were captured with an expensive high end digital back (I can't remember the specific model). He had notes below the prints as to which camera/lens/film or DB was used. All were printed on fugi chrystal archive.

I could call out the digitally captured images with success before reading the notes for conformation. I saw the difference, and for the purpose of fine art I personally prefer the film captured images.

I was also recently at an exhibit at Jackson Fine Art in Atlanta of the works of Andrew Moore. He had large (40 x50) C prints made from 8x10 color negatives. Again the look of his prints were incredibly detailed, and his work was quite inspirational.

I keep hearing that the Ilfochrome process is the ultimate way to go for slide chromes. I have used this process in college with great results, but I only used 35mmm at the time. This is encouraging because somewhere in the next few weeks, possibly even this coming weekend, I am being given a machine to make Ilfochrome prints, though shooting 4x5 chromes is completely new to me, and will be a learning curve I am sure.

[D. Bryant]

I print with Epson wide format inkjets at Epsons native 360 res.It doesn't seem to matter if it was scanned 8x10, 4x5, or stitched 5DmkII (hell even stitched A640) As long as nothing is uprezzed or interpolated, all my color prints look the same, like Epson inkjet prints.A couple weeks ago down at Crysta Cove state beach, for giggles I snatched my wifes 6mp hundred dollar p&s and shot this rock.When I got home I printed it on the 4800, Harman FB AI, 12"x15", and the end result made me wonder why the hell I'm breaking my back lugging around my C-1 and A-100 to make inkjet prints.

Try having your film drum scanned. You will definitely see a difference. If you don't something is wrong.

Don Bryant

[Brian Ellis]

I'm not into making the biggest prints with the most pixels or their film equivalent so I don't pay much attention to the various devices mentioned in this thread for doing those kinds of images. They're out of my price range anyhow. But since people have been talking about panoramas, stitching, gigapixels, etc. I thought someone should mention the Gigapan device. http://www.gigapansystems.com/.

I recently saw a copy of a panorama made with a Canon 1DS Mark III camera using this device and making three exposures for each "slice" in the panorama. I forget the total number of exposures but it was in the range of a couple hundred I believe. Each slice was then adjusted to taste using Photomatix or something similar, the results were stitched in Photoshop or the Gigapan software, and the portions of the resulting print that I saw, which was measured in some multiple of feet rather than inches, looked pretty darn good.

I can't compare quality of images made this way with film or any of the other devices mentioned here, I have no basis for comparison. I just thought it was an interesting device and if gigapixels are your thing, this seems like a relatively easy and inexpensive way to get them.