I forgot to mention. When I do go digital, it will be with a technical camera (which allows movements).
I forgot to mention. When I do go digital, it will be with a technical camera (which allows movements).
I enjoy computer imaging on a completely different level than photography, so never. I won't care when 600MP cameras with 98 stops of dynamic range cost $5; they will be technically interesting to me, but not for making art.
Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is everything else we do.
--A=B by Petkovšek et. al.
You can hook up MFDb to you current large format, if it accepts Graflok and enjoy both - if not uber stitching plate from K-group for 2 grand, then at least sliding adapter, which will give you analogue of 6x9 (after you ran results through photoshop or C1 or something)..
PS: actually you can hook any digital SLR too, but it will be very very tiny crop, so it would be like looking at the elephant through peephole
I haven't found a screaming need for a digital back, certainly not 80 mpx. I think Charles Cramer's very beautiful and technically outstanding large prints are made with a 30 mpx back. And my 20x30 prints from a 21 mpx Canon 1Ds Mark III camera certainly don't suffer in quality compared to the prints I made in a darkroom from 4x5 film that hang next to them.
To me the only real reason to continue with large format is that it's more enjoyable to do and I think that's a perfectly good reason for me or anyone else. But it's hard for me to justify it on any other ground since I can duplicate the effect of the most common movements either in Photoshop or with a tilt/shift lens. Maybe if I wanted to make really huge prints like 40x60 4x5 would have an advantage but I'd never make a 10x enlargement from 4x5 film anyhow so that's a moot point for me. So I continue with LF but less and less frequently, in fact almost not at all lately.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I shot MF and LF before buying a digital camera about six years ago. I haven't shot 35mm or the Bronica 645 since. However, after shooting only digital for six years, it began to get boring. The shots all look the same. I started using my mother-n-laws 1959 Kodak Brownie, then bought a 1937 Bessa (6x9), then a 1914 Kodak Special No. 1 (6x9) and shot intensively with all of them. It was fun! Last fall I pulled out my Shen Hao 4x5 and have been shooting it ever since. I bought a Petzval and a 250mm Imagon lenses, am looking for something else from 1860s or earlier. Also looking to get into dry plate with either a Bergheil or an 1880s quarter plate set up. For me, I just like the challenge of using this stuff. It makes me feel connected to the photographers of the past. I also like the look I'm getting. I still shoot my Nikon D300 plenty during the week, but I'm also shooting some b&w film every week too. I suppose to sum up, the aesthetics are very important to me.
Kent in SD
In contento ed allegria
Notte e di vogliam passar!
Other people (viewers) don't care about whether film or digital has an edge in quality (unless they are trying to justify a purchase). That's why they are shooting with cell phone cams mostly. I notice, but I'm not all worked up about it. Not being ultra concerned about quality allows me to have a fun time with good results from cheap cameras and 30-100 year old bargain lenses instead of APO glass, tmy2 and fomapan100 film instead of tmx/acros/delta100. I'm not a pixel peeper, and most people aren't either.
Shoot what you like. I like both film and digital for their own strengths. I like darkroom work and computer work too.
If film stops being made, I'll have to start doing my own plates for analog image capture, and print a few of my digital pix on pictorico film for alt process stuff. I think a hybrid near-future is more likely than digital "winning".
never - or more exactely: when I die...
And that goes for Lf - Mf or small formats.
the reason is, that there's so many techniques in the wet room that I can't believe could ever be done digitally.
I do own a digital camera - for pure registration purposes only.
But should film go away - chemistry get banned (getting closer every day here in Dk), I'll stop photographing - and start making something else... (sculpture/painting/drawing or good cooking...)
As somebody else said: I don't enjoy the digital photography.
Leaving philosophy and esthetics aside:
The limit on "conventional" film photography, in any format, is the manufacture of the FILM. When film is no longer available from the major manufacturers, someone somewhere will make something, probably a black and white material. At some point film may not be availale from anyone at any price.
"Alternative Pocess" just means older technology. Any of the older processes will be available to us in large format as long as we can get the materials to cook up a photo-sensitive material at home.
And yet: Many of the solvents and reagents are also useful in processing several types ofexplosives and illegal drugs. The day may come when we cannot legally get the materials to make collodien or nitrocellulose for wet plates. Even Daguerreotypes require crystal Iodine and Mercury. We could be regulated out of existence for reasons of public safety and national security
Drew Bedo
www.quietlightphoto.com
http://www.artsyhome.com/author/drew-bedo
There are only three types of mounting flanges; too big, too small and wrong thread!
This thread is ironic to me because I just took out my 8x10 camera, that I haven"t used in 10 years, to see if the three boxes of 8x10 polaroid were still good. I've been shooting digital for the last 12 years and while that medium is working well for me in my daily work, I'm getting very excited to start shooting some film.
Photography is my profession and it's all digital for what I shoot. However, I think the lines are now more defined for me between WORK and ART. I'm excited to go and shoot some film of completely different subjects from my professional work. I expect that I'll take some of that excitement back to my day work.
People still go out and paint watercolors of the landscape even though a photograph shows more detail. It's about a "feel" or process. It may even be more about a disconnect. I'm looking into some infrared and pulling out my collection of SF portrait lenses. I remember a musician put out an album titled "New light through older windows" I liked the idea. I'm thinking "New light through older lenses"
It all depends on the cost of doing LF. If it gets to be prohibitively expensive to print and process film, then that Canon 50D or 60D looks awfully attractive. I haven't reached that point yet, but who knows what will happen to film/paper prices in the next decade.
Bookmarks