About Joe Cornish and the scope of the Large Format Photography Forum

[r.e.]

Note: A moderator cut this thread from 6 posts to 1 post because discussion about using a Phase One back or a medium format digital camera plus a view camera to make large format photographs is apparently banned here. The Joe Cornish video is allowed because he focuses on how he made the photograph rather than on the capture device. The rest of the thread was sent to The Lounge: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?170757-Joe-Cornish-Andrew-Latreille-amp-Phase-One-Digital-Backs

There is discussion about this decision starting at post #2 below. The definition of large format photography has not been revisited here in almost nine years. According to the current definition, Joe Cornish is not a large format photographer and, if he joined this forum, he would be prohibited from discussing his Arca-Swiss view camera and digital back and from posting his photographs. This thread also linked a video by architectural photographer Andrew Latreille, in which he talked about his own Arca-Swiss camera and Phase One back, but it was sent to The Lounge because his video focused on the attributes of the camera.

I didn't know that landscape photographer Joe Cornish is now using a Phase One digital back. However, that's incidental to the 22 minute video below, in which Cornish talks in detail about the photographic process and his decisions while making a landscape photograph in Scotland's Fisherfield Forest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dundonnell_and_Fisherfield_Forest). Discussion about the resulting image from 14:00 to 22:00.

Camera: Arca-Swiss
Capture: Phase One XF IQ4 150MP digital back (image resolution 14204 x 10652) (https://photography.phaseone.com/iq4-digital-backs/)*
Polariser and Graduated Neutral Density Filters: Lee Filters
Tripod head: Arca-Swiss Cube
Tripod: Pretty sure Gitzo
* Photographer Alex Nail, who made the video, provides the Phase One info in the video's comments section.

Britain's Greatest Landscape Photographer, Joe Cornish, in the field


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADKw0VsVXJc

[Oren Grad]

The second post, about digital backs, spawned a discussion which has been moved to its own thread here:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?170757-Joe-Cornish-Andrew-Latreille-amp-Phase-One-Digital-Backs

[r.e.]

The second post, about digital backs, spawned a discussion which has been moved to its own thread here:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?170757-Joe-Cornish-Andrew-Latreille-amp-Phase-One-Digital-Backs

Why The Lounge rather than Digital Hardware? You've moved five out of six posts to The Lounge that are directly related to using a Phase One back, or medium format digital camera, as the capture medium for a view camera.

I considered both Style and Technique and Digital Hardware and concluded that Joe Cornish's technical discussion made the thread a good fit for the former. I realised that you might see it differently and send the whole discussion to Digital Hardware. But The Lounge? I didn't see that even as a possibility.

There are now a number of discussions in this forum about using a digital sensor to digitise negatives or prints. I don't understand how that can be on topic, but digital capture with a sensor and view camera isn't. Is digital rather than film capture off limits in this forum? Is that why Andrew Latreille's video, using the same Phase One back as Cornish, was sent to The Lounge? Would Cornish's video, if he talked about using the Phase One back instead of how he composed the photo, also have been sent to The Lounge? Is talking about Cornish's decision to use a digital back off limits too?

Anyway, I don't see any point in Cornish's video as a standalone thread. If that's what you want to do, you might as well delete the whole thread.

[Oren Grad]

Why The Lounge rather than Digital Hardware? You've moved five posts to The Lounge that are directly related to using a Phase One back, or medium format digital camera, as the capture medium for a view camera.

I considered both Style and Technique and Digital Hardware and concluded that Joe Cornish's technical discussion deserved the former. I think that it's better to put all six posts in Digital Hardware than to split them up, which just undermines an otherwise coherent discussion.

There are now a number of discussions in this forum about using a digital sensor to digitise negatives or prints. I don't understand how that can be on topic, but digital capture with a sensor and view camera isn't. Is digital rather than film capture off limits in this forum? Is that why Andrew Latreille's video, using the same Phase One back as Cornish, was sent to The Lounge?

From the top of our Guidelines/FAQ page, emphasis added:

The primary objective of this forum is to support and expand the craft of large format photography, as defined here. The structure of the forum, and the guidelines (rules, often referred to as “terms of use”) are intended to further that goal for the long term within the confines of a non-commercial site, staffed by unpaid volunteers as moderators. We especially encourage questions which will help build a repository of knowledge about the tools and techniques of large format photography. Commonly accepted definitions base large format photography on 4"x5" and larger sheet film (or the 9x12 cm metric equivalent), regardless of the style of camera being used. This is the definition we will use. We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology. Over time, these definitions and boundaries have changed. The current definition was established in September, 2014. Prior threads that no longer fit this definition will be moved to the appropriate forum only if new postings are made within them.

This has been our consistent policy since our scope definition was last clarified in 2014. We had extensive discussion at the time about the implications of digital backs, technical view cameras, stitching, etc., for our scope of activity as a forum, and this is where we ended up.

Within the Forum's defined scope, digital capture from negatives and prints is akin to enlargers and inkjet printers. They are all supporting tools for creating desired output formats - print or electronic display - from an original capture that meets our criteria for large format.

[r.e.]

We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology. Over time, these definitions and boundaries have changed. The current definition was established in September, 2014.

This has been our consistent policy since our scope definition was last clarified in 2014. We had extensive discussion at the time about the implications of digital backs, technical view cameras, stitching, etc., for our scope of activity as a forum, and this is where we ended up.



This hasn't been updated for eight years, about to be nine? Really? The iPhone 5C was discontinued in 2015. We're now on iPhone 14.

Who was making a 4"x5" sensor in 2014? A quick search suggests that the first commercially available one came onto the market last year, at a price that the vast majority of people won't be paying.

The technology that this thread talked about before it was sent to The Lounge didn't even exist in 2014.

[Oren Grad]

The technology that this thread talked about before it was sent to The Lounge didn't even exist in 2014.

Medium format digital cameras and backs, technical view cameras for use with digital backs, and processing software enabling techniques such as stitching have all improved by leaps and bounds since 2014. But they all existed in usable form at the time, and we had them very much in mind when we discussed the implications of digital capture for our scope. Nothing fundamental has changed since then.

[r.e.]

Medium format digital cameras and backs, technical view cameras for use with digital backs, and processing software enabling techniques such as stitching have all improved by leaps and bounds since 2014. But they all existed in usable form at the time, and we had them in mind when we discussed the implications of digital capture for our scope. Nothing fundamental has changed since then.

There's something wrong with this picture. You are effectively saying that if Joe Cornish, one of the most important large format photographers in the world, joined this forum he couldn't talk about the camera that the uses. Same for Andrew Latreille. In my respectful view, this defies common sense and is ass-backwards.

For all practical purposes, you have banned all discussion about digital capture. You do that by pretending that in 2014 the people who made this "decision" had in mind the state of technology in 2022.

I'm just dumbfounded that the definition here of "large format" not only completely ignores actual practice, but has not been revisited in almost nine years.

[Oren Grad]

There's something wrong with this picture. You are effectively saying that if Joe Cornish, one of the most important large format photographers in the world, joined this forum he couldn't talk about the camera that the uses. Same for Andrew Latreille. In my respectful view, this defies common sense and is ass-backwards.

For all practical purposes, you have banned all discussion about digital capture.

I'm just dumbfounded that the definition here of "large format" not only completely ignores actual practice, but has not been revisited in almost nine years.

Where a given discussion belongs within the Forum is determined by where the topic to be discussed fits within our defined scope and organization. Famous and unknown; experienced and novice; former, current and prospective users of large format - all who wish to post are welcome, but all are subject to the same rules.

We (moderators) are familiar with current technology and well aware of what you call "actual practice". I use digital medium format myself, along with other digital and film formats.

But the identity and purpose of this Forum are rooted in a particular craft, and based on long and varied experience as photographers and as participants in and observers of photography discussion forums, those of us who shoulder the responsibility for maintaining this Forum have concluded that the distinctive contribution of this Forum to the photographic community is best sustained by defining its boundaries in the way that we have.

[r.e.]

... those of us who shoulder the responsibility for maintaining this Forum have concluded that the distinctive contribution of this Forum to the photographic community is best sustained by defining its boundaries in the way that we have.

I think that you should have just said that in the first place.

I'm with Joe Cornish, and Alex Nail, who made the video. As far as I'm concerned, the idea that Joe Cornish is acceptable here as long as he talks in general terms about how he makes photographs, but not if he talks about his capture medium and Arca-Swiss view camera, beggars belief. It never even occurred to me that the owner of a forum that claimed to be about large format photography would decide that Cornish isn't a large format photographer, which is in fact what you've decided for the purposes of this forum. In the real world, I'd like to think that people here would consider themselves lucky if Cornish joined and participated, but given your "rules" there isn't the slightest prospect of that happening.

Hey, it's your forum and you can do whatever you like, but in my view this comes from some kind of alternate universe.

[Oren Grad]

I have nothing more to add, other than that I will move this thread to the Feedback subforum because the discussion is about Forum policy.

[bob carnie]

I met Joe when he came to Canada for a workshop, he was still doing film capture at that time, we put on a rather large show of his work, It does not surprise me that colour workers like Joe and others are moving to Phase One type of gear. I have many clients that have made the switch and the work is outstanding.

It has become increasingly difficult and expensive for many to keep using film and the switch to these devices makes sense. For my personal work I still use film as I am interested in cross process and solarization which is best suited in an analogue platform. I doubt my type of work can be duplicated using a phase one. But if I wanted to travel and make shows from that travel I would certainly move in the direction Joe has gone.

Joe btw is one of the nicest person anyone could hope to meet and he is a wonderful teacher to boot.

[paulbarden]

It seems to me that "large format photography" specifically describes photography that uses "large" (4x5 and up) sheets of film. That inherently excludes digital media simply because its not about the medium of sheet film. I have no problem with maintaining the current boundaries that define this forum.
Discussion of the earlier film-based work of Clyde Butcher and Gregory Crewdson are within the definition of this forum, but the current digital works those two artists produce is not, in my opinion. I am not at all suggesting that Crewdson and Butcher are making "less virtuous" work in choosing digital tools instead of film, but I do believe their new digital works do not fall within the purview of this particular forum.

[kevinjp]

I have no comment on what posts belong where, but thanks for posting the video, I watched it yesterday when I saw it. I love watching videos featuring Joe Cornish and try to learn all I can from them.

[xkaes]

I don't quite understand this issue/problem/controversy.

If I want to add a smaller format camera or film holder/digital sensor to the back of my large format camera there are enough sub-categories on this Forum to choose from for discussion. But I probably wouldn't use that. I'd discuss it on a different forum dedicated to 35mm, medium format, or digital gear -- because it's not large format photography.

There are lots of very nice 2x3/6x9 view cameras -- film and digital -- but they are not large format. Still, they can be discussed here -- in the appropriate category -- just like anything else.

[r.e.]

@xkaes,

I think that the issue is pretty clear from the exchange with Oren above. The only place to discuss the cameras and image capture devices you mention is The Lounge, although there is one category in the forum proper where images can be posted. There are no other available categories. The only reason that Cornish's video wasn't sent to The Lounge, along with the other five posts, is that he mostly talks in the video about his approach to taking the image. Note that the thread also discussed an in-camera stitching method that didn't even exist when these "rules" were apparently adopted almost nine years ago.

[xkaes]

"Stitching" eight 35mm negatives together -- whether with glue or a computer -- does not a 4x5" negative make.

[paulbarden]

So, the Phase One XF IQ4 camera (apparently the camera Mr. Cornish uses) has a 151 megapixel sensor in it. The output of the sensor is (supposedly) 47 X 35 inches at 300 dpi.

I guess the question should be: does the Phase One XF IQ4 camera qualify as a "large format photography" tool?
If the answer is "yes", then it qualifies for the term "large format photography".

I'm honestly not sure if it does meet the requirements. It is my distinct impression that the LFPF is specifically about FILM photography, not just about the SIZE of the film used. Its both things that make this forum about a specific way of making photographs.

[r.e.]

"Stitching" eight 35mm negatives together -- whether with glue or a computer -- does not a 4x5" negative make.

I'm not talking about 35mm negatives. Nor am I talking about what is normally understood as stitching.

[r.e.]

So, the Phase One XF IQ4 camera (apparently the camera Mr. Cornish uses) has a 151 megapixel sensor in it. The output of the sensor is (supposedly) 47 X 35 inches at 300 dpi.

I guess the question should be: does the Phase One XF IQ4 camera qualify as a "large format photography" tool?
If the answer is "yes", then it qualifies for the term "large format photography".

I'm honestly not sure if it does meet the requirements. It is my distinct impression that the LFPF is specifically about FILM photography, not just about the SIZE of the film used. Its both things that make this forum about a specific way of making photographs.

That isn't what the 2014 "rule" says. It states expressly that use of a 4x5 digital sensor comes within the forum requirements. As far as I can tell, no such sensor even existed in 2014. One does as of last year, which as a practical matter means that people who have a lot of money to spend on first generation technology are welcome to post, but people like Joe Cornish aren't.

In 2014 somebody made a deliberate decision to make this forum gradually irrelevant to photography with view cameras outside a niche group, at least until a 4x5 digital sensor is available that normal mortals can afford.

[Oren Grad]

So, the Phase One XF IQ4 camera (apparently the camera Mr. Cornish uses) has a 151 megapixel sensor in it. The output of the sensor is (supposedly) 47 X 35 inches at 300 dpi.

I guess the question should be: does the Phase One XF IQ4 camera qualify as a "large format photography" tool?
If the answer is "yes", then it qualifies for the term "large format photography".

I'm honestly not sure if it does meet the requirements. It is my distinct impression that the LFPF is specifically about FILM photography, not just about the SIZE of the film used. Its both things that make this forum about a specific way of making photographs.

As stated in the preamble at the top of our guidelines/FAQ page:

We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology.

The only products I'm aware of that meet that criterion are the LargeSense LS45 and LS911 backs. We've had a bit of discussion about those, but they're more a technical curiosity than a practical product because of their very high price ($26,000 and $106,000, respectively), handling and performance limitations. For those who can afford to spend that kind of money, medium format digital is far more practical for real-world applications and will deliver much higher technical image quality to boot.

So in principle our definition does not exclude digital capture, but in practice our scope continues to be effectively film capture only for now.

[gypsydog]

@xkaes,

I think that the issue is pretty clear from the exchange with Oren above. The only place to discuss the cameras and image capture devices you mention is The Lounge, although there is one category in the forum proper where images can be posted. There are no other available categories. The only reason that Cornish's video wasn't sent to The Lounge, along with the other five posts, is that he mostly talks in the video about his approach to taking the image. Note that the thread also discussed an in-camera stitching method that didn't even exist when these "rules" were apparently adopted almost nine years ago.

You keep putting a time frame on this decision (9 years in this case) and relating it to models of iPhone in a previous post, why? What do iPhones have to do with a large format camera? Large format photography has been what it is for a very long time. What your promoting is digital capture plain and simple, not large format photography. Film is film and pixels are pixels. The later has its place, just not here.

[bob carnie]

So, the Phase One XF IQ4 camera (apparently the camera Mr. Cornish uses) has a 151 megapixel sensor in it. The output of the sensor is (supposedly) 47 X 35 inches at 300 dpi.

I guess the question should be: does the Phase One XF IQ4 camera qualify as a "large format photography" tool?
If the answer is "yes", then it qualifies for the term "large format photography".

I'm honestly not sure if it does meet the requirements. It is my distinct impression that the LFPF is specifically about FILM photography, not just about the SIZE of the film used. Its both things that make this forum about a specific way of making photographs.

Hi Paul

As a person who in my past has printed large format film 8 x10 and now Phase One 150mb files , I can honestly say that they are equal in quality, and IMHO I would suggest large format. With that said I have no issue on the moderation
as I do not govern the site and will go with what they (moderators say).


Bob

[paulbarden]

As stated in the preamble at the top of our guidelines/FAQ page:

We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF, as well, regardless of technology.
So in principle our definition does not exclude digital capture, but in practice our scope continues to be effectively film capture only for now.

Sounds reasonable to me.
For some, drawing the line at a 4x5 sensor may seem arbitrary, and that's their choice to see it that way. But this ain't my sandbox, and I'm not making the rules, so I'll accept it as it is and get on with my work. :-)

[paulbarden]

Hi Paul

As a person who in my past has printed large format film 8 x10 and now Phase One 150mb files , I can honestly say that they are equal in quality, and IMHO I would suggest large format. With that said I have no issue on the moderation
as I do not govern the site and will go with what they (moderators say).

Bob

Hi Bob!
Yeah, I don't doubt for one second that those huge files offer resolution equivalent to 8x10. But I will still choose 8x10 sheet film every time, if for no other reason that I enjoy working with physical media.

[r.e.]

Ed Burtynsky (Petapixel interview):

Q. You were matching 4×5 quality up till now?

A. What I’m doing now is beyond 4×5 with the 60 megapixel [Hasselblad]. I would say the 60 put me in a 5×7 format, and the 100 [Hasselblad] will bring me to 8×10.

[Sal Santamaura]

Ed Burtynsky (Petapixel interview):

Q. You were matching 4×5 quality up till now?

A. What I’m doing now is beyond 4×5 with the 60 megapixel [Hasselblad]. I would say the 60 put me in a 5×7 format, and the 100 [Hasselblad] will bring me to 8×10.

Most of the persistent insistence that this forum's definition of large format photography and categorization of posts are obsolete and ought be changed seems to seek justification/validation by means of that quote. The only reasonable response to it is "So what? The owner and moderators of this forum have established their definition and associated guidelines/rules. Anyone who finds those unacceptable is free to start their own forum and establish their own definition/guidelines/rules."

Repeated baseless complaints serve only to induce ill will against complainers.

[r.e.]

Given what Bob Carnie and Ed Burtynsky say explicitly, and Joe Cornish says implicitly, and given that the forum rules say explicitly that digital capture is allowed, what is the problem with a single sub-forum that has the following criteria for posting and discussion:

1. use of a view camera; and
2. digital capture equivalent to at least 4x5 in resolution?


I'm sure that I'm not alone in thinking that the essence of the photography discussed in this forum is use of the view camera and movements. There are leading view camera manufacturers, such as Arca-Swiss, and at least two major lens manufacturers, that are innovating to make cameras that are geared to digital capture. It strikes me that this forum is an obvious place to talk about that, at least if the forum wants to grow rather than be progressively left behind. There is something very artificial about saying that people with money to burn on a 4x5 sensor can talk about these cameras on the forum, but nobody else can.

From my perspective, the thread that started this discussion was a welcome change from the same subjects being discussed over and over and over. I'd like to see more discussion about innovation, and I was quite taken aback to discover that the whole subject is apparently off-limits.

[Dugan]

It's not about resolution, it's about hardware size.

[r.e.]

It's not about resolution, it's about hardware size.

Evidently. Which makes no sense, and amounts to telling people that they're free to post, but only if they own a Ferrari.

[sharktooth]

Let's keep in mind that this site is pretty much ad free, and is financially supported by some generous donors. Every "hit" on this site costs money, so widening the scope of the site will result in additional cost. This has been explained in other threads, and is the reason for limiting photo's posted on this site, limiting access to the buy and sell forum to members, and putting some threads into the Lounge where only members have access.

I'm happy to take my free lunch, so to speak, in a 4x5 (or larger) bucket.

[Oren Grad]

I'm sure that I'm not alone in thinking that the essence of the photography discussed in this forum is use of the view camera and movements.

You are mistaken. This is the Large Format Photography Forum, not the View Camera Forum. Many LF photographers use box cameras with fixed or helical-focus lenses, or technical/press cameras with rangefinder or scale focus and no movements. By the same token, roll film or smaller sheet film formats used with view cameras are also outside of scope for us.

There are many areas of photographic practice that are closely adjacent to our scope in one way or another, and many members with interests and experience in those adjacent areas who are happy to share their knowledge. Such discussions are welcome in the Lounge. But that is provided as a courtesy and convenience for our members; it's not our purpose as a forum.

[gypsydog]

Evidently. Which makes no sense, and amounts to telling people that they're free to post, but only if they own a Ferrari.

Wow, you've gone from iPhone 5 or some other number to an even more irrelevant Ferrari.
Resolution is but a minor part of large format.

Pricey toy fetish, maybe?

[r.e.]

You are mistaken. This is the Large Format Photography Forum, not the View Camera Forum. Many LF photographers use box cameras with fixed or helical-focus lenses, or technical/press cameras with rangefinder or scale focus and no movements. By the same token, roll film or smaller sheet film formats used with view cameras are also outside of scope for us.

There are many areas of photographic practice that are closely adjacent to our scope in one way or another, and many members with interests and experience in those adjacent areas who are happy to share their knowledge. Such discussions are welcome in the Lounge. But that is provided as a courtesy and convenience for our members; it's not our purpose as a forum.

How do you know whether I'm mistaken? I expressed a view and simply said that I don't think that I'm alone in holding it, based on 15 years of being a member of this forum, indeed longer than that due to an earlier membership, and knowing a number of members personally. As far as I'm concerned, view cameras and movements are the anchor for this whole forum as a straight factual matter. I'm pretty surprised if you think otherwise. Look at what's actually discussed, the many articles from the home page, the lens tables and the posted images.

In any event, I made the comment in a single sentence in a post (#27) that made a specific proposal. That comment is not exactly the main point, and apparently you've chosen to ignore the actual proposal.

I have no interest whatever in the Lounge. If I recall, it used to be the place where people stuck smaller format photos so as not to "infect" the main forum. Didn't make sense then and it's good to see that issue resolved, also to see that the world didn't end by letting people post them in the actual forum. Their current sub-forum is home to a lot of the better photographs posted here.

If your mind is made up and you don't see the point of discussing this, I don't see what the point was in making this a thread about forum feedback. Just close or delete the thread.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Just close or delete the thread.

Delete sounds like the optimum action. :)

[Oren Grad]

In any event, I made the comment in a single sentence in a post that made a specific proposal. That comment is not exactly the main point, and the actual proposal is ignored.

Similar proposals were considered long ago and rejected. That doesn't mean policies can never change, but in this respect our considered judgment continues to be that our policy should not change.


If your mind is made up and you don't see the point of discussing this, I don't see what the point was in making this a thread about forum feedback. Just close or delete the thread.

As moderators we consider it part of our responsibility to respond substantively when questions are raised about Forum policy, not to just brush them aside. The Feedback subforum is our place for doing that. Sometimes that involves revisiting topics that have been discussed before and reiterating points we've already made; a certain amount of that goes with the territory, as it's not realistic to expect that everybody has read or remembered everything.

[Sal Santamaura]

...it's not realistic to expect that everybody has read or remembered everything.

In my opinion, it is realistic to expect that posters search for previous discussions of topics and, at a minimum, reopen existing threads on them when asking for reconsideration of questions/requests. Rather than populating the database with redundancies.

[xkaes]

You are mistaken. This is the Large Format Photography Forum, not the View Camera Forum.

Someday there will be a Minox-sized sensor that will produce higher resolution than any 4x5 film -- maybe NASA already has one. If someone slaps it on the back of a large format camera, does that make it large format photography? Ridiculous!

[B.S.Kumar]

The rising cost of film, particularly sheet film has made it difficult for many photographers to continue using film. I know many photographers who use roll film holders with their 4x5 view cameras. A r.e. suggested, a sub-forum dedicated to view cameras using sensors smaller than 4x5, whether film or digital, could be considered.

Kumar

[xkaes]

Minox, meet large format photography. I have an idea. We can call it the "Large Format Photography Sub-miniature-forum"

[bob carnie]

Hi Bob!
Yeah, I don't doubt for one second that those huge files offer resolution equivalent to 8x10. But I will still choose 8x10 sheet film every time, if for no other reason that I enjoy working with physical media.

Me too, I have not made a digital exposure in my life other than my Iphone happy snaps. I prefer the physicality of film, and using it.

[bob carnie]

Ed Burtynsky (Petapixel interview):

Q. You were matching 4×5 quality up till now?

A. What I’m doing now is beyond 4×5 with the 60 megapixel [Hasselblad]. I would say the 60 put me in a 5×7 format, and the 100 [Hasselblad] will bring me to 8×10.

He is now using Phase One and I think this sensor is a game changer, for those who can qualify financially to own one. For Ed it makes total sense.

[paulbarden]

Me too, I have not made a digital exposure in my life other than my Iphone happy snaps. I prefer the physicality of film, and using it.

One of my biggest complaints about digital cameras is that their "best before" date is within sight the moment you bring it home. Electronics have a limited lifespan, in a way that film equipment doesn't - at least not in the same way. Every week I am servicing/repairing a camera/shutter that is at least 60 years old. I have VERY rarely encountered a shutter that could not be made functional with a bit of care. I don't think anyone would suggest that a Phase One digital recording back will still be serviceable in 60 years, let alone ten.

Digital tools don't age well enough for my liking, and software support is abysmally poor much of the time. If I had a nickel for every time some software provider pulled the rug out from under my workflow..... Case in point, my Mac Pro died 3 months ago, leaving me without a computer for 2 months (I repurposed a 2018 Mac mini after Apple told me they refused to repair mine). But the worst part was that I lost all of my editing tools (Lightroom 6 and Silver Efex Pro2), and along with them, many years of carefully designed presets that I relied on. At that point I decided I was going to return to making physical prints in the darkroom, and f*ck these digital tools. They all have an expiration date inherent in their design.

It's just my personal feelings about this, but my sense is that traditional tools and materials (tools that do not rely on batteries, transistors and/or software) are far more reliable and have a much better life expectancy. If everyone stopped manufacturing film tomorrow, I'd still be able to make wet plate collodion images. I could make my own calotype negatives, if need be. If my shutters all failed catastrophically, I'd still be able to make images with lenses sans shutters. If I had to make a camera from scratch and pirate an Achromat meniscus lens out of a Box Brownie to use in it, I could do it. Digital tools can throw obstacles in your way that traditional (analog, if you prefer) tools do not. They are undoubtedly spectacular tools when new and fully supported, but you have to recognize the fact that they have a short shelf life.

[bob carnie]

I am lucky enough , probably like many here to bridge the analogue and the digital era of photography, 1970- 2023 timeline.
A linhof technical camera with factory signed lenses or a Philip 8 x 10 camera with same lens designs back in the day were beyond my price range, Once a Mamiya 7 came along with its amazing metering systems , focal plane shutter and great optics I felt a film camera was at its peak.

When digital hit I was still a young professional printer so I had to join the revolution or take on the role of Zamboni Driver at the local rink.

My perspective is that all digital devices they slow bled the introduction of mb capture to where we are now with the Phase One. Remember when people marvelled at a 8mp camera.

When the Lambdas printers were introduced I was of the impression that I would see pixels rather than film grain when making prints from scans. The day I took a loop to
the actual print I was gobsmacked and convinced myself and others that I needed a Lambda.
This used device cost us 1/4 million dollars and today I still use it. When they manufactured this unit they did not hold back and even today there is not device that can equal the quality of this machine IMO.
I own a 11 x14 and 5 x 7 Devere enlarger (1983 era) and I can say the manufacturing that went into this device is incredible and it works today as well as the day BGM imaging imported it into their lab.

We are now able to do high resolution scans, we are able to do digital negatives via silver and inkjet, and the sources are whatever you want to throw at it. In 1985 trying to get a scanner , separating films and creating curves
for pt pd and gum were (well impossible) for 99% of us. I took a night course in the mid 80's on scanners and man was it complicated.

Today people world wide can do this quite easily thanks to people like Sandy King, Ron Reeder, Roy Harrington, Christina Anderson, these people started the revolution in printing that I am part of and embrace.
The cost have come down more based on more people demanding the process.

So a Phase One IMHO has reached what I think is the pinnacle of reproduction, it has reached 8 x 10 colour neg quality or 8 x10 transparency. Much like the Lambda which is a 15 ft square platform we will see
devices being introduced at 1/10 the size and price. I doubt that we are going to see an increase in price and Phase One being the top of the hill quality we will now see , Hassalblad, Fuji, Sony, ect try to hit the 150 mb platform
but at prices that I can afford.

I am currently considering working with a young vender who purchased a Phase One copy system, rather than fight I plan to join, I do not want to invest major dollars again, I have been there and done it. But
I am certainly not going to put my head in the sand and not embrace technology that is really good for photography, once again IMO.

I hope that the owners of the site can bend a bit to allow this type of discussion in a sub forum, right now this is where we are at and the only film I am working with in large part is historical negs from the last century. I have
very few clients that are shooting film only. I am a film shooter and not a digital shooter but I certainly like some of the digital directions... How about that guy who has produced in his home a laser printer for pt pd, I like being
able to hear about these new methods of making photos.

[Michael R]

Hey Bob, whatever you do, do NOT tell Drew digital can equal 8x10 film. :D


I am lucky enough , probably like many here to bridge the analogue and the digital era of photography, 1970- 2023 timeline.
A linhof technical camera with factory signed lenses or a Philip 8 x 10 camera with same lens designs back in the day were beyond my price range, Once a Mamiya 7 came along with its amazing metering systems , focal plane shutter and great optics I felt a film camera was at its peak.

When digital hit I was still a young professional printer so I had to join the revolution or take on the role of Zamboni Driver at the local rink.

My perspective is that all digital devices they slow bled the introduction of mb capture to where we are now with the Phase One. Remember when people marvelled at a 8mp camera.

When the Lambdas printers were introduced I was of the impression that I would see pixels rather than film grain when making prints from scans. The day I took a loop to
the actual print I was gobsmacked and convinced myself and others that I needed a Lambda.
This used device cost us 1/4 million dollars and today I still use it. When they manufactured this unit they did not hold back and even today there is not device that can equal the quality of this machine IMO.
I own a 11 x14 and 5 x 7 Devere enlarger (1983 era) and I can say the manufacturing that went into this device is incredible and it works today as well as the day BGM imaging imported it into their lab.

We are now able to do high resolution scans, we are able to do digital negatives via silver and inkjet, and the sources are whatever you want to throw at it. In 1985 trying to get a scanner , separating films and creating curves
for pt pd and gum were (well impossible) for 99% of us. I took a night course in the mid 80's on scanners and man was it complicated.

Today people world wide can do this quite easily thanks to people like Sandy King, Ron Reeder, Roy Harrington, Christina Anderson, these people started the revolution in printing that I am part of and embrace.
The cost have come down more based on more people demanding the process.

So a Phase One IMHO has reached what I think is the pinnacle of reproduction, it has reached 8 x 10 colour neg quality or 8 x10 transparency. Much like the Lambda which is a 15 ft square platform we will see
devices being introduced at 1/10 the size and price. I doubt that we are going to see an increase in price and Phase One being the top of the hill quality we will now see , Hassalblad, Fuji, Sony, ect try to hit the 150 mb platform
but at prices that I can afford.

I am currently considering working with a young vender who purchased a Phase One copy system, rather than fight I plan to join, I do not want to invest major dollars again, I have been there and done it. But
I am certainly not going to put my head in the sand and not embrace technology that is really good for photography, once again IMO.

I hope that the owners of the site can bend a bit to allow this type of discussion in a sub forum, right now this is where we are at and the only film I am working with in large part is historical negs from the last century. I have
very few clients that are shooting film only. I am a film shooter and not a digital shooter but I certainly like some of the digital directions... How about that guy who has produced in his home a laser printer for pt pd, I like being
able to hear about these new methods of making photos.

[Tin Can]

Some desire exclusivity by shine of shoes and purse size

Photography is evolving in many directions

Right now 4X5 is very affordable with high quality

I am moving towards LF Pin Hole as it does things I like

We have huge space cameras and tiny DIGI Spy

I like it all

[willwilson]

I appreciate the debate here but the fact remains...large format needs to be "large". A medium format sensor no matter the megapixel count is not large it's medium. Although the thing Joe is using looks like a pretty BA setup if you want to shoot amazing medium format digital landscapes.

Oren and other mods. Thanks for all that you do! Appreciate you all.

Bob, always so interesting to hear your thoughts on print making!

-=Will

[Sal Santamaura]

Hey Bob, whatever you do, do NOT tell Drew digital can equal 8x10 film. :D

Seems he just did. All that's left is to wait for the reaction. :)

[bob carnie]

Seems he just did. All that's left is to wait for the reaction. :)

I think Drew would concur, right now he is smoking a bit of peyote with bigfoot but his vision quest will open his eyes to this.

I must add this is my opinion only based on making large murals for many years now, my first mural over 30 x 40 inches was in 1980 at Jones and Morris Mural Photo Lab in Toronto. This lab only worked from 8 x 10 negatives and it
was an amazing experience. Today I make 58 inch x 90 inch murals for many clients that use the Phase One system, (this device is very popular here) the last one was at the NY art fair this year at Stephen Bulger Booth. The work was by Rita Leistner and she story tells about Canadian Tree planters ( she tree-planted herself). She goes into the field wearing her cork boots I made her purchase and basically with an assistant with second flash walks backwards with a phase one and stabilizer and photographs while the youngsters work.

I know as we get old our memory kind of slips but when standing in front of current prints and remembering making huge prints at J&M the feeling is the same.

[bob carnie]

232249 I found this in my fb feed today, a couple of Ritas prints hanging at Stephen Bulger gallery now in Toronto, you can see the scale and also see the style of work and imagine the difficulty Rita goes through making these stories.

[paulbarden]

I know as we get old our memory kind of slips but when standing in front of current prints and remembering making huge prints at J&M the feeling is the same.

Bob, I firmly believe that it doesn’t matter HOW a person arrives at the end result, it’s the result that matters. Though I’ve chosen to rely less and less on digital tools, I do so only because I prefer to be intimately involved in the technology at every step, know my materials and understand them sufficiently to enable to control them as I wish. For me, things like inkjet printing - though miraculous and wonderful - are a bit too “black box” for me to really enjoy using. Now, if I could easily make 58 x 90 inch salted paper prints that have all the same properties as what I currently make in 8 X 10 inches, then I’d do it!

[neil poulsen]

There was a time years and years ago when no commercialization was permitted on this forum, and that included selling equipment, LF or otherwise. So, rules can change.

A subtle difference, versus a contentious discussion of how the current rules are wrong, it makes sense to instead have an encouraging discussion of why and how the rules might evolve.

[bob carnie]

Bob, I firmly believe that it doesn’t matter HOW a person arrives at the end result, it’s the result that matters. Though I’ve chosen to rely less and less on digital tools, I do so only because I prefer to be intimately involved in the technology at every step, know my materials and understand them sufficiently to enable to control them as I wish. For me, things like inkjet printing - though miraculous and wonderful - are a bit too “black box” for me to really enjoy using. Now, if I could easily make 58 x 90 inch salted paper prints that have all the same properties as what I currently make in 8 X 10 inches, then I’d do it!

That would be quite a feat.. I wonder how large a hand print could go, I have made 24 x36inch gum over palladiums , I do not want to ever go larger than that.

[paulbarden]

That would be quite a feat.. I wonder how large a hand print could go, I have made 24 x36inch gum over palladiums , I do not want to ever go larger than that.

I expect you'd be limited by the paper size, and the Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag I've been using most seems to max out at 50 inches x 30 feet (roll). Mind you, a four by six foot salted paper print would be pretty awesome, if you could make a negative that large!

[bob carnie]

I expect you'd be limited by the paper size, and the Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag I've been using most seems to max out at 50 inches x 30 feet (roll). Mind you, a four by six foot salted paper print would be pretty awesome, if you could make a negative that large!

technically a neg would be possible if you use a calibrated epson printer or make a pinhole camera back that big ( I think that has been done with pinhole and wetplate) The largest digital neg I have made is 30inch x 40 inch


On a second note Paul , how hard is it to learn salt printing compared to lets say Pt Pd, I am curious as the best colour prints I have ever seen in my life were in a show at the AGO or ROM, they were late 1800 salt prints that were then
hand coloured with transparent pigments. I fell in love with them and when I make my gum over pd I am always thinking in the back of my mind I want them to be as nice as those 150 year old prints.

Bob

[fotopfw]

Evidently. Which makes no sense, and amounts to telling people that they're free to post, but only if they own a Ferrari.
Which is true on a Ferrari forum and a lot of other forums on specific makes and models of camera's.

[jnantz]

That would be quite a feat.. I wonder how large a hand print could go, I have made 24 x36inch gum over palladiums , I do not want to ever go larger than that.

you might have to use / coat a thin Japanese paper and do chin collée to splice sections together seamlessly on a denser substrate.

[paulbarden]

technically a neg would be possible if you use a calibrated epson printer or make a pinhole camera back that big ( I think that has been done with pinhole and wetplate) The largest digital neg I have made is 30inch x 40 inch


On a second note Paul , how hard is it to learn salt printing compared to lets say Pt Pd, I am curious as the best colour prints I have ever seen in my life were in a show at the AGO or ROM, they were late 1800 salt prints that were then
hand coloured with transparent pigments. I fell in love with them and when I make my gum over pd I am always thinking in the back of my mind I want them to be as nice as those 150 year old prints.

Bob

Bob,
I can't make that comparison for you, since I've not done Platinum/Palladium printing before. I've found salt printing to be quite challenging, but I've learned a lot and gotten to the point where I can consistently make very good prints. It is my understanding that Pt/Pd is much easier than salted paper printing. The latter requires a very specific type of negative (if made in-camera) that has very open shadows ("voids" as some call it) and some pretty serious highlight density. I followed the instructions in Ellie Young's document on controlling the color traits in salt printing: expose FP4 at 100 ASA and develop in PMK 2:4:100 at 72F for 12 minutes. Yeah, the negatives are quite something, but they make amazing salt prints.

I've tried to make digital negs on my Canon Pixma Pro 1000 and the results have been inconsistent and/or horrible. The Canon pigments just aren't suited to making digital negatives. The only time I ever got a good salt print using this technology was when I made two identical copies of the negative (on Pictorico) and sandwiched them together. It was a total pain, so I went back to making in-camera negatives. I find that much easier, because I'm able to control the technology more easily than the printer + Pictorico tech.

Salted paper prints can be amazing. I wanted to pursue Albumen print making 3 years ago, but gave up on that because I found it very difficult to get the materials to behave well for me, so I went on to salt printing instead, and find the results extremely satisfying, and the process is fairly easy to control.

[Corran]

There was a time years and years ago when no commercialization was permitted on this forum, and that included selling equipment, LF or otherwise. So, rules can change.

A subtle difference, versus a contentious discussion of how the current rules are wrong, it makes sense to instead have an encouraging discussion of why and how the rules might evolve.

I do think there is potential room for discussion here on this.

"We would also consider a digital back with a nominal sensor size of 4"x5" or larger to be LF"

How about a scanning back of 4x5 inches or larger? How about a DSLR on a sliding mount that takes a grid of images and once stitched together has a collective "sensor size" equal to 4x5 or larger? To me, FWIW, I think these should qualify as LF. Oren has already mentioned the LargeSense digital back and that it would as well.

Others have mentioned resolution as a defining characteristic. I note that we have subforums for darkroom equipment, as well as a subforum for digital hardware related to LF photography. These are unique items that people have interest in even if they are somewhat tangential to LF photography. - I could also imagine a subforum for digital capture using LF techniques and their particular idiosyncrasies (movements and technical cameras designed for small format cameras). I don't know what you would call it, but there is certainly some heritage there that pertains to the LF ethos.

[Mark Sawyer]

For all the furor over formats being "banned", I can't see anything that's been banned, just moved to a more appropriate part of the forum.

The high-end cell phone cameras now have pixel counts (108 mp) that technically rival large format, (4x5 is usually considered around 75 mp). That doesn't make cell phones large format. Being large format makes a camera large format.

BTW, "large format" now means a big inkjet printer as much as it means a big camera...

[Ari]

Some digital people who have never shot film (AKA digital natives) call the current 50/100 mp Hasselblads and Fujis "Large Format". Go figure.
I switched to digital last summer, and I have no interest in going back to film. Not because of the cost, but for the trouble.

I can pack a small bag with two bodies and three lenses, shoot color, B&W or infrared, and print as large as I like the same day.
The cameras are as enjoyable to use, to me, as 8x10 ever was. Find the right camera and it can happen.
I've also stumbled into digital view cameras, and adapting a multitude of lenses, so it's a very interesting time to be a working photographer.

But I've found a couple other places where I can post, ask questions and keep up with "Large Format digital" (ha!), and it isn't here.
Nor would I desire to change anything about this forum. It's about film and large cameras, dammit!

[Peter De Smidt]

Doesn't it come down to: grow or die? Without the "small formats" discussions, for example, this would be a pretty quiet place. A priori purity tends not to do too well when it's applied to the world of daily life. Create a subforum. Either it will see action or it won't. It would be easy enough to pass by if one's not interested. Honestly, though, I'm fine with either way.