Request clarification of large format.

[StoneNYC]

Why do we allow any digital at all when, to my knowledge, there are no large format digital cameras? I don't mean to be rude, just curious.

As I mentioned earlier there are scanning backs that do exist that are 4x5 and I believe 8x10 as well.

There's this one that is actually just a normal 8x10 digital back and only costs $250,000

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/08/...-capture-back/

And these are the normal 4x5 scanning backs often used ...

http://www.betterlight.com/why_better.html

[Vaughn]

Getting it to hold still on a scanner might prove interesting...

I guess the result of your capture would be a positive.

Icracer -- traditionally we have used film 'capture' here, but increasingly, there is more digital out-put (printing) and also hybrid methods (such as scanned 4x5 neg used to create an enlarged inkjet negative for Alt processes) being used by members. I believe there is nothing in the guidelines concerning what happens with the image once you have captured it with a view camera.

[Corran]

Why do we allow any digital at all when, to my knowledge, there are no large format digital cameras?

There is a member right now working on an 8x10 and 4x5 digital back for commercial sale. Some of his posts are in the August Portrait thread. There are also the scanning backs as Stone mentions. I am firm in my belief that one day, someone or some company will make a ~4x5-sized sensor camera. Furthermore, there are already smaller backs that can be used on full technical cameras with appropriate lenses with a smaller image circle.

If you don't care for digital imaging, that's your prerogative, but you don't have to use pejorative terms, and you don't have to post here. And considering the large number (majority?) of users here scanning and outputting digitally, I would say your view is in the minority, if we include the "output medium" into the equation.

Personally I think it's an asinine thing to argue. No matter what, if you are viewing images on this forum, they are digital. Perhaps you choose not to post/look at images, I don't know, but there needs to be less of this "us vs. them" mentality IMO regarding film vs. digital. Despite shooting 95% film outside of commercial work, I still know and see the merits of digital and can admit to them.

[ic-racer]

Yes, people using film are in the minority. One advantage of the internet is to allow those people to communicate with each other.

If you are implying this is a "Mostly Digital" web site, then I agree with you my posts have no value here. Sorry but I find it confusing that a Large Format web site caters to a medium (large format digital photography) that either has yet to be invented or is in one's imagination.

BTW the 'ignore user' function works so I invite all that don't care to read opinions regarding large format film photography, to use it. My posts are intended to be read by the film users here.

[Corran]

I think you have misunderstood my post. Perhaps you should re-read the part pertaining to digital output.

This is not the "Large Format Film Forum" btw.

[jnantz]

digital backs bigger than 4x5 and 8x10 exists they are usually custom made.
or experimental ( scanner attached to a camera back ) or like that guy did 8-10 years ago
where he made an enormous ulf digital camera so he could have the ultimate in photography and dof
he made the tv, internet, pri circuit and he spoke about how the grass at his feet were in focus and he could count
the pine needles on the trees 100 miles away if he looked at the image with a loupe ...
( and he now gives lectures all over the world and consults for imax & other types of digital film making )
there are very long threads about the guy, and his camera here on this website even ... i can't remember his name ...
or i would post links to the threads and the both love and hate for the topic of digital large / ulf format.

-------
=====

couldn't agree with your post more kirk ...

[Jac@stafford.net]

digital backs bigger than 4x5 and 8x10 exists they are usually custom made.
or experimental ( scanner attached to a camera back ) or like that guy did 8-10 years ago
where he made an enormous ulf digital camera so he could have the ultimate in photography...

You are addressing scanning backs. Do not they take us back to the days of very long exposures? How do they perform for subjects that move?

[StoneNYC]

There is a member right now working on an 8x10 and 4x5 digital back for commercial sale. Some of his posts are in the August Portrait thread. There are also the scanning backs as Stone mentions. I am firm in my belief that one day, someone or some company will make a ~4x5-sized sensor camera. Furthermore, there are already smaller backs that can be used on full technical cameras with appropriate lenses with a smaller image circle.

If you don't care for digital imaging, that's your prerogative, but you don't have to use pejorative terms, and you don't have to post here. And considering the large number (majority?) of users here scanning and outputting digitally, I would say your view is in the minority, if we include the "output medium" into the equation.

Personally I think it's an asinine thing to argue. No matter what, if you are viewing images on this forum, they are digital. Perhaps you choose not to post/look at images, I don't know, but there needs to be less of this "us vs. them" mentality IMO regarding film vs. digital. Despite shooting 95% film outside of commercial work, I still know and see the merits of digital and can admit to them.

+1 well said

I do believe one day sooner than you might think there will be a molecularly designed liquid emulsion that can be layed into a base spread itself out and make all the connections of molecules and then connected to an output source and you could make a digital 8x10 or even 20x24 back that can be used over and over again just like digital but programmed to spread itself out upon coating and essentially any size film sheet you would want could be created for very little cost.

It's only a matter of time...

Liquid digital will replace "sensors" and so on...

[Kirk Fry]

Seems to me if we talk about any camera with movements with a capture area larger than say 6 square inches, or any camera with a capture area larger than 20 square inches we are safe (just think Wanderlust Travelwide).

[sanking]

"It's only a matter of time...

Liquid digital will replace "sensors" and so on..."


Yes, and when that happens meek lambs will make their beds with ferocious wolves, and snakes will sleep in the nest with young birds. And all over the world there will be peace as people everywhere will finally understand the true meaning of large format.

Sandy