I don't like slide film for scanning

[Steven Ruttenberg]

That is kinda cool.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The best part is all the info I get from ghese conversations. I am working on perfecting how I scan, but also realize my negatives need work from proper ecposure to development. Unlike digital, it is much harder if not impossible to rescue crap with a poor negative. No way to polish that turd.

[Pere Casals]

Unlike digital, it is much harder if not impossible to rescue crap with a poor negative. No way to polish that turd.

A digital shot has some $0.0005 cost in shutter tear. Exposing an small sheet may have around x10000 that cost, manpower apart. So LF shooting requires a photographer knowing what he is doing, if not better spraying and praying with a dslr.

Michellangelo was knowing what he was doing with the hammer, so it was worth to him to spend several months hitting a boulder with that hammer. LF has a tinny bit of that, the photographer has to nail the job, and he has to know how to take advantage from aesthetical resources of LF. This is not good or bad, but these are the rules in this game.

[faberryman]

Michellangelo was knowing what he was doing with the hammer, so it was worth to him to spend several months hitting a boulder with that hammer. LF has a tinny bit of that, the photographer has to nail the job, and he has to know how to take advantage from aesthetical resources of LF. This is not good or bad, but these are the rules in this game.

That applies to any photographer using any camera.

[interneg]

That applies to any photographer using any camera.

Quite. The whole thing about LF somehow being 'difficult' or needing some sort of fetishised skillset gets old fast. It really isn't difficult & the less time wasted on irrelevant debate about the metaphysics of technique the better!

[Pere Casals]

That applies to any photographer using any camera.

Of course, but for obvious resons in LF any mistake has a way higher cost than with some cameras, and also it's easier to make mistakes...

My view is that if a quality work is not to be crafted then LF has little sense, and I'd add that for the effort to be worth the photographer has to exploit the particular LF aesthetic or technical resources.

[Tin Can]

It's not that expensive.

I will never be 'master' yet I enjoy this hobby.

I am 'NOT' Don Quixote Sir!

[faberryman]

Of course, but for obvious resons in LF any mistake has a way higher cost than with some cameras, and also it's easier to make mistakes... My view is that if a quality work is not to be crafted then LF has little sense, and I'd add that for the effort to be worth the photographer has to exploit the particular LF aesthetic or technical resources.

Platitudes. Spin whatever narrative makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

[Pere Casals]

It's not that expensive.

It can be quite cheap, if one spends 2 hours sitting on the snow before dawn to get a fabolous shot then a Velvia 8x10 sheet is the cheapest thing in the world. If one spends a TMY box and he obtains no good shot then better to shot rolls or a dslr... don't you think ?

[Pere Casals]

Platitudes

Frank, yes, sure a platitude, but I think that this platitude was right to be pointed in this case, commenting on Steven's post. Pointing platitudes is not always bad. I'm the first that I can benefit from hearing platitudes once again.

You said "That applies to any photographer using any camera.", this is a wrong platitude, because it should be stated that lack of control is more painful in LF than with a digital back or a dslr.