Allowing Lens Availability to Dictate Format Choice

[Corran]

In much the same way experienced musicians can tell if a Stradivarius is real or not by the sound.

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

As someone who was a professional musician in a couple of orchestras, has three degrees in music, and has been a recording engineer for well over a decade with a lot of experience listening critically to musicians playing classical music: no, they can't.

Regarding your anecdotal stories - what Dagor? Old? New? Coated? f/9 versions like G-Claron lenses or original f/6.8 Goerz model, or someone else like the old Schneider Symmar? What if the Dagor was shot at f/90? It's nonsense to say that you can "tell" if a "Dagor" was used in 100% of cases.

[jp]

One consideration is that the effect of soft lenses is best seen at the scale of the negative they make. Spherical aberration does not enlarge particularly well. Soft focus also goes especially well with the tonal gradations of a contact print, which for many is justification for format choice in itself.

Indeed! I can't enlarge more than 2x and soft focus gets messy... Since it's a blend of soft and sharp, the sharp part enlarges faithfully and the soft gets too soft. It's messing with the blend that made the original size good. So print size is part of the format choice, contact printing being most common.

[jnantz]

Some years ago at a local LF print sharing event...

*Participant one, shared a print with me. Comment was the image was overly sharpened due to the lens being stopped down too much and this is a digital B&W print. Print maker told me the lens was stopped down to f90 then "sharpened" in photoshop before the digital print was made.

** Participant two, put up a print less than 30 seconds later it was apparent to me this image was made using a Dagor. Some discussion and information about the print followed by the print maker. At that point, asked the print maker if this print was made using a Dagor.. print maker's reply was yes.

There are those who have been at this for a l-o-n-g time and can tell visually what these difference are. In much the same way experienced musicians can tell if a Stradivarius is real or not by the sound. Developing this takes decades and looking at a LOT of images and making a LOT of images from loading film to dry mounting the print.

~Never underestimate the ability of human pattern recognition~



Bernice

Hi Bernice
Jerry Katz, the chemist who did all the analysis and microscope work for Photo Lab Index told me a story years ago. It goes that he developed 8mm movie film in his proprietary monobath and enlarged the negative to 16x20. It was on display at a party Morgan+Lester were having. Ansel Adams was there and was admiring the print. When Mr Katz told him it was from a 8mm negative Maestro Adams was amazed because he thought it it was from a LF negative..
Seems that sometimes a cheep Chinese knock off Stratavirus sounds like a Strativarius ....

YMMVFTSITDW
John

[Mark Sawyer]

I wish we could still get nitrate film. Then the size of the flaming POOF!!! when we burned our bad negatives could be a factor in our choice too...

[Bernice Loui]

~Quite arrogant and Egotist to believe since "I" cannot see or discern the difference, then "YOU" cannot either.~

As for the Ansel Adams (BTW, AA is not THE all knowing-all authority in Foto matters) story, it's just a story, noting more, nothing less and does not tell about the entire context of events and all related to what happened at that moment in time.


Bernice

[Ethan]

Replying to the original question, though one should never spend more than one comfortably can, I don’t feel like there is a lot of limitation on what you can do based on budget. Remember that it is what the photographer does behind the camera that makes a good photo, not the camera itself. When getting into something new, I notice, in myself and others, the urge to buy that nicer lens, or better body etc. with the idea that better equipment will produce better results. This of course, doesn’t work, and almost always isn’t a good idea. I’ve bought various bits and bobs for my kit that weren’t needed, but if I only counted the pieces essential to the process, I probably bought my 4x5 kit for under $200. That isn’t a whole lot, and is around the same amount as one could expect to spend on a decent but not spectacular 35mm kit. I haven’t looked at medium format much, but I don’t think it’s very different. With large format, people might get scared off by price tags on the really expensive lenses and fancy bodies, but very rarely is that stuff really needed, and especially with 4x5, because of old press cameras, there is a lot of inexpensive equipment out there.

With this in mind, my suggestion to people thinking about choosing formats based on pricing is to stop. The entry level stuff is all relatively inexpensive (I haven’t seen a new digital kit for anywhere near entry level film equipment, for any format), so stop worrying about what you may or may not be able to afford down the road. Instead, think about what it is you want to do with your camera, and choose based on that. I chose large format because I like shooting landscapes, and I think this is best for that, though if you want to do street photography, obviously that probably isn’t the right choice.

[Bernice Loui]

Similar observation, yet unable to convince more than a few soft focus lens-print folks this is true and very real.
IMO, soft focus, ideal print is contact print.


Bernice

Indeed! I can't enlarge more than 2x and soft focus gets messy... Since it's a blend of soft and sharp, the sharp part enlarges faithfully and the soft gets too soft. It's messing with the blend that made the original size good. So print size is part of the format choice, contact printing being most common.

[jnantz]

~Quite arrogant and Egotist to believe since "I" cannot see or discern the difference, then "YOU" cannot either.~

As for the Ansel Adams (BTW, AA is not THE all knowing-all authority in Foto matters) story, it's just a story, noting more, nothing less and does not tell about the entire context of events and all related to what happened at that moment in time.


Bernice

Bernice:
Seeing I set the bar very low, squint my eyes alot, but only have 40,000 followers I am not sure how I can be both arrogant and an egoist.
I am only arrogant at this point; when I hit 100,000 followers then I can be both arrogant and an egoist. PM me your snail mail address I'll be happy
to send you prints of the same aspect ratio that both look terrible enough that you think they both came out of an instamatic, I can assure you that you won't be able to tell
which one was made with a 4x5 camera.

Luckily JK passed away so the truth is 6feet under with him. To be honest, I don't think he'd make it very far in an interrogation by the site's members, you know, cuffed to a comfy chair a bare lightbulb overhead and tickled with the feather.

YMMV
ArrogantJohn

[Bernice Loui]

~Except that first part of the reply was not directed at John...

Honestly, number of followers means about zero. Just means one has gained the ability to cultivate a following. nothing more, nothing less as this is NOT a popularity contest and popularity does not imply truth-facts-reality.

Now that a following has been cultivated, what will one do with Priesthood... and that position of "influence"?


Bernice

Bernice:
Seeing I set the bar very low, squint my eyes alot, but only have 40,000 followers I am not sure how I can be both arrogant and an egoist.
I am only arrogant at this point; when I hit 100,000 followers then I can be both arrogant and an egoist. PM me your snail mail address I'll be happy
to send you prints of the same aspect ratio that both look terrible enough that you think they both came out of an instamatic, I can assure you that you won't be able to tell
which one was made with a 4x5 camera.

Luckily JK passed away so the truth is 6feet under with him. To be honest, I don't think he'd make it very far in an interrogation by the site's members, you know, cuffed to a comfy chair a bare lightbulb overhead and tickled with the feather.

YMMV
ArrogantJohn

[jnantz]

~Except that first part of the reply was not directed at John...

Honestly, number of followers means about zero. Just means one has gained the ability to cultivate a following. nothing more, nothing less as this is NOT a popularity contest and popularity does not imply truth-facts-reality.

Now that a following has been cultivated, what will one do with Priesthood... and that position of "influence"?


Bernice

Bernice,
Cultivating a following and a buzzz is what it is all about. While you presecribe to the idea that it doesn't matter, in the real world .. unless you are a carefree hobbiest, doing it for fun or an educator 100K followers is pretty much the only thing that matters. Sometimes you can't get commercial work without being an "influencer" and making new content for your followers to consume ( and besting the al go rith em ) is all there is. I'll be making an unboxing video of me making an unboxing video and it will be an endless meta-loop ( like when John Malcovich went inside his own head) . My peeps can't get enough of that stuff and send me showers of love and butterfly kisses. What do I do with all that influence? I bask in the glow, and at 1¢/hit I'll be buying a super big gulp slurpee at 7-11 and some more photoflo! As my mentor Max Bialystock would say " When you got it, flaunt it baby!"
Regarding truth, there really is no such thing. Reality has nothing to do with facts: we live in a post-fact world.
BTW, I am an Overman in Slack and have been a priest since 1984. I'm not sure about you, but I know I live on a flat earth, watch the spin cycle on my Speed Queen, love Roadside, and read "Zippy" daily.
http://comics.azcentral.com/slidesho...py_the_Pinhead


... where can I mail the photo?

Praise "Bob"
Jokingly yours,
John

ps. Maybe foOogle will pick the easter egg I just laid in this thread up and I will get the extra 60K followers so I can be an egoist after today? I hope so! do I owe you a commission?