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

[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.

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.

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]

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!