Yeah I am aware of digital backs.
I stand corrected on the shift issue. Appreciate the explanation and example...
Yeah I am aware of digital backs.
I stand corrected on the shift issue. Appreciate the explanation and example...
Asher - it was gratifying to see that you mentioned Maine #2. I happened upon that scene at the end of a long day of shooting in a steady rain, and my lenses were now all fogged up. The location was a long way from my lodging, but the next afternoon had similar light to when was there the day before, so I made the long drive and hike back to get the image (about 6 hours total round trip). The whole time I was praying that the scene was as promising at was in my memory (many times I do that and when I return I have to wonder what the heck I was thinking). So it is nice to know that someone else appreciates the image besides me.
not really a coincident to come across this post. here's the story...
I started to use 4x5 in 2006 mainly for landscape. But apart from landscape & street photography I also do underwater photography. So in 2008 I acquired a full frame DSLR mainly for underwater use, but I've tried shooting landscape with it side by side with my Ebony 45S.
Gradually I was so occupied by underwater photography that little time was left for landscape and I haven't touched my Ebony since about 2 years ago.
Somehow recently I have a feeling of getting back to LF landscape. While surfing the web for some LF information, I found to my amazement that Jack Dykinga has "switched to digital" and apparently he said that full frame DSLR can "match LF quality". Then I came across this thread which is most most interesting.
To side track a little bit, I finally picked up my Ebony 45S last week (after 2 years!) for a shoot out in a rocky shore in Hong Kong. I thoroughly enjoyed the process and the resulting picture. So much so that I shot another round the next day on urban landscape using extreme tilt shift and swing movements.
Personally I am comfortable with shooting both DSLR and LF under different circumstances and for different purposes.
I now even use a small compact DC as a preview tool during my LF shoot out - much better than the old paper frame or whatever viewer. I used a Panasonic DMC-ZR3 which zoom out to ~24mm in 35mm terms which is roughly equivalent to the view of a 75mm in 4x5 terms. I take several preliminary shots to check composition. I even set up the tripod and position my ZR3 on top for more accurate framing "preview". I then set up my Ebony on the tripod head and the rest is just a breeze.
Coming back to QT's question- "Large format nature photographers who have moved to digital: A,B,C,D... who else ?"
I'd say it depends on how photography relates to that particular person.
IMHO if one do photography for a living, then there's a strong motivation to go digital. Productivity would be higher and the workflow is faster, the running cost is possibly lower because film (and post-processing) cost is escalating. They also don't have to worry about the initial investment because their clients will pay for it anyway.
For people who do NOT do photography for a living (like me), we have the choice to ourselves. I choose digital for underwater photography because there's very little choice. But for landscape I still enjoy using LF with all its special capabilities. I also enjoy the almost contemplative PROCESS itself as much as the end product. After all I have no clients to please or any assignment deadline to beat.
Why can't I enjoy photography in its own right and let the equipment serve me rather than the other way round?
Sounds philosophical but that's just my personal reflection.
Bookmarks