Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: State of MF digital  (Read 17314 times)

tesfoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
State of MF digital
« Reply #40 on: December 20, 2009, 04:14:49 PM »

Quote from: carstenw
I go to this gallery frequently, since it is free (), close to where I work, and has regular shows from the best photographers in the world, and I am sad to report that the kinds of huge shots often done with film (6x6, 6x7, 4x5...) don't yet work that well in digital. You can often see the file breaking apart when enlarged too much. Film has lower resolution, but holds up better when enlarged to those sizes. The current show is Nick Brandt with huge prints  made from 6x7 (Pentax 67 II), and then scanned at high res and Photoshopped. This works fine. I have recently bought a couple more lenses for my Hasselblad 2000, specifically for doing large prints from film. I also have a Novoflex adapter for them for my Contax/e54, but I don't expect that the digital enlargements will work as well at huge sizes. I will test it though.


I think that 80-90 % of fine art photography shown in top galleries like Camera Work is analogue.

I agree that for large print sizes film is still the king.

The serious collectors of photography dont care at all if the print are made from a p65+ or a Pentax 67 - only LL pixl peepers care.



Quote from: pom
And I'll bet they're selling them for a fortune, the market just doesn't care in the real world, the niche for very large very very high quality prints is tiny anyway especially when the market has a rather different idea of what quality is relative to photographers, the fine art market couldn't care less about 16 bit colour...

If one finds that the market is buying 'lesser quality' work at prices far and above what one can sell their 'higher quality' stuff then one has to rethink their entire strategy and maybe see that using $25,000 backs has nothing to do with print prices or popularity whatsoever.


Exactly





Logged

tesfoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
State of MF digital
« Reply #41 on: December 20, 2009, 04:17:01 PM »

Quote from: carstenw
Yes, I know. The show was Russell James, bikini shots and a few portraits.



And both Russel James and James Russel are excellent photographers.



Logged

Carsten W

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 627
State of MF digital
« Reply #42 on: December 20, 2009, 04:37:23 PM »

Quote from: tesfoto
The serious collectors of photography dont care at all if the print are made from a p65+ or a Pentax 67 - only LL pixl peepers care.

... I am not sure if that was an insult. My point was that you could see from 3m (10') that the skin on the cheek didn't look like real skin. For a portrait of a beautiful woman, that is a real problem in my book. Just because some collectors don't see that, doesn't mean that we should all stop caring.

This is not an indictment of the photos, btw, many were great. This, and a few others were just enlarged too much, IMO.
Logged
Carsten W - Recent Photos

Mr. Rib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
State of MF digital
« Reply #43 on: December 20, 2009, 04:43:47 PM »

I wonder if guys like Edward Burtynsky / Andreas Gursky still simply ignore all the "revolutions" in equipment and shoot film with their Linhof Master Technika's. I'd say they probably do.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
State of MF digital
« Reply #44 on: December 20, 2009, 04:52:04 PM »

Quote from: tesfoto
I agree that for large print sizes film is still the king.
well, the guy that makes the biggest prints shoots digital.
Quote
The serious collectors of photography dont care at all if the print are made from a p65+ or a Pentax 67 - only LL pixl peepers care.
nobody cares. photographers just care what's the best device to record the things they are finding interesting...
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
State of MF digital
« Reply #45 on: December 20, 2009, 04:53:28 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Rib
Andreas Gursky
P45+, now P65+.
Burtansky, afaik, film
Logged

Mr. Rib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
State of MF digital
« Reply #46 on: December 20, 2009, 05:21:36 PM »

Thomas, are you sure about that? And he uses it with Master Technika 3000 series? hmm.. I'd love to hear how Technikas perform with MFDB. In fact I'd love to hear anything concerning workflow with Technika series.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
State of MF digital
« Reply #47 on: December 20, 2009, 05:26:14 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Rib
And he uses it with Master Technika 3000 series? hmm..
maybe he still uses the Technika in addition, I don't know. Ditigal H + Alpa.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 05:27:15 PM by tho_mas »
Logged

tesfoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
State of MF digital
« Reply #48 on: December 20, 2009, 05:48:57 PM »

Quote from: tho_mas
maybe he still uses the Technika in addition, I don't know. Ditigal H + Alpa.


AFIK he still use 13x18 for serious work.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 05:57:37 PM by tesfoto »
Logged

tesfoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
State of MF digital
« Reply #49 on: December 20, 2009, 05:51:57 PM »

Quote from: carstenw
... I am not sure if that was an insult. My point was that you could see from 3m (10') that the skin on the cheek didn't look like real skin. For a portrait of a beautiful woman, that is a real problem in my book. Just because some collectors don't see that, doesn't mean that we should all stop caring.

This is not an indictment of the photos, btw, many were great. This, and a few others were just enlarged too much, IMO.


No insult what so ever - serious collectors buy work for many reasons, none for the technical reasons we here at LL put so much effort into.

I agree with you that 35mm digital do not hold up well in large print sizes.

It might be a problem for you and me, but obvious not for Russel James.

BTW I saw Nick Brandt gorgeous large prints at Paris Photo, they do hold up very very well (Pentax 67)
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 06:02:45 PM by tesfoto »
Logged

tesfoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
State of MF digital
« Reply #50 on: December 20, 2009, 05:56:39 PM »

Quote from: tho_mas
well, the guy that makes the biggest prints shoots digital.


?

Gursky large prints are made from multiple scans of 13x18 film (5"x7")

Have you seen any digital (digital back) work from him yet, if so plaese give a link.

Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
State of MF digital
« Reply #51 on: December 20, 2009, 06:02:13 PM »

Quote from: tesfoto
Gursky large prints are made from multiple scans of 13x18 film (5"x7")

Have you seen any digital (digital back) work from him yet, if so plaese give a link.
afaik at least the North Corea series (the parades, not the architecture), the Formula 1 series and the Islands are digital.
Be that as it may...
Logged

tesfoto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 144
State of MF digital
« Reply #52 on: December 20, 2009, 06:11:06 PM »

Quote from: tho_mas
afaik at least the North Corea series (the parades, not the architecture), the Formula 1 series and the Islands are digital.
Be that as it may...


I agree the Formula 1 and parades series does seem to be digital, my mistake.

Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drn1EUz_LOg

I do admire his work.





Logged

Mr. Rib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
State of MF digital
« Reply #53 on: December 20, 2009, 06:15:37 PM »

Gurksy, Burtynsky - I admire both

http://www.alpa.ch/files/news/109/ALPA_Wat...2_09plain_e.pdf
you can see Gursky in fron of Alpa 12 xy, although it doesn't mean anything
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
State of MF digital
« Reply #54 on: December 20, 2009, 06:21:53 PM »

Quote from: tesfoto
I agree the Formula 1 and parades series does seem to be digital, my mistake.
I know that he owned a P45+ and now owns a P65+. In how far he uses them for which series, I'm not sure.
For his style of work (assemblages) high res digital is actually perfect.
From the prints I'd say all the latest works are digital.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
State of MF digital
« Reply #55 on: December 20, 2009, 06:23:33 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Rib
Burtynsky
"Oil" is an awesome series!
Logged

Mr. Rib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
State of MF digital
« Reply #56 on: December 20, 2009, 06:25:09 PM »

Yes, not to mention the fact that he sacrificed so many years to make his oil series complete.. but it was 100% worth it, amazing work.
Logged

Mr. Rib

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 866
State of MF digital
« Reply #57 on: December 20, 2009, 06:27:51 PM »

I never had luck to see Gursky work in person, only some albums, not the real stuff. From what I've read, you his prints hold the ground in terms of details / sharpness when you look at them from a very small distance.. I wonder how is it possible - a 3  x 1.5m or even bigger print with so much detail in it.. if it is not stitched, how is it possible? Digital back or 10 x 8 drum scan? I keep wondering..
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1798
State of MF digital
« Reply #58 on: December 20, 2009, 06:34:44 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Rib
wonder how is it possible - a 3  x 1.5m or even bigger print with so much detail in it.. if it is not stitched, how is it possible?
they are stiteched and assembled! And no, not 3x1.5 meters... the Formula 1 series is 6 meters wide, each.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 06:38:22 PM by tho_mas »
Logged

pschefz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 244
State of MF digital
« Reply #59 on: December 20, 2009, 06:43:02 PM »

there is no discussion DSLR or DMF anymore....the difference between 35mm and MF (6x6, 6x7 and up) was very obvious in a 11x14 print, sometimes even an 8x10....there is nobody around who can tell if a 8x10 was shot with a 5DII or a P65.....a 16x20 is a different story.....on the other hand sometimes a 20x30 print from 35mm looks amazing....and there are people who claim to print 20x30 from M8 files that look amazing, but my own experience does not agree with that one....
with film, i only shot MF....the look, the quality....always hated 35mm, especially for fashion.....
with digital there is no reason to shoot DMF anymore...the workflow, the files, the detail, the ease of shooting...everything in favor of DSLR....and it only gets better....the differences are getting smaller and smaller and it is harder foe DMF to stay on top by simply adding pixels.....

for fine art prints there are no rules anyway....a 30x40 beautifully detailed print from a P65 can be worth a lot less then a 50x60 "terrible" cellphone shot by the right artist.....

david hockney nowadays "paints" on his iphone....

workflow is the BIG difference between the "formats" these days....
with film it was faster to shoot MF in studio then 35mm....manual focus was easier with the large, bright finders and it was faster to switch the film backs then to load film and it was always strange to switch camera and lens (have the assistant hand a new body with the same lens)...something strange about that....
with digital it is WAY easier to shoot DSLR....AF, handling, speed....workflow that actually works....

the only thing that would make me shoot DMF again (for things i shoot with DSLR) would be a 6x8 sensor with 14stops DR, 16bit, 30mpix....capture rate 2f/sec, "unlimited" buffer, solid tether that keeps up with these numbers....multi zone AF, in lens shutters.....and useable iso (comparable to canon) up to 3200 (because the lenses at that size are a lot slower and DOF is so much more shallow).....
this would have to be a body solution since there is no system on the market! even supporting 6x8 anymore.....

the only companies that can even come close to this (all stats other then sensor size) are canon nikon....
the size jump from 35mm to 645 is just not worth giving up everything else....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up