Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ixpressraf on December 20, 2009, 03:00:44 am
-
Last year, it seemed like as if there was no future no more for MF digital.... as far as you read on this forum over here. Most topics are about the fact that according to some people MF digital is of no use anymore, or that one better puts his or her money on 35mm digital. A few thoughts however: i was always thinking this forum was about " digital medium format photography" with tips and tricks. ( not any more, it is about telling people how bad they have invested and how wrong we are, us MFdigital users). Sadly, it has been a very long time ever since something constructive has been said about MF.
As LL seems to be the largest community in the world for MFdigital, and there seems to be so much negativism towards MFd, Hasselblad, sinar, phase and others will be almost bacrupt!!!!!!!
However in the real world, things are very different. There are thousends of professional photographers using their MF digital system day by day, never wishing to switch to 35mm for various reasons. I for myself can speak for our Hasselblad user group over here where we have about 43 members, using various Hassies with back's from the 384v to the H3d50.
These people shoot hundreds of thousends of images, a friend of mine shot about 193800 pictures with his H1/132c combo.
I almost always use my Hasselblad because i like the way of working, the way of composing on the bright viewscreen etc...
Strange is that when we have pro meetings, fairs, exheibitions...i constantly discover new photographers using MFd. And these are not only fashion and sports photographers: nope, these arein to portrait ,wedding, studio, fine art, still live, packaging, advertising, technical, industrial and more. Fashion and sport have always been domains of 35mm, as long as i can remember so it is normal these people dont want to use MFd.
So if in such a tiny country we have already more professional photographers making a good living using their MFd equipment then all MFd users on LL worldwide, what are those few voices over here to create such a negative feeling towards MFd.
Just my .02
-
I REALLY don't get the vibe that Fashion should be the domain for a DSLR, really.... who told you that.
I only shoot fashion, beauty and I'm using a MF system for 99% of my work.
Also look at FTV, Worldfashion etc. most of the guys there are walking with MF cameras and DSLR's of course.
Sports, ok that's no place for MF.
But fashion with all it's structures etc. is the perfect place for MF.
Also the WLF with fashion is a wonderful thing, it makes communication with the model so much easier.
About the negativity.
I've posted in most of the threads on DSLR vs MF and will do again.
It's very simple, DSLRs are getting very very good and because people love to have a 2000.00 camera that can come very close to a 10,000.00 camera and love to act like that camera beats the 10,000.00 one.
That's human nature.
Comparing a DSLR to a MF camera is horses for courses.
Fact is that a good DSLR can do a lot a MF camera can do, but to be honest also some things not.
Think about high sync speeds for strobes, very important for SOME fashion shooters.
Think about the larger sensor and lower ISO thus enabling to use smaller aperture but with a shallower DOF (also important for SOME fashion shooters).
As long as even those two are not met with A DSLR solution one can never say MF is dead.
What is true is that the MF market is getting smaller, but there are still photographers out there that can't live without their system (I'm one of them at the moment).
On the other hand the MF is getting BIGGER, prices have come down so fast that people who were in the market for a 1DsIII are now probably also thinking about getting MF.
So in the end we'll see what happens, but for me the MF market is very alive.
The funny thing by the way is that people have to see and not read.
I teach several workshops a week and all students are at awe at the file quality I get from the very basis Aptus22.
When they hear the camera I use can be bought for 950 euro (RZ67ProII) with lenses and a second hand Aptus22 for app 3000.00 some are really considering making the switch.
And some are now shooting film (not a lot that has to be said), simply because they fall in love with the way the cameras work.
It's always a double edged sword.
I LOVE my 5DMKII and I use it for many occasions, however when it counts on quality and I have control over my light it doesn't come close to the Aptus.
-
I also prefer MF for landscape and architecture
-
I also think my MF out performs my D700. It just seems like a lot of ups and downs in the MF format world with camera and software issues. I like shooting dslr from time to time but when I see the difference with MF tethered its a no brainer. I think one point the DSLR lackeys like to bring up, you can't tell the difference when something is printed in a magazine. As soon as someone shoots both formats side by side in a magazine, I am not sure how this statement stands up. Personally I like the slower pace of MF and the larger viewing area. I use to shoot people with 4x5 and Med format film. I think its much cheaper to get into Med Format digital then the past. I just saw a Leaf Aptus 75 sell on Ebay for $7,700.
-
Sorry Frank, just saying about fashion because of what James Russel said.
My point is that LL represents only a very extremely small part of working MFd professionals, maybe 1\10000% of all photographers shooting MFd. I do not want to flame the ridiculous war again, i am just asking myself why only those negative voices are written on LL......... often by people not even using MFd.
-
The problem I see, is that the next generation of photographers won't have the MF knowledge anymore.
15 years ago, back at the photo school, none of us students could afford an own MF or LF system (except for a C330 or similar), but the school had a dozen of Sinars, 2 Blads, 2 RZ, RB, a Fuji 6x8. We loved to rent these systems to discover them, and we learned what was possible with MF.
Now, used MF is affordable, but young people learn their stuff with a 5D, D300. Even if 22 MP backs with CF cards are around 3000 soon, a lot of the new generations have never really touched these old MF systems. (Public) schools have probably not invested in Hy6, H1 and other AF bodies, so young people will discover these systems when they assist a photographer who shoots digital MF.
Tom
-
Fashion and sport have always been domains of 35mm, as long as i can remember so it is normal these people dont want to use MFd.
Sport, yes, but fashion??
-
The problem I see, is that the next generation of photographers won't have the MF knowledge anymore.
15 years ago, back at the photo school, none of us students could afford an own MF or LF system (except for a C330 or similar), but the school had a dozen of Sinars, 2 Blads, 2 RZ, RB, a Fuji 6x8. We loved to rent these systems to discover them, and we learned what was possible with MF.
Now, used MF is affordable, but young people learn their stuff with a 5D, D300. Even if 22 MP backs with CF cards are around 3000 soon, a lot of the new generations have never really touched these old MF systems. (Public) schools have probably not invested in Hy6, H1 and other AF bodies, so young people will discover these systems when they assist a photographer who shoots digital MF.
Tom
FWIW (and I can only speak for the 2 vendors I'm closed to) the educational market for MF digital; colleges and universities has grown significantly over the last few years and is still steadily growing.
It is true that 35mm systems become widespread in this market but still many institutes appreciate the value in teaching on MF and LF cameras and as they already have loads of old Hassy's, RB's, Cambos and Sinars and as they don't need massive files, it makes a lot of sense to them to invest in entry level backs, new or used.
From their point of view it helps them compete with other institutes and offer their students something that is closer to what they might work with once they've left school. We as manufacturers invest quite a lot in seminars and workshops with schools as we see the "seeding" value in this kind of work.
Yair
-
There is a very good reason to use MF even today: high resolution for huge prints. I have hesitated to post this since I believe he frequents these forums, but I went to Camera Works a while ago, a high-end gallery which regularly sells prints for over €25000, to see the Russell James exhibition, and there were several enlargements there which were just enlarged too much. In particular there was one portrait at about 2m x 1,2m large selling for the price of the budget of a small nation, and even from a viewing distance of 3m I could clearly see digital artifacts both on the cheeks and in the hair. I would venture a guess that they were done with a 1Ds3 or a 5D2, having some idea what he shoots, and remembering the artifacts from my (ex-) Canon, but of course I cannot be sure. I hope that it was just a clueless gallerist who chose to enlarge the shots so far past the max. size. With a P45+ or whatever other high-res back, the shot would have looked much better.
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.
-
FWIW (and I can only speak for the 2 vendors I'm closed to) the educational market for MF digital; colleges and universities has grown significantly over the last few years and is still steadily growing.
It is true that 35mm systems become widespread in this market but still many institutes appreciate the value in teaching on MF and LF cameras and as they already have loads of old Hassy's, RB's, Cambos and Sinars and as they don't need massive files, it makes a lot of sense to them to invest in entry level backs, new or used.
From their point of view it helps them compete with other institutes and offer their students something that is closer to what they might work with once they've left school. We as manufacturers invest quite a lot in seminars and workshops with schools as we see the "seeding" value in this kind of work.
Yair
Good to hear that! I didn't have that impression.
The manufacturers must have quite some old backs (new/used) on their shelves (Valeo, H25 or even earlier), if public and private schools/institutions have access to these backs, this is probably the best way to keep MF alive!
Tom
-
. I have hesitated to post this since I believe he frequents these forums, but I went to Camera Works a while ago, a high-end gallery which regularly sells prints for over €25000, to see the Russell James exhibition, and there were several enlargements there which were just enlarged too much. In particular there was one portrait at about 2m x 1,2m large selling for the price of the budget of a small nation, and even from a viewing distance of 3m I could clearly see digital artifacts both on the cheeks and in the hair.
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.
Fashion, commercial and advertising is of course different but I find the notion that there is a market out there for fine art work that demands huge prints at a price level to make a modern MFDB solution (with all that entails) a justified business purchase to be utterly contrary to the facts of the industry with the exception of a very few individuals worldwide.
-
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.
Fashion, commercial and advertising is of course different but I find the notion that there is a market out there for fine art work that demands huge prints at a price level to make a modern MFDB solution (with all that entails) a justified business purchase to be utterly contrary to the facts of the industry with the exception of a very few individuals worldwide.
The market is there, but I believe that the galleries are skimming quite a lot off the top, so the photographers may not see the same economics.
My point was more that I would not want to see my work enlarged way past the best before date, with such visible artifacts. The choice then remains to print smaller (not likely, given gallery demands) or use the MFDB for such work. There are many obvious advantages of 35mm, but for this particular purpose, I think that MFDBs are the way to go.
Anyway, I am not a pro, just an idealistic hobbyist, so what do I know.
-
I don't expect that the digital enlargements will work as well at huge sizes.
you can also print your digital files on film to enlarge them afterwards based on that film.
As you are located in Germany this guy might be interessting for you; he prints digital files on Ilford Micrographic Film with a laser writer http://savedpictures.com/english/loesung/index.htm (http://savedpictures.com/english/loesung/index.htm) - the results are simply stunning.
I once tried his service but I didn't make prints (since 200% - 250% and even some more enlargement based on the actual digital file still delivers great quality). But maybe it's worth a try.
-
you can also print your digital files on film to enlarge them afterwards based on that film.
As you are located in Germany this guy might be interessting for you; he prints digital files on Ilford Micrographic Film with a laser writer http://savedpictures.com/english/loesung/index.htm (http://savedpictures.com/english/loesung/index.htm) - the results are simply stunning.
I once tried his service but I didn't make prints (since 200% - 250% and even some more enlargement based on the actual digital file still delivers great quality). But maybe it's worth a try.
Thomas, what size do you print, max, and which MFDB do you use for those? Have you ever seen artifacts?
-
Thomas, what size do you print, max, and which MFDB do you use for those? Have you ever seen artifacts?
I am using a P45 and my prints are 120x160 (-120x180) cm. At that size artifacts are not an issue; of course not when I stitch 2 frames with the Cambo but even not when using the Contax, so a single shot.
As to viewing distance my criticial limit is half the diagonal of the print.
-
I am using a P45 and my prints are 120x160 (-120x180) cm. At that size artifacts are not an issue; of course not when I stitch 2 frames with the Cambo but even not when using the Contax, so a single shot.
As to viewing distance my criticial limit is half the diagonal of the print.
That seems very reasonable. Have you tried those sizes and that limit with a Canon or D3x?
-
I'll just add a word on the education side. Most of the top photographic schools and university programs do have and use MF backs, because it will be just about impossible for someone to get a job as a photographer these days (I'm talking commerce – not fine art), let alone as a digital tech, unless they know MF practice, the use of C1 for tethering, and so forth.
As for the fine art side, during the past couple of years I have seen a huge number of well recognized photographers who either run their own galleries or who are represented by major ones, who have switched to MF, in particular the Phase One P65+. This includes folks like Peter Lik, Charlie Cramer, Bill Atkinson, Tim Wolcott, Mark Dubovoy, and many more whom I don't know personally.
The reason is simple. This differences over DSLRs are clearly visible especially in large prints, which is what most people sell in a gallery environment.
Michael
-
My point was more that I would not want to see my work enlarged way past the best before date, with such visible artifacts. The choice then remains to print smaller (not likely, given gallery demands) or use the MFDB for such work. There are many obvious advantages of 35mm, but for this particular purpose, I think that MFDBs are the way to go.
Anyway, I am not a pro, just an idealistic hobbyist, so what do I know.
My point is that these people are pro's, they know their markets and for 'that particular purpose', unless it is economically feasable to invest in MFDB's for a fine art photographer, which I doubt in the majority of cases, the obvious solution is to either hold on to professional pride and not print so large or listen to the market and print that large knowing that your audience are willing to pay and wouldn't know an artifact if you shoved their noses into it as the case seems to be.
For a pro, i.e. someone trying to make money from sales of these prints, the math has to add up and that is after backup bodies/backs, travel, flights, insurance, printing and mounting costs, etc, etc. That's not even counting the time spent both in the field and on the computer oh and of course all the years spent reaching that level of excellence. A skilled amatuer has only one yardstick, what they personally believe is the quality necessary to produce work which is of a level that they require, that versus their bank balance. A professional has to balance market needs with personal pride and the bank balance which is why you will see a lot of possibly substandard work selling for certainly unsubstandard prices. At that point you have to look at your own work and ask yourself whether your own personal balance of the above is correct for the current market climate.
A month ago I was in a gallery. I saw a woman walk in, spend 20 minutes looking through some prints and then buy a (what appeared to me to be) badly printed, soft and untonal B&W 8X10" unlimited print unmounted for $1500 from an artist whose name is known but not for 'big' prices, etc. I'm producing beautiful larger (though not huge) limited prints from 30-60 megapixel files, beautifully dry mounted on archival foamcore and with a gorgeous 8 ply Museum grade white Matt. Free shipping worldwide. I'm asking $600 upwards. Now I only went public with the sales a week or so ago and many of the projects are still very much ongoing but watching that taught me something very very important. Yes presentation is important, yes quality is important. No you don't need either to make good money on sales. The above is more important to me than to a client who is more interested in the name of the artist and the image itself, everything else is just window dressing.
Those who can command the prices in the Fine Art world which would make a MFDB viable are at the stage that they do not need the MFDB to do so. That they buy one seems to be in almost every case to replace LF, not 35mm. There are of course exceptions, there are plenty big names. I just believe that they are in a group small enough to be memorised by those in the know and that is worldwide, it's just not that big a market place.
-
Have you tried those sizes and that limit with a Canon or D3x?
no, why would I? I don't own either of those cameras.
I always meter manually, always focus manually, like large viewfinders, always carry a tripod, always have time. I never apply noise reduction or create one of those smeary effects you literally see in every fashion shoot. I always take a lot of time looking at the subject and just a few seconds to capture it.
I am totally free from that pressure high volume professional photographers are under.
-
.
-
As for the fine art side, during the past couple of years I have seen a huge number of well recognized photographers who either run their own galleries or who are represented by major ones, who have switched to MF, in particular the Phase One P65+. This includes folks like Peter Lik, Charlie Cramer, Bill Atkinson, Tim Wolcott, Mark Dubovoy, and many more whom I don't know personally.
The reason is simple. This differences over DSLRs are clearly visible especially in large prints, which is what most people sell in a gallery environment.
Michael
... and with kit like my 4 Metz's Sport and wildlife could benefit from 60Mpx.
... and with kit like my 4 Elinchrome 1,500s, dance theatre and gymnastics photography could benefit from 60Mpx
... and when the H4D-60 come out, with Phocus 2, will the Phase 65+ still be the tool of choice for landscape [photographers?
-
My 5D Mark II is slipping... i'm using my aptus all the time... i just prefer the color, the sharpness... and the leaf handles bad weather light in a more plesant way...
Different tools, but for my shooting style, a MFDB is a no brainer !
-
.
-
This applies to people who make their living with photography or people who aspire to do so. If you shoot for fun and have the money, there is no wrong choice. Have a good time.
I stopped using MFD for 90% of what I do, which is fashion, portraits, etc. for two reasons: the cameras are not as functional as they were with Film, and two, they are challenged by nautural/continious light, which is what I am asked for.
I rarely ever use my Aptus anymore because I never have enough window light, or I'm using the HMIs I used to light a film set, and there just is not enough light. I need three more stops, and 2.8 is the fastest lens for my RZ. So, the Aptus stays in the Peli case and out comes a dslr or even the M8, or, depending on the look we're after, some Portra 800.
When I shot beauty I always used a back. I rented, for the most part. I was locked down on a tripod. I had five or six Profoto 1200s packs, unlimited light, and a team of techs and their carts. But for fashion, the backs just get in my way with their cords, carts, and techs. I find a dslr gets me a better photo, because I'm more apt to try something if I don't have to fool with a tripod, a bunch of cables, move some lights around, etc. It just kills the mood, the moment lost in banal task of dicking with a tripod and grip equipment.
People should shoot what works for them, what gets them the shot. But I will say this: there is so much MFDB Chauvinism and propaganda that is bad for the impressionable, young pro or aspiring pro photographers. Its silly. Its gear centric and has nothing to do with the images that get you work. I tell anyone starting out who will listen to spend any extra money they have on production, travel, going on look/sees in the big markets, or marketing.
If you like shooting an MFDB, and can pay cash, and have a busy business, go for it. If not, that 5D2 and a trip to Paris to show your book around, maybe shoot an editorial or two while there, will be much more rewarding, personally and professionally, than a back.
-
While I have the capability to print very large I seldom do (for various reasons). I am amazed at how many photographers print huge and I mean huge wall sized prints and I will walk up to these prints hanging on the wall and the files (or images from film or whatever) go soft, break up, get horribly grainy/noisy, etc. I won't print anything unless it looks good at my "test" distance of about 2 feet, no matter how large. Bigger is not necessarily better in my personal opinion.
Eleanor
-
or me, the key is Stitching, with the 5d2. If you're doing landscape, or anything not moving, the ease of use of the 24, 45, and 90 Canon T/S lenses make it so easy to just shoot a "top, center, and bottom", and let CS4 just line them up to the pixel, and instantly, you've got double the resolution in an easy-to-carry, easy-to-process, easy-to-tether, fast-lens, high ASA, great LCD, solid-software solution. Stitching is The Great Equalizer.
As long as nothing is moving in the pic. Then what?
-
What I hope for is that in a couple of years we can have MF cameras that can focus fast and shoot in low light. And there would be no need to choose anymore.
-
As long as the synch speed on small format remains stuck at about 1/200, there will always be a place for MF in my world.
John
-
I also prefer MF for landscape and architecture
With a technical/view camera I presume? Setting aside sensor resolution, I can't see the benefit of MF DSLR's over 35mm DSLR's, especially since the latter tend to be more full-featured, and have more tilt/shift lens options.
-
I can't see the benefit of MF DSLR's over 35mm DSLR's
- Waist level finder
- bigger finder
- easy exchangeable screens
- easy to clean sensor
- less buttons + knobs
- aperture ring on the lens (a DSLR on tripod is PITA)
- "look"
-
I have hesitated to post this since I believe he frequents these forums, but I went to Camera Works a while ago, a high-end gallery which regularly sells prints for over €25000, to see the Russell James exhibition, and there were several enlargements there which were just enlarged too much.
Russell James is not James Russell, although many people get these two names mixed up...
James Russell (http://www.russellrutherford.com/2010/)
Russell James (http://www.studiorusselljames.com/#/home/)
-
Keep in mind I was speaking specifically about landscape and architecture...
- Waist level finder
Nice for low camera positions, but makes higher camera positions impossible unless you don't mind getting out a step-ladder to stand on.
- bigger finder
- easy exchangeable screens
Nice, but offset to some extent by having a high-res LCD with live-view (which can be zoomed in for focusing).
- easy to clean sensor
I've not had much problem using a bulb-blower, personally. Many DSLR's have built-in dust-cleaning mechanisms.
- less buttons + knobs
which means digging through on-screen menus instead.
- aperture ring on the lens (a DSLR on tripod is PITA)
How is using the aperture thumbwheel on the back a PITA? I much prefer that to reaching around to find an aperture ring. If you really like the aperture ring, it's there on many of the Nikon-mount lenses.
- "look"
subjective and debatable, especially if we're talking landscape/architecture where large DOF is often preferred.
Personally I'll take live-view and the t/s lenses over a MF DSLR. I do see the appeal of MFD with a view camera though.
-
Viewfinders that allow one to see and a format that works both horizontally and vertically.
Are we talking digital or film, I'm not aware of any square sensors. I prefer rectangular formats, and find an L-bracket works just fine.
The ability to mount that MF DSLR back on that view/tech camera...
No argument there. I definitely see the appeal of a digital view camera, it's the MF DSLR's that I think are poorly suited to landscape and architecture.
-
Sport, yes, but fashion??
Certainly in my experience.
Rob C
-
Keep in mind I was speaking specifically about landscape and architecture...
me too
Nice for low camera positions
exactly. And big.
Nice, but offset to some extent by having a high-res LCD with live-view (which can be zoomed in for focusing)
an LCD is not a finder, light is faster than juice. Above all, light looks different. I prefer seeing a scene rather than viewing a representation of it. Especially a representation on such an inferior screen.
I cleary see the advantage of Live View for focussing... but me I just don't need it with the MF camera
I've not had much problem using a bulb-blower, personally
congratulations
Many DSLR's have built-in dust-cleaning mechanisms
is that so?
which means digging through on-screen menus instead.
no. which means everthing is already in place.
How is using the aperture thumbwheel on the back a PITA?
I hate it. On tripod as well as hand held. I love the aperture ring on the lens.
I much prefer that to reaching around to find an aperture ring
nice
If you really like the aperture ring, it's there on many of the Nikon-mount lenses
I don't have a Nikon.
subjective and debatable
of course. As any other point stated here.
especially if we're talking landscape/architecture where large DOF is often preferred
I know
Personally I'll take live-view and the t/s lenses over a MF DSLR
nice
I do see the appeal of MFD with a view camera though
me too. That's why I use both... MF + LF.
-
This exactly what i was writing about: always the same stupid discussions of people defending their system..... Why can this be not a MFd only forum, with all 35mm discussions blocked and topic starters banned for a few weeks......
-
I'll just add a word on the education side. Most of the top photographic schools and university programs do have and use MF backs, because it will be just about impossible for someone to get a job as a photographer these days (I'm talking commerce – (snip)
Michael
Michael,
The group of assistants I hire in Los Angeles went to that school that has the same name as the greeting card company, where upon enrollment each student is given their own medium format back and camera for use.
To a person they said at first they were wowed to be handed a "professional" camera, but later dismayed at what they couldn't shoot, because they had to have flash, or a tripod, and of course there was the added workflow, software issues etc.
They wanted to shoot, they wanted to experiment, not learn the ins and outs of version 10 point something software and shoot everything with a beauty dish. Actually if you asked them what they wanted to learn in school, a certain camera format was not on their list. They want to learn how to shoot, produce, sell and get a gig as a photographer because of their artistic abilities. They want to learn how to get real models for testing, how to locate and permit a location, find stylists that have access to props/wardrobe and most importantly how to estimate a project that gets them the job and a profit, (which is something most schools are very limited in teaching).
Two weeks of working in LA and NY these students realize that on most large productions photographers aren't required to be digital tech experts and are not hired because of the cameras they own. The photographer's roll is to direct the shoot, communicate with the clients and get to an artistic solution. There are many other people that will happily provide and do the tech stuff.
As far as learning the software, it all changes anyway. If these students learned V10, C1 version 3, it's now all different. The one only software that stays somewhat continuous is photoshop, where all the real post production is done anyway.
But these kids are smart, heck they're raised on x-box and ipods. They can pick up eos utility, dpp, and learn it top to bottom in an hour, (I know because I run them through the basic process and they work it without issue), but none of the people that assist me have long term goals to become a tech, they want to shoot.
Now as far as "learning" medium format to be a digital tech, I think that's probably the most viable market for the future of medium format in the professional world. Why buy a $40,000 back, a $50,000 system when the techs (at least in LA) are falling out of the trees and cutting deals on their package.
At the prices I'm quoted by tech companies I'd have to rent for 125 days straight to get to the price of a P45+ and a H2 with a few lenses and computer.
People can and should use what they want, but for commerce the pixel fear is over. Two years ago everyone I knew would struggle through a big project with medium format because they just felt they had to have the pixel horsepower. I know in my world, and the world of every photographer I personally know the latest Canon, Nikon and Sony changed that thought. Well that and the fact that every project is ramped up 5 fold in volume, has to be delivered in half the time and also requires some video.
In the end if you want that over sharp, non aa filter medium format look and don't want to drop the required $20,000 to $40,000 (new) or $12,000 (used) for the buy in, just get a Leica M9 or M8. To me it looks the same as my digital backs and is a lot easier to use. Or just have the AA filter removed from a 5d2. Once again same look, but at least you get higher iso.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/experiment.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/experiment.shtml)
But then again if anyone is looking at a photograph from 2" away, I believe they are looking at the wrong thing.
BC
Added - There is this misconception in the professional photography world about what is real and what is urban legend. Urban legend dictates that every name photographer has millions of dollars of cameras, knows everything about them top to bottom and shoots editorial projects for millions of dollars in profit. Reality is a much different scenario and the photographers that work in todays world use what is appropriate and many know little if anything about the equipment. Actually some of the photographer's that were sponsored by equipment companies didn't know a polaroid from a hemriod, but that doesn't mean they don't have a roll because obviously they got the gig, they're in the room, the photograph get's shot and they hopefully are getting paid.
But it's not the camera that gets them into the room.
-
Dslr on fashion
http://www.style.com/include/vogue/voguedi...ine/player.html (http://www.style.com/include/vogue/voguediaries/2009_November_The_Women_of_Nine/player.html)
Dslr for stitching with "things" in perpetual motion
http://www.dresden-26-gigapixels.com/dresden26GP (http://www.dresden-26-gigapixels.com/dresden26GP)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VfeGLxUlU0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VfeGLxUlU0)
What if Canon comes with a new line leaf-shutter glass
What if Canon comes with a body with a AA filter ON/OFF "on the fly"
What if Canon comes with 16bit sensor
I'm sure it is just a matter for the market to be ripe. The only question remaining is: Do they want to?
Eduardo
-
.
-
Russell James is not James Russell, although many people get these two names mixed up...
James Russell (http://www.russellrutherford.com/2010/)
Russell James (http://www.studiorusselljames.com/#/home/)
Yes, I know. The show was Russell James, bikini shots and a few portraits.
-
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.
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
-
Yes, I know. The show was Russell James, bikini shots and a few portraits.
And both Russel James and James Russel are excellent photographers.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I agree that for large print sizes film is still the king.
well, the guy that makes the biggest prints shoots digital.
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...
-
Andreas Gursky
P45+, now P65+.
Burtansky, afaik, film
-
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.
-
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.
-
maybe he still uses the Technika in addition, I don't know. Ditigal H + Alpa.
AFIK he still use 13x18 for serious work.
-
... 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)
-
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.
-
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...
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drn1EUz_LOg)
I do admire his work.
-
Gurksy, Burtynsky - I admire both
http://www.alpa.ch/files/news/109/ALPA_Wat...2_09plain_e.pdf (http://www.alpa.ch/files/news/109/ALPA_Watch_02_09plain_e.pdf)
you can see Gursky in fron of Alpa 12 xy, although it doesn't mean anything
-
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.
-
Burtynsky
"Oil" is an awesome series!
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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....
-
obviously a lot of his work can be done with stitching but how would you stitch frames with so much motion in them? a lot of his work involve large groups of people.. it's kind of impossible unless he /his assistants sit tens of hours in postpro and 'manufacture' the stitched shot. And as I've already told, I didn't see the prints in person, so I can't tell... I have to go for a trip and see it with my own eyes. His and Burtynsky's work
-
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..
i saw a gursky show.....let's just say that people who find DSLR files soft and mushy would probably barf if they looked at his prints close up:) none of that p65 crispness.....at all....large prints from film just don't have that....
but these prints are not meant to be watched from a short distance...they are huge and are meant to be seen from a certain distance....just like sitting in the front row isn't so much fun at the movies....or actually seeing the brushstrokes in a giant velazquez....or rembrandt....a rothko only works at a distance....
just saw the "small trades" at the getty....it just makes this discussion look so idiotic...
-
obviously a lot of his work can be done with stitching but how would you stitch frames with so much motion in them? a lot of his work involve large groups of people.. it's kind of impossible unless he /his assistants sit tens of hours in postpro and 'manufacture' the stitched shot. And as I've already told, I didn't see the prints in person, so I can't tell... I have to go for a trip and see it with my own eyes. His and Burtynsky's work
Gursky is known for not producing more than 8-10 prints a year.
And yes his post requires a lot of manpower.
-
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.....
Absolutely spot on
-
i saw a gursky show.....let's just say that people who find DSLR files soft and mushy would probably barf if they looked at his prints close up:) none of that p65 crispness.....at all....large prints from film just don't have that....
but these prints are not meant to be watched from a short distance...they are huge and are meant to be seen from a certain distance....just like sitting in the front row isn't so much fun at the movies....or actually seeing the brushstrokes in a giant velazquez....or rembrandt....a rothko only works at a distance....
Yes my experience too
just saw the "small trades" at the getty....it just makes this discussion look so idiotic...
Just saw "LA SUBVERSION DES IMAGES" at Centre Pompidu - best exhibition ever ! http://www.centrepompidou.fr (http://www.centrepompidou.fr)
Makes this discussion between MFD versus DSLR seem even worse.
-
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...
it has always been like that; that's self-evident.
Nevertheless that does not necessarily mean that there's no justification for a P65+ ... for those who work in the tradition of 8x10 or 5x4 or for every artists who makes big detailed prints. And for these guys workflow and ease of use is not necessarily that most important part.
-
Well, I'll just have to see it for myself. Looking at the albums and not being familiar with the real thing drives me nuts.
When I first saw Gursky's Formula 1 I thought of Rembrandt.. I guess that's what I love in his work and Burtynsky's work- their work is painted, not shot.
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Austr...S_SLO_01_07.htm (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Australia_Work/Australia_Large/AUS_SLO_01_07.htm)
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/O..._01_04_Oil.html (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/Oil_Book_Large/TRANSPORTATION_and_MOTOR_CULTURE/045-VW_LOT_01_04_Oil.html)
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/O..._02_04_Oil.html (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/Oil_Book_Large/TRANSPORTATION_and_MOTOR_CULTURE/037-HWY_02_04_Oil.html)
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/O..._01_03_Oil.html (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/Oil_Book_Large/TRANSPORTATION_and_MOTOR_CULTURE/038-HWY_01_03_Oil.html)
http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/O..._9B_99_Oil.html (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/Oil_Book_Large/THE_END_OF_OIL/077-OTP_9B_99_Oil.html)
-
just saw the "small trades" at the getty....it just makes this discussion look so idiotic...
Idiotic is right.
Did you dig the tones on those prints? Amazing.
-
those who can photograph ... do.
... the rest are afflicted with pixelitis and sizeitis.
-
obviously a lot of his work can be done with stitching but how would you stitch frames with so much motion in them? a lot of his work involve large groups of people.. it's kind of impossible unless he /his assistants sit tens of hours in postpro and 'manufacture' the stitched shot. And as I've already told, I didn't see the prints in person, so I can't tell... I have to go for a trip and see it with my own eyes. His and Burtynsky's work
As long as shutter speeds are fast enough you can stitch with movement/motion in it as well, even with slower shutter speeds if you are willing to have movement in your image. I am not saying he doesn't manufacture the total composition but stitching with moving people in it is no problem. Just make sure you don't put the same persons in to the composition more than once or cut them in parts on the stitches.
-
It might be a problem for you and me, but obvious not for Russel James.
Part of the reason that I posted here is that I am not actually sure if he knows. Someone else might have made the decision.
BTW I saw Nick Brandt gorgeous large prints at Paris Photo, they do hold up very very well (Pentax 67)
His photos are currently on at Camera Work. Fabulous stuff. I seriously thought about picking up a Pentax 67 and 3 lenses after that, which would have cost less than the 2 FE lenses I just picked up for my Hasselblad.
Anyway, he uses a scanner and then Photoshop, but clearly it holds up.
-
Hi B,
Thanks for the great info in this post.
About: Or just have the AA filter removed from a 5d2.
I'd like to ask you, have you seen files from a 5DII with the AA removed or met others who have had this done?
Seems to me this would make the 5DII a killer camera, but I'm a bit hesitant to send iot to the States without knowing what I'll get back in Amsterdam.
Thanks and kind regards,
Bart
Michael,
The group of assistants I hire in Los Angeles went to that school that has the same name as the greeting card company, where upon enrollment each student is given their own medium format back and camera for use.
To a person they said at first they were wowed to be handed a "professional" camera, but later dismayed at what they couldn't shoot, because they had to have flash, or a tripod, and of course there was the added workflow, software issues etc.
They wanted to shoot, they wanted to experiment, not learn the ins and outs of version 10 point something software and shoot everything with a beauty dish. Actually if you asked them what they wanted to learn in school, a certain camera format was not on their list. They want to learn how to shoot, produce, sell and get a gig as a photographer because of their artistic abilities. They want to learn how to get real models for testing, how to locate and permit a location, find stylists that have access to props/wardrobe and most importantly how to estimate a project that gets them the job and a profit, (which is something most schools are very limited in teaching).
Two weeks of working in LA and NY these students realize that on most large productions photographers aren't required to be digital tech experts and are not hired because of the cameras they own. The photographer's roll is to direct the shoot, communicate with the clients and get to an artistic solution. There are many other people that will happily provide and do the tech stuff.
As far as learning the software, it all changes anyway. If these students learned V10, C1 version 3, it's now all different. The one only software that stays somewhat continuous is photoshop, where all the real post production is done anyway.
But these kids are smart, heck they're raised on x-box and ipods. They can pick up eos utility, dpp, and learn it top to bottom in an hour, (I know because I run them through the basic process and they work it without issue), but none of the people that assist me have long term goals to become a tech, they want to shoot.
Now as far as "learning" medium format to be a digital tech, I think that's probably the most viable market for the future of medium format in the professional world. Why buy a $40,000 back, a $50,000 system when the techs (at least in LA) are falling out of the trees and cutting deals on their package.
At the prices I'm quoted by tech companies I'd have to rent for 125 days straight to get to the price of a P45+ and a H2 with a few lenses and computer.
People can and should use what they want, but for commerce the pixel fear is over. Two years ago everyone I knew would struggle through a big project with medium format because they just felt they had to have the pixel horsepower. I know in my world, and the world of every photographer I personally know the latest Canon, Nikon and Sony changed that thought. Well that and the fact that every project is ramped up 5 fold in volume, has to be delivered in half the time and also requires some video.
In the end if you want that over sharp, non aa filter medium format look and don't want to drop the required $20,000 to $40,000 (new) or $12,000 (used) for the buy in, just get a Leica M9 or M8. To me it looks the same as my digital backs and is a lot easier to use. Or just have the AA filter removed from a 5d2. Once again same look, but at least you get higher iso.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/experiment.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/experiment.shtml)
But then again if anyone is looking at a photograph from 2" away, I believe they are looking at the wrong thing.
BC
Added - There is this misconception in the professional photography world about what is real and what is urban legend. Urban legend dictates that every name photographer has millions of dollars of cameras, knows everything about them top to bottom and shoots editorial projects for millions of dollars in profit. Reality is a much different scenario and the photographers that work in todays world use what is appropriate and many know little if anything about the equipment. Actually some of the photographer's that were sponsored by equipment companies didn't know a polaroid from a hemriod, but that doesn't mean they don't have a roll because obviously they got the gig, they're in the room, the photograph get's shot and they hopefully are getting paid.
But it's not the camera that gets them into the room.
-
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.
With phocus 2 and (next month) the sensor from the H4D-60, on a view camera like the Sinar P3, with a stitching back will IMO be the tool of choice for landscape photography.
What do you call "large"?
-
just saw the "small trades" at the getty....it just makes this discussion look so idiotic...
Idiotic is right.
yes, but idiotic in either directions. Just because some art is great at small sizes it doesn't mean that every art might be great at the same size. Size is not a self purpose, of course, but imagine Richard Prince, G. Crewdson, A. Gursky, Roy Lichtenstein, Mark Rothko or even the late works of Cindy Sherman (… … … ) at 8'x10'' (print size). A movie is more enjoyable in the cinema than viewed at 720pixles wide on the notebook LCD…
-
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.....
Oh no, not this again... It's not just about megapixels.
Add:
- larger viewfinder
- fast flash sync with leaf shutters
- possibility to use back on view camera or other platforms
- easier sensor cleaning
- lack of AA filter
- generally more dynamic range
- option of waist-level or 45 degree or 90 degree finders
- not having to rotate the whole camera when shooting in portrait mode (with some systems)
- there are features which the Hy6 has, for example, which Canikon does not, afaik, such as focus bracketing/focus trap
-
Last year, it seemed like as if there was no future no more for MF digital.... as far as you read on this forum over here. Most topics are about the fact that according to some people MF digital is of no use anymore, or that one better puts his or her money on 35mm digital. A few thoughts however: i was always thinking this forum was about " digital medium format photography" with tips and tricks. ( not any more, it is about telling people how bad they have invested and how wrong we are, us MFdigital users). Sadly, it has been a very long time ever since something constructive has been said about MF.
As LL seems to be the largest community in the world for MFdigital, and there seems to be so much negativism towards MFd, Hasselblad, sinar, phase and others will be almost bacrupt!!!!!!!
However in the real world, things are very different. There are thousends of professional photographers using their MF digital system day by day, never wishing to switch to 35mm for various reasons. I for myself can speak for our Hasselblad user group over here where we have about 43 members, using various Hassies with back's from the 384v to the H3d50.
These people shoot hundreds of thousends of images, a friend of mine shot about 193800 pictures with his H1/132c combo.
I almost always use my Hasselblad because i like the way of working, the way of composing on the bright viewscreen etc...
Strange is that when we have pro meetings, fairs, exheibitions...i constantly discover new photographers using MFd. And these are not only LOW LIGHT, PARTY and sports photographers: nope, these arein to portrait ,wedding, studio, fine art, still live, packaging, advertising, technical, industrial and more. Fashion and sport have always been domains of 35mm, as long as i can remember so it is normal these people dont want to use MFd.
So if in such a tiny country we have already more professional photographers making a good living using their MFd equipment then all MFd users on LL worldwide, what are those few voices over here to create such a negative feeling towards MFd.
Just my .02 dry.gif
-
Sadly, it has been a very long time ever since something constructive has been said about MF.
-
Sadly, it has been a very long time ever since something constructive has been said about MF.
Seriously, Who gives a *%&k ? What do you want to be said about it? Why should anything constructive be said about it? Its a relatively expensive, high quality digital camera format. That's it.
The only thing worth commenting on is what your capable of doing with it. Posts like these neither affect nor achieve anything except perhaps wasting your valuable time which you could be spending producing some work.
You think Nick Brandt is sitting at home in front of his screen crying because no one is saying something nice about his Pentax?
-
With phocus 2 and (next month) the sensor from the H4D-60, on a view camera like the Sinar P3, with a stitching back will IMO be the tool of choice for landscape photography.
What do you call "large"?
Threre are many reasons why 80-90% (low estimate) photography at top art galleries is analogue.
There are also many reasons why fine art landscape photographers here at LL works (or dream about) with MFD.
-
The only thing worth commenting on is what your capable of doing with it. Posts like these neither affect nor achieve anything except perhaps wasting your valuable time which you could be spending producing some work.
You think Nick Brandt is sitting at home in front of his screen crying because no one is saying something nice about his Pentax?
+1
Log out and back to work.
-
Idiotic is right.yes, but idiotic in either directions. Just because some art is great at small sizes it doesn't mean that every art might be great at the same size. Size is not a self purpose, of course, but imagine Richard Prince, G. Crewdson, A. Gursky, Roy Lichtenstein, Mark Rothko or even the late works of Cindy Sherman (… … … ) at 8'x10'' (print size). A movie is more enjoyable in the cinema than viewed at 720pixles wide on the notebook LCD…
Its not the size that makes this idiotic. Technical considerations should be minor in the creation of art or art for commerce. All this "debate" is wicked retarded, or idiotic, if you like. If you need it, get it. If you don't, don't get it. Just make a picture that has impact at any size.
Its interesting that you mention Crewdson. His Firefly series is the only series he made that isn't sugar for the bougious upper middle class Park Slope Brown graduates with a middling understanding of Freud. The Firefly series was honest, small, black and white.
-
Its not the size that makes this idiotic. Technical considerations should be minor in the creation of art or art for commerce. All this "debate" is wicked retarded, or idiotic, if you like. If you need it, get it. If you don't, don't get it. Just make a picture that has impact at any size.
ah, okay. I think I didn't get it right then, sorry. With this statement I agree completely.
-
Threre are many reasons why 80-90% (low estimate) photography at top art galleries is analogue.
There are also many reasons why fine art landscape photographers here at LL works (or dream about) with MFD.
Hmm sorry but the only reason for your estimate (with which I agree) is time. It's hard to expect fine art photographers to switch to digital in the mid 90s...film was far superior back then for most applications and if we consider fine art with it's low capacities, then there's hardly any justification for digital. And if we consider TOP art galleries- you got to make yourself a name to get there, which means (that's obviously a generalization) you are in your mid 40s /50s. And that means you were shooting film most of your life and just recently, in comparison with your whole career, switched to digital. Imo, in next 10-15 years, this percentage in top modern galleries will be flipped upside down, it will be film that is 10-20% of galleries content, without counting in their archives
-alert- film vs digital jeopardy detected
Let's not start a film vs digital debate.
One more remark. It's funny that off-topics in this topic make the main discussion more and more pointless One more thing to make it even more pointless- as now we came to print size in fine art photography, it has to be seen as a tool, not a limiting factor ("bigger = better" approach). Despite the simple truth that a cellphone shot 30 x 40 print can be more valuable than a P65 print of the same size, some can find large prints irrelevant to their work and what they want to say. Great works that would be meaningless in large prints - not to search too far, just look at the work of Michael Kenna. What he'd need in digital world would be a 6x6 10mp sensor.
The conclusion is that all of the specs and features are meaningless, you get the equipment which delivers, in other words- which is relevant to want you're doing and comes along with your style, what you want to express. For some it will be 10 year old Canon PowerShot, for others P65+. "State of MF digital"? Noone could possibly benefit from digging into this subject. But yes, you can get more confused and defocused from what really matters- your work. And I think it is valid for both worlds - commercial and fine art photography.
And this sums it up nicely:
http://www.rothamel.de/de/Hans-Christian-S...ight/index.html (http://www.rothamel.de/de/Hans-Christian-Schink/LA-Night/index.html)
-
Have a look at Elger essers new work (size 181cm 302cm) the work looks absolutly great in real life
http://tinyurl.com/ycjl64j (http://tinyurl.com/ycjl64j)
I love this one:
http://tinyurl.com/yb397c7 (http://tinyurl.com/yb397c7)
-
Oh no, not this again... It's not just about megapixels.
Add:
- larger viewfinder
- fast flash sync with leaf shutters
- possibility to use back on view camera or other platforms
- easier sensor cleaning
- lack of AA filter
- generally more dynamic range
- option of waist-level or 45 degree or 90 degree finders
- not having to rotate the whole camera when shooting in portrait mode (with some systems)
- there are features which the Hy6 has, for example, which Canikon does not, afaik, such as focus bracketing/focus trap
if you quote me, please include what should be part of the quote...i pretty much include this list towards the end of my post about things still in favor of MF....
but: the whole large finder thing is a little tricky in reality...as is the WLF....with both my 6008af/phase and the RZ/phase i had to either shoot with the loupe up to get some kind of focus or shoot with the viewfinder attachment (for the RZ)....both solutions are not what i would call MF and are far from perfect....i actually shoot with the canon angle finder on the 5DII and it is surprisingly better then both "MF" solutions i had to suffer through....
there are several viewcamera solutions for DSLR.....but if you really need TS....the canon lenses seem to be a huge hit with everybody....incl. michael who uses them with his P65.....and MUCH easier to handle....
lack of AA filter these days means much better low light performance...i will take that tradeoff....
DR....yes and no....the 5DII has quite a bit more DR at 400 then any of the existing backs....i won't even go into 800 or 1500.....and i don't consider 400 to be crazy out there....i just shot a double page for a fashion editorial at 1600 (or so)....at 1.4....not only would this not be possible with DMF....there would be no way to focus at those lightlevels with any MF system...plus i would not be able to hand hold 1/30 sec....the best thing: i shot the spread at speeds ranging from 100 to 1600....and you cannot tell on the printed page.....can't do that with DMF....
i haven't cleaned a sensor since i got the 5DII and i haven't had a spec since then either.....this simply isn't an issue anymore.....
sorry to break it to you....the only still manufactured DMF systems have to be rotated...just like DSLR.....
i won't even get into an argument that tries to compare AF on DMF and DSLR....regardless of mode, function....DSLR wins...easily....
there was a Hy6 with LV75r on ebay (a demo) for 9500...incl 45, WLF, no lens.....and i have to say it to say it made me itch....for a second....nothing beats schneider glass and i always loved the rollei and this is really a nice combo....with the rotating back....but then i thought about in which way this would have helped me get a better shot in the last year....could not come up with a single one.....and then how many fun lenses, lights, and other things i could get with 10000 (no lens...)...and how 3 lenses would be another 10000....and how the camera is DEAD....and how there is no workflow for this....i know there is some software to turn the raws into DNGs and on and on....and how long it would take for these files to pop up....and i felt really good about my kit....
but i am sure you have no reason to change from your workflow and kit because it helps you get the shots you want....and that is the most important thing.....
and brutus is an honorable man:)
-
The two references to galleries, above, really do prove the point.
Photography is just too diverse a subject for any kind of nonsensical 'better/worse' debate. What you think fits your aims is what you should have, if you can afford it.
Perhaps the problem isn't really anything to do with photography, but everything to do with some photographers who equate or juggle equipment (and its costs) with the abstract notion that is art. Perhaps the few posts here from professionals still working spell it out: the monitor is the key by which format is judged and not the camera. If the stuff looks great on the monitor then the camera is great, whatever brand/type/format is actually in use. As the art photographer doesn't have a visible client perched parrot-wise on his shoulder, he can do what pleases him secure in the knowledge that what he produces is sacred because he produced it. Now that is freedom!
Rob C