in search for advice

[LiamStrain]

I don't know if I qualify as an old fox. But my thoughts are included regardless...

If you want big prints, for my money - film is still a better value. But a big part of that is that my clients pay for processing and scanning (just as they would pay for equipment and digital time).

However, even shooting for personal work, you can shoot ALOT of 4x5 film for the $40,000 USD it takes to get a P65+ never mind the camera and lenses you need to buy to take advantage of that resolution. By contrast you can get a field camera and a few lenses for around 1k to start.

If your workflow doesn't require very short turnaround to the client, film (especially large format) still has much to offer.

If you're going to look at medium format, I would bypass 6x4.5 or 6x6 - and just look at 6x7 - 6x9. At least then you get some real estate to work with.

[cyberean]

I believe in the thin end of the wedge!

hmm ... isn't that the end always get you in a jam?  
 

[mmurph]

Just to say part of the above in a different way:

Film cost is highly variable, depending on volume. You need to figure out your probable film use - 100 sheets 4x5, 1,000 sheets, etc.  Then figure out what the "breakeven" would be in film/supplies to get a comparable digital kit at that quality level.

Look at yearly depreciation for the digital, not total out of pocket cost day 1 (It is a capital item)(Buy for $20K, use 3 years, sell for $8K. Net annualized cost is $12K/3 = $4K per year.)

You could also make digital cost less fixed and more "variable" by renting for 1-2 days if your shoots are long planning, short production (like 2 months building a set and doing "test" shots, then committing the final image to film/hq digital on 1 day.)

The part of photography I like is wandering and making images, so I am a "high volume" type shooter. Paid work tends to be fashion, which is also very high volume.

Look at the people producing the size and quality images that you envision. Paul Shambroom, Alec Soth, and Andreas Gursky and Gregory Crewdson at the extremes ($250k budget, camera operator, director of photography)

Then - test!  There is a steep and costly learning curve to get to those gallery quality 2x3 meter prints! Capture is just the start .....

Fwiw, I shoot my B&W images on 4x5 color stock. I really value the ability to tweak grey values by "mixing" color translations in Lightroom at conversion time to B&W.

What seems to fall out above is: 4x5, or even 8x10 (Soth, older Shambroom, etc. ) For digital, stitch 35mm FF, stitch 22 or 35 MP MF, rent 60 MP on a daily basis.

Will you be able to sell the big pics for $5k US or so? Do your paintings bring good prices? If so, you are able to "leverage up" based on your current and anticipated income.

On foxes: when I was 17, my girlfriend kept asking me what a "fox" was. Some guy was hitting on her and calling her that. She didn't know what it meant.

She was, I was not. She had a tendency to "stray" with all the guys hitting on her all of the time. Better to be with someone you trust ....... There is a current song here to that effect. I'll find lyrics to quote.

Good luck!
Michael

[mmurph]

John Mayer Lyrics

Stitched Up (With Herbie Hancock)


It was the right time
She was the real thing
I had to walk away ....

Who’s to say she’s single
And who’s to say she’s on her own
Girls like that don’t sleep alone

(Alright here's the thing, here's the thing)

That girl is flawless, and I know I’m not the first one to think that
And since I'm not the first, I sure won’t be the last

I'd spend my whole life looking behind my back
I just don’t think I’m up to that......

(See) Don’t wanna be, Stitched up, out of my mind
Feeling strung out, laggin’ behind
All trapped in, can’t do a thing because I’m
Locked down
Stitched up, feeling the burn

[fredjeang]

Look at the people producing the size and quality images that you envision. Paul Shambroom, Alec Soth, and Andreas Gursky and Gregory Crewdson at the extremes ($250k budget, camera operator, director of photography)

Then - test!  There is a steep and costly learning curve to get to those gallery quality 2x3 meter prints! Capture is just the start .....

Yes, I'm totally aware it is a long way of learning. Love Gursky & Crewdson!

Will you be able to sell the big pics for $5k US or so? Do your paintings bring good prices? If so, you are able to "leverage up" based on your current and anticipated income.

My paintings works are sold to a medium ( for the biggest sizes ) 2500-3500Euros, it is more or less the position of an average artist, not too bad, not great...in the middle, that would correspond in photography to 1500-2000 (because paintings are always sold more expensive, pricing evaluation is a bit different).
But I do not produce a lot at the moment, actually I earn my life as an art director in a very small agency. Good life quality, no presure...but time to make a move. Photography has always lived with me and it is the moment to integrate it in my works. I'm very exited with all the process.
During all the learning curve for 2x3 prints, I will also and first produce much smaller sizes, and try to sell them, these incomes will allowd me to increase size step by step as my technique increase. It is a progresive path, I feel like I'm born again, no more technique, nothing...everything to learn.  

Cheers

[mmurph]

I was stunned to see Paul Shambrooms canvas images for "Security" a couple of years ago. They were a little smaller, maybe 1 meter by 2 meters, basically lifesize portraits.  

They were incredibly detailed, stunning, beautiful color.  Motivated me to buy an Epson 9600 (I already had 2 Epson 7600's.)  

While Gursky and Crewdson levels seem unatainable in some ways, the Shambroom images seem more accessable/conceivable at my level of technical competency and income (but not my artistic vision, his work is stunning.)

http://www.paulshambroomart.com/art/homela...rity/index.html


So far I have not been able to find technical detail on his more recent work. The "Security" images had a really clean feel to them that seemed digital, but I doubt it given the time frame (2003-2007.) More likely just the canvas hiding the film noise.  

Obviously the older work for the folks mentioned is mostly LF film. At the Crewdson & Gursky level, you are sometimes looking at many stitched sheets of 8x10.  Soth is more of a straight, single 8x10, as is the nature of most portraits.  But that all seems to be changing ...

For proofing I try to keep costs down so that I can see a lot of images on paper.  I scan proofs on an Epson v700.  I use lower priced ink and paper in one of my older 7600's, and proof all my 4x5 at 24in x 30in to start.  I use thinner Epson Premium Semi-Gloss (170 weight) and outdated Epson K3 inks to keep costs down to make a **lot** of large proofs. (I upgraded the 7600 to K3 with 7 inks.)

That begins to give you a feel for what is in the image at a larger size.  Then I will print strips, or move to the 9600 to print at 44in x 55 in or whatever the correct dimensions are.

Honestly, I have stopped working in photography for 1 year now due to health issues (chronic fatigue, pain.)  I am getting some of those issues resolved so I hope to start again .... who knows if it will be the same direction though?

It sounds like you are on a good start. Welcome to the "ghetto" gallery scence of photography!      

Though as an "artist using photography" rather than a pure "photographer", I am sure your images will command higher prices!

Cheers,
Michael

[mmurph]

Last comment, then I will give you your thread back!  

I was just thinking about the Jeff Wall show that I saw a few years ago. I was blown away by the images, as with Gursky, Crewdson, et. al.

But he was **really** pushing the technical limits of a single sheet of 8x10 in many images that were about 6 feet x 9 feet.    He didn't always have the advantage of Photoshop in the older images. But many, many images were "crumbling" with big blobs of color ink clouds even at a normal viewing distance. You would have to test to see if that is an "aesthetic" that you could live with. He also uses rear illumination (backlighting) of Cibachrome, so diffrent tools. Great show though.

Finally, for large format b&w printing, you can buy an old Epson 7600 or 9600 for about $500 US. Then "mix" your own set of 5-7 b&w inks for around $300. I am going to switch from C6 to the HP-C6 with GLOP (gloss optimizer) in my other 7600 when I get going again this spring:

http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Ink-Mixing.pdf

Also look at the Yahoo B&W Digitsl forums.

Cheers! Have fun!

[fredjeang]

Thank you very much for this nice and helpfull welcome Michael.
Hope you're also back on track, ilusion and projects are the best way to stay young because of the passion involved.
I'll look very closely to Shambroom's webpage that I don't know as much as Gursky.
When I was Student in Fine Arts, I worked for a time with Balthazar Burkhard :  http://images.google.es/images?hl=es&r...l=1&start=0

He used to developp really big as well 3x3, 2.5x2.5, but it wasn't print, it was with enourmous rolls of Ilford paper.
So the technic was with the help of a poultry feed so we would roll the paper into ID11 mixture and de-roll...same for fixation ect...it was whaoooo...like you're going to the limits! Very good photograph Balthazar. Nobody was talking about pixels or so, now everything seems confusing and complicated.
but very interesting as well.

Cheers,  

Fred.

[Kumar]

(I upgraded the 7600 to K3 with 7 inks.)

Cheers,
Michael

How did you do this? Did you eliminate the LLK? Would you care to share some details?

Kumar

[JoeKitchen]

How did you do this? Did you eliminate the LLK? Would you care to share some details?

Kumar

There is a company located in New England, USA (I think) that supplies B/W ink in 7 different shades to be used with most modern fine art inkjets, override software is of course supplied.  I know that they supply 3 different sets as well, a neutral, cool, and selenium tone ink sets.  Check out this site:

http://shopping.netsuite.com/inkjetmall

I have never used them, but have heard good things about the smoothness of tonal transitions approaching silver.  The only thing is that the DMax of their black is not as high as the DMax of epson's matte black, or at least that was a fact a couple of years ago.  They also supply refillable cartridges, so if you really wanted to go nuts you could make your own silver halide emulsion without any gelatin, expose to light while still in solution to get the silver to fall out and blacken, then add selenium toner, and filter out the silver-senledide from the solution.  Grind and mix with printer resin and you would have one hell of a dark ink for your printer, although very expensive and involved (and maybe dangerous, depending if you choose to deal with raw selenium).

[Kumar]

Joe, thanks for the info. I know about piezography, and have used MIS B/W inks. As you noted, the smoothness is comparable to silver prints. I was specifically asking about the use of K3 inks in a 7600.

Kumar

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Fred - not meant as a provocation, just as an input to overcome any possible inhibition of thinking:

Why not consider 4x5''?

MF Cameras are very heavy and big - so if you take this burden and even consider film:
Why not take the step and go for a really huge format which would deliver good results even
with a not-so-overly-high resolution scanner?

And just keep 35mm for everything which requires speed.

Actually thats the point where I might go to (still pondering and learning myself).

Cheers
~Chris

[mmurph]

How did you do this? Did you eliminate the LLK? Would you care to share some details?

Yes, exactly!

I use refillable carts and a syringe to suck ink out of whatever size K3 carts I can find cheaply.  I am able to buy K3 in bulk at about the same price per liter as the decent 3rd party inks.

I have an i1 Pro, so I create profiles for the new inks on the 7600. I can share profiless for Epson Premium Semi-Gloss, Premium Luster, and Hahnemuehle Fine Art Baryta with K3 on the 7600 if that will help.

I consider the 7600 that last, great "open source" print engine.  They are the last ones that you are really able to set and reset most of the printer options. Epson ties 1 machine to 1 ink set, but there are obviously more capable than that.

They do use proportionally more ink than the newer models, so at some point it is not going to be worth the bother. But for large print proofing with cheaper inks, especially with with self-mixed B&W at maybe $20 for a 220 ml cart.  I'll find a spreadsheet with my cost calcuations if y'all don't mind the OT posts.  

Cheers!
Michael

[Kumar]

Michael,

Perhaps we should continue this discussion here: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=41165

Cheers,
Kumar

[fredjeang]

Fred - not meant as a provocation, just as an input to overcome any possible inhibition of thinking:

Why not consider 4x5''?

MF Cameras are very heavy and big - so if you take this burden and even consider film:
Why not take the step and go for a really huge format which would deliver good results even
with a not-so-overly-high resolution scanner?

And just keep 35mm for everything which requires speed.

Actually thats the point where I might go to (still pondering and learning myself).

Cheers
~Chris

This idea is strongly growing step by step in my mind...

Cheers,

Fred.

[pshambroom]

At the risk of recreating the scene from the Woody Allen movie Annie Hall (where Marshall Mcluhan responds to a conversation about him in a movie line, and I am NOT equating myself wih him in any way...) I'm going to jump in here. My Security portraits were shot with 4X5, drum scanned, quite a bit of digital manipulation (selective sharpening and softening, some cloning and major tonal adjustments) then printed in my studio on an Epson 9800, coated with Premier Eco Shield, stretched and framed, dimensions 38 x 63 inches. I would have loved tohave  worked with digital MF for these but the cost/benefit just didn't work out at the time. Traveling with 4x5 Readyloads has never been fun, I don't like working with 4X5 but do when I have to. I shot medium format on a 2 year project I just finished, and flew after the Detroit NWA bomb attempt, the security with the film was no different than before. TSA has always (mostly) been efficient and polite with me.
-Paul Shambroom

[mmurph]

Thank you so much for sharing that Paul! That is very helpful.

I don't know who Woody Allen is, but I can attest that your  "Security" work is absolutely stunning, both visually and conceptually. I am very happy that I had a chance to see the show in Chicago at the MCP.  

Fred, if you are able to see one of these pieces at a gallery or museum, it will give you an excellent feel of what can be achieved with 4x5 and digital output. I don't think you will be disappointed in any way!

I was in a photography MFA program around 1982. The main professor was active in the New York gallery scene. He was constantly talking about how photography needed to "get big" to compete with painting (Richter, et. al.). Seems like the old new is still the "new new"?  At least we have better output tools, and work like Paul's certainly needs to be seen at that size!

Cheers! Thanks again for sharing Paul.

Best,
Michael

[rolleiflexpages]

3- Considering that a higher number of users in medium format still use film, does the cost of film at the end is not higher that investing in a digital system? What are your thoughts about the real cost of film against digital. (films+developpement+scans). Why film is still so popular in medium format and what would you recommend to a beginner.

Fred.

Hi Fred,

Film certainly has its charm; I am using both film and digital back for Rolleiflex 6008 AF (soon Hy6 too) and it all depends on what you want to achieve and which process you like most. On financial comparisons: if you count the price of a decent digital back I believe you will be able to shoot and develop film for many years... most likely at least for the entire lifespan of the digital back. At least, if you are not a professional user for whom this is bread and butter. Again, the main consideration should not be financial.

Pascal

[fredjeang]

I would like to thank all of you for these very useful advices. You took time to answer my questions and gave me important clews that have helped me a lot.
For all the posters, a big thank you.  

Cheers,

Fred.