| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Larry
Member
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap |
|
Larry
Member
|
 Sat Oct 11, 2003 7:40 am |
|
|
Mod note: this topic was split from Larry's Wing Lake Trip Report.
| Backpacker Joe wrote: | | Dang Lare, typical killer pics. Great stuff as ee-ooo-sual.
Hey Lare, when my ship comes in in a year or so and I'm loaded can I RENT you for lessons?
Gotta git me some oh dat medium format stuff too.
TB |
Thanks BPJ. There are many things that could be improved in the photos, and they are just quick scans. I need to tweak the scanner software as the images are "soft" and need to be able to show the true colors better.
On medium format...now is an EXCELLENT time to look on eBay or elsewhere for medium format cameras. The prices have dropped dramatically since the digital cams are now used by the majority. Take a look at an old Yashica Mat for instance...absolutely superb lenses on those, easy to use, and a nice 6x6cm negative or transparency, suitable for enlargements to 30x30 and even larger. You can probably find one in the $120 range or so...which is really something, considering they were $300 or so just a couple of years ago.
So...just because digital is the way to go, it is still fun to use analog/mechanical cameras for occasional large prints that are absolutely tack sharp and beautiful.
Something like the Yashica Mat is also neat for taking portraits of people and animals, and does a wonderful job on landscapes.
I've heard "arguments" that a person can do "just as well" with a digital...and it's true that you can do just as well up to a certain point. But, for the "bang for the buck", a digital camera that can make a clean 30x30 enlargement is going to cost a lot...astronomical cost, actually. So, why not pay the ridiculously low price for a fun medium format, to be able to make those occasional larger prints? Heck, they all have their uses..digital and mechanical. I'll certainly be getting a digital SLR when I think the price/technology point is right for me.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17853 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 10:18 am |
|
|
| Larry wrote: | | a digital camera that can make a clean 30x30 enlargement is going to cost a lot...astronomical cost, actually. |
Hey Lare, how often do you make a 30x30? After shooting 10,000+ digital pictures I can count the number of times I've made prints on one hand. It's a pain in the butt finding the right paper, figuring out the optimal print settings, etc. to get the colors right and printing ain't cheap either. All I want is something that can print film quality 8x10 - any good 4 MP camera will do that.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kerry
Member
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Kerry
Member
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 11:19 am |
|
|
| Tom wrote: | | Hey Lare, how often do you make a 30x30? After shooting 10,000+ digital pictures I can count the number of times I've made prints on one hand. It's a pain in the butt finding the right paper, figuring out the optimal print settings, etc. to get the colors right and printing ain't cheap either. All I want is something that can print film quality 8x10 - any good 4 MP camera will do that. |
Tom,
I can't speak for Larry, but I never make prints smaller than 11x14, and don't even like to mess with anything that small. I prefer 16x20, 20x24 and 24x30. I agree that it's a pain in the butt to produce a well made print - of any size. So, if I'm going to put in the effort, I want the results to be really worthwhile - large enough to hang on the wall.
But, I realize most people don't go to such extremes. 99+% of all prints that are made are developed by Costco and other one hour shops, looked at once and then placed in a shoebox in a closet. Due to conevience and cost, digital is rapidly taking over this market. Now you don't even have to finsih the roll, drive to Costco and wait an hour. The results are instantaneous. And, you don't have to pay for a second set of prints, just email a copy to everyone. Digital is great for this usage model.
Your useage model falls between these two extremes. You are serious enough about your photography to care about quality and making prints up to 8x10. Affordable 4 and 5 megapixel cameras are penetrating this market segment at a rapid rate.
I recently did some tests comparing a 5 megapixel digital camera (Nikon) to my 4x5. There's still no contest. The level of detail on the 4x5 transparency totally blows away the 5MP image. Even with an affordable desktop scanner, I can get the equivalent of about 180 megapixels of information from my 4x5 transparancies. If I want even more, I can pay for a high end drum scan for the occasional image I want to print really large. Again, this isn't for everybody, but this is the level of quality I am used to. People who are used to the level of quality achievable with 35mm film, are switching to digital in droves, and the quality achievable with digital continues to improve at a rapid rate. For my needs, it's not there yet, and when it is, it will be a while before it's as affordable and as portable as my 4x5 with film. But, it will get there, and beyond, eventually. I look forward to that day, but in the mean time, I lug my heavy 4x5 camera and sheet film everywhere I go.
Kerry
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kerry
Member
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Kerry
Member
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 11:27 am |
|
|
Just a quick P.S. to my previous post.
I don't want to come across as a "format snob". I'm not. I fully realize that all formats have their advantages and disadvantages. In addition to large format, I also shoot some medium format and have done serious shooting with 35mm in the past. There is no one "best format". If there was, everybody would be shooting with that format and there would be nop others. Different subjects, situations and desired results all factor into what format makes sense. It's best to match the format to the shooter, the subject, the situation and the desired results. Bigger isn't always better - espcially when you're carrying all this stuff on your back. Believe me, if I could get the results I want with 10 oz. camera with built in zoom lens, I'd leave my 25 lbs. of 4x5 gear at home in a heart beat.
Kerry
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry
Member
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap |
|
Larry
Member
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 12:29 pm |
|
|
| Tom wrote: | | Larry wrote: | | a digital camera that can make a clean 30x30 enlargement is going to cost a lot...astronomical cost, actually. |
Hey Lare, how often do you make a 30x30? After shooting 10,000+ digital pictures I can count the number of times I've made prints on one hand. It's a pain in the butt finding the right paper, figuring out the optimal print settings, etc. to get the colors right and printing ain't cheap either. All I want is something that can print film quality 8x10 - any good 4 MP camera will do that. |
Hey Tom: I have made fourteen 30x30s off the old Yashica Mat in the past three years...I think that the 30x30 size is probably about the limit (to my eye anyway) of where I would want to go from a 2 1/4 inch negative or transparency. I've done about fifteen or so 20x20s (or close to that size) in the same time frame, and numerous 12x12s.
I agree with the pain-in-the-butt that it takes to make a fine print, but I personally just LOVE to look at a nice alpine meadow (for instance) at such a large size...it really makes me feel as if I'm "right there". I don't show my prints or anything, mostly give them to friends who have been on the hike with me. The ones I do have for myself, I find myself able to look at the large image and "dream" of being there. And, with a good printing shop, you can get unbelievably saturated and clean colors from the large negative produced by the medium/large format cameras.
My point was that, by buying something like an old Yashica Mat, or even an old Crown Graphic or Busch Pressman 4x5, or whatever among the hundreds of models out there, at currently falling prices, you can have the means, if so inclined, to make a fabulous large print. You are probably right in indicating that not many folks want to spend the money or go through the hassle to make those large prints. To me, it's a fun thing to do at times, mostly because I'm consistently blown away with a quality enlargement at those sizes.
I save a lot of money in "framing" by simply mounting the prints on foamboard or gatorboard, put velcro strips on the back, and attach to corresponding velcro strips on a framed piece of matboard. Then, all I have to do is put a new velco-mounted print into that same frame, and I can have a new framed image whenever I want a change. In fact, with a large print, you can simply mount on a wall with some "spacers" to offset it off the wall a ways, and you have an instant "offset shadowed frame" display with no frame needed at all.
As far as figuring out the "optimal settings" and all that, I just go with a good printing company, like ProLab or equivalent, and let them do their thing. They will match the transparency, so it's a good way to go.
Again, not for everybody...just another option. In your case Tom...just keep posting your wonderful digital images on here, and I'll be a happy chihuahua. 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum |
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry
Member
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap |
|
Larry
Member
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 12:47 pm |
|
|
| Backpacker Joe wrote: | Look, I understand your points, and I cant argue with them. But with all that said, YOUR pictures are a product of YOU Kerry/Larry, not your equipment!
Give me your camera gear and I'd produce crap! Ive been playing with 35mm color and B&W for years and cant do what you guys can.
<Sniffle>
Maybe some day. So a toast to the Ansel guys on our site.
TB  |
Bull Crappo, BPJ! I've seen some GREAT shots of yours. And, at least in my case, I might get 1 or 2 decent shots out of every 100 exposures...so it's just a matter of taking enough images to come up with that ratio.  Heck, I got a "keeper" this past Spring from a point-and-shoot camera! So...the camera gear isn't what gives a decent image...it's the TONS of images taken that gives that one good image. I'm particularly vicious about throwing away images...one of my Winter beach trips resulted in exactly ONE keeper, and about 150 throwaways. And, there's a good argument for digital, for sure. However, that one keeper resulted in a great 30x30 print that's on my wall, giving me memories of a beautiful trip.
And...of course...the lens quality and film size are factors. But, the camera itself is just the box that collects the light from the lens and trasmits it to the medium, so it doesn't matter if the camera box is made from titanium or from bread.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum |
Hey, there is hope!
Ok, lets get serious here. What gear would you guys really suggest?
I was thinking a Mamiya 645. BUT, also wondering that if I was going to go with a mf, why not go 6x6, or 6x7?
TOUGH decisions.
It is frustraiting, as there is so much to learn.
Thanks for encouragement.
TB
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide."
— Abraham Lincoln
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry
Member
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap |
|
Larry
Member
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:21 pm |
|
|
Tom: I don't know, maybe you want to move some of this stuff to the Gear Review page? Unless, it's no big deal, and not worth the hassle. 
I'm REALLY lazing out today, must be the rain. So...here's some more crap from me... 
Kerry wrote: I recently did some tests comparing a 5 megapixel digital camera (Nikon) to my 4x5. There's still no contest. The level of detail on the 4x5 transparency totally blows away the 5MP image.
Kerry, you've probably been to this site, but here's a good treatise on the current state of affairs regarding digital vs. film:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/like-it-is.shtml
Kerry wrote: I got a few nice photos of the larches around Wing Lake, but a lot of my photos were under exposed (bummer).
Yeah, it was a funny thing with the light meter. Taking a general reading with the image 50% covered with larches and the rest very bright sky and sunlit water, gave a typical reading of say...f/22 at 1/8th second, but then going right up and spotting off the larch needles gave f/22 at 1/4 second...a little lighter...seemed like with all the extraneous light taken away, that closeup larch needle reading would have been a stop darker.
Anyway, we opened up two and three stops from a general reading off the larch needles, and it seemed to be about right, even though my "gut" thought that one or one-and-a-half stops should have worked. Those yellow larch needles transmit and reflect a LOT of light, evidently. Tricky stuff.
Even at that, the shadows were strongly dark, and just didn't open up like we had hoped. Evident in that is the panoramic of Black Peak at the beginning of this thread. I remember spotting off the larch and then opening up three stops on that shot, hoping to just barely avoid washing out the larch, but giving the shadows a chance to show some detail. Didn't happen, as you can see in the image.
I guess this is where Photoshop will come in, as we also took backup images with strict readings off the shadows and strict readings off the highlights, so as to possibly blend the images through masking and such trickery and thievery as is given by Photoshop manipulations, but which I would never admit to... 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry
Member
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap |
|
Larry
Member
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:33 pm |
|
|
| Backpacker Joe wrote: | | Hey, there is hope!
Ok, lets get serious here. What gear would you guys really suggest?
I was thinking a Mamiya 645. BUT, also wondering that if I was going to go with a mf, why not go 6x6, or 6x7?
TOUGH decisions.
It is frustraiting, as there is so much to learn.
Thanks for encouragement.
TB |
Well, man...a tough one to call. But...I think I would go with something that's packable, and that's not too expensive. After all, you never know, it could be like buying a treadmill...in my case, a nice thought but I don't use it much.
Kerry might have a better idea on this one...and maybe a guy should just go ahead and get something like his Toho...after all, you could probably sell it easily if you decided the larger format isn't for you. Sounds like one sweet camera for field use.
For medium format, I still think the Yashica Mat with the Yashinon lens is a good bet. Relatively compact, rugged, and packable. No real choice in lens focals, but a great starter camera. (Heck, mine has been around for years, and I still use it a lot...so "starter" camera is relative).
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newt
Short Timer
Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3176 | TRs | Pics
Location: Down the road and around the corner |
|
Newt
Short Timer
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:52 pm |
|
|
Damn it Larry, Listen up. Don't you dare manipulate any of your photos. Don't let me down now, ya hear?
NN
It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry
Member
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap |
|
Larry
Member
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:57 pm |
|
|
| Newbie Newt wrote: | | Damn it Larry, Listen up. Don't you dare manipulate any of your photos. Don't let me down now, ya hear?
NN |
Well, I HAVE manipulated my photos a little for enlargements, if the enlargement is going to be off of a digital file.
But...I haven't manipulated any that I've posted on this forum.....YET!
No...wait...I take that back. I sharpened a couple, and also cropped some. But...I didn't do anything major, for sure. If I did, I would tell you. So...if you see a small spiny-crested sticklback running across a meadow in a photo, I would tell you that I inserted it in there.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17853 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:22 pm |
|
|
Where do people get the idea photoshop = manipulation. Anyone who shoots with a DSLR knows to get the most out of the camera you do the LEAST amount of processing in camera and post process after the fact, everything from saturation and sharpness to tweaking white balance and exposure. This is no more manipulation than is done in the film darkroom so I don't see how it's manipulation. Now, if you're going to tweak things like saturation beyond natural levels then I would agree it's "manipulation" (to an extent) but then someone could make the same argument about shooting with a polarizer or velvia film which I see nothing wrong with.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newt
Short Timer
Joined: 21 Dec 2001
Posts: 3176 | TRs | Pics
Location: Down the road and around the corner |
|
Newt
Short Timer
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:24 pm |
|
|
| Larry wrote: | | Well, I HAVE manipulated my photos a little for enlargements, if the enlargement is going to be off of a digital file. |
Well...I guess that's acceptable.
NN
It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
It's pretty safe to say that if we take all of man kinds accumulated knowledge, we still don't know everything. So, I hope you understand why I don't believe you know everything. But then again, maybe you do.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry
Member
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap |
|
Larry
Member
|
Sat Oct 11, 2003 4:12 pm |
|
|
| Newbie Newt wrote: | | Larry wrote: | | Well, I HAVE manipulated my photos a little for enlargements, if the enlargement is going to be off of a digital file. |
Well...I guess that's acceptable.
NN |
Whew... 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
