| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kerry
Member
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Kerry
Member
|
 Mon Aug 09, 2004 1:06 am |
|
|
| misterf wrote: | | I want to do a study where me and Mr. Large Format guy hike up to Camp Muir. Me with a Digital Rebel and a 24mm Canon prime, and he with his Gandolfi Variant 8x10. Then, after coming back down we drive to our homes and I print out a nice 8x10 of the view that night while he waits until Monday morning at 10am to go to ProLab and stand in line for 20 minutes to drop off his large format film. Then they tell him his film won't be ready for 8 working days. Maybe a few weeks later and for $100 he'll get a nice 24x36 print that he can zoom in on with a microscope and show how much more detail he got in the print, assuming he made it up to Muir with a 10 lb. camera.
I'm creating a silly scenario here but you get my point about large format snobs I hope. |
Yes, now you've taken things to the opposite extreme. For example, I never stand in line to drop off my film. I don't even have to drive to the lab. They pick up and deliver to my front door Monday - Friday for no extra charge. The turn around time on my 4x5 transparancy film is the same as 35mm slide film. They pick it up one day and deliver it the next. If I want it sooner, I can get same day (2 hour turn around) but I have to drive down and pick it up. I can scan and print my own, or have it done commercially - depending on what size I want. If I was shooting 8x10, I could have an 8x10 contact print the same day. I know you were being silly, but I don't want others to think it takes anywhere near 8 working days to get large format film processed. Same day processing is available in most major cities, or you can process your own if you choose (most large format black and white photographers do just that).
All formats have their advantages and disadvantages. You say the comparison wasn't fair because of the relative cost of the systems. OK, try it the other way. Compare the output from a high end DSLR and an expensive prime to a scan from a 4x5 transparency shot with a sub-$200 fifty year old Speed Graphic with a Kodak Ektar lens (that was my first 4x5 set-up - nothing snobby about it). Guess what, the detail from the cheap old Speed Graphic will blow away the expensive DSLR. I'm not saying the DSLR doesn't have it's advantages. It certianly does (ease of use, instant gratification, lower consumables cost, size/weight, etc.), but if it's big prints with detail and sharpness you want there is still no substitute for a big piece of film (OK, maybe a BIG digital camera).
There are reasons to shoot digital and there are reasons to shoot large format film. I just don't get the film vs. digital "wars". They can, and do both peacefully co-exist. What's right for me may not be right for you (and vice versa), but so what. Choose your own path and just because somebody chooses a different path it doesn't make them a snob. I certainly don't consider people who spend more on a DSLR than I did on my large format camera "digital snobs". They simply chose a different tool to get the results they desire.
Kerry
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
misterf
Member
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 2 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA |
|
misterf
Member
|
Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:48 pm |
|
|
Yes, my exaggerated scenario came from a recent pro lab experience that finally convinced me to go digital. I paid another $75 for 3 rolls of proof prints and scans-to-CD (plus $5-6 a roll for the film itself) and I just felt like after 30-40 rolls a digital SLR would more than pay for itself. This last weekend I hiked the east section of the Wonderland trail with my new digital SLR and never felt more freedom with my photography; not having to think about every shot costing a dollar each almost.
I think for about two years I kept on telling myself that film was a superior format because I had made such a heavy investment in a film setup. I also had a bad experience with a digital memory card malfunction that lost me almost a hundred photos. But at the end of the day, digital simply means fewer headaches, fewer dollars, and better pictures (for me).
I also kind of feel like medium and large format photograpy is just in a class of its own, like fine art, and most of the time I do tend to think it's annoying and snobbish for users of those formats to compare their work with 35mm. A very good friend of mine just can't stop talking about "my Mamiya, my Mamiya", and I just say "Mamma Mia".
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kerry
Member
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 151 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Kerry
Member
|
Mon Aug 23, 2004 4:48 pm |
|
|
| misterf wrote: | | I think for about two years I kept on telling myself that film was a superior format because I had made such a heavy investment in a film setup. I also had a bad experience with a digital memory card malfunction that lost me almost a hundred photos. But at the end of the day, digital simply means fewer headaches, fewer dollars, and better pictures (for me). |
We obviously have different needs. So, it's no surpise we've reached different conclusions. However, I do agree that the systems selected for comparisons were not the best choices. I suspect the author merely used what he had access to at the time. Owning any high end system (be it analog or digital) is a substantial investment. Not very many people have the cash to own multiple high end systems for a head-to-head comparison.
What I'd really like to see is a comparison between a high end digital back and a mid-level (or even entry level) 4x5 system. In my latest Calumet catalog, 22 megapixel digtial backs are selling in the $27,500 to $32,500 range - and then you need an expensive medium format SLR and set of lenses to go a long with that. For a studio pro cranking out catalog shots, the savings in film and processing may make that a cost effective choice. For me, a solitary large format nature photographer, such a system would be obsolete way before it ever paid for itself (or I finished paying for it).
So, I just keep chugging along with my old fashioned large format gear. I do keep on eye on the digital scene. I'm not a technophobe - I work in a research lab dreaming up new ways for people to enrich their lives through emerging technologies. I know digital will eventually pass film - even large format film - in terms of price/performance. For me, that day is still far in the future. I do have a substantial investment in large format camera gear, but I could buy three such 4x5 outfits (fairly high end camera, six state-of-the-art lenses, and all the other accessories) for the cost of a single 22 MP digital back. Yep, I'd save some money on film and procesing, but $30,000 buys a LOT of film - even 4x5 film.
| misterf wrote: | | I also kind of feel like medium and large format photograpy is just in a class of its own, like fine art, and most of the time I do tend to think it's annoying and snobbish for users of those formats to compare their work with 35mm. A very good friend of mine just can't stop talking about "my Mamiya, my Mamiya", and I just say "Mamma Mia". |
The only time I ever compared my 4x5 work to 35mm was when I first bought a 4x5. I paid $200 for an old Speed Graphic, a 127mm Ektar lens and a couple film holders. I just wanted to see if this was for me, before making a more substantial investment. When it comes to film vs. digital, again I am the only one I have to impress (well, OK potential buyers too). I don't advocate one brand or one format for all users or all uses. There is a reason we have 35mm, medium format, large format and now digital. They all have their own advantages and disadvantages. For now, and for the last 15 years, large format has been the best choice for me personally. I share my work with those who want to see it, but I don't belittle them if they chose a different tool for their work than I've chosen for mine.
It is a bit funny that a few years ago, if you had a large format camera people automatically assumed you were a serious artiste ala Ansel Adams. These days, the number one question I get is "Why are you still messing with that heavy old camera and shooting film when digital is SO much better?'. Now, using a large format camera seems to make one some sort of troglodyte who has yet to master the use of modern technology (i.e. stone tools). To this I merrily say, "Viva la difference! To each his own. Chose your tools wisely, but most of all get out and take some pictures".
Kerry
|
| 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). |
