Polyglot, I personally think that the cost/benefit comparison to roll film is a false economy for at least some of us.
One of the biggest problems I have is not finishing a roll when I shoot.
I'm to a point where when I see a shot that I want, 2-4 frames are normally more than plenty for a given subject. I roll 20-shot rolls for 35mm to minimize this, but I am finding that getting even 10 shots in a row, with the old RB, is becoming a real streatch most of the time.
With roll film I end up with from 8 to 34 more shots to go before I can move on, unless I'm willing to waste the rest of the roll, which is becoming a more regular occurrence.
With sheet film that systemic conundrum doesn't exist. Shoot one frame of 4x5 and I can go straight to developing, no waiting, no wasting.
The other thing I find is that roughly double the data (in moving from 6x7cm to 4x5") does make a significant difference visually in a print.
Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
I like the look of a contact print.
A Nikon F makes a great bolo.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
Johnny, this is the behavior that got you banned over at LFPF.
Originally Posted by johnielvis
If you single me out one more time and accuse me of stalking you, as you did in another thread, I will report your nonsense to a moderator. I'm now putting you on ignore. 'Bye.
Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 01-05-2013 at 11:09 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I shoot LF for the pure joy of it. No gimicks or gadgets, just photography at its purest.
BTW: the big kid in my avatar is my hero, my son, who proudly serves us in the Navy. "SALUTE"
I'm not sure if it makes sense to talk about "stop[s] of detail", because the way we view images is so nonlinear. As far as information in the frame goes, the difference isn't enormous---a factor of 3 between 6x7 and 4x5, given equal film resolution---but clearly a lot of people find the visual impact of that modest difference to be disproportionate, perhaps because it crosses some critical perceptual threshold for them.
Originally Posted by polyglot
In any case, I think "detail per frame" is more important than "detail per unit area" in practice (I think that's what you're comparing above; Acros apparently costs twice as much per unit area in 4x5 as in MF, right?). One of the points of shooting large format is precisely to enlarge less, i.e., to put more film area in the image; of course that costs more per frame, and of course it doesn't make the underlying resolution of the film any higher, but it does deliver more film resolution to the viewer.
In short: It's not that you double your cost (per unit area) to keep the same resolution, it's that you sextuple your cost to triple your resolution. Diminishing returns to be sure, but somewhat offset if, like many of us, you get a higher fraction of keepers in LF.
Yeah, I'd agree with all that, except that I'm not sure technophilia is necessarily something to "recover" from. Complicated toys are fun; they're not the only thing in the world, to be sure, but they're fun. And I think some of us actually like the challenge of using nominally inappropriate toys, just out of cussedness. I know I do.
I'm also a recovering technophile so I enjoy the challenge of using (and getting the most out of) complex toys and while that's a bad reason to choose a particular artistic approach/technology, I'm pretty sure it applies to a lot of LF users. It probably doesn't matter though as long as the technology isn't actively holding you back - I make a point of using more-appropriate toys when taking more-spontaneous photos like candid portraits in poor light, or travelling around the world.
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
"They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."
— Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh
The act of visualising the image in your mind exists. It's just the word which is non-existent. No need for the 'pre' in front of it.
Originally Posted by johnielvis
Agreed. But, when I type "visualisation", folks often don't understand. It's a DIYDDIYD situation.
Originally Posted by Steve Smith