Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,338   Posts: 1,537,650   Online: 993
      
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 113
  1. #41
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,705
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    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

  2. #42
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,244
    Images
    20
    I like the look of a contact print.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    I dunno about that barroom comment. Seem like a big Dorf and maple tripod would be a lot more
    useful in a brawl than bonking heads with a little Nikon ...
    A Nikon F makes a great bolo.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    Are you blaming the camera?
    No. I was making a joke. Hence the winking smiley.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post
    ahhh yes...haters be hatin'

    people don't like the truth and that's also a fact

    all these control-positive people here brings to mind pee wee herman crashing his bike and then getting up and saying "i meant to do that"
    Johnny, this is the behavior that got you banned over at LFPF.

    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.

  6. #46
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,880
    Images
    32
    I shoot LF for the pure joy of it. No gimicks or gadgets, just photography at its purest.
    Rick A
    Argentum aevum

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,255
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    More detail could be a nice theoretical bonus but 4x5 isn't a huge improvement over 6x7 in that department and it's swamped by differences in film technology. For example, 6x7 Acros is about 35c/frame, 4x5 Fomapan (Arista) is 70c/frame and 4x5 TMX/Acros is $1.80/frame. Going to LF approximately doubles the film cost for no increase in resolution, or you can increase $$ by 6x for about one extra stop of detail. Similar price ratio (4x) for shooting E6 and about 7x if you want to shoot C41, still for just that one extra stop of detail.
    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.

    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.

    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.
    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.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    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_

  8. #48
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,225
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb View Post
    I like the look of a contact print.
    "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

  9. #49
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,592
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    One of the first things I learned from LF was pre-visualisation, that is knowing what the print will look like before I expose the negative.
    Quote Originally Posted by johnielvis View Post
    and that's proof right there that there is no such thing as "previsualization".
    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.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    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.

    Steve.
    Agreed. But, when I type "visualisation", folks often don't understand. It's a DIYDDIYD situation.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin