Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?
Rumour is that your're in the market for a Strapadictome...
Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?
I use all formats. Does that mean I'm sexually healthy?
But I must argue the point and do see a big difference between 35mm, 645 and 4x5. I'm a colour landscape photographer so spontaneity is of little importance.
I can squeeze out a pretty good looking 20"x30" for 35mm. It is not as sharp or tonally pure as it could be but, yes, I'm impressed. All my fine art work is taken with 4x5 and filled in with 645 when the need arises. I have made some fine lookin' 30"x40"s from the 645's but a 4x5 at 30"x40" is much sharper and finer. Most of my 4x5's are printed to 40"x50" and look fantastic.
I use a digital printing workflow with a consumer grade scanner, can you believe it?
I look forward to building my 8x10 this fall. Ok...Ok...there might be some sexual repression after all.
35mm Photo-Camera and View-Camera only together makes endless possibilities in photography, very essential atribute in any form of art activity. Without each other photography as a form of art will be questinable, just because creativity of photographer be be limited to possibility of equipment.
This is valid today more than ever in past, just because to photography is left only what belongs to it, artworks (as documentary,...) while many other branches as sport, news. war,... are shifted to digital imaging.
Dave Miller
Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?
---------------
Dave you actually made very valid question. The best photographers never use large format. Even more, what they did with small format is what photography at all revolves around nowadays and in future too, art photography.
And also, no format counts as long as it takes the shot. In that way large format is all around shooting stationary scenes that does not change/move a long time. But it is not all about photography but rather only a small fraction.
As a painter I use mostly 35 mm, and large format is replaced by my brushes, so I have both of the world, even much better (and financially too).
That image quality is better with 8x10 than with even 35 mm no one should care at all. What for is that extra TECHNICAL quality? It has no artistical place anywhere. Phorographs are so accurate and enlarging lenses so good that 16x20 from 35 mm film can show most of important details enough clearly.
All that posts above I think are more emotional and technical side of 8x10 (even 4x5") than actual negating Dane's question.
Dave Miller
Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?
---------------
Dave you actually made very valid question. The best photographers never use large format. Even more, what they did with small format is what photography at all revolves around nowadays and in future too, art photography.
And also, no format counts as long as it takes the shot. In that way large format is all around shooting stationary scenes that does not change/move a long time. But it is not all about photography but rather only a small fraction.
As a painter I use mostly 35 mm, and large format is replaced by my brushes, so I have both of the world, even much better (and financially too).
That image quality is better with 8x10 than with even 35 mm no one should care at all. What for is that extra TECHNICAL quality? It has no artistical place anywhere. Phorographs are so accurate and enlarging lenses so good that 16x20 from 35 mm film can show most of important details enough clearly.
All that posts above I think are more emotional and technical side of 8x10 (even 4x5") than actual negating Dane's question.
To a point true, I guess, as long as you discount Adams, Weston, Karsh and thousands of other "artists". The tool is less important than a clear interpretation of the concept, and with some concepts, technical quality counts. One of the most valuable strengths of large format cameras is the ability to control the plane of focus, as well as control geometric accuracy (or inaccuracy, if desired)
The relative quality is easily judged, even by non photographers, while a 35mm enlargement can show "most" of the important details, one thing to remember is that "most" to many artists isn't enough, and once detail is never recorded, it can't be created out of thin air. How about if we only let you use most of the colors of paint, but today, we'll skip the blues. To many, myself included, the comparison is a valid one. Where LF has the upper hand is in the tonality range and smoothness thereof, no small format can replicate it, not with any super/hyper/whatsis latest and greatest filim.
In a less artistic vein, the HABS/HAER program only accepts LF negatives, preferably 5x7, though 4x5 and 8x10 are acceptable. As an archival/ documentary medium, LF excells, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
For me, at least, 8x10 is where LF begins, now 16x20, or 20x24 there's some silver halide real estate...
There are inexpensive, less than $2.25 a sheet for16x20 .007" lith film from ultrafineonline.com, available, take a look at some of what Jim Galli has been posting, he uses Freestyle's APHS lith film. A low contrast fliim developer, ideally Soemarko LC-1 or even Dektol 1:5, and an EI of around 6-10 will get you in the ball park. for 8x10 film, $50 for 100 sheets.
Linear Mode
