Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,705   Posts: 1,482,763   Online: 1081
      
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 80
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Binghamton, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    264
    Is it possible that the commercial aspects of MF are why we always hear these "MF is dead/dying/pining for the fjords questions? One (at least all one of me) tends to conjure up images of landscape and architecture done with LF, news/photojournalism with 35mm, and school portraits, weddings, etc., with MF. It's a solid, bread-and-butter business piece of eqiupment, which doesn't have the sex appeal of ULF, or instant recognition of 35. It's invisibility is a sign of its success. Just curious, as I know that when I haul my Bender out, that people stop to look at it, ask to feel the wood, treat it a little more carefully at the airport; it comes with some sort of popular instant cred. On the other hand, it could be a mixture of LF people too kind to ask " you shoot with *that*" and midwestern cherry-wood worshipers. In the case of MF, I've had a Mamiya TLR on campus, and in the same areas, and people presume I'm photographing for the campus. There's more of an 'Oh' reaction, and then they stay out of the way of the camera. Much less curiosity, for a not much less exotic looking piece of eqiupment.

    On a personal note, I like the format, the choice of film, and the portability, but it's not much less bulky than the 4x5, and as there are no movements, quite often just not versatile enough for the weight involved.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Amongst the cornfields & rednecks of central Indiana
    Posts
    116
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ Mar 1 2003, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jorge @ Mar 1 2003, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> MF ain&#39;t dyin&#39;&#33; So who do you think would be first in line to jump?</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    I think the editor of the magazine would be the first to jump (in a speedy attempt to avoid the backlash and death sentence they were about to receive)&#33; Jump to their death at least...

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    What I really found sad is that Hasselblad knuckled under and went to 645 and a "digital" ready camera. They were one of the last few companies or shall I say divisions of a company, which took pride in their work and produced outstanding gear that was just what the photographer needed, no more, no less.....and by photographer I mean those who knew what they were doing. Sure, some doctors and lawyers bought them for the status, but then doctors and lawyers are not known for being stupid...no?

    Was it expesive, sure....but every time I take it out and take some pics with it, I am amazed at the quality of the pictures. How many digiratis can say that about their digigizmo?

    Use expertly and with restraint digital can be beautiful...different than wet prints, but beuatiful none the less. Sadly all the choices PS offers I guess makes people want and have to use them, PS should put a banner on their boxes that reads.."less is more"....

    In any case, There are many of us out there who use MF and buy film and I dont think it will die any time soon.

  4. #14
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ Mar 2 2003, 08:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What I really found sad is that Hasselblad knuckled under and went to 645 and a &quot;digital&quot; ready camera. . </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    I don&#39;t think this is a big deal. It isn&#39;t like they said they were going to abandon the 6x6 format... It is just a company trying to have a wide pproduct line, and is actually healthy in the long run.
    hi!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    South Pasadena, CA USA
    Posts
    470
    I think it says something that this is the second thread in the last couple of weeks that has turned into a digital versus analog debate.

    Seems like whatever&#39;s easier wins, and the loser sometimes...but rarely...goes away. Planes beat trains but trains still roll, although as a little more than a novelty. TV beat radio, FM beat AM, CD&#39;s beat vinyl (maybe one of the closest analogies to what we face).

    In all of the above examples, the "losing" medium is now the novelty, and more expensive. It is FAR more expensive to take a train from LA to Seattle than to fly. An AM radio of the quality that was standard thirty years ago is now several hundred dollars. And I saw a turntable at Tower Records the other day for 329. Remember when they were 99, even for direct drive?

    It just seems like that&#39;s the pattern in our culture: ease beats quality, and whatever&#39;s easiest wins. What is harder and of more quality remains, but at a high price and more of a special value.

    Just thinking.

    dgh
    David G Hall

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    747
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David Hall @ Mar 2 2003, 10:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

    Seems like whatever&#39;s easier wins, and the loser sometimes...but rarely...goes away. Planes beat trains but trains still roll, although as a little more than a novelty. TV beat radio, FM beat AM, CD&#39;s beat vinyl (maybe one of the closest analogies to what we face).

    In all of the above examples, the &quot;losing&quot; medium is now the novelty, and more expensive. It is FAR more expensive to take a train from LA to Seattle than to fly. An AM radio of the quality that was standard thirty years ago is now several hundred dollars. And I saw a turntable at Tower Records the other day for 329. Remember when they were 99, even for direct drive?
    </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    I&#39;d argue that in most of those cases it became use the right tool for jobs. Trains aren&#39;t gone. They carry tonnes of goods every day. Even in the passenger mode outside of North America they haul people. With almost all those things on your list people went with the strong suits. TV is great but kind of hard while driving on the highway. FM may sound better but if all you&#39;re getting is the weather and traffic does it matter?

    Passenger trains still work quite well in some parts of North America. Be it subways or other shorter commuter trains. I wouldn&#39;t want to take the train cross country if I was in a hurry but if I had 200 tonnes of hypo to ship I wouldn&#39;t want to deal with the airlines either.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Amongst the cornfields & rednecks of central Indiana
    Posts
    116
    ...for those who want the "right tool" for the job in digital...use the Betterlight Super 10K-2, at 852MB per file, this "tool" is the perfect back for 4x5 and hasselblad. At &#036;25,000, it&#39;s kinda expensive...

    Look at this: http://www.betterlight.com/pages/super_specs.html

    I hate people who tell me that 14MP is the highest that ANYTHING can be right now. Scanning or one-shot or three-shot or 16-shots.

    In case anybody else has heard this garbage. This is the back that makes the arguement end quickly. It&#39;s a scanning back, but somewhere on the Betterlight website, there is a huge image of the Paris hotel in Las Vegas they shot. It&#39;s just a huge file...

  8. #18
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    </span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (docholliday @ Mar 2 2003, 10:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>...for those who want the "right tool" for the job in digital...use the Betterlight Super 10K-2, at 852MB per file, this "tool" is the perfect back for 4x5 and hasselblad. At &#036;25,000, it&#39;s kinda expensive...

    </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
    Interesting.

    This illustrates what I&#39;ve been saying about storage.

    Their "Highest Resolution - Enhanced" image contains 852MB. These puppies come with built-in 9GB memory. That means the internal memory can hold 10 images - each of which is too large to fit on a single CD . Uh ... so where DOES one store them afterwards...?
    And ... to get to 852MB requires a capture time (not exposure) of 335 seconds. That is 5 minutes and a half while the internal "PC" setup chugs along. I get antsy waiting for 30 seconds while the Polariod develops...
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Just north of the Inferno
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    750
    Images
    27
    And at &#036;25k, it is a bit pricey&#33;

    I mean who wants to come home and say "Honey, instead of buying that new house, why don&#39;t we take the down-payment money and spend it on this?"

    O.k. people who REALLY want to piss off their spouses might say that....
    Official Photo.net Villain
    ----------------------
    [FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]

  10. #20
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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