Down with the ship
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
how digital can (or maybe has) replaced 35mm or even 120. Large format
seems to be a different animal. It's a slow process with very high
quality when you nail an image. A "good" day of photography might be 6
images, each with TLC.
So it concerns me that large format will will disappear before or with
35mm film even though there may be demand for large film by the
existing (LF) photographers out there.
Any thoughts,
Jay Wenner
Gregory Blank
We get this fearful post about once a week now. Just to reassure you-
someone will always be making LF film. You quite possibly could see
digital backs or handheld cameras available at some point that are on
par resolution wise and affordable wise to film. When the day comes
that I can afford such a device and its actually available I may just
consider not shooting film,...not until.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Bob Salomon
Gregory Blank <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> When the day comes
> that I can afford such a device
Just out of curiosity how much do you spend per year on buying film,
processing, prints and chemistry now?
--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
Frank Pittel
: Any thoughts,
I spend a lot of time at Calumet and Central Camera and from conversations
with the salespeople at both LF photography is increasing in popularity.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
Bob Wheeler
I've taken some photo's recently that have made me reevaluate my long
time opinion with respect to digital and LF. I've used a digital camera
as an adjunct to my LF for several years -- framing, composition, etc.
Recently I upgraded to a Pentax istD. I chose Pentax because I have a
large collection of 35mm Pentax lenses. The sensor size is about 65% of
that of a 35mm. Out of the box, there was nothing special about the
digital photos, but then I began to adjust parameters, in particular the
sharpness and contrast controls, and wound up with some very high
quality images. I also upgraded my digital printer to an Epson Stylus
Photo R1800, which will produce a max print of 13x19.
The images in Photoshop are nothing special, but when printed, the
resolution at the max print size is astonishing. I'm sending 154 dpi to
the printer, which is below the low end of what I consider adequate for
a scanned image, but the resolution seems to be as good as what I get
from a LightJet at 300 dpi. I have cropped images and sent them out at
125 dpi with seemingly the same high resolution -- 125 dpi is what I
would send were I able to print a 16x20.
One looses the tilt and swing of a LF, but one gains a number of things,
such as color balance control, zoom lenses, ISO speed control,
portability, instant viewing, etc.
I am starting to wonder just how much longer I will be using LF.
--
Bob Wheeler --- http://www.bobwheeler.com/
ECHIP, Inc. ---
Randomness comes in bunches.
Jean-David Beyer
> In article <greg-5B7AAF.1...@news.verizon.net>,
> Gregory Blank <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>When the day comes
>>that I can afford such a device
>
>
> Just out of curiosity how much do you spend per year on buying film,
> processing, prints and chemistry now?
>
Rubinstein. It seemed that Gary would shoot 20 to 50 rolls of Tri-X in his
Leica everyday. Someone asked him if Kodak gave him a discount on film, and
he said they did not, that they would not even notice the amount of film he
bought in their sales records.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 15:35:00 up 40 days, 9:28, 3 users, load average: 4.18, 4.28, 4.26
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
maybe one other weekend a year. Two weeks ago I spent two weeks in
Glacier, and I shot about:
10 Velvia 4x5
20 Tmax 100 4x5
1 roll 120 Velvia
2 rolls 120 Tmax
1 roll 135 Kodak 100 Chrome (forget the name)
1 roll 135 Tmax 100
12 panoramics with a Canon G5 (on my gonad-buster hikes)
I'll just about double the above figures on a second trip at the end of
the summer.
When I processed film, I had about 10 sheets of B&W waiting from
weekend shoots this last spring and last fall. I also processed a roll
of 135 from last spring (gasp!). All that went through 1 gallon of
D-76. I have a couple more unmixed gallons sitting on the shelf in the
darkroom (along with loads of unmixed paper chem).
As for paper, I'm up to my ears in paper (much of it getting too old)
because I can't seem to prioritize a day to go in the darkroom. Because
of that difficulty, I've pretty much switched over to digital printing
which I really like. I love the control and ability to work in small
time increments, and....the ability to repeat a result. Losing B&W
paper doesn't concern me much, but I'd hate to see Tmax and chrome film
disappear.
So, it ain't much shooting compared to many here, but I _love it_ when
I can shoot. It's very relaxing for me.
Jay Wenner
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
>with the salespeople at both LF photography is increasing in popularity.
This is great for someone small like Bergger, but I can see Kodak
discontinuing B&W film in say 2007 and saying, "The professional
photographers have all switched to digital, and the school photography
programs have switched to digital as well. There's virtually no market
left in B&W film." There may be a market, but the production
capabilities of Kodak is just so large that supplying a small quantity
of film is just "not profitable."
I'm hoping the situation stabilizes somewhat and Kodak doesn't "shoot
the injured horse."
Jay Wenner
Gregory Blank
Bob Salomon <bob_s...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In article <greg-5B7AAF.1...@news.verizon.net>,
> Gregory Blank <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
>
> > When the day comes
> > that I can afford such a device
>
> Just out of curiosity how much do you spend per year on buying film,
> processing, prints and chemistry now?
Actually currently not that much most of my film and processing provided
by either my publication clients or the photographer I sub weddings for.
Last year though when I was doing more of my own weddings about 3-4k
Gregory Blank
Jean-David Beyer <jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
> Bob Salomon wrote:
> > In article <greg-5B7AAF.1...@news.verizon.net>,
> > Gregory Blank <greg@greg_____photo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>When the day comes
> >>that I can afford such a device
> >
> >
> > Just out of curiosity how much do you spend per year on buying film,
> > processing, prints and chemistry now?
> >
> In about 1974, I took a photographic workshop with Gary Winogrand and Eva
> Rubinstein. It seemed that Gary would shoot 20 to 50 rolls of Tri-X in his
> Leica everyday. Someone asked him if Kodak gave him a discount on film, and
> he said they did not, that they would not even notice the amount of film he
> bought in their sales records.
But they (or someone) sure noticed when he died, he left a huge amount
of it unprocessed.
Bob G
in visual richness to a well-done 4x5 print, let alone an 8x10 contact.
Gregory Blank
"Bob G" <bobja...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I have yet to see any B&W print from a digital image that can compare
> in visual richness to a well-done 4x5 print, let alone an 8x10 contact.
Quite true.
John Emmons
digital printing.
John Emmons
"Bob G" <bobja...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1122335923....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
joe mama
"Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" <wen...@cbs.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:1122313299....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Where do you see horses these days???
Stacey
>>I spend a lot of time at Calumet and Central Camera and from conversations
>>with the salespeople at both LF photography is increasing in popularity.
>
> This is great for someone small like Bergger, but I can see Kodak
> discontinuing B&W film in say 2007
I wouldn't be shocked if Kodak filed bankruptcy in 2007 much less stopped
making B&W film.
--
Stacey
Bandicoot
news:N9hFe.486505$cg1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Bob G" <bobja...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1122335923....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I have yet to see any B&W print from a digital image that can
> > compare in visual richness to a well-done 4x5 print, let alone an
> > 8x10 contact.
> >
>
> premium quality digital printing.
>
He didn't say digital print, he said print from a B&W digital image - and I
have to agree there that this remains the area where digital most obviously,
and most across-the-board, can't hack it, yet.
Peter
Frank Pittel
fiber paper and then put it next to a digital print.
John Emmons <joh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: Then you need to get out more.Or at least find someone doing premium quality
: digital printing.
: John Emmons
: >
No One
Here is from yesterday. 8x10 Portra 160VC.
I have shot hundreds of sheets of LF film in the past week and pine every
day for a new MF digital back.
But - my wife likes the images from film.
"Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" <wen...@cbs.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:1122313299....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Norwood
In article <1122313299....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz <wen...@cbs.umn.edu> wrote:
>
[snip]
>So it concerns me that large format will will disappear before or with
>35mm film even though there may be demand for large film by the
>existing (LF) photographers out there.
Why would it? If customers demand the product, someone will produce
it. It may not be Kodak or Fuji, but someone will fill the demand.
Heck, some people still use glass plates and other "obsolete"
processes. And look at the number of manufacturers of new large-format
cameras? There's a pretty wide variety for a niche market, especially
when there is plenty of good used equipment available less expensively.
I'm 28 and don't expect to see the demise of photographic film and
processes occur in my lifetime. The minilab at the local drugstore
may go away and there may be fewer retailers selling film and
supplies, but the processes and supplies will still be available,
especially for large format, where the only electronic equivalents
are prohibitively expensive and suffer other limitations as well.
johnboy
> http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1572720&forward=
>
> Here is from yesterday. 8x10 Portra 160VC.
404
Gordon Moat
The police in San Diego use them quite often for patrols in many parts of
the city. There are also many horse drawn carriages downtown for weddings
and tourists to enjoy. Outside of that, there are lots of horses at the Del
Mar racetrack, but not any I could ride. If I wanted to ride horses, I have
three places to choose from, including one for a ride along the beach. All
this in the 7th largest city in the US . . . go figure?!?!?!? ;-)
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Gordon Moat
> There's been a lot of talk about digital replacing film, and I can see
> how digital can (or maybe has) replaced 35mm or even 120. Large format
> seems to be a different animal. It's a slow process with very high
> quality when you nail an image. A "good" day of photography might be 6
> images, each with TLC.
I think large format photography might move more towards the model of oil
painting. Obviously, oil painting is very slow and low technology, but
still has a following. I don't see much reason that large format
photography should not remain at least as popular as oil painting.
>
>
> So it concerns me that large format will will disappear before or with
> 35mm film even though there may be demand for large film by the
> existing (LF) photographers out there.
>
> Any thoughts,
>
> Jay Wenner
My guess is that some of the emulsions will go away. The problems with
that are people who really only want to use a few different emulsions.
Rather than find a replacement, or try something else, they might just
give up on large format photography. I think there will always be a
source, though it might be different from what it is now, and might be
more expensive. Just to contrast, oil paints from Windsor & Newton can
often be $10 per colour per tube.
Bandicoot
news:42E69724...@attglobal.net...
[SNIP]
> I think there will always be a source, though it might be
> different from what it is now, and might be more
> expensive. Just to contrast, oil paints from Windsor &
> Newton can often be $10 per colour per tube.
>
You cheapskate, Gordon...
Try Sennelier's prices!
;-(
Peter
Bandicoot
I see lots where I live, most weeks one or two will go past the house. I'm
away tutoring for a week in August and a friend is going to stay in the
house while I'm gone. She rides and asked if I could checkout a local
stable where she could hire a horse while she's here - even though I used to
ride, I was still amazed at how many stables there are within ten or twenty
miles of my house.
(OK, I don't live in a city...)
Peter
joe mama
"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:112242726...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>> >
>> > Where do you see horses these days???
>>
>> The police in San Diego use them quite often for patrols
>> in many parts of the city. There are also many horse
>> drawn carriages downtown for weddings and tourists to
>> enjoy. Outside of that, there are lots of horses at the Del
>> Mar racetrack, but not any I could ride. If I wanted to
>> ride horses, I have three places to choose from, including
>> one for a ride along the beach. All this in the 7th largest
>> city in the US . . . go figure?!?!?!? ;-)
>>
>
> I see lots where I live, most weeks one or two will go past the house.
> I'm
> away tutoring for a week in August and a friend is going to stay in the
> house while I'm gone. She rides and asked if I could checkout a local
> stable where she could hire a horse while she's here - even though I used
> to
> ride, I was still amazed at how many stables there are within ten or
> twenty
> miles of my house.
>
> (OK, I don't live in a city...)
>
>
>
> Peter
>
Everyone should quit crying, and by LF gear, film and anything else you can
to prolong its life span. It's all economics folks...plain and simple.
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
>to prolong its life span. It's all economics folks...plain and simple.
...and it seems to me the ecomonics indicate that if LF photographers
all bought 10x more film, companies like Kodak and Ilford will still
stop making film in the next couple of years. I hope not, and I've
starting to increase my personal inventory, but I have a bad feeling
about this...
Jay Wenner
Cheesehead
And it looks pretty nice.
Yes, it has visual appeal.
But just as color digital doesn't have quite the color depth (when set
side-by-side with a film print)
so the digital doesn't have quite the gray depth.
The average viewer would be satisfied with the quality.
Back in the days of 24-pin dot matrix printers, the marketing was
"NLQ". Near Letter Quality.
Admittedly not as good as a daisy wheel (Qume Sprint 5 or Xerox 630)
but a lot smaller and
less noisy. And lighter. And faster. And a lot of other advantages.
For an acceptable loss
(acceptable to the users) in quality. No lover of quality type really
appreciated the change,
but the customers demanded it.
Digital photography and printing is much the same. The advantages are
suitable for the customer's
requirements and the disadvantages are acceptable losses. So, I
suspect, 98% of us here
have some form of digital camera. Whether a 1Mp for your eBay ads, or
a DSLR. Or both.
Or something in between. It doesn't matter becuase we're willing to
accept the differences
and the losses as well, for certain applications.
Is Film better. Most of the time. But not in every respect.
Will film die like the daisy wheel printer? I hope not. But the
scenario doesn't look good.
Or will film half-die like oil painting?
The future is open. (But I suspect the latter will be the case.)
TIA,
Collin
Gregory Blank
"Bjorn A. Payne Diaz" <wen...@cbs.umn.edu> wrote:
> >Everyone should quit crying, and by LF gear, film and anything else you can
> >to prolong its life span. It's all economics folks...plain and simple.
>
> ...and it seems to me the ecomonics indicate that if LF photographers
> all bought 10x more film, companies like Kodak
Probably.
>and Ilford will still
> stop making film in the next couple of years.
I don't guess so, personally I would like Kodak to get out of
B&W and do just color, leaving that market segment to Ilford.
Everyone would be happier, in an ideal worl Kodak would
sell of its B&W lines to Ilford and Ilford would continue making
the Kodak products like TriX, PXP and TMax for those who like them.
>I hope not, and I've
> starting to increase my personal inventory, but I have a bad feeling
> about this...
What is is what is. Buying film is very critical imop to instilling a
sense that there is a market, whether the supplier directly takes note
well thats a different notion. Someone will and that should be enough
to warrant someone starting a company or looking into ways of being cost
effective with a smaller consumer base.
>
> Jay Wenner
Bandicoot
news:1122467491.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
>
> Will film die like the daisy wheel printer? I hope not.
> But the scenario doesn't look good. Or will film half-die
> like oil painting?
> The future is open. (But I suspect the latter will be the
> case.)
>
Very much my view too, sadly. I note that it wasn't the 'NLQ' dot matrix
printers that finally killed the daisy wheel though, but the laser jet -
which killed the dot matrix too for all except a few high speed
applications. Maybe that's encouraging, in some respects.
Peter
johnboy
will be around for the rest of your life. Color, well I am not quite as
certain but it does fill a niche that nothing digital (except perhaps the
lame scanning backs) can match.
Gordon Moat
Hey now, I do buy Sennelier pastels and Conté sticks. Honestly, I like
the results from Windsor & Newton oil paints better than from other
brands. I have seen oil paints from a Dutch company (forget the name)
that were around $60 per colour. If I was selling more paintings, maybe
I might go with more expensive paints. Sounds a bit like photography . .
. . . . .
Anyway, this does relate a little to large format photography. If the
prices of the film or chemicals went up, then they might get used less
often. There is enough of a market that some company might make film,
but maybe only small companies. Sort of like doing platinum prints, or
other alternative processes, in that you can buy the raw materials,
though they are expensive enough that your volume of use would be low.
The good thing is that large format gear lasts decades. There is not
much reason to get brand new camera items that often. The other
salvation of large format comes from aerial mapping. While there are
direct digital aerial mapping systems, they are usually way beyond the
budget of many companies. The cost effective solution is aerial films.
However, for enthusiasts to buy such things would be expensive; cutting
up that film for use in large format would work, but would not be cheap.
The worst thing I see about photography in general is fewer people under
30 picking it up. There are fewer college courses in large format
photography than just five years ago. When people are not exposed to
these items, they will never know what they missed.
No One
Sorry.
"johnboy" <oka...@nospam.no> wrote in message
news:11ed4rq...@news.supernews.com...
Bandicoot
> Bandicoot wrote:
>
> > "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > news:42E69724...@attglobal.net...
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > > I think there will always be a source, though it might
> > > be different from what it is now, and might be more
> > > expensive. Just to contrast, oil paints from Windsor
> > > & Newton can often be $10 per colour per tube.
> > >
> >
> > You cheapskate, Gordon...
> >
> > Try Sennelier's prices!
> >
> > ;-(
> >
> > Peter
>
> Hey now, I do buy Sennelier pastels and Conté sticks.
> Honestly, I like the results from Windsor & Newton oil
> paints better than from other brands.
That's fair enough, W&N oils are very good, as you say. I do like
Sennelier's watercolours very much though, and they are my preference for
pans (with mostly W&N for tubes.) My mother likes Sennelier and Rembrandt
pastels - that's an expensive habit to feed.
> I have seen oil paints from a Dutch company (forget the
> name) that were around $60 per colour. If I was selling
> more paintings, maybe I might go with more expensive
> paints. Sounds a bit like photography . . . . . . .
Yes, I've seen a Dutch company with prices like that, and also can't
remember the name - wonder why it could be that I never really memorised it
in the first place? ;-)
>
> Anyway, this does relate a little to large format
> photography. If the prices of the film or chemicals went
> up, then they might get used less often. There is enough
> of a market that some company might make film, but
> maybe only small companies. Sort of like doing platinum
> prints, or other alternative processes, in that you can buy
> the raw materials, though they are expensive enough that > your volume of
use would be low.
This is my thinking too. This is why I disagree with those who say that as
film production shrinks, we may get landed with low quality and very limited
choice. I think the only people still using film, at least in LF, will be
those whose main concern is quality, so only makers providing a high quality
product will survive: essentially we'll end up with a raft of niche
products. Given the sameness of so much digital imagery, I see art prints
being made with a range of process. My worry is not so much that quality
will fall - it's that the price is going to be very high.
>
> The good thing is that large format gear lasts decades.
> There is not much reason to get brand new camera items > that often.
And it is so much more 'user serviceable' than smaller format equipment.
Just today I was cannibalising two 4x5 backs to make one good one, and most
of the job only required screwdrivers - it'll need a little aluminium
milling to finish the job, but that I can do with a mill in a drill press,
and some care. Not something I could tackle with MF or 35mm gear.
> The other salvation of large format comes from aerial
> mapping. While there are direct digital aerial mapping
> systems, they are usually way beyond the budget of many
> companies. The cost effective solution is aerial films.
> However, for enthusiasts to buy such things would be
> expensive; cutting up that film for use in large format
> would work, but would not be cheap.
This is the sort of thing a niche company can (probably will) do. Film
produced in volume, then a small specialist cutting company buying and
re-packaging it in 4x5 and 10x8... and 5x7 and probably 11x14 and 20x12 too
if they can.
>
> The worst thing I see about photography in general is
> fewer people under 30 picking it up. There are fewer
> college courses in large format photography than just five
> years ago. When people are not exposed to these items,
> they will never know what they missed.
Maybe, I think the reduction in courses reflects less commercial use of
LF - particularly for product shots, it is still there for architecture.
Those who go into fine art photography are still likely to encounter LF
work.
Peter
Gregory Blank
Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
Until they see our prints in the museum somewhere.
Gordon Moat
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:42E7C2AD...@attglobal.net...
> > Bandicoot wrote:
> >
> > > "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> > > news:42E69724...@attglobal.net...
> > > [SNIP]
> > >
> > > > I think there will always be a source, though it might
> > > > be different from what it is now, and might be more
> > > > expensive. Just to contrast, oil paints from Windsor
> > > > & Newton can often be $10 per colour per tube.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You cheapskate, Gordon...
> > >
> > > Try Sennelier's prices!
> > >
> > > ;-(
> > >
> > > Peter
> >
> > Hey now, I do buy Sennelier pastels and Conté sticks.
> > Honestly, I like the results from Windsor & Newton oil
> > paints better than from other brands.
>
> That's fair enough, W&N oils are very good, as you say. I do like
> Sennelier's watercolours very much though, and they are my preference for
> pans (with mostly W&N for tubes.) My mother likes Sennelier and Rembrandt
> pastels - that's an expensive habit to feed.
I have a box of Rembrandt pastels too . . . I just have not opened them yet.
>
>
> > I have seen oil paints from a Dutch company (forget the
> > name) that were around $60 per colour. If I was selling
> > more paintings, maybe I might go with more expensive
> > paints. Sounds a bit like photography . . . . . . .
>
> Yes, I've seen a Dutch company with prices like that, and also can't
> remember the name - wonder why it could be that I never really memorised it
> in the first place? ;-)
I was a little luckier than most while in college, so I had some scholarships
that helped pay for many of my supplies. Now that I have to pay out of my
pocket, I am much more careful. I did try some of that hyper expensive paint,
but I really saw no difference between it and the Windsor & Newton.
>
>
> >
> > Anyway, this does relate a little to large format
> > photography. If the prices of the film or chemicals went
> > up, then they might get used less often. There is enough
> > of a market that some company might make film, but
> > maybe only small companies. Sort of like doing platinum
> > prints, or other alternative processes, in that you can buy
> > the raw materials, though they are expensive enough that > your volume of
> use would be low.
>
> This is my thinking too. This is why I disagree with those who say that as
> film production shrinks, we may get landed with low quality and very limited
> choice. I think the only people still using film, at least in LF, will be
> those whose main concern is quality, so only makers providing a high quality
> product will survive: essentially we'll end up with a raft of niche
> products. Given the sameness of so much digital imagery, I see art prints
> being made with a range of process. My worry is not so much that quality
> will fall - it's that the price is going to be very high.
Just another painting example, depending upon technique, the same sized oil
painting can cost two to three times what a platinum print would cost to
produce, though that mostly applies to smaller prints. At larger sizes (above
12" by 18"), the platinum prints are much tougher to make, so costs go up due
to errors. With oil paintings, errors can be worked out even weeks later.
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> > The other salvation of large format comes from aerial
> > mapping. While there are direct digital aerial mapping
> > systems, they are usually way beyond the budget of many
> > companies. The cost effective solution is aerial films.
> > However, for enthusiasts to buy such things would be
> > expensive; cutting up that film for use in large format
> > would work, but would not be cheap.
>
> This is the sort of thing a niche company can (probably will) do. Film
> produced in volume, then a small specialist cutting company buying and
> re-packaging it in 4x5 and 10x8... and 5x7 and probably 11x14 and 20x12 too
> if they can.
AGFA Photo is currently considering outsourcing their cutting and packaging
factory to other companies. Something like that could help many types of film
to continue. The other thing is that few people are needed to run that type of
equipment. Basically, I agree that other companies could easily buy the bulk
film, then cut and repackage it for others.
>
>
> >
> > The worst thing I see about photography in general is
> > fewer people under 30 picking it up. There are fewer
> > college courses in large format photography than just five
> > years ago. When people are not exposed to these items,
> > they will never know what they missed.
>
> Maybe, I think the reduction in courses reflects less commercial use of
> LF - particularly for product shots, it is still there for architecture.
> Those who go into fine art photography are still likely to encounter LF
> work.
Where I went to college, they still have a B/W course, but are pushing digital
imaging, PhotoShop, and computer time in later courses. I think more students
want to be on computers, and the universities cater to that to keep enticing
students into programs. Unfortunately, it can create a situation in which much
of the work looks the same. :-(
David Starr
>> When people are not exposed to these items, they will never know what they missed.
>>
>Until they see our prints in the museum somewhere.
I saw my first Platinum print last fall - by Irving Penn at the Chicago Art
Institute. My first thought - after I picked my chin up from the floor - was
"Take that, digital!".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gregory Blank
David Starr <dave...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:46:45 GMT, Gregory Blank <greg@greg_____photo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> When people are not exposed to these items, they will never know what they
> >> missed.
> >>
> >Until they see our prints in the museum somewhere.
>
> I saw my first Platinum print last fall - by Irving Penn at the Chicago Art
> Institute. My first thought - after I picked my chin up from the floor - was
> "Take that, digital!".
David;
If you ever get the chance to see Paul Strands platinum prints do so.
Likewise an Edward Weston exhibit of silver images. But Strands early
platinum is simply stated "gorgeous".
John
> There's been a lot of talk about digital replacing film, and I can see
> how digital can (or maybe has) replaced 35mm or even 120. Large format
> seems to be a different animal. It's a slow process with very high
> quality when you nail an image. A "good" day of photography might be 6
> images, each with TLC.
>
> So it concerns me that large format will will disappear before or with
> 35mm film even though there may be demand for large film by the
> existing (LF) photographers out there.
>
> Any thoughts,
Yep. Basically it doesn't matter whether people want digital or not.
They're being told that they 'should' want it and therefore it sells. Large
format is such a small percentage of total sales that it will be going down
fast and hard. The primary support for LF was commercial work and I doubt
if all the amatuers in America use as much film in one day as did a good
studio in NYC in the early 70's.
So will digital replace LF film photography ? No, it simply can't on a
technical basis. But will LF film photography go the way of the Betamax ?
It already has.
--
John - www.puresilver.org
johnboy
"John" <use...@puresilver.org> wrote in message
news:j5kaekv2w0ea.dngg8hhu152x$.dlg@40tude.net...
> [...] Large
> format is such a small percentage of total sales that it will be going
> down
> fast and hard. [...]
Listen to John's wisdom!
4X5 AND LARGER FORMAT PEOPLE - PANIC NOW! THE SKY IS FALLING! YOU ARE
DOOMED. REDEEM YOURSELVES TO THE DIGITAL DOMAIN NOW!
DON'T BE A SUCKER. DON'T BE CAUGHT IN THE CRUNCH!
DUMP YOUR LINHOF,AND SINAR 4X5 CAMERAS NOW BEFORE THEY BECOME WORTHLESS!
I PAY TOP SCRAP METAL DOLLAR. $10 PER POUND, LENS OR BODY!
TEN DOLLARS A POUND! DO IT NOW OR REGRET IT FOREVER!
Bjorn A. Payne Diaz
I've converted my rust bucket 1987 Chevy Blazer into a mobile 4x5
camera. What's your address?
Jay Wenner
Bandicoot
news:11eq4sl...@news.supernews.com...
Hah, I'll pay $10.50 / lb.....
Peter
johnboy
news:1122838424....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I PAY TOP SCRAP METAL DOLLAR. $10 PER POUND, LENS OR BODY!
>
>
> I've converted my rust bucket 1987 Chevy Blazer into a mobile 4x5
> camera. What's your address?
When did Sinar or Linhof start making autos? SORRY, BUBBA! :)
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Hah, I'll pay $12 / lb.
Sander Vesik
A whole bunch of matrix printers live on (and continue to be made) for
applications where a contact copy is needed. Epson still makes almost
a dozen different models. But of course, as people do increasingly more
banking and bill payments over internet this will also reduce though
probably a lot of that has already happened.
>
> Peter
>
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Matt Clara
>
> Yep. Basically it doesn't matter whether people want digital or not.
> They're being told that they 'should' want it and therefore it sells.
I think there's a little more to it than that.
>Large
> format is such a small percentage of total sales that it will be going
down
> fast and hard. The primary support for LF was commercial work and I doubt
> if all the amatuers in America use as much film in one day as did a good
> studio in NYC in the early 70's.
>
> So will digital replace LF film photography ? No, it simply can't on a
> technical basis.
? You'll have to explain, 'cause it's technically feasable that digital
will some day have all the resolution of large-format, and it is just
another way to record an image.
>But will LF film photography go the way of the Betamax ?
> It already has.
Is anyone using betamax anymore? I thought that was true of the UK, but
found they'd dumped it years back when I was there this summer.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Lorem Ipsum
"Matt Clara" <no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote in message
news:eqiYe.191220$AI1.1...@fe02.news.easynews.com...
> ? You'll have to explain, 'cause it's technically feasable that digital
> will some day have all the resolution of large-format, and it is just
> another way to record an image.
Well, it ain't "one day" yet, so why carry on with the rants?
Nicholas O. Lindan
I thought it was still in use as a studio format - Betacam -
or is that something 'completely different'?
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
no_name
>>>But will LF film photography go the way of the Betamax ?
>>
>>Is anyone using betamax anymore?
>
>
> I thought it was still in use as a studio format - Betacam -
> or is that something 'completely different'?
>
Same process, same technology - different size cassette (like the home
betamax was 35mm & commercial beta used in TV production was med format)