- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,231
- Format
- 8x10 Format
I think the traffic going past San Quentin can be worse confinement than the jail itself during rush hour. Timing is everything.
I think the traffic going past San Quentin can be worse confinement than the jail itself during rush hour. Timing is everything.
Driving is an "artistic skill" but cars are not - said no one ever. Drivers are necessarily constrained by the limits of their cars, just as film photographers are constrained by the limits of film. Film has its limits, digital has its limits.
If it were possible, I don't think Ansel Adams would sit down at a PC and tablet, using Photoshop to tweak the image he was after. He might use it to visualize and pre-plan an image, but he'd still carry his 8x10 film camera into the field. Afterward, he'd be in the darkroom, standing over the easel, dodging and burning, arms moving like Leonard Bernstein conducting and orchestra. That's where the magic happened.
I so agree with the latter. When people ask I tell them to get AA's calendar of any year, easily beyond good quality for framing. Darkroom print will always have its value above and beyond, but quality of printing of his catalogs is excellent.Actually, Ansel did sit down at the monitor of a Hell (amusing) scanner and was reportedly enthralled. I heard about that from another fine photographer (Orvis fly fishing catalogs) who was the genius Hell scanner geek and with whom I fished in the Sierras.
Few people have seen better iterations of Ansel's photos than those that have been digitally scanned and robotically printed with ink, and most of them are better than most of the originals still shown. He should have used Rodinal
Yeah, but they aren't his prints. They are nice if you want something to frame that costs 1% as much. But there are other photographers of that vintage whose printmaking skills do impress me considerably more.
As if pixels count (and resolution?) and print size were the only thing that matter.
As if pixel count (and resolution?) and print size were the only thing that matter.
I think you underestimate him. He really did have a tremendous sensitivity to natural light, especially in the high mountains, and his best compositions are highly poetic if one is attuned to the subtleties. Of course, he's better known for his more theatrical images, black skies n all; but those aren't at the top of my list. I wish he hadn't been stuck on the Dektol look. And, despite stereotypes about him, many of those old negs weren't really all that sharp, which is a fact quite apparent if you've seen as many really big enlargements I have. They're actually quite fuzzy. We have better films, better papers, better lenses, more precise cameras, way better darkroom gear, etc etc. During his lifetime he made lower-contrast prints specifically for repro usage in the books etc; those aren't worth much today, but they were intelligently gear to photomechanical repro prior to modern scanning options. I've never attempted to count pixels. I did study wildlife biology in my younger years, and am aware of a number of cute little furry critters, but never did quite understand the distinction between a pika, a pixel, and a participle.
Which also brings to mind current state of the artful pixelography.Agree 90% .... As to "dektol look"...that's what so many amateurs liked about Velvia: inaccurate, unreal, theatric.
That completely ignores WHY people use MF/LF cameras in the first place. Just upsizing my photos, regardless of how sharp they are at a given size, isn't going to give me a reason to switch to small format digital. No software package can replace the act of using a view camera in the field, nor can it replace using a 150 year old portrait lens. Yes, yes, you can always emulate those things in software, but it's an emulation, and there are definite limits to what corrections to perspective you can do in software without losing resolution and introducing distortion. Get it right in camera, rather than fix it in post. I'd rather take an extra 15 minutes before I click the shutter than spend an extra two hours doing the same thing but on my computer afterwards.Not a replacement for film...not for 35...a replacement, for many/most, for MF and LF...
I was responding to the assertion at the top of this thread that the ability to have a computer up-rez a digital image file would result in t lolhe death of medium and large format photography.
MF cameras are selling quite well on ebay. Funny that...
Note that I didn't suggest "death." Check out the price of CLA on your camera if you can find someone who will give you a quote. Check out ready availability of chrome films (without betting online), check out
availability of good local E6 processing.
I knew two guys who shot 20X24 Polaroid....does that mean Polaroid didn't get the "end of the road" ? I loved Polaroid 55PN and 52...
Good quality local E-6 processing? No sweat- I own a Jobo. 'nuff said. Pro Labs? Pro Labs??? We don' need no steenkin Pro Labs!!!Note that I didn't suggest "death." Check out the price of CLA on your camera if you can find someone who will give you a quote. Check out ready availability of chrome films (without betting online), check out availability of good local E6 processing.
.
That completely ignores WHY people use MF/LF cameras in the first place. Just upsizing my photos, regardless of how sharp they are at a given size, isn't going to give me a reason to switch to small format digital. No software package can replace the act of using a view camera in the field, nor can it replace using a 150 year old portrait lens. Yes, yes, you can always emulate those things in software, but it's an emulation, and there are definite limits to what corrections to perspective you can do in software without losing resolution and introducing distortion. Get it right in camera, rather than fix it in post. I'd rather take an extra 15 minutes before I click the shutter than spend an extra two hours doing the same thing but on my computer afterwards.
Good quality local E-6 processing? No sweat- I own a Jobo. 'nuff said. Pro Labs? Pro Labs??? We don' need no steenkin Pro Labs!!!
I don't shoot colour... and many others don't either. Even if film suddenly vanished, I know how to coat acetate.
Reminds me of those protein drink fads of the 70's. Why eat a steak and fresh salad when only a gurgle of pinkish foam reminiscent of diluted Pepto Bismol combined with chalk gives you all the nutrition you need for the day? In other words, I don't need even a logical excuse to keep doing large format or MF photography. I like doing it. Give me a real steak.
We'll have more time to contemplate all this once we learn how to live in caves fashioned from mountains of e-waste. Kinda a Chaco Canyon complex of the future, with billions of dead cell phones all neatly stacked up around our respective kivas.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?