When I got my Mamiya RB67, the reverse view on the waist level finder drive me nuts. So I immediately bought a mirrored viewfinder and haven't looked backwards, no pun intended. . I will use the waist level if I'm shooting something near the ground. I also have the sportsfinder, but it really isn't necessary if you have the mirror eye level viewfinder.Yes, they call them sports finders because the cameras are bad at sports unless you use them.
Don't get me wrong I like my TLR but if the subject is moving in an unpredictable manner they're a pain unless I use the "sports finder" which is an approximation rather than an ideal view. I had the same problem with a Hasselblad of course, and when I got a mirrored viewfinder that corrected the reversed image it made all the difference.
What display device are you looking at?this is true, however, I’ll still take a lower resolution image that has been compressed less over a higher resolution image that has had the daylights squeezed out of it in a heartbeat. There’s a lot more to image quality than raw resolution. People bag on canon cameras because their out of camera video files are high bitrate and not sharpened in camera, however, in the right hands, those video files often times end up looking a lot better than others in the distributed version of the video. I’d very much rather have a 300Mbps+ unsharpened 1080p picture coming out of my camera than a 120Mbps 4K picture that has a whole pile of in camera sharpening applied so that the cameras contrast AF system can work. That 4K image tends to look very video. Yes, it’s crispy and sharp, but it also doesn’t look as good because it’s way more compressed.
A high bitrate, fat beefy 1080p video with 4:2:2 color and appropriate output sharpening will almost always look better overall than a low bitrate 4K video with 4:2:0 color. People tend to focus way too much on the raw resolution and not so much on the other aspects that have just as big of an I a pact on the final output quality.
Not many still live in basements.
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.
yes. You’re stating the obvious. This has been the case for at least a decade. Nothing new. and so.... so what? This whole thread, your whole on going vendetta against film and photography is pointless shit stirring. Why?
My day job is land planning, I own a land surveying company. Most of my day is spent in front of a computer running autocad preparing digital terrain models, land plans, etc.
The last thing I want to do when not at work is sit behind another computer screen, therein my preference to use film and a darkroom. I would say that I did give digital as well as the
digital workflow its due respect, effort and time to master. Oddly enough one of the best images that I have printed 11x17 came from an 8 megapixel Sony CyberShot.
At the time I was also a member of the local camera club. I had an extra office building with a basement that I let them use for a meeting / gallery space. They set up a small but
well equipped darkroom in the basement. The club moved on to other things and I inherited the darkroom. I sold all of my digital gear and have never been tempted by digital since.
Even if film suddenly vanished, I know how to coat acetate.
if you have the mirror eye level viewfinder.
I have to agree there. I'm up to my eyeballs in experience with teenagers at the moment for what it's worth.
no clue what the "dektol look" is but its not amateurs that liked classic black and white prints made with dektol, or the look of velvia, but plenty of professionals who developed and printed used dektol and did for 50+ years ( i worked for one back in the day ) and plenty of people liked the bluish uncorrected tint of ektachrome, and the cyan hue of kodachrome and the ability to mold a film based image any way one wanted if they had the capabilities and wanted to. there is greatness to film, and its unfortunate that in order for digital tech to assume its greatness it has to pull the chair out from underneath film while its changing the red light bulb, instead of just doing its own thing. granted it makes things easy to do, giant rezzed up files from small ones ( but that's been around for 15-20 years and is nothing new ) and we unfortunately have had the veil lifted so we know everyone's uncurrated life, so witness everyone's own personal truman show because everyone's a star and wants to be one ( or even better, an influencer ) and and others can make an uulesman style surrealist photograph or a nadar type portrait with the flick of a button and magic mouse .. its great times, but its a bit overwhelming to be drowning in a sea of mediocrity and has given me a hard core case of the shrugs.Agree 90% .... As to "dektol look"...that's what so many amateurs liked about Velvia: inaccurate, unreal, theatric
i know ! i can't wait to uplrez its files from. as soon as i can afford a computer from this decade im pretty much selling off everything i have that is bigger than my casio click, from the 1990s ( just wish it had the capability of holding more than 2 pictures in it ) and i had the right 25 year old plug and a windows 98 skin. then, i can finally free myself from the shackles of boring antique photography and maybe i'll even figure out how to make prints made from stills captured from my microwave oven ..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 the death of medium and large format photography.
sometimes the obvious isn't so obviousYou’re stating the obvious.
This whole thread, your whole on going vendetta against film and photography is pointless shit stirring. Why? Why do you persist with this childish trolling?
jtk can be an insufferable troll at times, yes, but he also produces some of the best, most thought provoking and challenging posts and threads on Photrio (artist introductions, hardware and software developments, industry opinions, wackadoo theories of every description that in the end start sounding reasonable, supportive comments in the same media section that he often derides, etc). This place would be duller without characters like him.
I'm active at a local photography club and there was a member that is very experienced and really pushing to do more digital workshops, with a similar argument. For which members didn't have an interest to carry out. In one way, it's an older generation that doesn't have the same perception as the new wave of youngsters. 20 year olds with a YT channel that's mostly film and 125K subscribers. Not APUG at all.Yeah, I kinda agree. Which is why his apparent vendetta against film and photography is so puzzling. We've all adapted to the changes...and why can't everybody just accept that not everybody travels the same road and be happy?
If you shoot for art directors or designers or real estate, you're shooting digital because the turnaround is expected in hours. So what's your point?If you shot for art directors or designers or catalogs or the real estate world you would...
If you shoot for art directors or designers or real estate, you're shooting digital because the turnaround is expected in hours. So what's your point?
You just contradicted yourself - I said that if you're doing commercial work, you're shooting digital. You said not often true, then went on to mention shooting digital for commercial work.Not often true. Today almost all clients want digital files and almost none have any relationship to color separation...and of course they need to see your work on a monitor, at least partially because most plan to use it online. ..
In fact a large percent also want videos, which all modern small cameras can make. As to camera movements, and I've used them heavily, the unfortunate reality is Photoshop.
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.
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),
availability of good local E6 processing.
yes. You’re stating the obvious. This has been the case for at least a decade. Nothing new. and so.... so what? This whole thread, your whole on going vendetta against film and photography is pointless shit stirring. Why? Why do you persist with this childish trolling?
Because that is what he does best.
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?