Interest in LF, has digital really changed it at all?

[laz]

If we leave out what I think is the grey area of 4x5 has digital or anything else really negitivly impacted its "popularity"?

I think LF is so unlike anything else in it's appeal that what draws us to it hasn't changed one whit. Does anybody really think that someone considering LF would look at the decrease in the variety of film and paper or the production of LF cameras and say "nah, not for me" because of it?

LF is a whole other ball game.

-Bob

 

[eclarke]

If we leave out what I think is the grey area of 4x5 has digital or anything else really negitivly impacted its "popularity"?

I think LF is so unlike anything else in it's appeal that what draws us to it hasn't changed one whit. Does anybody really think that someone considering LF would look at the decrease in the variety of film and paper or the production of LF cameras and say "nah, not for me" because of it?

LF is a whole other ball game.

-Bob

Not in my case, I just sold 2 Canon 1Ds MkIIs and a Canon 1D MkII and all the lenses and have redevoted myself to my view cameras and wet process!!..Evan Clarke

 

[laz]

And thinking a bit more on the subject, is it possible that digital will actually increase the popularity of some specialized aspects of analog photography? So many more people are interested in preserving images and it's cool to do so. I think that the increased exposure to picture taking will lead more to make the same choice as we did and move up to LF.

 

[eclarke]

I think this is true. There are a lot of new people shooting digital who never had an interest in photography and the cream will rise to the top. The best images still come from a big piece of film...EC

 

[Jorge]

For those who are only happy with the quality of a contact print, digital will never be good enough, even if the backs become available at prices everbody can afford.

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

Digital, for me at least, has made my recent foray into ULF affordable.

It may not appeal to the APUG'ers much, but all of my alt. processes in the forseeable future will be from very large negatives generated from my digital camera.

I am working on a file right now, a 7x17 that is about 200mb large (no upsampling, BTW...). The digital negative looks beautiful, and my first test strip is actually in the plate burner right now.

My options were to purchase a Canham 12x20 *OR* a Nikon D2x. Since I am primarily a commercial photographer and need to make a living, I purchased the D2x. It is also a wonderful tool for generating digital negatives.

Don't start into a 'digital negs aren't as good as in-camera negs' bash-fest. I'd have to agree with you in most respects.

But, for now, the digital camera is facilitating my ULF negatives and my alternative process printing.

The 12x20 (or 7x17) looms in my future. I already have a 24 inch Red Dot for it when the time comes...

 

[laz]

For those who are only happy with the quality of a contact print, digital will never be good enough, even if the backs become available at prices everbody can afford.

I believe we can all agree on that Jorge. But what I mean is with more people shooting any type of picture more will be tempted to explore film and especially LF because of that quality only a contact print can provide.

Kinda like that adage that any publicity is good whether positive or negitive.

-Bob

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Digital, for me at least, has made my recent foray into ULF affordable.

It may not appeal to the APUG'ers much, but all of my alt. processes in the forseeable future will be from very large negatives generated from my digital camera.
...
But, for now, the digital camera is facilitating my ULF negatives and my alternative process printing.

The 12x20 (or 7x17) looms in my future. I already have a 24 inch Red Dot for it when the time comes...

I'm curious. What content on APUG interests you? Is it the discussions of alternative printing process?

 

[roteague]

Michael, I hope you are able to get your ULF camera.

 

[laz]

Warning Will Robinson Warning! Incoming digi vs. ana possible, take cover!

 

[Jorge]

I believe we can all agree on that Jorge. But what I mean is with more people shooting any type of picture more will be tempted to explore film and especially LF because of that quality only a contact print can provide.

Kinda like that adage that any publicity is good whether positive or negitive.

-Bob

Not necessarily IMO. ALthough there are more people taking pictures, quality and/or the perception of quality has diminished and people have accepted it. Compare any 1 hour photo done today with one done from negatives a few years back and you will see a definite lack of quality in the present prints being made. People dont care unless they are into photography. Couple that with the hype being advertised in the magazines and IMO more people shooting digital does not necessarily translates into people wanting better quality, unless they happen to see a contact print. Since galleries and Museums are now actively selling and showing huge ink jet prints, the chances of people seeing contact prints and/or well done silver prints are less and less every year.

I think the market will have to saturate with ink jet prints so that the difference becomes apparent.

 

[jimgalli]

Did somebody say the "d" word? I think LF has always had 2 camps. Those who were striving to make fine art and landed in LF or ULF and came to love it, and those who were striving to make a living and were forced there in order to get the quality they required, but hated it. As lens technology came of age medium format become the medium for many pro jobs. It was portable enough and good enough.

What has happened and is happening now will never happen again. The pro shops have finally got a digital product that approaches and is equivalent to, perhaps in some ways even better than medium format.

So the group that hated the big cameras but was always forced to use them has finally been allowed to abandon the behemoths. We've watched waves of this stuff finding new homes via Ebay. We're still seeing it and will likely see it for a time to come. That has re-aligned prices enough that a lot of folks just like me, baby boomer that is struggling against a pre-packaged throw away world, can purchase high end old world quality at bargain basement prices. 15 years ago I looked at the LF stuff and shook my head. That was as far fetched for me as a Lamborghini. Now I've got a garage full of it.........and I love them all.

 

[roteague]

Warning Will Robinson Warning! Incoming digi vs. ana possible, take cover!

I don't think so. I don't see Michael's posts as extolling the virtues of digital. He says that his use of it is for work purposes, and while I think he probably could do some of his commercial work on film, that is a decision/choice that belongs to him. I think Michael would excel with Alt Processes once he gets the ULF camera he wants.

 

[lee]

I agree with most of what Senor Jorge says and will add that the inkjets I have see lately are getting better and better.

lee\c

 

[roteague]

What has happened and is happening now will never happen again. The pro shops have finally got a digital product that approaches and is equivalent to, perhaps in some ways even better than medium format.

Hmmm, Fuji Velvia will resolve to equal about 25MP in 35mm in terms of sharpness, that is higher than the largest 22MP/16MP sensors out there now.

 

[roteague]

Not necessarily IMO. ALthough there are more people taking pictures, quality and/or the perception of quality has diminished and people have accepted it.

Yes!! I recently saw some new work that Colin Prior did on a Cannon digital camera; the images were flat, lacked sharpness. A far cry from his 6x17 Velvia work. But, he doesn't seem to notice it.

 

[jimgalli]

Yes!! I recently saw some new work that Colin Prior did on a Cannon digital camera; the images were flat, lacked sharpness. A far cry from his 6x17 Velvia work. But, he doesn't seem to notice it.

I also have a friend like this. He's far more forgiving of the end product that he spent the huge "d" bucks for than I am. His stuff looks like s**t to me compared to the old stuff from the Velvia. Funny how spending 10's of thousands of $$$$$ can blind you to that.

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

I'm curious. What content on APUG interests you? Is it the discussions of alternative printing process?

Well...I'm an old-school photographer, trained on the 4x5, 8x10, Zone, Pyro, etc.... Mixed all my developers from scratch (i.e. the raw chemicals), for years. Embraced the digital era early on, but never forgot my roots, and was glad for my training in the wet darkroom.

I had the only archival B&W rental darkroom in Portland, Oregon for several years.

I have had training in Platinum, Carbon, Photogravure and other alt. processes. Yes, it is that forum that interests me most, and the Grey Area where digital and analog collide is also very intriguing. It is, as far as I know, the only place on the web that analog and digital can get along harmoniously.

I am returning to school after 10 years to get my MFA in photography. The bulk of the work for my degree will center around alt. processes and very large negatives. I plan to make many in-camera negatives and produce a body of work where both analog ULF and digital ULF negatives/prints will be displayed.

The caliber of participants in the alt. processes forum here on APUG is astonishing. I am considering the interaction there to be a large part of my education.

Let's not start a digi vs. analog debate. It's pointless IMO.

 

[laz]

Not necessarily IMO. ALthough there are more people taking pictures, quality and/or the perception of quality has diminished and people have accepted it. Compare any 1 hour photo done today with one done from negatives a few years back and you will see a definite lack of quality in the present prints being made. People dont care unless they are into photography. Couple that with the hype being advertised in the magazines and IMO more people shooting digital does not necessarily translates into people wanting better quality, unless they happen to see a contact print. Since galleries and Museums are now actively selling and showing huge ink jet prints, the chances of people seeing contact prints and/or well done silver prints are less and less every year.

I think the market will have to saturate with ink jet prints so that the difference becomes apparent.

Again Jorge there's not much in what you say I disagree with. But I still have a nagging suspicion that any picture taking increases the chances that someone will discover analog and advance to film.

Of course with all the photo mags gone or going digital that analog exists at all may well become a well kept secret!

 

[lee]

Michael,

if you have not hooked up with Robert Hall (apug member) in SLC and seen his cameras you might try contacting him here with a PM. He does what you want to do and he does it mighty well.

lee\c

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

Michael,

if you have not hooked up with Robert Hall (apug member) in SLC and seen his cameras you might try contacting him here with a PM. He does what you want to do and he does it mighty well.

lee\c

Lee,

I met Robert this summer while he was exhibiting at a local arts fair. We talked for quite a while, I got his card, then promptly lost it.

I bumped into a post here on APUG.org that he had replied in. I was so excited to re-connect, that I immediately sent him an e-mail and we arranged to have breakfast.

Breakfast turned into lunch, we showed each other work and had a wonderful meeting. I consider him to be an excellent photographer, and hope to be able to continue our friendship for years to come.

I tried to talk him into letting me 'store' his plate-burner for him in my basement while he's not using it. He politely declined, which spurred me to go and find my own. Now that I've got the plate-burner there's no stopping me!

 

[smieglitz]

I'll add that exploring digital negatives for contact printing really led me in the other direction. I became good enough with the digital path to make some nice alternative process prints but at the end of the day felt very let down taking that path. And, I've always hated digital cameras for anything but a quick visual sketch.

As a result I've since totally abandoned the digital route and started disposing of many of my film cameras too. In fact, I doubt I'll ever use another 35mm or medium-format film camera again.

I've settled on 11x14 and 5x7 format cameras and have recently used these and a couple others (4x5 Graflex, etc.) to do wetplate collodion. While I won't say I have totally abandoned film at this point, the wetplate process is so intriguing to me that I may never shoot another sheet of film.

You know that feeling that you first got (and the persistence of it every time since) when your first print came up in the developer? Multiply that feeling a hundred-fold and imagine it happening as you hold the developing image in your hand. That's the feeling I get doing wetplate. It is magical and alchemical. I smile, giggle, laugh-out-loud every time I see the image form on the plate in my hand.

While I'd hate to see it happen, I am able to say at this point that film could die and it wouldn't bother me.

 

[Kimberly Anderson]

I'll add that exploring digital negatives for contact printing really led me in the other direction.

And THAT my friends, is what amazes me so much about art and the individual expression.

Give 2 seperate people similar circumstances and they'll churn out two completely different ideas.

Wet plate sounds awesome! Maybe some day.

 

[mark]

Again Jorge there's not much in what you say I disagree with. But I still have a nagging suspicion that any picture taking increases the chances that someone will discover analog and advance to film.

Of course with all the photo mags gone or going digital that analog exists at all may well become a well kept secret!

The only ones who would be interested in going to film are those who would be interested in going to LF. That is not a lot of people. Definately not your average Joe SnapShooter. Of course the average Joe Snapshooter will not be interested in a big ol view camera anway. I like what Gallie had to say.

When I mention, on other boards, that I am an avid photo junky I always get asked the same question: "what camera do you have?" My answer is quickly followed by: "When are you going to get a real camera, you know like a good digital camera?"

 

[Allen Friday]

Michael Slade's comments above regarding his ULF work raises an issue for me. That is, what is the definition of an ultra-large format photographer.

I consider myself to be in that group. I photograph using 11x14, 12x20, 20 x 24 and other ULF cameras. I use only in-camera negatives and contact print on Azo and Platinum. I don't think anyone will argue that I am not a ULF photographer.

My issue, however, is whether one must use a ULF camera to be considered a ULF photographer? Is the use of ULF film, alone, somewhere in the process enough to make one a ULF photographer? Michael talks about his current ULF work which is taken on a 35mm size digital camera, enlarged in photoshop and contact printed using an alternative processes. Does making an enlarged negative make one a ULF photographer?

This is not a digital vs analog issue. One can make enlarged negs in photoshop or in a darkroom using copy film or ortho film by creating an enlarged film positive and negative.

I suppose the same issues arise when someone shoots 35 mm film and creates a 8x10 neg in the darkroom for contact printing. Does the use of 8x10 film for making the enlarged negative make the photographer a "Large Format Photographer"?

My initial leaning would be to limit the definition of LF and ULF to people who are making in-camera negs on large format film. What are your thoughts?