Shift in thinking...

[Trask]

+ 1*1023

Isn’t that still 1?

Jack Straw: you suggested that a series of images, even if not perfect, is a sort of sketchbook. If memory serves, Cartier-Bresson thought of himself as an artist/painter, with his Leica as a sort of sketchbook where he kept ideas and images he encountered. And IIRC he had a pretty good career!

 

[awty]

A number of years ago I cut a 4 x5 inch rectangle in a Kodak grey card. I attached a string (with knots) that I hold to my chin that allow me to 'see the framing' that my 75mm, 150mm and 240mm lenses from a given 'position'. I drop my hat at that spot, The move the selected lens mounted on my monorail as close to that chosen spot. I may then adjust the lens or the film standard for the 'best' final framing of what I want to record to the film. It ends up saving a LOT of both time and effort for 'other' images that may be worthy of "recording' to film within my allotted 'creative time'.

Ken

I just use a phone app (like a directors view finder) that uses the phones camera, lets me choose format and lens size, can even set to black and white.......but there is not much challenge in that.

 

[michr]

Digital vs film is so outdated talk...


I choose from something like twenty films. I'm not sure if 17 $ bottle of rodinal and 15$ fixer which lasts for year are any cost at all in self developing.
But tripod and such are good points on why I think LF is not worth it.
I print from expired Kodak cinefilm as well which cost next to nothing, BTW.

You're right that I dropped film to focus on digital, but my point would be the same even if I had quit photography altogether. It was just a whole lot more fun when I had a local lab where I could get slides or prints made, or get the negatives back so that I could scan them. Now it's work. And because it's work, I feel myself emphasizing making each shot count so I don't waste time and materials. There are only so many mountaintop photos. Given the investment of time to develop my own film, all the mediocre trail photography is just not worth the candle. Instead the effort involved in digital photography is a much better match for those subjects and ideas which are not worthy of a great investment.

Film vs. digital was the choice I had to make in order to keep enjoying photography. So regardless of how outdated the conversation is, there are still externalities to consider when choosing one's preferred media.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Isn’t that still 1?

It's 1 * 10^23, or 1 followed by 23 zero's ( or 1/6.022th of Avogadro's constant).

 

[Trask]

It's 1 * 10^23, or 1 followed by 23 zero's ( or 1/6.022th of Avogadro's constant).

I stand corrected!

 

[Vaughn]

I'm on that forum and to me it illustrates it perfectly: the smaller the format, the more interesting the images. I'm fully with Ko.Fe.

Many of us on forums are beginners at any particular format. Just because I have used an 8x10 for 30 years does not mean my move up to 11x14 has been smooth or highly 'productive' yet. I am sure some of my results so far are boring to many...especially when I like them too much and show them more than once. And like many of us, I hope to improve and make it less boring for everyone.

"I'm missing something here. If you can shoot interesting pictures in 35mm, why in the world can't you shoot that same subject in LF?"

Cameras are tools. They tend to be generalist tools, but LF is specialized enough that it is no longer the best tool for many jobs...especially quickly changing situations in low light, etc. That said, Richard Misrach could handle an 8x10 like a 35mm -- a handy skill when photographing field fires in color 8x10.

Below...a carbon print from an 11x14 negative.
FYI...I do not crop or manipulate my images, other than exposure, contrast and print color. No burning/dodging -- hopefully not too boring! LOL!

 

[jtk]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201803/26/WS5ab8661aa3105cdcf6514465.html

Chance favors the prepared mind.

Richard Misrach: