It’s all about size. As is now, 8K only makes sense with projection. Or with unnaturally close inspection of the relatively small screens possible.
Ultimately (IMO), one's tools shapes how one works, as well as shapes the work itself.
As an artist, choosing tools is an artistic decision.
Well said, and my choice to stick with black and white has actually opened up more options for me than it has limited me. Sticking with one “tool” is allowing me more opportunities than I could have ever imagined. I say limit yourself to a set of tools and you will grow far more than your realize.
Why large format?
I visited Best Buy and they're selling 8K Tv's As far as I know, Hollywood isn't filming in 8K, no one has the bandwidth to receive 8K, no one is transmitting it except as an experiment.
It's like camera manufacturers upping the resolution game for years much higher than 99% of the people need just to create a new market each time to sell stuff.
If you can't see the difference between 2K and 4K, how would you see anything better with 8K?
Sorry, but I have a slight defect that does not allow me to pass up the chance to say that on the GG, we see the image upside down (or downside up), but not backwards.
But my 4k TV definitely has a sharper image than my previous 1080p unit. I can easily tell the difference between 1080p and 2160p. I've seen the math that categorically states, if our eyes were digital, that there is no point to anything about 720p, but empirically, it's BS.
How would digital eyes even work? No such thing as a digital sensor.
The bigger resolution also makes the motion artifacts that results from the sample and hold, magnified by the saccades of our eyes, that is the basis of updating of any LCD and OLED screen.
Sorry, I tend to take verbal shortcuts sometimes. The argument is that human eyes have a specific resolving power which is immutable (and based on the idea of a camera sensor, hence my comment about "digital eyes"), and that even a lowly 1K display at 12 feet (4m) displays pixels that the human eye is incapable of resolving, thus, no one needs even a 1080P display screen.
Personally, I find this argument to be similar to the ones that claimed people would suffocate above 30 miles per hour in a car, or that bumblebees can't fly-- if empirical evidence contradicts your calculations, the calculations must be suspect.
But my 4k TV definitely has a sharper image than my previous 1080p unit. I can easily tell the difference between 1080p and 2160p. I've seen the math that categorically states, if our eyes were digital, that there is no point to anything about 720p, but empirically, it's BS.
This is one of the reasons I'm using more and more 4x5. The imagery that comes from 4x5 is a more refined way of seeing a scene. It would be like family pictures compared too environmental portraitureUltimately (IMO), one's tools shapes how one works, as well as shapes the work itself.
As an artist, choosing tools is an artistic decision.
I've run both 1080 uprezed to 2160 and 2160 innate on a 4K screen one right after the other. I just can't tell the difference from 14 feet back. I do grant you that sometimes the 4K seems sharper. But the difference is so negligible, it's hard to tell. Of course, if I sit closer, it becomes more noticeable. How far back do you view and what size is your TV?
1080 has a lot of artifacts that 2160 does not. But from 14 feet, you can't see them. They are noticeable from up close. I suppose they do create less clarity, but gee, I find it hard to see. Maybe my eyes are getting old.
I could give all kinds of technical arguments in favor of large format. But how about a subjective response to "why"? ... Cause it's darn fun !
I agree as long as it is understood that in this case the photographer is doing the actual refining -- guided and aided by the tool, not just because of the tool's use. And I will add that this refinement can be achieved without LF...and of course definement* can be achieved with LF. One should be careful about using tools as crutches, as handy as they can be at times. Although my Gitxo tripod (Reporter series) came in handy as a hiking aid when backpacking in and along Redwood Creek last week. Only one fall -- slipped on some slippery pollywogs, I think. Not too wet.This is one of the reasons I'm using more and more 4x5. The imagery that comes from 4x5 is a more refined way of seeing a scene. It would be like family pictures compared too environmental portraiture
I was not entirely happy with the heftiness of the Gitzo for both berry vine bashing and creek crossing, but in the tighter places amongst the blackberries, it was easier to use against the vines than the Ries would have been (and the weight would have stopped me...I was freshly coming off a bout of Covid). I had a bottle of Scotch with me (transferred to a flask for the hike) to share with any of my hairy brothers who might come by. None did, so I actually hiked out with some still in the flask. Buchanan's Deluxe Blended Scotch. Not too bad...a gift for watching a friend's dog for a few days. They would have liked it...A big wooden tripod with spike feet is better for whacking nettles or poison oak vines out of the way, or for defending oneself against a Sasquatch attack in the woods. One more valid reason for LF photography.
Going back to a much earlier question when the thread was still at least marginally on-topic, one of the reasons FOR large format is depth-of-field control. Note I said control, not overall depth-of-field. Because of the ability to apply movements, you can more precisely place the depth-of-field where you want/need it, and it also helps when you need to use a larger aperture so you can use a faster shutter speed to control movement, for example. Also when doing still life/tabletop/macro, being able to control what is in or out of focus at any given aperture is a big plus.
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?