Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why A MF forum, when it sucks ?  (Read 20549 times)
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« on: September 10, 2007, 07:23:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe it's just me or I have a bad day.
I always loved visiting this forum because it was one of the few places that talked about Medium format in a very positive way.

The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.

To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.

I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.

If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?

Looking at the level of the MF shooters (mostly pros with great work) it can't be that they are all crazy or seeing makebelieve stories......

Just had to post this sorry.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 07:23:44 AM by Frank Doorhof » Logged
Natasa Stojsic
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139



« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2007, 07:38:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maybe it's just me or I have a bad day.
I always loved visiting this forum because it was one of the few places that talked about Medium format in a very positive way.

The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.

To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.

I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.

If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?

Looking at the level of the MF shooters (mostly pros with great work) it can't be that they are all crazy or seeing makebelieve stories......

Just had to post this sorry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I switched to MF system from Canon 1DsmkII and I realize the difference.

However, I don't feel the same way as you do, because "[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']Life is not one way tickect[/span]" So I can't expect everybody to agree, as much as I can't expect everybody to desagree.

Your work is beautiful and that is what matters!

Let it be  
BEATLES
Logged

[span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'][span style='color:black']N a t a s a   S t o j s i c[/span][/span][span style='color:gray']  .......................................................................................................................................... [/span]
[span style='color:gray']PHASE[/span][span style='color:skyblue']ONE[/span] [span style='color:gray']P30[span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%']+[/span][/span]| [span style='color:red']MAMIYA[/span] [span style='color:gray']645 AFD II [/span]  [span style='font-family:impact'][span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'][span style='color:#98AFC7'] | 28mm f4.5 D. AF | 35mm f3.5 AF | 55-110mm f4.5 AF Zoom | 80mm f2.8 AF | 120mm f4.0 MF Macro | 150mm f3.5 AF[/span][/span][/span]
Mark_Tucker
Guest
« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2007, 07:39:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Put down the bottle, Frank, take the bullet out of the chamber, and step away from the bar. We called you a cab, and it'll be here soon.

The truth is a hard thing to hear.

Now go home, get a shower, brush your teeth, get some sleep, and it'll all be fine in the morning. No one's taking away your MF camera.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 07:41:40 AM by Mark_Tucker » Logged
vgogolak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2007, 07:41:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Dear Frank

I thank you for the guts to start this thread. I too would like to see more exchange on the MFDB and the cameras and lenses. As an old Contax 645 proponent, I must admit I an intrigued by the new Hy6 and the backs. Bodes well for MF.

As far as the MF vs DSLR, the "they can't afford it so try to argue CONIKON just as good better" comments seems to be a nasty slight to people who are making genuine trade offs for business. However, in the DC area, there is still a feeling amongs the wedding BUYERS that MF is better (you use CN, no; you use hassey? good)

This may be old thinking and  of course the images are important, but not the only thing.Vermeer spent hours preparing tools, otherwise the image was not 'perfect' to him.

MF has the resolution, 3D, sharpness without artifacts (actually technically this is the MAIN advantage of MF vs 135 or at least the 20 vs 39 MP argument. The sharpness is there at 25-50% without sharpening.)

I use Leica DMR as well as P45 Contax. They each have their place. I took DMR on a 12 mile 3k ft trekk and the C/P45 on a 'drive around sounthern France" Each did what is could to get the best image.

Then there is the 'touch' The reason may play Steinway. Can Beckstein'Boesen do as well? maybe, but the artist likes the touch.

SO, I appeal to the 'pro SLR will win the digi race" crowd to look at all facts (and here the MF wins!  :-) and the MF crowd to recognize 30lbs extra in a backpack (or $30k extra in expenses) is not good business.

Then lets talk lens!!!!

Zeiss (even the 80mm 2.0 is GREAT only 2 stops up)  Leica is the only lens optimized withing the first two stops. From and optical POV, 80mm 2.0 contax was never designed for sharpness; just to get the edge in dark, and give up some resolution(BTW, most compalins of wide-open fuzziness is likely due to small DOF and missed focus, at least in the center. I have some pretty good 2.0 center shots, by luck!)

But then again, I may be wrong  ( :-)  

Regards
Victor
Logged
Snook
Guest
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2007, 07:42:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I seriuosly believe that it was guys coming from the film days that already had the equipment and were used to using MF. Also they got into it about 5-7 years ago so at that time digital was not quite there, atleast in 35mm format. I started photography with Medium format and when digital came along I had to try the 1Ds. which was a great camera. Where I live the clients do not print that great and mostlly everything for magazines and Billboards is FINE with a 1DsMII.
I never have had one complaint.
I am moving towards MFDB now because I want to.
Although it is an expensive move I will do it for my own personal pleasure of shooting MF again.
Also I do not plan on printing bigger than magazine or Billboard so the 1DsMII or MIII is just fine.
I think the differnce Now a days is not ALL that different between the 2.
I think the Big time New York guys have been trapped into using the HassleBlads etc.. as a cult, not necessarily for the Quality. Unless they are printing for themselves at over 2'X4' (feet). for Gallery type prints.
For Magazines I doubt you will see any difference between the MFDB and a 1DsMII or MIII.
Another pro for MFDB is that you can probably crop in later in post and still have room to spare. Not the case on a 1DsMII.
Just my opinion but I believe most of the MFDB is hype in the Pro Market.
In any case I am moving there. Just got the AFDII and  a couple of lens's.
Snook
Logged
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1134


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2007, 07:42:22 AM »
ReplyReply

i think it has a lot of sense to point out where hype starts ( of course in my opinion ) and where the reality stays.
i myself use 2 mf backs and cameras, and as described several times, i know and i share wherefore this is useful for my work and why it serves my needs.
but if i share so much in public as i do i feel responsible in some way not to create illusions, which only can be destroyed after the cheque is written or the leasing contract is signed. blind enthusiasm and lack of realism are not useful here.
and this is what i see in many posts, which create expectations which are simply of from the reality what can deliver an actual mf system.
i don`t think that praising mf as the superduper solution for people who miss magic in their images is a way which is helping anyone.
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2373


« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2007, 07:48:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Especially at 100% I see a world of difference between my MFDB and any DSLR. In print, the same thing.

As long a I can remember people with 35mm systems tried to get results as good as MF. Now they feel they are getting close while things where 35mm always have excelled haven't changed (portability, speed, ease of use, AF, Tele, etc.).

Anyway. I don't think that to be particularly important.

It is much more about whether you like to work with MF or not. I love the more slow and deliberate type of working. It makes me think longer and harder. I found that significantly improved my compositional skills (and that is even without using the larger finder). Just as with film (I was always short on money in that time and always tried to use as few frames as possible to get the image I was after) I try to get 'it' in as few takes as possible. This also diminishes the amount of time needed for postprocessing (I sometimes even have to force myself to make a bit more images just for insurance or please my client that is watching over my shoulder).

Could I do the same with a DSLR? Sure, maybe, don't know but I much rather to it with my DigiFlex (no meter, only MF, great glass and the best thinkable digital imager) or other MF tool. It makes me feel good and that is the only thing that counts (plus salable images).


@Mark


           ROTFLMAO
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 07:49:12 AM by Dustbak » Logged
SeanPuckett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2007, 07:53:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice thing about threaded forums -- you don't have to read threads you don't like, and are always free to start one you do.  

Me, I'm still waiting to hear if Mamiya is going to pull their heads out of their... uh, fix the overly-aggressive noise reduction on the ZD Back firmware.  Although some of the talk of ISO25 backs has really got my interest piqued.  Most of my shooting is at ISO100 but I'd be happy to go lower -- often I just can't get shutter speeds fast enough to expose well (yeah, yeah ND filter yeah yeah).
Logged

samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2007, 08:39:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maybe it's just me or I have a bad day.
I always loved visiting this forum because it was one of the few places that talked about Medium format in a very positive way.

The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.

To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.

I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.

If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?

Looking at the level of the MF shooters (mostly pros with great work) it can't be that they are all crazy or seeing makebelieve stories......

Just had to post this sorry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frank, there's a lot of people here that aren't using DB or even a MF camera, and still like to make comparisons without having enought experience of the system. The MF experience happens when you take that camera you like so much in your hands, in the field, or in the studio when you see the results, not comparing web jpegs. You know that and that what counts  
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 08:41:47 AM by samuel_js » Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2007, 08:43:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Frank,

I got serious into photography with F100 and Velvia 50. I am sure you remember the small waterfall I shot here in Korea with my ZD camera. One week ago, from same shoot I (finally) got my Velvia 50 from my Mamya 7II back. Wow! Awesome. 6x7 slides.... my first Velvia from my 7. Awesome. 6x7. They really looks awesome. From such small light camera with a BIG hole in it for film. Shocks... so simple thing... a film box with great lens.

ZD? You know my situation, so of course my mind keeps going... MF vs. DSLR. I need something I can depend on for 5, maybe 8 years. I am only a hobbyist. What is 1Ds Mk III? How much dynamic range? Ah... but D3... suprice, some new technology can make difference. Only 12MP, does not interest me... yet ... the rumored Nikon high resolution to compete with 1Ds Mk III... but... is it close enough to MF? Well... if Nikon as impressive done their homework there.. speculations... torturing brain... Puh... ZD... DR, exposure latitude... but... on other hand DSLR... flexibility... AND... cheaper to replace sensor in five years if it breaks!

Mmm... Canon focus problems... Nikon banding... hm. Image matters, but for me much image quality, and being able to capture. Now I am all confused truthfully. Yet, the ZD camera, it has the best controls, menus, buttons of any digital camera I read of, seen or held, really bright finder. In end... perhaps come down to money... we shall see.... perhaps what happens happen.

Medium format throws out of focus more rapid than the 135 based digital, does it not? because of the different multiplication factor or... angle from sensor for "equal" lens? That makes difference also...

Definently I do not want back to DX for real serious photography though. Because DX ***really sucks***.... (at least to me)  

Anders


Edit: I should add.... from D200 to ZD... colors, DR, exposure latitude... pleasure work with files. The feeling of being back to   PHOTOGRAPHING AGAIN  , a real upgrade to my F100, not the crappy D50 or D200....  feeling of focuse on photographing instead of gear... then ZD issue... and D3... Mmmm.... can 1Ds Mk III or D3??? high resolution of 20-24MP be same??? Any comment?Huh


Edit #2: Looking throught my near 500 selection of images from my grand photographic journey in 2003: travel round the world for 2.5 months with my F100. That is when I picked up Velvia 50. Awesome. Most of those photos I could have made with a medium format and to higher quality (of course now I propably have more skills in photography   ). Yet, parts of photos I would have not been able to capture with medium format. It is all trade offs. The added quality is nice... but all tradeoffs...  The question is what is right tool for our needs. Digital has really throwed me off there. F100 and Velvia was simple, but too small now. AND, it took me months full time to scan the slides from that trip... 80 rolls.... although not all photos at full resolution. That journey though is what taught me photography. Before and after it I read John Shaw and others. It was amazing what I had learnt on the run...  Now though I try be more slective in photos:P

Truth is, in some ways I should have stayed FILM. Digital makes me more consider gear. What I really enjoy is taking photo; PHOTOGRAPHY. Now lets see... what FILM?? Velvia in my Mamiya 7 for sure. Then SENSOR... ZD, Nikon 20+ MP, Canon 1Ds Mk III... or does it really matter... as long as solid for many years?Huh  
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 09:38:39 AM by Anders_HK » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2007, 08:47:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maybe it's just me or I have a bad day.
I always loved visiting this forum because it was one of the few places that talked about Medium format in a very positive way.

The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.

To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.

I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.

If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?

Looking at the level of the MF shooters (mostly pros with great work) it can't be that they are all crazy or seeing makebelieve stories......

Just had to post this sorry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Frank,
I guess I am amongst those who have antagonised you. Sorry if I've offended you. My intention is really just to get at the truth.

Let me explain my position. I have no doubt that a larger sensor with more pixels will tend to produce clearer, sharper, smoother and generally more impressive results, especially when coupled with a lens that is at least the equal of the 35mm equivalent.

You've shown some impressive images in that other thread but I'm not so inexperienced as to believe that 'impressive' means better than an unseen image from another camera that is not yet available.

The placebo effect is a very real effect. It's estimated that around 30% (on average) of the efficacy of tried and tested antibiotics is due to the placebo effect. Those who have complete faith in acapuncture can undergo major operations without an anesthetic.

When people who are used to shooting with MF equipment and who find it easier to be creative when looking at a screen with both eyes instead of squinting through a viewfinder with one eye, and who can afford to buy the best equipment without much deliberation, then I don't necessarily expect them to be able to demonstrate those subtle differences between the lower end MFDB and the higher end 35mm DSLR.  

But it would be nice if they would try   .
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2007, 09:21:26 AM »
ReplyReply

LOL at Mark,
Still waiting for that bloody cab


Don't feel I'm angry or antagonised, I'm not.
I do find it strange however that there is so much doubt and discussion.

Or maybe it's just me I guess.
Maybe my 5D sucked

I'm not afraid my MF will be taken away, although I will guard it with my life now untill the cab arrives that is  (can you trust a cabbie over there ?)

I was just stunned by the explosion I witnessed the last few days, never thought it could happen with a subject like this.
Logged
canmiya
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2007, 09:55:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Maybe it's just me or I have a bad day.
I always loved visiting this forum because it was one of the few places that talked about Medium format in a very positive way.

The last few days however I'm getting more and more the feeling the Medium format system is laughed at and the photographers using it downgraded to guys who are blind, believe in the placebo effect or just don't know what they are doing.

To be honest, it bugs me so I made this post.

I understand that most people don't use MF, for several reasons.
HOWEVER why is it so difficult to just believe the differences.

If it was IMPOSSIBLE to detect the difference between a MF system and a DSLR why do people spend so much money for an according to most inferieur system ?

Looking at the level of the MF shooters (mostly pros with great work) it can't be that they are all crazy or seeing makebelieve stories......

Just had to post this sorry.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Frank,
I may get skewered for this but here it goes:  I would not call the dslr system inferior- it is different.  Perhaps this is one of the problem that is fueling the debate.  Essentially you  have told people on several forum boards that the 645afd2ZD, and now the Mamiya-Leaf  combo "smokes" Canon.  You also indicated that the 3D look of mf digital was a major reason for you making the switch.  There are plenty of people who feel that with either "exotic " glass (which you acknowleged you had not tried) or with  appropriate post processing and adjustments to things like micro contrast and contrast among others, using Canon lenses,  that they can or have been able to  achieve greater dimensionality in their images. I don't remember it, but nowhere in those early post where you were singing the praises of Mf digital was the concept of lighting  as it related to the sense of dimension mentioned.
The discussion regarding the 1ds3 sample has also been interesting but imo meaningless, as images and crops  taken with  the  stellar  110 RZ lens, and the outstanding 645 af 120 macro , are pitted against a shot  that is 1) less than optimal and 2) was taken with a wonderful lens  at an aperture  which was not meant to show the greatest detail.
 
You have  in this forum have equated artistry with Mf digital:  Mf digital equals artist, dslr equals photographer.  Some may agree with that, and some may find that notion  pretty elitist.  There are plenty of artist out there who use a variety of formats and media--like film.  There are also plenty of people out here for whom the cost of admission to MF digital is unacceptibly high, unaffordable, or impractical for multiple reasons.   While I applaud your enthusiasm and your willingness to share your experiences as you try new tools, I can't help  but wonder whether some of the reactions which are bothering you are the  cumulative effects of  dialogue (some of which may have been taken out of context)  that you have been in part and or directly responsible for over the past three or so months.
 
The fact is that none of these formats are "the be all, end all" and the cameras aren't either.  The EOS system may be more versatile, but it is not perfect, nor are the MF options.    It comes down to choosing the appropriate system which your wallet will support and will allow you to achieve your vision.   Too often the discussion between digital formats, mirror the discussions within formats: 1.5 or 1.6 vs. full frame,  with no definitive conclusion and with some people feeling some of what you have articulated .

What difference does it matter what other people think about what  you are shooting with?  If  it makes you happy  and you are able to satisfy your clients, that's all that matters.      

And as for people not being able to see the difference between the dimensionality of a mf digital and dslr image:  people see different degrees of things when they look at anything.  Take an image of a reclining woman:  Some people see a pretty woman in the image and that's all they see.   Other  people may be able to see beyond that and notice the folds in the fabric which gives dress  shape or how the light falls on the hair and makes it pop.  On the other hand, some people may not even think the woman is pretty, or find the pose is flattering or even interesting.  We are different people with different ideas and different vision.
Regards.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 10:44:24 AM by canmiya » Logged
H1/A75 Guy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 230


« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2007, 09:58:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I was just stunned by the explosion I witnessed the last few days, never thought it could happen with a subject like this.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

Frank, In reality I think you may inadvertantly started the MF/DSLR war with your earlier comparison of the 5D to the ZD (something akin to the guy with his mystical WMDs). I'm still tickled you got a (albeit 14 bit) A22.

Mark T, I've looked at your website. Had your work been done with polaroid as in (2) 600 SEs I would have been suitably impressed, I actually mean that in a nice way, just to give you something to think about other then DMF.

In the meantime, we are all doomed to read these MF/DSLR rants until us MF'ers sign either sign-off, or until October 18th (US time) when the real business of the Hy6/AFi warms up. I'm optomistic that we all have allot to look forward to.

David
Logged
David Blankenship
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #14 on: September 10, 2007, 10:08:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Put down the bottle, Frank, take the bullet out of the chamber, and step away from the bar. We called you a cab, and it'll be here soon.

The truth is a hard thing to hear.

Now go home, get a shower, brush your teeth, get some sleep, and it'll all be fine in the morning. No one's taking away your MF camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138378\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mark is one of only a handful of photographers who could make superb images with a Hoga or Quaker Oats pin hole camera,  not to mention a Canon 1DS.  For the rest of us we may well indeed need the advantage of MFDB affords.  

What keeps me interested in Medium Format is the real estate in the viewfinder, it slows me down and I think a little clearer about what I am trying to create.  The  slightly greater quailty doesn't hurt either.      

db
Logged
paulmoorestudio
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2007, 10:14:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I have to say that for most work, in final print or on the screen you might not see a difference.. nor would you see a difference between a film 2-and-quarter and 8x10 film, resolution-wise..but in original form, how I see it, how it is delivered,  a good art director, production manager, art buyer, etc.. how they will see it, there is a difference..if mfdb gives me a superior image for my portfolio then I want it..and it does, period.
most guys don't need it if thinking only about final media by that client on that day..but I think that is short sighted for photographers who do work which ranges from 72dpi web stuff to spead ads or larger pos pieces to shoot one format and that a small one.
 I was once shooting a job for the web and the client came back in 6 months and wanted it for
sales brochure and trade show display... well my then d1 and tiny little tiffs were not up for the task, my now leica/dmr would make it..with help.. more suited for my rollei and mfdb..
Logged

Mark_Tucker
Guest
« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2007, 10:26:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Medium format throws out of focus more rapid than the 135 based digital, does it not? because of the different multiplication factor or... angle from sensor for "equal" lens? That makes difference also...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just for comparison, here is a silly little personal project I did several years ago. No idea what camera it was; probably the original 1ds. But the lens was the 85 1.2, shot wide open. Streetcorner, available light. Dimension and fall-off is appealing to me. It ain't 8x10, but those people never would have waited for me to stumble around and load holders:

[a href=\"http://www.marktucker.com/07faces/]http://www.marktucker.com/07faces/[/url]

Could this have been shot with the Hasselblad 100mm 2.2, or the Contax 80 at f2, with medium-format? Certainly. But clearly, this one Canon lens has a unique look to it, and unlike other fast Canon lenses, at wide open, it's still tack sharp.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2007, 10:34:44 AM by Mark_Tucker » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3649



WWW
« Reply #17 on: September 10, 2007, 10:26:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
MF has the resolution, 3D, sharpness without artifacts (actually technically this is the MAIN advantage of MF vs 135 or at least the 20 vs 39 MP argument.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138379\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I used a H3 with the 39M back and was appalled by the nasty artifacting at 400 ISO. Yuck. So not quite the case.
As for the software Hasselblad provide. FlexColour is one of the worst bits of software I've ever used. I'm sure the name is a misprint. Surely it's Flexcolour 0.47, not 4.7, judging by the interface and 'usability'. I'm just using it now, what an awful programme.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2373


« Reply #18 on: September 10, 2007, 10:40:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just for comparison, here is a silly little personal project I did several years ago. No idea what camera it was; probably the original 1ds. But the lens was the 85 1.2, shot wide open. Streetcorner, available light. Dimension and fall-off is appealing to me. It ain't 8x10, but those people never would have waited for me to stumble around and load holders:

http://www.marktucker.com/07faces/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138419\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I like it. Nice. Real people. Great idea!

I have done something similar but with the 503 with WLF. I noticed people on the street react very positively on being photographed that way. Maybe the (in their eyes) big antique-looking camera takes the edge of being photographed. Like they think you are less threatening and just a silly person (which might be not too far fram the truth).
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3649



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2007, 10:41:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have to say that for most work, in final print or on the screen you might not see a difference.. nor would you see a difference between a film 2-and-quarter and 8x10 film, resolution-wise..but in original form, how I see it, how it is delivered,  a good art director, production manager, art buyer, etc.. how they will see it, there is a difference..if mfdb gives me a superior image for my portfolio then I want it..and it does, period.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some of the most popular images in my folio were taken on an Ixus II. That's a 2.1m auto everything camera. So what was your point again?  
Obviously for billboards/car photography A MF back will be better from a quality point of view, but better images... that's another issue.
I do think the fact that with MF DB, your shoot rate is lower and the usually cameras are clumsier and slower to work with is what makes for a different picture taking experience. Shooting slower can be a very good thing. It makes for a more considered photograph. I always found my hit rate for my Pentax 6x7 was as good per roll as it was for a roll of 35mm. I had less shots, so I took more care per shot. Making MF DBs as fast as a DSLR may not be a good thing.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad