|
|
|
gwhitf
|
 |
« Reply #41 on: December 20, 2009, 02:01:22 PM » |
 Reply
|
.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 07:40:26 AM by gwhitf »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
carstenw
|
|
« Reply #42 on: December 20, 2009, 02:34:29 PM » |
Reply
|
Yes, I know. The show was Russell James, bikini shots and a few portraits. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tesfoto
|
|
« Reply #43 on: December 20, 2009, 03:14:49 PM » |
Reply
|
I go to this gallery frequently, since it is free (), close to where I work, and has regular shows from the best photographers in the world, and I am sad to report that the kinds of huge shots often done with film (6x6, 6x7, 4x5...) don't yet work that well in digital. You can often see the file breaking apart when enlarged too much. Film has lower resolution, but holds up better when enlarged to those sizes. The current show is Nick Brandt with huge prints made from 6x7 (Pentax 67 II), and then scanned at high res and Photoshopped. This works fine. I have recently bought a couple more lenses for my Hasselblad 2000, specifically for doing large prints from film. I also have a Novoflex adapter for them for my Contax/e54, but I don't expect that the digital enlargements will work as well at huge sizes. I will test it though. I think that 80-90 % of fine art photography shown in top galleries like Camera Work is analogue. I agree that for large print sizes film is still the king. The serious collectors of photography dont care at all if the print are made from a p65+ or a Pentax 67 - only LL pixl peepers care. And I'll bet they're selling them for a fortune, the market just doesn't care in the real world, the niche for very large very very high quality prints is tiny anyway especially when the market has a rather different idea of what quality is relative to photographers, the fine art market couldn't care less about 16 bit colour...
If one finds that the market is buying 'lesser quality' work at prices far and above what one can sell their 'higher quality' stuff then one has to rethink their entire strategy and maybe see that using $25,000 backs has nothing to do with print prices or popularity whatsoever. Exactly |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tesfoto
|
|
« Reply #44 on: December 20, 2009, 03:17:01 PM » |
Reply
|
Yes, I know. The show was Russell James, bikini shots and a few portraits. And both Russel James and James Russel are excellent photographers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
carstenw
|
|
« Reply #45 on: December 20, 2009, 03:37:23 PM » |
Reply
|
The serious collectors of photography dont care at all if the print are made from a p65+ or a Pentax 67 - only LL pixl peepers care. ... I am not sure if that was an insult. My point was that you could see from 3m (10') that the skin on the cheek didn't look like real skin. For a portrait of a beautiful woman, that is a real problem in my book. Just because some collectors don't see that, doesn't mean that we should all stop caring. This is not an indictment of the photos, btw, many were great. This, and a few others were just enlarged too much, IMO. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Rib
|
|
« Reply #46 on: December 20, 2009, 03:43:47 PM » |
Reply
|
I wonder if guys like Edward Burtynsky / Andreas Gursky still simply ignore all the "revolutions" in equipment and shoot film with their Linhof Master Technika's. I'd say they probably do.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tho_mas
|
|
« Reply #47 on: December 20, 2009, 03:52:04 PM » |
Reply
|
I agree that for large print sizes film is still the king. well, the guy that makes the biggest prints shoots digital. The serious collectors of photography dont care at all if the print are made from a p65+ or a Pentax 67 - only LL pixl peepers care. nobody cares. photographers just care what's the best device to record the things they are finding interesting... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tho_mas
|
|
« Reply #48 on: December 20, 2009, 03:53:28 PM » |
Reply
|
Andreas Gursky P45+, now P65+. Burtansky, afaik, film |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Rib
|
|
« Reply #49 on: December 20, 2009, 04:21:36 PM » |
Reply
|
Thomas, are you sure about that? And he uses it with Master Technika 3000 series? hmm.. I'd love to hear how Technikas perform with MFDB. In fact I'd love to hear anything concerning workflow with Technika series.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tho_mas
|
|
« Reply #50 on: December 20, 2009, 04:26:14 PM » |
Reply
|
And he uses it with Master Technika 3000 series? hmm.. maybe he still uses the Technika in addition, I don't know. Ditigal H + Alpa. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 04:27:15 PM by tho_mas »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tesfoto
|
|
« Reply #51 on: December 20, 2009, 04:48:57 PM » |
Reply
|
maybe he still uses the Technika in addition, I don't know. Ditigal H + Alpa. AFIK he still use 13x18 for serious work. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 04:57:37 PM by tesfoto »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tesfoto
|
|
« Reply #52 on: December 20, 2009, 04:51:57 PM » |
Reply
|
... I am not sure if that was an insult. My point was that you could see from 3m (10') that the skin on the cheek didn't look like real skin. For a portrait of a beautiful woman, that is a real problem in my book. Just because some collectors don't see that, doesn't mean that we should all stop caring.
This is not an indictment of the photos, btw, many were great. This, and a few others were just enlarged too much, IMO. No insult what so ever - serious collectors buy work for many reasons, none for the technical reasons we here at LL put so much effort into. I agree with you that 35mm digital do not hold up well in large print sizes. It might be a problem for you and me, but obvious not for Russel James. BTW I saw Nick Brandt gorgeous large prints at Paris Photo, they do hold up very very well (Pentax 67) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 05:02:45 PM by tesfoto »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tesfoto
|
|
« Reply #53 on: December 20, 2009, 04:56:39 PM » |
Reply
|
well, the guy that makes the biggest prints shoots digital. ? Gursky large prints are made from multiple scans of 13x18 film (5"x7") Have you seen any digital (digital back) work from him yet, if so plaese give a link. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tho_mas
|
|
« Reply #54 on: December 20, 2009, 05:02:13 PM » |
Reply
|
Gursky large prints are made from multiple scans of 13x18 film (5"x7")
Have you seen any digital (digital back) work from him yet, if so plaese give a link. afaik at least the North Corea series (the parades, not the architecture), the Formula 1 series and the Islands are digital. Be that as it may... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tesfoto
|
|
« Reply #55 on: December 20, 2009, 05:11:06 PM » |
Reply
|
afaik at least the North Corea series (the parades, not the architecture), the Formula 1 series and the Islands are digital.
Be that as it may... I agree the Formula 1 and parades series does seem to be digital, my mistake. Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drn1EUz_LOgI do admire his work. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tho_mas
|
|
« Reply #57 on: December 20, 2009, 05:21:53 PM » |
Reply
|
I agree the Formula 1 and parades series does seem to be digital, my mistake. I know that he owned a P45+ and now owns a P65+. In how far he uses them for which series, I'm not sure. For his style of work (assemblages) high res digital is actually perfect. From the prints I'd say all the latest works are digital. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tho_mas
|
|
« Reply #58 on: December 20, 2009, 05:23:33 PM » |
Reply
|
Burtynsky "Oil" is an awesome series! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Rib
|
|
« Reply #59 on: December 20, 2009, 05:25:09 PM » |
Reply
|
Yes, not to mention the fact that he sacrificed so many years to make his oil series complete.. but it was 100% worth it, amazing work.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
