Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: State of MF digital  (Read 15354 times)
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832


« Reply #60 on: December 20, 2009, 05:27:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I never had luck to see Gursky work in person, only some albums, not the real stuff. From what I've read, you his prints hold the ground in terms of details / sharpness when you look at them from a very small distance.. I wonder how is it possible - a 3  x 1.5m or even bigger print with so much detail in it.. if it is not stitched, how is it possible? Digital back or 10 x 8 drum scan? I keep wondering..
Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #61 on: December 20, 2009, 05:34:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mr. Rib
wonder how is it possible - a 3  x 1.5m or even bigger print with so much detail in it.. if it is not stitched, how is it possible?
they are stiteched and assembled! And no, not 3x1.5 meters... the Formula 1 series is 6 meters wide, each.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 05:38:22 PM by tho_mas » Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #62 on: December 20, 2009, 05:43:02 PM »
ReplyReply

there is no discussion DSLR or DMF anymore....the difference between 35mm and MF (6x6, 6x7 and up) was very obvious in a 11x14 print, sometimes even an 8x10....there is nobody around who can tell if a 8x10 was shot with a 5DII or a P65.....a 16x20 is a different story.....on the other hand sometimes a 20x30 print from 35mm looks amazing....and there are people who claim to print 20x30 from M8 files that look amazing, but my own experience does not agree with that one....
with film, i only shot MF....the look, the quality....always hated 35mm, especially for fashion.....
with digital there is no reason to shoot DMF anymore...the workflow, the files, the detail, the ease of shooting...everything in favor of DSLR....and it only gets better....the differences are getting smaller and smaller and it is harder foe DMF to stay on top by simply adding pixels.....

for fine art prints there are no rules anyway....a 30x40 beautifully detailed print from a P65 can be worth a lot less then a 50x60 "terrible" cellphone shot by the right artist.....

david hockney nowadays "paints" on his iphone....

workflow is the BIG difference between the "formats" these days....
with film it was faster to shoot MF in studio then 35mm....manual focus was easier with the large, bright finders and it was faster to switch the film backs then to load film and it was always strange to switch camera and lens (have the assistant hand a new body with the same lens)...something strange about that....
with digital it is WAY easier to shoot DSLR....AF, handling, speed....workflow that actually works....

the only thing that would make me shoot DMF again (for things i shoot with DSLR) would be a 6x8 sensor with 14stops DR, 16bit, 30mpix....capture rate 2f/sec, "unlimited" buffer, solid tether that keeps up with these numbers....multi zone AF, in lens shutters.....and useable iso (comparable to canon) up to 3200 (because the lenses at that size are a lot slower and DOF is so much more shallow).....
this would have to be a body solution since there is no system on the market! even supporting 6x8 anymore.....

the only companies that can even come close to this (all stats other then sensor size) are canon nikon....
the size jump from 35mm to 645 is just not worth giving up everything else....
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832


« Reply #63 on: December 20, 2009, 05:44:47 PM »
ReplyReply

obviously a lot of his work can be done with stitching but how would you stitch frames with so much motion in them? a lot of his work involve large groups of people.. it's kind of impossible unless he /his assistants sit tens of hours in postpro and 'manufacture' the stitched shot. And as I've already told, I didn't see the prints in person, so I can't tell... I have to go for a trip and see it with my own eyes. His and Burtynsky's work
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 05:48:48 PM by Mr. Rib » Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #64 on: December 20, 2009, 05:52:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mr. Rib
I never had luck to see Gursky work in person, only some albums, not the real stuff. From what I've read, you his prints hold the ground in terms of details / sharpness when you look at them from a very small distance.. I wonder how is it possible - a 3  x 1.5m or even bigger print with so much detail in it.. if it is not stitched, how is it possible? Digital back or 10 x 8 drum scan? I keep wondering..


i saw a gursky show.....let's just say that people who find DSLR files soft and mushy would probably barf if they looked at his prints close up:) none of that p65 crispness.....at all....large prints from film just don't have that....

but these prints are not meant to be watched from a short distance...they are huge and are meant to be seen from a certain distance....just like sitting in the front row isn't so much fun at the movies....or actually seeing the brushstrokes in a giant velazquez....or rembrandt....a rothko only works at a distance....

just saw the "small trades" at the getty....it just makes this discussion look so idiotic...
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
tesfoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137


« Reply #65 on: December 20, 2009, 05:53:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mr. Rib
obviously a lot of his work can be done with stitching but how would you stitch frames with so much motion in them? a lot of his work involve large groups of people.. it's kind of impossible unless he /his assistants sit tens of hours in postpro and 'manufacture' the stitched shot. And as I've already told, I didn't see the prints in person, so I can't tell... I have to go for a trip and see it with my own eyes. His and Burtynsky's work



Gursky is known for not producing more than 8-10 prints a year.

And yes his post requires a lot of manpower.



Logged
tesfoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137


« Reply #66 on: December 20, 2009, 05:56:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pschefz
for fine art prints there are no rules anyway....a 30x40 beautifully detailed print from a P65 can be worth a lot less then a 50x60 "terrible" cellphone shot by the right artist.....


Absolutely spot on
Logged
tesfoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 137


« Reply #67 on: December 20, 2009, 06:06:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pschefz
i saw a gursky show.....let's just say that people who find DSLR files soft and mushy would probably barf if they looked at his prints close up:) none of that p65 crispness.....at all....large prints from film just don't have that....

but these prints are not meant to be watched from a short distance...they are huge and are meant to be seen from a certain distance....just like sitting in the front row isn't so much fun at the movies....or actually seeing the brushstrokes in a giant velazquez....or rembrandt....a rothko only works at a distance....


Yes my experience too



Quote from: pschefz
just saw the "small trades" at the getty....it just makes this discussion look so idiotic...


Just saw "LA SUBVERSION DES IMAGES" at Centre Pompidu - best exhibition ever !  http://www.centrepompidou.fr

Makes this discussion between MFD versus DSLR seem even worse.



Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #68 on: December 20, 2009, 06:10:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pschefz
for fine art prints there are no rules anyway....a 30x40 beautifully detailed print from a P65 can be worth a lot less then a 50x60 "terrible" cellphone shot by the right artist...
it has always been like that; that's self-evident.
Nevertheless that does not necessarily mean that there's no justification for a P65+ ... for those who work in the tradition of 8x10 or 5x4 or for every artists who makes big detailed prints. And for these guys workflow and ease of use is not necessarily that most important part.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2009, 06:12:00 PM by tho_mas » Logged
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 832


« Reply #69 on: December 20, 2009, 06:11:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I'll just have to see it for myself. Looking at the albums and not being familiar with the real thing drives me nuts.
When I first saw Gursky's Formula 1 I thought of Rembrandt.. I guess that's what I love in his work and Burtynsky's work- their work is painted, not shot.

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Austr...S_SLO_01_07.htm

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/O..._01_04_Oil.html

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/O..._02_04_Oil.html

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/O..._01_03_Oil.html

http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/WORKS/Oil/O..._9B_99_Oil.html
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #70 on: December 20, 2009, 08:40:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pschefz
just saw the "small trades" at the getty....it just makes this discussion look so idiotic...

Idiotic is right.

Did you dig the tones on those prints?  Amazing.
Logged
cyberean
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


WWW
« Reply #71 on: December 20, 2009, 10:33:02 PM »
ReplyReply

those who can photograph ... do.
... the rest are afflicted with pixelitis and sizeitis.

Logged

check out the size of my sensor ...
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2364


« Reply #72 on: December 21, 2009, 01:01:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mr. Rib
obviously a lot of his work can be done with stitching but how would you stitch frames with so much motion in them? a lot of his work involve large groups of people.. it's kind of impossible unless he /his assistants sit tens of hours in postpro and 'manufacture' the stitched shot. And as I've already told, I didn't see the prints in person, so I can't tell... I have to go for a trip and see it with my own eyes. His and Burtynsky's work


As long as shutter speeds are fast enough you can stitch with movement/motion in it as well, even with slower shutter speeds if you are willing to have movement in your image. I am not saying he doesn't manufacture the total composition but stitching with moving people in it is no problem. Just make sure you don't put the same persons in to the composition more than once or cut them in parts on the stitches.
Logged
carstenw
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 581



« Reply #73 on: December 21, 2009, 02:32:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tesfoto
It might be a problem for you and me, but obvious not for Russel James.

Part of the reason that I posted here is that I am not actually sure if he knows. Someone else might have made the decision.

Quote
BTW I saw Nick Brandt gorgeous large prints at Paris Photo, they do hold up very very well (Pentax 67)

His photos are currently on at Camera Work. Fabulous stuff. I seriously thought about picking up a Pentax 67 and 3 lenses after that, which would have cost less than the 2 FE lenses I just picked up for my Hasselblad.

Anyway, he uses a scanner and then Photoshop, but clearly it holds up.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 02:37:21 AM by carstenw » Logged

bart alexander
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 35


« Reply #74 on: December 21, 2009, 03:38:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi B,

Thanks for the great info in this post.
About: Or just have the AA filter removed from a 5d2.  
I'd like to ask you, have you seen files from a 5DII with the AA removed or met others who have had this done?
Seems to me this would make the 5DII a killer camera, but I'm a bit hesitant to send iot to the States without knowing what I'll get back in Amsterdam.

Thanks and kind regards,


Bart




Quote from: bcooter
Michael,

The group of assistants I hire in Los Angeles went to that school that has the same name as the greeting card company, where upon enrollment each student is given their own medium format back and camera for use.

To a person they said at first they were wowed to be handed  a "professional" camera, but later dismayed at what they couldn't shoot, because they had to have flash, or a tripod, and of course there was the added workflow, software issues etc.

They wanted to shoot, they wanted to experiment, not learn the ins and outs of version 10 point something software and shoot everything with a beauty dish. Actually if you asked them what they wanted to learn in school, a certain camera format was not on their list.  They want to learn how to shoot, produce, sell and get a gig as a photographer because of their artistic abilities.  They want to learn how to get real models for testing, how to locate and permit a location, find stylists that have access to props/wardrobe and most importantly how to estimate a project that gets them the job and a profit, (which is something most schools are very limited in teaching).  

Two weeks of working in LA and NY these students realize that on most large productions photographers aren't required to be digital tech experts and are not hired because of the cameras they own.  The photographer's roll is to direct the shoot, communicate with the clients and get to an artistic solution.  There are many other people that will happily provide and do the tech stuff.

As far as learning the software, it all changes anyway.  If these students learned V10, C1 version 3, it's now all different.  The one only software that stays somewhat continuous is photoshop, where all the real post production is done anyway.  

But these kids are smart, heck they're raised on x-box and ipods.  They can pick up eos utility, dpp, and learn it top to bottom in an hour, (I know because I run them through the basic process and they work it without issue), but none of the people that assist me have long term goals to become a tech, they want to shoot.

Now as far as "learning" medium format to be a digital tech, I think that's probably the most viable market for the future of medium format in the professional world.   Why buy a $40,000 back, a $50,000 system when the techs (at least in LA) are falling out of the trees and cutting deals on their package.

At the prices I'm quoted by tech companies I'd have to rent for 125 days straight to get to the price of a P45+ and a H2 with a few lenses and computer.

People can and should use what they want, but for commerce the pixel fear is over.  Two years ago everyone I knew would struggle through a big project with medium format because they just felt they had to have the pixel horsepower.  I know in my world, and the world of every photographer I personally know the latest Canon, Nikon and Sony changed that thought.  Well that and the fact that every project is ramped up 5 fold in volume, has to be delivered in half the time and also requires some video.

In the end if you want that over sharp, non aa filter medium format look and don't want to drop the required $20,000 to $40,000 (new) or $12,000 (used) for the buy in, just get a Leica M9 or M8.  To me it looks the same as my digital backs and is a lot easier to use. Or just have the AA filter removed from a 5d2.  Once again same look, but at least you get higher iso.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/experiment.shtml

But then again if anyone is looking at a photograph from 2" away, I believe they are looking at the wrong thing.

BC


Added -  There is this misconception in the professional photography world about what is real and what is urban legend.  Urban legend dictates that every name photographer has millions of dollars of cameras, knows everything about them top to bottom and shoots editorial projects for millions of dollars in profit.  Reality is a much different scenario and the photographers that work in todays world use what is appropriate and many know little if anything about the equipment.  Actually some of the photographer's that were sponsored by equipment companies didn't know a polaroid from a hemriod, but that doesn't mean they don't have a roll because obviously they got the gig, they're in the room, the photograph get's shot and they hopefully are getting paid.  

But it's not the camera that gets them into the room.
Logged
Dick Roadnight
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


« Reply #75 on: December 21, 2009, 05:22:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tesfoto
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.
With phocus 2 and (next month) the sensor from the H4D-60, on a view camera like the Sinar P3, with a stitching back will IMO be the tool of choice for landscape photography.

What do you call "large"?
Logged

Hasselblad H4, Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #76 on: December 21, 2009, 05:43:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: TMARK
Quote from: pschefz
just saw the "small trades" at the getty....it just makes this discussion look so idiotic...
Idiotic is right.
yes, but idiotic in either directions. Just because some art is great at small sizes it doesn't mean that every art might be great at the same size. Size is not a self purpose, of course, but imagine Richard Prince, G. Crewdson, A. Gursky, Roy Lichtenstein, Mark Rothko or even the late works of Cindy Sherman (… … … ) at 8'x10'' (print size). A movie is more enjoyable in the cinema than viewed at 720pixles wide on the notebook LCD…
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 05:47:42 AM by tho_mas » Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #77 on: December 21, 2009, 06:23:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pschefz
with digital there is no reason to shoot DMF anymore...the workflow, the files, the detail, the ease of shooting...everything in favor of DSLR....and it only gets better....the differences are getting smaller and smaller and it is harder foe DMF to stay on top by simply adding pixels.....

Oh no, not this again... It's not just about megapixels.

Add:

- larger viewfinder
- fast flash sync with leaf shutters
- possibility to use back on view camera or other platforms
- easier sensor cleaning
- lack of AA filter
- generally more dynamic range
- option of waist-level or 45 degree or 90 degree finders
- not having to rotate the whole camera when shooting in portrait mode (with some systems)
- there are features which the Hy6 has, for example, which Canikon does not, afaik, such as focus bracketing/focus trap
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #78 on: December 21, 2009, 06:27:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Last year, it seemed like as if there was no future no more for MF digital.... as far as you read on this forum over here. Most topics are about the fact that according to some people MF digital is of no use anymore, or that one better puts his or her money on 35mm digital. A few thoughts however: i was always thinking this forum was about " digital medium format photography" with tips and tricks. ( not any more, it is about telling people how bad they have invested and how wrong we are, us MFdigital users). Sadly, it has been a very long time ever since something constructive has been said about MF.
As LL seems to be the largest community in the world for MFdigital, and there seems to be so much negativism towards MFd, Hasselblad, sinar, phase and others will be almost bacrupt!!!!!!!
However in the real world, things are very different. There are thousends of professional photographers using their MF digital system day by day, never wishing to switch to 35mm for various reasons. I for myself can speak for our Hasselblad user group over here where we have about 43 members, using various Hassies with back's from the 384v to the H3d50.
These people shoot hundreds of thousends of images, a friend of mine shot about 193800 pictures with his H1/132c combo.
I almost always use my Hasselblad because i like the way of working, the way of composing on the bright viewscreen etc...
Strange is that when we have pro meetings, fairs, exheibitions...i constantly discover new photographers using MFd. And these are not only LOW LIGHT, PARTY and sports photographers: nope, these arein to portrait ,wedding, studio, fine art, still live, packaging, advertising, technical, industrial and more. Fashion and sport have always been domains of 35mm, as long as i can remember so it is normal these people dont want to use MFd.
So if in such a tiny country we have already more professional photographers making a good living using their MFd equipment then all MFd users on LL worldwide, what are those few voices over here to create such a negative feeling towards MFd.
Just my .02 dry.gif
Logged
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #79 on: December 21, 2009, 06:50:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Sadly, it has been a very long time ever since something constructive has been said about MF.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad