Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: State of MF digital  (Read 15855 times)
aaron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 135


WWW
« Reply #80 on: December 21, 2009, 07:33:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ixpressraf
Sadly, it has been a very long time ever since something constructive has been said about MF.

Seriously, Who gives a *%&k ? What do you want to be said about it? Why should anything constructive be said about it? Its a relatively expensive, high quality digital camera format. That's it.

The only thing worth commenting on is what your capable of doing with it. Posts like these neither affect nor achieve anything except perhaps wasting your valuable time which you could be spending producing some work.

You think Nick Brandt is sitting at home in front of his screen crying because no one is saying something nice about his Pentax?
Logged
tesfoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


« Reply #81 on: December 21, 2009, 08:58:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Dick Roadnight
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"?


Threre are many reasons why 80-90% (low estimate) photography at top art galleries is analogue.

There are also many reasons why fine art landscape photographers here at LL works (or dream about) with MFD.





Logged
tesfoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


« Reply #82 on: December 21, 2009, 09:01:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaron
The only thing worth commenting on is what your capable of doing with it. Posts like these neither affect nor achieve anything except perhaps wasting your valuable time which you could be spending producing some work.

You think Nick Brandt is sitting at home in front of his screen crying because no one is saying something nice about his Pentax?



+1  

Log out and back to work.


Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #83 on: December 21, 2009, 09:09:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tho_mas
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…

Its not the size that makes this idiotic.  Technical considerations should be minor in the creation of art or art for commerce.  All this "debate" is wicked retarded, or idiotic, if you like.  If you need it, get it.  If you don't, don't get it.  Just make a picture that has impact at any size.

Its interesting that you mention Crewdson.  His Firefly series is the only series he made that isn't sugar for the bougious upper middle class Park Slope Brown graduates with a middling understanding of Freud.  The Firefly series was honest, small, black and white.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 09:22:03 AM by TMARK » Logged
tho_mas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1696


« Reply #84 on: December 21, 2009, 09:52:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: TMARK
Its not the size that makes this idiotic.  Technical considerations should be minor in the creation of art or art for commerce.  All this "debate" is wicked retarded, or idiotic, if you like.  If you need it, get it.  If you don't, don't get it.  Just make a picture that has impact at any size.
ah, okay. I think I didn't get it right then, sorry. With this statement I agree completely.
Logged
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


« Reply #85 on: December 21, 2009, 10:41:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tesfoto
Threre are many reasons why 80-90% (low estimate) photography at top art galleries is analogue.

There are also many reasons why fine art landscape photographers here at LL works (or dream about) with MFD.

Hmm sorry but the only reason for your estimate (with which I agree) is time.  It's hard to expect fine art photographers to switch to digital in the mid 90s...film was far superior back then for most applications and if we consider fine art with it's low capacities, then there's hardly any justification for digital. And if we consider TOP art galleries- you got to make yourself a name to get there, which means (that's obviously a generalization) you are in your mid 40s /50s. And that means you were shooting film most of your life and just recently, in comparison with your whole career, switched to digital. Imo, in next 10-15 years, this percentage in top modern galleries will be flipped upside down, it will be film that is 10-20% of galleries content, without counting in their archives

-alert- film vs digital jeopardy detected
Let's not start a film vs digital debate.

One more remark. It's funny that off-topics in this topic make the main discussion more and more pointless  One more thing to make it even more pointless- as now we came to print size in fine art photography, it has to be seen as a tool, not a limiting factor ("bigger = better" approach). Despite the simple truth that a cellphone shot 30 x 40 print can be more valuable than a P65 print of the same size, some can find large prints irrelevant to their work and what they want to say. Great works that would be meaningless in large prints - not to search too far, just look at the work of Michael Kenna. What he'd need in digital world would be a 6x6 10mp sensor.
The conclusion is that all of the specs and features are meaningless, you get the equipment which delivers, in other words- which is relevant to want you're doing and comes along with your style, what you want to express. For some it will be 10 year old Canon PowerShot, for others P65+. "State of MF digital"? Noone could possibly benefit from digging into this subject. But yes, you can get more confused and defocused from what really matters- your work. And I think it is valid for both worlds - commercial and fine art photography.

And this sums it up nicely:

http://www.rothamel.de/de/Hans-Christian-S...ight/index.html
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 11:58:53 AM by Mr. Rib » Logged
tesfoto
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 138


« Reply #86 on: December 21, 2009, 11:49:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Have a look at Elger essers new work (size 181cm 302cm) the work looks absolutly great in real life

http://tinyurl.com/ycjl64j

I love this one:

http://tinyurl.com/yb397c7


Logged
pschefz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 244


« Reply #87 on: December 21, 2009, 06:59:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Graham Mitchell
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

if you quote me, please include what should be part of the quote...i pretty much include this list towards the end of my post about things still in favor of MF....

but: the whole large finder thing is a little tricky in reality...as is the WLF....with both my 6008af/phase and the RZ/phase i had to either shoot with the loupe up to get some kind of focus or shoot with the viewfinder attachment (for the RZ)....both solutions are not what i would call MF and are far from perfect....i actually shoot with the canon angle finder on the 5DII and it is surprisingly better then both "MF" solutions i had to suffer through....

there are several viewcamera solutions for DSLR.....but if you really need TS....the canon lenses seem to be a huge hit with everybody....incl. michael who uses them with his P65.....and MUCH easier to handle....

lack of AA filter these days means much better low light performance...i will take that tradeoff....

DR....yes and no....the 5DII has quite a bit more DR at 400 then any of the existing backs....i won't even go into 800 or 1500.....and i don't consider 400 to be crazy out there....i just shot a double page for a fashion editorial at 1600 (or so)....at 1.4....not only would this not be possible with DMF....there would be no way to focus at those lightlevels with any MF system...plus i would not be able to hand hold 1/30 sec....the best thing: i shot the spread at speeds ranging from 100 to 1600....and you cannot tell on the printed page.....can't do that with DMF....

i haven't cleaned a sensor since i got the 5DII and i haven't had a spec since then either.....this simply isn't an issue anymore.....

sorry to break it to you....the only still manufactured DMF systems have to be rotated...just like DSLR.....

i won't even get into an argument that tries to compare AF on DMF and DSLR....regardless of mode, function....DSLR wins...easily....

there was a Hy6 with LV75r on ebay (a demo) for 9500...incl 45, WLF, no lens.....and i have to say it to say it made me itch....for a second....nothing beats schneider glass and i always loved the rollei and this is really a nice combo....with the rotating back....but then i thought about in which way this would have helped me get a better shot in the last year....could not come up with a single one.....and then how many fun lenses, lights, and other things i could get with 10000 (no lens...)...and how 3 lenses would be another 10000....and how the camera is DEAD....and how there is no workflow for this....i know there is some software to turn the raws into DNGs and on and on....and how long it would take for these files to pop up....and i felt really good about my kit....

but i am sure you have no reason to change from your workflow and kit because it helps you get the shots you want....and that is the most important thing.....

and brutus is an honorable man:)
Logged

schefz.com
artloch.com
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #88 on: December 22, 2009, 04:05:32 AM »
ReplyReply

The two references to galleries, above, really do prove the point.

Photography is just too diverse a subject for any kind of nonsensical 'better/worse' debate. What you think fits your aims is what you should have, if you can afford it.

Perhaps the problem isn't really anything to do with photography, but everything to do with some photographers who equate or juggle equipment (and its costs) with the abstract notion that is art. Perhaps the few posts here from professionals still working spell it out: the monitor is the key by which format is judged and not the camera. If the stuff looks great on the monitor then the camera is great, whatever brand/type/format is actually in use. As the art photographer doesn't have a visible client perched parrot-wise on his shoulder, he can do what pleases him secure in the knowledge that what he produces is sacred because he produced it. Now that is freedom!

Rob C

Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad