Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Digital prints no good above 8 x 10. Discuss!  (Read 9346 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6976


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2008, 10:11:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Many thanks for providing those links. The first one in particular makes total sense and settles the issue. Brooks says they closed the chemical darkroom, and he finds that for him, digital photography has reversed the ratio of creativity:drudgery from 4:96 with film to 96:4 with digital. Amen.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Moynihan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2008, 10:37:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
...but I don't think its a digital vs. film thing.  BTW--my link to this particular podcast didn't work so I couldn't listen to it in context.


His Portifolio "October Seas" was shot digitally.

http://www.brooksjensenarts.com/os.htm

In his podcasts, I think he said that almost all his personal work is digital.

I did not think he was trashing digital in his 2006 thing. I think he was just coming from that zone, Fred Picker type direction.
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2008, 11:02:22 AM »
ReplyReply

I rarely agree with BJ and this is true on this question too. I normally shoot 4x5 for exhibition prints (I gave up on 8x10 many years ago, to slow and cumbersome. I was missing the good light), which is printed both digitally and traditionally. For commercial work I use a 5D. I travel extensively for commercial work and usually bring my 4x5 in case I run into some subject matter for my personal work, but we carry so much equipment already, that it is a PITA to try and find room for the 4x5 sometimes too. As a result on a few trips I have ended up shooting some personal images on the 5D. Now understand, I usually stitch frames together to build up the file size, but in one case recently that was not possible and I ended up with a single frame which was converted to B&W. The image was made for a group show and was printed, after very careful processing and uprezing, on a baryta paper to 20x24. As I am known for my 4x5 work, everyone assumed it was 4x5 and even some experienced large format photographers in the show did not realize it was DSLR until I told them. The image was primarily of a dark and highly textured wall from a 16th century mission ruin which helped, but nevertheless, I was amazed as were some of the very accomplished photographers who were in the show. This will not stop me from using 4x5, but I realize now that it is a viable option for some situations.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2008, 11:47:26 AM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Moynihan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 04, 2008, 11:17:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As I am known for my 4x5 work, everyone assumed it was 4x5 and even some experienced large format photographers in the show did not realize it was DSLR until I told them. ... I was amazed as were some of the very accomplished photographers who were in the show. This will not stop me from using 4x5, but I realize now that it is a viable option.

And very nice work it is,  

Coming from a film past, and planning my first DSLR purchase, that is good to hear.

jay
« Last Edit: February 04, 2008, 11:18:09 AM by Moynihan » Logged
luong
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 04, 2008, 11:25:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Going to 8x10 is a tempting option, but the cost and inconvenience grow expotentially compared to 4*5...

The lack of quickload, the weight of the equipment and the need to use a cheap flat bed scanner instead of an Imacon will result in no particular image quality advantages with even fewer images taken...


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you can afford an Imacon, you can afford a professional-grade flatbed, which many believe produces better scans than the Imacon.

Back to the original topic, I use 5x7 film (all drum scanned) and 1Ds series cameras. Aside from the color rendition difference, I find absolutely no differences at least up to size 13x19. Differences at size 16x24 are very small. On the other hand, at size 24x36, not only 5x7 film is clearly better, but even  a 6x9 portion of a 5x7 transparency has an edge over the 1Ds2.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2008, 11:30:45 AM by luong » Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2008, 01:16:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Jay.

Just to be clear, while I think it is an option for quality work above 8x10, generally speaking under most circumstances drum scanned 4x5 will blow away anything short of a 45MB back. Here is that image by the way.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2008, 01:25:46 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6976


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 04, 2008, 03:11:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Superb photo Kirk.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 04, 2008, 04:36:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you Mark.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad