Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
BTW has anyone actually shot 8 X 10 view camera's. I used to use a Horseman 8x10 but I would have killed for a Sinar.
I was a commercial photographer from the late '60's to the early "90's, since then I concentrate on fine art exclusively. I had clients that could appreciate and pay for 8x10, both transparancies and color negatives and of course black and white. I photographed much more often on 4x5 or 2 1/4, but it largely depended on the job. I mostly did architectural and product illustrations, but I also did, fashion, portraiture, horses, aerials and public relations, hell I even did some weddings. I still use some of my 8x10 lenses on my 4x5 and strap my d700 onto the back and get amazing images.
I would say that resolution , magnification and accutance are the basis for what we would call sharpness, and digital has some distinct advantages. If you don't start with noise you can up res for a very long time, and it simply doesn't fall apart. It doesn't get sharper but it doesn't fall apart either. Film cannot do this.
The upshot is this. If you want to make the case that digital has arrived and is a good working process, not a question in my mind. However if you are trying to make the case that film, in any format is dead, no sale here, at all. Period. They are different things and they work differently and I can get a look on film that you cannot reproduce digitally. You may not want nor need the look but there you are. I just scanned an 8x10 negative and printed it to size digitally, and it has a quality that just would never be the same digitally. BTW like Guy I lusted after a better 8x10 my heart throb was either a Sinar or a Cambo. I shoot and have shot the same Cambo 4x5 for over 40 years, but Sinar's were always the ultimate. I found however that there was very good glass at the 8x10 level, and fantastic glass at the 4x5 level, part of what people overlook is not just the resolution but how big an area it got spread out over. My 8x10 was an Ansco, I bought it well used in 1972 from a commercial photographer who had bought it used in 1927, the holders were converted glass plate holders, they still can be easily stepped backward to glass plate. It was romantic handling big heavy equipment, but oddly unlike Guy I always felt confident when I went home after a shoot, I knew I had nailed it to the best of my ability. This isn't a knock on you Guy, I knew photographers that used a lot of poloroid to make certain of their shot and I rarely did or if I did it was one or two pieces to make certain no hidden glare somewhere. I usually shot in really big rooms and the lighting setup was extensive. I would make my assistants insane since I would require them to tell me the exposure before we ever took out our light meter. Since we sometimes had to triple expose to filter for the various sources, I still would insist on the mental work before the light meter. It goes into that previsualization process. This is the picture it has elements, one of which is light, be conscious of everything that goes into the picture. It is not magic. This is an interesting thread. Joe