I still do -and 5x7 and 4x5. And 11x14 (a 1890s Sands & Hunter that I use for shooting portraits).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.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I still do -and 5x7 and 4x5. And 11x14 (a 1890s Sands & Hunter that I use for shooting portraits).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.
That's great been a very very long time for meI still do -and 5x7 and 4x5. And 11x14 (a 1890s Sands & Hunter that I use for shooting portraits).
For over thirty years the majority of my commercial work was large format from 4x5 to 11x14 both in studio and location. At the peak of catalog season I shot over 250 sheets of 8x10 transparency film a week plus 4x5 and 11x14. I shot the majority with a Sinar Norma and Deardorff.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.
Guy, to be fair, Vinyl holds MUCH more information than CD (and is clearly audible). Unlike digital photography, digital audio doesn't have the duality of smaller and/or better - only smaller.Okay John vinyl it is. LOL
I still have a 14 year old in the house and he has no clue what a cassette is, never mind who the Beatles are. LOL
I've been into photography since '73, professional and printing my own work since '75 (originally had one of those tubes you floated and spun in a water bath to process a 16x20 sheet of color paper), while I agree that experiencing analog/chemical photography was great, I personally think digital as more rewarding, especially if you do 100% of it yourself, capture, post processing and output.There's something much more rewarding about exposing, printing and processing your own film. To play with recipes using temp and time, to create something that's tangible- tactile!
to me this seems to be what is usually missing in these types of exercises, so they really don't prove much of anything.Has anybody compared a analog print of film (vs a scan) to a print from digital?
You are right. The learning curve can be climbed much faster with digital. Instant, detailed feedback. I hated the "approximation" of polaroids and waiting for E6 clip tests was a real drag too.Well the biggest learning experience that the new generation will never know is learning your craft learning it really well before you knock down 20 lights and go home for the day shooting blind and not TRULY knowing if you nailed it or you completely failed at it and lost a client. Some folks have no idea how easy it is today. Than they cry about live view. Hell we barely had meters that worked never mind seeing anything. I'm glad they are memories now.
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.
Hats off to you for saying that you love the process. Finally, someone is honest about this.There's something much more rewarding about exposing, printing and processing your own film. To play with recipes using temp and time, to create something that's tangible- tactile!
Most certainly, the learning curve with digital has ben reduced, but for me, film, with all its wonderful attributes and variables, seems so much more skillful than digital. Shooting digital is a must though, in my area of photography, but when there's not a deadline or client, i'll grab my film gear for the pure enjoyment of art!
I'd be interested to know what you understand by film look, since you seem to admit its existence, and what exactly sets it apart from a digital look.There is virtually no film made whose look cannot be replicated by a knowledgeable person with the right gear. The colour characteristics can be replicated, the local micro-contrast and tonal transitions too. Even the tonality can be reproduced. The problem is that the average hack does not have this knowledge, but this does not justify a claim that the film "look" cannot be achieved digitally.
I don't understand this vehemence, why should it bother you that some can perceive a certain quality in work produced via a certain technique?Finally, someone is honest about this.
I'm tired of hearing the "but film has that certain quality to it" guff.
Alas, Guy, I think far too many people share your sentiment...For me film is long past it's usefulness but it was great learning tool through the years and really all we had. I'm glad I lived in that time frame but also glad it's over. It's been close to maybe 14 years since I shot film and I simply do not miss it. To me any comparison is a moot point since no client of mine would even entertain it's use now.
This is T H E most salient point so far, IMHO.Both produce truly stunning large prints so pick your medium and have fun.
It was fixed in the darkroom. Laboriously, but informatively. The same fixes applied manually for each print. Ugh! I miss film cameras (Yashicamat FTW!) but I don't miss film.My issue today is the famous phrase Ill fix it in photoshop. What ever happened to the rule of the era that I grew up in. Everything MUST be done in camera.
Perhaps I am handicapped because I look at a lot of tests and data.While I'm no expert in large format film, I've been puzzled by some elements of the test, and I'm not sure what conclusion I'm supposed to arrive at.