8 x 10 large-format digital, cheap at $100k

[Frankly]

That "unless you do billboards" comment always crops up. It's pretty funny because billboards are printed at 11 dpi, a 20mb file will do fine for a 14' x 44' major highway type billboard.

I did one where 50% of the space used an image from a Fuji 2700mx in 1999, 2mb digicam. (I may have the model wrong, it was one of those cigarette pack style cameras and quite good for its day.)

IDK what the video board's resolution is (what a horrible business sector) but it's not like those are 40' wide 5k monitors.

 

[yaya]

911 is an odd pick for a name IMO...I mean it has no resemblance to a Porsche 911...and the other 911, if that was the idea, is just wrong...
Otherwise I would love to see this becoming a real product if they could make it a bit more practical and straightforward to use...have decent raw file support etc. etc...

BR
Yair

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I still just don't get the appeal to people. People who want the 8x10 asthetic are prepared to put up with inconvenience, or they would not be using 8x10. This is even more inconvenient than regular 8x10. If you shot regular 8x10, you would have to go through about 90-95000 dollars worth of film and scanning to wind up in the same financial outlay, but instead of 12 megapixels, you would have gigapixels of resolution and the actual film and tonal aesthetic that draws people to 8x10 in the first place. I could understand if this could do 50 or 100mp, maybe it would be attractive to some commercial or fashion photographers who wanted a unique look in studio without the hassle, but as it is now, I cannot see anyone buying it as anything other than a curiosity.

 

[MGrayson]

Every time I try film or wet plate, I am full of enthusiasm until I get to the scanned dust stage. I would LOVE a digital Mamiya 7 or Graflex 4x5.

--Matt

 

[Frankly]

The rationale that using a digital 8x10 because 8x10 Polaroid is no longer available is pretty convoluted.

When I started assisting photographers I worked at the old Kodak Studios in Rochester. They had Polaroid materials but were loath to use them so most of the time we simply ran the film through the darkroom in a rapid cycle... 10 minutes and you could be louping a wet negative on a light table to do what you needed to do... judge focus. And look at the composition in the abstract. Any decent photographer with normal darkroom experience could look at a B&W negative and judge it.

"Polaroid Aesthetic" and fetishization aside that's all the large format tests were meant to do.

This is the way commercial photographers worked before Polaroid came on the market. What Polaroid did was make so an Art Director could see the image in positive form and add a little drama and showmanship to the often stupefying studio shoot. Hobby photographers photographing rocks at f/32 have no idea of how hard it is to hold focus with camera movements on what looks like a common still life.

Of course I was the kid in the darkroom and (outside of Kodak) the 10-15 minute break was perfect for that swinging cool hip photographer to give the Art Director a snort to ensure their repeat business.

/rant I'm only 58, it wasn't that long ago

 

[sog1927]

Every time I try film or wet plate, I am full of enthusiasm until I get to the scanned dust stage. I would LOVE a digital Mamiya 7 or Graflex 4x5.

--Matt

I want a digital Linhof Technika.