does anyone shoot med or large format anymore?

[TonyK]

A member of our photo group goes to NYC a couple of times a year to rent that camera and do his photos. He says it is a monster!

[numnutz]

Hi - I have just purchased a Wista 5x4 field camera to shoot B&W and hopefully eventually to use the negs for contact printing alternative processes.
I know I can make digital internagatives for alt proc, but I wanted to get back to processing film )its something I like doing).
Hopefully I will post some shots as soon as I learn how to use the camera and get something worthwhile.

nn

[fotogeorge]

Yes, I still shoot my Mamiya 645 ProTL. I think the world looks better thru Mamiya glass. I can still afford the low cost of processing at WALMART.

[c_dwebb@msn.com]

The med Format camera has not been made obselete because of digital. Those of us who have owned and used medium format cameras for fifty years or more have no desire to retire them. Digital still has a long way to go when it comes to the top quality image necessary to create large display images. Two many folks buy into the manufacturers hype rather than think for themselves.
Digitel is in no way better than film photography, it is just different. Both have their uses, film has it's place just as the digital image has it's place. I just wonder what archives will still be able to produce from files made today 50 years from now.

Old Coyote

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by c_dwebb@msn.com

Digital still has a long way to go when it comes to the top quality image necessary to create large display images.

I'm going to politely disagree.
My sales room is full of 20x24, 24x30, and a couple of 30x40 display images. All digital with the exception of a couple of 645 leftovers I haven't parted with yet.

I also have two 30"x90" prints (that's almost 8' tall).

If exposed correctly, and proper file handling, you'll get superb results from digitally captured files.

[c_dwebb@msn.com]

A very respective Hmmmmm, now why did I suspect I would read exactly your words in a response to my comment. I also anticipated that no mention of proof as to how long the electronic files made today will survive or be useful fifty years from now.

I am sure that the prints in your sales room are nothing short of wonderful, but I also know that each of them could be made just as exciting and wonderful with film. The advantage of the electronic prints lie within the
magic of digital post processing. A skilled retoucher can do the same with film. However as time goes on we have fewer and fewer people that are willing to spend the time necessary to learn those skills, let alone practice them.

Today we live in a digital age, nothing wrong with that, but there are more than one way to skin a cat.

If exposed correctly, and with proper file handeling, you'll get superb results from using film on most subjects. We are pretty much guaranteed that they will still be hanging around and useful fifty years from now. Like I said in my earlier post "digital is not better, just different".

BTW, back in the 1960's I did life size display photographs for McNichols Arena of the entire starting five Denver Nugget's basketball team, acouple of them were 7 ft tall or better. I used 35 mm. I received great reviews
and nearly enought to pay for my sons first year of college.

I know full well what digital imaging is all about and can do, I also am willing to admit it's short comings.

I get quite a chuckle when I read your signature/credit line, it's a dandy. Never really found it necessary to blow my whistle that loud!

Mark have a great time and perfect exposures along your way. Sorry we disagree with each other but when it comes to opinions, I want facts.

Old Coyote aka. C Webb

[heartseye]

Ah, CW.....I've been there too...and you cannot begin to do in film retouching what you can in digital.....I won a small award once in a small PPOC retouching competition and I know whereoff I speak......The spray booths....the large scrubbed and dried CO2 tanks......the clogged nozzles.....the negative retouching machines....all of it.
Film is fine, if you enjoy the craft of it. But to create consistent high quality imagery calls for a digital approach in these times. I still have use for 4x5 cameras for the movements, but I'm considering a digital back there too.
I choose to omit letters after my name....but rest assured...I have been there too...cheers...Bob

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by c_dwebb@msn.com

I want facts.

ok.

Image #1. 30x40. Oriented next to a 16x20 for comparison. Subject matter is Dr. Chuck Brogan, noted heart surgeon and his wife Charla. No artwork, completely unretouched.

Image #2. Portrait on the wall, 30x40, 20x24 and 16x20 images are on easles. Smaller images are unretouched.

Image #3. 30x40 of a family portrait awaiting client pickup. Unretouched with the exception of a vignette.

Image #4. 30x40 awaiting client pickup. Door provides a size reference. Mild Photoshop work applied to background.

[heartseye]

Mark...I can't tell a damn thing about these images, and neither can anyone else, on a monitor unless you show us some 100% stuff to compare......and, in this discussion, I agree with you concerning the superiority digital offers over film.....Bob

[Mark McCall]

Bob,
I'd love to accommodate, but it's impossible to compare a web image to a 30"x40" image printed @ 300ppi on photographic paper.
You simply can't do it.

For the record, I never said digital was better than film.
What I did say:

Originally Posted by Mark McCall

If exposed correctly, and proper file handling, you'll get superb results from digitally captured files.

I still use 645 for one client in particular, United Blood Services. They use medium format negs to enlarge up to 16x20, but no larger. Go figure.

[heartseye]

Agreed.....but a 100% sample might be of value for someone really trying to see the point being made. And,surpisingly , I have now come to the point where I do think it is a superior technology where the very highest result are required.......2 Years ago I wouldn't have said that, (but I would have suspected it). Bob

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by heartseye

Agreed.....but a 100% sample might be of value for someone really trying to see the point being made.

I agree with you too, but a 100% sample would weigh over 300 megs. (opened jpg)
It'd take you a month to download it.

There was an interesting article is either Rangefinder or Professional Photographer Magazine this month.
A guy does a head to head with a 6x7 film camera and a Canon 1DS MarkIII (I think).
If someone read this article, help me out. Which mag was it?

I was surprised to see the digital camera get as close to film as it did regarding resolution.

[heartseye]

lol....yeah....I meant a small portion of the image @ 300 ppi with a small jpg of the whole thing to show the portion under discussion.....there was a comparison last year between a 5D and 4x5 Velvia, but I've lost the link. This months Rangefinder hasn't come yet, but I'll look when it does...cheers...Bob

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by heartseye

I meant a small portion of the image @ 300 ppi with a small jpg of the whole thing to show the portion under discussion.

I'd love to, but we don't use Photoshop to set the resolution. We allow the RIP software running the Theta printer at the lab to set the print resolution.
The RIP software running the Theta will create a higher quality print than $600 Photoshop.

It's impossible to post the print clip without access to the printer prepped RIP file.

In other words, we do not have access to that printer prepped file.
The RIP sets the print resolution on the lab end.

[c_dwebb@msn.com]

Hmmmm once again! Mark, I see no proof of anything in the excellent images you posted other than you do good work. Bob I disagree with you on the retouching as I do with Mark's comments, Continue to believe what you both want to believe and I will stand by my statements. I apologize to both of you, I certainly did not intend to make waves in your little pond, I'll try hard not to do so in the future. I will read the posts only but not comment on them. I will however continue to chuckle at mark's list of his worldly accomplishments, but most egotistical people simply have to tell the world just how good they are, and this is an excellent tailor made place to do so.

In closing, I wll give some more good advice, "take the lens cap off first,
then make the exposure"

bye now,
Old Coyote

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by c_dwebb@msn.com

Continue to believe what you both want to believe and I will stand by my statements.

There's a difference between opinion and fact.

The facts are that it is possible to get large, top quality large images from digital, and sell them to carriage trade clientele. We do it daily.
As I stated before, it's all in how you handle the file.

My education hasn't a thing to do with this discussion. I'm going to politely ask you to stay on topic in future posts.