What format?
-
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 252
- Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:20 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Yate
Re: What format?
The only non-LF camera you need
Well, you can never have enough of them ...
Well, you can never have enough of them ...
-
- Founder
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:26 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Workshop Images: http://grandes-images.com/fr/Paysages/P ... _2009.html
- Location: Plestin-les-Grèves, France
- Contact:
Re: What format?
Weellllll.... since I am finding the attitude of the FADU forum a little unusual in that they really wouldn't even consider a picture taken on film and printed onto photographic paper by a Lambda printer, to be real photography, because you have to use Photoshop in the middle...George Hart wrote:... may I be given leave to suggest to the "purists" amongst us that the use of roll film on the 5x4 view camera, applying movements and using the same lenses as for 5x4, does blur the interface a bit!
You could well be right
But on this issue, you are wrong 6 x 17 = 102, unless medical maths is different from photography mathsGeorge Hart wrote:This poll does have a 6x17 option, and that's not 100 square centimetres either…
Reassure yourself - stroke an Ebony
-
- Founder
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:26 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Workshop Images: http://grandes-images.com/fr/Paysages/P ... _2009.html
- Location: Plestin-les-Grèves, France
- Contact:
Re: What format?
So you're claiming that putting four Rolleiflexes together makes 6 x 6 x 4 = 144? Tell me how do you stitch the resultsPatrick Dixon wrote:The only non-LF camera you need
...
Well, you can never have enough of them ...
Reassure yourself - stroke an Ebony
-
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:32 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Chester, UK
Re: What format?
It depends on what you take to be the dimensions of the format. I have seen the Fotoman dimensions quoted as 58x168, giving a negative area of 97.44 square centimetres. Even if you take 56x170, that gives 95.2, ie less than 100. But if you're counting border too, then anything goes…Joanna Carter wrote:But on this issue, you are wrong 6 x 17 = 102, unless medical maths is different from photography mathsGeorge Hart wrote:This poll does have a 6x17 option, and that's not 100 square centimetres either…
Re: What format?
I do think that some people are a little unfair to the people who are peeking over the edge. However, a lot of the personages on FADU do use digital output from time to time - but just don't put it on FADU me thinks. Or APUG.
I must just say I can't quite get my head around why photogs would use LF and then scan the flippin thing but then I really don't understand much in life ! I prefer wet-output as well as input but that's just me and in the end its the finished result that counts. You could try http://www.filmwasters.com. all sorts of output there!
I must just say I can't quite get my head around why photogs would use LF and then scan the flippin thing but then I really don't understand much in life ! I prefer wet-output as well as input but that's just me and in the end its the finished result that counts. You could try http://www.filmwasters.com. all sorts of output there!
-
- Founder
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:26 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Workshop Images: http://grandes-images.com/fr/Paysages/P ... _2009.html
- Location: Plestin-les-Grèves, France
- Contact:
Re: What format?
My reason for not having a darkroom is simple; I haven't got 1. the room, 2. the money, 3, the desire, to build one.Andrea wrote:I must just say I can't quite get my head around why photogs would use LF and then scan the flippin thing but then I really don't understand much in life ! I prefer wet-output as well as input but that's just me and in the end its the finished result that counts.
Having discovered that I can generate superb quality silver gelatine prints, from a digital file, on a Lambda printer and that I can remove all dust spots from and exercise more control over the appearance of the finished print than in a darkroom, I see no reason to lock myself away in a darkened room full of chemical odours.
But, having discovered that the average digital camera is a fairly poor tool for capturing something as simple as the texture of grass or the subtlety of colours or shading, I find the ultimate quality of image is really only available when one gets above the meagre size of the average silicon chip.
So, I reconcile myself that the modern art of using Photoshop as a "dry lightroom" suits me down to the ground, but I you will have to pry my Ebony out of my cold dead hands
Reassure yourself - stroke an Ebony