What format?

[Patrick Dixon]

The only non-LF camera you need



Well, you can never have enough of them ...

[Joanna Carter]

... 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!

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...

You could well be right

This poll does have a 6x17 option, and that's not 100 square centimetres either…

But on this issue, you are wrong 6 x 17 = 102, unless medical maths is different from photography maths

[Joanna Carter]

The only non-LF camera you need
...
Well, you can never have enough of them ...

So you're claiming that putting four Rolleiflexes together makes 6 x 6 x 4 = 144? Tell me how do you stitch the results

[George Hart]

This poll does have a 6x17 option, and that's not 100 square centimetres either…

But on this issue, you are wrong 6 x 17 = 102, unless medical maths is different from photography maths

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…

[Andrea]

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!

[Joanna Carter]

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.

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.

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