How would you tell based on that website? My phone shoots enough resolution for a web use!craigmagee wrote:Dont know if this guy shoots 5x4 but recently came across his site and the images are really detailed so i think he might do.
http://www.timsimmons.co.uk
What you can see however is all the shots are at 3:2 aspect ratio, so I'd say LF is unlikely.Hmm.. I have to agree, if only for the shutter speed used in his 'cave fire' shots.. No way is that large format film. I do quite like some of the photography however!dave_whatever wrote:How would you tell based on that website? My phone shoots enough resolution for a web use!craigmagee wrote:Dont know if this guy shoots 5x4 but recently came across his site and the images are really detailed so i think he might do.
http://www.timsimmons.co.uk
Thingy wrote:Since I started using LF again withmy 45SU, most of my work has been 5x4. I have exposed over 60 sheets this year mostly QL and following my trip to Spitsbergen this Summer (35 sheets of QL exposed) have been very impressed with Velvia 100 and Pro 160S. I expect to average 40-50 sheets a year. Can I be included?
PS: My real name is Steve Hammett
While it is almost certainly getting closer, I don't see it as "looming" just yet. Digital cameras are firmly heading towards video to such an extent that users are starting to complain in forums about paying for this sort of feature when they don't want it. Commercial photographers see things differently and many look forward to the day when they can just run the wedding video and pick the exact frames that the couple like and have them printed, none of which needs to concern most of us. Maybe even some will move back to still (film) cameras instead?DJ wrote:Sad but I think that fated awful day when the film is discontinued altogether is definitely looming closer.
Having seen the 'machine gun' shooting style that David Noton uses in his Chasing the Light video (Glastonbury Tor), I can understand why he would be reluctant to use film. He even says he spent an evening on the downs with his 6x17 and ended up with a £100 film and developing bill. By my calculation (and without discount) that means 15 rolls of 120 film or 60 shots! Even with bracketing that is a minimum of 20 compositions!DJ wrote:David Noton just published his latest "Dispatches" to reveal he has sold his trusted GX617 and is now "film free", so I guess you can remove him from the list if he was on it.
Sad but I think that fated awful day when the film is discontinued altogether is definitely looming closer.
It seems to be a trend for photographers who started off years ago shooting exclusively film these days end up shooting more and more digital, many excusively. And almost without exception most of their best shots are still the ones they shot on film back in the day.timparkin wrote:Interestingly (to me anyway), the only shots that had real 'wow' in that video were his 6x17 velvia shots? The same goes for the blog post about ditching film. The stitch shot wasn't a 'stunner' (although it was only a test).
Yeah, possibly so. And, as said, it was only a test after all... However, having shot digital for over 6 years you'd expect to see a few 'showcase' shots being digital on the video? Maybe they only chose pano shots for the format. We'll have to wait another 10 years to find out. With only 3 years very part time experience in photography under my belt, I'm hardly one to listen to anyway.dave_whatever wrote:It seems to be a trend for photographers who started off years ago shooting exclusively film these days end up shooting more and more digital, many excusively. And almost without exception most of their best shots are still the ones they shot on film back in the day.timparkin wrote:Interestingly (to me anyway), the only shots that had real 'wow' in that video were his 6x17 velvia shots? The same goes for the blog post about ditching film. The stitch shot wasn't a 'stunner' (although it was only a test).
When we went to Maldon to seek out locations for the Spring Workshop, we met with a wonderful boatbuilder, still building and restoring old wooden boats. Upon seeing our "ancient" cameras, he asked us why we continued to use such equipment when digital must be so much easier; Helen quickly replied with the question, "How do you feel about fibreglass boats?". "Ah!" he said, "I see what you mean".timparkin wrote:The film industry is worth £1bn worldwide.. Does this sound like a dying industry.. Perhaps it's dying in the same way that petrol powered cars are dying or in the same way that woodworking skills are a dying trade because most things are plastic/chipboard/etc.
i think it perhaps a little unfair to use the "machine gun" label for David Notontimparkin wrote:Having seen the 'machine gun' shooting style that David Noton uses in his Chasing the Light video (Glastonbury Tor), I can understand why he would be reluctant to use film. He even says he spent an evening on the downs with his 6x17 and ended up with a £100 film and developing bill. By my calculation (and without discount) that means 15 rolls of 120 film or 60 shots! Even with bracketing that is a minimum of 20 compositions!
I'm not saying his approach is necessarily bad but I am saying that it isn't compatible with film.
To be fair to David Noton, he's done his time, served his apprenticeships and he's used the full gamut formats, including LF. A typical machine gun shooter is going to fire off loads of shots hoping the composition on one turns out ok, I don't see David Noton doing that, he takes his time and considers his composition and merely shoots many exposures of that composition in the changing light conditions because he can, at no cost. I also don't believe for a moment that he took quite that many exposures when shooting film or that he's your typical machine gun shooter, but then in comparison to LF, doesn't eveyone seem like one? 
I can't remember for sure.Not really so remarkable when it was his main camera for nearly 20 years and shot almost exclusively with it, he's only "gone digital" in the last 4 or so. I do know what you mean though, I believe I can see a difference in his pre-digital shots compared with the newer ones, the film ones appear to me to be more "epic". I guess he's just evolving, the majority of his income is from stock sales, and look at what has happened to that industry... Whether the evolution of his photography is for better or worse... a subjective thing I guess, but he does it because he must.timparkin wrote:Interestingly (to me anyway), the only shots that had real 'wow' in that video were his 6x17 velvia shots? The same goes for the blog post about ditching film. The stitch shot wasn't a 'stunner' (although it was only a test).
Yes you're right of course, I don't expect it will happen anytime soon, I'm just becoming aware that it will happen, and I expect it will come out of the blue, much like the withdrawl of QL has. And when the film is withdrawn, the processing will be withdrawn, and the chemicals will be withdrawn ( frankly, I'm amazed you can still buy them in this Nanny state ), and even the enthusiasts like us, who shoot film and LF because we want to, even though it's not as practical or economical, will have no choice but to hang up our darkcloths. Despite our nature for tinkering with most of the aspects of film photography ourselves ( developing, printing etc. ), making your own film? that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.timparkin wrote:The film industry is worth £1bn worldwide.. Does this sound like a dying industry.. Perhaps it's dying in the same way that petrol powered cars are dying or in the same way that woodworking skills are a dying trade because most things are plastic/chipboard/etc.
EddieB wrote:Hi Tim
Although I'm still not able to scan film - so not able to post any results on the 'net - I'm still getting through way over your threshold in colour neg (Fuji Pro160S) and B&W. Using my recently completed darkroom for printing.
I'd be pleased if you would add my name to the list.
Best Regards