My Ultimate Shot with Fuji GSW 690 and why I would use it again in the digital age!!!

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
4:04 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
This shot is one of my claims to fame, which has been published many times over the years by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Washington, DC (Last year it was used for a coin minted by VVMF to celebrate the Wall's 25th year in existence. It was shot with Kodak TMAX 400. The exposure was set for the wall itself using a Pentax digital spot meter. I knew the sky would be over exposed, but that was ok given the size of the negative and with proper darkroom manipulation. Today, it is drum scanned and edited in CS2. Although I own a Leica M8, I would NEVER use ANY digital camera to capture this type of image because digital cameras just do not cut it with that extreme amount of dynamic range, especially since this type of photo was candid and taken at "the moment", hence no time for multiple exposures and pasting and cutting in Photoshop. So in many situations, film is still superior, especially with the GSW 690's killer optics!
 
Hand On The Wall

Hand On The Wall

Hand%20on%20the%20Wall%20copy1994.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Hand on the Wall copy1994.jpg
    Hand on the Wall copy1994.jpg
    74.1 KB · Views: 0
The photo is iconic, but I think a D700 or D3 could have done it. Why not restage the photo and test the hypothesis with some modern digital cameras. Otherwise it is just an assertion of belief.

/T
 
I like the shot too...but I also believe I could have pulled it off with a dslr. You should see the dynamic range problems I've had taking daylight shots in the desert. It takes a little photoshop post processing, but I've handled very bad situations with my humble 300D.
 
PERHAPS one of today's DSLRs could manage the shot. But would it stand up to a massive enlargement like a 6x9 negative can? Would it hold all that detail at enlargement?
More importantly, it would just be a digital file on a hard drive and CD or DVD. This image is a tangible thing that was created on a known archival medium. It can be printed chemically or digitally and will last forever!
I am glad this image was created on film and not digital.
 
I don't mean to devalue film. I love film...hence my long overdue to be replaced 300D.
I'm just saying that with a 5D and photoshop, I could overcome the technical challenges behind the shot. (Not addressing the creative accomplishments.)
 
I don't have the technical background to comment on the medium used (plus I probably have a little bias toward film), but the image subject, composition, exposure, etc. is excellent. I can see why it's been published multiple times. Nice shot:angel:
 
photogdave said:
PERHAPS one of today's DSLRs could manage the shot. But would it stand up to a massive enlargement like a 6x9 negative can? Would it hold all that detail at enlargement?
More importantly, it would just be a digital file on a hard drive and CD or DVD. This image is a tangible thing that was created on a known archival medium. It can be printed chemically or digitally and will last forever!
I am glad this image was created on film and not digital.
Click to expand...

If it was candid and taken handheld, don't be so certain that a high end DSLR couldn't equal the dynamic range or resolution. While I think the image itself is superb, it isn't beyond the range of what I've captured with a Canon 40D or 1Ds Mk2.

6x9 sure is a nice format though!
 
Faintandfuzzy said:
If it was candid and taken handheld, don't be so certain that a high end DSLR couldn't equal the dynamic range or resolution. While I think the image itself is superb, it isn't beyond the range of what I've captured with a Canon 40D or 1Ds Mk2.

6x9 sure is a nice format though!
Click to expand...
I'm not so certain. That's why I said PERHAPS!
Again, a 35mm DSLR could probably manage similar dynamic range if viewing on a monitor or a regular size print, but what about a really big enlargement?
I'm not arguing digital quality, I'm just posing some questions.
 
That is a magnificent photo. Fine work. Might be rewarding to visit Vietnam and do something similar on behalf of the 500,000+ we killed
in their own country.

Any contemporary APS DSLR can print extraordinary detail and tonal range to mural size.

I seriously doubt that Fuji's lens resolves as well as contemporary DSLR primes. Certainly digital can match or exceed the tonal range with proper Photoshop. And no film is as archival as a properly managed digital file, including its own scan (which will be eternal with reasonable backing up and distribution...same with film negatives, which should at least be duplicated if one is determined to exceed 100yrs).

fyi the "iconic" photos of Ansel et all are all backed up on digital files as well as on film duplicate negatives.
 
Last edited:
ok, here we go again... Digi vs Film; I've friend with a Canon 1D Mark III. That camera can take a shot in a coalmine with only a candle for light. Cost including body, lens, taxes etc... $7,000

Fuji GW690 all in roughly $1,000 plus film cost and processing.

Instant gratification for $7K or $1K for 1 hr processing, take yer pick.
 
photogdave said:
I'm not so certain. That's why I said PERHAPS!
Again, a 35mm DSLR could probably manage similar dynamic range if viewing on a monitor or a regular size print, but what about a really big enlargement?
I'm not arguing digital quality, I'm just posing some questions.
Click to expand...

For publishing sizes, you won’t notice any difference in resolution. I found that when using a 400 speed film like Tmax, I had equal resolving power at 16x24 between that and the Mk2. If you drum scan the film, you’ll maybe notice a difference at 20x30.
 
"Fuji GW690 all in roughly $1,000 plus film cost and processing.
Instant gratification for $7K or $1K for 1 hr processing, take yer pick.[/quote]

1) I think most 10MP+ DSLRs with primes could rival that Fuji to at least 13X19, but I agree that at mural size the Fuji's scan *might* be more attractive than grainless DSLR (assuming his film has sharp grain and assuming Fuji's lens is very sharp in corners)

2) No enlarger can print his negs as sharply as can a scan and inkjet...film negs start to look fuzzy in murals, have problems in corners, and many would consider 6X9 small for murals anyway. I've shot a lot of 6X9, love it.

3) It seems an insult to suggest that wonderful shot was the result of a mere $1000....it's obviously the result of a tremendous amount of skill. We should be talking about the photographer's work more than his camera equipment...and I think he's making a mistake to emphasize equipment.
 
Man, it's good to see someone using a 6x9 RF camera close-in. As far as the photographer's choice of media, to each his own.
 
JTK , I agree on the photo. I wish I'd taken it.

I was just dealing with the 'chestnut' known as "digi vs film" here on RFF. I'll use digi sometimes. Just the good stuff (digi) costs big while film stuff is in my snack bracket.
 
Tuolumne said:
But the OP's original post is about technical nit picking - not the quality of the shot.
Click to expand...
Tuolumne said:
...I think the OP is righteously proud of his shot, wants to share that image and his feelings. He distracted himself by blathering about film vs digital, evidently due to inexperience.

Also, since he's enjoying emotional juice from that Memorial, he might want to visit Vietnam to get the bigger story.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom