New hi-res film camera

[ChrisPlatt]

Heard this interesting story on NPR's Studio 360 today:

"Artist Clifford Ross was disappointed with the pictures he took on vacation. So he built a new kind of camera with resolution years ahead of digital photography – and may have reinvented how we look at pictures."

Go to http://www.studio360.org/show.html

Then click on "Cyclorama" link...

Chris

 

[Stephan]

I dont get it, it looks like the dude just cobbled together a very alrge view camera. I cant find anything on his site about how his camera works exactly, all I can see is that it uses negatives and it's huge.

 

[amateriat]

"Cobbled together"? Take a look at this.

This has been in the works for a little while, and it's amazing. Sort of kicks the whole digital/film argument up a few atmospheres.


- Barrett

 

[ywenz]

Pointless camera, unless you're printing wallpaper sized prints like this guy's doing. This camera doesn't affect me one bit.

 

[JOE1951]

No real surprise here.

There are a couple of guys around for a couple of years now doing this ultra large format work. I first saw this guys photos of waves crashing on beaches which believe were taken during hurricanes.

The cameras are custom built/handmade with a aerial-photo camera magazines attached. The negs start at 9.5 x 9.5 in sq. and can go higher. Optics are typically aerial camera optics or old "obselete" process camera lenses.


If you look around military/government surplus suppliers you can come across them

http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/i1433.html

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I thought it interesting the artist chose film over digital,
went really big, and then assembled the camera himself.
And that the story aired on a radio show heard nationally...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-

 

[Socke]

Aha, and now we have a film camera for which you all give up your rangefinders just because it can capture more detail than most digitals?

 

[sf]

This is just another "gigapixel camera"

nothing special. They are shooting large format negatives and slides, scanning them, and calling the camera a massive digital camera, which it isn't by any measure.

I am doing the same thing if I go buy an 8x10 camera, a drum scanner, and go out shooting landscapes. No difference at all. This isn't a digital camera. It doesn't affect the film vs digital debate any more than my scans of the RF645's frames do. It's an identical process. just a bigger tool.

The fact that they say these gigapixel cameras are showing us the future of digital photography. . . that's just inaccurate. This is showing us what scanning large format negs on drum scanners looks like.

Give me the giant CCD out of the Hubble telescope, or out of some huge earthbound telescope, work on the sensors' capabilities to handle earthbound levels of light, and then you'd have the future look of digital.

This is just a terrible misnomer. And quite frankly, his work is mediocre.

 

[Socke]

He got a patent on the camera? Ok, I held the USPTO in low esteem, but now it sunk even deeper.

 

[StuartR]

Seriously, Ilford sells 20x24 inch sheet film on the commercial market. The only thing special about Clifford Ross's 9x18 in work is that he knows how to market himself and positions himself as if he is the only ULF shooter.

 

[justins7]

It's also a stupid concept. The senseless persuit of sharpness and hugeness is so misguided. Can photography really "capture" "reality"? Just live a little, man, instead of worrying about authentic reproduction.

If he's so unhappy with his snapshots of landscapes, just take a chunk of earth and nail it to the wall.

 

[sf]

He got a patent on the camera? Ok, I held the USPTO in low esteem, but now it sunk even deeper.

they let him patent it because they don't have a clue about the technology. IF they understood that it represents neither a new process or a new technology, or a unique assembly of existing technologies, they would not have allowed the patent.

 

[amateriat]

Give me the giant CCD out of the Hubble telescope, or out of some huge earthbound telescope, work on the sensors' capabilities to handle earthbound levels of light, and then you'd have the future look of digital.

This is just a terrible misnomer. And quite frankly, his work is mediocre.

That crazy-big CCD in the Hubble is just as "out there" as this view-camera-on-steroids, although I hardly think of either enterprise as pointless. Pushing the proverbial envelope often involves exercises which seem nutso on first examination. No harm in either "expedition", IMO. Sometimes it's the only way to figure out new stuff.

As far as the quality of his work? He's documenting stuff – I didn't smell any artistic pretense there. But no, it doesn't gun my motor either.


- Barrett


- Barrett

 

[sf]

That crazy-big CCD in the Hubble is just as "out there" as this view-camera-on-steroids, although I hardly think of either enterprise as pointless. Pushing the proverbial envelope often involves exercises which seem nutso on first examination. No harm in either "expedition", IMO. Sometimes it's the only way to figure out new stuff.

As far as the quality of his work? He's documenting stuff – I didn't smell any artistic pretense there. But no, it doesn't gun my motor either.


- Barrett


- Barrett

yeah, I guess. I looked through his other galleries too. I'd call it pretentious but have to say that it falls short of being anything special.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I recall a 20" x 24" (or similar size) camera that Polaroid made a few years ago. They lent it to various photographers to make exhibition size instant prints.

 

[ch1]

Yay! My life is so much more enriched by leaning this info!

Thanks...... :bang:

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I find it quite strange that this story appears to have upset so many of you.
Perhaps my subject line was misleading.

I apologize if you feel I have wasted your time by bringing it to your attention.
I'll crawl back beneath my rock now...

Chris

 

[Socke]

Chris, your post was at least entertaining 🙂

This kind of camera would be much to big and thus too limiting for me.

What I don't get is that that guy got a patent on this.

 

[JOE1951]

I agree with Socke. I can't imagine how this guy got a patent. There is nothing particularly new about this.

As for negative comments, I think your just seeing a lot of jadedness from people who have "seen it before, show me something new!"

I personally get a kick out of wierd and unusual cameras, but photographers in general can be such gear heads that all to often the equipment one uses takes priority over the photos one takes.

In the case of these ultra-large format guys, their photos for the most part don't seem all that interesting, it could be that big prints with tons of detail just don't have the same impact on a computer screen that they would have standing in front of one...although I do like the hurricane/crashing surf pics!

You can come out from under your rock now

 

[sjc]

this guys work makes Michael Reichmann look artistic

the more detail to dazzle with = the less reliant on art it needs to be

seems cliche' + conceptually empty to me

it's the same old battle for superioirity in representational technique/quality

if you want to make an essential copy of the experience of nature you are going have to do something other than photograph it

steven