thegman
Veteran
Hi Mike,
I don't need the resolution, but I want it! Anyway, I think for the moment I may skip 4x5 and go with 6x9 on a camera like a Fotoman 69, so I get large format lenses, ground glass, etc. but the convenience of roll film.
If I was interested in digital then I think you'd have a plan there, but digital is not my thing, not at the moment anyway.
Cheers
Garry
I don't need the resolution, but I want it! Anyway, I think for the moment I may skip 4x5 and go with 6x9 on a camera like a Fotoman 69, so I get large format lenses, ground glass, etc. but the convenience of roll film.
If I was interested in digital then I think you'd have a plan there, but digital is not my thing, not at the moment anyway.
Cheers
Garry
Frank Petronio
Well-known
haha that's bull, it looks completely different regardless of resolution.
MCTuomey
Veteran
well, frank, if it's really bull, there are a lot of architectural photographers whose LF gear gathers dust while they shoot 22 mpx cameras and tilt-shift lenses for a lot of their paying magazine and ad work. their backs and shoulders appreciate it. and the fast turnaround is no doubt appreciated by their clients.
proper use of tools separates the fools ...
garry, i didn't mean to come off like a smart a**. didn't realize you're committed to film, sorry.
proper use of tools separates the fools ...
garry, i didn't mean to come off like a smart a**. didn't realize you're committed to film, sorry.
thegman
Veteran
You didn't at all, don't worry about it.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I don't dispute the value of digital but having done a lot of both with all kinds of cameras, 4x5 looks different. There is more to how an image looks than simple resolution and no medium format >40x50 sensor is going to match the surface area of a 5x4 sheet of film.
Jamie123
Veteran
I gotta agree with Frank here. I have quite a bit of experience with high end Phase One backs on view cameras and Alpas and it's just not the same. I can't really put my finger on it. The resolution is amazing with these backs but it's still different. A while ago I had a talk with a very established retoucher and he agreed. He said he didn't miss the days of film at all as it was a major PITA (they used to do their own drum scans) but he did agree that digital is different (and in his opinion not as nice as film but that's subjective).
Of course most architecture and interior photographers I know have switched from film to digital by now. That doesn't mean that there's no difference. It just means that they can accept that it's different and still make good work that may not look exactly the same as what they used to do.
Besides, switching to digital is mostly a matter of making their life easier and adapting to current expectations as far as far as budget, file delivery and processing go. And I have to agree with that. I have a small shoot for my personal work coming up and I thought about doing it with 4x5 at first. But both the cost of processing and the hassle of scanning made me decide to call in a favor instead and have someone lend me a Phase One IQ180 back.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Can't disagree. If you want or need the look of film, digital capture won't do.
Garry, does the fotoman series give you the movements needed? i recall you can get a version that will shift, don't know about tilt.
Garry, does the fotoman series give you the movements needed? i recall you can get a version that will shift, don't know about tilt.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
OK we're cool ;-p I was calling the Deardorff gang to come to your house....
You know the problem with the zone focusing cameras like the Fotoman, the Linhof 617, Horseman 612, etc. is that it becomes really hard to focus and compose near and far subjects in the same shot. If you look at portfolios from photographers using these cameras you get a sense that they eventually give up and start shooting landscapes at infinity and most of the work gets really boring unless they are mountain climbers or shooting something very spectacular.
Something like a 4x5 Cambo Wide, with a easy to access ground glass, at least makes it convenient to check the shot out. The cameras with the fixed roll film backs that require removing the entire roll to mount a piece of naked glass (imagine carrying that safely) are a real PITA.
Frankly a 4x5 Crown Graphic at least gives you front movements, closes with the lens onboard into a strong, safe box, and costs a fraction of the price of anything else.... seems like the biggest bang for the buck.
You know the problem with the zone focusing cameras like the Fotoman, the Linhof 617, Horseman 612, etc. is that it becomes really hard to focus and compose near and far subjects in the same shot. If you look at portfolios from photographers using these cameras you get a sense that they eventually give up and start shooting landscapes at infinity and most of the work gets really boring unless they are mountain climbers or shooting something very spectacular.
Something like a 4x5 Cambo Wide, with a easy to access ground glass, at least makes it convenient to check the shot out. The cameras with the fixed roll film backs that require removing the entire roll to mount a piece of naked glass (imagine carrying that safely) are a real PITA.
Frankly a 4x5 Crown Graphic at least gives you front movements, closes with the lens onboard into a strong, safe box, and costs a fraction of the price of anything else.... seems like the biggest bang for the buck.
thegman
Veteran
I'm OK with not having shift/tilt etc. on the Fotoman. At the moment, I'm looking to get a MF camera which can be used nicely on a tripod, and handheld. Currently my 'blad is tripod only, and the Rolleiflex, well, it's small, but I don't really enjoy shooting it handheld.
The Fotoman 69 has a removable back, so that should be moderately convenient for exact composition on the ground glass. The Cambo Wide I like, although it's a bit bigger than the Fotoman, which is the closest thing I can find to an Alpa, which are out of my price range.
The Fotoman 69 has a removable back, so that should be moderately convenient for exact composition on the ground glass. The Cambo Wide I like, although it's a bit bigger than the Fotoman, which is the closest thing I can find to an Alpa, which are out of my price range.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=86537
You should just buy Craig Tuffin's excellent and complete Sinar Handy kit advertised over on the LFP forum. He is trusted seller, it is a much higher quality build than the Fotoman, and it is a smoking deal. You will never find such a complete kit and he wants to sell it to a real user, even though he could break it up and make more money.
Since you have to be an active member of the forum to see the ads, I'll cut and paste here. Joining the LFP forum would make a lot of sense rather than asking these Leicaphiles questions about film larger than their cameras ;-p
Trust me on this one, you can't get hurt.
You should just buy Craig Tuffin's excellent and complete Sinar Handy kit advertised over on the LFP forum. He is trusted seller, it is a much higher quality build than the Fotoman, and it is a smoking deal. You will never find such a complete kit and he wants to sell it to a real user, even though he could break it up and make more money.
Since you have to be an active member of the forum to see the ads, I'll cut and paste here. Joining the LFP forum would make a lot of sense rather than asking these Leicaphiles questions about film larger than their cameras ;-p
Trust me on this one, you can't get hurt.