Quote Originally Posted by Photo-John
srobb-
I've found that I just don't have the patience for it.
A good 4x5 transparency is a beautiful thing. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing.
I ran upon this in a Google search and couldn't resist replying, although I'm sure it'll prolly never be seen by the original posters.

I love that first part of the quote. Most people have no idea what true photography is. In this case, the author saved my respect by understanding that a good 4x5 transparency is beautiful.

Everyone now-a-days thinks they're a pro. Working for a little while in a camera store during a low part in my photo career taught me a few lessons. 9 out of 10 people on the net that claim they're a professional are full of it. When someone came into my shop and tells me they're a pro and then they tell me they shoot with a Canon Rebel or a Nikon D40 and a kit lens, I wanted to reach across the counter and give them all five across the face.
90% of those people also told me they didn't operate out of the 'P' mode.

It really kills me. I understand film is not for all, but if you're going to sit there and tell me you are a pro, you need to know how to operate your camera a little deeper than the 'P' mode.

So, that said, 4x5 (Or any large format photography) is completely different than what people see today as 'normal' cameras. Yes, they do involve a lot of time. You don't just put your camera to your face and click away, looking back and seeing if you got what you think is 'the' shot. With LF you actually have to THINK about what you're making a photograph of. If you ask any LF photographer, having to pay for the expensive LF film, gear and processing makes you want to see the best shots come out of it. You make a mistake and that's $5-10 depending on the film and processing you use. (IE E-6 or B&W) I'm willing to bet that the photographs you saw her make were all of the same thing. All she was doing was bracketing the image. More than likely she'll not use two of the images she took.

So, yes, does it take longer? Indeed it does. But when you are successful in making an image that you wanted, it makes it all worth while.

Also there is no 35mm digital camera that can even come close to a 4x5 negative or transparency scanned on a drum scanner. No way.

A good MF back or LF scanning back may compare, but I've even tried the MkIII's and while they're getting closer they're not there yet. One 4x5 scan can get me a 1gb working file. I'd like to see the MkIII or D3 do the same.

-Brian

PS: If you shoot

A) With a Rebel or D40/40x/60 etc
B) Don't know how to shoot out the 'P' mode
C) Still only own the kit lens(es)

and call yourself a pro, please promtly laugh at yourself in a mirror.