Switch from 4x5 to Canon Digital

[Michael Fanelli]

Facinating article on Luminous Landscape by Alain Briot. He has switched from 4x5 film cameras to Canon !Ds Mark II. Excellent down-to-earth, in the field essay. Worth the read.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

[Speed]

Facinating article on Luminous Landscape by Alain Briot. He has switched from 4x5 film cameras to Canon !Ds Mark II. Excellent down-to-earth, in the field essay. Worth the read.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/1Ds-4x5.shtml

Personally, I believe that a Canon 1Ds or a Nikon D2X could compete with the larger formats.

"I do believe,
I do believe,
I do believe."

The Lion From The Wizard Of OZ

If it's good enough for B. Moose Peterson, then it's good enough for me!

[another view]

I'll bet if you put 30x40 prints from each side by side, they'd all be very impressive. You will, however, lose all the perspective adjustment with a DSLR. Tilt-shift lenses are available but they don't give as much correction, and are only available in a couple of focal lengths.

[Speed]

I'll bet if you put 30x40 prints from each side by side, they'd all be very impressive. You will, however, lose all the perspective adjustment with a DSLR. Tilt-shift lenses are available but they don't give as much correction, and are only available in a couple of focal lengths.

Ahhh, yes indeed. I should have more succintly stated that the straight up photo quality is competetive, as you stated.

You definitely give up something by using the smaller format, but there are trade off's in most everything in life. He gave up tilt/shift for better tonal range and quicker/easier use.

Personally, I don't get why anyone would lug a large format camera around. Medium format maybe, but large format? And large format guys probably wonder why the 35mm guys settle for "mediocre" results from such a small format. Different strokes for different folks. :-)

[another view]

And large format guys probably wonder why the 35mm guys settle for "mediocre" results from such a small format.

True. Ever talk to LF shooters? Different world.

It's something I'd love to do, but there's only so much time and money out there... I've heard LF people say that 35mm can only be enlarged to 5x7, and others will only do contact prints from LF negs. Contact prints are the same size as the negative, so 35mm contact prints would be 1" x 1-1/2"! If you ever get a chance to see Edward Weston's work, most (if not all) of it is 8x10 contact prints. The detail and smoothness (not sure how to describe it) is amazing.

And try out an LF if you ever get the chance - I got to once, and it really makes you think. MF isn't much different than 35mm other than bigger film, but LF is totally different. LF field cameras and a couple of lenses can be carried in a small backpack, BTW.

[drg]

This is a great article, and fits in with what's been a real hot topic for the past year or so regarding film vs. digital. Briot has passed what for many has been the critical threshold, he's actually taken a camera into the field and used it!

With the advent of a lot of the HDR type software and the concepts of combining images (being panoramic stitiching or masked overlays or whatever) large images from digital are going to become very prevalent in months rather than years.

Several photographers and their groups or employers are still jumping up and down on the MF or LF bandwagon unecessarily. Particularly the one's in my opinion who bought early fieldable MF digitalbacks. Takes a team of 3-5 people to produce images with some of these! You have the photog, an assistant, the graphic designer/artist/computer tech, and Paolo. Paolo carries things, like the ninety pound bags of gear, many bags of gear.

Perspective shift. Uh, lot of people are just correcting the image now digitally. Secret is out, you can buy lots of different software. If you're making more than a handful of images, Tilt and Shift is pretty slow.

LF on film is gorgeous, but yes its a different mind set. The Sinar and Burke cameras require me to almost go through a cleansing process to use them. They make perhaps twenty to thirty exposures a YEAR. So far this year, one week in March shooting one interior scene, 4 hours to set up a photo and lighting after a day and half planning and measuring. Two exposures. Two images. Won't be the last, but not as much need for them. I only allocate two weeks max a year for LF work.

The LF images just don't look right on a computer screen. Tried, just not enough pixels. On the other hand large d-files can make incredible large prints under the right conditions.

In another post this evening I mentioned a photo artist aquaintance selling 20x30 prints made with a compact camera. He doesn't really mention it unless you ask or know. Lots of software but in the end it is the picture that counts.

The digital images are clean and you know right away what you've got! I can take a lot less images (and thus time) because the notebook shows me right away if the images is usable.

I'm just waiting for what comes next. Photography has been as exciting technically recently as it has ever been.