Fine art--digital or medium format

I am looking to get a new camera and moving toward fine art... I want something

that will capture detail...

I shoot now with a d2h and a d2hs (work owned) and cannot deal with the image

quality. I also use a d100 (mine) and like it better but the sensors are not

great. So now I have the Nikon gear in terms of lenses... but not the camera.

I have read that the Nikon d2xs is comparable to the Hasselblad medium format

but when I see examples the color looks weak in the Nikon. In any event I am

looking at splurging so what do you think? I would like large images (as large

as possible) with no loss. What does Andreas Gursky shoot with, does anyone know?

Thanks

1. How big do you need your enlargements? How close do the viewers see your photos?

 

If you want really big (like on the side of as building), then you may even have to go large format.

 

2. Color, etc. from your Nikon depend on your post-processing. There are PS actions you can use to make your image emulate Velvia, if you want.

"I would like large images (as large as possible) ..."

 

Large format film then, maybe even 8x10. Gurskys work is extremely detailed with prints measured in multiples of feet, yes? Using current 35mm form factor DSLR's, you won't get anywhere near satisfactory resolution with a straight shot .

 

Alternatively, static subject matters are amenable to digital mosaic techniques. I've just started to experiment with this myself, and the results are very encouraging. The largest test capture I've done so far is about 100MP, enough to output a 300dpi print at 30x40.

 

It doesn't really matter, but I'm using a Canon XT DSLR.

Gursky is using 5x7. Clyde Butcher 4x5 only when depth of field is critical, otherwise from 5x7 to 11x14. Both print BIG.

Hello Mary!

 

Most people making today a big mistake! You cannot compare a small negative with a large sheet film negative! In the analogue photography, the size of negative makes the final quality of the image! The bigger the better, for enlargements!

 

This basic law has also not changed in the digital photography. The bigger the sensor, the better the image quality for enlargements.

 

Another question is, do you really need this, or can you afford this very expensive adventure?

 

Regards

<p>For fine art I wouldn't think of anything smaller than medium format. As other posters

have mentioned, large format offers a number of advantages too, although the learning curve

is quite steep if you're entirely new to it. A lot depends on your interpretation of 'fine art', but

if you enjoy the quality of a beautifully toned and detailed print at sizes above 20 inches then

forget digital.</p>

Mary, I recently printed a 24"x27" image on my Epson 7800. It was from a 2 1/4 Kodak GX chrome shot with a Rollei6008/90mm Schneider. When I picked it up, my framer was stunned that he was able to clearly make out well-defined drops of water no bigger than 1/8" in width. You can get this kind of nose to the print definition (not just "sharpness') with medium format, as well as the depth of color and shadow quality you are looking for. I also have a Nikon D70 and shoot some of the best glass Nikon makes, including the ultrasharp 70-200 VR. This is wonderful gear and is indispensible for on-the-go work. I have captured spontaneous images with this gear that would have been impossible with the Rollei. I have also printed many of the Nikon images to a max of 16x20. While the detail is there, I just find that the depth or full dimension isn't, particularly with landscapes that have a significant tonal range. Shadow detail and bokeh are also superior with chromes. Bottom line is that both tools are wonderful so long as you play to their strengths. For controlled landscapes, I only use the Rollei. With a properly exposed/focused image on Astia, Velvia or Astia, you can make creditable enlargements to three feet, and perhaps beyond. No way with the Nikon whoses strengths lie elsewhere.

Gursky shoots large format film with a 5x7 view camera. the film is scannedand then he

works over each scanned image on a pixel by pixel basis -these scans are heavily digitallly

"edite" and retouched for tone, contrast, color and content. The image is then output on to

large format color film and isprinted as a full scale proof. he will sometimes go through

several iterationsof proofing and re-editing to get exactly the iamge he wants to create.

 

On the other hand my friend Christopher Campbell is making very large prints based on

shooting with a Canon 5D and ishaving a fair amount of success with his work.

Very large images are best done on a LF camera and shooting LF is a whole nuther ballgame. Many try the format and bow out because of the constraints. You had better rent something, or buy a cheap Graphic, and try it before you plump down large money for good lenses and better equipment and then find out it's not for you.

 

If you wanted to stay with MF you could find yourself a Mamiya 7II for which the lenses are considered by many as some of the best around. If shooting a fine grain b&w film (color aside) and using the right developer you should be able to go pretty large. The 6x7 format would be as small as I would go for larger prints. Remember large prints equate to large money and any digital manipulation will require computer expenditures as well.

You can shoot "fine art" with any camera. It depends on what you want stylistically, and people have done "fine art" with everything from toy cameras to large format.

 

If you want to "capture detail," that's a different thing and has nothing at all to do with "fine art."

 

You can make large images with a variety of cameras, but if your goal is "detail" and "large images," that doesn't really say much about what you are actually trying to do. What kind of photos are you trying to take?

In printing, "fine art" just means the customer cares maybe a tad more than another customer. One hears daily different meanings by customers, it like saying "music" likes its just rap, and another says music is jazz, and another its the pan flute and zamfir. Its far better to use some actual adjectives and nouns describing ones work instead of the vanilla fine art term, which means anything. Its really a tacky overworked phrase. Its like going into Home depot and asking for a tool, or wood, and expecting the clerk to mind read if the tool is a screwdriver, toilet plunger, skill saw, hoe, level, hammer, ramset, or sheetrock screw driver. Folks who really use tools should use terms to say what house building task or type of image they are shooting, instead of politician doublespeak. Its far better to say landscape, soccer images, sports photos, bloopers soap advertising, sunsets, wedding, portraits than using the goofy term fine art; which is used for ANY type of images. Thus this question reads more like a film versus digital thread with no real defined image type to be shot, thus no answer.

Any camera can be used for fine art. The definition which most people associate with fine art is:

 

 

"Those referred to by scholars as being chiefly concerned with the mind and imagination. In short, art for art's sake. Not created for decorative, illustrative or commercial purposes."

 

This definition is from the web. It is sort of what everyone thinks fine art is, but it is articulated well.

I pretty much agree with Kelly & Thomas: "fine art" is whatever you define it to be.

 

More directly to your comments on the camera involved, you do realize the D2H is meant more for sports or other fast-action type shooting & is a 4.25MP sensor as opposed to the D2X which is 12MP? I think ANY other current DSLR will suit your wish for more detail better than the D2H.

 

With your wish for large prints, well the larger the "negative" whether film or digital the better. It just depends on how much money & hassle you are willing to deal with.

My suggestion would be a memiya rz67 pro 2.Do some research on this camera and the 6x7 format(try mamiya.com)I don't think you'll be dissapointed.Invest in a couple of good lenses and you'll be on your way.If you want you can always add a digital back.(Ithink they make one for this camera but I'm not 100% sure)I think film will always be the way to go for serious fine art photography.Not that there aren't some great digital pics out there, but I dont think their percieved or valued the same way.

When you go to Mamiya.com look under "master of medium" it's their website.