Let's say I want to make a name for myself...

<p>...and money is no object. (By now you might have guessed that this is all about the hypothetical.)</p>

<p>I see lots of discussions about "which camera, which lens," but I want a different discussion. If I am serious about nature photography, particularly landscape photos, what about the virtues of medium and large format, as opposed to 35mm and small format digital? Is there still a contingent of large format film photographers working the field? And what about digital backs for large and medium format? Is that practical for the landscape photographer? Are there even any large format digitals operating outside of studios?</p>

<p>I have never done large format photography, but I would be interested in exploring it, if it is still a viable way to get the best picture. Is film, processing and custom printing still readily available for large format?</p>

<p>I have seen the claims that 20-odd megapixel digital SLRs rival large format, but I have a hard time believing that. Is it possible that they can be that good, and if they are, then wouldn't larger formats, including field and view cameras be just that much better if digital?</p>

<p>So many questions...</p>

<p>Terrance:</p>

<p>With a bit of experience, you'll find that large format film and the digital backs both produce very beautiful and very different looking images. Add to that, the many types of printing and reproduction and you have a vast range of possible outcomes.</p>

<p>As for "making a name for yourself," I'll be that while you're out there worrying about digital rivaling large format, somebody with a 10d, a 50mm f/1.8, a decent tripod and really solid marketing will come out ahead.</p>

<p>Maybe you'd better just call me Terry.</p>

<p>In that case, I'd suggest you skip the gear testing and stick with the marketing.</p>

<p>You want to make a name for yourself? You could try lighting a campfire at the base of one of the arches in Arches Nat. Park in Utah, and taking a shot. I really don't think what gear you use matters at all. What matters is how good you are at marketing yourself.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

there's a timely article on the subject in the most recent issue of OP . . . interesting article but nothing

new . . .

<p>When you want to lose weight, it's 75% diet, 25% exercise. Same thing in photography, 75% business, 25% actual shooting.</p>

<p>Alas, the quickest way to lasting fame is to go crazy and do some uniquely awful thing (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus">link</a>). I'm guessing that's not the way you want to go. Maybe the fires at the Arches NM would get you a local sort of fame with the monument staff, at least.</p>

<p>I believe the Leica S2 is being marketed for just that use. If you can afford one, perhaps you can get there first with more pixels to sell.</p>

<p>Well, I see I need to find another place to talk cameras. Thanks to everyone for completely missing the point.</p>

<p>Well... money was no object I'd build an enormous view camera (at least 20"+) and pay an army of porters to cart it around for me. </p>

<p>Or, for wildlife... a 1700/4 for my digital MF system: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100101zeiss1700f4.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100101zeiss1700f4.asp</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Adios.</p>

<p>With your attitude, I'm sure you make a name for yourself wherever you go, by the way.</p>

<p>Making a name for one's self in photography, has more to do with images , than equipment. Does anyone care what equipment Ansel Adams used? In fact his earliest, and most revered work was shot with old single coated glass. Which by today's standards is considered inferior.</p>

<p>Terry, with all due respect I think the respondents were put off by the title of your post. Every week someone comes to photo.net and says the equivalent of "I want to be a famous photographer surrounded by beautiful women (or, in this forum, beautiful scenery) everywhere I go; I think it's really neat that one can make a lot of money at that! Now, what should my first camera be?" So even though that doesn't describe you (I assume), your title had some of that tone.</p>

<p>It also is unclear whether you're being hypothetical or practical. If you do have an unlimited budget (e.g., $100K for gear, plus at least that much annually for travel), sure you can make <em>technically </em>excellent photographs, not that that's all it takes. But after saying "Pretend that money is no object," you start asking some bread-and-butter format-related questions. Perhaps if the thread had said, "Assume a $10,000 equipment/processing budget plus whatever I need for travel costs," we'd have more information to work with.<br /> <br />That said, <em>from a low-noise/high-resolution standpoint and considering nothing else</em>, when shooting at a given ISO the "20-odd megapixel digital SLRs" are generally acknowledged to be better than 35mm film shot at the same ISO, more or less equal to well-scanned medium-format film, and not to the level of drum-scanned large-format film. But there are many, many variables, so many that no one can say what someone else should do. Some people like the workflow of digital so much compared to film that it's a no-brainer to go digital, especially since the higher initial costs of high-resolution digital cameras can soon offset the costs of film, processing, and high-resolution scanning. Others like working with film and with film cameras enough that any technical edge digital might have is offset by their enjoyment of film and <em>its </em>workflow. If you haven't shot film before, do some research before taking the plunge. Unlike as with digital, you can't just bracket away with every possible scene you encounter when shooting large-format color, not when film and processing are <em>several dollars per exposure </em>and drum scanning can cost $100 per image.</p>

<p>The good news is that there are tremendous resources available to help make your decision. There are plenty of newbie questions in the archive of the Large-Format forum here at photo.net. and there are thousands of threads at largeformatphotography.info and apug.org and other such sites. Equipment can readily be rented, and you can always find many proponents of each format who are more than willing to explain why they shoot with the gear they do.</p>

<p>In the end, as others have suggested, if you want to make a mark in landscape photography far bigger factors than which of several roughly equal formats and cameras you use are your enthusiasm over the long term (e.g., your willingness to get up before dawn and go hiking in the freezing rain), your travel budget, your marketing skills, your other commitments (job? family? home base?), and your photographic vision.</p>

<p>Ralph:</p>

<p>I was the first to have missed the point. The post that should come up every week on Photo.net, but doesn't is "how can I do a better job of marketing myself?" On the nature forum it would have to be a bit tougher; "in a world dominated by people with superb marketing skills, how can I compete?" Of course, we never see such questions and I have no idea why.</p>

<p>Please forgive me Terrance, I saw "...I want to make a name for myself..." and thought that was what your question was really about. Had you marked your question as being more about gear than career, a whole different group of people would have answered.</p>

<p>If you have an unlimited budget, hire a pr firm or marketing specialist to sell your photos... that is worth far more than any gear you might pick up. A local photographer i know just did it, he is still in the trial phase, but he posted on Craig's site and got 60 applicants, and ended up hiring someone who had interned at some big magazines in New York. He offered her a base salary plus commission. It's only been a month and a half, so it hasn't picked up momentum, but she is selling. He just went to Dubai and Thailand for 4 weeks to shoot more while she does all the grunt work back home. Sounds good to me.</p>

 

<p>Ignoring the title of your thread and trying to answer the detailed kit questions I believe large format still reigns supreme with big enlargements. Below A4 size it gets difficult to tell the difference. You need good photographic technique to achieve the last word in quality - and dedication too. Have you tried lifting a camera bag with large format gear in it? Then there is the big old tripod. Digital backs are very expensive and the scanning ones are not really practcal outside the studio. Processing and printing is still available but getting more expensive as the demand goes down.</p>

<p>So back to your hypothetical question. I think you will still be able to make better big enlargements of images using LF film cameras but you also need a hypothetically very good photographer to take them. But the guys above are right. If you want to make a name for yourself it probably doesn't matter so much what gear you use as long as it is distinctive - marketing does matter though.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Double post again - sorry</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I suppose - at some point - a photographer wanting to pursue the ultimate perfection might want to consider if it woudn't be more expedient to become a painter. In a way, painting takes over where photography reaches its limits. Just saying ...</p>

<p>I think just go duplicate the rig that Edward Weston had for nostalgia, and see what comes of it. BTW I love the little published letter that surfaces now and then asking Ansel for advise on a lens. Not too big or expensive, a slower one, and Ansel recommends a Zeiss 90mm or something. That was probably the one lens he used for the rest of his life.</p>

This post might have been better addressed in the Large Format forum, as noone else will have any experience with the issues you are talking about. I have not personally used large format cameras, but I have seen other people using them in recent years. My understanding is that they are still very much in use. I do know that my local lab can process and print 4x5", although they get much more business in medium format.

 

The one thing that you would definitely benefit from in large format is the camera movements. The view camera allows you to control your plane of focus and perspective by using front and rear tilt, shift, swing, rise, and fall movements. I've never seen a digital view camera, but I have seen very expensive tilt/shift lenses. Those are not necessary on a view camera, as any lens will tilt and shift just as readily as any other.

 

You could theoretically use a medium format digital back on a large format camera, but you are cropping in the extreme in such a situation, and the expense is astronomical and impractical for landscape work. I believe digital backs only pay off in highly commercial fields like fashion and celebrity portraiture.

<p>perhaps this will help:<br>

http://www.davidpettitphotography.com/David_Pettit_Artist.htm</p>

<p><em>"if it is still a viable way to get the best picture</em>" Untill you know what that is for you it won't matter what you use.<br>

<br /><br>

Shooting large format is IMO a very difforent experience to others, on the hole anyway. But then I think just having black and white film in the camera is different to how you will shoot with a digital and converting. It may be less pronounced but it is different.<br>

<br /><br>

None of these things are the same. They may be as good for some but as far as I know there are no 4x5 digital cameras (scanning backs not included) though I could be wrong. The point is it's not the same. If I shoot with a 6cm x 6cm negative and an 85mm at f8 I get similar depth of field to shooting at f2 with 35mm, But the field of view will be like a normal 50mm on 35mm, You just cant do the same things. Same for 4x5. <br>

<br /><br>

Money? Below is a crop from a home made 4x5 on a £20 scanner. Both are much smaller than the original scan. But it is not the quality of the negative that make this a slightly boring picture. It would be similar on a £10.000 set up. </p>

<div></div>

<p>A Crop.</p><div></div>