wildforlight

<p>I LOVE bridge and it is <strong>not</strong> "pointless and counterproductive." That is a very wrong blanket statement. For a high volume production photographer there is some truth in the statement, but for a slow fine art photographer like myself, it is completely wrong. <br>

Bridge is buggy though and sometimes the cashe's need to be purged or even the software completely reset (by deleting the Bridge restry keys very carefully) to get it to function right again.</p>

<p>We all do a lot! I find a lot of photographers are confused (and the public even more so) on the issue of manipulation/altering/processing/developing...<br>

Since an "original" (as the sensor captured it) raw file is a hypothetical version that comes out of ACR (Adobe Camera Raw - or another raw converter) with no corrections at all - everything set to zero, a <strong>flat</strong>, <strong>dark</strong>, <strong>colorless</strong> version (a digital negative if you will) we can not possibly accept that as a representation of our work! Thus we all are COMMITTED TO MAKING <strong>MAJOR CORRECTIONS</strong>. The fact is even if we are going for sheer realism, we still have to develop the heck out of an original whether film or digital to get it good.</p>

<p>I'm starting to look into the Linhof Tachihara 5x7.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or you could just use a 5x7 which has 75% more film area than a 4x5. It's about like merging two 4x5 exposures.<br>

BTW, your website mentions that you use 8x10 cameras. Maybe you should be ANSWERING these questions! </p>

</blockquote>

<p>5X7... never thought of that. I'm going to check into that!</p>

<p>As far as the website...<br>

1. I am now experimenting with and implementing 8x10 and 4x5. What is says on there I am currently right in the middle of doing.<br>

2. The website is being developed / built in <strong>preparation</strong> of the traffic we expect to receive do to gallery work later this year. Otherwise, few people browse there yet.<br>

3. No, in no way am I an expert (or even competent) in LF yet ("answering these questions") but will be, partially due to the great help and feedback here.</p>

<p>Eric, thanks for that link.</p>

<p>A few thoughts:<br>

Maybe a joint (two) 4x5 camera system working in concert? Of course at least the shutter speeds would have to be accurate.<br>

Not too worried about expense and am willing to invest.<br>

I am renting first and am hiring someone experienced to teach me.<br>

These are prints that will be scrutinized from inches away by art critics, art dealers, photographers and sometimes the general public.<br>

As someone points out above, the goal is to pioneer. <br>

Again, thank you to everyone for the very thoughtful feedback. I have read every word more than once.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am really appreciating all the feedback here. Exactly what I was after. I have read most of it thoroughly with the exception of the last few comments. I am printing it off again and will read those today. Thanks everyone very much! A lot of obstacles, but thats ok, I love a challenge.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dan South:<br />So even though 8x10 has four times the film surface or 4x5, it doesn't have four times the resolution. Add in the curvature of the film and the drop in clarity from shooting at, say, f/32 instead of f/16, plus the difficulties of scanning film that size, and the 8x10 shot <strong>may have no more resolution than the 4x5. </strong>The grain will look smoother, but that's about all you can count on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan,<br />If this is true, given the goal, maybe stitching 4x5 shots would be the better option?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But in the digital world, the difference between 4x5 and 8x10 probably won't be noticeable <strong>except on</strong> prints that are at least four feet wide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I often print a lot larger than 4 feet. 6 feet to 10 feet is norm. So, are you saying that for these sizes 8x10 would likely not do better?<br />Do you think that stitching say 3 to 4, 4x5 shots, with little overlap and the nodal point correct using a pano head would be able to out produce a 8x10 shot in terms of sheer detail in a 6-10 foot print?<br />Thanks for your help and suggestions!</p>

<p>Thank you!<br /><strong>Excellent feedback</strong> here, just as I was after. A lot to consider. I'm printing the thread off and will re read it all carefully.<br />Brian Cahn, I am in Vegas now. Will you be this way one day?<br />A couple thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li>I will only shoot certain images <strong>conducive</strong> to the LF format. As Bruce points out I would have an impossible time shooting most of my previous ocean work (and other dynamic stuff) with this type of camera. I do realize this and am going to relegate the camera to the right situations.</li>

<li>I am a hobbyist bodybuilder/power-lifter who hikes hills with a heavy backpack in my spare time so weight is not an issue.</li>

<li>I do need to go with color! I am a color photographer and Velvia lover, so I guess that relegates me to 8x10 stitching?</li>

<li>Wow those <strong>drum scans</strong> are going to be expensive! At West Coast: </li>

</ul>

<p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" width="61%" bgcolor="#ffffff" bordercolor="#ff6600">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td bgcolor="#ffcc99">1600MB</td>

<td bgcolor="#999999"> </td>

<td bgcolor="#cccccc"><strong>$275</strong></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</p>

<ul>

<li>For these shots I am planning on printing 6' 8' and 10', maybe bigger if I can get the right paper (I use Fuji Flex right now - and it is limited to 50 inches by 120inches). I need the highest quality scans, so unless there is something better than drum, I will have to pay the price.</li>

<li>I thrive on hard work, so "hard" does not intimidate me.</li>

<li>No desire for 4x5. I am marketing to the high end, and there is just something about looking people in the eye and being able to say "this is as good as it gets" knowing you paid a mighty price for them.</li>

<li>Over to the "dark slide!"</li>

<li>Yes, I intend on investing in a "super computer" maybe toward the end of this year, or beginning of next.</li>

<li>Thanks very much Kelly. I wont!</li>

<li>Bruce, discernible print resolution in high end fine art landscape prints is the goal. I do know what DOF and diffraction are, and though I am a newbie to 8x10, I am not to film or photography. I am open and will carefully consider all information presented here. Thanks for the helpful link. </li>

<li><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1008200">Sheldon Nalos</a> thank you. My better work is on my website not here on p.net. <strong>wildforlight.com</strong></li>

</ul>

<p>I'm going LF this year (8x10) and I have some questions???<br />I am a professional landscape photographer (WildforLight.com) and am moving into galleries this year and the coming years. After viewing some top class LF 8x10 prints (by quite a few top photographers, but recently Rodney Lough Jr) and comparing them to my DSLR, DSLR stitches, MF digital and MF digital stitches I finally realize that for huge mural sized prints (Fuji Flex) 8x10 is flat out awesome! Ken Duncan (AU), Rodney Lough Jr and Ben Horne have helped encourage me to come over to the dark side of film! <br />I'm still going to shoot the other formats, but for certain shots that are conducive to LF I am going to do so. The output (and goal) will be <strong>huge top resolution</strong> color (Velvia) landscape gallery prints. I mean up to the limits of Fuji Flex paper (which I think is 50"x120"). I might even use some <strong>larger paper</strong> for some Key gallery pieces. All will be laser prints (Lightjet).<br />I want to attempt to take this to a new level in resolution and print quality, and I know most will certainly consider it overkill (please don't try to dis-persuade me, my mind is made up). I want to exceed 8x10 in resolution. <br />So my first question is <strong>11x14 cameras</strong>... Are these going to produce that much more resolution (as the film size equates to)? Is there some type of blunted quality result do to say, more diffraction, or whatever... so that 11x14 does not really produce that much more resolution than a 8x10?<br />In this quest, what if I (as insane as it may sound to many) shot two 8x10 shots with a panorama head (with good nodal point technique) and sewed them together in a digital program like PS (attempting to get a quality film area of around 16x10 or larger - not print size BTW!). Would this be a better approach than a bigger camera film piece? All shots will be drum scanned to Tiff for color correction, and output.<br />Basically I know nothing about 11x14, and have only heard about them here.<br />Any resources you could point me to would be very helpful, I am just starting my initial research.<br />Also, if there is a better forum for this, please let me know.<br />Sincerely,<br />Mark</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Excellent point <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1008200">Sheldon</a> even though I read it a couple of years later!</p>

<p>View at Photoshops "print size" to see a fairly accurate version of your image. When doing prints I have my monitor set at its highest resolution and then I veiw the image one zoom closer than "print size" and then sharpen just a tad crispy. This is the industry standard.</p>

<p>BTW all those listed have very <strong>different</strong> styles!<br>

I think they "style" reffered to here might be quality.</p>

<p>First of all they <strong>start</strong> with insane WILD light caught by their cameras and very dramatic moments/compositions exposed perfectly to have data in all the areas from highlight to shadows. In other words it is the image taken NOT the PS that really makes the image. PS is the fine tuning development.<br>

Next they work in the raw darkroom (maybe ACR) to push the image in quality as far as possible, within the realm of reality they witnessed. Mastery of ACR or another converter is a major plus. They generally go for a contrasty image with punchy colors somewhat in the vein of Fuji Velvia film.<br>

Sometimes bracketed shots are masked in to get dynamic range under control, but sometimes a ND grad will do.<br>

In PS <strong>fine tuning</strong> is done to balance the tones and get it to look "right." Usually subtle Dodging, Burning will do it.<br>

Sometimes an "orton" soft glow effect at a <strong>very low</strong> opasity is brought in to some images in localized areas, and maybe more in the highlights then in the shadows or mid tones. Sometimes highlights tend to sort of glow when viewed by the eye but are too harsh or flat when interpreted by a digital camera. A touch of glow on some images might help relay this general look.<br>

Sometimes subtle localized contrast adjustments can be applied by erasing it in using layers.<br>

Lastly, Marc sort of innovated (to the best of my knowledge) a sharpening technique to overcome the general limitations of previous sharpening techniques. He basically downsizes about half way, adds a little too much low radius sharpening and then down sizes the rest of the way with a touch more sharpening. Sometimes some localized sharpeing is applied. You can look that up somewhere on the web. The cat has been out of the bag for some time.<br>

Again, medocre photos will still look medocre but awesome photos will have the final touch to them with these techniques. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I get great 30 inch plus prints off of 6 Mega pixels. Sometimes 36 inches. </p>

<p>10-12 and up to 21 Mega pixels I get prints up to 70-100 inches.</p>

<p>I have been <strong>stitching</strong> with the canon 5Dmark II and not considering overlap am getting approximately 40" x 60" fujiflex silver halide lightjet prints at the machines highest resolution of 300 ppi with just 3 shots (4 with overlap - normal aspect ratio) with <strong>ZERO interpolation!</strong><br>

My understanding is that at 60 or 70 inches I am going head to head with LF. Of course if I want a 100+ inch print LF wins, but that is unless I include some more stitches.</p>

Thanks everyone. I love the net feedback. I now have come to believe that shooting 8x10 but masking it to 16:9 would be the best approach. When I get to that phase, I'll have to show the results here on Photo.net LF forum. Thanks again for all the help!

 

 

 

Mark

Sorry I have not responded in full yet (16+ hour work days recently) I'll try to in the next day or two.

 

A lot of questions about 16:9 and WHY?...

 

Mainly because I like a very wide sweeping image, but am not generally drawn toward true panoramas and feel a bit restrained with 2:3 often. I think the 16:9 is a fantastic middle ground. Also people are getting used to viewing at 16:9 so that is an extra plus. I like to pioneer, and don't like to follow the crowd.

 

Joe you said: "If you look at historical art, particularly painting, there are hardly any great works of art that use a long-thin format. Most of the old masters..."

 

True. I studied art history in school and who I think were the true "masters" were creative people who never limited themselves to "in the box" type of thinking. Also, in modern times there have been many incredably successful images in 16:9. I think an image's success stands for itself completely apart from its aspect ratio.

 

I have experimenting with 16:9 now for about a year and a half with, I think great results (maybe see "Roxy's Tree" at http://www.towardsthelightphotography.com/gallery/4743450_5zaKb/1/281015793_hSAuw/Large).

 

I also like the "golden rectangle" quite a bit but see nothing magical about it. The "magic" is in the moment IMO.

 

Anyways, like I said, I'll get back here to answer in full in the next day or two. Thanks everyone for their patience.

 

Thanks everyone for the wonderful suggestions and feedback as well!

 

Mark

Thanks everyone for the wonderful responses so far!

 

I am working about 16 hrs a day right now, so I can not respond until tomorrow. I can say I mean 16:9 ASPECT RATIO not inches, so yes, 5.62 X 10 might be a good option.

 

And yes the golden rectangle might also be a very good option. I am familiar with that one too. Good suggestion.

 

I'll get back to the rest of the questions tomorrow.

 

Thanks again very much everyone!

 

Mark

I am a professional Landscape Photographer who has a LF idea, but with no LF

experience.

 

The idea is to have someone build me a custom 16:9 aspect ratio LF film camera

intended for very high resolution. I'd like to view the scene at 16:9. I know

I'll certainly likely have to cut the film. I want to work exclusively in Fuji

Velvia. I need the resolution to be comparable to 5x7 or even better, 8x10. I

do huge fine art landscape gallery prints. I know I won't be able to use the

camera in a lot of the work I do (high winds, very dynamic work...) but for

some things I think it would work. I do not want to shoot 8x10 and then crop

the image. I am not too concerned about cost (within reason).

 

So, I am wondering if and how it could be done?

 

Mark

Again thank everyone for the great and kind advice here!

 

When I get another spare moment I will read the new replies very carefully. But thanks for helping me in this process. A lot of food for thought.

Great information here, thanks everyone very much! It is very, very helpful.

 

I have looked into the scan back but a large portion of my landscape shots are very dynamic. This also makes it often impossible to recompose and stitch. That is why I am looking into including large format.

 

To give a little more detail to my madness, I am working toward making some large cutting edge landscapes prints. They will be optimized 76 x 120 inch prints at 300ppi (Oce Lightjet 500XL) without interpolation, and some 50" wide (however long) 16:9 aspect ratio Lambda prints at 400ppi without interpolation.

 

People are bound to ask why, so I'll say, because it can be done. I enjoy pushing photography as far as I can.

$350 for a high res drum scan of a 11x14 negative?

Does anyone know the exact pixel dimensions are of a top quality lab scan of a 8x10 sheet of film?

 

And maybe 4x5?

 

Again thanks everyone for all the great help so far!

First of all, thanks everyone for all the feedback so far! I am really busy so it might take a day to sort though all this. But thanks everyone for the feedback.

 

A lot of folks are asking what am I planning to do with the shots?

 

My goal is to capture some of the most breathtaking landscapes, scan them at the highest resolution and make some of the highest quality, highest res, colossal sized fine art Limited Edition landscape prints anywhere. I am working towards a gallery here in the Las Vegas "strip" and in this town you have to go BIG or go HOME! I plan on going big whatever the cost. I have a few ideas that I have to keep to myself right now, but I want to do a few things maybe never done yet and this format might be the way to go (unless there are bigger cameras that I can go with?). This is not to say I'm totally converting to LF, but just expanding my horizons and approach to some of my landscape work. A lot of my style could not be done in LF (if you take a look at my work you might know why) but some things could, and LF film might be better than sewing together 10 shots (or however many) with the Phase One 39 mega pixel backing. Although I appreciate the recommendations here, 4x5 is out of the question, but bigger than 8x10 might be a consideration.