All of this is kind of interesting.
Let's see, I have had everything from 16mm (Minolta Subminiture camera) to 4x5, with stops at 1/2 frame 35mm, 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9. In 4x5 I have had 2 Graphics (one currently) and a Linhof Super Technica, plus I have used various monorail cameras. I have always wanting a Minox. And would like a 5x7 field camera, or even an old old 5x7 Speed Graphic (handheld 5x7 what a lark that would be).
Anyway, one of the things I like about sheet film is the feeling that you are crafting each photograft individually from start to finish. That is something I have never gotten from roll film, and the more shots per roll the farther away the feeling gets. Now if you need to give an editor a lot of choices so he can feel creative, 35mm or digital is the way to go. For consumer customers who feel that they are getting more for their money if they have lots of proofs to choose from roll film has been the choice for many years. But when I am making a photo for myself, as a hobby, there is just something about crafting each photograph individually that appeals to me.
Of course, as I have said before, to me photography as a hobby is every bit as much about the process (craft) as it is about the resulting image.
--
William Robb wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
This is the heart of it. If I'm packing photo-kit for a a few weeks
or months
away and I envisage encompassing long bush treks, plane trips and
I'm not going
to be able to process film on-location etc then there is no way in
the world I
would consider an LF kit over my MF set-up regardless of the
absolute
resolution. Would you?
My first Utah! excursion, I took my 6x7 and about 100 rolls of PanF. Shot about 60 rolls of film in a couple of weeks, and had a grand time. Later discovered that the film was defective, and the emulsion had a bunch of pinholes in it. So it goes.
Not long afterwards, I got my first view camera. A Burke & James "Orbit" monorail. I think it weighed about 16 pounds. The steel that the standards were made from was about 1/8 inch. Stupidly heavy camera. I took it on my next road trip and damn near killed myself hauling the sucker around.
However, I did learn that I really did like 4x5, so I bought the Tachihara. The B&J was a lovely studio camera, but not so good outside. The Tachihara is a wonderful field camera, and adequate in the studio.
My next Utah! trip, I took the Tachihara kit, a bunch of sheet film in one box, and another box with empty film boxes labeled "N", "N-", N+", "N--", and "N++". Man, was I organized. Oh yes, and a fancy Calumet changing tent went along for the ride.
The 4x5 was way higher maintenance than the 6x7, since I was changing film at least once per day, often on the side of the road at a picnic table, and nightly in my tent.
I have since done several road trips with the 4x5, and some with the 6x7.From a pure user POV, the 6x7 is much easier to deal with. It'spretty easy to knock off 10 shots on one particular scene, in fact with 4x5 I always shoot at least 2 sheets and often 4 or more of any given view anyway.
However, the 4x5 is much nicer to use, and for landscapes, is much easier as well.
I am in a fortunate position to have the choice of four formats, depending on what I am shooting. If I had to choose only one, the choice would be the 6x7. It isn't as strong in some areas, but is very strong in others.
There is no doubt that large format gives a better picture, it is debatable as to how much better it is at reasonable enlargement sizes, say 11x14 or smaller, with the presumption that the viewer is looking at the picture from a normal viewing distance, and not 4 inches.
Again, it all comes down to what one is willing to compromise, and what one needs from a camera system.
I have heard it said that medium format is the worst of all compromises, since it has neither the portability of 35mm, nor the ultimate imaging quality of large format.
I have also heard it said that it is the best compromise, since it has better portability than large format, and much better imaging than 35mm.
I couldn't decide, so I bought both.
William Robb
-- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
