Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cheap to own, expensive to use... ;-)
Not necessarily. You simply can't fire away at 4.3 fps wwith a 4 by 5.
:-)
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - u
- Original Message -
From: "Collin R Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For those who enjoy and want the best out of film large format is a
relatively inexpensive venture.
Cheap to own, expensive to use... ;-)
Jostein
On Mar 26, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
But I don't process other people's work, only my own. That is much
more rewarding than operating a lab. I tried doing custom BW printing
at one time many years ago. I got plenty of business in a hurry, but
soon learned that I didn't enjoy pri
I don't find either process terribly boring -- darkroom or digital. But
I don't process other people's work, only my own. That is much more
rewarding than operating a lab. I tried doing custom BW printing at one
time many years ago. I got plenty of business in a hurry, but soon
learned that I d
At 07:56 AM 3/26/2006, you wrote:
Ralf,
I'm in general agreement.
For those who enjoy and want the best out of film large format is a
relatively inexpensive venture.
(That is, compared to what I've seen in some 35 outfits.)
4x5 -- a. $150 for a good press camera to start with (Busch Pressman
Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe you just have to pretend you're shooting slides and not try to
> save the thing in post.
Won't help. I have to use colour negative film, exactly because of the
limited dynamic range of slide film.
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köl
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:28 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I like to control the entire process.
Me too. Which is why it stinks that I find the process so godawful
boring.
-Aaron
On Mar 26, 2006, at 7:05 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
A little more curve-tweaking and you'll
clearly see the fringing and posterizing.
Maybe you just have to pretend you're shooting slides and not try to
save the thing in post.
-Aaron
Very high quality analog equipment is certainly much more attainable
than comparable digital equipment at the present time. But this will
change as the digital market matures. Of course that will take time.
What matters more to me is that I can achieve very high quality color
printing at home w
Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My problem is that photography has become more of a production line
> than an art.
There's another thing that's nagging me about digital:
With analog, it takes very little money to produce a technical quality
that can't be distinguished from what you
Check out the new View Camera magazine.
The review of Better Light's 4x5 scanning backs is impressive.
The top-of-the-line model produces a 309 meg image but costs > $13k.
The low end model produces a >50 meg image and is < $6k.
http://www.viewcamera.com
Collin
11 matches
Mail list logo