[alt-photo] Re: Alt-photo-process-list Digest, Vol 26, Issue 1
Susan Huber
shuber1 at telus.net
Thu Dec 31 17:31:58 GMT 2009
Hello Diana,
I am in agreement with your thoughts.... because my fave paper is out of commission- P.O.P, I have been unable to find some process that I really like...I have been pressured to have some negs. made into scans to make digital prints and I was was amazed at the quality... but; I felt that I lost contact with the process because I did not actually make the print.
However, most of the negs that are scanned , have been done on the drum scanner but then most of the negs have been of 8 by 10 inch size. Unfortunately, the person who did the drum scanner has quit his work and become a truck driver....so; no drum scanner is in use. All work is done on the flatbed scanner and I am told that the scans are not as good...
I have never considered a digital camera for use because I do not want to sit in front a computer and play "delete". There is nothing like playing in the magic of a darkroom.
I can see the difference of a digital print to a "handmade" print. But then maybe the printer was not a good printer and yes, the prints are flat and without soul.
My guess, if someone makes a digital back to a LF camera that us mortals can afford... it might be neat to see what happens... but for me, MF and LF are the way to go.
Have fun everyone and have a quiet one!
Susan
www.susanhuber.com
On 2009-12-30, at 9:07 PM, alt-photo-process-list-request at lists.altphotolist.org wrote:
> Send Alt-photo-process-list mailing list submissions to
> alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.altphotolist.org/mailman/listinfo/alt-photo-process-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> alt-photo-process-list-request at lists.altphotolist.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> alt-photo-process-list-owner at lists.altphotolist.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Alt-photo-process-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. .. Restarting and new decisions... Need advice (Don Bryant)
> 2. Re: .. Restarting and new decisions... Need advice
> (joachim oppenheimer)
> 3. Re: AUUGGHH... Restarting and new decisions... Need advise.
> (Diana Bloomfield)
> 4. Printmaking Workshop near Denver (Jon Lybrook)
> 5. Re: AUUGGHH... Restarting and new decisions... Need advise.
> (Judy Seigel)
> 6. Re: AUUGGHH... Restarting and new decisions... Need advise.
> (Trevor Cunningham)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:18:01 -0500
> From: Don Bryant <donsbryant at gmail.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
> Subject: [alt-photo] .. Restarting and new decisions... Need advice
> Message-ID: <2C40C9639A30481290B84A252AFD7C57 at austinpowers>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Hello David,
>
>
>
> 1) If your P/N55 is frozen then the chem. Pods are probably toast. I
> have little hope for the P/N 55 product being resurrected, I can only hope
> that a true SX-70 replacement can be made.
>
> 2) Is the quality of a good drum scan from a 4x5 negative still so much
> better than a digital camera?
>
>
>
> David, IMO a good drum scan trumps digital sources, though at 11x14 sized
> prints it might be hard to see. A digital back on a 4x5 camera can produce a
> very high quality image though. A good flat bed scanner won't compete with a
> drum scan either. Since you mentioned Leica S2 then I would recommend
> Getdpi.com as a really good forum to discuss that camera as well as digital
> backs. Those guys are very serious experienced users there and know what
> they are talking about as well as being a nice rational forum to hang out.
>
>
>
> If I could afford the M9 I would be very tempted.
>
>
>
> Join us at Hybridphoto.com for discussions about these topics including
> creation of digital negatives for alternative printing, scanning, scanners,
> and scanner accessories.
>
>
>
> Stay plugged in to this list for core discussions of alt. processes.
>
>
>
> Don Bryant
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:18:53 -0500
> From: joachim oppenheimer <joachim2 at optonline.net>
> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: .. Restarting and new decisions... Need
> advice
> Message-ID: <000001ca898d$4f357d20$eda07760$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> I would like to add to your cogent observations that "Photo Technique"
> (Jan/Feb 2010) the News section on page 5, is entitled "Instant film is
> back." It refers to the production of Type 52 (Unfortunately not P/N55) and
> mentions Fujifilm FP-100B Instant black & white film in current production
> especially for the Japanese market, but available in the US as well. I have
> no experience with these Polaroid anlagen since I laid my last box of type
> 55 films to rest, and with it buried a beloved line of work. For better or
> worse, or both, photography is in a new irreversible age. Joachim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
> [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of
> Don Bryant
> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:18 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> Subject: [alt-photo] .. Restarting and new decisions... Need advice
>
> Hello David,
>
>
>
> 1) If your P/N55 is frozen then the chem. Pods are probably toast. I
> have little hope for the P/N 55 product being resurrected, I can only hope
> that a true SX-70 replacement can be made.
>
> 2) Is the quality of a good drum scan from a 4x5 negative still so much
> better than a digital camera?
>
>
>
> David, IMO a good drum scan trumps digital sources, though at 11x14 sized
> prints it might be hard to see. A digital back on a 4x5 camera can produce a
> very high quality image though. A good flat bed scanner won't compete with a
> drum scan either. Since you mentioned Leica S2 then I would recommend
> Getdpi.com as a really good forum to discuss that camera as well as digital
> backs. Those guys are very serious experienced users there and know what
> they are talking about as well as being a nice rational forum to hang out.
>
>
>
> If I could afford the M9 I would be very tempted.
>
>
>
> Join us at Hybridphoto.com for discussions about these topics including
> creation of digital negatives for alternative printing, scanning, scanners,
> and scanner accessories.
>
>
>
> Stay plugged in to this list for core discussions of alt. processes.
>
>
>
> Don Bryant
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:45:22 -0500
> From: Diana Bloomfield <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net>
> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: AUUGGHH... Restarting and new decisions...
> Need advise.
> Message-ID: <43E715E2-93A4-4640-BD86-DB5CF0C2CB8C at bellsouth.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Hey David,
>
> I'm intrigued with your questions and only wish I could seriously
> contemplate whether to buy a Leica M9 or a medium format digital camera.
>
> I have a Canon 5D, which has been terrific for when I'm being paid to
> photograph people. It's fast, does the job well enough, and-- in the
> end-- everybody seems satisfied and happy. I recently rented the
> Canon 85mm 1.2 lens for a job, and it was a dream. I really loved it
> and loved the results. Honestly, it made me like the camera better--
> which makes me think I just haven't been using the right lens.
>
> For my own artwork, though, I rarely use that camera-- mainly,
> because-- in the end-- I just don't like the format. I find myself
> cropping to square, or something close to it, all the time. (I never
> actually liked the 35mm format, either, though I have had an M6 for
> years and love it). I tend to still use 4x5 film for my 4x5 pinhole
> cameras-- and medium format film for my other cameras-- In fact, I
> recently purchased (from a guy who went all digital all the time) a
> Mamiya 6, with a couple of the lenses that accompanied it, and it is
> one amazing camera (and the lenses give spectacular results). I
> really love using that camera. I scan my negatives and make larger
> digital negatives for alt process work. I do believe that a great
> flat-bed scanner (and they are out there) works really well, at least
> for my purposes. I think a drum scanner would be serious overkill--
> at least for what I do.
>
> I'm not at all averse to making digital prints, either. (I probably
> shouldn't say that, as one could possibly go to hell for making that
> statement on this list). But I do believe that the digital prints
> made from scanned negatives are often more impressive than digital
> prints made from a digital camera. The digital prints made from
> actual film don't seem to have that flat 'digital look.' The owner/
> manager of my local photo lab here told me a long story once about why
> digital prints look so flat, compared to images made with film-- His
> reasoning was way too technical for me, so I forgot most of what he
> said as it went way over my head-- but it seemed to make sense at the
> time. I have actually seen quite beautiful digital prints, but I have
> found that those who learned how to make prints the old-fashioned way
> (in the wet darkroom) tend to also know how to make prints on the
> computer. An excellent printer and scanner-- as well as superb
> paper-- surely helps. Mostly, though, what we tend to see, I think,
> are the results of enormous numbers of people who never learned how to
> make a print, either the old-fashioned way, or the digital way-- and
> they seem to be overly enamored with Photoshop (especially the over-
> sharpen and saturation tools). But I've made some digital prints
> that I think are gorgeous (if I do say so myself!), and I've certainly
> seen some that are amazing-- compelling and impressive, both image-
> and print-wise.
>
> I understand that Canon's latest digital camera (still too expensive
> for me) now produces the 'look' of film in the print (not offering
> that flat digital look), and lot of folks think you'd be hard-pressed
> to see the difference as to whether the print was made from film, or
> straight from the digital camera. My issue is-- several thousand
> dollars later, and upwards to $10K or more if you're talking an M9--
> and you're STILL essentially working with a 35mm, or small format
> camera. That makes no sense to me. If I had the money, I'd be
> getting a medium format digital camera, for sure, but I would never
> pay thousands for a small format camera, and a format I really don't
> like.
>
> I still use (color) film and have an Epson flat-bed scanner which is
> wonderful and works really well. Maybe I'm too easily impressed, but
> I don't think so.
>
> Anyway, not much help here-- but given that you seem to have the
> available funds-- and, by your own admission, an arm that doesn't work
> as well as it used to-- my free advice is to buy a medium format
> digital camera. You'd still have to make digital negatives, but they
> would be first generation negatives. I'm sticking with film, but only
> because I can't afford what I'd like. :) I just hope they keep
> making it.
>
> That's my 2 cents. Good luck!
>
> Diana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Ok all... The basic story here is that I'm taking a bit of a
>> sabbatical from my day job (in high tech) and going to devote much
>> of the next year to various pursuits, most of them photographic.
>>
>> I haven't photographed much at all in the last 8-10 years... And I
>> hate even to admit that. I shot some 8x10, but mostly 4x5... 80%+
>> Polaroid type 55 which I dearly love, but also ready-loads (and
>> occasionally film holders, always for the 8x10 and rarely for the
>> 4x5) because while I'm more contemplative than the typical 35mm
>> photographer (and ALWAYS use a tripod) I did like to work lite (and
>> my favorite of 2 4x5s is my Polaroid 110 conversion). I'd process
>> all of the film myself, and had all but abandoned Silver for
>> Platinum printing. I was starting to get into digital negatives so I
>> could standardize on 11x14 prints, but hadn't gotten very far. I did
>> however scan every negative for cataloging and for my website.
>>
>> Jump ahead to late 2009 and I have the same basic desire for my
>> work, if not wanting to work even a bit lighter (part of the reason
>> for my time off is due to being on disability from almost having
>> lost my right arm and shoulder.. I've still got it, but it doesn't
>> worn near as well as it used to).
>>
>> So I start thinking.... I prefer ready-loads and Type 55 even
>> more... There ARE no B&W ready-loads available anymore, and until
>> The Impossible Project ( http://www.the-impossible-project.com/)
>> gets Type 55 revived, I'm limited to a very small stash I have in my
>> deep freezer.
>>
>> My workflow was analog, with a side of digital, but was and will
>> likely move to at least analog-digital-analog. I want to print Pt at
>> 11x14 for the most part so there'll have to be a digital (negative)
>> before the print... Hence the digital step in the workflow.
>>
>> Maybe it's time for a change.
>>
>> Is the quality of a good drum scan from a 4x5 negative still so much
>> better than a digital camera when printing negatives at 11x14 as to
>> make it worth hauling film holders or a couple or three Grafmatic
>> holders, a changing bag... And still processing the negatives myself?
>>
>> Or is it time to consider a Digital Camera-Analog print workflow?
>>
>> I'm one of those people who can tell an analog print from a digital
>> print... At least anytime I've called it out in a gallery or
>> photography exhibition I haven't been told I'm wrong (I'm usually
>> asked how I knew). From personal experience of my (and other's work)
>> I can't seem to see it in an analog print from a well made digital
>> negative (but all were from scanned negatives). I don't really know
>> if I'd see it in a digital capture.
>>
>> If I did move to a digital camera, I'd probably go higher-end... And
>> likely medium format. Something like a medium format digital
>> solution (Phase One, Hassy, or Leica S2) or a Phase One, Leaf, or
>> Hassy back on an Arca-swiss or other "technical camera" platform
>> (then I don't have to give up movements). Either way, that would
>> require a significant investment (somewhere in the $13k - $25k
>> range.) I might also consider a Leica M9 and get a couple of those
>> sensuous lenses, which would cut the price down to around $10K or
>> $11K with a couple of lenses, give up some quality due to the
>> smaller sensor (still 35mm Full Frame), but again lose movements for
>> the ultimate in lightness and portability.
>>
>> AAUUGGHH....
>> Thoughts???
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:13:38 -0700
> From: Jon Lybrook <jon at intaglioeditions.com>
> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> Subject: [alt-photo] Printmaking Workshop near Denver
> Message-ID: <4B3BFAC2.5040007 at intaglioeditions.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi All,
>
> Colorado University at Boulder's master printmaking instructor, Clinton
> Cline, will be teaching several printmaking workshops in January and
> February in his studio near Denver. Please pass on to anyone who may be
> interested:
>
> Viscosity Monotype: January 16-17
> Createx Water-based Monotype: February 6-7
> Photopolymer Plates: February 20-21
>
> See : http://www.clintoncline.com/category/blog
>
>
> --
> Jon Lybrook
> Intaglio Editions
> http://intaglioeditions.com
> 303-818-5187
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:18:08 -0500 (EST)
> From: Judy Seigel <jseigel at panix.com>
> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: AUUGGHH... Restarting and new decisions...
> Need advise.
> Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0912302208200.10780 at panix2.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Diana Bloomfield wrote:
>
>> Hey David,
>>
>> I'm intrigued with your questions and only wish I could seriously contemplate
>> whether to buy a Leica M9 or a medium format digital camera.
>>
>> I have a Canon 5D, which has been terrific for when I'm being paid to
>> photograph people. It's fast, does the job well enough, and-- in the end--
>> everybody seems satisfied and happy. I recently rented the Canon 85mm 1.2
>> lens for a job, and it was a dream. I really loved it and loved the results.
>> Honestly, it made me like the camera better-- which makes me think I just
>> haven't been using the right lens.
>>
>> For my own artwork, though, I rarely use that camera-- mainly, because-- in
>> the end-- I just don't like the format. I find myself cropping to square, or
>> something close to it, all the time.
>
> I've been reading this thread, and (as it were) biting my tongue to not
> say what I'm thinking -- then I figured, oh hell, say it -- what will they
> do, fly out on their 85mm xp-1 and sneer at me? (Which I've been assured
> is rarely fatal.)
>
> Maybe it's just because I don't know a lot of what they're talking about,
> so I figure all the tergiversation (real word) about camera x or y to
> print d or f in format box or canoe, is useless, because.... it assumes
> digital (or whichever) prints aimed at utmost advanced printness of the
> moment, with a mandate for perfect whichever. Does/will anyone next year
> or next decade give a damn? They could sneer at today's format & every
> one of our digitons and its mother, no matter how perfectly "correct" our
> set-up as conceived & executed by (our/their/someone's current
> standards.... next year will probably be full of something else.
>
> So permit me to suggest -- print the damn thing in gum: Then add 3 or 4
> coats and colors and washes and inventions and.... however it comes out:
> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU INTENDED ! And defy the world to match the glory
> of your (fake) lens and magic (added) color. Because, as we know, there's
> always something new in technical perfection or advanced digitation or
> bicameron lens or aesthetic imperative of correctness to keep a
> photographer so preoccupied and distracted s/he forgets what transfixed
> him/her in the first place (whatever it was, I forget now). Anyway, the
> next generation will probably sneer because we were so off the mark about
> telepathy.
>
> (Though, now that you mention it, I had the perfect oatmeal box last week
> -- too bad I threw it out... but I'll definitely save the next one.)
>
> J.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:07:10 +0300
> From: Trevor Cunningham <trevor at chalkjockeys.com>
> To: alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: AUUGGHH... Restarting and new decisions...
> Need advise.
> Message-ID: <4B3C317E.9090506 at chalkjockeys.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Diana,
>
> Your post was a breath of fresh air! I've recently put my Mamiya up on a
> shelf in lieu of Nikon digital gear (although I have had a Sekor lens in
> my bag which has more recently been replaced by a Tamron 90mm 2.8
> [amazing lens]). I went digital due to a high volume of travel and the
> lack of medium format film in the places I live...over the past eight
> years, I've had to do without a really professional shop/lab. But, your
> post gives me hope. I'm interested to know which scanner/printer combo
> you're using. I'm currently in the printer market and have had my eyes
> on the HP b9180. From everything I've read, it does a great job with
> both prints and digital negatives.
>
> Trevor
>
> Diana Bloomfield wrote:
>> Hey David,
>>
>> I'm intrigued with your questions and only wish I could seriously
>> contemplate whether to buy a Leica M9 or a medium format digital camera.
>>
>> I have a Canon 5D, which has been terrific for when I'm being paid to
>> photograph people. It's fast, does the job well enough, and-- in the
>> end-- everybody seems satisfied and happy. I recently rented the
>> Canon 85mm 1.2 lens for a job, and it was a dream. I really loved it
>> and loved the results. Honestly, it made me like the camera better--
>> which makes me think I just haven't been using the right lens.
>>
>> For my own artwork, though, I rarely use that camera-- mainly,
>> because-- in the end-- I just don't like the format. I find myself
>> cropping to square, or something close to it, all the time. (I never
>> actually liked the 35mm format, either, though I have had an M6 for
>> years and love it). I tend to still use 4x5 film for my 4x5 pinhole
>> cameras-- and medium format film for my other cameras-- In fact, I
>> recently purchased (from a guy who went all digital all the time) a
>> Mamiya 6, with a couple of the lenses that accompanied it, and it is
>> one amazing camera (and the lenses give spectacular results). I
>> really love using that camera. I scan my negatives and make larger
>> digital negatives for alt process work. I do believe that a great
>> flat-bed scanner (and they are out there) works really well, at least
>> for my purposes. I think a drum scanner would be serious overkill--
>> at least for what I do.
>>
>> I'm not at all averse to making digital prints, either. (I probably
>> shouldn't say that, as one could possibly go to hell for making that
>> statement on this list). But I do believe that the digital prints
>> made from scanned negatives are often more impressive than digital
>> prints made from a digital camera. The digital prints made from
>> actual film don't seem to have that flat 'digital look.' The
>> owner/manager of my local photo lab here told me a long story once
>> about why digital prints look so flat, compared to images made with
>> film-- His reasoning was way too technical for me, so I forgot most
>> of what he said as it went way over my head-- but it seemed to make
>> sense at the time. I have actually seen quite beautiful digital
>> prints, but I have found that those who learned how to make prints the
>> old-fashioned way (in the wet darkroom) tend to also know how to make
>> prints on the computer. An excellent printer and scanner-- as well
>> as superb paper-- surely helps. Mostly, though, what we tend to see,
>> I think, are the results of enormous numbers of people who never
>> learned how to make a print, either the old-fashioned way, or the
>> digital way-- and they seem to be overly enamored with Photoshop
>> (especially the over-sharpen and saturation tools). But I've made
>> some digital prints that I think are gorgeous (if I do say so
>> myself!), and I've certainly seen some that are amazing-- compelling
>> and impressive, both image- and print-wise.
>>
>> I understand that Canon's latest digital camera (still too expensive
>> for me) now produces the 'look' of film in the print (not offering
>> that flat digital look), and lot of folks think you'd be hard-pressed
>> to see the difference as to whether the print was made from film, or
>> straight from the digital camera. My issue is-- several thousand
>> dollars later, and upwards to $10K or more if you're talking an M9--
>> and you're STILL essentially working with a 35mm, or small format
>> camera. That makes no sense to me. If I had the money, I'd be
>> getting a medium format digital camera, for sure, but I would never
>> pay thousands for a small format camera, and a format I really don't
>> like.
>>
>> I still use (color) film and have an Epson flat-bed scanner which is
>> wonderful and works really well. Maybe I'm too easily impressed, but
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> Anyway, not much help here-- but given that you seem to have the
>> available funds-- and, by your own admission, an arm that doesn't work
>> as well as it used to-- my free advice is to buy a medium format
>> digital camera. You'd still have to make digital negatives, but they
>> would be first generation negatives. I'm sticking with film, but only
>> because I can't afford what I'd like. :) I just hope they keep
>> making it.
>>
>> That's my 2 cents. Good luck!
>>
>> Diana
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ok all... The basic story here is that I'm taking a bit of a
>>> sabbatical from my day job (in high tech) and going to devote much of
>>> the next year to various pursuits, most of them photographic.
>>>
>>> I haven't photographed much at all in the last 8-10 years... And I
>>> hate even to admit that. I shot some 8x10, but mostly 4x5... 80%+
>>> Polaroid type 55 which I dearly love, but also ready-loads (and
>>> occasionally film holders, always for the 8x10 and rarely for the
>>> 4x5) because while I'm more contemplative than the typical 35mm
>>> photographer (and ALWAYS use a tripod) I did like to work lite (and
>>> my favorite of 2 4x5s is my Polaroid 110 conversion). I'd process all
>>> of the film myself, and had all but abandoned Silver for Platinum
>>> printing. I was starting to get into digital negatives so I could
>>> standardize on 11x14 prints, but hadn't gotten very far. I did
>>> however scan every negative for cataloging and for my website.
>>>
>>> Jump ahead to late 2009 and I have the same basic desire for my work,
>>> if not wanting to work even a bit lighter (part of the reason for my
>>> time off is due to being on disability from almost having lost my
>>> right arm and shoulder.. I've still got it, but it doesn't worn near
>>> as well as it used to).
>>>
>>> So I start thinking.... I prefer ready-loads and Type 55 even more...
>>> There ARE no B&W ready-loads available anymore, and until The
>>> Impossible Project ( http://www.the-impossible-project.com/) gets
>>> Type 55 revived, I'm limited to a very small stash I have in my deep
>>> freezer.
>>>
>>> My workflow was analog, with a side of digital, but was and will
>>> likely move to at least analog-digital-analog. I want to print Pt at
>>> 11x14 for the most part so there'll have to be a digital (negative)
>>> before the print... Hence the digital step in the workflow.
>>>
>>> Maybe it's time for a change.
>>>
>>> Is the quality of a good drum scan from a 4x5 negative still so much
>>> better than a digital camera when printing negatives at 11x14 as to
>>> make it worth hauling film holders or a couple or three Grafmatic
>>> holders, a changing bag... And still processing the negatives myself?
>>>
>>> Or is it time to consider a Digital Camera-Analog print workflow?
>>>
>>> I'm one of those people who can tell an analog print from a digital
>>> print... At least anytime I've called it out in a gallery or
>>> photography exhibition I haven't been told I'm wrong (I'm usually
>>> asked how I knew). From personal experience of my (and other's work)
>>> I can't seem to see it in an analog print from a well made digital
>>> negative (but all were from scanned negatives). I don't really know
>>> if I'd see it in a digital capture.
>>>
>>> If I did move to a digital camera, I'd probably go higher-end... And
>>> likely medium format. Something like a medium format digital
>>> solution (Phase One, Hassy, or Leica S2) or a Phase One, Leaf, or
>>> Hassy back on an Arca-swiss or other "technical camera" platform
>>> (then I don't have to give up movements). Either way, that would
>>> require a significant investment (somewhere in the $13k - $25k
>>> range.) I might also consider a Leica M9 and get a couple of those
>>> sensuous lenses, which would cut the price down to around $10K or
>>> $11K with a couple of lenses, give up some quality due to the smaller
>>> sensor (still 35mm Full Frame), but again lose movements for the
>>> ultimate in lightness and portability.
>>>
>>> AAUUGGHH....
>>> Thoughts???
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
> End of Alt-photo-process-list Digest, Vol 26, Issue 1
> *****************************************************
Susan Huber
www.susanhuber.com
More information about the Alt-photo-process-list
mailing list