[HUG ] SV: Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09]

I never had a wet darkroom. We simply have no room.  I live together with 
interior decorating-ambitious wife in a cramped townhouse in down-town Oslo, in 
a home my sister calls 'a minefield of antiques'.  Here is not even room for a 
proper PC with a decent printer.  We have two Toshiba Satellites with 17" lap 
tops that we can stowe away.

My optimal goal with photography was to produce 'large prints'. For many years 
I used a shop in a small village in Sweden as a supplier of prints.  Works 
fine.  The last few years I have used analogue cameras less.  But I make prints 
even from my digital cameras on 'analogue' photopaper.  I prefer this to ink 
jet prints which I don't think live up to expectations. I see that developments 
are racing ahead even here.

My first digital camera was the 1Ds which I bought in 2004.  Then on to the 1Ds 
II and the III which I bought a year ago.  My wife and I go annually to 
Singapore (and Tioman Island, Malaysia).  - We are going the 8th of April this 
year.  Here I can shop 'tax free', which means that I safe 20 - 30% depending 
on currency flutuations, compared to buying it back home.  This means that my 
value losses when selling the cameras 2.hand is far lower.  

I also have a M8,- which makes me a beta tester. - I get far more 'keepers' 
with my 1Ds III, though.

I thought of buying a tilt & shift lens this year.  The 17 mm, if it will be 
available the before the 2. May at Cathay Photo in Singapore, the day we return 
to Oslo.




> From: Jim Brick [jim@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 2009-03-03 22:40:53 CET
> To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [HUG ] Re: Hasselblad, Leica, Rollei, Microtek [2/27/09]
> 
> 
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Evan J Dong wrote:
> 
> > I guess that my question would be a stupid one of nature. Beside the  
> > fact of the FF digital SLR from Canon, Nikon, and Sony (in order of  
> > best to passable), what is the exactly benefits of going this route?
> > Especially taken into consideration of the higher level of Post- 
> > Production work required for all digital files. There appears to be  
> > a distinct methodology within the digital workflow to make their  
> > digital files as close as possible in looking like Film Files having  
> > the greater 3-D look and dynamic range.
> 
> To me, film is film, digital is digital, and I never try to make  
> either look like the other. What I try to do, is make the best looking  
> photograph that I possibly can, regardless of the medium. I shoot both  
> film & digital and each has its pluses and minuses.
> 
> >
> > Granted that both system, Film based and digital ready files are not  
> > perfect, there appears to be a many software and program out there  
> > to help the digital files achieve that Film Look. Am I wrong here?
> 
> If you are trying to morph one system into the other, you are off track!
> 
> >
> > For those individual still using  film based system and having their  
> > images scanned, what is your digital workflow here?
> 
> The only reason for scanning film, is to print (inksplatter or  
> LightJet), to publish in a book or on a web site, or to view via an  
> LCD projector. And perhaps other reasons that are not darkroom  
> related. The real reason for shooting film, IMHO, is to make LARGE  
> prints. My standard print size is 20x24. My entry way wall contains a  
> 48x60, three 30x40's, and a 40x40. All from film. The 48x60 & 40x40  
> are scanned and printed on a LightJet, the 30x40's are darkroom  
> optical prints.
> 
> >
> > For those in the digital SLR system, what is your digital workflow  
> > Post-Production and Why the need for it?
> >
> > Evan
> >
> 
> 
> I love my MF and LF film cameras and would love to do ALL of my work  
> using these cameras, but this is no longer the most expeditious/ 
> easiest/best way.
> 
> For instance, last May I was informed (as a Brooks Institute of  
> Photography Alumnus) that the school's founding campus was going to be  
> sold. This was like a stab through the heart, so my wife and I  
> attended the Wake on June 18th. At that time I decided to photograph  
> the school from one end to the other - it is a beautiful Montecito  
> estate, built in 1920, purchased by Ernie Brooks Sr. in 1952 - and  
> produce a book.
> 
> The Brooks administration gave me the keys to the campus so that I  
> could get into everything. So, for photographing the school, every  
> nook and cranny plus the gorgeous grounds, to me, digital made the  
> best sense. I live 300 miles from Brooks and could not just pop-in for  
> re-do's. With digital, I could see what I had just shot at the time of  
> shooting and I could load them on my computer that evening for  
> reviewing.
> 
> I made four trips to Brook, June, July, August, and November, and from  
> 150 photographic subjects, have roughly 75 suitable for the book.
> 
> Here's the thing about digital in situations like this - the building,  
> being a huge estate with rambling hallways, doorways, etc, has huge  
> light ratios in almost every photograph. Too much (way too much) for  
> film, but with digital HDR processing, it makes the huge ratio  
> manageable. You can take multiple film photographs, scan them, then  
> attempt to do HDR processing but it is virtually impossible to scan  
> three or four images and then get them properly aligned for HDR  
> processing. Basically, it's a pain and doesn't always work. And  
> scanning is a lengthy process. And artificial lighting was not  
> feasible as some of the expanses were vast plus windows and doorways  
> that opened to the outside had daylight streaming in to a dark interior.
> 
> My workflow is simple.
> 
> 1. Copy the CF/SD cards onto my 'archive' drive.
> 2. Clone the archive drive to a second archive drive.
> 3. Import the images into Lightroom, copying the images from the  
> archive drive on to my Lightroom drive.
> 4. Look through the images, discarding the junk.
> 5. If an image you want to print/publish/project requires HDR  
> processing, select the under/normal/over exposed images and export  
> them to your HDR program.
> 6. For any image that you want to print/publish/project, make a  
> 'Virtual Copy'.
> 7. Open the copy in 'Darkroom'.
> 8. Do the appropriate darkroom work (temp, exposure, dodge, burn,  
> etc...).
> 9. Label (stars & flags) appropriately so that it can be quickly  
> displayed in a group. This group can be made into a collection.
> 10. Export or print the image with appropriate sizing/ppi attributes  
> for its intended use.
> 
> Bottom line for me, film is for printing large prints in a darkroom,  
> digital is for projects, record photos, family snaps, stuff other than  
> large display prints. You choose the method to meet the requirement.  
> You don't try to morph one system into the other.
> 
> Also, being 70, I spent decades using 35mm/MF/LF cameras and film. I  
> did not buy into digital until FF 35mm became available. My head does  
> not compute X-factors. It is a foreign concept to me! My first digital  
> camera was a 5D. A spectacular camera! When the 1Ds III came out, it  
> had some features that I really needed (primarily, magnified live view  
> so I could easily focus my Tilt-Shift lenses when using Scheimpflug -  
> this is a spectacular option!), and there's other nifty goodies on the  
> 1Ds III that make life easier as well. So I sold the 5D and went up to  
> the 1Ds III.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Jim
>

Other related posts: