[rollei_list] Re: Cost of LF (was: Austin has Unsubscribed)
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:12:54 -0700
Jerry,
Sharpness does not quality make! Its the image man, the image.
As I have always said, better to have a great image that is not
technically perfect, than a lousy image that is technically perfect.
Peter K
On 4/20/05, Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John,
>=20
> Just think of our friend Jim Hemmenway who regularly shoots 11x14
> color transparencies! The quality of his work is staggering.
>=20
> Jerry
>=20
> "John A. Lind" wrote:
>=20
> > At 12:22 AM 4/20/2005, Ardeshir Mehta wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, April 20, 2005, at 12:08 AM, John A. Lind wrote:
> > >
> > > > There are some disadvantages to using each format. I don't use larg=
e
> > > > format for a number of reasons - [one] is the cost in equipment, fi=
lm
> > > > and developing.
> > >
> > >I find that with B&W the cost of LF is really quite low. 4x5 B&W film
> > >costs me about CAN $1 per sheet. I could develop it myself, but being
> > >busy with other things I give it to the lab to develop, which costs me
> > >another dollar or so. Now that I have a scanner I can scan it myself
> > >for no further cost (other than what my time is worth). That's next to
> > >nothing.
> > >
> > >And my Anniversary Speed Graphic with all the equipment to use it
> > >properly has cost me, mostly on eBay as follows:
> > [snip]
> >
> > My problem with film and developing is proximity to film sources and la=
bs .
> > . . everything would have to be shipped somewhere . . . even with B/W I
> > don't have the space for souping it myself (my Other Half has been quit=
e
> > adamant about No Way No How). Granted, all the MF must go the same pat=
h.
> >
> > If I went to LF, it would be the 4x5 "box on massive tripod" technical
> > camera with front/back tilt, shift and several lenses. Last I estimate=
d
> > it, the cost was into the several thousand range. It's not that I coul=
dn't
> > shoot sheet film for significantly lower camera cost . . . likely for $=
500
> > or less . . . it's the system for it I would want . . . without several
> > focal lengths and at least ability to shift lens board I would find mys=
elf
> > reverting back to MF continuously to get the desired perspectives.
> >
> > Not mentioned before is puting the currently available $$ toward adding=
a
> > few more things to the MF SLR system and lighting modifiers before
> > contemplating building another camera sytem . . . I have the basics but
> > working around a couple of the remaining "holes" (notably lenses and so=
me
> > light modifiers) has been painful. Get vision for photograph . . . "no=
pe,
> > can't do that" . . . and modify composition, perspective or lighting to=
do
> > something else instead. I know The Other Half would question the "need=
"
> > immediately (yet *more* cameras?? . . . you cannot do it with *somethin=
g*
> > you *already* have???)
> >
> > Some day . . . perhaps LF [sigh].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -- John
>=20
>=20
--=20
Peter K
=D3=BF=D5=AC
Other related posts:
