[rollei_list] Re: Cost of LF (was: Austin has Unsubscribed)
- From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:01:03 -0400
On Wednesday, April 20, 2005, at 06:12 PM, Peter K. wrote:
> 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
Yes, true - but Jim's 11x14s are absolutely glorious!
Cheers,
Ardeshir <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir>
+++++
On 4/20/05, Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John,
>
> Just think of our friend Jim Hemmenway who regularly shoots 11x14
> color transparencies! The quality of his work is staggering.
>
> Jerry
>
>> 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
>>>> large format for a number of reasons - [one] is the cost in
>>>> equipment, film 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
>> labs . . . 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 quite adamant about No Way No How). Granted, all the MF must
>> go the same path.
>>
>> 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 estimated it, the cost was into the several thousand range. It's
>> not that I couldn'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 myself reverting back to MF
>> continuously to get the desired perspectives.
>>
>> Not mentioned before is puting the currently available $$ toward
>> addinga 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 some light modifiers) has been painful. Get vision for
>> photograph . . . "nope, can't do that" . . . and modify composition,
>> perspective or lighting todo something else instead. I know The Other
>> Half would question the "need" immediately (yet *more* cameras?? . .
>> . you cannot do it with *something* you *already* have???)
>>
>> Some day . . . perhaps LF [sigh].
>>
>> Thanks, -- John
Other related posts:
