Were he still around, I imagine that Oskar Barnack would be baffled to hear folks singing praises to "slower, more deliberate" cameras, whereas he might taken pride in the the technology embodied in his creation.
For me, one of the attractions of "obsolete" technologies is that the more popular ones become almost timeless and not subject to the whims of Big Tech.
I attest to that, because to some extent are both. I once backed up and cleared 72GB of images off my phone, which amounted to less than half a year of casual snapshooting. To me it is a visual diary, I do go through past pictures once in a while, as need to put them into cold storage. Say those 5-10K images were also very heavy because I have enabled saving RAW files. Of which I have only bothered to edit about a handful, literally.I am sure that many “reflective” photographers maintain about fewer images over a lifetime than many of the cell-phone snap shooters. That said, I bet that fewer of those images snapped on cell-phones are ever even seen (never mind edited and used) by the photographer.
In a world awash with images, I’m not surprised that your family expresses little interest in your (or anyone else’s) photographs; perhaps most people suffer from image fatigue.
I make film photographs. That said, my interests lie in the artifacts (the negative, prints, ...) and the process by which they were produced. I doubt that most people think about these kinds of things, and certainly not during their leisure time.
I like my games in physical media.
I like my books printed.
I like my movies pressed in BR or DVD.
My photography is no different - it's quite "there" and I just prefer the physical/"analog" workflow and results I get with no computer involved.
A challenge and a set of limitations can and often is vital for one's output. Unlimited options can be counter productive at times.
I haven't seen many large format digital sensors, and I've only seen a price on a few of them, but I can buy myself a LOT of 4x5 film for even the cheapest I've seen so far, and given the price of film and the rate I'm taking large format images I question my ability to take enough to make up the price difference before I die. And I haven't even hit 40 yet.
Another benefit of film: interchangeable sensors.
You don't like how Delta 100 renders the scene? Why not give Adox CHS 100 II a try?
Want color? Sure, try Portra.
Want to project slides? Sure, try Provia or Ektachrome.
Don't like how a given software algorithm processes your image, but like the camera sensor? Try different developer...
Sensor tech gets upgraded with time and the type of sensor and its properties doesn't change in one's camera body, giving you a RAW file with a predefined flexibility/starting point that's typical of the camera model, and it can and does get boring, making people invest in another body/sensor. All digital cameras are the same, give the same magic RAW file, right?But that is exactly one of the advantages of digital.
But I do - when I get the chance to experience movie either scanned or on film, I will go to the theater projecting dumb film (some movie festivals can offer this) and will enjoy my cigarette burns and reel changes.Why don’t you like your movies on film?
she replied that no she just had a really good phone.
I think that statement shows that a lot of people think it is the equipment/tech that is important and not the content (image).
I shot weddings professionally for 30 years and people regularly said to me that if they had a good camera like mine they could take just as good photos as me.
Of course, I agreed with them.
Maybe because there are no real large format sensors with the exception of a few very rare and expensive examples.
the closest I've seen for a practical 'full frame' monochrome back, but even that one was only like 100mm x 100mm
Much of the work that had required the movements of large format film cameras is now done with digital technical cameras. Although they might not have the extent of movements of a LF film camera, there really is little need for a 4x5" or 8x10" digital sensor now that stitching is a common practice.LargeSense seems to be a fairly practical product and they have true 4x5 and 8x10 sensors: http://largesense.com/
However, I don't expect they've sold (or manufactured) more than a handful of backs.
Fact of the matter is that (true) large format digital is a niche that has virtually no demand. Most large format shooters I know of, are pretty much married to film for one reason or another. And most digital photographers I know of wouldn't even think about lugging such a big contraption around. And quality-wise, smaller format digital (i.e. 35mm and quasi-medium format) has enough to offer for the vast majority of applications, so the technical need for a large format solution seems to be absent.
Much of the work that had required the movements of large format film cameras is now done with digital technical cameras. Although they might not have the extent of movements of a LF film camera, there really is little need for a 4x5" or 8x10" digital sensor now that stitching is a common practice.
Doesn't taking multiple photographs, making sure that the exposure, contrast, viewing angle . . . are all properly balanced and aligned take much more work than using a larger format camera and taking only one photograph?
Doesn't taking multiple photographs, making sure that the exposure, contrast, viewing angle . . . are all properly balanced and aligned take much more work than using a larger format camera and taking only one photograph?
For them, film and film cameras add some sort of character and appeal they find missing in digital capture.
When I was a kid, it was unusual if my parents shot two rolls of film within a year. All those photos were viewed as important and irreplaceable. That sentiment is hard to maintain when you can end up with 500 photos at the end of any normal week.
About film being less ephemeral than digital, so many of today’s film users don’t even pick up their film once it has been scanned. My experience is that a lot of today’s young film shooters are looking for the quirks and flaws of film and the sometimes mediocre performance of aging cameras and lenses. For them, film and film cameras add some sort of character and appeal they find missing in digital capture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?