Unless you're refering to 8X10 cameras which are less than practical.

There is nothing so beautiful as a well concieved and executed 8x10 contact
print

I have shot large format stuff for years, but it can't be used in many
situations and is just not practical. I used a deardorff for years. It's not
something that belongs on a boat or to get that rare moment on film. In fact,
in real life shooting it's pretty much useless.
Contact 8X 10s are fine, but I used to use a rail mounted enlarger for making
wall sized prints on a vacuum wall. I used to get the worlds worst paper cuts
and get blood on the prints...which I couldn't see until after processing.

RB

But you can compromise and
still get acceptable quality out of a practical 4x5 and old Graphics can
still be found in good shape.

As I said a new Canon 20D will only cost 2K and will match medium format film
based units and repay you with cheaper operation costs.

RB

In article ,
Bobsprit wrote:
But you can compromise and
still get acceptable quality out of a practical 4x5 and old Graphics can
still be found in good shape.

As I said a new Canon 20D will only cost 2K and will match medium format film
based units and repay you with cheaper operation costs.

I had a Bronica 645 a couple of years ago. Great optics, but I didn't
like the plastic body, etc. I don't have much use for film cameras any
more. My Nikon 5000 seems fine for my needs.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Not many pros used them these days.

That's because customers have become inured to poor quality.

Not at all. And most of those life magazine pics were shot with 35mm and medium
format, which are now eclipsed by digital quality.
FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The only
limiting factor is the lens. My Nikon ED Optics are excellent and the Canon set
is even better.
Your basing your comments on el-cheapo cameras you've seen. Pick up any
prosumer 8 MP or even the Nikon D70 and see what they can do. They go way
beyond "snapshots."
And it's only a matter of time before digital CMOS chips exceed even large
format capability.

RB

Your comment on contrast makes zero sense. A 5 Mp shot with a G5 can match
contrast with a 35mm shot on Kodak F5 papers.

That's because, like most minicam and digital tyros, you have no
appreciation of contrast control. You point and shoot and take whatever

I'm afraid you're just showing your ignorance here. Prosumer cameras and DSLRs
have low contrast settings. The camera does nothing but take the shot in manual
mode. The user works in Photoshop as they would any darkroom and a far greater
range of contrasts is available....for free!
I'm sorry Vito. You don't own a fine digital camera and I doubt you own an
8X10. I've owned/own both and used to shoot still for a living. It's unlikely
that you've even used anything remotely like a Deardorff. Hell, I even used to
own a medical grade versemat for 8X10 negs.
You just don't know what you're talking about.

RB

But since you are reasonably
intellegent your ignorance in this area can be cured by simply learning and
understanding the Zone System. I suggest Ansel Adam's series on that
subject. Works for color too, BTW.


Oh really? You do know that Adams felt that a full darkroom was a component.
How many folks still operate their own darkroom? You can apply the zone system
with far greater ease (and far less expense) with a good digital camera and
full photoshop.
Most of your comments simply show that you've never even touched a good digital
camera.

RB

Bobsprit wrote:

Not many pros used them these days.


That's because customers have become inured to poor quality.

Not at all. And most of those life magazine pics were shot with 35mm and medium
format, which are now eclipsed by digital quality.
FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The only
limiting factor is the lens.
It has greater depth but lower resolution. You need 22 Mpix to exceed
35mm resolution (I have a canon 10D).

Cheers

FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The
only
limiting factor is the lens.
It has greater depth but lower resolution. You need 22 Mpix to exceed
35mm resolution (I have a canon 10D).


Nav, for an 8X10 print, a 6 MP camera will match a 35mm frame as both are at
the paper's maximum res. limits. Using a dye sub printer with a scanned
negative, the digital file shows a sharper image when cropped using a F2/Nikkor
lens set BTW. Finally, unless you do your own processing or use an expensive
custom lab, the digital results will destroy the film camera. You should see
the prints I'm making from the Nikon 8800. They look like studio shots at
8.5X11.

RB

Bobsprit wrote:
FYI, a 6 MP camera matches the resolution and depth of a 35MM camera. The

only

limiting factor is the lens.

It has greater depth but lower resolution. You need 22 Mpix to exceed
35mm resolution (I have a canon 10D).


Nav, for an 8X10 print, a 6 MP camera will match a 35mm frame as both are at
the paper's maximum res. limits. Using a dye sub printer with a scanned
negative, the digital file shows a sharper image when cropped using a F2/Nikkor
lens set BTW. Finally, unless you do your own processing or use an expensive
custom lab, the digital results will destroy the film camera. You should see
the prints I'm making from the Nikon 8800. They look like studio shots at
8.5X11.



What do you think the film grain size is?

Cheers

the prints I'm making from the Nikon 8800. They look like studio shots at
8.5X11.



What do you think the film grain size is?

It doesn't matter if it can't be caught on photographic paper. It can be seen
on a slide or neg, but that is of little use to most people.
I can get far more good shots with a DSLR than I ever could with film camera.
That's because the limitless control over shots and tweaking in a digital
darkroom are free.

RB