I think I'm bored with audio now.

[mansr]

Yes eye contact and open smile that captures fold in center of tongue. Would be great in black and white too. I'm a black and white and shades of gray lover first and foremost. Eighty-five or more percent of my film collection is black and white. These days most people think of black and white film/photos as something for the dead and dying generations.There's magic in black and white.

 

Black and white can be used for great artistic effect. What's your opinion of digitally created black and white, where the mapping from colours to shades of grey can be done more or less arbitrarily?

 

English-only speakers who don't watch films with subtitles because it requires to much effort on their part. The worst.

 

Subtitles can only take you so far. You really should learn the spoken language to get the most out of a film.

[jvlata]

A few more...

 

 

 

 

[Jud]

A few more...

 

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29420[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29421[/ATTACH]

 

 

Interesting what you did with (lack of) depth of field with the portrait to give the face immediate emotional impact.

 

I like the sort of Rembrandt softness of the jug photo, too.

[mansr]

Interesting what you did with (lack of) depth of field with the portrait to give the face immediate emotional impact.

 

I like the sort of Rembrandt softness of the jug photo, too.

 

You like shallow depth of field?

 

[jvlata]

Jud, Thank you! That milk jug seat in my farm in Chile.. is around 75 year old.. always bring memories of my childhood..

[Iain]

I must admit I struggle to see why as a non professional anyone would want medium format, unless you're planning for very large prints. But maybe it is because I never tried it myself.

 

The image looks different, has different depth of field, the lenses can be absolutely awesome, and the ability to blow up and crop an image is much better than with a smaller frame or negative/positive.

 

Indeed!

Have a go of this two part series that analyses the differences between film v digital systems:

http://istillshootfilm.org/post/114131916747/the-real-resolution-of-film-vs-digital

 

The Real Resolution of Film Vs Digital – Part Two - I Still Shoot Film

 

... and finally:

Film vs Digital Image Quality Comparison Myth | Guide to Film Photography

[semente]

Black and white can be used for great artistic effect. What's your opinion of digitally created black and white, where the mapping from colours to shades of grey can be done more or less arbitrarily?

 

The only thing I miss is seeing the image emerging from a white sheet of paper under the red light of the maid's bathroom at my parents'.

 

Balancing greys and dodging/burning is much easier with Nik and Photoshop.

 

R

[The Computer Audiophile]

The original question was about medium format, not analog v digital.

[gmgraves]

Chris,

 

We have cameras with 50 plus megapixels now.. we can do a lot more with them....

I'm a 35 year old pro ( not my age!) and now digital rule.. ( like Vinyl and digital)

 

Hassleblad's latest "medium format" digital camera has 200 megapixels!

[wwaldmanfan]

These days many think of black and white film/photos as something thankfully left to old people.

 

I look at black & white vs. color photography as different art forms. As we know, nearly all the greatest and most important shots in the history of photography were done in black & white. Perhaps because of the technology available, but the fact remains. Color is just another tool when creating an image.

 

I guess you are referring specifically to young people whose thought processes and mindset are completely different from my own. But, I attribute that to being inexperienced in life, and uneducated about a lot of things. Your statement is more valid if discussing motion pictures, but still photography, as an art form, has no more in common with motion pictures than it does with painting, IMO*

 

*I have a university degree in filmmaking, and I worked in related businesses for 25 years. The last eight were spent as a contractor for Minolta, where I split my time between running a film animation stand creating multimedia shows, and assisting the chief staff photographer. I think my health problems today are a result of having my hands in Dektol, stop bath, and fixer most of the day for all those years.

[Musicophile]

The hobby that has consumed me this summer.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29388[/ATTACH]

The photography guys can talk about the quality of the picture, it was taken from well over 100 feet away, the photographer had a massive lens on his camera. As for me, I'm focused on the line, slip angle, rotating the car, and setting up the next straight.

 

Another nice hobby, even if the equipment for it is a bit pricier.

[Priaptor]

I look at black & white vs. color photography as different art forms. As we know, nearly all the greatest and most important shots in the history of photography were done in black & white. Perhaps because of the technology available, but the fact remains. Color is just another tool when creating an image.

 

I guess you are referring specifically to young people whose thought processes and mindset are completely different from my own. But, I attribute that to being inexperienced in life, and uneducated about a lot of things. Your statement is more valid if discussing motion pictures, but still photography, as an art form, has no more in common with motion pictures than it does with painting, IMO*

 

*I have a university degree in filmmaking, and I worked in related businesses for 25 years. The last eight were spent as a contractor for Minolta, where I split my time between running a film animation stand creating multimedia shows, and assisting the chief staff photographer. I think my health problems today are a result of having my hands in Dektol, stop bath, and fixer most of the day for all those years.

 

"As we know all the greatest and most important shots in history of photography were done in black and white"

 

Good point. Also many if not most of those shots were taken serendipitously. While most of those great shots were well composed few of them understood what they were capturing during the actual composition with few exceptions. One exception was the famous Babe picture taken from behind which was purposeful and planned.

 

Even those that were serendipitous, so much more thought, at least IMO, went into the framing of these historical pictures than most in today's world. I guess it's like everything else.

[jabbr]

Interesting what you did with (lack of) depth of field with the portrait to give the face immediate emotional impact.

 

I like the sort of Rembrandt softness of the jug photo, too.

 

Rembrandt ... Soft jugs?

 

A Deardorff is the best way to get those shots ... this is art honey!

 

i have to interject that I'm sitting listening to my newly acquired Firstwatt J2 ... sipping Lagavulin and being just blown away... (NOT bored with audio tonight)

[jvlata]

"As we know all the greatest and most important shots in history of photography were done in black and white"

 

Yes, but history of this world is now being captured in color... and we already have many powerful historical photos done in color.. As a photographer I look at photos showing me a time in history, Those days events, the cameras, the films, the processing..used..etc. I always embrace the latest technology but and I know that is me, my eyes and my passion what will make that photo, But no matter what (B&W or Color) for me a photo or a serie of photos must tell a story..in my people photographs I must capture, the soul, the sentiments of my subject at the moment I click the shutter..

 

[jabbr]

The original question was about medium format, not analog v digital.

 

There are advantages of many different camera styles and formats ... I've shot everything from minox to 8x10 view... I can tell you that you spent a far greater amount of time thinking about an 8x10 before shooting than 35mm! There's also nothing like a large format contact print either azo or say platinum/palladium. Different style of shooting than, say 35mm Tri-X street. Loved mixing that PMK developer, and Amidol, those were the days ... but really the quality of digital has become impressive in the past several years, not only the pixel count, but high ISO easily beats and dynamic range equals the very best of film.

[wwaldmanfan]

"As we know all the greatest and most important shots in history of photography were done in black and white"

 

Good point. Also many if not most of those shots were taken serendipitously. While most of those great shots were well composed few of them understood what they were capturing during the actual composition with few exceptions. One exception was the famous Babe picture taken from behind which was purposeful and planned.

 

 

Thanks for the plug...I shot it during my "blue period".

[TubeLover]

Rembrandt ... Soft jugs?

 

A Deardorff is the best way to get those shots ... this is art honey!

 

i have to interject that I'm sitting listening to my newly acquired Firstwatt J2 ... sipping Lagavulin and being just blown away... (NOT bored with audio tonight)

 

I'm a big fan of the FirstWatt stuff and extremely thankful that Nelson Pass has made such things available. I'm listening to my F6 as I write this, in my den system. Out of curiosity, what preamp have you paired your J2 with. I find the choice extremely important when associated with the FirstWatt amps.

 

JC

[jabbr]

I use either a B1 buffer or straight from DAC... what do you prefer?

 

(Sorry to be off topic in this off topic thread)

[JohnSwenson]

This thread is fascinating, as well as being interested in good sound for reproducing music well, I am also into photography and astronomy.

 

I got into photography in a very strange way, in high school I was doing a science experiment which created a series of colored bands but only lasted for a couple minutes, I had to take pictures of the results to be able to analyze them. The photography teacher got me into doing macro setups and printing the color negatives, I was hooked, kind of backwards from the way most people get into it.

 

I've had many cameras, several view cameras, a couple field cameras, several medium format and a bunch of 35mm. One thing I found fascinating was the completely different way I went about doing things with the different cameras.

 

With a view camera I would scout out a location, figure out the best lighting, best vantage point etc in advance, then come in with the camera and maybe four pieces of film (I rarely used all 4). I would set things up, meter carefully, look at things in the ground glass to get just the look I was after, take one exposure. Then try one other shot from the same area from a different angle etc. I would go home with 2 maybe three exposures. Most of the time they were all wonderful pictures.

 

With medium format it was quite a bit more relaxed, I had 8 or 10 exposures on roll! I usually did medium format when I was going to be somewhere that had a number of different interesting things that I knew I was going to want to take pictures of. I might take 15 minutes to an hour at different locations, seeing what was there, what fascinated me working out just what I wanted to capture, but not spending all day on one thing. I would come away with maybe two rolls of film from a day of this.

 

35mm was the snapshot mode. I would use this when I was in an area with a lot to see, and not a huge amount of time, I would walk through taking exposures of pretty much everything I saw, not spending hardly any time on each exposure, relying on the automation in the camera to get decent exposures, using a zoom lens to have some control of composition without having to spend time moving myself and the camera into the right location.

 

Some technical issues were interesting, I had several lenses that I used with the view camera, choosing a specific one for the task at hand. The medium format ones had fixed lenses, you had to move the camera rather than change a lens. I had a bunch of 35mm lenses, but most of the time used a favorite zoom.

 

The percentage of "good" exposures (stuff that was good enough that I wanted to spend the time making a good print of) varied wildly, with the view camera it was over 90%, with medium format it was about 60%, with 35 it was less than 10%.

 

The ones I probably enjoyed the most were the medium format, for some strange reason I particularly liked twin lens reflex. I think I just really got into looking at the scene on ground glass rather than a viewfinder.

 

I really loved the view camera for "object" photography. All the manipulations (swings, tilts, rises etc) let me concoct an image just the way I wanted it, I loved the flexibility. At one point I took a 4x5 of my sister's parakeet using the adjustments to get just what I wanted to get sharp and rest less sharp and even blurry. That shot came out amazing, in the sharp zone every individual feather was so lifelike, it just looked so real.

 

It is interesting that most of my exposures in medium format were black and white and almost all the 35mm ones were color, large format was a mix. My favorite B&W was PlusX and Rodinal.

 

I considered myself more of a craftsman rather than an artist, spending a lot of time in the darkroom getting the subtleties of shading just right.

 

I also have a signed copy of "Yosemite and the Range of Light" and two Ansel Adams prints (real photographic prints) hanging in my listening room.

 

I'm basically not doing any photography these days, just audio and astronomy so I have not gotten too much into the film vs digital question.

 

John S.

[wwaldmanfan]

I also worked briefly at Nabisco in NJ when digital photography was in its infancy. We did product photography with a large-format view camera, which had a color wheel in front of the lens. We would have toi make three exposures--one through a red filter, one blue, and one green. A photo array in the film holder was connected to a computer by a cable, and then we would superimpose the three images in Photoshop to get the finished shot. Now, you can probably take a higher-resolution photo with an iPhone.

[semente]

"As we know all the greatest and most important shots in history of photography were done in black and white"

 

Nonsense...

[Priaptor]

Nonsense...

 

First off I was quoting wwaldmanfan. Second I happen to agree with him despite your "nonsense" comment. For the most part today's photojournalists and sports photographers are point and shoot guys taking tons of digital shots hoping to get one that tells a story. In the past they didn't have the luxury of digital and those guys understood what was needed to tell the story Today's professionals take tons of shots hoping to get one that tells the story

 

Not saying progress isn't good and there are many currentlywho tell the story well. However how many "historical" photos are etched into people's minds that have been taken in the last 20-30 years compared to before.

[Priaptor]

This thread is fascinating, as well as being interested in good sound for reproducing music well, I am also into photography and astronomy.

 

I got into photography in a very strange way, in high school I was doing a science experiment which created a series of colored bands but only lasted for a couple minutes, I had to take pictures of the results to be able to analyze them. The photography teacher got me into doing macro setups and printing the color negatives, I was hooked, kind of backwards from the way most people get into it.

 

I've had many cameras, several view cameras, a couple field cameras, several medium format and a bunch of 35mm. One thing I found fascinating was the completely different way I went about doing things with the different cameras.

 

With a view camera I would scout out a location, figure out the best lighting, best vantage point etc in advance, then come in with the camera and maybe four pieces of film (I rarely used all 4). I would set things up, meter carefully, look at things in the ground glass to get just the look I was after, take one exposure. Then try one other shot from the same area from a different angle etc. I would go home with 2 maybe three exposures. Most of the time they were all wonderful pictures.

 

With medium format it was quite a bit more relaxed, I had 8 or 10 exposures on roll! I usually did medium format when I was going to be somewhere that had a number of different interesting things that I knew I was going to want to take pictures of. I might take 15 minutes to an hour at different locations, seeing what was there, what fascinated me working out just what I wanted to capture, but not spending all day on one thing. I would come away with maybe two rolls of film from a day of this.

 

35mm was the snapshot mode. I would use this when I was in an area with a lot to see, and not a huge amount of time, I would walk through taking exposures of pretty much everything I saw, not spending hardly any time on each exposure, relying on the automation in the camera to get decent exposures, using a zoom lens to have some control of composition without having to spend time moving myself and the camera into the right location.

 

Some technical issues were interesting, I had several lenses that I used with the view camera, choosing a specific one for the task at hand. The medium format ones had fixed lenses, you had to move the camera rather than change a lens. I had a bunch of 35mm lenses, but most of the time used a favorite zoom.

 

The percentage of "good" exposures (stuff that was good enough that I wanted to spend the time making a good print of) varied wildly, with the view camera it was over 90%, with medium format it was about 60%, with 35 it was less than 10%.

 

The ones I probably enjoyed the most were the medium format, for some strange reason I particularly liked twin lens reflex. I think I just really got into looking at the scene on ground glass rather than a viewfinder.

 

I really loved the view camera for "object" photography. All the manipulations (swings, tilts, rises etc) let me concoct an image just the way I wanted it, I loved the flexibility. At one point I took a 4x5 of my sister's parakeet using the adjustments to get just what I wanted to get sharp and rest less sharp and even blurry. That shot came out amazing, in the sharp zone every individual feather was so lifelike, it just looked so real.

 

It is interesting that most of my exposures in medium format were black and white and almost all the 35mm ones were color, large format was a mix. My favorite B&W was PlusX and Rodinal.

 

I considered myself more of a craftsman rather than an artist, spending a lot of time in the darkroom getting the subtleties of shading just right.

 

I also have a signed copy of "Yosemite and the Range of Light" and two Ansel Adams prints (real photographic prints) hanging in my listening room.

 

I'm basically not doing any photography these days, just audio and astronomy so I have not gotten too much into the film vs digital question.

 

John S.

 

Great stuff.

 

As I said in my tale I too have (just one) a real Adams photo print that my Riley (may he RIP) unfortunately marred a little. It's now framed to cover the marred edge. It did much better than the book.

 

I learned a big lesson before embarking on my Revolutionary War and Lewis & Clark 1st edition collection!!

[semente]

First off I was quoting wwaldmanfan. Second I happen to agree with him despite your "nonsense" comment. For the most part today's photojournalists and sports photographers are point and shoot guys taking tons of digital shots hoping to get one that tells a story. In the past they didn't have the luxury of digital and those guys understood what was needed to tell the story Today's professionals take tons of shots hoping to get one that tells the story

 

Not saying progress isn't good and there are many currentlywho tell the story well. However how many "historical" photos are etched into people's minds that have been taken in the last 20-30 years compared to before.

 

 

 

There were many great photographers doing reportage in colour slide film way before digital became usable.

 

Many worked and still do for National Geographic, some made memorable photographs though the fact that people have been bombarded with hundreds of photos every day for the last 30 decades doesn't help.

 

R

[Jud]

There were many great photographers doing reportage in colour slide film way before digital became usable.

 

Many worked and still do for National Geographic, some made memorable photographs though the fact that people have been bombarded with hundreds of photos every day for the last 30 decades doesn't help.

 

R

 

Speaking of NatGeo, I always look forward to their annual photography contest.