How to achieve that?

[solrac8126]

maybe this one
http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/HA1500/

:lmao:

 

[Joxby]

It isnt possible yet, digital cannot match M/F film, its not even like its easy to compare, but raw nuts a bolts dictate, that hassys sensor is still short on physical size whatever the pixel count.
He's using 6x7 film, its still double the size of the sensor, and since film captures a greater gamut, I dont see how a 39mp image rivals 6x7 film.
How you measure that is another question, digital judges film by its own standards, the limiting factor being digitals ability to record the contents of a film slide.....I dont think its as simple as that.
I think calling it Large Format digital is also stretching discriptions a bit..

Comparing prints created by their own mediums is probably less scientific but its to films advantage, not relying on questionable digital reproduction.

There are a lot of photos I like on this page, but several I dont...

 

[Alpha]

Take a digital image that has been through all the require post-pro work. Send it to a high end photo printing service for large print. Order let say 20 prints.

Take a negative and send it to a professional with significant darkroom experience who has the capability to produce large prints (same size) in a wet darkroom. Have him do 20 prints.

Then letsay, 10 more orders are placed online of various sizes. I bet reprinting from digital image to ink jet will be significantly cheaper.

BUT... I bet if he took those same 67 negatives and sent to a professional darkroom.. the final quality would probably be better.

I sent him an email or two. Extremely nice guy. I won't repost verbatim here without his permission, but I'll pass on a thing or two that he mentioned.

First, he said that he has to underexpose his subjects a lot in order to correctly expose the sky. He feels that he can extract more detail from both shadows and highlights in photoshop than he could in the darkroom.

As for printing, he does it all himself.

 

[JIP]

I think any of this is a matter of the style of the individual photographer. The quality of film vs. digital is one thing but depending o the style of the individual photographer I am sure someone shppting digital (if that is there style) can produce images that are equally amazing. But I do agree this particular set of images could only have been produced with film. The feel and the look of them is a product of the specific film/camera combination.

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

It isnt possible yet, digital cannot match M/F film, its not even like its easy to compare, but raw nuts a bolts dictate, that hassys sensor is still short on physical size whatever the pixel count.
He's using 6x7 film, its still double the size of the sensor, and since film captures a greater gamut, I dont see how a 39mp image rivals 6x7 film.
How you measure that is another question, digital judges film by its own standards, the limiting factor being digitals ability to record the contents of a film slide.....I dont think its as simple as that.
I think calling it Large Format digital is also stretching discriptions a bit..

Comparing prints created by their own mediums is probably less scientific but its to films advantage, not relying on questionable digital reproduction.

There are a lot of photos I like on this page, but several I dont...

Many years ago I saw the first Japanese car that I had seen in the U.K. It was a Honda Civic and it was a complete joke. While I and the rest of the country were laughing at it , Honda and the others got their acts together and gave the public what they wanted. While our own industry carried on with their "We made it and you will have it THIS way" attitude that everyone had put up with in previous years.We now haven't got a car industry in this country any more. Don't make the same mistake with film and digital.

Many people produce work that is every bit as sharp and capable as film,using digital equipment. and have been doing it for some time. They sell it and they exhibit it in places with good reputations , so it must work. It is different. But then so is Portia from Velvia. And Tri-X from Neo-Pan. But it is every bit as good. Portraitists, Studio advertisers, Landscapers, Fine Art Photographers, are all using the medium, that they believe, will produce the best result, for them, at that time, and in that genre. As far as I know the successfull ones do not say "Cause I use film. Flim is better ... so there...."
I remember it being said of colour over mono. I dare say that it was said about photographs as opposed to oils/ water colours etc, and it was as wrong then as it is now with digital. You use the medium that produces the results that you are looking for.

 

[Mike_E]

His location and subject mater help too.

Medium Format is still relevant and should be for a while if for no other reason than the lenses.

Thanks for sharing this TechnoPhil, it looks a little like he's doing a modest HDR with these.

 

[Alpha]

He's not doing HDR. He said in his emails only that his panoramas are two sequential exposures stitched together. Consider his subject matter as well and his equipment. He's shooting with a Pentax 67, which has an ungodly slow and loud mirror, as well as lockup if needed. Not only would it be impractical, but largely impossible for him to shoot multiple exposures of the subjects that he shoots. Take Elephant With Exploding Dust for example. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that it could have been HDR. The results he achieves, as I mentioned earlier, are by using heavy grad filters, grossly underexposing subjects, and then pulling out as much detail as possible from shadows and highlights in photoshop. There is no HDR.

 

[Mike_E]

LOL I didn't say he was, just that it looked 'a little bit' like it.

You are too right about the noise of the camera startling the subjects!

If someone that shoots digital wants this effect they might try doing an HDR with realism in mind and see what they get. (for subjects that will allow only one shot you can try the whole tone mapping thing maybe? I dunno, it's not my bag really but a place you might start if you are interested.

mike

 

[Alpha]

I would think that simply shooting the same way that he does, but with digital, might yield similar but not as good results from a single exposure. You could throw on a heavy grad filter, underexpose, shoot raw, and then try to pull out as much detail as possible in PP. Would be an interesting demonstration of the tone range of film vs digital.

 

[luis_relampago]

Photoshop all the way, the reason I got into photography was my Photoshop knowledge; also shutting medium format gives him a bigger surface to work with Photoshop. I don't think he his taking more then one snap per photo. In general great photography and excellent post-production.