Can't go back to 35mm film

[djacobox372]

Don't expect to get D800 sharpness out of film. Film just isn't really "sharp" like digital is, regardless of the format. 4x5 might have about the resolving power of a D800, but it still has grain, whereas a D800 doesn't. :/

Also, real B&W film doesn't scan super awesome and usually looks uber flat. Color filters help a little bit, but if your main intent is scanning, look into shooting XP2 or BW400CN. Much better films for scanning.

4x5 has at least twice the resolving power as a d800.

 

[Tiller]

4x5 has at least twice the resolving power as a d800.

^this

The only digital that can come close to 4x5 resolution are the new digital medium format cameras like the phase one's, hasselblads, etc.

 

[peter27]

To me, worshiping a process only makes some sense if you get some personal pleasure or satisfaction out of it and the product is really irrelevant - like whittling.

What doesn't make sense to me is saying the product, or some small part of it, is amazing just because of how it was made.

So you would argue that eating at a restaurant listed in the Michelin Guide is no different to filling up at a fast food joint, would you? After all, the result is the same: you go in hungry and came out with a full stomach.

Talk about completely missing the point. I'd try to clarify things, but a) I don't see how to make Lew's point and clearer and b) I am pretty this is devolving into simply picking sides based on what we think the other guy said, without actually reading.

I don't think I have missed the point here at all. Lew's Argument seems to me to be that all that matters in art is the end result: the prduction process is irrelevant in his mind.

I disagree with this view because to my mind the process is part of the point. When I look at a sculpture I don't just see the end result but rather I want to touch it, run my hand over the surface, imagine the artist working the stone and make a connection with them. My example of the two restaurants was aimed at illustrating this point. I'm not concerned only with eating, but value the whole experience of a meal.


We live in a throw-away society where hardly any value is placed on craftmanship. I prefer to consider how much work went into something, with what degree of difficulty and knowledge something was made, and the experience needed gained and shared for and in the process.

 

[cgw]

So you would argue that eating at a restaurant listed in the Michelin Guide is no different to filling up at a fast food joint, would you? After all, the result is the same: you go in hungry and came out with a full stomach.

Talk about completely missing the point. I'd try to clarify things, but a) I don't see how to make Lew's point and clearer and b) I am pretty this is devolving into simply picking sides based on what we think the other guy said, without actually reading.

I don't think I have missed the point here at all. Lew's Argument seems to me to be that all that matters in art is the end result: the prduction process is irrelevant in his mind.

I disagree with this view because to my mind the process is part of the point. When I look at a sculpture I don't just see the end result but rather I want to touch it, run my hand over the surface, imagine the artist working the stone and make a connection with them. My example of the two restaurants was aimed at illustrating this point. I'm not concerned only with eating, but value the whole experience of a meal.


We live in a throw-away society where hardly any value is placed on craftmanship. I prefer to consider how much work went into something, with what degree of difficulty and knowledge something was made, and the experience needed gained and shared for and in the process.

That being the case, you should be bowing deeply to the engineers at Toshiba and Sony who develop 16/24/36mp sensors. As for "art," art without commerce is a hobby. And, BTW, Lew's still right.

 

[Mike_E]

Lew is partially right.

A process has a beginning, a middle and an end. So does photography and each step in photography varies in importance.

If the goal is to hang an image in a client's home or a gallery somewhere then of course the most important part of the process is the end result.

I'd venture that the vast majority of photography was never intended towards those goals though. Quite often the actual goal is to simply get somewhere and witness it for yourself and then the image is simply proof that you've accomplished your intended goal. This is probably why so many people are enamored with the first two parts of the whole, because those two represent what's important to us- the journey rather than the arrival. Had Mr. Frost taken the road more traveled -the quicker way to get where he thought he wanted to go- we all would be much the poorer for it.

 

[cgw]

Lew is partially right.

A process has a beginning, a middle and an end. So does photography and each step in photography varies in importance.

If the goal is to hang an image in a client's home or a gallery somewhere then of course the most important part of the process is the end result.

I'd venture that the vast majority of photography was never intended towards those goals though. Quite often the actual goal is to simply get somewhere and witness it for yourself and then the image is simply proof that you've accomplished your intended goal. This is probably why so many people are enamored with the first two parts of the whole, because those two represent what's important to us- the journey rather than the arrival. Had Mr. Frost taken the road more traveled -the quicker way to get where he thought he wanted to go- we all would be much the poorer for it.

Maybe...Provided tourism, voyeurism and gear-fondling are what matter most. The final image endures and matters most because it does.

 

[The_Traveler]

To get away from generalities and look at specifics, why are these pictures shown above deserving of high praise if not for the process?

Look especially at the picture of the car and explain the qualities of that.