- This topic is empty.
Who needs 5×4?
-
amcinroy wrote:
My goodness that was quite a rant jb7.
I’ll leave it there. Just my opinions of course and and everyone is welcome to those.
Andy
It doesn’t sound anything like a rant to me, more like an educated assessment from someone who knows what he is talking about.
Peter
amcinroy wrote:
The 5×4 transparencies I’ve seen seem to lack soul, probably because their owners tend to only take them out in good weather. Also there is a tendancy to produce the same type of wideangle, tilted focal plane, foreground/midground/farground shots.
AndyHopefully Charlie Waite will ditch the auld large format and get a 10D [or whatever] like you soon.
There’s no doubt that a well taken, well scanned 5″ x 4″ will have a higher resolution than a 10 megpix camera. The other point in this thread that springs to mind is the ease in which a high-res digital camera can produce what is really quite a lot of effort on a 5″x4″. I used to use Mamiya 6×7 for my pro-work, In my opinion it is now redundant. The 5 x 4 is still in my office with s fridge full of various sheets and polaroids. The only time I use it now is when teaching, it’s a great way of showing new starters the fundamentals of a camera.
I was shocked recently when a small crop (about 1/6th) of a 6megpix image was blown up to 3m by 3m and used on a poster. As JB says, quite rightly, up-close the image quality must have been poor, however from a “Normal viewing distance” it was clearly fit for purpose.
I am glad that the likes of Joe Cornish et al are still humping their big land cameras around and producing stunning huge prints from them and I worry that it is an art that is slipping away. I’ve been very encouraged to see a lot of keen photographers start with digital and then “experiment” with 35mm film. It is fairly cheap to get a decent MF film camera and the results on FB paper can be gorgeous.
Different not better or worse.. Tool for the job etc.
Si
Allinthemind wrote:
Different not better or worse..
I couldn’t agree more!!! It’s just such a shame more people don’t see it from that perspective!
LOL,
I really never intended this thread to become a format war. :lol:
I know as well as anyone that it’s about the photo, not the format. Take a look through my webpage and see if you can tell which ones are digital and which ones are film !!
I just like a controversial title to get the ball rolling and generate some interest. My opening post was really a demonstration that small format digital can rise to the level of professional exhibition prints if carefully shot and processed.
It was not my intention to put large format down, despite the jokey title. Fair enough, I was was later coerced to tell you why it’s not for me. But that’s just my opinion.
Andy
Thorsten wrote:
Allinthemind wrote:
Different not better or worse..
I couldn’t agree more!!! It’s just such a shame more people don’t see it from that perspective!
Me too-
I’m sure the title was a little tongue in cheek,
but imagine the reaction I’d get if I posted a thread entitled
‘who needs black and white film’
and proceeeded to describe converting from colour digital?This is a forum for photography,
although designers and their requirements can sometimes be seen to be a minor branch of it.I’m as guilty as anyone else;
I’ll push the size of a picture so far
that a critical photographer’s eyes will bleed.I have more than a passing interest in the content of this thread,
and its true that more resolution is available from the larger formats-
I’ve even got a fair idea how much-j
Sorry jb7,
I just posted ahead of you there. Yes you are correct, the title was tongue in cheek.
I’m not a gear freak I assure you (although I do have plenty). The tool for the job at the end of the day. You have a good understanding of what your camera is capable of. But I was just demonstrating to budget digital SLR users what their cameras are capable of.
Andy
I’m sure Andy,
you don’t need one of these
to make one of these
(largest photograph ever, Sam Taylor Woods’ XV Seconds, Selfridges London, 2000- apparently the print weighed 2 tons)
The top image is from http://www.kameraklub.co.za/trivia.htm,
the lower from http://www.macroart.co.uk/Gallery1.htmNo images were downloaded, they are just links to external sites-
Andy, I’m surprised you say you didnt intend to start a format war, when you [jokingly or otherwise] start a thread, who needs …….. thats what you are going to get. Replace 5×4 in the title with, who needs Canon, who needs Kodak, who needs L glass, then the result will be the same. On other forums you would be called a Troll for that, posting to provoke a reaction. We know you are not though.
But I’m glad we are all back to “Its the tool for the job”, thats the right position.
You made an interesting point that I dont happen to agree with and perhaps you could clarify or give examples for the sake of discussion.
amcinroy wrote:
The 5×4 transparencies I’ve seen seem to lack soul, probably because their owners tend to only take them out in good weather. Also there is a tendancy to produce the same type of wideangle, tilted focal plane, foreground/midground/farground shots.
Fintan I think this thread has come full circle. I didn’t see anything malicious in the original post. Andy didn’t rubbish the 4*5 format, but used its appropriateness for making huge prints as a reference. Any further statements he made, such as the one you are now seeking clarity on, were in response to the rather over-sensitive reaction of some here.
So lets leave it as it is.
Whats wrong with asking for clarification to a statement made? Are we going to stop every thread where someone can’t expand on what they have said?
Peter
thefizz wrote:
Whats wrong with asking for clarification to a statement made? Are we going to stop every thread where someone can’t expand on what they have said?
Peter
Andy has clarified his position already. I think further clarification is being sought for all the wrong reasons. :?
Well Steve, rather than neatly tying up your full circle,
you’ve managed to comment on the comments,
and started it all off again.Can you be more precise?
‘Over sensitive’ is your opinion,
an emotive observation which adds nothing to the discussion,
and perhaps not a particularly well informed one, at that.Sure they’re all tools for the job-
as Fintan pointed out, you can post a 100kb snap here and it’ll look good-
Thats one job.But if you want to make a large print,
then its disengenuous to suggest that anyone will be happy with the quality from a 6mp camera-
Your ignorance will simply forment disappointment.As someone who professes interest in “advanced photography”
you, of all people, should know that.But since we’re all grown up here,
and nobody is going to get over sensitive,
let’s call a spade a spade, shall we?Of course its not appropriate to make huge 8-10′ wide prints from a 6Mp original,
if they are to be seen as a quality photographic reproduction.Its not appropriate off 5×4 either, but the quality will be a lot better.
To achieve the same print quality as a 2.4m wide print off 5″x4″,
I would only be able to make a print about 66x44cm from a 6mp original.I’ve tested 5×4 against DSLR for the purposes of making large prints,
and those results are based on my findings.If you’ve got anything of value to add, I’m sure you’ll share.
As you all said, its tools for the job,
and at some point, somebody is going to have to be critical of the job,
and be able to say truthfully, what is acceptable or not.And, considering that the job is to put a large photograph on a wall,
in a room behind a couch,
then an original larger than 6mp would be hugely preferable.Unless, of course, nobody cares about the quality.
In which case,
why stop at 8 foot?This thread has now come full circle,
unless someone wants to claim that I’m being ‘over sensitive’ again.joseph
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
