Is better than film, actually.

http://beckycarter.com/index.html

--
If you have an eye for quality, that is.

SgtMinor wrote:

Is more convenient than film.

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*

SgtMinor wrote:
Is better than film, actually.
Blinky the Shark wrote:
Is more convenient than film.

Is not anything like as sharp as a fine grain film emulsion, unfortunately.
Even with 8+ Megapixels.

Blinky the Shark wrote:
You *couldn't* have seen this: http://beckycarter.com/color.html

--
Reminds me of the 'art' of Margaret Keane

"SgtMinor" <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote in message
news:n4mdnQRjXaDkNUTfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
almost offensive. What ever happened to natural beauty? Since when does
beauty have to be created by thick layers of stuff spread all over? Or added
by Photoshop?

Here's the thing: film (especially large format) is far superior when it
comes to resolution. Try blowing up a computer file to 16x20, or to poster
size and see what happens.

Nunya Bizniss wrote:
Yeah, I meant my comment to be *limiting* digital's advantage to
convenience, not *adding* convenience to some list of non-existant
advantages. Want even more resolution? Sheet film, something that
photography newbs ("What's a view camera?") don't even know about.

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*

Toolman Tim wrote:

Used to be you needed some botched plastic surgery to look this weird.
Ah, progress...

Blinky the Shark wrote:
I used to shoot in 4x5 sheet film when resolution was important. If not
paramount, I'd drop back to 6x7 cm film. If resolution wasn't necessary
at all, I'd shoot on Nikon 35mm stuff. I had a friend that had a 8x10
sheet film camera. You could blow that up to wall size and still have
detail that would cut your eye.

"SgtMinor" <Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote in message
news:0ZydneklZM1SIUTfRVn-sw@comcast.com...

Rôgêr wrote:

Which, of course, was your New Years Resolution of 1983; to never
again be caught on the roof with a camera by your neighbour, after she
got the restraining order.
--
And to dispose of any sheet that might be collected in evidence. And
also, film.

Rôgêr wrote:

And just how much did that little toy set him back?
No, don't answer; I'm out of nitro tablets.



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

Gort wrote:
The camera body itself is relatively inexpensive, no more than a few
thousand US. Now, to buy a lens to mount on it, you have to choose
between a used Mercedes and the lens.

Gort wrote:
I used a Graphic 4x5 a lot for quality stuff. My work of the 1939-1940
NYC worlds fair still impresses me. The architecture of some of the
builings was impressive. However the start of WWII crushed the impact of
the fair. I never thought it would last long enough for me to be a part
of it, but enlisted (at 17) '43 and was part of the "fun". The lens of
the Crown Graphic was intended for Press work not art so I replaced
that. The two films that I found most impressive for quality detail were
Panatomix X and Kodachrome. The latter was replaced by Ektachrome which
was not as sharp in resolution. But a 4x5 image was possible to blow up
to huge size. I also did a lot of BW slide film (I used Panatomic X and
Direct Positive to make BW slides - used a lot of this for class
presentations in my chemistry lectures.)
FK

Rôgêr wrote:
I picked up a fairly decent 150 mm lens for the 4x5 just the other day
and living on a pension was not broken by the cost.
FK

Download the pictures from the site then use your Photo editor to zoom in on
them you will soon see the poor image quality.

"Toolman Tim" <no.spam.for.tcm@my.email.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:2%jCe.9570$1Y1.3951@fe02.lga...

Rôgêr wrote:
That's not a tough choice for me. I've always avoided having a car on
my cameras. ;-)



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

BIG NIGE wrote:
How could you tell with such lo res stuff?

Fred Kasner wrote:

I wouldn't mind to see some of your work. Most of mine is now scattered
to the winds.

I'm a little later by a few years. I always used 4x5 Ektachrome for
stuff that was to be used for reproduction (magazines and such), mostly
because I could do the E4 and later E6 process myself. Kodachrome I only
used in 35mm. Absolutely wonderful product, no wonder Paul Simon wrote a
song about it. I used Vericolor II (I could be remembering the names
wrong) for portraiture and Plus X or Tri X for B&W stuff.

I frequently made blow ups from a Hasselblad or Mamiya RB67 that were on
30" wide photo paper by however long I needed it to be. The 4x5 negs
would do better, but it was too labor intensive to shoot in 4x5 for
many, many subjects. In a way, it was fun to process pics that big.
Thinking back on it, I'd rather be trying to get one great print that's
30x40 instead of a bunch of 8x10s.

My 4x5 camera was a Sinar. Fantastic quality. And the 150mm Zeiss lens
wasn't too expensive, but the 250mm lens and the 90mm lenses were. But
even the normal lens for my friend's 8x10 camera was way up there in
price, never mind getting a wide angle or telephoto that could cover
that much film. With all the swings and tilts, the coverage had be more
like 16x20.

Lots of fond memories, but with a really good digital camera, I wouldn't
want to go back to staying in a darkroom for hours at a time.

Rôgêr wrote:

You didn't use a Leica at all? I know, they were not allowed to be
imported into the us for a time after "WW11-thebigone" but later on we
would have a store full of clients when it was announced a few of the
cameras with accessories were available. And then, Canon came along.

--

The smart asses claimed they were made out of old beer cans..heh

Voltardo wrote:

Holy shit! I've been studying WWII for so long I guess I
missed WW3 through WW11.

--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
Killing all Usenet posts from Google Groups
Info: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
*ALSO contains links for access to the NON-BETA GG archive interface*