The Ultimate Original Point & Shoot

[sapearl]

You ever see anything like this in action before? It is quite a sight to behold for doing bridal formals.

==>

[eddarr]

I don't think I have the patience for that; much less the abilities. I know that I would probably get bored and walk away by the time it was attached to the QR. What would really suck is that my pictures would not look any better than what I took with my xti.

[sapearl]

At this point in my life, I probably wouldn't have that level of patience either Eric ;). I'm having way too much fun with digital right now to go back to film.... just yet. But I had the pleasure of being second shooter to this gentleman about a week ago.

[LeesaB]

WOW....but think of the talent and history behind that camera to get a beautiful portrait for the bride! Sure would be a selling point huh!

[sapearl]

Hi there Leesa - good seeing you :D. This is the fellow I mentioned some time ago who has his Alternative Printing Group:

http://pearlphoto.blogspot.com/2008/02/alternative-view-from-21st-century.html

That's an 8 x 10 view camera he's using and I believe he said the "normal" lens on that beast is 250mm. Each film holder contains two sheets of ASA 100 B/W film which he tray processes by hand in his darkroom.

WOW....but think of the talent and history behind that camera to get a beautiful portrait for the bride! Sure would be a selling point huh!

[LeesaB]

HEY Stu!!!!

I would love to see the process. I bet it amazing as is his work. What a thrill.

Amazing what is old becomes new again.

[sapearl]

Herb actually makes his own photographic paper. The final product is a B/W print, but technically it's a Platinum print.

He uses a high quality cotton based paper for the base, and then coats it with a mixture of platinum emulsion and some other chemistry that results in a pleasing soft, almost gold, tone. Properly done, the print should last 100+ years.

[LeesaB]

He belongs to the same group I do, right. I did not get to meet him, though. He attended the rather loud meeting I missed LOL.

[sapearl]

Yes - he did attend that meeting.

For this particular wedding his regular second shooter - the digital guy - was out of town and he was in a little jam, so he called me. He shot b/w 8x10, roll 120 film in his Hasselblad, and 35mm b/w also.

Essentially all the formals he set up and did in b/w, and then I'd immediately step in do it in "color."

He belongs to the same group I do, right. I did not get to meet him, though. He attended the rather loud meeting I missed LOL.

[DStanic]

Are you sure there isn't just a 40D in there with a 70-200 picking out the hole? ;)

jk

[Aaagogo]

this is more of a dying skill in the world of photography. sad.

[sapearl]

Very possibly a 30D & 5D also - that thing is quite sizable; It's not very heavy, I helped him carry the gear from his car. But that's a pretty substantial Gitzo tripod he has supporting it.

Are you sure there isn't just a 40D in there with a 70-200 picking out the hole? ;)

jk

[chauncey]

Stu, If I understand it correctly, you took duplicate shots, so....

Did you print any and view them side by side with his, were you able to "see" a significant difference in image quality
that you would attribute to the camera?

[sapearl]

Yes - sad but true. This sort of time consuming attention to the ancient arts is not cost effective, and few want to pay for this type of beautiful craftsmanship.

this is more of a dying skill in the world of photography. sad.

[chtgrubbs]

Stu,
You should tell your alternative print buddies to get with the program. We are making our negatives digitally now.
http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/

[sapearl]

Hey there Chauncey - always a pleasure reading your comments :D.

Yes, for the most part I shot a lot of what he did, and then some. For the formal bridal and group portraits I think he made around ten exposures if I recall. I handed him five 8 x 10 film holders, and each holds 2 negatives.

You raise an interesting question Chauncey and I'm hard pressed to answer it. I did play around with some of my full rez 5D files and made a couple of B/W conversions. I think they were quite nice viewed on screen, but I did not make any prints using fine art on my R1800. Now you've given me some ideas ....;)

But I did see a couple of his platninum prints. They are tough to compare to digital IMHO, which I realize is a discussion that gets a lot of air time here now and then. My first impression was of viewing a fine art print in a museum, of decades past. It's tough to describe. Can we "mimic" the effect digitally? I have no doubt... but it would take me a while to hone such a technique.

I would say both of our images are high quality - just different. But it's almost like asking which is better, a Cadillac or a Lincoln? :rolleyes:.

Stu, If I understand it correctly, you took duplicate shots, so....

Did you print any and view them side by side with his, were you able to "see" a significant difference in image quality
that you would attribute to the camera?

[sapearl]

That's an interesting site - thanks for sharing. I gave it a quick scan, and if I understand correctly you can use any camera device to "output" a digital file by using the technique.... or perhaps I'm misunderstanding it?

Stu,
You should tell your alternative print buddies to get with the program. We are making our negatives digitally now.
http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/

[breal101]

It's good to see a preservationist at work, I admire the guy for his dedication. I sold my 8x10 a long time ago when it was still worth something. If your friend is interested I have a crap load of 8x10 hangers for processing and probably a full set of hard rubber 3 1/2 gallon tanks. I was never a fan of tray processing but to each his own. Is he a member at APUG, a great bunch of guys over there. Many who appreciate what he is doing.

[bieber]

It's good to see a preservationist at work, I admire the guy for his dedication. I sold my 8x10 a long time ago when it was still worth something. If your friend is interested I have a crap load of 8x10 hangers for processing and probably a full set of hard rubber 3 1/2 gallon tanks. I was never a fan of tray processing but to each his own. Is he a member at APUG, a great bunch of guys over there. Many who appreciate what he is doing.
When it was still worth something? Have you seen 8x10 view cam prices on B&H? :-P I'd totally use one of those things, if I could afford it...

[breal101]

Back in my film days I rarely bought anything new but the prices today aren't really that much higher than 1980s prices. Used prices are a lot lower these days, I got a great deal on an almost new 8x10 Sinar P with 3 lenses, auxiliary shutter and a 5x7 P back and bellows. All for a measly $6000, you could probably do a bit better today. I sold it for a profit after using it for 4 or 5 years.

[sapearl]

Chauncey - I don't have the main shooter's platinum print, but here's the shot I made immediately after he made his 8x10 "capture." I shot RAW, with a little bit of fill flash, and then converted to B/W.

==>


Stu, If I understand it correctly, you took duplicate shots, so....

Did you print any and view them side by side with his, were you able to "see" a significant difference in image quality
that you would attribute to the camera?

[chauncey]

Hey Stu

It looks like that scene exceded the dynamic range of the camera as evidenced by the washed out wall and the blacks under the bench.
But then I'm looking at a downsized posted image which usually end up looking like $hit.

To be fair, I've never seen a side by side comparsion.

So what's the verdict, can a Cleveland boy that seldom gets out of the flats take a picture
that approaches the quality of a medium format?

[sapearl]

Interesting you should say that about the washed out highlights and the lost bench shadows. That certainly is true about my digital capture, and I tried to pull things back in CS3 with some exposure adjustment layers to only modest affect. When he was setting up the shot, I pointed that out to him, expressing my concern. Naturally I was "thinking digital."

He turned to me and smiled: "Oh that's ok..... just look at that beautiful dappled sunlight. It'll be ok."

And that's the beauty of his 8x10 negative/platinum print process. It creates a much softer final print. When I looked at his finished work I saw what he was talking about. Whereas things can become blown out in our digital if we are not careful, this was not the case with his highlights. He also maintained more shadow detail in his "wet print."

Hey Stu

It looks like that scene exceded the dynamic range of the camera as evidenced by the washed out wall and the blacks under the bench.
But then I'm looking at a downsized posted image which usually end up looking like $hit.

To be fair, I've never seen a side by side comparsion......

[sapearl]

:lol:Well actually, for decades I shot my brides with medium format.

I did a pretty fair job at it too although my posing could always use improving. It's better today, but I still see the the work of others that I want to "steal" from; what's that old saying: "Amateurs borrow, but real pro's steal?"

.....So what's the verdict, can a Cleveland boy that seldom gets out of the flats take a picture
that approaches the quality of a medium format?

[cdifoto]

But it's almost like asking which is better, a Cadillac or a Lincoln? :rolleyes:.
If we're talking old school, then Caddy all the way. Caddies were sleek & stylish. Lincolns were land barges.

[airfrogusmc]

Chauncey there is NO WAY anything in the digital world can come close to a platinum print from a large format neg. And even if you could post a platinum print on the web it the computer screen could not reproduce the delicate and full tonal range and incredible detail that the print should have. Not even medium format can match the range and detail of a properly exposed and processed 8X10 neg.

[sapearl]

True enough - and those bullet shaped tail fins on a parked '59 could do plenty of damage on a careless bike rider :rolleyes:.

If we're talking old school, then Caddy all the way. Caddies were sleek & stylish. Lincolns were land barges.

[chauncey]

I bow to you gentlemen's wisdom and experience and I thank you for the education.

[DStanic]

If we're talking old school, then Caddy all the way. Caddies were sleek & stylish. Lincolns were land barges.

And nowdays most Lincolns are just re-badged Ford models with chrome and woodgrain added.

Cadillac is basically their own entity (ok they use the same engines as other GM vehicles) but aside from the Escalade being a fancied up GMC Yukon, and the XLR being on the Corvette platform, the CTS/STS/DTS/SRX are all one of a kind.

Sorry if I took this too far off topic. :lol:

[sapearl]

Hi Allen - yes, I'd agree about the phenomenal range and incredible detail incumbent in the 8x10 negative.

Some years back I played around with a Linhoff Technika 4x5 press camera with a schneider lens, and those images had a level of detail that I can't begin to describe. Properly focused and exposed, you can keep "zooming" with an enlarger and bring out a tremendous amout of beautiful detail.

If you'd like to see more examples of Herb's platinum printing, here's one of his links:

http://www.ascherman.com/platinum.htm

Chauncey there is NO WAY anything in the digital world can come close to a platinum print from a large format neg. And even if you could post a platinum print on the web it the computer screen could not reproduce the delicate and full tonal range and incredible detail that the print should have. Not even medium format can match the range and detail of a properly exposed and processed 8X10 neg.

[cdifoto]

Does he cover the entire wedding with that sucker, or does he switch to something more realistic for the non-formals? OR does he only do formals?

[sapearl]

Can't disagree with you on that - the CTS is a pretty slick vehicle. The best thing they did with the Lincoln in recent years was to chop it up, add some armor, and rebadge it with "Eat Me" in Animal House :lol:.

And nowdays most Lincolns are just re-badged Ford models with chrome and woodgrain added.

Cadillac is basically their own entity.....

[sapearl]

He only used the "beast" in the courtyard for the individual and group formals. When finished he broke it down and stowed it back in his case. He also used his Hasselblad 503CW and a small Metz flash to shoot some additional groups with roll B/W.

The Hassy also got used at the church, processional/recessional. I shot alongside him, and then hit the balcony with my 70-200 tripod mounted on the second body.

But once we got to the reception, he switched over to an old 35mm Nikon film camera with motor drive and Ilford ASA 100 film. I used the 5D throughout the day.

Does he cover the entire wedding with that sucker, or does he switch to something more realistic for the non-formals? OR does he only do formals?

[sjones]

Chauncey there is NO WAY anything in the digital world can come close to a platinum print from a large format neg. And even if you could post a platinum print on the web it the computer screen could not reproduce the delicate and full tonal range and incredible detail that the print should have. Not even medium format can match the range and detail of a properly exposed and processed 8X10 neg.

Platinum and palladium are my favorite prints, not necessarily for street photography, of course, but for still life, landscape, architecture, and such. Even reproductions in books, as inferior as they are compared with original prints, are exquisitely gorgeous, certainly surpassing anything I've seen digitally; and many of these prints date back to the early 1900s.

You can use Photoshop to mimic the 'color' of the tones, but not the detail, warmth, or tonal depth, which just draws you in. One of the earlier platinum printers, Frederick Evans, quit photography altogether when the process became cost prohibitive during World War I; I can sort of sympathize…

[zeva]

Wow....