Film vs Digital

interesting article:

http://petapixel.com …age-quality-film-digital/

vipergts831 wrote in post #17341974
interesting article:

http://petapixel.com …age-quality-film-digital/

Yup, even in 35mm Adox CMS 20 II with Adotech developer out-resolves the D800, so in medium format it's no contest.

Omar, be careful what you are starting..... I think it is more fun in my photography when I shoot both.

Tony-S wrote in post #17343238
Yup, even in 35mm Adox CMS 20 II with Adotech developer out-resolves the D800, so in medium format it's no contest.

And just think of an 11X14 contact print made from a zone system negative shot on 320 tri-x professional processed in HC-110.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17346957
And just think of an 11X14 contact print made from a zone system negative shot on 320 tri-x professional processed in HC-110.

You are on a different planet. Or maybe I am.

I don't like to think of negatives on Tri-x, irrespective of the devloper. I much prefer to think of negatives shot on Ilford FP4. I used to really like FP4 on 35mm and just thinking of a large format contact print; well!

Alan

An 11X14 negative. Are you kidding me?

With 11X14 contact prints from 11X14 negs and both films with a loupe on the contact print you would be hard pressed to see a much of a difference but with the dev/film combo Tri-X 320 pro,(I don't think it was ever available in 35mm) HC-110 and the zone system applied properly you would see a huge difference in D/R.

Tri -X 320 pro and Tri-X 400 are very different films.

There is a huge reason Adam's favorite film was Tri-X pro with a special dilution of HC-110.

And developer plays a huge part.

I feel like I just stepped out of the Wayback Machine.

TooManyShots wrote in post #17346888
Omar, be careful what you are starting..... I think it is more fun in my photography when I shoot both.

Great for discussion

What is interesting in the gallery world silver gelatin and platinum prints demand 10 times more than ink jet prints do.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17347254
An 11X14 negative. Are you kidding me?

Many years ago a friend ran a specialist print shop. His copy camera used 18X24 inch film for the color separations. The camera was built into the wall and the "inside" of the camera was a small room - the darkroom. Film came out of the back of the camera and went directly into the developer.

I still have a few of the film boxes...

-js

number six wrote in post #17347828
Many years ago a friend ran a specialist print shop. His copy camera used 18X24 inch film for the color separations. The camera was built into the wall and the "inside" of the camera was a small room - the darkroom. Film came out of the back of the camera and went directly into the developer.

I still have a few of the film boxes...

-js

I'm curious about that setup. Was the darkroom 'inside' the camera, as in lens mounted on one wall, film hung opposite, and processing stuff off to the side? Or was the whole 'camera' mounted to one wall of the darkroom, and you could pull the 'film backs' off the wall of the darkroom? You wouldn't by any chance happen to have any photos of his setup?


One of my life goals is to eventually own a portable darkroom/camera setup that would let me do 8'x10' plates. Probably built off a flat bed truck as the main frame, but such that I can break it down into cartable pieces to get it into unique places which I couldn't drive right up to.

Have you ever seen the work of Abelardo Morell and his work Camera Obscura?

I saw his exhibit and his lecture a while back here in Chicago. Here's piece that Nat Geo did on that work.
http://ngm.nationalgeo​graphic.com …amera-obscura/oneill-text

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen his work before, and I think I'm going to have to add that to the list of things to go see if I ever get the chance.

However I'm aiming more for being able to produce a light sensitive plates for gigantic format photography. I've come across a few dozen photographers working in such large formats over the years, and I just find the technical challenges you would face producing images of that size to be interesting. However I think aiming for something that would take photos onto light sensitive plates made from more standard 4'x8' materials might be a little more practical. (But being able to up-scale the 'classic' 8"x10" format to 8'x10' does have a rather epic resonance, even if I only get a chance to produce one or two of them in my lifetime.)

Luckless wrote in post #17348034
I'm curious about that setup. Was the darkroom 'inside' the camera, as in lens mounted on one wall, film hung opposite, and processing stuff off to the side? Or was the whole 'camera' mounted to one wall of the darkroom, and you could pull the 'film backs' off the wall of the darkroom? You wouldn't by any chance happen to have any photos of his setup?

Years ago, I helped a friend out who also had specialist print shop. His camera backs were in a separate room from the lens & art work. There was no 'film back' as we think of them & the film was held against the back by vacuum. Wish I'd taken a pic of the set-ups.

Geeez! Google S&M! And good luck with that! ; )