On 9/27/09, Igor Roshchin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Scott, > > Please forgive my ignorance, but I am puzzled here. > Not having any personal experience with a LF camera, > I cannot understand what is the point/advantage of the LF camera > if 1) you are going to scan the 4"x5" prints and > (even if you are going to scan the slides with a high-resolution > scanner) > 2) you are going to print to 8"x10" only. > The only exception is possible joy of using LF.
Large format has a few significant advantages. 1) Control over each exposure, vs. roll film. This is not an issue with a digital system, but I don't use the wife's K100 very much. 2) Movements. Being able to manipulate the plane of focus is really neato. There are tilt/shift lenses for 35mm that cost nearly as much as an entry level LF system, but don't offer quite the range of movement. 3) Depth of field. This is quite pronounced even with a little 4x5. It's often possible to look at a photo and know that it was shot with a LF camera. It adds a dimensional quality that is hard to duplicate with smaller formats. I like this a lot. Some people don't. 4) Composing on a ground glass is fun! Lugging the damn thing around - not so much. IMHO, 8x10 is about the right size for a portrait in the average home. My Durst 606 can handle up to about 11x14 paper, but it won't take a 4x5 negative. Our printer won't do anything wider than 8.5. This is where the dilemma starts. Do I get by with my current limitations, or do I sink some more cash into a better scanner? Is scanning a 4x5 contact print good enough for printing an 8x10? -- Scott Loveless Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008 http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
