Has digital photography reduced your use of tripods?

In article ,
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:

Robert Peirce wrote:

However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp.


In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very mad
rhino about 6 feet
away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember that
at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.

I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
don't think I cold do it.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]

On 23-06-09 09:47, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article9eWdnffAXf8CiN3XnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@giganews. com,
Alan wrote:

I forgot to quote your other comment about 24Mp probably exceeding 35mm.
You may be right. Frankly, I have been happier with my digital prints
than my 35mm film prints, but 4x5 (or larger) is still the holy grail.
No such thing. Some cameras, like the one linked below, print sharper
than any portable view camera...

http://elsa.photo.net/studio/elsa-w-...and-camera.jpg

That appears to be larger than 4x5, which proves my point.

No, it proves that there is no "holy grail" size as that would be
infinitely large (or at least as large as the universe which is much
more manageable).


However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp. OTOH,
4x5 cameras on sturdy tripods make fantastic images, maybe not as good
as 8x10 or 11x14 or larger, but still very good.

Tripods and view cameras are portable but not necessarily conveniently so.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On 22-06-09 21:23, Mr. Strat wrote:
In , Robert Peirce
wrote:

I think you meant 12x18 as well. At least that is what I have been
printing from 6Mp.

I have 16x20s from a Canon 10D. With care, 20x24 is possible.

A billboard can be done with a P&S image if it's viewed from quite far off.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On 23-06-09 12:21, J. Clarke wrote:
mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote:

However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can
carry around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have
never seen a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that
sharp.

In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very
mad rhino about 6 feet
away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember
that
at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.

What is often forgotten is that the Speed Graphic was in its day a
photojournalist's camera.

It was also often shot with flash by PJ's to freeze camera and subject
motion with smaller apertures that reduced DOF errors.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:

Robert Peirce wrote:

However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp.

In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very mad
rhino about 6 feet
away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember that
at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.

I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
don't think I cold do it.

Polaroids... though the advantage isn't large prints.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
]...


However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp. OTOH,
4x5 cameras on sturdy tripods make fantastic images, maybe not as good
as 8x10 or 11x14 or larger, but still very good.


Good photographers make good images. Fantastic photographers make fantastic
images.
I don't think one could make very many decent event photos with anything
larger than 4x5. :-)
The camera is just a tool, nothing more.

--
Peter

"Robert Peirce" wrote in message
]...
In article ,
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:

Robert Peirce wrote:

However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp.


In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very mad
rhino about 6 feet
away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember that
at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.

I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
don't think I cold do it.



The Grafics could be used with smaller backs, IIRC 2 1/4 x 3 1/4.

--
Peter

"Paul Furman" wrote:

I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
don't think I cold do it.

There are lots of 4x5s that are designed to be (and were) shot hand held
(press cameras, such as the one Weegee used). Including the Graphlex 4x5
SLRs.

Polaroids... though the advantage isn't large prints.

Polaroid made a 4x5 negative film (it produced both a positive and a
negative) that was extremely fine grain/high resolution. (I used it back in
my metallurgy days for technical work.) About as good as 4x5 gets.

And then there's the Polaroid camera Ansel Adams used for his portraits of
Carter and Mondale: 20x24. Is that large enough for you?

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote:
I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
don't think I cold do it.

There are lots of 4x5s that are designed to be (and were) shot hand held
(press cameras, such as the one Weegee used). Including the Graphlex 4x5
SLRs.

Polaroids... though the advantage isn't large prints.

Polaroid made a 4x5 negative film (it produced both a positive and a
negative) that was extremely fine grain/high resolution. (I used it back in
my metallurgy days for technical work.) About as good as 4x5 gets.

Wow, you get a contact print and a negative, nice.


And then there's the Polaroid camera Ansel Adams used for his portraits of
Carter and Mondale: 20x24. Is that large enough for you?

I was just thinking of their conventional folding consumer snapshooters.
Those are all medium format and not for tripods.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

In article ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"Paul Furman" wrote:

I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
don't think I cold do it.

There are lots of 4x5s that are designed to be (and were) shot hand held
(press cameras, such as the one Weegee used). Including the Graphlex 4x5
SLRs.

So I have been told and so I realized when I thought about it a bit.
However, I still would not be comfortable hand-holding a field camera of
4x5 or larger.

Polaroid made a 4x5 negative film (it produced both a positive and a
negative) that was extremely fine grain/high resolution. (I used it back in
my metallurgy days for technical work.) About as good as 4x5 gets.

I have a Polaroid back for my field camera. The film isn't the issue.
The issue was whether you could effectively use a field camera without a
tripod.

And then there's the Polaroid camera Ansel Adams used for his portraits of
Carter and Mondale: 20x24. Is that large enough for you?

Large size is not the issue either. I originally said 4x5 or larger.
However, as I understand it, the Polaroid camera was only available for
studio work. The largest field camera I am aware of was 11x14, although
it would not surprise me to learn that somebody was using something
bigger. I think 8x10 and 4x5 were probably the most common sizes.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]