Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Michael J. Kravit <mjkaia@k...> wrote:
> Bill.
> 
> Great points that you make. Especially about 35mm allowing rapid 
> visualization and discovery. However, if one wishes to make "large" 
> prints, my feeling is that LF or at least MF in 6x6 to 6x12 is the way 
> to go. I have yet to see a 35mm negative that can reproduce the tonal 
> range and smoothness of 4x5. Some feel that with todays fine grain 
> emulsions the quality of MF if not 4x5 can be obtained with 35mm. Well, 
> I am not in agreement with their premise.
> 
> As far as visualization goes, I shoot mostly 4x5 with some 6x6 and 6x9 
> thrown in(All B/W). I love spending time evaluating a scene, 
> pre-visualizing it if you will, setting up tha Arca and getting 
> everything ready. Waiting for first light (or last light) and pulling 
> the trigger. Removing the film, sliding in another sheet and again 
> pulling the trigger.
> 
> For me, there is a feeling of spirituality making that special image on 
> a sheet of film. Being able to control the expansion or contraction of 
> the exposure to obtain what I wanted to see.
> 
> 35mm is a great format. But for me, there is satisfaction in the 
> deliberate, time consuming work flow of shooting large format.
> 
> Mike
> 
> Michael J. Kravit, AIA
> Architect/Photographer
> Delray Beach, Florida
> 

I agree completely.  For me the usage of the 4x5, the ground
glass, the spot meter, the large sheets of film just all fit me
and my style.  Sure, I like the quality of a large negative but
I've also seen wonderful work with smaller formats.  But when
it comes to me making an image I just always gravitate to
the 4x5 -- I just like it.  I like the camera, the large negative,
and the printing in the darkroom.  And now I like the easy
time I have getting a plenty good enough scan from a 
relatively cheap scanner.

Roy

-- 
Roy Harrington
roy@...
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com