Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "A. Huntley" <leicam6@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital, film, scanning comparisons


> Martin writes:
>
> > Alan,
> >
> > I remember Morley Baer letting me look through his old 8x10 and it was a
> > real eye opener in comparison to the puny 4x5 I was working with. I
never
> > went to 8x10 due to the enlarger barrier but now with digital the
> economics
> > shift and 8x10 lends itself to less expensive scanning solutions than
4x5.
> >
> > Martin
>
> I'm a little jealous and envious now...I absolutely love Morley's work and
> have at least one video where he is interviewed. He seemed like an
> unpretentious man...one of those rare photographers that is both GREAT and
> approachable. I would have loved to do a workshop with him or, at least,
> have met him.

Alan,

I was fortunate enough to attend one of his last workshops. Four days in San
Juan Bautista to photograph the mission and town with Frank Talbot as
co-instructor and Gordon Hutchings along for the fun of it. Lots of fond
memories. He also did a "post vivo" of the workshop at his house and we got
the chance to show are prints. A very nice man and absolutely dedicated to
his personal vision. His book "Light Years" is a must have those who love
B&W landscape photography.

He later let me come down and took a look at my portfolio. I planned to go
back the following year but kept putting it off thinking I needed to get one
more print done and he passed away before I made it back.
>
> Did you know that Brett Weston referred to the 4x5 as his miniature format
> camera? I know that he used MF during his later years, but quite a few of
us
> seem to migrate downward in format as we age. I'm trying to talk my son
into
> lugging the 8x10, but he's not biting yet...smart boy!

I have a much younger brother that I have conned into playing camera bearer
for me a couple of times.<G>
>
> Once I started using the 8x10 I pretty much gave up on 4x5 for about 10
> years. To my eye, B&W contact prints are simply stunning and the 8x10 is
> just big enough to see the image well. Though, my late friend Fred Picker
> did some really lovely 4x5 contacts of snow/ice/water details of brooks in
> Vermont. However, as you said with digital the economics of using 8x10 is
> looking really good. The cost of film is way up there now--I used to buy
50
> sheet boxes of Tri-X for about $50US--but, processing can be done with a
few
> cheap plastic trays, and probably just about any flatbed that can handle
> this size film would be fine. My Epson 1680 does an acceptable job. Most
of
> the B&W quads I have produced from 8x10 have been roughly A4 size. I guess
> the only real downside to the economics involved is that you'll want a LF
> printer! <g> Epson 7000 anyone?
>
I know what you mean about the 8x10 contacts. Morley's were really superb.
My own favorite print size was 11x14 for many years and moving up to that
format was too much to undertake. The sheer weight of camera and film
holders pretty much ties you to a car. I couldn't shoot 8x10 either since
the cost of an 8x10 enlarger was impossible. Even 5x7 was prohibitive
because of the enlarger expense. From scanning my 4x5 negs on the Howtek I
am really amazed at the amount of detail on the film. I am pretty convinced
you would need to print it out at 30x40 to see all of it in the print. I bet
a 4000 dpi scan of an 8x10 neg would be really something!

With digital printing in mind I think the real advantage of the 8x10 may
simple be that it is much, much easier to compose on a bright 8x10 ground
glass than the wimpy little 4x5 glass. My current thought, that I have not
acted on, is to move up from 4x5 to 5x7. Two sheets should easily wet mount
on the Howtek and the increase in camera size and weight would not be as
great as going up to 8x10. B&H is charging about $70 for 50 sheets of TriX,
about half of the 8x10 price. I like the proportions better too.

In all honesty though I have done most of my work in the last few years with
the Pentax 67.

Martin Wesley