BigStewMan Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Justin, I bet you're getting some great photos in San Francisco. I'm originally from across the bay in Oakland; but, I do love The City. Went back to visit last year with my brother and took our cameras. Hopped on BART and went down to MIssion District and walked around--got some interesting shots. Guys playing chess on the sidewalk, the grafetti alley (Clarion Alley i think it's called), pretty fun time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZAKO Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 ITS BASED ON FIELD PAINTING,,,You only get to see a small part of the total.....ROTHCO made millions doing this.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 These cameras are placed next to each other, one with a wide angle lens and the other with a standard focal length lens. Due to the giant size of the film, the layer of two exposure Thanks, Justin. If you don't mind, could you be clearer about what he does with two very different focal length versions of the same thing (or is it the same thing) and what you mean by "layer of two exposure"? Does he juxtapose or superimpose two frames, or what?I can certainly appreciate the detail in ISO 100 5 X 7 film sheets. Why didn't he use even larger formats like 8 X 10? I looked online briefly, and saw very little about the giant view cameras (like 20" X 24"!!) of earlier times. So, is 4 X 5 now the common upper limit, or all that is practical and necessary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_tx_16 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 There isn't a prescription for Gursky photos but the gist is this. He takes at least one wide shot of a scene, the wider focal length camera. This captures the entire scope of what will be the final image. Sometimes this takes multiple, panned exposures. The longer focal length camera shoots detail shots, perhaps an individual person or tree or light or door. He then takes all of these exposures, as few at 1, as many as who knows, could be dozens, and merges them all digitally. He scans in the 5x7 color negativs at high resolution and imports them into Photoshop to make his work. This is how he is able to take a photo of an office building, print it 11 feet tall and you can see precision on the faces of the people or the objects through the windows. Sometimes he is layering the image to exaggerate the complexity of a scene, other times it's to do the opposite by removing all conflict in an image. As for why 5x7 and not 8x10 or the giant, custom-made, custom film cameras? It's pretty simple really. 5x7 film is incredibly high resolution. ((160 * 127 * 2) * (160 * 177 * 2)) / 1000000 = 2,301 megapixels. If you scanned it at full resolution and were even able to print it, in theory, it would be around 54,720 pixels wide by 41,040 pixels tall. It would actually be a bit bigger than that. It would allow you to print a photo at 182 inches wide and 136 inches tall. This is is all in theory, using the math of... ((LPM (lines per millimeter) x width in mm x 2) * (LPM (lines per millimeter) x height in mm x 2)) / 1,000,000. Do that with 35mm film and you get 88mp, which is really about four times reality... In this case, math isn't always a perfect science. Part of the problem comes from the fact that 99% of digital camera sensors aren't actually measuring 12 megapixels of red, green and blue. The sensors are actually measuring black levels of every other of the colors... it's confusing and weird but basically it's whatever megapixel you're shooting, divided by three. This is why Sigma's Foveon sensor is so popular with portrait photographers. It is a three-layer sensor that measures the levels of all three colors for every single pixel. Also makes it suck for low-light photography or action. Beyond the fact that 5x7 is big enough for almost anything, why go bigger, is the effect film size has on focal length. On a 35mm camera, 35mm is wide and 120 mm is zoomed in. On a 5x7 camera, 35mm isn't useable it is so wide and 120mm is considered very very wide angle. You have to go as high as 300mm before you get what would be a 50mm equivalent for a 35mm camera. Shooting at 8x10 or higher requires incredibly expensive, hard to find, hard to make lenses that are prone to flaws. As film gets bigger, it gets slower because of the lenses it requires. Ever wonder why sports aren't shot on medium format cameras or larger? Why Canon makes the sensors in their sports cameras smaller than those in their studio cameras? Focal length and exposure time. To get a photo sharp with a 5x7 camera, you have to stop down to apertures like f.32, f.64 and even f.128. At that point, there is barely ANY light going into the camera and thus it takes a long exposure to capture the image. This is also why many photographers use large format cameras for landscapes. Mountains don't usually move very quickly. I could go on and on but hopefully this was informative and answered a few questions Let me know if you any more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderbender Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Still lots of folks shooting 8x10 and larger..... larger negatives used mostly to do sun exposed platinum prints. 5x7 still my personal favorite, I made a "pancake camera" (graphlex back that excepts 5x7 and roll film), wooden spacer mounted to a rodenstock 45 mm lens that just covers, with an impressive 130-140 degree angle of view @ 5x7. no adjustments or focus required, everything from 2 feet to infinity is tack sharp at f22. just sold my 8x10 as it was a real pain to schlep around and the enlarger required to make prints is a monster!!!!! you can still get great glass for the larger formats but better get a second mortgage $$$$$$$$ (thought hifi was expensive?! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Even if the picture is 100ft wide it still sucks and it's worth to me is "zero". JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryC Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Thanks, Justin. Outstanding information and summary. Larry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_tx_16 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Happy it was helpful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleJ Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Happy it was helpful It's nice to see you posting again, Justin You've been missed!!! JJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang guy Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 Even if the picture is 100ft wide it still sucks and it's worth to me is "zero". JJK I guess we won't be seeing you at the next auction this comes up in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Invidiosulus Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Even if the picture is 100ft wide it still sucks and it's worth to me is "zero". JJK I guess we won't be seeing you at the next auction this comes up in. one less person I'll have to bid against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picky Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 It's good to see you here again, Justin! -Glenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I probably was a bit harsh on my retoric. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justin_tx_16 Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Happy it was helpful It's nice to see you posting again, Justin You've been missed!!! JJ Oh you guys... Thanks! Life isn't as crazy busy as it has been the last several months... err years LoL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Also remember these aren't 4x5 prints, they are GIGANTIC. We're talking 80 inches tall and like 140 inches wide. What's REALLY amazing is that these are contact prints! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.