In praise of big cameras

[Steve Jelf]

Looking into a Vintage Ford of long ago, it's interesting to see the cover photo solicitation. With the club headquarters in Burbank, this was way back in the film era, well before anybody thought of digital photography. Its reference to large format photos being square is probably about 120 size film. That's larger than 35mm, but I think of large format as 4 x 5, 5 x 7, and up. I love the large format photos of a hundred years ago. A large format camera would have a good lens. Combined with a large plate or film that produced beautifully sharp, clear pictures.

[Distagon2]

I have been a photographer for 50 years. You are right, when it comes to film "size matters." I still shoot 4X5 and Hasselblad 120 and process it myself. I marvel at the sharpness. In fact, I am working on a "club calendar" showcasing a member's car each month and part of me wants to use the 4X5 but reality will guide me back to digital for the sake of convenience.

[ThreePedalTapDancer]

I was lucky enough to have a real film photography class in high school, stinky solution darkroom and all. It was exciting to see our pictures develop, and hanging to dry. I had a crush on the girl at the little Photomat kiosk in town. Never got a date but I bought a lot of film. Good times.

[TWrenn]

I was lucky enough to have a real film photography class in high school, stinky solution darkroom and all. It was exciting to see our pictures develop, and hanging to dry. I had a crush on the girl at the little Photomat kiosk in town. Never got a date but I bought a lot of film. Good times.

754417C1-9990-4E08-9888-0610930C79BA.jpeg

Ed, you got me to thinkin'! Re the stinky solution darkroom....I spent many an hour in my own plus one under the bleachers at a local race track longer ago than I care to think...so THAT explains the way "I am" today!! Breathing too many fumes I suspect! And I did have a "few good times" in my darkroom at the track!

[Wayne Sheldon]

I was never a very good photographer. I could get an incredible shot occasionally, but not usually. However, I really love studying photos! Especially I love pre 1935 black and white. And I really appreciate good large format black and white photos!
About a couple years ago, Shorpy had a wonderful photo of half a city block taken from the rooftop across the street. I don't know what type of camera or lenses was used. But the picture covered from over the rooftop showing roofs and chimneys of buildings on other streets behind this one. And it captured all the way down about five floors showing part of the street and cars below. The incredible detail was almost unimaginable! I zoomed in as far as my laptop would do, and spent most of an hour looking at the details. Open window into an office I could see papers on a desk! Someone in an apartment, sitting in a chair reading a book! I looked at individual bricks in the walls across the street, found one someone had scratched their initials in it! (Probably when the building was being built or windows being washed!)
It just boggles the mind to see a photo of so much space showing such incredible detail.

Large format cameras must be wonderful, in the right hands,

[Wayne Sheldon]

The photo above of the young man airing up his football from the coupe's spare tire? The look at life in the days is quite telling. And although the level of detail may not be near what those buildings I looked at a couple years ago was, It is still remarkable. One can see the fine knitting in the boy's sweater, some of the freckles on his face and the laces in his shoes. His parents are fairly well off, although not wealthy.
The car is a few years old, paint fading (as era paints usually did quickly!), but the car otherwise appears to be well maintained.
The digitization process of old photos usually results in the loss of some detail. The quality of the digitization program as well as choices made by the system operator make a huge difference in the final result. Compare the detail quality in the photo of the T coupe and boy with zooming in onto the non T coupe that ran over a small tree. The pixelating on clothing and faces is quite evident, and horizontal and vertical lines show far too many pixel boundaries! (The looking through window screen effect!)
Fun stuff!

[Steve Jelf]

...reality will guide me back to digital for the sake of convenience.

... and economy. A hundred digital shots cost no more than one.

[otrcman]

Whenever I hear this discussion of photo resolution I think back of the Dick Tracy comic strip where Sam Ketchum looks at a photo of a street scene in the newspaper and (with a magnifying glass) reads the time on a pedestrian's wrist watch to solve the crime.

Yea, right !

[Wayne Sheldon]

I see the same thing in movies and television all the time! I worked most of my career in communications system contracting. We did a lot of work with video of all kinds. If an image is captured by equipment designed for that level of definition and focus? Yes! It could be done! However, the ATM camera or security camera in the gas station isn't going to be that good. Most of the time, one would be lucky to tell if someone in the image had a watch! Much less able to read the time on it!

In a major hospital, building a state of the art cancer center including a radiation therapy wing. We did some. The radiation treatment required finely focused beams of radiation from multiple angles to focus from all sides to the offending growth. Exposure to the patient was of course unavoidable, but limited to only the treatment times. Doctors and staff on the other hand, had to treat many many patients. Even limited exposure that often had to be minimized. So the treatment chamber was robotics. The patient had to be held immobile, the precise arcs and treatment beams preset. The doctors and staff were in a room next door. on the other side of lead lined walls. However, the patient had to be watched carefully. That was our part of the project.
We placed three robotically controlled high definition video cameras (specially designed to operate reliably under radiation exposure!), in strategic locations around the room. Practically every square inch in that room could be seen by at least one of the cameras, and most of the room could be seen by at least two cameras at any time. The cameras were controlled by the doctors in the control room. They could turn 180 degrees from side to side, look up at the ceiling or down to the floor. They could pull back and see more than half the room all at once! Or zoom in so close that we could count the ridges on a man's fingerprint! I know, I did it! With a volunteer test subject laying on the table. One of the doctors zoomed in and counted the man's pulse rate by focusing on the artery in the man's neck, he could count the heartbeats. He commented that he wanted to be able to see that a patient was still alive or not using the cameras in case a patient freaked out and tore off his monitors. The doctor said he was happy with the results.

High definition is incredible stuff! But it does need to be captured in the moment. Once lost, there is only a little bit that can be done to recover some of it. Computer enhancement can recover some of it, slow, expensive, and a lot more limited than Hollywood likes for you to think. Makes for good story telling!

[TXGOAT2]

Most everyone has a Two-way Wrist TV these days.

[5 WoodenWheels]

The bigger the negative, the more positive the results. Yes, a clumsy phrase but you get the idea. I fooled around with black and white 35 mm in the darkroom years ago. Got some nice prints so long as I didn’t go too big. Beautiful and sharp photos in your post. Gerrit