[OT] Stunning WWII manufacturing photos

I think it's important to repeat what someone else wrote earlier, and to
make another point.

1) The "excellent" pictures you're viewing are in greatly-reduced-
resolution digital representations of the real 4x5 transparencies.

2) The excellence comes from exquisitely skilled lighting, composition,
and framing, along with appropriate selection of subjects.  Anybody with
a 10Mp camera can produce pictures with that _clarity_, but most wouldn't
likely be able to convey the _message_ with that clarity.

LLoyd

On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 19:15:25 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:


sorry, I disagree,  you would not be able to do the same quality with a 10Mp
camera, take those shots with the 4x5 and a 10mp put them side by side, you
would not have that depth

notanyspam@work.com fired this volley in


Are you brain dead, or do you intentionally refuse to read what people
write before you post, just so you can appear stupid?

Depth?  Do you have any idea what that means?  Did you mean dynamic
range?  Did you mean depth of field?  Did you even care before you
spouted an "artistic-sounding" word? (yeah... I know... go Google the
terms, then come back and post something like you knew all along)

The pictures YOU saw were not 4x5 transparencies, they were highly
reduced-resolution digitals...  In some cases, you saw digital versions
of even less quality than a decent 5MP camera would produce...

Twit!

LLoyd

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:21:21 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:


ok Llyod Mr Know it all, I did  not realize one had to use exact terms,
phrases when speaking to someone who supposedly knows something about
photography which you said you or think you do.

but seeing how you can not seem to make a point without being ignorant, I
won't waste me time with you any further than this dipshit.

notanyspam@work.com fired this volley in


In other words, you had no idea what I wrote.  <G>

LLoyd

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:30:37 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:


 in other words you had to spend a ton of time looking up photography to be
able to try and make yourself feel better than someone else, your wrong plain
and simple,  digital does not look as good as film, and again I will say it,
digital does not look as good as film. need me to repeat it again?

and so you can understand it again, I will say this again as well, never did I
say digital sucks, I said it is not as good as film

I am not a professional photographer, but I have had photography classes, even
took a short one from a professional commercial photographer, all for fun.

and one more time, seeing how you seem to have reading comprehension issues,

your ignorant replies prove my point.

not@home.com fired this volley in


I guess that's why I had a darkroom with a Simmon-Omega enlarger with 4x5
condensors AND a color head, Heath "color canoe" for E6, the whole gamut
of PolyContrast-II filters and papers, and did it for about 25 years...

But other than that, yeah... I had to look up a LOT of stuff...

Like this... You didn't SEE any film there, dunce!  You saw a reduced-
resolution digital copy of the film.  Yet, you make the silly-assed
comment that the pictures had more "depth" than digital would.

It WAS digital.  Durrrrrruuh!

Lloyd
  

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:00:14 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:


Time for a twit filter, Lloyd.

--
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.
                     -- Jimi Hendrix

ayup!

notanyspam@work.com wrote:


Most digicams don't work well with high numerical f stops.  Thus, properly
lighted, a 4x5
camera will have greater depth of field than a digicam.  It was one of the first
things I
learned when I went with compact digital cameras.  

Some day, I'd like to own a DSLR with a 24x36 mm sensor, then what I learned on
will be
relevant again.

Just my opinion,

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes."  Dick Anthony Heller

lighted, a 4x5

first things I

I learned about it when I took a photography class, I'm no pro, my best camera
is still my Canon A1

will be

you and I both, I actually have "permission" to buy the canon I had my eyes
on, Why cannon? when I first had the wish for e real digital, they had a nice
setup, I'm sure they are all pretty equal now (in my price range anyhow,
hahah, my price range is actually less, heck if I could set up a couple good
lenses and body for a couple thou, I would had done it even if I had to sell
something to do so)  but I just can not justify that expense for a limited
hobby and the occasional photo op, for that photo, I can still drag out my A1,
I wish I had owned the medium formats and been into it years earlier.
  

lighted, a 4x5

first things I

on will be

I wish I had the time to play with photography more, I did enjoy it, too many
projects going at once is about killing me
remove NOT to reply

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:16:14 -0400, Wes


lighted, a 4x5

first things I

Wes, as a guy with two 4x5 cameras and 15 magazine covers behind me,
you'll have one hell of a time getting a lot of depth of field with a
4x5. When I've had to, it's been f/64 and use the swings and tilts.
I've also used an 8x10 Calumet for some trade-show Translites for
Casio. That sucker really shows you how depth of field disappears with
large sheet film.

When someone talks about "depth" in photography, I think of the things
that give the impression of actual, physical depth. Others have
pointed to expert lighting, and that's a big part of it. Kodachrome
also has (had) a slight inherent edge effect, which gives the
impression of more depth. And people like me, who made his living for
a while silver-masking Kodachrome slides, can tell you about another
edge effect. Or you can use Unsharp Masking in Photoshop and get
almost the same thing.

Anyway, it's there. But it's probably all lost in conversion to a
moderate-res digital copy for the Web. You'd have to blow it up and
look really close.

--
Ed Huntress


will be

Yeah... I had a Press Graffix 4x5 with a film-pack back.

It could do some sweet portrait work, though!

Lloyd

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:02:40 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:


You have more patience than I do. I used my Speed Graphic for some
in-the-field shots for American Machinist, but I shot covers with a
Calumet 4x5 monorail. They were mostly tricky machine shots -- often
multiple exposures -- which the shutters excelled at. And I did a lot
of tabletop work for McGraw-Hill book company, freelance, before the
M-H publications company hired me.

But silver-masking actually paid better. It was a pretty obscure
darkroom skill, and I had work coming out my ears. Again, that was
when I was first freelancing.

When I ended that period, my wife says my eyes had shrunk to little
dots from spending full days in the darkroom. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

@optonline.net says...

lighted, a 4x5

first things I

Dunno where the killfile resident gets the idea that digital cameras
don't work well at high f stops.  My 30d works very nicely at any f stop
that any of my lenses can achieve.  On the other hand, the performance
of the lenses is compromised by diffraction at small apertures, but that
affects any type of sensor.

But if you want a mighty shitload of depth of field, go for one of the
little point-and-shoots.

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 23:12:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"


lighted, a 4x5

first things I

My cell phone does well at that, too. d8-)

I sent Wes a photo I shot with my crappy cell phone (a dumb phone, not
a smart one) a couple of years ago. It has even sharpness from the
right pectoral fin of the bluefish all the way to Staten Island.

It must have a teeny little sensor but a little unsharp masking makes
the fish pop pretty well.

--
Ed Huntress

As a designer of lenses, I hope I can give some insight into why a point and
shoot almost always has larger DOF than a 4X5.  The DOF (in most
photographic situations) is proportional to the focal length divided by the
F/#, in other words the inverse of the entrance pupil diameter.  If the
point and shoot and 4X5 have the same field of view, the small sensor in the
point & shoot would need a lens focal length that is perhaps 1/20 as long.
To match the point and shoot DOF at F/5, the 4X5 would have to be stopped
down to F/100

I have seen some great shots taken with tiny f.l. endoscope lenses that show
sharply focused insects in the foreground and large trees in the distance.

It is also true, BTW, that the small pixels in small digital sensors require
some fairly fast f/#s to make the diffraction limit not noticeable. The
iPhone 4S camera, for example, is F/2.4 and  has 1.4 micron pixels.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 01:05:43 -0700, "anorton"


Thanks. A normal lens for that small sensor sure does have some depth
of field. My Minox III does the same thing -- 9.5 mm film.
\
At the other end, I've used a 310 mm normal lens for 8 x 10, and it

--
Ed Huntress