chenmel at earthlink.net
Thu Aug 4 21:02:38 CDT 2005
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 00:35:37 +0100 (BST)
ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 August 2005 13:49, Tony Duell wrote:
> > > > How about taking good quality digital photos of the exhibits and
> > > > then
> > >
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > That is surely a contradiction in terms
> > Please, not this argument again...
> > What he meant is "good enough" quality, for producing calendars or
> > books from. A 20"x20" piece of sheet film isn't necessary for doing
> > that,
> No, I think 5"*4" would be adequate :-)....
> One of the main advantages of that sort of camera, of course, is the
> movements (you can shift and tilt the lens board and the film back)
> which should help reduce perspective distortion. I am told you can
> process digital images to do this, though.
> > and a few k$ (or perhaps less) digital camera can produce "good
> > enough" photos. In fact, I'd argue that to most people (Tony, as
> > you should know, you're not 'most people') a $300-$500 digital
> > camera will produce "good enough" results.
> You do realise I paid less than that for my monorail camera. The
> camera itself was \pounds 150, a new set of bellows \pounds 40, and
> the lens/shutter came off a battered-but-repairable Micropress which I
> paid \pounds 50 for. And the results are way beyond any digital camera
> you're likely to see.
You can buy a 4x5 'digital back' for that camera. A quick google search
brings up places that mention them, but I can't find a place that lists
a typical price. I know they used to cost about the same as a luxury
sports car, so it's probably not an online 'shopping cart' item to
Then you'd have the 'bellows, lens, etc.' arrangement that you're
familiar, and probably very skillful, with. All the large format tricks
You'd also be dealing with 450MB images for each shot.
More information about the cctalk