Summer Update

Learning a lot with the new digital medium. Some bright folks on some of the photo forums (esp Luminous Landscapes). Question I asked was whether a landscape photographer's image should hold up to 16x20 srcutiny. I believe - if you're doing landscapes - (almost) every image should. Of course galleries are filled with 8x10 work - many contact prints - which is as "pure" as it gets. But 16x20 bares all. You need a perfect negative, perfect technique & corresponding hardware.

I'll stand by my 4x5 work (no - not the way they're currently sloppily scanned) - with some of the pics I have 10 different copies with slightly different tones. Some I like large, some I feel are best printed small (8x10).

Not at all pleased however with the quality of the digital color. Finally got the answer I was looking for - a $2-4k digital camera (12- 14 mgpx) with good glass (another $1-2K) is producing about the same results as a 40 year old Nikon 35mm film/w Nikon glass. Appears the digital medium format IS the standard (this month!!! - tech making monumental strides seemingly daily) . H'blad just lowered their price to $17k for what seems to be an entry level "serious" landscape camera.

Happy that I got some of the digital shots - was there when the light was right, or the scene presented itself, but you can't take pictures of trees and not have the branches and bark be sharp, looks like a muddled mess.