Delray

I am an old timer who had a studio in NYC. I served my apprenticeship with some of the most famous photographers. I shot portraits with Deardoff cameras with Dagor lenses. I would focus on the highlight in the eye. I printed 16X20 size on Canvas. The subject just jumped off the paper. Sharp with a quality we called “Roundness” a term used at that time. The Goerz Dagors were know for this quality. I still use film and visualize every shot before I squeeze that bulb. I find that the Nikons with the menus that keep getting bigger leave much to be desired. Quality is more important then quantity. This is my perspective on the art of photography. I am sure there are those that disagree. So be it.

snapshot18

Well, I'm NOT one of 'those'! I became a professional in 1959 and actually had a certified "Master Photographer of Portraiture" mentor me in portraiture. The reason for that bit of good luck is- I 'Saved his ass', with his wife, by photographing a wedding he didn't want to do. Just prior to that event, I had also been mentored in Wedding Photography by a studio owner that did twice as many weddings as any other studio. This Master photography ONLY did portraits and when his wife told him she wanted him to photograph a 'Sorority Sister's' wedding 'Or Else', he just happened to contact the photographer who taught me wedding photography. He recommended me. At first, Charlie (Charles Tigrett) was really skeptical of me because I was so young (21), but Mr. Burns (George Burns Studio) assured him I was 'his best' (he had 6 contract photographers beside me). Anyway, I did the wedding; Charlie's wife was delighted, and that's how I was mentored by a real, "Master Photographer".
I have never used one of those Deardorff 11X14 view cameras like Ansel Adams did; the largest was one I rented to photograph the opening of a new hospital in Los Angeles in 1979. As big as this 5X7 was, I would have really hated 'lugging' the 11X14 version all around Yosemite.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

I don't know, I kind of like my Nikons :) I've had terrible luck trying to do BIF shots with an 11 x 14 Deardoff.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

just imagine Carleton Watkins, who photographed the Old West with a 16x20 glass plate camera, about two thousand pounds of equipment on a mule train.

snapshot18

And I've had 4 film Nikons, all of which gave me trouble as far as durability. I will say I bought 2 used. My choice is the Fuji S5 Pro. It does use a Nikon shell, but all internals are totally Fuji.

snapshot18

POOR MULE!

Delray

Wedding phographers are wedding photographers. You shoot 600 or more pix. We shot less then 40 or 50 shots on 4X5 cameras in B&W with flash bulbs. We charged for 24 shots in a white album $ 25.00 $ 7.00 for the proofs. Table shots were at the reception as per requests. We collected cash at that time. My, how things have changed.

snapshot18

Boy, you aren't kidding. When I started (1959), we had 'graduated' to strobe (an Ascor 200 ws unit with a motorcycle battery for power). BTW, where did you put 40-50 spent flash bulbs? However, I personally don't know of ANY professional photographer that shot 600 'Original) images at ANY wedding. At least in the 59 years I've been a professional. Yes, there are photographers, here in Corruption Corners, NV, who claim to shoot "upwards of 2400 photos at a wedding" . . . and they do. What they actually do is put their camera on 'multiple rapid' shoot and take 7-10 photos of EACH intended subject. That way they have, maybe 200-250 unique images and 2,000 duplicates. WHO WANTS TO SIT THRU VIEWING 2,000 IDENTICAL IMAGES? Las Vegas is the Scam Capital of the World!

goste

I TOTALLY AGREE. I have a stunning WISTA 5 X 7 FIELD CAMERA with stunning wooden body with a Kodak Ektar and a Schneider Kreuznach Symmar-S resting quietly in my office closet.

Gerhard Osterbeck

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In the first place, there is nothing wrong using film. Film today is more expensive, especially large format film. Here in Miami I only know of a place where I can have film developed and printed but I am not so sure they develop and print large format.
You could be one of the very few using a large format camera to shoot portraits. I have no issues with Nikon menus on the contrary I believe they are easier than other cameras. Any Nikon digital body, especially any of their "full frame" cameras fit with the 85mm f1.8 lens is a smaller, compact combo very capable of excellent quality when shooting portraits. The same goes with any of their older film cameras and the same lens.
Digital is pretty well developed by now, its technology is excellent and the quality of the images with a good lens is excellent.

ELNikkor

we shot the flash bulbs (and burned out Christmas bulbs) with our BB guns, often as they floated down the creek; loved to hear them pop!

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I think you off on a nostalgia kick rather than a reality check. I love the sharpness and image quality afforded by my Nikons. I think Ansel Adams would love a Nikon, the great and expanding menus and would dance with joy with an iMac running the Adobe Cloud's Photoshop and Lightroom. I have a love for the C-54 aircraft I have a lot of hours on but today I'd rather have the latest model of a C-5A.

berchman Loc: South Central PA

There are different conceptions of "quality." I have seen hazy portraits taken by Chris Galluccio with a plastic lens on a Lensbaby which are works of art.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

But the opportunities for outstanding image quality at the taxidermist can't be dismissed. I'd take a Deardorf/Dagor there any time.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yes, there are pros and cons to what is sometimes called progress.