[Digitalis]

does it have a metal flower covering the front element to act as the cap?

That is no lens cap, that flower piece gets spun by a bulb blower that screws into the lens, and as it spins during exposure it creates the effect of a Centre ND filter. Upon first glance the Goerz hypergon has discombobulated many photographers. DOF on 8X10 format is incredibly shallow all that paraphernalia in front of the lens is practically invisible even at f/96

---------- Post added 2020-05-19 at 11:47 PM ----------

But straight aperture blades to create starbursts?

but how many aperture blades? Odd or Even?

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 05-19-2020 at 06:20 AM.

[monochrome]

I’d find it quite strange to go to museum to look at 100” 8K let alone 4K screen, no matter how good the photos would be. And I believe that it would also change the name of photography art to media art. Because it will be perceived through a display? The thing what I personslly like to look at is the prints.

Sure, more resolution is on it’s way and at some parts already here, but then one has to cough up more €€€€€. To get that to be mainstream? Why?

I have a houseful of framed lithographs (most more than 300 years old), photographic prints (most more than 50 years old), original oil and watercolor pieces of ages ranging from hundreds of years old to quite recent and a few outright concert posters. I can’t imagine having a couple hundred battery-powered monitors hanging on my walls. Or even one.

Then again, I have a houseful of brown furniture.

[Serkevan]

Upon first glance the Goerz hypergon has discombobulated many photographers.

Add one more to the count . Wow.

[texandrews]

I've done work for four of the above (not as the artist) and the money for the screens have never been the issue.

For those guys, you're right, or you were right. Part of my point was that only the 800 pound gorillas in the art world can afford enough of these things to mount any kind of large exhibitions solely using these kinds of monitors. But check out the layoffs for places like MOMA and the Met. Can't speak to our Euro brethren, but losing months of admission fees when you have been relying on them is no joke. I'm at the Hirshhorn, and as a Smithsonian unit we don't have that shortfall, but none of the shops or cafes are bringing in a penny now (well, the shops have some limited online sales...), and we rely on all of that. At my wife's museum, there also is no admission fee thanks to an endowment to cut them, but there's still going to be problems. No one is immune. I'll wager discretionary expenditures (8K monitors) will be scrutinized very assiduously in the coming several years.

As for the prints, yes, I think that in the main prints will continue to be "the thing"---because the print has a life as an object itself. Nevertheless, I do think we will adapt to seeing more photography as full digital--capture, process, display. Idon't have a problem with that, but it will run parallel to prints. My opinion, but I think a pretty well informed one.

[Digitalis]

I can’t imagine having a couple hundred battery-powered monitors hanging on my walls. Or even one.

..and poorly colour corrected ones at that...*shudder*

[texandrews]

I have a houseful of framed lithographs (most more than 300 years old), photographic prints (most more than 50 years old), original oil and watercolor pieces of ages ranging from hundreds of years old to quite recent and a few outright concert posters. I can’t imagine having a couple hundred battery-powered monitors hanging on my walls. Or even one.

I used to feel the same way about the monitor, but I had an epiphany and now I can definitely see it. I don't take what I think is the extreme position of MJKloski, but I agree with him that the future will have these devices as a more ordinary feature.

Then again, I have a houseful of brown furniture.

We do too! Saving it for the kids...but do they even want it? Sad, really.

[repaap]

I have a houseful of framed lithographs (most more than 300 years old), photographic prints (most more than 50 years old), original oil and watercolor pieces of ages ranging from hundreds of years old to quite recent and a few outright concert posters. I can’t imagine having a couple hundred battery-powered monitors hanging on my walls. Or even one.

Then again, I have a houseful of brown furniture.

..and poorly colour corrected ones at that...*shudder*

That would be another problem, what one don’t have with actual prints. All you need is good light. Of course humidity meters, and stuff like that too. Nothing is better than walk to exhibition to have a look of empty LCD panel, which says, out of order(kind of art too, but yea), come back later. Thank you for your patience...

[Digitalis]

Nothing is better than walk to exhibition to have a look of empty LCD panel, which says, out of order(kind of art too, but yea)

Marcel Duchamp would just love something like that.

I have a houseful of brown furniture.

So do I, though not all of it brown, Red Jarrah, Walnut Burl, French polished Kingwood, a Blackwood wardrobe you could just about fit a car in..you name it. No cheap Ikea crap in my house thanks.

[texandrews]

..and poorly colour corrected ones at that...*shudder*

Those would be the "affordable" consumer grade ones. I'm trying to think about what a 100" diagonal Eizo would cost....not sure whether to use a geometric scale or an exponential one...

[normhead]

For extremely large prints that require critical sharpness throughout I have found that there is no substitute for a view camera.

I always am somewhat amused at people who gone on about high awesome their Hi REs digital is, without understanding, if it's digital, it's still good bit behind 8x10 film. If you really had to have the highest possible resolution, that's what you'd be doing. The fact that you're not doin git means you don't care bout having the highest possible resolution. Gursky uses 5x7 film. (for his warehouse wall sized prints).. still way beyond what most digital can do.

Just the fact they re shooting digital means they aren't interested in the ultimate high resolution, they are interested n the most convenient high resolution.

For folks my age, we are intimately familiar with the limitations of 35mm and 645 formats. I'm not so sure the young pups understand that a 645 digital is not the culmination of photographic resolution.

645 is still a convenience format.

[monochrome]

I used to feel the same way about the monitor, but I had an epiphany and now I can definitely see it. I don't take what I think is the extreme position of MJKloski, but I agree with him that the future will have these devices as a more ordinary feature.

I imagine one wall-mounted or free standing monitor displaying a single image or a rotating series of images might happen. I can imagine a licensed feed to the monitor by subscription, like Muzak; purchased or licensed individual images; a subscription museum feed (e.g. St. Louis Art Museum or National Gallery/Met/MOMA/Guggenheim/Baltimore MoA Membership benefit or Special/Traveling Exhibit digital subscription*). The technology for that is actually fairly common and could be delivered over home Wi-Fi. I prefer printing to display my images.

We do too! Saving it for the kids...but do they even want it? Sad, really.

My children have already discreetly labeled the pieces they want, including most everything on a wall.


* of course, someone would need to photograph the originals to create the images for the feeds

[Digitalis]

actual prints. All you need is good light.

Same goes for photos, but that is beside the point. I still carry around 16X20 portfolios. I find clients respond differently and are more engaged with the physicality of handling prints. Of course each portfolio is a costly thing to produce $500 for a custom made leather bound and Box covered portfolio from a bookmaker...IMO it is worth it. Even if it is for personal work, it is most gratifying to go to my bookcase and see what I was doing in 2011.

[repaap]

Marcel Duchamp would just love something like that.

I’m sure of it

---------- Post added 05-19-20 at 18:09 ----------

Same goes for photos, but that is beside the point. I still carry around 16X20 portfolios. I find clients respond differently and are more engaged with the physicality of handling prints. Of course each portfolio is a costly thing to produce $500 for a custom made leather bound and Box covered portfolio from a bookmaker...IMO it is worth it. Even if it is for personal work, it is most gratifying to go to my bookcase and see what I was doing in 2011.

That is true, when you can see it with your own eyes, it is completelly different thing, let alone hold it.

[normhead]

Same goes for photos, but that is beside the point. I still carry around 16X20 portfolios. I find clients respond differently and are more engaged with the physicality of handling prints. Of course each portfolio is a costly thing to produce $500 for a custom made leather bound and Box covered portfolio from a bookmaker...IMO it is worth it. Even if it is for personal work, it is most gratifying to go to my bookcase and see what I was doing in 2011.

I go to my 4k TV and select the 2011 folder, where I see 600-1000 images that rotate every 7 seconds. It's quite gratifying to sit there with a beer and watch 2011 go by, without having to flip pages or walk around.

Over the course of a month I probably see 5000 images....

It's just different. But of course, right now I shoot only for myself. We haven't sold our work at a craft show in over 5 years. My need for prints is reduced to almost 0 since then.

I print the one I think will work best as prints, but often Tess and I will watch a year's shooting go by several times on the 4K TV, before we decide what to print. I find if you watch even thousands of prints go by multiple times, some of them start to stand out. And often the same images stand out for both of us. I wouldn't even know where to start the process without the benefit of 4k TV.

[house]

Then again, I have a houseful of brown furniture.

You're a hundred year late! That shift happened during the introduction of modernism. Family heirlooms were rejected by the younger generation in favour of tubular steel and mass produced items.