basicly, digital backs for view cameras are made for studio shooting. They are like a small high resolution flatbed scanner for your camera. So exposure times are not the fastest. Some scan the area in one pass (like a copier or flatbed) and some make 3 seperate exposures one for red, green and blue. The quality is very very good. Supposedly some 4x5 backs can capture more image data than a piece of 8x10 film. This also makes for a VERY large file size...150megs and up. Digital backs range in price from about $6,000 - $30,000 US. Most pros will lease them. The best way to go is to shoot film, then get a high quality drum scan.

Even the negatives are fun to look at. Now, If only I could get a digital back for less than the price of a sports car.....

I still have (but rarely have the time to use it) a wooden 4x5 field camera. If I didn't have a job, I would be out all the time...maybe I could make that my job....hmmm. View cameras are very difficult to use well, but are completely worth it when that one or two good shots come out as planned. I have shot boxes and boxes of film, but only have a dozen or so "keepers". Ansel adams supposedly only got about a dozen good shots a year...yeah right. His worst are probably better than my best. View cameras are a lifestyle, and require a lot of time and patience. I still highly recommend trying it out, as it really makes one think about composition...no quick delete and reshoot like digital.

Sweet, I'll see what I can do with it too. I used to do similar work for a small photo company. This looks like a challenge though. Also, for anyone that's interested, I know a site that you can upload almost any size jpg and get a photo print made. They have different "picture packs", are very affordabe, quick turnaround and have great color control.(maybe not for gallery work) they are based in California, but do ship overseas. They are affiliated with Kodak.(Some people care)

Zoom lenses tend to be slightly softer than fixed, but with a wide ange setup you might be able to get away with it...it's always nice to have the options of the zoom. I've also had good luck with sigma stuff.

Ahh Gasworks Park. I too get the feeling that the image is very slightly tilted to the left, or maybe just a little keystoneing? Wish you and your mom well.

Pan with a slow shutter speed.

This is a great shot. I can't decide, though, if i would like all the drops to be in focus or not. I'm thinking not....it helps center my eye in the image......and kicks in the vertigo.

In my experience there is absoultely NOTHING on I-10 through west texas. From San Antonio to El Paso is one of the most boring stretches of road i have EVER been on....and that is a lot. AVOID I-10 at all costs....(in w. texas) Dood, you should try to swing through Roswell,NM. The town that is the center of all those UFO stories. It would be cool to spend a day or so poking around that town and shooting the funny little stores and signs that are everywhere.

Southern Utah...2 days max from dallas (I made it in a day and a half from columbus,TX. south of Austin, west of Houston on I-10) Bryce canyon, Capitol reef, Zion...etc. THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE ON THE PLANET LIKE THIS AREA! It is just truly amazing.

Alright...enough nice comments..time to tear this one apart....constructively ; )

First off I must say that this is a nice image, but there are a few things that are bugging me.
The hoizon line cuts right through the middle of the image. It is not particularly bad with an image, like this, that has such a busy background, but it still jumps out at me. If you could have gotten up higher somehow or maybe lower looking up....this is just too straight on for me...

The bridge would have more impact for me if more of the path was visible...leading me into the park. I'm not sure how one would accomplish this and still get all the wonderful details in too. Probably just slight shifts in position and angle of view.

The bits of shrub and white flower/weeds in the foreground are the most distracting to me. My eye is always being led to the bright white flower-weed right up front and is keeping me from truly enjoying this image.

Top of the bridge seems a bit "hot" or washed out....due to difficult exposure though. Overall nice tonal range.

I like the fact that there are no distracting people in this image..makes it seem much more peaceful.

All in all an very nice image.

-Just one mans opinion-

The branch/branches running across the bottom are very distracting to me....I would crop those out. Landscape version is better IMO.

sounds good, I'm in.

I don't think that you can tell which is digital and which is film while viewing on the web.....They are ALL digital now.....Only in person on a print could you even begin to compare the two, so sorry ....this thread is pretty pointless.