Big Film

[goamules]

It's simple: Large format is for stationary, carefully composed photography. I may only shoot 2-4 sheets of film (or wetplates), but might spend 20 minutes setting up the shot.

It's like comparing grilling your own burgers in a backyard BBQ to pulling into the drivethrough and buying one to eat on the road. Different purposes.

 

[Nokton48]

I completely agree I tend to spend a long time (I can be super fast but twenty minutes is not unusual) and -really- study the image, as I set it up. It's a completely different mindset from (say) 35mm, where I tend to bang it off and study it later. The 8x10 groundglass is so big and it's easy to see the fine detail (which abounds). The image screeen is so large, the only managable way to view the detail is in small sections. Finally you pull back and examine the whole image (I build from the edges inward).

If you are too slow you will lose light and pictures, in some instances. That is one reason I prefer the Sinar Norma system; It was be almost as fast to operate (at times) as a reflex camera, thanks to the interlinking automation.

I have made 8x10" portraits (with patient subjects) and they have a depth and clarity that is astounding, when enlarged to a much larger size. They entice you to move in and look at all that large format fidelity, really enjoy all that visual detail.

You can't get this experience with digital. It's apples vs. oranges

 

[gdi]

If your don't need new/modern, you can get into an 8x10 camera for 500-700 or so. (Without lens) Examples include old Kodaks, Centurys, or even a heavy metal Calumet, or monorail.

 

[Hatchetman]

My 35mm darkroom prints compare favorably (i.e. are better) to FF digital prints from the "pro" lab. If the intention is for a computer monitor, then 35mm film is fighting with two hands behind its back.

 

[goamules]

You can get one even cheaper, look for an old gray Burke and James, typically about $200. Then get an old Tessar in a shutter, and your first contact print will amaze you. No enlarger, just a piece of glass to hold the negative on the paper. Fast, easy, very high quality.

 

[esearing]

I love shooting 4x5 B&W and enlarging up to 11x14. I like the darkroom experience even when I mess up.

If I need to really explore a subject I prefer to shoot digital but only have a 6MP DSLR camera so am limited to what I print with it. I like smaller glass these days so my DSLR is not getting used much.

I am finding 35MM RF and film not really worth the trouble but love the M3.

Considering a Sony Mirrorless so I can keep the Leica and VC lenses but get more pixels. I would also likely use digital for color and carry it along with the 4x5 kit for the extras. The leica digital bodies are out of my reach, even used.

I don't scan currently.

 

[Oscuro]

Darlings,

I still have a 4x5. Its bellows stiff and cracked, the movements recalcitrant. It was my first "real" camera after the pinhole juice cans with which my father taught me. Nearly 60 years ago. I used on a student paper and on my first real job. I can't bear to part with it and have all the refurbishing supplies at hand.

I was in Beau Photo in Vancouver a few months ago and saw all this lovely LF equipment at very reasonable prices. On the continent I haven't seen as much but it would appear to be a similar situation.

So, while I have absolutely no desire to shoot with the Lugubrious Lucy again, I am happy for people who are interested in the larger formats and processes.

Warmest,

Mme. O.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Digital has exceeded the quality of 35mm film and has been at least as good as medium format for a long time -- certainly since 2003, when I got my first digital camera, a six-megapixel Canon 10D.

My first assignment after acquiring the 10D was a wedding portrait, for which I packed my usual equipment – a Pentax 6x7 loaded with Fuji NPH negative color film. Just for fun, I decided to take along the new 10D and do a few shots with it as well. I wound up shooting every pose with both cameras, and because I didn’t yet know about the advantages of RAW, I shot jpegs in the 10D.

After looking at the files, I said to myself “Hummmh!” I selected a digital file and a 6x7 negative from similar poses and took them to my local, very good, professional lab and had a 16x20 print made from each. When the lab owner gave me the prints, he said “Hummmh!” Another commercial photographer friend, a Mamiya RZ67 shooter, walked in just then and when he saw the prints and was told what they were, he also said “Hummmh!”

Then he said “I was saving some money for a trip to Europe this summer, but maybe I need to look into this digital thing!”

To shorten the story, I showed the prints to a number of experienced commercial photographer friends and art directors I worked with and asked them to tell me which was which. Almost all of them flunked the test. And that was comparing a 16x20 print from a jpeg from a six-megapixel camera with a 16x20 made from a 6x7cm color negative.

If any doubts this, I still have the prints and am willing to send them for your examination if you'll pay postage both ways.

 

[Oscuro]

Digital has exceeded the quality of 35mm film and has been at least as good as medium format for a long time --

After looking at the files, I said to myself “Hummmh!”

--- I showed the prints to a number of experienced commercial photographer friends and art directors I worked with and asked them to tell me which was which. Almost all of them flunked the test. And that was comparing a 16x20 print from a jpeg from a six-megapixel camera with a 16x20 made from a 6x7cm color negative..

This has been our experience also, Dave.
Dear Henri put this to bed with his incredible work in miniature format.

It really depends on what you like. A fellow builds the odd thing for us and he uses a 3D printer for some things. His son, an expert craftsman in his own right, prefers to work directly with wood, metal, ceramics...

Oh. Prints are out of the toaster! Must run!

Mme. O.

 

[goamules]

Can your digital Canon 10D do movements, to get both eyes in focus, but nothing else with a fast lens, and the sitter facing 45 degrees to the camera? No. Can your 10D make the perspective of a tall building, shot from street level, have vertical sides? No. But a medium format cannot either. All you can compare is brutal resolution. And if that's all the reviewers were schooled in, that's all they were looking for.

 

[Oscuro]

Can your digital Canon 10D do movements, to get both eyes in focus, but nothing else with a fast lens, and the sitter facing 45 degrees to the camera? No. Can your 10D make the perspective of a tall building, shot from street level, have vertical sides? No. But a medium format cannot either. All you can compare is brutal resolution. And if that's all the reviewers were schooled in, that's all they were looking for.

Dear goamules,

There are numerous tilt and shift solutions for all formats. Many can be purchased directly from Canon, Nikon, and the rest.

The gentleman with the 3D printer I referred to in my previous post builds such things among other treasures, dearie.

It is not an exclusive territory nor is it particularly germane.

Mme. O.

 

[sevo]

There are numerous tilt and shift solutions for all formats. Many can be purchased directly from Canon, Nikon, and the rest.

Tilt/shift in small formats is far from similar to the real thing. The limitations mirror boxes impose on all rear movements mean that you lose the perspective changing (and usually more relevant) half of all movements. And the issues of miniaturisation while keeping your hands the same size mean it is only a very, very crude approximation - 0.1mm can already be critical on 4x5", down on 24x36mm we'd be talking movements in 2µ increments...

 

[Oscuro]

Yes, sevo, and reduction gearing can only go to a near limit. Sigh.

That's why view cameras still exist and are used. But goamules turned a non-exclusive set into an exclusive one and that, dearie, is not logic, it is rhetoric.

Go shoot a F1 race with a view camera. Yes, it can be done but... Or perhaps you want to silhouette the entire Eiffel Tower against the moon so that the base and the peak are on and contained by Luna's disk? Again, it can be done with LF, but you will need an army of mules to bring the lens.

Unless you need and want those corrections the modern equipment trumps the old for some applications and some subjects. Some some some!

But as to personal choice, well, it's personal and a choice.

Please, shoot with what you want. I personally love some architectural photography that I've seen. Mademoiselle has no interest in doing that kind of work herself. Should I become interested in that oeuvre, I will turn to an appropriate tool.

Goamules suggested that Mr. Jenkins, after winning the quarter mile in his Chevrolet, couldn't have because he wasn't driving a McLaren...

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Can your digital Canon 10D do movements, to get both eyes in focus, but nothing else with a fast lens, and the sitter facing 45 degrees to the camera? No. Can your 10D make the perspective of a tall building, shot from street level, have vertical sides? No. But a medium format cannot either. All you can compare is brutal resolution. And if that's all the reviewers were schooled in, that's all they were looking for.

Please reread the original post, goamules. His point is that small digital cameras, full frame, even APS C, can exceed the quality of 35mm film cameras. And that is all that I was addressing. All this stuff about the advantages of view cameras, etc., came up later in the thread. View cameras certainly have their advantages for some types of photography, but many disadvantages for other types. Horses for courses, and all that!

And by the way, please don't assume I don't know how to use a view camera. (4x5 Calumet view camera, 210mm f5.6 Rodenstock Sironar lens, reverse tilt of front standard.) Only the subject's near eye is sharp, to convey the impression that he is a man of vision.

 

[goamules]

Quality is as quality does. Some here are just talking about one aspect. The one thing that small format and digital people always advocate - resolution. I'm not assuming you don't know about LF, I'm replying on the general comments about "small is just as good." In what? Resolution? What about everything else? I shoot a lot of camera formats from quarter plate to mammoth.

Photography is about more than resolution, including dynamic range, tones, grain, use of lens aberrations (such as soft focus), aspect ratio, and more. Oh, and yes, movements. To me trying to fiddle with a movements attachment on a digital small format or 35 mm is like trying to turn a Mazda Miata into a trailer towing vehicle. It can be done, but why? Use the right tool for the right job. There is no one camera or format that is right for all jobs. Not street photography, architecture (I'm sure you saw the Gov job posting where they REQUIRE Large Format skills recently going around the web), portraits, and much more. The one guy saying "I shot a 6mp digital, and a Medium Format, and no one could tell the prints apart!" is pure hyperbole.

And to Oscuro, lighten up. I didn't say anything about you "must" use a race car, er, camera. I was making a point that you can't do certain things with certain cameras. Just like the rhetoric about carrying a LF camera around for Paris shots. Actually, based on the number of Eiffel Tower photographs taken per year, I'd say a Cell Phone camera is the most effective. For a lot of things too. Just not for everything, such as short depth of field.

Of course, no matter what hardware you use, you must master it. I like QT Long's LF work http://www.terragalleria.com/statement.html at all the US National Parks: http://www.terragalleria.com/parks/. Take a look at his photos, and him using LF in very tight spaces.

 

[goamules]

Digital has increased in quality to the point that small digital cameras, full frame, even APS C, can exceed the quality of 35mm film cameras. Perhaps because of this, I have seen more and more film photographers turning to medium and large formats. In theory some of the many megapixel large sensors can outperform 8x10 inch sheet film. In practice, it’s not a significant difference. And the hidden advantage of large format sheet film is that if you want to scan it and inkjet print it rather than using a wet darkroom, you can get by with a relatively inexpensive scanner. I’m about as digital as you can get, but I still keep that 8x10 view camera (sometimes with a 4x5 reducing back on it) and a wet darkroom. Truth is, black and white sheet film and some trays is a very affordable alternative to a many, many megapixel medium format digital camera. Your experience? Your thoughts?

Thanks again for bringing this up, and I'll quote your original questions to be sure I'm reading properly. I already gave my thoughts on "quality", that it is about more than brute "resolution." There are many parameters to quality. Also, there are many other tasks that are optimized for LF, besides the movements I mentioned.

But it seems your main question is about affordability of large format. Yes, I find it quite affordable. For contact prints, I like 5x7 or larger, with wholeplate being my favorite. It's big enough to look good in hand or on the wall, but not so big. My cameras are all antiques, bought cheaply. SOME of my lenses are (and some are very expensive). But processing is very relaxing and cheap. I have a darkbox that is like a hinged pizza box which holds just a tray of HC110. I put one sheet of up to 8x10 film in, let it sit for about 14 minutes while I surf the internet or read or whatever. When the timer goes off, I go back into the darkroom and turn on the red light, and finish stopping and fixing. The next day, I contact print under a sheet of heavy glass, with a simple lightbulb or enlarger light. That's it! Weston used a bathroom and a light bulb. I saw one of Weston's LF prints last night, and it's just amazing. Some of my B&W 8x10 shots of my daughters will be cherished for generations, I hope.

 

[Trius]

Affordability is directly proportional to both funds and time available. I have more of the latter than the former, but even with fewer funds I would keep shooting large format because of the differences in execution and the qualities of b&w large film. I'm limited to 4x5 unless I want to shoot larger in a studio setting - I am not physically able to go far with 8x10 or lager. Though if someone wants to give me a very lightweight 8x10 rig, I'll see what I can do. 😀

 

[Oscuro]

A long time ago we were assigned some portraits of delegates to a convention in London. We shot 5x4 in a reversal stock (I don't remember which). We had a time constraint: approximately 1 minute per individual. In that minute, we made two exposures and only had to redo one - an elderly woman informed us that she had blinked both during both exposures. We were pretty sure she had missed the shutter but we reshot it to be sure.

63 delegates in one hour. The prints were for a commemorative publication and for display during subsequent meetings over the next two weeks.
Prints were ready for mounting the next day and artwork submitted to the printer for the booklet later the same day.
Yes, in digital one can work fast, but with enough hands (three of us) one can, within certain constraints, achieve velocity even with "lugubrious Lucy".

After all, we shot current news with 5x4 when I was a teenager!

From a kitchen in the Levant,
Mme. O.

 

[Oscuro]

...contd:
So sorry, FedEx arrived.

To go on: as far as the resolution went, because the display prints were 10:8 and the little book was half-plate - of sorts with border and caption so no real enlargement - there was really no need for the big camera. It was used because that was the requirement from the publisher (through a very convoluted discussion with the convening authority).
We could have used the Mamiya. But we didn't. We could shoot that today with one photographer and an assistant and a digicam.

Do you know how much space 150 film holders take up? !!

Yes, goamules. I will lighten up, dearie. Quality is many things, not just resolution. Even though the English is not my first language I understood Bill's post to not imply that LF was entirely triumphed by a Canon DSLR.