Big

[Bill Pierce]

In many ways, digital has caught up with film and in some ways surpassed it. A lot of time has passed since news photographers used the early digitals with low pixel counts and a limited tonal range because they delivered an image quickly and the small 60 screen or relatively low res halftones printed on news stock or even magazine pages already put limitations on the images.

These days digital edges out film in tonal range, high ISO performance and, in most cases, resolution. A film camera, often used, is going to cost you less, but it’s hard to evaluate long term costs without knowing a lot more about how a photographer shoots and presents his work

However, there is one area in which film easily beats out digital. That is the resolution, sharpness and fine detail available in large format film. Yes, there will be a reduction of quality when you enlarge or scan the film. My guess, and it is a guess, is that a really cheap scanner and 4x5 film would probably edge out the quality of high megapixel Sony and Canon sensors, but not by much. However, Roger Clark, who has done a lot of research and practical experimentation says that scanned 4x5 film can produce the equivalent of a 200 megapixel image. For anybody interested in film vs. digital, I recommend https://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html/ .

Let’s put it this way, large format film is a lot cheaper than a Phase One or even a Sony A7R iv camera. Sheet film prices are high, but you don’t use a lot of film. If you are going to take full advantage of the large format, you are going to be on a tripod and stopped down. It certainly didn’t stop photographers as diverse as Edward Weston, George Hurrell, Ansel Adams and, even on very rare occasions, Gene Smith. I bought my first 8 x 10 with a lens for $30. (My next one cost a lot more.) And it opened up a new world of photography, not just in image quality, but in putting me on a tripod and slowing me down. Come to think of it, slowing down and really looking at that image before I pressed the button was just as important as the improved image quality.

Any other infrequent users of big film cameras out there? Any thoughts about big cameras from photographers that use little cameras?

 

[Hari]

Bill,
I enjoy your post. We are similar in age. About almost 20 years
ago I decided to pursue all formats in analog, well, not all, but Minox,
35mm, roll film all formats, and the 3 large formats, 5x7 and 8x10 only
for contact printing. Also, got some J.Lane dry glass plates in 5x7 for
the old Graflex which I found a glass plate holder for. My small studio
apt. is half darkroom, half studio for photos as well as living. Never
really tried digital, to set in my ways.

 

[Hari]

Also, you were instrumental in my early teen interest in photography. I was
transplanted to Europe at 13 with my parents. Your writings in Pop Photo mag
was my connection to the US.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Hi Bill,

I was following your train of thought a couple years ago when I bought my first 4x5 camera. I love everything about working with film and I thought I'd get the best resolution and tonal range. And I'm sure it does. I've used it a number of times and enjoy the experience. But now I'm stuck with 4x5 B&W negatives that I have no way to do anything with. I have no 4x5 film scanner (and haven't read good reviews on any options under $2000) and I no longer have my darkroom, though I never had a 4x5 enlarger.

I'd love to see how beautiful these 4x5 images are, but so far, haven't had much luck.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Coincidentally, I loaded up 20 4x5 film holders this morning. For me, it’s not just the resolution, not even mostly the resolution, it’s the way large format handles spatial relationships.
Something like a cammed Master Technika can be successfully used as a handheld rangefinder, doesn’t even need to be used on a tripod, if one feels like doing something different.
8x10 is probably too much for me at this point due to what I perceive as film costs. 4x5 is certainly manageable.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

Large format - even medium format - far out performs that of any 35mm (or smaller) format. That's a given.

I few years ago a friend of mine who has access to a large digital printer made me a 30" x 45" print from a DNG/TIF file produced from a 24mp Leica M-P 240 camera. I also have a similar sized color print made in around 2002 from a 35mm slide (it was converted via a digital drum scan).

So I am reasonably satisfied I can get anything I need out of 35mm format. And, for me, I've found 24mp is sufficient.

 

[zuiko85]

I'm sure large format, when done with serious concern, is beautiful and competes with digital. But, at least, in my case 4X5 is just another photographic means to 'play around' with. In fact got into it accidently with chance find at a garage sale. There was a box with a couple of sealed cartons of Kodak 8X10 B&W paper and pawing around in the box there 6 4X5 holders. as I looked up at the lady running the garage sale I didn't even have to ask. "Five bucks" she says. "For the whole box?" was my incredulous response. "Five bucks, the whole box." she repeated.
So, starting with the holders and nothing else, it went from there to home made pin hole, to adapted lenses from my considerable box-o-photo junk.
Nothing fancy, I'm only using photo paper as negatives, but I have to admit, the fun factor is right up there with anything else I've shot.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

"Infrequent user of large format" Thanks for the topic Bill. I don't work with digital media. For the last 10 years I did LF in 5x7. When TMY2 reached $10/sheet last year (the Canadian $ at 1.4 or so) I decided to scale back and downshifted to 4x5. I still use my Durst 138, but i don't enlarge past 20x24" & anyways a 16x20" print from a 4x5" negative can be pretty fine. Yes LF offers beautiful detail and tonal scale & I use it when i can, but medium format has become my de facto go to. Often I photograph in the course climbing and skiing in the mountains, rather than going somewhere 'to photograph.' On a long road trip the LF comes with me. In all cases, I try to get the biggest negative to print from. I've seen and made good prints from 35mm, but all things considered i prefer the results of printing MF.....and when i do photograph landscapes from a tripod.... LF

 

[xayraa33]

Photographer William Henry Jackson sometimes used an 18"x 22" wet plate camera in the 1870s to photograph the American West....he created some very spectacular photographs.

Something aside that always crosses my mind in this digital camera age is that in 140 years from now will we have surviving photos from the 2000s ?

It seems we can produce more images now with ease and super quantity and maybe low cost...so I surmise the shotgun or dandelion effect will ensure many images from our time will survive in a 140 years...maybe quantity over quality will trump everything.

 

[Mackinaw]

I picked up an old 4x5 Crown Graphic on Craigslist a few years back. It was dirt cheap, so I couldn’t pass it up. Plus I’ve always been intrigued by the 4x5 format. I really wasn’t quite sure what to expect, but after scanning the negs, I was blown away by the image quality. Not so much sharpness, but a tonal range that seemed seemed to be rendered in a more pleasing fashion than any of my digital cameras. My 4x5 Tri-X negs just have a very unique look.

I take a lot of people pics and all of them comment on my Crown Graphic. Most haven’t seen one before and they love being photographed by it. I’ve even had people stop me on the street ask me to take their picture. Hard to beat that.

Jim B.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

... Something aside that always crosses my mind in this digital camera age is that in 140 years from now will we have surviving photos from the 2000s?

It seems we can produce more images now with ease and super quantity and maybe low cost...so I surmise the shotgun or dandelion effect will ensure many images from our time will survive in a 140 years...maybe quantity over quality will trump everything.

One of the concerns with digital, from very early on, as to the survival of images is the media itself, which is constantly changing and evolving. In fact there is built into it "planned obsolescence." With film we'll always have that piece of cellulite, but with digital, 100, 50, or even 20-years from now will we be using the same medium, or format, we use today?

Unless images are upgraded with each generation, variation, and change in the medium there are sure to be, at some point, uncounted photographs lost forever - simply due to a defunct or outdated format.

 

[Bill Pierce]

Hi Bill,

I was following your train of thought a couple years ago when I bought my first 4x5 camera. I love everything about working with film and I thought I'd get the best resolution and tonal range. And I'm sure it does. I've used it a number of times and enjoy the experience. But now I'm stuck with 4x5 B&W negatives that I have no way to do anything with. I have no 4x5 film scanner (and haven't read good reviews on any options under $2000) and I no longer have my darkroom, though I never had a 4x5 enlarger.

I'd love to see how beautiful these 4x5 images are, but so far, haven't had much luck.

Best,
-Tim

Having literally worn out my Imacon scanner scanning years of old negatives and slides, I’m pretty much in the same situation as you - looking for an affordable scanner. I have an alternative. I never sold my darkroom gear, and, although it is rarely used, the darkroom is functional and has an enlarger than can take up to 4x5. But it would probably take a profound increase in esthetic sensibilities and esthetic integrity to overcome my laziness. Given the current digital alternatives, I’m far more likely to keep up with my sheet film shooting if I can find an affordable alternative to the Imacon scanner, which in some ways was complete overkill for the 4x5. The sheer size of the negative may let us get away with an economical scanner. I’ll snoop around and let you know what I find out.

 

[xayraa33]

One of the concerns with digital, from very early on, as to the survival of images is the media itself, which is constantly changing and evolving. In fact there is built into it "planned obsolescence." With film we'll always have that piece of cellulite, but with digital, 100, 50, or even 20-years from now will we be using the same medium, or format, we use today?

Unless images are upgraded with each generation, variation, and change in the medium there are sure to be, at some point, uncounted photographs lost forever - simply due to a defunct or outdated format.

That is what I am concerned with, since I do like to look at 19th century photographs and wonder if our images will survive as well as the products those collodion plate photographers of the past, the Matthew Brady crew of the American civil war or Roger Fenton of the mid 1850s Crimean War...at least we can find a fragile large glass plate negative protected in a tin casing that has lasted 160+ years but like you said, in our time and in the future.. unless the images are upgraded then some images will be lost for ever.

 

[Mackinaw]

....Given the current digital alternatives, I’m far more likely to keep up with my sheet film shooting if I can find an affordable alternative to the Imacon scanner, which in some ways was complete overkill for the 4x5. The sheer size of the negative may let us get away with an economical scanner. I’ll snoop around and let you know what I find out.

I use an Epson V800. A flatbed that was designed for 4x5 negatives. I use Silverfast as my scanning software, fine tune everything in Photoshop. I'm very satisfied with the results I'm getting.

Jim B.

 

[PRJ]

Bill your Imacon is about the same as an Epson with 4x5. And any late model Creo/Kodak/Cezanne will beat the Imacon with large format. If you aren't going to make huge prints, then the Epson is a good solution.

As far as resolution goes, nothing beats a darkroom print by a skilled person.

 

[Godfrey]

Once upon an age ago, I shot 8x10 and 11x14 sheet film cameras. Never bothered much with that eensy little 4x5 stuff ... after all, you still have to enlarge that... with 8x10 or 11x14, you just contact print to a nice size print. LOL!

Polaroid continues to make 8x10 integral process sheet film. I'd buy an 8x10 camera and shoot Polaroid 8x10 Instant Film in it if I felt I would use it for more than ten photographs. But I know I likely wouldn't. Sigh.

G

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Once upon an age ago, I shot 8x10 and 11x14 sheet film cameras. Never bothered much with that eensy little 4x5 stuff ... after all, you still have to enlarge that... with 8x10 or 11x14, you just contact print to a nice size print. LOL!
G

I admire your 11x14 experience. I went to 8x10... and for me the 5x7 was close to ideal. I have to say, I've seen some stunning 16x20" prints from 4x5...so the great printers give me inspiration. None the less, i do occasionally dream of an 11x14 and one lens.. It's sure a different road.

 

[Hari]

Godfrey, I went the Polaroid 8x10 processor route. My first
8x10 Polaroid processor, the motor died. Live and learn I
replaced it with the option of a hand crank. They are rather
old.

 

[Godfrey]

I just figured then that if I'm going to go to the trouble of a BIG negative, and all the BIG equipment it requires, might as well go to the extreme and enjoy it.



I'm long past wanting to schlepp that level of gear around now. Medium format film is the largest stuff I'm using any more, mostly 6x6. I tend to prefer shooting with that (or Polaroid SX-70 format, or Minox submini) over anything else in film now. Yeah, I still like extremes...

G

 

[Ronald M]

Hi Bill,

I was following your train of thought a couple years ago when I bought my first 4x5 camera. I love everything about working with film and I thought I'd get the best resolution and tonal range. And I'm sure it does. I've used it a number of times and enjoy the experience. But now I'm stuck with 4x5 B&W negatives that I have no way to do anything with. I have no 4x5 film scanner (and haven't read good reviews on any options under $2000) and I no longer have my darkroom, though I never had a 4x5 enlarger.

I'd love to see how beautiful these 4x5 images are, but so far, haven't had much luck.

Best,
-Tim

Scan with a digital camera. My Nikon D800e is as good as my d5400 Minolta scanner was when OS would accept the software.