Big

Bill Pierce said:
Any other infrequent users of big film cameras out there? Any thoughts about big cameras from photographers that use little cameras?
Click to expand...

I still use small format 35mm film cameras, medium format roll film cameras, and large format sheet film cameras. At one time, I worked for a reproduction studio where I used 10x12 inch cameras or larger to copy art work and blueprints. I still use 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch cameras but prefer the 4x5 because it is easier for me to develop 4x5 than 8x10.

I currently use an Epson V850 flatbed scanner to digitize my large, small, and medium format film images.

I would love to buy a modern large format roll-film camera similar to the vintage Kodak No. 3A Folding Pocket Camera produced in the early 1900s. That vintage camera used Kodak 122 roll film to produce 3 1/2 x 5 inch large format film images. However, Kodak stopped making the camera in 1915 and Kodak stopped making the 122 large format roll film in 1971. Thus far, I have been unable to find any replacements.
 
Bill I am sure what you say is true for larger formats but I recall that in the early days of digital (i.e. when digital cameras still commonly had perhaps 1-2 megapixels max) that a 35mm film negative captured and estimated 25megapixels. So we would just have to wait till then. That must have been around 2000 give or take.

Of course we are now well beyond that in 35mm equivalent if that is what you want to spend your money on. (I am just there - a couple of years ago I bought a Sony NEX 5 and APC cropped sensor camera with just about 25 megapixels.

Back to big cameras. Though not a large format shooter I would add that it seems to me there is another aspect in which medium and large format rocks - the rendering of good MF and LF lenses. And of course they tend to have shallow DOF and nice bokeh at any given aperture for the same reason that a lens designed for the 35mm system will produce more pronounced OOF than a lens designed for a cropped sensor digital camera. Its also the reason I believe that large format shooters like Ansell Adams could happily shoot stopped down to f64 without problems with diffraction - the physical size of f64 on a large frame camera is much larger than what it would be in a lens designed for a smaller format. Which is why I think I have never seen a 35mm lens with an f64 setting.

Would I like to shoot MF in either film or digital. Yes - sort of. Problem is I am now older and rapidly becoming decrepit. I am not sure I am any longer up to lugging a larger format camera and even one lens about.
 
When I see huge super sharp prints that must be from LF, I want that, too. But then I remember I neither have the patience nor the space (for a LF enlarger) and money. Roll films are so very practical. From time to time, movements would come in very handy however. Maybe I'll get a MF camera with movements one day.
 
The largest format camera I ever made. 32x40 Format, Wet Plate. Bellows extension six feet. Lens fl 47” weight, two men to move.
U67835I1597581256.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Bill Pierce said:
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?
Click to expand...

Another imo more read article about analog vs digital :
http://jpbuffington.com/?p=167
Regards,
Frank
 
Apple Orchard

Apple Orchard

The suburban area that I live in used to be farms and orchards. One of the last orchards is about a mile from my house - in the fall we take the grandkids apple picking. My wife had the idea: "why don't you take pictures of the orchard each month for a year? We can make a calendar for everybody." So I dug out the 4x5 and have been using Provia 100f each month. October will be a year of views, but as we had very little snow this year I will probably redo the winter months (assuming that there is some snow 2020-21).
 
I leave ultra sharpness and resolution to others. Portraiture is my primary interest, though I shoot other subjects. My M4 and 645 complement my 4x5 field camera with HP5 in D-23. So much great work, let alone really good work, has been made, and continues to be made since the 1900s on all sorts of plates and films, I find this the best way to concentrate on the image rather than the tools and particulars of format. I keep my prints sizes modest in relation to film format. Suits me.
 
I shot thousands of wetplates and really came to appreciate the all in one factor of ending up with a positive, finished image. Usually I done quarter plate to half plate portraits, and 5x7 groups. Unless you had a Poloroid it was/is the quickest way to generate a finished hard image. Years ago, at the 150th Antietam re-enactment I decided to offer only CDV size tintypes. I built a two lens camera, so I cut the tin in two with a paper cutter, and after varnishing, slipped them in a period looking paper covered sleeve. I had a Line....rebs, yanks, ladies etc of about 10 people steady for three days. So, having built up a good system of working quick, one format, one location, different person or pose. You got two tins ( same, or I’d switch caps and offer two poses). This was $65. ....I Worked my Arse off but the chems were in harmony and I came with enough stock. ~~~,, I was doing 12 minute turnaround. One reason I was able to do this was pouring plates in the open air, and not using cyanide as a fix. Gotta watch the Vapors.
 
Timmyjoe said:
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
Click to expand...

Tim - To add to the comments about Epson scanners, I ran some tests with my ancient Epson V750 Pro. The Imacon limited its resolution with large format. The Epson doesn't. I made some high res scans, higher than needed to print at 360dpi for relatively big prints. The files looked just as good as those from the Imacon and printed very well. I suspect even smaller files would look good, but haven't run those tests. I guess one of the hidden advantages of large format film is you can use relatively cheap scanners and get good results.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Tim - To add to the comments about Epson scanners, I ran some tests with my ancient Epson V750 Pro. The Imacon limited its resolution with large format. The Epson doesn't. I made some high res scans, higher than needed to print at 360dpi for relatively big prints. The files looked just as good as those from the Imacon and printed very well. I suspect even smaller files would look good, but haven't run those tests. I guess one of the hidden advantages of large format film is you can use relatively cheap scanners and get good results.
Click to expand...

I've been checking back on this thread, hoping to hear your results. Thank you so much. I've had the Epson V850 on my "Wishlist" at B&H Photo for over a year now. If you're getting satisfactory results from the V750, I think the V850 should do just as well.

Thanks Bill.

Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom