shadowfox said:
So according to some of you, Crown Graphics will give me a chance to play with movements (albeit limited)? I think besides the massive film area, the ability to manipulate the focus plane is the prime reason people do large format, isn't it?
A crown will give you a nice taste. If you do want liberal movements then a crown graphic or even a super probably isn't the right choice; the crown doesn't even have the movements you typically get from a typical field camera. Of course, the ultimate control is had from a monorail view camera. They are wonderful instruments... but usually unwieldy in the field. For 4x5 work with a lot of movement, I use an 8x10 rail camera so that I can clearly see how the movements are affecting my image circle on larger ground glass. But a sturdy monorail view camera is a beast and overkill for most uses... for travel and hiking I'd much rather have the old crown. On my most recent trip I had a 1903 King Poco field camera and it was perfect for the task, a rail camera would have hindered me. Actually a crown is fine for just about any landscape I can think of, and obviously it is well suited to street work too, that's what it was designed for. Not everybody does architecture.
Something to keep in mind is that the effective depth of field with LF is shockingly small compared to what you see in 35mm, so a lot of times I find myself using movements simply to bring a non-planar subject into sharp focus at f/32 or whatever.
DOF aside, the exposure rules are of course just the same in LF and 35mm, so if you adopt the strategy of simply stopping down to make everything sharp, you quickly find yourself looking at very long exposures. So you manipulate the DOF effectively, by doing various standard movements. The obvious situation is when you have a lot of very close foreground leading into a background, that is something that LF can do exquisitely well, and you don't have to stop down like nuts to achieve it.
Diffraction softening is still a consideration in LF; even though you will find LF people posting f/64 shots in or pinhole and reporting sharp images, bear in mind that most LF lenses are still sharpest at f/11 or so... the main thing to keep in mind is enlargement factor; I have plenty of LF shots that aren't super sharp by loupe but in a contact print they look very sharp. 35mm shots have to be tack sharp because the enlargement factor is enormous, even for a simple 8x10. After doing LF for a while I am ac tually quite astounded at how good 35mm lenses are and need to be to yield good results. I think I have a much better appreciation for the importance of MTF etc. now.
Overall I would say that for me the biggest reason to do LF is because of the reduced enlargement factor. Yes, you do now see quite a few people using wild tilt and swing to throw the focus and so forth, that is now the trendy thing to do, but I wouldn't say it's
the reason to shoot LF. The real reasons are the much smaller enlargement factor, the tonality, and the level of detail. And you can see all of those things very clearly with a ~$300, 50 year old press camera.
For portrait work, a modern LF lens can actually be way too sharp! Some portraiteers favour old barrel lenses for this reason. Funny, I never thought about diffusing the print until I got into MF and LF. Anyway, bokeh lovers will adore LF, you can control the OOF elements much better in LF than in 35mm format.
shadowfox said:
Next question, where can I send 4x5 slides to be processed? and for how much? any experiences?
There is a lab in my town that does same day E6 processing up to 8x10. The charge is something like $4 per 4x5 sheet. Not everybody has this luxury any more, that's too bad. But I gather that there are quite a few mail-in services. Even if you have to wait a week, it's well worth it: everyone's first LF transparency is usually described in spiritual terms. N.b. you can do E6 processing yourself but it's not exactly enjoyable and requires good temp controls.
c41 is also an option, and a very good one, there are some great colour print films from fuji and kodak and you can do c41 yourself. The latest c41 options almost press slide film in terms of detail, but of course the main advantage of the c41 films is how they can handle contrastier scenes, and they are quite easy to scan.
If you shoot b&w polaroid type 55, all ya need is a clearing tank and some sodium sulfite. That stuff is sh*t expensive but it is one of the best b&w films, period, and the negatives you get from it are just spectacular- ask St. Ansel.
Normal b&w sheet developing is easy-peasy. It's very hard to screw up, if you develop in a tray. When I was doing 120 and 35mm myself I had problems with streaks and spots here and there, but with sheet film I have literally never had one single problem and I've been at it fairly seriously for about 2 years. It's so easy that I think it's a waste to have someone else do it for you.