Is modern LF strictly the portrait format?

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm satisfied with Mamiya C33, MF gives incredible skin tones, plus this camera has very short MFD.

Not my best, but fresh example, I'm still learning how to use 135 4.5.
From my second roll with it:


by Ko.Fe., on Flickr

Recently I learned 😱 about LF also providing close up focus range and movements. I spend hours looking at Flickr LF examples and I could see the advantage of LF in portraiture.
It seems to be more natural to me in 4x5, 6x7 and even 6x9. I'm having hard time to adopt my vision to square format for portraits and it is almost no use for me in 6x6 for landscapes. I just can't frame it square.

But modern LF landscapes... 99% of images I have seen so far aren't impressive on computer screen. Only few landscapes pictures from thousands I have seen (mostly 4x5, which I'm interested in) where LF photog have something special in it, comparing to 135 format.

Maybe it really shines on prints from LF for landscapes?
Or here isn't enough experienced LF users for landscapes on Flickr?
Or it has to be 8x10 at least, not 4x5?

It would be nice to hear from you.
Cheers, Ko.

 

[shortstop]

LF true prints are completely different from what you can see on computer screens. I don't have a scanner for my negatives so don't post my (few) 4x5 photos and don't know why the online images are so different from what you see on original paper prints. With LF more you enlarge the negative more details appear... It's fantastic. Slow photography I call in analogy with slow food.
Mamiya C33. Mmmhh... Very nice.

 

[stompyq]

Shooting LF for flickr is to put it very mildly..dumb. There are plenty of people shooting LF mostly thinking of the final output medium which is print or alt process.

 

[mdarnton]

Even scanned LF negs printed digitally look different. Not so much on the screen, though. On my wall at work I've hung a bunch of work prints, all of which are digital prints, but with different origins. It's easy to separate them into 35mm film, 4x5 film, and digital. The smoothest ones are the LF photos. I suppose it's easy to make the different formats look somewhat like each other, but it's hard to equal the virtually infinite megapickles of 4x5 film--even the scanner can see the difference.

Digital with enough mp should be close, in theory, but my working idea at the moment is that the characteristic curve of film, and the total range, is different from that of digital in ways that make a real difference.

The crossover point for me was Gregory Heisler's book 50 Portraits. At a certain point in the book, I stopped liking what I saw, tonally. When I looked in the back, it was the digital stuff that I hadn't been liking. Since I do mainly portraits, it was a big deal for me to see that.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you, for replies!

To me MF is kind of slow format. I could have one film in camera for months. It just not a snapshot format to me. With LF, it seems, I could load, take and develop one negative, which makes it almost instant 🙂

But 4x5 enlargers are huge, comparing to my tiny 6x6.

And my V600 doesn't support 4x5 without stitching in PP.
I'm looking just at contact prints.
Which I actually like more comparing to negs scans, for sharing.

What is "alt process"?

 

[rscheffler]

I happened to be at an art opening yesterday and among the artists and works presented, was one ~40" B&W winter landscape photograph shot on 8x10, which was scanned and digitally output. The tonality of the image was extremely subtle, smooth, fine detailed and relaxed. I can only imagine my digital full frame landscape images of similar subject matter would look harsh in comparison. Maybe not so much from 10 feet away, but I'm sure at regular viewing distances.

Alt process could possibly be something like platinum printing.

Other alt processes.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm satisfied with Mamiya C33, MF gives incredible skin tones, plus this camera has very short MFD.

Not my best, but fresh example, I'm still learning how to use 135 4.5.
From my second roll with it:
. . .

Recently I learned 😱 about LF also providing close up focus range and movements. I spend hours looking at Flickr LF examples and I could see the advantage of LF in portraiture.
It seems to be more natural to me in 4x5, 6x7 and even 6x9. I'm having hard time to adopt my vision to square format for portraits and it is almost no use for me in 6x6 for landscapes. I just can't frame it square.

But modern LF landscapes... 99% of images I have seen so far aren't impressive on computer screen. Only few landscapes pictures from thousands I have seen (mostly 4x5, which I'm interested in) where LF photog have something special in it, comparing to 135 format.

Maybe it really shines on prints from LF for landscapes?
Or here isn't enough experienced LF users for landscapes on Flickr?
Or it has to be 8x10 at least, not 4x5?

It would be nice to hear from you.
Cheers, Ko.

Dear Ko,

You have answered your own question.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Dear Ko,

You have answered your own question.

Cheers,

R.

Thank you, Roger!

It is hard to look at modern LF without help from experienced users like you.
I could only guess it, without any confidence.

Would old "Federal" made enlarger with basic lens be sufficient for amateur practicing (4x5 negatives)?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thank you, Roger!

It is hard to look at modern LF without help from experienced users like you.
I could only guess it, without any confidence.

Would old "Federal" made enlarger with basic lens be sufficient for amateur practicing (4x5 negatives)?

Dear Ko,

Yes, yes and yes. It's all about tonality. You don't need much resolution from the camera lens; or any modern film; or any enlarger lens up to maybe 12x16 inch (3x enlargement). Seriously: TRY IT!

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I printed with a rodenstock ( I used to call it rottenstock)lens and a 5X7 Solar enlarger with a Zone VI cold light head for years. Like Roger said...

Some of the most beautiful large format stuff I ever seen are platinum contact prints from 8X10 negs.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thanks for both of you!
Yes, Rodenstock is the lens I was looking at to couple with Federal enlarger.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Thanks for both of you!
Yes, Rodenstock is the lens I was looking at to couple with Federal enlarger.

You should be good to go Ko.

 

[shortstop]

Thank you, for replies! To me MF is kind of slow format. I could have one film in camera for months. It just not a snapshot format to me. With LF, it seems, I could load, take and develop one negative, which makes it almost instant 🙂 But 4x5 enlargers are huge, comparing to my tiny 6x6. And my V600 doesn't support 4x5 without stitching in PP. I'm looking just at contact prints. Which I actually like more comparing to negs scans, for sharing. What is "alt process"?

Ko.Fe.,
I have a 4x5 Linhof Technika. I do amateur photography so don't have many time and unfortunately use my Linhof (for which have also a wonderful Imagon ideal for portraits) very few. Rolleiflex TLR is the right compromise of image quality and ease of use. This is why I often say that if I were on a desert island and could only bring with me a camera, I would take my 3,5F.
You have a Mamiya C33 and it's the same. Enjoy it!
A curiosity: are you an amateur photographer or pro?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Ko.Fe.,
I have a 4x5 Linhof Technika. I do amateur photography so don't have many time and unfortunately use my Linhof (for which have also a wonderful Imagon ideal for portraits) very few. Rolleiflex TLR is the right compromise of image quality and ease of use. This is why I often say that if I were on a desert island and could only bring with me a camera, I would take my 3,5F.
You have a Mamiya C33 and it's the same. Enjoy it!
A curiosity: are you an amateur photographer or pro?

Amateur ( 24/7 style🙂 ) and volunteering sometimes for local events or if people are asking me to take pictures for them.

I don't like enough 6x6 to enjoy it for portraits and I don't like it at all for landscapes, to be honest. I don't want MF SLR with 645 or 6x7 backs either. They are too complicated for my taste, but folders are too simple in opposite and have too long MFD.

I'm looking at Graflex 4x5 press, field camera to have limited movements, but easiness to walk with it for landscape locations.
Or basic 4x5 monorail to have full movements.
Both have 6x7 backs available.

 

[shortstop]

Amateur ( 24/7 style🙂 ) and volunteering sometimes for local events or if people are asking me to take pictures for them. I don't like enough 6x6 to enjoy it for portraits and I don't like it at all for landscapes, to be honest. I don't want MF SLR with 645 or 6x7 backs either. They are too complicated for my taste, but folders are too simple in opposite and have too long MFD. I'm looking at Graflex 4x5 press, field camera to have limited movements, but easiness to walk with it for landscape locations. Or basic 4x5 monorail to have full movements. Both have 6x7 backs available.

What does it mean 24/7 style (I'm italian; may be don't understand a jargon; I apologize for my English).
From my small experience, although fascinated by the movement chance a view camera offer, I think that Graflex is the better choice.
But 4x5 requires an enlargement and therefore an enlarger. Fortunately I found a Durst Laborator 1000 with Ilford Multigrade System included at a bargain price (450€).
In North America I know are popular Beseler and Omega.
Good luck and welcome in LF club.

 

[lcpr]

For LF on the web done right, have a look at Song Chao's website. You can zoom in so that it's almost like looking at a poster sized print (depending on your screen of course).

http://www.songchao.cn/

 

[KM-25]

But modern LF landscapes... 99% of images I have seen so far aren't impressive on computer screen. Only few landscapes pictures from thousands I have seen (mostly 4x5, which I'm interested in) where LF photog have something special in it, comparing to 135 format.

Yep, that is exactly what I see too, a mind boggling lack of dynamic imagery from the standpoint of lighting, timing and above all, composition. A number of photo enthusiasts who call them selves "Large Format Photographers" are so utterly swept away in loving the idea of the large negative, ground glass, etc. that they fail miserably at making an outright great photograph when it comes to landscapes, instead relying on things like openness of tonality and super fine details to cart around an otherwise super boring image...but don't tell them that, LOL!

I use 4x5, and I use it effectively as the tool I need when I need it, and I DO darkroom print these negatives in black and white above 11x14, it makes a remarkable difference in the final image when comparing them to a flickr feed.

Either my Mamiya 6 or Hasselblad system is so much more productive and reactionary to my quick thinking though, it really shows in the images and those 6x6 negs have *no* issues at all in being darkroom printed above 16"x16".

When it comes to "The Emperor's New Clothes" effect in photography, nothing is as prolific as the landscape shooter using large format and filling web pages.

 

[Corran]

Why are you determining what value a format has by small Flickr images???
Flickr, in my opinion, has very low value in that regard - both due to size as well as their sharpening algorithms and simply the amount of junk posted there.

I guess I would say I am primarily a LF shooter, and landscape to boot. At least for me, I don't find the value of shooting landscapes in anything BUT 4x5. Not to mention my 4x5 hiking kit and a few lenses barely weigh more than my Pentax 67 and one lens!

It seems there is quite a bit of animosity or something towards the LF shooters though in this last post.

My good friend and mentor in photography just had a show a few months ago, all of which were images made along the Suwannee River here in GA/FL. Silver printed to 16x20. Most 4x5, some 6x7. Really gorgeous. The difference from the two formats might not matter to some. I love printing 4x5 images in the darkroom when I can and it enlarges so easy compared to smaller formats. My favorite size though by far is 24x30 and I've done 5-6 color images from 4x5 at this size for a show coming up and they are great. I don't think I'd have the same depth with a smaller negative, blowing up that big. It's a documentary project on a local cotton mill so not quite landscape but there is a lot of outdoor images of big skies and the systematic tearing down of this place.

Maybe these are just the kind of picture you don't like but they're the kind that I feel shines from LF. Of course it still is just a little tiny image.

 

[smiling gecko]

wow!!!

wow!!!

wow!!!

marvelous landscape images!!!

makes me want to post some of mine...except my laptop is out-o-state in the clutches of my sweetheart of a grand daughter.

laugh more, smile more.
be kind, for everyone your meet is fighting a hard battle.

smiling gecko, aka kenneth david, aka "hey you, with the big old camera"

 

[thegman]

I only ever used 4x5 for landscape. In terms of the 'look', unless you're using shift/tilt or whatever, to me it looks like high resolution medium format. But then I was using a wide angle lens, stopped down, I expect it would be a lot different with a longer lens.