Why shooting large format in these times?

[hiend61]

A year ago I began to teach Large Format Photography to small groups of amateur photographers, (from 1 to a maximum of 3). Most of them are medium format users who want to go one steep beyond in image quality, and the least are just curious about large format and want to know more and try a large format camera.
I always introduce them to Large Format Photography showing various samples of prints and transparencies taken with large format gear and explaining with the samples the advantages we all know about Large Format Photography.
In my last workshop one of my students, (One of the just curious about Large Format), asked me why shooting large format today, when the gap in quality between a 36MP full frame SLR digital camera and 4x5 format is very narrow, the offer in film is reducing day by day, there is no color film available for 5x7, the scarce color film available for 8x10 is prohibitive expensive in Europe and the two major lens makers have drastically reduced their Large Format lens portfolio?. Not to mention the slowness of Large Format process in general.
I told him that Large Format helps to concentrate in the image, have a more reflexive approach to the subject, the distinctive aspect of a Large Format image and the pleasure of the process of "making" Large Format images.
Which are your reasons to shot Large Format?

[jp]

I don't need the super detail.

I am very fond of photo history, particularly images and styles from 1890's to 1940's. The equipment used for that is mostly LF (and some MF). It's available and affordable (except for some cult lenses) and fun to make photos with.

[Kevin M Bourque]

When it comes to art, a perfectly valid reason is, "because I feel like it".

[Mark Sawyer]

I tried shooting wet plates in my dslr and found you can only shoot very small plates, and the silver nitrate drippings really mess up the sensor.

[vinny]

It gives me a raging boner every time I open the shutter.

[Mark Stahlke]

When it comes to art, a perfectly valid reason is, "because I feel like it".When it comes to hobbies, a perfectly valid reason is "because it's fun".

[hiend61]

It gives me a raging boner every time I open the shutter.

Me too

[ShannonG]

I like to shoot LF because it forces one to slow down and contemplate the shot. For me it the ritual of scouting, setting up,composing,loading ,metering,shooting ,processing ,developing and printing. Not to mention the control of movements.

[jnantz]

why not ?

[Daniel Stone]

ALL my equipment I've purchased 2nd hand. None was new.
I sure hope that these folks won't get dissuaded by a (now) more "limited" range of NEW equipment on the market than there was 20yrs ago?! There is scads of used equipment on the worldwide market, and much of it now is quite friendly to the average pocketbook. Unless you're after "rare" brass lenses or the rarer new stuff that still fetches high dollar on the used market, I'd venture to guess that a great 4x5 starter system with 1-2 top tier modern(ish) lenses and 5-10 holders can be put together for less coin than a brand new budget DSLR.

And by budget DSLR I'm thinking $450-600 USD

[Light Guru]

A year ago I began to teach Large Format Photography to small groups of amateur photographers, (from 1 to a maximum of 3). Most of them are medium format users who want to go one steep beyond in image quality, and the least are just curious about large format and want to know more and try a large format camera.
I always introduce them to Large Format Photography showing various samples of prints and transparencies taken with large format gear and explaining with the samples the advantages we all know about Large Format Photography.
In my last workshop one of my students, (One of the just curious about Large Format), asked me why shooting large format today, when the gap in quality between a 36MP full frame SLR digital camera and 4x5 format is very narrow, the offer in film is reducing day by day, there is no color film available for 5x7, the scarce color film available for 8x10 is prohibitive expensive in Europe and the two major lens makers have drastically reduced their Large Format lens portfolio?. Not to mention the slowness of Large Format process in general.
I told him that Large Format helps to concentrate in the image, have a more reflexive approach to the subject, the distinctive aspect of a Large Format image and the pleasure of the process of "making" Large Format images.
Which are your reasons to shot Large Format?

Well for starters there is a bigger quality difference then that person thinks.

10 hours of post processing cannot make up for for the lack of 10 minutes of thought before pressing the shutter button.

[Peter Lewin]

I think the simple answer is that most of us enjoy the "process" of working with large format equipment, just as those of us who still have darkrooms enjoy the process of trays, chemicals, and the tactile feel of negatives. I doubt the majority of us are still using LF purely for "quality" reasons.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Magic!

Know what I mean?

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Jody_S]

No, it's not just about the quality. The process is very important.

[C. D. Keth]

No, it's not just about the quality. The process is very important.

That's the most important part to me. The image quality is nice but my 5dmkIII can make files large enough for 99% of my printing and digital file purposes. The need to slow down and be deliberate is important to me. It's also important to me sometimes to have full scheimpflug and perspective control in camera. I dislike complicated photoshop files.

[Jim collum]

Quality has little to do with it for me (since that can be used to describe any number of capture methods, lenses, films, sensors, and any combination).

For me it's simply fun.. The feel of the camera, the operation of it and the lens, the processing of a sheet of film, and the way it forces me into a meditative means of photography (I can get there with pretty much any camera.. but it happens automatically by simply picking up the 4x5 or 8x10)

[Preston]

Why shooting large format in these times?

Because these times is the only times I have. Besides, it's fun, it helps me to see, and to feel.

--P

[Rollinhofuji]

I have several reasons. I myself upgraded from 35mm to MF, and for a long time wanted to go LF. Several people convinced me several times that it is useless for prints smaller than 1m*2m, time-consuming, expensive, cumbersome (silly dark cloth and everything) and so on.
Finally, I ignored them and bought a Technikardan - one of the best decisions I´ve ever made. My images changed. My style changed. My whole photography improved, I think - similar to the time when I migrated to 6x6 from 35mm.

So, my reasons:
- More image control
- Better yield of "good" images
- Better tonality
- Better quality
- More fun
- and finally: It feels right.

It just doesn´t feel right to me any more to shoot 35mm or even MF.

But it does feel right to me to set up my gear and haul the camera around with my huge backpack. It feels right to load sheet film in my changing tent. It definitely feels right to look at the negs and slides on the light table in my favourite lab.

And finally, I guess it will feel right when I hold my brand-new Master Technika 3000 in my bare hands this Friday (or perhaps Saturday). Did not buy a new camera for ages, but I think it was the right decision to do it now. And hopefully, it will feel right shooting it the next 50 years.

Regards,
Jan

P.S.: Needless to say that it does not feel right to shoot digital. Tried it several times. Definitely it doesn´t.

[dave clayton]

because digital bores me senseless, i go shoot digital i feel ive made nothing got no connection with the process and accomplished nothing at all. plus i like to handle negatives you feel you have made some art and not a file on the computer

[Regular Rod]

Simply because I can get results nearer to what I want with a Large Format camera than I can with a digital camera...

RR

[Brassai]

Digital photos have become very uniform and all have the same look. I just got bored with it. I love shooting my lenses made from 1845-1858, and my little collection of lenses made 1900-1928 on my Chamonix 045n using b&w film. I get a very unique vintage look that virtually no one else is doing. The soft low contrast look is the opposite of what 99% of the other photographers out there are doing. I also love the feeling of connection with the photographers from long in the past. I think the original owners of the lenses & cameras I use would be pleasantly surprised.

[Darryl Baird]

There are many excellent answers above that compare price (which is huge if you are really serious about the craft, but poor), process, and vision, etc.

I'd add there are simply images that only a full view camera, with all it's controls available, can make. Full tilt/shift with BOTH from and rear isn't available in a portable, affordable digital rig. Add in the fun of acquiring cheap, semi-cult lenses (like Mark Sawyers' magnifying glass lenses), or the availability to adapt ANY optic to the front if you can manage a slow exposure or position a shutter behind the lens.

I started buying much better LF equipment after digital "killed" the professional market… love having 4x5 Sinar P gear in the studio and on short field excursions for less than my last DSLR (Canon 7D). Add a cheap rotary base, some used Jobo tubes and you have a portable darkroom. I take mine to New Mexico each summer. Love it, love it, love it. Nothing in the DSLR world gives me this much satisfaction that I control EVERYTHING… no programmers are between me and my images ...and that is priceless.

One other "benefit" is that you really have to learn your craft. There ain't no f**king Instagram going to make your crap look decent in LF. :D

[Cletus]

Art. Craft. Photographs and silver prints, not 'captures' and Photoshop files. Contemplation and focus instead of 11fps, AF-S 24-300mm zoom, spray-n-pray. Precious, tangible, silver negatives you can hold in your hand, that YOU created and which can last almost forever. Fine prints laid in pure silver, or platinum, on fine paper.

[gregmo]

Like many others, I fell in love with the process of LF. There is much more control over each aspect from start to finish and the feeling of being a larger part in creation of each photograph. The quality level is another big reason for me shooting LF..I mostly shoot 5x7 & 617. I mostly do large-very large prints for my clients.

[Peter Gomena]

I simply enjoy using a large format camera. (Or medium format.) I don't enjoy fighting with stupid menus in the great outdoors.

It's like the difference between doing calligraphy and using Microsoft Word.

[Kodachrome25]

Which are your reasons to shot Large Format?

I don't like digital and use a darkroom to print, it is considerably easier to print 4x5 negatives compared to medium format and much easier than 35mm. I also have plans to print as large as I can and 4x5 makes that a lot easier too. That being said, 120 is still my favorite format.

[Bernice Loui]

The idea and belief that a full frame, 36 MP DSLR equals 4x5 sheet film appears to be more marketing myth that works on the image makers ideal that "I" can get stunning resolution, color, contrast ratio and all that with the instant gratification of digital and post image creation control with digital alterations.. Simply put, more is better, instant is better.

Then we have "Instagram" or allow us to put the expression and creativity into your mundane digital images that separates you from the rest... Plays on the same impulses that getting that new photo widget will make those wonderful images for me at an instant regardless of the image maker's ability of creativity/craft/skill and....

IMO, digital is not better than film, or film is better than digital they are simply different. Different image making tools for different requirements and different results.

About two years ago, I got one of those full frame DSLR cameras to use and learn. Yes, the images look good on the monitor screen, yes the 20" x 30" color prints look OK from these digital files, but they do not look like a color image made using the film based process. In many ways, the current crop of small digital cameras fit the same tool spot as the traditional 35mm camera, they are ideal for capture the moment or decisive moment images. Except the digital camera tends to create a pile of images from some image makers that are less than expressive.

One of my long time photographer friends owns a small studio, she has done well enough to have a staff of young adult image makers (her market is corporate portraits, weddings, events and video.. or where the $ appears to be). She sent one of her staff out to get some images of the Golden Gate Bridge.. about 500 digital frames later, zero met her expectations for what the client needed. Guess who had to re-do this spray and pray fiasco.. More is not better...

There are things I like about using a DSLR. Example, when I'm at a motor sports event with the guys I'll take the DSLR and a few zoom lenses and etc and return with a large number of interesting images..

What digital has not offered is the the entire experience of image craft that only sheet film can offer. It is simply a different method of image making. It is much about crafting an image from one's mind rather than just reacting to the potential image that can be made at that moment.

There is much using a view camera can teach about the art and craft of image making.

I think to truly experience what sheet film image craft is about requires the image maker/photographer/artist to do every step in the process from loading film to dry mounting the finished print and signing it.

While this may appear to be so tedious and time consuming with messy chemistry.. Consider for a moment the hours spent sorting image files, hours of digital file tinkering in front of a monitor, the computer issues, the software issues and...

Regardless of the process used, skill, creativity, resources and time is always required to craft and create an expressive image film based or digital based.

For me, I have been using a view camera for so long that is has become habit and the craft and experience of using this image making tool is most satisfying in so many ways. The results, the in camera image control only offered by a large sheet of film, the personalities offered by each lens and ....
Maybe this is simply ingrained habits and a refusal to completely accept "modern" image making tools.. What does matter is the results work for me..


Bernice







A year ago I began to teach Large Format Photography to small groups of amateur photographers, (from 1 to a maximum of 3). Most of them are medium format users who want to go one steep beyond in image quality, and the least are just curious about large format and want to know more and try a large format camera.
I always introduce them to Large Format Photography showing various samples of prints and transparencies taken with large format gear and explaining with the samples the advantages we all know about Large Format Photography.
In my last workshop one of my students, (One of the just curious about Large Format), asked me why shooting large format today, when the gap in quality between a 36MP full frame SLR digital camera and 4x5 format is very narrow, the offer in film is reducing day by day, there is no color film available for 5x7, the scarce color film available for 8x10 is prohibitive expensive in Europe and the two major lens makers have drastically reduced their Large Format lens portfolio?. Not to mention the slowness of Large Format process in general.
I told him that Large Format helps to concentrate in the image, have a more reflexive approach to the subject, the distinctive aspect of a Large Format image and the pleasure of the process of "making" Large Format images.
Which are your reasons to shot Large Format?

[Jim collum]

well said.

To satisfy that 'craft' aspect, I've gone to using the digital output for alt-process prints.

However, this is nowhere near enough to fully satisfy the other aspects of LF .. the experience of shooting the big camera, the alchemy of film.


The idea and belief that a full frame, 36 MP DSLR equals 4x5 sheet film appears to be more marketing myth that works on the image makers ideal that "I" can get stunning resolution, color, contrast ratio and all that with the instant gratification of digital and post image creation control with digital alterations.. Simply put, more is better, instant is better.

Then we have "Instagram" or allow us to put the expression and creativity into your mundane digital images that separates you from the rest... Plays on the same impulses that getting that new photo widget will make those wonderful images for me at an instant regardless of the image maker's ability of creativity/craft/skill and....

IMO, digital is not better than film, or film is better than digital they are simply different. Different image making tools for different requirements and different results.

About two years ago, I got one of those full frame DSLR cameras to use and learn. Yes, the images look good on the monitor screen, yes the 20" x 30" color prints look OK from these digital files, but they do not look like a color image made using the film based process. In many ways, the current crop of small digital cameras fit the same tool spot as the traditional 35mm camera, they are ideal for capture the moment or decisive moment images. Except the digital camera tends to create a pile of images from some image makers that are less than expressive.

One of my long time photographer friends owns a small studio, she has done well enough to have a staff of young adult image makers (her market is corporate portraits, weddings, events and video.. or where the $ appears to be). She sent one of her staff out to get some images of the Golden Gate Bridge.. about 500 digital frames later, zero met her expectations for what the client needed. Guess who had to re-do this spray and pray fiasco.. More is not better...

There are things I like about using a DSLR. Example, when I'm at a motor sports event with the guys I'll take the DSLR and a few zoom lenses and etc and return with a large number of interesting images..

What digital has not offered is the the entire experience of image craft that only sheet film can offer. It is simply a different method of image making. It is much about crafting an image from one's mind rather than just reacting to the potential image that can be made at that moment.

There is much using a view camera can teach about the art and craft of image making.

I think to truly experience what sheet film image craft is about requires the image maker/photographer/artist to do every step in the process from loading film to dry mounting the finished print and signing it.

While this may appear to be so tedious and time consuming with messy chemistry.. Consider for a moment the hours spent sorting image files, hours of digital file tinkering in front of a monitor, the computer issues, the software issues and...

Regardless of the process used, skill, creativity, resources and time is always required to craft and create an expressive image film based or digital based.

For me, I have been using a view camera for so long that is has become habit and the craft and experience of using this image making tool is most satisfying in so many ways. The results, the in camera image control only offered by a large sheet of film, the personalities offered by each lens and ....
Maybe this is simply ingrained habits and a refusal to completely accept "modern" image making tools.. What does matter is the results work for me..


Bernice

[DannL]

I think we would agree that most of us "enjoy the process", the challenges, and the "end result" of working with large sheets of film and traditional photographic processes. Simply put, the end justifies the means. If you don't like a good challenge, and you don't like hard work, then working with film is probably not for you.

[Jim Noel]

It gives me a raging boner every time I open the shutter.
At 84 I wish I could say that. I would make a lot more negatives.

[Rollinhofuji]

I think we would agreed that most of us "enjoy the process", the challenges, and the "end result" of working with large sheets of film and traditional photographic processes. Simply put, the end justifies the means. If you don't like a good challenge, and you don't like hard work, then working with film is probably not for you.

That´s a good point!

[p martinez]

I agree with almost all that has been written.

One thing I would add is that for my portraiture work a big part of the appeal of using LF is the effect is has on the subject before I trip the shutter. I can get an extra layer of "formality" as soon the camera is unfolded. I can't achieve the same theater with an iPhone.

[Tin Can]

Chicago is a theater town and everybody loves a show.


I agree with almost all that has been written.

One thing I would add is that for my portraiture work a big part of the appeal of using LF is the effect is has on the subject before I trip the shutter. I can get an extra layer of "formality" as soon the camera is unfolded. I can't achieve the same theater with an iPhone.

[Steve Smith]

I prefer theatres!


Steve.

[bigdog]

Paint and canvas is expensive. Why would anyone paint when they could just take a picture?

[BenJT]

I just bought a 4x5 last week and so far I've shot one sheet. I think what brought me to this point (digital>35mm>120>4x5) was a desire for an even more involving process. I've found that I truly prefer working harder for pictures, it makes me appreciate them more and put more thought into the initial process of taking the picture. I was also interested in using movements and wet printing sheet film. I'll still shoot 120 but LF is my focus going forward.

[ImSoNegative]

I tried shooting wet plates in my dslr and found you can only shoot very small plates, and the silver nitrate drippings really mess up the sensor.

lmao

[Bill Burk]

You are fortunate to have groups of students who want to learn.

The student of photography should understand the history, processes and limitations that the photographers who came before them had to deal with, so they can understand better where they are going. The unique opportunity today is that all of the material needed to experience the traditional art of photography is readily available.

I talked with a camera store owner who said the parents were up in arms about a local school making the kids invest 400 dollars in film camera and supplies for a required first year intro to photography course, part of a digital photography curriculum. The parents say the kids will never shoot film. They got the school to change it to an elective, with predictable impact on sales.

[smithdoor]

My self I compare 35mm to the best of digital. Back the early 60's kodak had film for 35 to compare to the old LF film. This why the LF press camera died the new papers could use a roll of film over sheet. Today they use the digital work great for print.

But for great photos still the find detail the good LF is still king. Most never use a magnifier on an LF, but you can and see the detail. On digital you will see dots.

Also if you working high end the LF is great for sale, and one can do digital even some one with a camera phones.

Dave


A year ago I began to teach Large Format Photography to small groups of amateur photographers, (from 1 to a maximum of 3). Most of them are medium format users who want to go one steep beyond in image quality, and the least are just curious about large format and want to know more and try a large format camera.
I always introduce them to Large Format Photography showing various samples of prints and transparencies taken with large format gear and explaining with the samples the advantages we all know about Large Format Photography.
In my last workshop one of my students, (One of the just curious about Large Format), asked me why shooting large format today, when the gap in quality between a 36MP full frame SLR digital camera and 4x5 format is very narrow, the offer in film is reducing day by day, there is no color film available for 5x7, the scarce color film available for 8x10 is prohibitive expensive in Europe and the two major lens makers have drastically reduced their Large Format lens portfolio?. Not to mention the slowness of Large Format process in general.
I told him that Large Format helps to concentrate in the image, have a more reflexive approach to the subject, the distinctive aspect of a Large Format image and the pleasure of the process of "making" Large Format images.
Which are your reasons to shot Large Format?

[Harley Goldman]

I would agree with many of the comments above in that I just enjoy the routine in the field. I love to set up the camera, take my time, contemplate the scene, linger over the ground glass and I enjoy the manual processes of metering and the shutter. There is no processor to do any of the work, except the one between my ears.

I print digitally and I cannot say that I enjoy the scanning, the color corrections and the dust spotting. From the point after the shutter click, I would prefer digital. The files are very easy and quick to process. If I could afford a digital back, I would go that route in an instant. But I can't afford it. So I mostly shoot 4x5 film and occasionally shoot digital (the latter usually when hiking distances for the light weight or in rapidly changing light where speed is critical).

[AtlantaTerry]

My self I compare 35mm to the best of digital. Back the early 60's kodak had film for 35 to compare to the old LF film. This why the LF press camera died the new papers could use a roll of film over sheet. Today they use the digital work great for print.

Dave

I disagree.

Back in the early '60s I was a newspaper photojournalist. I actually started out at age 17 covering stories with a 4x5 Speed Graphic, pack film and flashbulbs.

When 35mm cameras such as the Nikon F came along it wasn't Kodak's film (Tri-X) that made a difference, it was the ability to use a SLR equipped with wide angle lenses, telephoto lenses and especially motor drives. AND we could quickly switch lenses in a few seconds. This revolution in technology allowed working photojournalists to cover a story far better and more in-depth than with our old 4x5s.

Also don't forget the parallel revolution in lighting. We were glad to get rid of flashbulbs and move to strobes. In a heartbeat!


Geez, I've gotta be one of the last working photojournalists who went from covering stories with 4x5s then to TLRs then SLRs and finally DSLRs. BTW, I still use my 4x5 gear when appropriate.

[smithdoor]

I only quoted items I read at the time.
I do agree that the motor drive film was a factor just think of that with 4" roll of film. The smaller camera and low cost of running was also a factor. I did not quote any thing I did not read at time.

I still have my Crown Graphic today and still use it. I also use digital, 35mm and 120 as need to keep the cost down.

Dave


I disagree.

Back in the early '60s I was a newspaper photojournalist. I actually started out covering stories with a 4x5 Speed Graphic, pack film and flashbulbs.

When 35mm cameras such as the Nikon F came along it wasn't Kodak's film (Tri-X) that made a difference, it was the ability to use a SLR equipped with wide angle lenses, telephoto lenses and especially motor drives. AND we could quickly switch lenses in a few seconds. This revolution in technology allowed working photojournalists to cover a story far better and more in-depth than with our old 4x5s.

Also don't forget the parallel revolution in lighting. We were glad to get rid of flashbulbs and move to strobes. In a heartbeat!


Geez, I've gotta be one of the last working photojournalists who went from covering stories with 4x5s then to TLRs then SLRs and finally DSLRs. BTW, I still use my 4x5 gear when appropriate.

[zelph]

For the same reason some of us still have and ride a Vincent Black Shadow and BMW R90s..., we enjoy the whole experience.

[MIke Sherck]

A few years ago I happened to be preparing to photograph the ruins of an old riverboat lock, in a wooded area on a local river. I had my 4x5 set up when I heard a group approaching. A local camera club had selected the area for an outing and members were exploring the old lock. The rapid plastic clicking of digital SLRs preceded their visual arrival by some minutes.

After several minutes photographing the old lock one of them noticed me standing at the base of the stream and a group of them came over to see the man in the funny hat and his old-fashioned camera. We talked for a few minutes; they asking me what I was taking pictures of, my watching in amusement as they listened to my answer then turned to face the lock from roughly where my camera was and fire off a dozen frames or more. We parted amicably and eventually the light grew soft and beautiful and I exposed a couple of sheets of film.

See? You get it, they didn't. It isn't a 'digital vs. analog' thing, it's the difference between someone interested in pictures vs. trophy hunters competing to see who can fill up more memory cards in the course of a day. They had no idea what they were photographing, or what I was photographing and in fact if you showed them one of their photos next to mine, I'll bet they couldn't see a difference. Not that there wouldn't be differences, because they never learned to see. If they had spent a minute looking at the light instead of the cracked concrete we'd have had a nice half-hour conversation before we all took our pictures.

Using a large format camera, with all it's 'process' and fiddlyness in use as well as in processing expensive film, has gone a long way in my learning to see. Had my passion been sports or wedding photography then perhaps I'd have a different viewpoint but I've tried both and thought them both a sad means of ruining a perfectly good hobby. :) That I've spent more than 30 years sitting in front of a computer monitor as an IT professional probably has something to do with it as well: when I come home from work the last thing I'm interested is doing something complicated on the computer.

Using a digital camera is a perfectly reasonable way of taking pictures and I don't resent those who choose it. In fact, I'm grateful to them for ruining the market for film cameras to the point where I can afford them. I have 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 cameras, lenses and film holders and all together I've paid less for the whole lot than a new Canon 5DII body would have cost me. And they'll never go obsolete, irreplaceable parts will never fail, and if I so choose, the only things I'll ever have to buy again will be film, paper, and chemistry.

I photograph because I love it -- every bit of it, from loading film holders to listening to the wind blow through tree branches or feeling the crunch of snow under my boots through trying to peer through condensation on the ground glass and prying a damp sheet of film out of the holder in a completely black darkroom and listening to try to hear where it fell out of my fingers onto the floor (carpal tunnel has gotten to be a problem in the past couple of years. Film becomes considerably more sneaky when your fingertips can't feel it.) When I'm locked in my little darkroom with Freddie Mercury or Mr. Mozart blasting from the boom-box and a print slides out of the fixer and I turn on the light to see it for the very first time, I can feel, from the callouses on my toes to that last stubborn hair perched precariously on top of my head, I'm doing exactly what I want to be doing, exactly the way I want to do it, and you could have a whole army of hyper-modern shooters with 3-d ray-tracing wundercameras pointing and laughing and I'd never know it; all I'd be able to see and hear, for that one moment in time, would be that new-born print, glistening in the bright light for the first time.

Hmm. I wonder whether that's too much contrast. Or maybe too little...

:)

Mike

[Jac@stafford.net]

Back in the early '60s I was a newspaper photojournalist. I actually started out at age 17 covering stories with a 4x5 Speed Graphic, pack film and flashbulbs.

When 35mm cameras such as the Nikon F came along it wasn't Kodak's film (Tri-X) that made a difference, it was the ability to use a SLR equipped with wide angle lenses, telephoto lenses and especially motor drives. AND we could quickly switch lenses in a few seconds. [...].

I was there too, working for daily news papers in Chicago. We 35mm fanatics were occasionally ridiculed for making so many exposures when a few would suffice. The same is cast against digital photographers today.

[Heroique]

The rapid plastic clicking of digital SLRs preceded their visual arrival by some minutes.

Shooting LF in the mountains, I've listened to large, carnivorous animals approach and investigate me, but luckily, I've never suffered such a horrifying experience as yours.

But I have always enjoyed the "crunch of snow under the boots."

Thanks for the fun story & musings.

:D

[Bill Burk]

A few years ago... If they had spent a minute looking at the light instead of the cracked concrete we'd have had a nice half-hour conversation before we all took our pictures.

Nice story Mike

[ROL]

A year ago I began to teach Large Format Photography to small groups of amateur photographers, (from 1 to a maximum of 3). Most of them are medium format users who want to go one steep beyond in image quality...

Perfect advertising for your next workshop: "Steep Beyond – The Black Art of Large Format Photography"


Merry Christmas, and to all a good night.

[hiend61]

You are fortunate to have groups of students who want to learn.

The student of photography should understand the history, processes and limitations that the photographers who came before them had to deal with, so they can understand better where they are going. The unique opportunity today is that all of the material needed to experience the traditional art of photography is readily available.

I talked with a camera store owner who said the parents were up in arms about a local school making the kids invest 400 dollars in film camera and supplies for a required first year intro to photography course, part of a digital photography curriculum. The parents say the kids will never shoot film. They got the school to change it to an elective, with predictable impact on sales.
They are not exactly students. The profile of my "students" is from 45 to 65 years old, amateur photographers, 50% men 50% women, they can easily have any photo gear they would want, and almost all of them say they want to learn LF to go a steep beyond, not only in image quality. I suspect most of them want a more satisfactory and enriching photographic experience and
they find this personal satisfaction in LF.

[hiend61]

Jajajajaja. Good idea!. I´ll probably use it.
Perfect advertising for your next workshop: "Steep Beyond – The Black Art of Large Format Photography"


Merry Christmas, and to all a good night.

[hiend61]

As I see from most of your comments, the enjoyment of the process is one of the main reasons to shot LF. I totally agree with this, because I consider enjoyment essential. From planning the shooting to look at the finished print there are many many steeps, all of them fully manual in which a lot of decisions have to be made.
Of course, It´s not the same to have some boxes with negatives than a memory device full of data.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Another IMHO: if the reader is viewing on a CRT then he cannot possibly appreciate LF today.

I do not mind being rude when I refer to network image critics as "scope dopes"

[Roger Cole]

When it comes to art, a perfectly valid reason is, "because I feel like it".

That's mine. :)

[Andrew Plume]

yes, it's for me, definitely "....the enjoyment of the entire process..."

setting up the Camera and looking at a whole range of different movements right in front of you and ending up with something different each time, has always appealed to me.....

plus also removing that lens cap for what you hope will be the right time

anyhow, a very decent ongoing discussion

regards

andrew

[Doremus Scudder]

A possibly different perspective.

My entire process of photographing is conceptually different when using a large-format camera with a full range of movements.

I don't point the camera at my subject, I project an image onto film; an image I have seen in my mind's eye (not through a viewfinder or on a small monitor or not at all) and have framed and composed using perspective controls until is says (or at least attempts to say) what I want to communicate. The concept comes first; the discovery is independent of the camera, which is only a rendering tool in the final analysis. And, for me, the movements make this rendering possible. I shot a lot of 35mm and MF in the past, but found myself longing for the image control a full-featured large-format camera provides. I loaded a roll of 120 into a TLR a couple of years ago thinking I would lighten my load and shoot MF on a particular outing. The camera is sitting on the shelf today, with three unsatisfying exposures on the mostly unexposed roll...

I don't focus on my subject, I choose what I wish to be sharp in my final print and use the camera controls and my technique to achieve that. This again usually involves movements. Often I don't spend much time looking at the ground glass; just enough to frame and choose focus points and set the movements. I spend my time looking at the scene, the light and shadow and other ephemeral aspects of a subject that transform a slice of reality into something transcendent. I am never looking through a viewfinder or at a monitor when I trip the shutter. All of these things aren't able to be done with a digital SLR (or a film SLR for that matter.)

I don't make many photographs, I spend my time finding and constructing meaningful images. The slower pace of LF and film lends itself to this kind of approach. The temptation to simply make a lot of captures and sort later is one that I choose not to expose myself to; I would likely succumb more than I would like and end up spending a lot more time in front of my computer than in the field with my camera.

Of course, there are digital backs for view cameras. The logical next question then is: Why film? and (for me): Why black-and-white?

I've alluded to the slower pace of using large-format film already, but there is another level for me. To use a comparison to music: Large format, specifically a 4x5 field kit, is my instrument. Black-and-white film is my style. Sure, I appreciate blues guitar and jazz, but my personal medium for expression is classical. I've studied the technique and the styles and spent years mastering the medium. I still find it a valid and relevant contemporary expression and find possibilities there that other styles do not offer. At the risk of being snobbish, I generally also find it to be one of the styles with more introspection, intellect and depth of expression.

Why shoot large format these days? For the same reason one learns the cello or singing opera; or seriously studies art, architecture or literature (and writing): For the love of the art and the style of expression defined by the medium and the things you can say with it that can't be said as well or as intensely any other way.

Best,

Doremus

[David Lobato]

I have often compared large format and DSLR's to musical instruments. A LF camera is like a violin (or other demanding musical interment), a DSLR is like an electric guitar. There are many similarities but important differences. An electric guitar can have a huge range of tones and applications for musical genres, like a DSLR with an enormous range of lenses and ISO sensitivities that can cover weddings, sports, journalism, etc. A violin has a narrower range of tones but the music that can be achieved can be exquisitely beautiful. So is the work that can be achieved with a large format camera. Both require dedication and long hours of hard work and sacrifice. I won't downplay dedicated DLSR shooters and guitar players' skills though.

[Cletus]

...Why shoot large format these days? For the same reason one learns the cello or singing opera; or seriously studies art, architecture or literature (and writing): For the love of the art and the style of expression defined by the medium and the things you can say with it that can't be said as well or as intensely any other way.

Best,

Doremus

Now I wanna change my earlier comments. Doremus, do you mind if I echo this sentiment exactly? :)

[Drew Wiley]

The first thing you want to do is throw away your stupid pixel-counting calculator and start looking at real prints instead of web hearsay and scratchy web images. That alone should dispel a lot of nonsense. But why do I personally shoot and print large format in this day and age. Because I want to.

[DrTang]

two things

okay three things


lenses: the lenses have more character... one can pick their rendering by lens choice at the same focal lengths


DOF: way more ways to play with, the bigger the imaging surface is


it's way cooler - it's big and heavy and difficult and clumbsy and old skool and prone to mistakes and ... well.. I also drive a 50 yr old car as a daily driver ..so..you know...

[ic-racer]

Which are your reasons to shot Large Format?

A bigger negative than 35mm and Rollfilm is easier to work with. Both in the camera and out.

[evan clarke]

Which particular "quality" are we talking about? Squirt an inkjet print with some water. Convince tour mind it isn't seeing a pixel pattern. The reason for LF is good photographs.

[David_Senesac]

I'm not versed on the subject though am curious where one is reading 36mp DSLR's like the D800 are approaching 4x5 film quality? Indeed if one is discussing the Phase One IQ180 or one of their MF P series backs for a Hassleblad or Fuji GX 680 or such I have read about that. All my LF work the last decade has been with Provia 100F color film that until I put my print business to sleep in 2007 as the economy began to tank, I had drum scanned then Lightjet printed. And I'm a outdoor landscape photographer of natural areas. So am not one of the many B&W folks on this board.

Unlike some on this board, this person is a peon that does not have the bottomless bucks to buy toys like MF backs and what all. Especially if one also has to buy one of those very pricy shift lens also. I already own a usable 4x5 system that was paid for back in the 90s that I long ago figured out how to get good results from. So there is that cost issue.


I was using Photoshop 3.0 mid 90s to process Pro Kodak Photo CD files which was a long time before even 1mp digital cameras came on the scene and have been working in Silicon Valley hi tech 4 decades mostly in engineering so though I'm certainly no imaging expert, I have been modestly involved as a user in much of the technical whatnot though recognize some on this board are far above my knowledge. And although I do not own a DSLR I have had compact digitcal cameras since the first 1mp's came out and have owned a Canon G10 since it came out that functionally has most of the same features of older DSLRs and menu functions. So am rather familiar with digital image processing. I've also seen a whole lot of digital prints in Galleries and art, craft, and wine type venues that photographers printed as large as my 40 inch Lightjet prints and others at 24x30 or such that I thought had mediocre resolution I would be embarrassed to have printed so large Thus many late coming digital photographers apparently have not seen much LF work in quality galleries. So I'll echo what Drew posted,

"The first thing you want to do is throw away your stupid pixel-counting calculator and start looking at real prints instead of web hearsay and scratchy web images."

I love looking at one of my 30x37.5 inch prints and marveling up close at the fine detail, especially when the subject matter can only capture such with a camera that has movements. A view camera with movements is going to kill the results of a fixed lens camera with subjects like this, regardless of a sensor's resolution:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/10-J2-3.jpg

And also enjoy looking a a big transparency on my light tables with a loupe seeing the same. Movements make a lot of difference in capturing sharp images in many of my images. I used a 6x7 with its fixed lenses for a few years and thought the improvement in image quality jumping to a 4x5 with view camera movements was much more than the increase in film size.

Another thing about DSLRs or my compact digital cameras I've always disliked is it has not been easy to get good color fidelity color results. Not the situation if one does commercial color work and runs profiles across one's full camera and processing system and shoots test images of MacBeth charts with each lighting subject etc plus pays X-Rite regularly in all manner of ways. But this person works out in the field. How many DSLR toters in the outdoors make that effort? Almost none and the camera manufacturers know that so have made little effort to improve the situation for anyone that actually is trying to capture reasonably accurate color images. Oh they certainly could and I wish they would because there are many advantages to going digital. So there are myriad outdoor digital photographers out there that after they capture some digital image, a few days later back on the ol computer have little ability to recreate even modestly reasonably accurate color even if they wanted to. With Provia the color is very consistent, quite close to what my eyes see, with only the compressed luminance a distorting issue one needs to pick appropriate subject matter to avoid. Get the exposure right and the color is usually good enough that when the public is looking at one of my prints it is really easy for them to see the difference versus many of the over Photoshopped happy slider bar prints one tends to see from many digital pro that ought to know better.

[Darin Boville]

I love looking at one of my 30x37.5 inch prints and marveling up close at the fine detail, especially when the subject matter can only capture such with a camera that has movements. A view camera with movements is going to kill the results of a fixed lens camera with subjects like this, regardless of a sensor's resolution:

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Gallery_B/10-J2-3.jpg

Why? From what I can see it is an "all in focus" shot of a static subject. This is exactly where a stitched DSLR image *excels* both in "quality" (defined here as resolution, subject detail) and in ease of achieving the result. Couldn't you have used a digital "fixed lens" camera to achieve this same shot at an even higher resolution? Even more of that amazing detail?

There are lots of reasons to choose LF over other technologies. I don't think this is one of them. :)

--Darin

[Arash]

You seem to all have accepted this false perception that a 36mp fullframe sensor has the same resolution as a 4x5 film. I am a kid who started photography with DSLRs and can't even decide where to start with Digital specific problems.

first of all, that 36mp sony sensor inside of a Nikon or Sony camera has a VERY high sensor aperture. 7360 photosites spread across 36mm. That's 7360/2/36= 102, let's repeat it in our heads again, hundred two line pairs per millimeter. Nikon is a good glass maker no doubt but still i would like to see ONE SINGLE nikon lens that can reproduce any acceptable contrast at that high of a resolution.

Oh wait a moment, that calculation is only valid if the photosites on the sensor are stacked one to one together without any wasted space between them. since in reality they do have circuits on the sensor the photosites are even tinier and more spread, requiring an even higher resolution lens.

Oh wait a moment, all this calculations were valid if the sensor was Black and White. Since these sensors are all Bayer patterned even with an IDEAL LENS which can resolve the required 200lp/mm they wouldn't output a 36mp picture.

On a Nikon D800 36mp Sensor YOU DO NOT HAVE STRAIGHT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LINES AT ANY GIVEN WAVELENGHT. the closest they come is to making one straight horizontal OR vertical green line and THAT IS IT, ONE straight line instead of the required 6(required for reproduction of circular color patterns).

And now let's forget how much data we are losing while doing all the debayering and color guess game and hundreds of different processes that are going on at the same time inside of a digital camera to output a picture.

Ok so what about film? 4x5 inches, a good normal Large format lens has good contrast reproduction ratios at 40lp/mm and film responses fantastically to that. That is 40*2*120= 9600 and 40*2*100= 8000.
9600*8000= 76.8 Million.

That's 76 million output real RGB pixels, a Digital sensor that wants to match that has to have 3 photosites on the sensor for every output pixel, which means an RGB 230 megapixel sensor that would output a 76mp image.

So until the industry has made a much larger sensor that has over 200mp photosites on it, no digital is not equal to 4x5 inch film, even in resolution, let's forget the color, let's forget the 8x10.

[jb7]

Because Photography doesn't have to be easy...

Would that make a good slogan?

[BradS]

Claiming that digital is better based on resolution is like saying that chips a'hoy (store bought) cookies are better than mom's homemade chocolate chip cookies because the store bought cookies are without technical defects.

[David_Senesac]

Why? From what I can see it is an "all in focus" shot of a static subject. This is exactly where a stitched DSLR image *excels* both in "quality" (defined here as resolution, subject detail) and in ease of achieving the result. Couldn't you have used a digital "fixed lens" camera to achieve this same shot at an even higher resolution? Even more of that amazing detail?

There are lots of reasons to choose LF over other technologies. I don't think this is one of them. :)

--Darin

Hello Darin,

That subject has considerable variation in camera to subject distance to its various frame sections, closest at lower right and furthest at upper right all in a relative tilted plain. Are they making DSLR lenses today with swing? I know they have tilt and shift? Without that aren't the diagonals going to get soft with just 4 panes to stitch? DSLR tilt lenses are all very expensive fixed focal lengths? So there's that cost issue again. A subject a view camera can adjust movements for to bring the whole frame into relative focus. Also during that shoot, after setting up and pulling out the dark slide, I had to wait 10 or fifteen minutes after setting up for the breeze to briefly lull so all the tiny flowers, especially those in the near quadrant stopped moving.

If someone using a high end full frame DSLR could automatically fire off 4 or 9 shots rapidly while the short lull occurred and then stitch the results together without losing resolution, then yes it may be possible. I'm not versed on the current state of top end software image stitching though what I saw a few years ago did not impress me much with larger prints. Maybe I need to see some current large print work? For example getting smooth color gradients across significant blue sky. Oh one can craft up some puny web sized image that may look great but to do so with large prints one views up close is another level of effort and time. I've expected stitching software would some day improve greatly so maybe you are correct now?

In the end, I prefer the notion of capturing moments in time with one operation. If top end DSLR's and current software can really deliver that today in order to create larger prints, then I've not kept up with current capabilities, am impressed, and you have enlightened me.

David

[Bernice Loui]

STOP !!!

These words of Digital -vs- Analog (film) will rapidly degrade into another war over Digital -vs- Analog.. It has happened too many times here and it does not need to happen again..

If one looks at the root definition of what makes any image worth while. It comes down to individual perception and expectations of what their idealized image should and must be.
For some it is all sharpness, technical based. For others it is much about how any image affects them emotionally and it's artistic value to that individual.

One of the very best things any image maker, artist can to is to study and experience the work of all those who have come before them. Learn from what has been done and what can be done.
There much value in the study of image making history and the world of art. Know this is not an easy task or knowledge/wisdom that can be gained in short time..

Know that manufactures are in business to sell stuff and make a profit which is part of what keeps them alive and well... until the greed factors comes into play or how does a manufacture grow their market and make as much profit as possible. In the case of digital imaging, look carefully at how all of this has been marketed and how the market has responded to these marketing efforts. Truth, facts are many times irrelevant in the world of marketing, it is much about selling stuff and the bottom line.

As mentioned before, Digital or Film, they are mere image making tools to be used by an image maker as a means to an end and newer is not always better. Many times newer can be just different and not better.


Bernice

[smithdoor]

It simple
The digital is great for low quality photos with fast turn around and low cost use for internet, weddings and news print/printing press. Digital quick use photo shop editing and on to upload or press .
LF is good for very low out put, but very high quality just look Ansel Adams work. LF is also good for sales as some other than digital this 15 years was the other way around when digital was new.
I use both LF film and digital both have there place.

Dave


A year ago I began to teach Large Format Photography to small groups of amateur photographers, (from 1 to a maximum of 3). Most of them are medium format users who want to go one steep beyond in image quality, and the least are just curious about large format and want to know more and try a large format camera.
I always introduce them to Large Format Photography showing various samples of prints and transparencies taken with large format gear and explaining with the samples the advantages we all know about Large Format Photography.
In my last workshop one of my students, (One of the just curious about Large Format), asked me why shooting large format today, when the gap in quality between a 36MP full frame SLR digital camera and 4x5 format is very narrow, the offer in film is reducing day by day, there is no color film available for 5x7, the scarce color film available for 8x10 is prohibitive expensive in Europe and the two major lens makers have drastically reduced their Large Format lens portfolio?. Not to mention the slowness of Large Format process in general.
I told him that Large Format helps to concentrate in the image, have a more reflexive approach to the subject, the distinctive aspect of a Large Format image and the pleasure of the process of "making" Large Format images.
Which are your reasons to shot Large Format?

[Drew Wiley]

There's something truly enjoyable about working with real gear, handling things in a real darkroom. Technically, view cameras still offer real-world advantages, like a big capture surface and perspective and plane of focus control. But in terms of life-experience, playing the equivalent of video games with some little electronic device with all sorts of flashing buttons and gimmicks never appealed to me. Nor does the thought of image management rotting in front of a computer, getting fat with a can of carbonated corn syrup and a bag of pork rinds, especially appeal to me. But I do love hiking over the hills with a big pack, stopping to view a wonderful upside-down opalescent image on a big groundglass. It's magic. Yes, the prints have a special look to. But just doing it, living it, is a big part of the reward. Last place on the planet you'll find me is in some noisy consumer electronics shop, getting all hyped up about the lastest silly thing, or in some stinky gym trying to get a workout next to someone else's armpit. Just give me a big steep hill and a big wooden tripod and an 8x10. That kind of gear never goes obsolete.

[E. von Hoegh]

When it comes to art, a perfectly valid reason is, "because I feel like it".

Yep, and I enjoy it to boot. I'm no artist, though - a craftsman is what I aspire to.

[DrTang]

It simple
The digital is great for low quality photos with fast turn around and low cost use for internet, weddings and news print/printing press. Digital quick use photo shop editing and on to upload or press .
LF is good for very low out put, but very high quality just look Ansel Adams work. LF is also good for sales as some other than digital this 15 years was the other way around when digital was new.
I use both LF film and digital both have there place.

Dave

If I shoot in a studio type situation - I use both..at least I know I got 'something' with my digital.. I can get the model something for her and I know I'm not coming home empty handed

then I can mess with the film - developing myself (sometimes), scanning, etc

Film is like a Christmas Present - maybe it'll be great..maybe it'll be horrible.. but half the fun is waiting to see

and with digital back up or 'addition' - it's not so nerve racking

[Stephen Willard]

You seem to all have accepted this false perception that a 36mp fullframe sensor has the same resolution as a 4x5 film. I am a kid who started photography with DSLRs and can't even decide where to start with Digital specific problems.

first of all, that 36mp sony sensor inside of a Nikon or Sony camera has a VERY high sensor aperture. 7360 photosites spread across 36mm. That's 7360/2/36= 102, let's repeat it in our heads again, hundred two line pairs per millimeter. Nikon is a good glass maker no doubt but still i would like to see ONE SINGLE nikon lens that can reproduce any acceptable contrast at that high of a resolution.

Oh wait a moment, that calculation is only valid if the photosites on the sensor are stacked one to one together without any wasted space between them. since in reality they do have circuits on the sensor the photosites are even tinier and more spread, requiring an even higher resolution lens.

Oh wait a moment, all this calculations were valid if the sensor was Black and White. Since these sensors are all Bayer patterned even with an IDEAL LENS which can resolve the required 200lp/mm they wouldn't output a 36mp picture.

On a Nikon D800 36mp Sensor YOU DO NOT HAVE STRAIGHT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LINES AT ANY GIVEN WAVELENGHT. the closest they come is to making one straight horizontal OR vertical green line and THAT IS IT, ONE straight line instead of the required 6(required for reproduction of circular color patterns).

And now let's forget how much data we are losing while doing all the debayering and color guess game and hundreds of different processes that are going on at the same time inside of a digital camera to output a picture.

Ok so what about film? 4x5 inches, a good normal Large format lens has good contrast reproduction ratios at 40lp/mm and film responses fantastically to that. That is 40*2*120= 9600 and 40*2*100= 8000.
9600*8000= 76.8 Million.

That's 76 million output real RGB pixels, a Digital sensor that wants to match that has to have 3 photosites on the sensor for every output pixel, which means an RGB 230 megapixel sensor that would output a 76mp image.

So until the industry has made a much larger sensor that has over 200mp photosites on it, no digital is not equal to 4x5 inch film, even in resolution, let's forget the color, let's forget the 8x10.

I agree with Arash, but I do things by eye, and I wish all of you could see one of my framed 20x50 prints hanging on the wall that I have shot with my 4x10 camera. The tonality is so creamy, and the color fidelity will blow you away. I have never seen any digital photograph come even close. Just for the record I have only sold a few 8x10 prints and just recently a hand full of 11x14 prints. My biggest selling print by far is the my 20x50 prints. They fit real nice over couches, and the power of those chromogenic prints are absolutely overwhelming.

That said, many of my customers find digital landscape photography suspect of fraudulent manipulations. They want to know that the guy on the other end of the camera is a gifted photographer and not a gifted computer geek. They want to know it is about human might and not computer might. At $1500 a pop, most of my customers want to know they are buying real art and not computer generated images. The feedback I have gotten about this is so prevalent that I have stated on the front page of my website, "I use only large format cameras and traditional darkroom methods. Absolutely no digital intervention is used in the production of my work."

[Jim collum]

I love large format for the love of the process, for the craft it provides, for the vision that using it can enhance. I love the feel of wood and metal. I love the ground glass, and the window of the world it brings to me.

It has nothing to do for me with how good or bad digital is. whether there is or isn't a higher or lower resolution camera.

I'd love large format even if there weren't digital cameras around.

[ImSoNegative]

I like to shoot LF because I like to be asked by onlookers if I can still get film for the damn thing.

[Fred L]

I like to shoot LF because I like to be asked by onlookers if I can still get film for the damn thing.

lol ^^ this. so true and one I always get

[vinny]

I agree with Arash, but I do things by eye, and I wish all of you could see one of my framed 20x50 prints hanging on the wall that I have shot with my 4x10 camera. The tonality is so creamy, and the color fidelity will blow you away. I have never seen any digital photograph come even close. Just for the record I have only sold a few 8x10 prints and just recently a hand full of 11x14 prints. My biggest selling print by far is the my 20x50 prints. They fit real nice over couches, and the power of those chromogenic prints are absolutely overwhelming.

That said, many of my customers find digital landscape photography suspect of fraudulent manipulations. They want to know that the guy on the other end of the camera is a gifted photographer and not a gifted computer geek. They want to know it is about human might and not computer might. At $1500 a pop, most of my customers want to know they are buying real art and not computer generated images. The feedback I have gotten about this is so prevalent that I have stated on the front page of my website, "I use only large format cameras and traditional darkroom methods. Absolutely no digital intervention is used in the production of my work."

interesting. I've never been asked by a buyer how I make my prints. Never. Plenty of questions by tire kickers but that's another story.

[Bill Burk]

interesting. I've never been asked by a buyer how I make my prints. Never. Plenty of questions by tire kickers but that's another story.

How do you make your prints? Oh shoot, sorry, I'm just a tire kicker.

[vinny]

How do you make your prints? Oh shoot, sorry, I'm just a tire kicker.
that's the spirit!

[MDR]

Because of the live view viewfinder in the back, it's bigger than any digital camera mounted viewfinder I know. :)
Honestly LF tonality rules nothing beats LF in that department. The bigger the film the better the tonality. I also can't shoot Calotypes and paper negs in a digicam.

[Jim collum]

Pretty much the same here. Only other photographers ask, and photographers may trade, but rarely buy prints. Most of the sizes sold are between 7" and 14" on the long edge. The majority of prints sold are Platinum. 90% of the images are from a variety of digital cameras.

I've been manning a booth at Photo LA for quite a while now, and have observed a mix of silver, ,platinum, & inkjet hanging being represented by the galleries showing. The driving factor in price is the name of the photographer... then the size. The percentage of inkjet has been growing each year, and i'd venture that it's the predominant medium used currently. Maybe this year, I'll go around and count just to make sure


interesting. I've never been asked by a buyer how I make my prints. Never. Plenty of questions by tire kickers but that's another story.

[Patrick13]

To answer the original question: shoot large format because camera controls let you stage shots that are technically very difficult to achieve in a digital system and don't have to borrow resolution against future post processing to make happen.

And you can do it using very inexpensive gear versus many thousands of dollars worth of camera and computer capable of doing that kind of post processing.

And that inexpensive gear will most likely outlive you and your grandchildren while the digital, not so much.

Any other logical argument can be defeated by claiming "chicks dig it when I whip out the large format."

[Robert Langham]

There is a elemental difference between setting your composition mechanically, with tripod, and free-handing it. Add that level of attention to having to learn to apply to a reversed image and I think that the differences between large format and nearly every other approach yield lessons that can't be learned otherwise.

107831

[mdm]

There is one thing large format has that no other format does. Large Format. That comes with some obvious disadvantages and some advantages, may of which are very subtle.

[Corran]

You seem to all have accepted this false perception that a 36mp fullframe sensor has the same resolution as a 4x5 film. I am a kid who started photography with DSLRs and can't even decide where to start with Digital specific problems.

first of all, that 36mp sony sensor inside of a Nikon or Sony camera has a VERY high sensor aperture. 7360 photosites spread across 36mm. That's 7360/2/36= 102, let's repeat it in our heads again, hundred two line pairs per millimeter. Nikon is a good glass maker no doubt but still i would like to see ONE SINGLE nikon lens that can reproduce any acceptable contrast at that high of a resolution.

Oh wait a moment, that calculation is only valid if the photosites on the sensor are stacked one to one together without any wasted space between them. since in reality they do have circuits on the sensor the photosites are even tinier and more spread, requiring an even higher resolution lens.

Oh wait a moment, all this calculations were valid if the sensor was Black and White. Since these sensors are all Bayer patterned even with an IDEAL LENS which can resolve the required 200lp/mm they wouldn't output a 36mp picture.

On a Nikon D800 36mp Sensor YOU DO NOT HAVE STRAIGHT VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LINES AT ANY GIVEN WAVELENGHT. the closest they come is to making one straight horizontal OR vertical green line and THAT IS IT, ONE straight line instead of the required 6(required for reproduction of circular color patterns).

And now let's forget how much data we are losing while doing all the debayering and color guess game and hundreds of different processes that are going on at the same time inside of a digital camera to output a picture.

Ok so what about film? 4x5 inches, a good normal Large format lens has good contrast reproduction ratios at 40lp/mm and film responses fantastically to that. That is 40*2*120= 9600 and 40*2*100= 8000.
9600*8000= 76.8 Million.

That's 76 million output real RGB pixels, a Digital sensor that wants to match that has to have 3 photosites on the sensor for every output pixel, which means an RGB 230 megapixel sensor that would output a 76mp image.

So until the industry has made a much larger sensor that has over 200mp photosites on it, no digital is not equal to 4x5 inch film, even in resolution, let's forget the color, let's forget the 8x10.

Question, since you've come out swinging against the 36mp sensor here...

Have you, you know, actually shot both side-by-side?

I have, and it's pretty clear to me that an image shot with an excellent Nikkor lens @ optimal aperture, compared to a 4x5 chrome shot at ~f/22 for DOF purposes (and the resultant diffraction) and scanned on an average consumer scanner like most have here, are about equal. Does it matter? Not particularly. I don't shoot with my Nikon D800E much because I prefer shooting film. But I tested this for my own curiosity.

[Drew Wiley]

I shoot large format because it's easier to silence nosey smart-alecs with a big Ries tripod, with an 8x10 atop it, than with a little wimpy tripod & DLSR. One good
whack is usually enough to end, "Whyya usin thet oooold thinnnnnnnnnnnng?"

[Flauvius]

Because we can, they can't, and we appreciate the difference!

Flauvius

[Arash]

"Average consumer scanner" being the keyword in your whole comment, I don't know about you but the pictures of the most newest digital gear makes me want to throw up.
Do you know what's the problem? the quantum efficiency of sensors is getting higher and higher every single day, which enables manufactures to make smaller and smaller photosites, therefore killing the image quality but keeping the spec sheet happy.
There are physical laws that manufactures can't fight, having a bigger picture surface helps with many many things when it comes to contrast reproduction and lens design. I attach a 6x6 photo taken on a twelve years old slide, i expect 15 years until digital sensors can reproduce these kind of color in this kind of resolution.
107870107871

[pdmoylan]

I shoot color.

Once one has the sense of what one wants to accomplish with photography (i.e. the goal), you use a type of camera that offers a final image closest to the the imprint of a scene in your mind. In other words, is the image best on film or digital and why? Forget about resolution and print quality for the moment, particuarly if all you want is excellent 16x20 prints.

There are some images with the D800 I cannot create on film (ISO flexibility and AF). On the other hand, I have great difficulty achieving the appearance of infinite DOF, equal center to corner sharpness, and the color contrast of 4x5 using the D800. If I want ultimate impact I use 4x5 assuming the results could be taken with equal success on both. In my experience, the "wow" effect of the 4x5 in combination with Velvia is without comparison in digital. I often bemoan that I cannot take an image using the view camera because I need a faster shutterspeed and I am limited to asa 50 or 100.

The primary reason IMHO to use color 4x5 is not for increased resolution but to use extensive movements!

PDM

[Corran]

"Average consumer scanner" being the keyword in your whole comment, I don't know about you but the pictures of the most newest digital gear makes me want to throw up.
Do you know what's the problem? the quantum efficiency of sensors is getting higher and higher every single day, which enables manufactures to make smaller and smaller photosites, therefore killing the image quality but keeping the spec sheet happy.
There are physical laws that manufactures can't fight, having a bigger picture surface helps with many many things when it comes to contrast reproduction and lens design. I attach a 6x6 photo taken on a twelve years old slide, i expect 15 years until digital sensors can reproduce these kind of color in this kind of resolution.

You are correct that the bottleneck is the scanner. I have a high-end scanner now and one of these days I might do another comparison. I know the 4x5 will come out as the winner by some margin, but likely not by a massive amount. Remember, I'm talking about resolution. Now you brought up "smaller photosites" and claim they "kill image quality." I think that's a ridiculous statement, and one oft repeated ad infinitum here, erroneously. It's simply not true, otherwise the 36mp D800 would automatically look worse than a 5mp D1X. Clearly this is not the case.

Now color and such is a different story. Many people have told me they can "replicate" the color of a Velvia slide on digital. I don't believe it. Haven't tried myself, because I'd rather just use Velvia. But it is certainly a contentious point. That being said, I hardly think a blown-out slide is a valid comparison.

[Arash]

Let's not forget that D1x is 12 years older than D800, if nikon made a new fullframe 5mp camera in 2014 and we set both d800 and the new camera at 5 mp and took a picture, the camera with the bigger photosites would have a huge advantage in image quality.
This is just the physical limitations, the size of photosites is set in stone(literally) and the lens has to have good contrast reproduction at that resolution. This is the exact reason Arri uses a 2k 6mp sensor in Alexa instead of a 14mp one with 5k output.

[Corran]

if nikon made a new fullframe 5mp camera in 2014 and we set both d800 and the new camera at 5 mp and took a picture, the camera with the bigger photosites would have a huge advantage in image quality.

Now take the full 36mp image and down-size it to 5mp in Photoshop with a good algorithm and see what happens.
The D800 file would be better.

The opposite would not be true.

[analoguey]

I dont understand the need to defend LF on film by critiquing digital. Or comparing it with digital cameras.
Film is more cumbersome in certain ways yes, but digital is too.
Let's talk of merits of shooting film than a comparison. If comparing, compare maybe an IQ back with Velvia (still not like for like) or scanning back with 4x5 film - 35mm to 4x5 is an apples to oranges comparison.

Everything modern isn't grand and everything old isn't 'gold'.

[Drew Wiley]

Why do millions of people in this country spend lots of time and money fixing up and driving old cars, when there's newer technology with much better gas mileage in
something far more compact and easier to park? Gosh this is an idiotic argument. Just do whatever you like.

[SergeiR]

Destination isnt everything. Journey counts too. And as Avedon used to say, when someone asked him about keep using 8x10 when obviously 6x6 and smaller cameras were more comfy - people really paying attention to you when you shoot something that big and wonderful.

People asking me specifically to be shot with 8x10 and larger simply b/c they enjoy process. Only one of my models asked me to not be shot with film camera in couple of years. And we dont really work together anyway. And i like to use 4x5->20x24 just because i enjoy how i get there just as much as getting results.

And yes - i do shoot digital too, when situation is calling for it.

[welly]

Why shoot large format? Because I like it.

[Arash]

I dont understand the need to defend LF on film by critiquing digital. Or comparing it with digital cameras.
Film is more cumbersome in certain ways yes, but digital is too.
Let's talk of merits of shooting film than a comparison. If comparing, compare maybe an IQ back with Velvia (still not like for like) or scanning back with 4x5 film - 35mm to 4x5 is an apples to oranges comparison.

Everything modern isn't grand and everything old isn't 'gold'.

Exactly, I was just trying to crack up the perception in this thread that somehow a small format 36mp camera has more resolving power than the big imaging area of large format, some of the most successful photographers(who have access to the best of both worlds) still use analog large format, just out of the need for resolution that their huge prints requires, and from a technical point of view we see why, when we look into it.


Now take the full 36mp image and down-size it to 5mp in Photoshop with a good algorithm and see what happens.
The D800 file would be better.

The opposite would not be true.

If we accept your "guess" then we need 36mp to get a good 5mp image out of it right? I don't know who you are siding with now, me or yourself? And if we don't, which is more likely, we still need to wait for the industry to catch up with some of the aspects of golden standards of the older times, like resolution and color, I'm excited about future and am looking forward to large format digital backs in the next 15 years.

This for me is not analog vs digital, they are very different technologies that can coexist, but right now, 2014, i have decided to go and invest in 4x5 and 8x10 cameras and lenses for my upcoming project(which requires huge prints). the decision was made purely out of studying the resolving power of each medium and quality of picture, and this is what was not referred to in this thread until i made my first comment, i don't care about the joy of big format or what the model or other people think about me or anything, i saw some prints, put the numbers down and made a decision. I bet there would be microlenses on top of paired RGB photosites on a large format sensor at some point, there is nothing more exciting than that, but right now we are not there yet.

[Corran]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. I'm saying that a "new 5mp DSLR in 2014" image will not look better than an equivalent resize from a larger megapixel image from a D800, and therefore your claim that "smaller photosites due to higher pixel density destroys image quality" is completely wrong.

[NancyP]

Why am I starting LF, after having invested time and effort in 35mm film and in digital? Bear in mind, I have not shot a single LF photo yet, I am still acquiring a basic set-up.
1. I want those movements!!!! for landscape and maybe architecture (and I can't afford a good MF digital back and the exotic Digitar grade lenses)
2. Challenge
3. Silver B&W images still mesmerize me, and the impact of contact prints or low level magnification (2x to 4 x) can't be beat
4. I feel a need for contemplation in my photography. I will continue to do some "run and gun" style photography as well, for subjects that are best served by that style.

[dave clayton]

Don't know if it's just me but when I shoot and process LF I feel more connected and the process feels more organic and natural.love that deep did that work breath as you take the neg out the tank is a buzz and it just feels like I've made an image not just hit a button imported and done

[Drew Wiley]

Two photographers get out of their cars on the side of the road to take a shot. The geek is fiddling with forty different things on his do-everything smart phone,
and while he's distracted taking a picture, doing a stock trade, playing a video game, and receiving a phone call all at the same time, he gets run over by a truck.
But the dude with the view camera gets run over simply because his head is under a darkcloth and he can't see what's coming. Take your pick.

[Richard Wasserman]

Ignorance is bliss....

I'd rather not know the truck is coming

[NancyP]

Real photographers take their cameras to the photo site on donkeys or llamas - someone on this site uses llamas. Donkeys at least are sensible - they will notice the oncoming truck, even if the 'tog is clueless......

[Drew Wiley]

What if llamas or donkeys are driving the truck? Does that make things any safer?

[jp]

What if llamas or donkeys are driving the truck? Does that make things any safer?

It could be safer since they don't usually text / instant message while driving.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah ... I know that people claim that the opposeable thumb was an evolutionary advance.... but sometimes I wonder...

[Sal Santamaura]

...the 'tog...Please don't do that. It'll make us suspicious that your recent membership is another bogus account by "the banned one." :D

The word is "photographer."

[NancyP]

Sorry, I had no clue about "the banned one". I was typing with fingerless gloves on, somewhat clumsy, and saw an opportunity to shorten a word. Henceforth the abbreviation for "photographer" shall be "P", at least until building services fixes the heat. (It is 60-65 degrees F, but my finger circulation is lousy).