The LF look

[Noeyedear]

I have just been browsing the web looking at pictures on various sites. The web should be a great leveler right, limited colours, limited resolution and limited size of image, so why do LF look different to the hundreds of small format images, it's not a perspective thing is it, we all know lenses do not alter perspective.
So do I imagine there is a difference or is it a tangible measurable difference. A 150mm on a 5x4 should look the same-ish as a 50mm on a 35mm right? especially on the web.
I bet someone here has shot small format next to LF to see, is it me wanting there to be a difference or does it really look and feel more classy side by side, like for like.

Kevin.

[Dave Jeffery]

I have just been browsing the web looking at pictures on various sites. The web should be a great leveler right

Most pictures posted on the web are not high quality, and even if they were, most monitors would not display them well.

[Noeyedear]

I have just been browsing the web looking at pictures on various sites. The web should be a great leveler right

Most pictures posted on the web are not high quality, and even if they were, most monitors would not display them well.

That's what I said. So am I imagining that LF still looks better.
I'm not looking at rubbish shot in small format, the subjects and composition are often similar to images posted on this site. The LF to me has a feel I can't describe, I am trying to figure out where that look comes from or is it my imagination.

Kevin.

[Ed Richards]

I have shot the same subjects, with the same care, with a D700 and with 4x5, with the results in black and white. While the look is not the same (I do not do faux grain), if the dynamic range is manageable, the digital images are every bit as good and look as good on the screen and in print, within their resolution range. It is clear to me that, movements aside, if you are doing books or the WWW, i.e., not doing prints bigger than say, 10x12, standard digital is absolutely as good as LF on tone and everything. Black and white film handles extreme contrast better, and fails more gracefully when it runs out of range. But with a scene with static content, I can just do two digital exposures and get the same effect.

And yes, since I do not seem to be making any big prints, I constantly question why I am still doing 4x5. But I do use movements a lot, and there is the therapy component.:-)

[Ivan J. Eberle]

One reason for the difference in look is that the term "focal length equivalent" between formats is a misnomer; the lenses are longer for large format. Hence the foreshortening effect is present to a large degree in many LF images. This flatters a great many subjects, from portraits to distant mountain scenery.

[BetterSense]

A larger camera will look different than a smaller one. It's just physics; you might expect a camera and an identical 1/2 scale copy to take images that look exactly the same but it doesn't happen, because light actually has a "size". So large format will have a unique look completely apart from issues of resolution or grain or tone.

[Ken Lee]

"the term "focal length equivalent" between formats is a misnomer; the lenses are longer for large format. Hence the foreshortening effect is present to a large degree in many LF images. This flatters a great many subjects, from portraits to distant mountain scenery."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read that foreshortening is a result of the distance from subject to lens.

From a mile away, the distance between the tip of someone's nose, and the rest of their face, is relatively small, while from 6 inches, the distance is quite pronounced.

Let's say we make a portrait, using a 100mm lens on 35mm film on a tripod. Never moving the tripod or the subject, and keeping the same magnification, we use a 160mm lens on 6x6, a 300mm lens on 4x5, and a 600mm lens on 8x10. In each case, the foreshortening will be the same, because the distance has not changed.

Another way of stating this, is that for a given format, lenses of "portrait" focal length, are longer than "normal" lenses for the same format, and allow us to shoot from a slight distance away. It's the distance that introduces a mild and flattering amount of foreshortening.

[Marko]

I have just been browsing the web looking at pictures on various sites. The web should be a great leveler right, limited colours, limited resolution and limited size of image, so why do LF look different to the hundreds of small format images, it's not a perspective thing is it, we all know lenses do not alter perspective.
So do I imagine there is a difference or is it a tangible measurable difference. A 150mm on a 5x4 should look the same-ish as a 50mm on a 35mm right? especially on the web.
I bet someone here has shot small format next to LF to see, is it me wanting there to be a difference or does it really look and feel more classy side by side, like for like.

Kevin.

Could it possibly be the photographer?

Did you compare LF vs. small(er) format images done by the same photographer? Someone equally skilled and qualified with both like Ed or Kirk here?

We all know that the piano doesn't produce good or bad music by itself, don't we? :)

[Ed Richards]

Diffraction and DOF interact and can change the look of the image. This is not an issue for most pictures, but an 8x10 portait taken with a 360mm 5.6 lens wide open is going to hard to duplicate with a 35mm because you are going to need about a 60mm f0.5.

[Steve Gledhill]

A larger camera will look different than a smaller one. It's just physics; you might expect a camera and an identical 1/2 scale copy to take images that look exactly the same but it doesn't happen, because light actually has a "size". So large format will have a unique look completely apart from issues of resolution or grain or tone.

BetterSense,
Please explain to me - just a physicist - what is this "size" thing that light actually possesses that gives large format its unique look.

And separately; I do believe the question asked by Kevin is interesting. I suspect individually that at web image sizes you really can't tell the difference technically - but as a "class" of images, large format have more of the organised, planned, deliberate look about them which may make them possibly identifiable as being large format. But before anyone flies off the handle about that, I am making a generalisation that make not stand up well to scrutiny for many individual images :)

[Robert Hughes]

Different formats, using equivalent perspective lenses? Of course the DOF will change if each shot was taken with the same f/stop. I'd say the major difference is a photographer spends more time making sure an LF shot is right before he hits the shutter.

As Marko demonstrates below, a carefully set up photograph can have a look that is almost independent of format.

[Marko]

I bet someone here has shot small format next to LF to see, is it me wanting there to be a difference or does it really look and feel more classy side by side, like for like.

Kevin.

OK, I'll bite, I did just the thing a couple of years ago or so. The image itself is nothing to write home about, I took it simply for comparison's sake at the time and the place where I happened to have both my DSLR and my 4x5 side by side.

http://48pixels.com/images/fdcomp/dch_071118.jpg

I did attempt to achieve the same perspective and generally the same look.

4x5 was shot on Tri-X developed in 1:1 D76 using a Caltar-S 90mm (Schneider SA) at f22 and the digital with an 18mm or so on a Canon Digital Rebel, 8MP APS-C, RAW, processed in Photoshop.

P.S.
I should also add that the 4x5 was scanned on a very marginal scanner...

[BetterSense]

BetterSense,
Please explain to me - just a physicist - what is this "size" thing that light actually possesses that gives large format its unique look.


Light has a wavelength, as you surely know, which effects diffraction. Different magnifications will produce pictures with different depth of field effects. Thus, the size of the taking camera matters even if you compensate for the magnification with a wider lens. The two different-sized cameras will not be equivalent. Or as was better put earlier, "Diffraction and DOF interact and can change the look of the image". It's a very complicated issue but all I'm saying is that two different size cameras can be expected to produce pictures that "look different", and it's not a surprising thing. I work with semiconductors and I can assure you that if semiconductor fabs could use smaller lenses and longer wavelengths we would save billions of dollars on photolithography equipment. UV light has been used for years and, and are looking into xray, electron beam, and nanoimprint lithography to print features even smaller. Light definitely has a "size".

[tbirke]

what I always wonder - if I shoot a night scene digitally and LF, with let's say f8 at 35mm and f22 at 8x10 - Do I have differently sized starspreads from highlights?

I suppose they should be smaller in LF, which gives the Image more precision.

[bdkphoto]

Could it possibly be the photographer?

Did you compare LF vs. small(er) format images done by the same photographer? Someone equally skilled and qualified with both like Ed or Kirk here?

We all know that the piano doesn't produce good or bad music by itself, don't we? :)

I'll bite. I'm curious to see if you can tell format just from the image. Visit my site
www.brucekatzphoto.com, and use the architecture and interior galleries, there are numbers corresponding to the images -see if you can tell what formats were used for each image. If anyone responds I'll be happy to grade the result.

One hint- the aspect ratio will not always help.

Bruce

[Noeyedear]

Is it I wonder a depth of focus issue, large format having greater depth of focus than small format.
The post about size relation to distance i.e. perspective, certainly what we all believe and provable, then again generally in LF portrait you don't need the percentage increase in focal length like you do in small format to keep things looking real, I think even Kodak said that many years ago.
When you put a 240mm lens on a 5x4 the effect on the ground glass is more pronounced than a 70mm in a 35mm viewfinder.
Here our some pictures that got me thinking, I thought lovely pictures but would they not of had something extra if shot on 10x8? http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=39690 would not the relationship of foreground to background been noticeably sweeter. It's that I'm trying to put my finger on, what is it or what is it the sum of?

Kevin.

Kevin.

[Noeyedear]

I'll bite. I'm curious to see if you can tell format just from the image. Visit my site
www.brucekatzphoto.com, and use the architecture and interior galleries, there are numbers corresponding to the images -see if you can tell what formats were used for each image. If anyone responds I'll be happy to grade the result.

One hint- the aspect ratio will not always help.

Bruce
OK neck on the block, humble pie on a plate in front of me,
Here is the spade I'm going to dig my hole with - 3,4,5,14, LF

Kevin.

[bdkphoto]

OK neck on the block, humble pie on a plate in front of me,
Here is the spade I'm going to dig my hole with - 3,4,5,14, LF

Kevin.

I'll let it go a bit longer to see if anyone else wants to join the fun.

Bruce

[rdenney]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read that foreshortening is a result of the distance from subject to lens.

You are correct. This comes up for debate often enough on many camera forums, and was the subject of some really length flame wars on a digital forum in which I once participated, chewing over the difference between APS-C and 24x36 formats.

The one difference is that depth of field is largely related to focal length, and focal lengths are larger for large format. Thus, it takes a smaller aperture to achieve the same depth of field, and that smaller aperture necessarily means a long shutter speed. When the longer shutter speed isn't feasible, the depth of field will be narrower, but we can fix that with camera movements. Thus, the focus plane will be unlike anything achievable without a tilt-shift lens on small format. Both of those contribute to the photo having a different look.

Example: If I shoot an image with no movements, using, say, a Speed Graphic, I need a fast enough shutter speed to allow hand-holding. So, I shoot the image at a wider aperture, maybe f/8, to allow a fast enough shutter speed. With a 127mm lens focused to 15 feet, the depth of field will range from a little over 12 feet to a little over 19 feet. With my Canon 5D and an equivalent 35mm focal length, the same 15-foot focus distance and f/8 aperture would yield depth of field ranging from about 8 feet to 135 feet. I'd need f/32 on the Speed Graphic to get about the same depth of field.

One of the reasons for the current craze with extremely selective focus is to show off a camera with a larger format--it's something very difficult or impossible to do with compact digital cameras.

Many large-format photographers take advantage of this by purposely using long shutter times to blur moving subjects, or by using movements to manage the focus plane without using a smaller aperture. Given the different focal lengths required, it's not possible to get the same balance between blur and selective focus or depth of field between the two formats, and a tilted focus plane makes the two quite different. These differences are not that subtle.

A more subtle effect is the construction of the lenses. Short lenses on small cameras have a retrofocus design, and short lenses on large-format cameras have a more symmetrical double-biogon or double-anastigmat design. Long lenses on small cameras are usually telephoto designs, while on view cameras they are more likely to be plasmats or tessars. Normal lenses on small cameras tend to be double-gauss designs while normal lenses on large-format cameras tend to be plasmats or tessars. Each has its own look, particularly in the transition away from the focus plane. One reason people revere Sonnars on smaller formats, as an example, is that they emulate the large-format look to some extent.

Large-format cameras are usually on a tripod, and not always at eye height. Small-format cameras, even when used on a tripod, are nearly always at eye height. The extreme example is in comparing Nikon press photographs with Rolleiflex press photographs from the old days. The TLR images are easy to spot--they are usually made from a lower camera angle.

Finally, the least tangible but possibly the most important difference is the way the photographer visualizes the scene when using a large-format camera versus a small-format camera. The visualization may be the same or may not even with the same photographer. It is quite likely that, on the whole, photographers who use small cameras approach their subjects differently than photographers who use large cameras.

It is quite possible to make photos that can't be distinguished when printed small. But this may actually be a subset of the possibilities. Also, the differences are more likely felt across the population of large-format versus the population of small-format images, rather than detectable per se in any single photograph.

Rick "who shoots in all formats" Denney

[Brian Ellis]

I think it's the OP's imagination. I dont think it's possible to reliably distinguish on a computer monitor (or even a print for that matter) which images were made with a LF camera and which weren't. I also disagree with Better Sense's theory that the size of light allows one to know that particular images were made with different size cameras. But I don't know for sure that they're wrong either.

So just for fun, here's four images of no particular significance made with different size cameras, at least one with a non-LF camera and at least one with a LF camera. I haven't made any effort to intentionally pick images that look like they were made with some format different than what they actually were made with to play tricks. They're just different format images chosen pretty much at random that I was able to easily find. Some were cropped so the aspect ratios and file sizes aren't relevant.

Perhaps the OP would like to try telling which one(s) is/are non-LF and which one(s) is/are LF. And Better Sense might try telling which was/were made with the smallest camera(s)and which with the largest. Or maybe there's more than two sizes, in which case he might pick smallest, next smallest, etc.

I realize of course that this isn't a scientific test of either the OP's theory that LF images just look different or Better Sense's theory about the size of light since it's such a small sample and probably for other reasons. I just thought it would be fun to see. Of course if anyone else who shares either of their theories would like to chime in that's fine too.

I hope that given the nature of the thread I can be forgiven for posting at least one non-LF image in the LF forum.

[Steve Gledhill]

Light has a wavelength, as you surely know, which effects diffraction. Different magnifications will produce pictures with different depth of field effects. Thus, the size of the taking camera matters even if you compensate for the magnification with a wider lens. The two different-sized cameras will not be equivalent. Or as was better put earlier, "Diffraction and DOF interact and can change the look of the image". It's a very complicated issue but all I'm saying is that two different size cameras can be expected to produce pictures that "look different", and it's not a surprising thing. I work with semiconductors and I can assure you that if semiconductor fabs could use smaller lenses and longer wavelengths we would save billions of dollars on photolithography equipment. UV light has been used for years and, and are looking into xray, electron beam, and nanoimprint lithography to print features even smaller. Light definitely has a "size".

I know light has a wavelength - as I'm sure everyone else here does. It was your introduction here of the unfamiliar "size" concept. In the context of light, I've never heard it referred to as "size" unless it's first been established that we're talking about wavelength. Your reference to "size" is as if there is some magical property hithertoo hidden from us mere photography mortals. :)

And you're right of course about DOF and diffraction effects. But the point of this thread as raised by Kevin (correct me if I'm wrong here Kevin) is that browsing images on the web he feels he can tell which are LF. These are web sized images which are generally massively downsized from their digital files or their scanned film files. So, huge quantities of data / resolution are ditched in the process of placing an image on the web. So, in many / most / all cases, the distinguishing effects of DOF and diffraction are lost for web sized images compared with their original. So, if you can pick out a LF image then it's almost certainly nothing to do with DOF and diffraction. It will be any one of a range of factors, some of which I suggested, as well as a particular one someone else mentioned - the photographer, or corrected verticals (yes I know you can Photoshop them), etc ...

Marko's pair of images above are interesting - I personally can't tell which is which. The one on the left has a little more contrast in the foreground but otherwise to me they're the same at the size he's posted them.

Now if the discussion was about images in the hand then I'd take a very different stance because there you are looking at detail and you may well be able to tell technically which is the LF. But the other less tangible factors will still be present too.

Bruce - very nice images, but at this size I can't tell whether they're LF or from something else.
Brian - I can't tell for sure - I'd just be guessing.

[Chris Strobel]

I dont think it's possible to reliably distinguish on a computer monitor (or even a print for that matter) which images were made with a LF camera and which weren't.

So then is it possible with today's technology, given a photographer has the ability to see, and is proficient with photoshop , to make large prints that rival say Ansel's Monolith, Clyde Butcher's Everglades, or Michael and Paula Smiths large prints with cameras other than LF view cameras?

[BetterSense]

It was your introduction here of the unfamiliar "size" concept. In the context of light, I've never heard it referred to as "size" unless it's first been established that we're talking about wavelength. Your reference to "size" is as if there is some magical property hithertoo hidden from us mere photography mortals.

I'm sorry I was probably being overly condescending; I forget that people on this forum are often very technically knowledgeable. The "light has size" thing is something that helps me to explain to lay people why I use a larger camera. They often ask what the difference is between a large camera and a smaller camera. I could simply explain that the negative needs less enlargement with a large camera but that's not the whole story, and so I tell them that big cameras are actually different than little cameras because light has size, and you can't simply scale a camera down and get the same pictures.

I have little to add to the main topic of how easily it is to distinguished scanned and downsized large format photographs compared to digital images from another source, except to point out that you cam mimic practically anything in a digital medium. A digital image is a digital image, and I have to wonder as to the value of making the distintiction between where the image originally came from. We all know that the main strength and feature of digital imaging is the ease with which the image can be changed. Discussing the relative difficulty of obscuring the source of the image kind of confuses me.

[Acheron Photography]

I think it's the OP's imagination. I dont think it's possible to reliably distinguish on a computer monitor (or even a print for that matter) which images were made with a LF camera and which weren't. I also disagree with Better Sense's theory that the size of light allows one to know that particular images were made with different size cameras. But I don't know for sure that they're wrong either.

So just for fun, here's four images of no particular significance made with different size cameras, at least one with a non-LF camera and at least one with a LF camera...


Interesting test. I think I agree with Brian - it is hard to tell which are and which aren't, and the look of LF is more an LF aesthetic, much of which can be produced by other means. (Parallel verticals in architectural photography being one obvious counterexample - it is often hard to get that without the flexibility that comes with an LF camera, although of course there are MF cameras with tilts, shifts etc.)

That said, I'd say image 4 was definitely LF, and 1 definitely wasn't. Anyone else care to embarrass themselves by guessing?

David.

[Ken Lee]

"So then is it possible with today's technology, given a photographer has the ability to see, and is proficient with photoshop , to make large prints that rival say Ansel's Monolith, Clyde Butcher's Everglades, or Michael and Paula Smiths large prints with cameras other than LF view cameras?"

If surveillance satellites can clearly discern automobile license plates from outer space, it might be a reasonable assumption.

Whether such technology is affordable for the average photographer - or LF photographer - is another matter.

Then there's portability to consider... :)

[domaz]

So then is it possible with today's technology, given a photographer has the ability to see, and is proficient with photoshop , to make large prints that rival say Ansel's Monolith, Clyde Butcher's Everglades, or Michael and Paula Smiths large prints with cameras other than LF view cameras?

Between stitching, multi-thousand dollar digital backs and high-end wide-carriage inkjet printers, yes it must be possible. Does that mean that's the road you want to go down? That's a very personal decision I think and depends on how you prefer to work.

[Chris Strobel]

"So then is it possible with today's technology, given a photographer has the ability to see, and is proficient with photoshop , to make large prints that rival say Ansel's Monolith, Clyde Butcher's Everglades, or Michael and Paula Smiths large prints with cameras other than LF view cameras?"

If surveillance satellites can clearly discern automobile license plates from outer space, it might be reasonable assumption.

I'm talking about cameras on earth :) I'm in the Los Angeles, Calif. area.Can someone point me to a gallery or museum in the So.Cal. area that has some large fine art/landscape b&w prints on exhibit that were not shot with a LF camera, but whose quality is indistinguishable from that done with a large format camera?I'm being sincere here.I am scrounging for reasons 'not' to dump all my 8x10 and 4x5 gear.

[Bill_1856]

I don't agree that any basic difference exists.

[Merg Ross]

... so why do LF look different to the hundreds of small format images.

Kevin.

Possibly due to a difference in technical skills.

In looking at my website, I can not discern a difference between the 8x10, 4x5 or 6x6 capture. However, a print in hand is a different matter.

[Kirk Gittings]

IMO in a website I think that LF looks different than DSLR because for most users the the methodology of LF image making is slower and more deliberate in LF than DSLR. It presents a more studied look. Which is why my work all looks pretty much the same. I spent 25 years solely using a VC and now I use a DSLR exactly as I use a VC, always on a tripod, with a cable release, long waits for the light to be right etc.

[jnantz]

I don't agree that any basic difference exists.

i totally agree ..

i have shown people prints made from small negatives and big negatives
and they weren't able to tell which was which
( not that i think they even cared )
i also have shown people light jet prints side by side
to darkroom prints, and they couldn't tell the difference between them either ...
(and they cared about the sgp v. light jet thing, and WANTED to see a difference )

[bdkphoto]

OK neck on the block, humble pie on a plate in front of me,
Here is the spade I'm going to dig my hole with - 3,4,5,14, LF

Kevin.

Kevin-

Thanks for putting your neck on the block. Alas, you didn't get any correct, and amazingly out of the 15 images you chose two of three that were from 35mm. (#3 was 35 film, and 14 was 35 digital) The LF images were 7,9,and 11, the rest from 6x7, #11 was 35 digital.

Don't worry about this at all -- all of this work has been in a variety of printed portfolios (c-prints, inkjet, and 5x7 transparencies ) over the years and shown to the best Art Directors, editors, and graphic designers -- my experience was that most everyone thought the portfolio was all from 4x5. If the conversation ever turned to format, it was always an advantage to have the work in smaller formats, especially when time or budgets were tight.

In the end, it's about the person behind the camera.

[Nathan Potter]

I would wholly agree with Brian Ellis, that when viewed on the web at rather puny resolution, one cannot tell formats apart with any degree of reliability. When, by chance, one gets it right, it is more likely by other visual clues found in the image such as perspective mitigation, near/far sharpness control, etc.

I suspect that statistics play a part. That is, one is more likely to guess right when viewing a plethora of mundane web images taken with point and shoot means compared with carefully composed LF images. The skill set of LF shooters will generally exceed that of the point and shoot or snapshooter individuals.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Noeyedear]

Kevin-

Thanks for putting your neck on the block. Alas, you didn't get any correct, and amazingly out of the 15 images you chose two of three that were from 35mm. (#3 was 35 film, and 14 was 35 digital) The LF images were 7,9,and 11, the rest from 6x7, #11 was 35 digital.

Don't worry about this at all -- all of this work has been in a variety of printed portfolios (c-prints, inkjet, and 5x7 transparencies ) over the years and shown to the best Art Directors, editors, and graphic designers -- my experience was that most everyone thought the portfolio was all from 4x5. If the conversation ever turned to format, it was always an advantage to have the work in smaller formats, especially when time or budgets were tight.

In the end, it's about the person behind the camera.

Choking on humble pie as I type.
It must be down to the photographer and methodology used like Kirk said.Or maybe the images that excite LF photographers have the "Look". I can't tell the difference after all.

Kevin.

[rdenney]

I would wholly agree with Brian Ellis, that when viewed on the web at rather puny resolution, one cannot tell formats apart with any degree of reliability. When, by chance, one gets it right, it is more likely by other visual clues found in the image such as perspective mitigation, near/far sharpness control, etc.

I suspect that statistics play a part. That is, one is more likely to guess right when viewing a plethora of mundane web images taken with point and shoot means compared with carefully composed LF images. The skill set of LF shooters will generally exceed that of the point and shoot or snapshooter individuals.

Nate, those visual cues are just was I was referring to. It's entirely possible to construct a comparison that shows no difference, or even a difference opposite of what one expects.

On the whole, large-format images will show depth of field AND subject motion in the same image more often. Small-format images will show depth of field WITHOUT subject motion more often. Of course, if the subject is static, the effect of the shutter speed will be harder to see. A large-format camera will only be able to achieve the same depth of field by using a slower shutter speed, often slow enough to have a visual effect in many images.

That's why one does not expect to see an 8x10 image of a waterfall where the depth of field is comprehensive and the water is frozen in place. But such an image is relatively easy with small format. The large-format photographer will have to do something the small-format photographer won't, and that something moves the comparison outside the range of a contrived example. The photographer will have to compose the image to not need as much depth of field, tilt or swing (or both) the lens to manage what is in focus, or just let the water blur. Probably he will just let the water blur--that is part of what makes a large-format photograph look that way. But all these responses will have an effect on the image even at small display sizes.

The small-format photographer might copy that large-format effect by using a neutral-density filter to allow the same slow shutter speed with a wide enough aperture to provide the same depth of field, in which case the two images will look the same if displayed small. But that is a contrived effect. Usually, the photographer will use the large-format camera within its capabilities and manage the image around those capabilities, and the small-format photographer will work within his very different envelope, achieving visually different results even at small display sizes.

I could go into my library and choose sets of images that would confound any attempt at comparison, but that would just show where those operational envelopes overlap, not where they depart. Looking at 100 randomly selected but accomplished art photos from small format and comparing them as a collection to 100 randomly selected art photos from large format would reveal these differences, and that might lead to the impression being reported here. Those differences would definitely have to do with the photographer, but with the photographer's response to real physical differences in the formats.

There are probably whole genres where there wouldn't be much difference. In architectural photography, for example, one usually has control of the environment and can use as long a shutter speed as necessary, with the objective of everything being sharp. And those who use small-format cameras to do architectural work often have equipment that allows many of the same image-management techniques. In portraiture, as another example, small-format photographers often use extremely fast lenses to achieve the same selective focus available at more normal apertures with large format cameras, specifically (though maybe without realizing it) to achieve the same look.

But that aside, I think the visual differences emerge as trends that reflect the different tools at hand, not as features that can be compared in all cases.

Rick "who manages images differently with large format" Denney

[Chris Strobel]

i totally agree ..

i have shown people prints made from small negatives and big negatives
and they weren't able to tell which was which
( not that i think they even cared )
)

Huh?I can go along with the viewed online thing, but even my wife who has absolutely no artistic prowess (and also doesn't care) can tell the difference in my prints done with a 35mm negative and 8x10 negative.You must be showing them pretty small prints, no?

[Darin Boville]

All of this technical discussion is missing the point and ignoring the obvious: There *is* an blatant difference between images made--ones that are actually made--with LF cameras ad those made say, with 35mm (or DSLR, etc).

Do this thought experiment: Put all of the LF images posted on this forum in the past five years into a big pile.

Now, put all of the images from the past five years from any 35mm or DSLR forum in another big, big pile. (Choose a serious forum, or sub-forum, not a cat-shooting forum.)

Have a friend randomly (and secretly) choose ten images from the LF pile and ten images from the DSLR pile and present the to you as two groups of images. You get to choose which group represents the LF pile and which group represents the DSLR pile.

Record your answer. Run the test again and again. Do it a hundred times.

Question: Wouldn't you think that your accuracy rate in identifying the LF images will likely approach 100%?

Doesn't that suggest that a difference exists?

--Darin

[Drew Wiley]

The web is a great leveler all right - sort of like a bulldozer crushing everything into
compact indistinguishable landfill.

[Kirk Gittings]

Yes Darin but the OPs original question seemed to be about distinguishing formats on the web. So many of the posts here specifically relate to distinguishing them on the web.

I agree I don't think comparing prints would be that difficult.

[Chris Strobel]

I agree I don't think comparing prints would be that difficult.

Ok I was getting a little worried here :confused:

[Darin Boville]

Yes Darin but the OPs original question seemed to be about distinguishing formats on the web. So many of the posts here specifically relate to distinguishing them on the web.

I agree I don't think comparing prints would be that difficult.

Actually, in my thought experiment I was thinking in terms of web images--don't take the "put 'em in a pile" phraseology too literally.

So put them all in two directories, all at the same file size, and I think my thought experiment will still hold true.

--Darin

[Kirk Gittings]

Actually, in my thought experiment I was thinking in terms of web images--don't take the "put 'em in a pile" phraseology too literally.

So put them all in two directories, all at the same file size, and I think my thought experiment will still hold true.

--Darin

I don't think so. Here is another dumb quiz, but if you are right it should be easy. Here is a portfolio from my website. http://www.gittingsphoto.com/gallery.html?gallery=New%20Architectural%20Photography%20Projects All are either 4x5 or 6x9 film shot in a 4x5 OR from a 22MP DSLR with TS lenses. At some point I switched from film to DSLR digital. Which image marks the shift to DSLR? Which image is
the first DSLR image?

[bdkphoto]

Actually, in my thought experiment I was thinking in terms of web images--don't take the "put 'em in a pile" phraseology too literally.

So put them all in two directories, all at the same file size, and I think my thought experiment will still hold true.

--Darin

Why not give it a real try as the OP did. Two web galleries - Interiors and Hospitality at my site -- 30 images in a mix of formats, pick the LF.

Link below.

[bdkphoto]

I don't think so. Here is another dumb quiz, but if you are right it should be easy. Here is a portfolio from my website. http://www.gittingsphoto.com/gallery.html?gallery=New%20Architectural%20Photography%20Projects All are either 4x5 or 6x9 film shot in a 4x5 OR from a 22MP DSLR with TS lenses. At some point I switched from film to DSLR digital. Which image marks the shift to DSLR? Which image is
the first DSLR image?

You beat me to it- BTW I'm using the new 24 TSE on Friday, if you're interested I'll give you my thoughts.

Bruce

[Chris Strobel]

I don't think so. Here is another dumb quiz, but if you are right it should be easy. Here is a portfolio from my website. http://www.gittingsphoto.com/gallery.html?gallery=New%20Architectural%20Photography%20Projects All are either 4x5 or 6x9 film shot in a 4x5 OR from a 22MP DSLR with TS lenses. At some point I switched from film to DSLR digital. Which image marks the shift to DSLR? Which image is
the first DSLR image?

At those small sizes Kirk to me its impossible to tell.Where I can sometimes see a difference is when browsing flickr, photo.net, pbase, etc. where people tend to post much bigger versions of their images than you pro's do, and usually its the digital images that look better, to me at least.I assume you use the 5DmkII now?Have you replaced your b&w work with it too?

Chris

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Bruce. I've owned one for some time. IME It is a significant upgrade from the old one in terms of less CA corner resolution, barrel distortion etc. and a bit better than the Nikon too. The rotating tilt mechanism (that you can truly lockout) is the bomb.

[Kirk Gittings]

At those small sizes Kirk to me its impossible to tell.Where I can sometimes see a difference is when browsing flickr, photo.net, pbase, etc. where people tend to post much bigger versions of their images than you pro's do, and usually its the digital images that look better, to me at least.I assume you use the 5DmkII now?Have you replaced your b&w work with it too?

Chris

Chris, I do use the 5DMII. I have done some satisfying b&w work with the DSLR, mainly stitches, but overall I guess I still prefer the big camera for landscape. I actually have work in two shows right now in ABQ that are b&w prints from DSLR stitches and they work well.

[Chris Strobel]

Kirk, where can one view your prints if they are in the So.Cal. area?Do you have any gallery representation out here by any chance?

Chris

[cjbroadbent]

I've got a page of LF/digital comparisons (same subjects, same light) here (http://picasaweb.google.com/cjbroadbent/Formats?feat=directlink).
You can spot the 8x10s because they are flatter. Otherwise, all you get out of web-size jpegs is the feeling that you can probably add more mood outside the darkroom. There are no clues on the other page ('downstairs/halfplate') and a quarter of the shots were digital and unrecognisable as such.

[rdenney]

Thanks Bruce. I've owned one for some time. IME It is a significant upgrade from the old one in terms of less CA corner resolution, barrel distortion etc. and a bit better than the Nikon too. The rotating tilt mechanism (that you can truly lockout) is the bomb.

Yes, I've been having serious palpitations over the new 24, and also over the 17. I do notice all the faults you mention on my 24mm Mark I, even with a 5DI. But it has a real advantage over the new one: I already own the damn thing.

Of course, I've been told that I can buy the 17, put it on a 1.4 teleconverter, and it will still out-perform the old 24.:(

Rick "who would buy it in a flash if grocery money depended on it" Denney

[Brian Ellis]

Interesting test. I think I agree with Brian - it is hard to tell which are and which aren't, and the look of LF is more an LF aesthetic, much of which can be produced by other means. (Parallel verticals in architectural photography being one obvious counterexample - it is often hard to get that without the flexibility that comes with an LF camera, although of course there are MF cameras with tilts, shifts etc.)

That said, I'd say image 4 was definitely LF, and 1 definitely wasn't. Anyone else care to embarrass themselves by guessing?

David.

Not bad David - the first is from a 6x7 negative, the 4th is from 4x5. The second is from 6x7, the third is from 8x10.

[bdkphoto]

Thanks Bruce. I've owned one for some time. IME It is a significant upgrade from the old one in terms of less CA corner resolution, barrel distortion etc. and a bit better than the Nikon too. The rotating tilt mechanism (that you can truly lockout) is the bomb.

Thanks- I should have asked you! For some reason I thought you hadn't gotten it yet, my bad.

[Mark Sawyer]

To quote the old adage, "it's not the size, it's what you do with it..."

I think that, among other things, lf photographers see a bit differently. We see upside down, which gives a different impression of the composition. Every composition takes much, much longer to compose; it's like the difference between scoring a musical piece and "jamming". And as every image is an investment of time, effort, and money, there is a different approach.

There is also a much different dynamic range to film. A scan from a well-made print is very different from a purely digital capture. (And no, an HDR image does not look the same as an image from a well-made negative.)

[Darin Boville]

I don't think so. Here is another dumb quiz, but if you are right it should be easy. Here is a portfolio from my website. http://www.gittingsphoto.com/gallery.html?gallery=New%20Architectural%20Photography%20Projects All are either 4x5 or 6x9 film shot in a 4x5 OR from a 22MP DSLR with TS lenses. At some point I switched from film to DSLR digital. Which image marks the shift to DSLR? Which image is
the first DSLR image?

Hey Kirk,

I'm afraid your images are so small that I can't even make them out without my reading glasses, let alone guess the format :)

But my real point, and the point of my thought experiment, is that when you look at images made with LF cameras, especially current ones, you can easily pick them out. There will be cases where the difference os impossible or difficult to make out but when you are looking at ten randomly chosen images from the "LF Pile" vs. those from the "DSLR pile" you easily avoid these outlier examples.

This isn't a lines per millimeter sort of question...it is not even really just a "LF Aesthetic" question. It is just a recognition that the technical aspects of a mode of image production (say, using a LF camera) make certain sorts of images easier to make and certain sorts harder to make. And all that is embedded in a sort of social value system that further encourages certain kinds of work with those cameras.

You can know the forum you are on simply by looking at the images.

If your DSLR photos where mixed up in the pile of images from the DSLR forum and I looked at ten random selections I would wouldn't be fooled for a second.

--Darin

[pocketfulladoubles]

I just thought it was a DOF difference. Say you have available light for a portrait and that gives 1/60 at f/8. That's the same for 35mm and 4x5, right? But, you'd take an 85mm for your 35mm and a 240mm for your 4x5 (more or less). That's going to yield a totally different look with respect to DOF, no?

[Ed Richards]

> And no, an HDR image does not look the same as an image from a well-made negative.

How sure are you of that?

http://www.epr-art.com/working/ft_pike_hdr_1.jpg

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk, where can one view your prints if they are in the So.Cal. area?Do you have any gallery representation out here by any chance?

Chris

Not at the moment Chris. Sorry.

[Kirk Gittings]

This isn't a lines per millimeter sort of question...it is not even really just a "LF Aesthetic" question. It is just a recognition that the technical aspects of a mode of image production (say, using a LF camera) make certain sorts of images easier to make and certain sorts harder to make. And all that is embedded in a sort of social value system that further encourages certain kinds of work with those cameras.

Maybe you could translate this?


If your DSLR photos where mixed up in the pile of images from the DSLR forum and I looked at ten random selections I would wouldn't be fooled for a second.

I'm not trying to fool anyone.

[Mark Sawyer]

> And no, an HDR image does not look the same as an image from a well-made negative.

How sure are you of that?


I'm sure, though I don't care to play "double-dog-dare-you" with nothing but low-res scans to go by.

But hopefully, some will recognize the difference between one long, carefully-crafted tonal scale and a bunch of short, segmented scales jigsawed end-to-end after the fact.

Perhaps a human musician can play only so fast, but he is a human musician, and something of that, I hope, remains in the performance. That a computer programmer can generate something that plays the same notes ten times faster does not make the programmer a better musician.

Of course, in the end, it's not how fast the notes are played, or how they're generated, but what one does with them, towards something else...

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g139/Owen21k/eye4aneye-1.jpg

[Darin Boville]

Maybe you could translate this?

Well, we are talking about how images are actually made--the real images that are produced in the world, right? I mean, we can say that "I can make a print from 35mm neg (or a jpg) that will look just like one from an 8x10 under certain conditions" and that is undoubtably true. But that is sort of like saying "I can make ground lamb taste like ground beef under certain conditions." Also equally true but it misses the point that you won't generally mistake lamb from beef.

Fine. So we have two random piles (directories) of images. One of LF images from this forum. One of DSLR images from some other serious photo forum (your pick). We look at ten images from one set (ten instead of a single image since we are trying to avoid seeing only those rare images where beef tastes like lamb) and ten images from the other set. Which set is which?

It should be easy. Given the nature of the technology for LF cameras certain kinds of photos are easier (not *easy*--easier!) and thus more likely to appear. And since the cameras don't take picture by themselves we have to take into account that the photographer is part of a social structure that encourages certain kinds of images, shot in certain ways. Ditto for the DSLR images, although what is easier and what is encouraged will differ in important respects.

To decide if the set is LF images you'd look for static scenes, landscapes (especially in California National Parks), B&W images, formal poses, a fairly limited range of lenses used, deep or extremely shallow focus effects, lack of converging lines, lack of grain or noise, subjects photographed in "good" light, etc.

For DSLR you look for things like moving subjects, subjects apparently unaware they are being photographed, color images (often luridly so), a wide range of lenses used, wild animals as subjects, non-level horizons, grain/noise, subjects photographed in a wide variety of lighting conditions, from daylight to on-camera flash, to "low-light,", etc etc.

So, to summarize, it might be hard to look at two specific images and tell which format was used but select just a handful on a random basis from a large pool of images and I bet you can easily tell which set is which.

--Darin

[rdenney]

Maybe you could translate this?

I'll give it a whack, but it's really what I've been saying.

Rhetorical question: Is this image large or small format?

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/seattle-waterfront-fountain.jpg

Since my question is rhetorical, I'll answer it: It was made using an APS-C-sized camera (I hope to be forgiven for posting it here). Freezing that dancing water required a fairly fast shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second. With a lens of 20mm, an aperture of f/11 provides significant depth of field. Focused at 10 feet, the depth of field is a little over 3 feet to infinity. The ISO was already increased to permit the fast shutter and the small (by the standards of the format) aperture.

With a 4x5, the 1/1000 shutter speed would have consequences. One of those consequences would be that we would have to use a Speed Graphic, since there is no large-format lens shutter in common use that goes that fast. But let's go with it. We'd need a 100mm lens to provide the same field of view on 4x5. Focused at 10 feet, f/11 would provide depth of field from 7.5 to 15 feet--not enough for this image. The image would therefore look different, even on the web. Even f/45 doesn't provide the same depth of field, but it's in the ballpark and within what could be detected in a small display. But at f/45, my shutter speed would drop to 1/60 and the drops would be smeared visibly. To get the same exposure, I would therefore either have to give up depth of field or give up freezing the water drops.

Here's the point: The large-format photographer would likely have visualized the image with smeared drops, while with the small camera I was using I could visualize them with crisp drops. I give up the ability to print it large, but that isn't important in the web domain. Since large-format photographers (no matter what equipment they actually use) visualize within the envelope of large-format capabilities, their pictures end up looking different.

That's why your pictures have that sensibility even when you use your DSLR, and why your pictures would have a different look than those whose sensibilities are defined by their DSLRs. Frankly, that sounds like a supreme compliment to me.

Rick "thinking the above image would be simply impossible with a large-format camera" Denney

[Marko]

To decide if the set is LF images you'd look for static scenes, landscapes (especially in California National Parks), B&W images, formal poses, a fairly limited range of lenses used, deep or extremely shallow focus effects, lack of converging lines, lack of grain or noise, subjects photographed in "good" light, etc.

For DSLR you look for things like moving subjects, subjects apparently unaware they are being photographed, color images (often luridly so), a wide range of lenses used, wild animals as subjects, non-level horizons, grain/noise, subjects photographed in a wide variety of lighting conditions, from daylight to on-camera flash, to "low-light,", etc etc.


What you seem to be saying, in other words, is that small format photographers do not do landscapes, stationary subjects nor B&W, nor do they know how to use "good" light or even how to level the horizon, while LF photographers never use Velvia nor flash and only stick to one or two lenses and types of light?

I will agree that a high-speed sports or wildlife action is very unlikely to be shot using LF (or even MF), but that's about as far as my agreement with this statement goes.

Light is light, physics is physics and skill is skill. Cameras are just tools to be used (or misused) by the photographer. Comparing "typical", i.e. average images from different, specialized sources simply reinforces stereotypes and biases.

Or to rephrase it a bit - there is absolutely nothing that would prevent a photographer to put a small format camera on a tripod, level the horizon, carefully compose, wait for the light to be just right, measure the light and finally expose a static scene.

Except for the photographer him(or her)self, which is exactly my point.

[Darin Boville]

>>What you seem to be saying, in other words, is that small format photographers do not do landscapes, stationary subjects nor B&W, nor do they know how to use "good" light or even how to level the horizon, while LF photographers never use Velvia nor flash and only stick to one or two lenses and types of light?<<

I'm not saying that at all.... :)

--Darin

[Marko]

OK, then I misunderstood... :)

[rdenney]

OK, then I misunderstood... :)

Marko, the point is not a value judgment. It's that the large cameras avail themselves to a certain aesthetic because they impose limitations within which that aesthetic is both feasible and artistic. Small cameras avail themselves to a broader range of aesthetic possibilities, as long as one is willing to live with the limitations of the size of the format on resolution and tonality (as we are when constraining the display medium to a computer monitor). Thus, those who use the former tend to be those who prefer the compatible aesthetic, and those who use the latter likewise. I don't see this as an insult to either, nor is it a challenge.

Achieving the large-format aesthetic on small format is possible, and those whose aesthetic goals and skills are well enough formed will do so when they want to. It is more difficult to achieve some of the effects possible with a small camera using a large camera, and in some cases may be impossible. But there are some large-camera effects difficult or impossible on small cameras, even when constrained by small displays. So, the small cameras allow a different aesthetic, and those to whom that aesthetic appeals will use them. The different ranges of aesthetic possible with the extremes of format size seem to me unassailable (since nobody seems prepared to assail what I've said, preferring instead to assail those who are making it into a value thing), and it seems reasonable that those differences will emerge in any random sample of sufficient size. I found an image in my own online collection that would have been impossible using a large-format camera, and I wasn't even trying to make one that way. I just visualized the image a certain way, and instead of changing to a visualization more compatible with a large camera, I used a small camera. Either would have been equally likely.

I have seen a portrait made last year using an 8x10 camera where the depth of field and the transition away from the focus plane could not possibly have been made with a small camera. There is just no way a small camera can duplicate the effect of a 360mm lens at f/5.6 making a 1:2 full-face portrait on 8x10. The effect was haunting in that particular image with only the eyes in sharp focus, and the photographer was clearly exploring a corner of the range of that camera not available to small format photographers. An f/1.0 55mm lens on a 35mm camera would have still had twice the depth of field with the attendant very different look in the out of focus areas.

Turning this into a reason to declare one better than the other just confuses the issue by raising hackles rather than reasoned rebuttals.

Rick "the only one offering examples where the format MUST be yield different results" Denney

[Marko]

Rick, that is why I said I misunderstood.

It was just too easy to see the part about landscapes, non-converging lines and "good" light vs. lurid colors and non-level horizons in particular and take it out of larger context.

With so many this vs. that threads concentrating on equipment, it simply didn't occur to me to put the proverbial camera on a tripod and make a more careful composition, so to speak. :)

[Darin Boville]

>>I found an image in my own online collection that would have been impossible using a large-format camera<<

I think I could do it with 4x5 :)

I could go to your location at night and illuminate the entire foreground with electronic flash, freezing the water at a slow shutter speed (f/45, of course). The sky? Long exposure lit by the moon, maybe?

Which underscores the point. If we had come across your image without knowing the way in which it was made we might not be 100% sure it was a DSLR but the odds would be way in our favor. Occasionally you'll run into a situation where you are fooled but with even small random samples the format should be obvious.

It's a strange debate, really. There *must* be visual differences in the formats, and compelling ones at that, or else why would we bother?

--Darin

[Noeyedear]

As I proved a few posts back I can't tell the difference on the web. What started me thinking I could was this shot from another thread, I looked at it and thought it screams LF, I'm still sure that if it had been done on a Canon it would of been a totally different picture. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=483357&postcount=319
Also in the thread are many images by Jiri, I also think they shout LF. Now I am thinking it's the mindset of the chap with the camera. That state of mind is effected by the camera the photographer is used to using, the discipline of LF shows through more than the technical side of the equipment. So if you approach a subject with the LF state of mind a point and shoot would look the same on the web.

Kevin.

[Marko]

As I proved a few posts back I can't tell the difference on the web. What started me thinking I could was this shot from another thread, I looked at it and thought it screams LF, I'm still sure that if it had been done on a Canon it would of been a totally different picture. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=483357&postcount=319
Also in the thread are many images by Jiri, I also think they shout LF. Now I am thinking it's the mindset of the chap with the camera. That state of mind is effected by the camera the photographer is used to using, the discipline of LF shows through more than the technical side of the equipment. So if you approach a subject with the LF state of mind a point and shoot would look the same on the web.

Kevin.

I am pretty sure that the photographer to whose image you linked could have - no, would have produced the same kind of image if what he had at that place and time was a Canon instead of an LF.

There is nothing inherently LF in that image itself, it all comes from photographer's vision and skill. But LF being expensive and demanding in commitment, both in financial and in LOE terms, people don't stumble into it by chance or casually. That fact in itself produces different percentage of high quality images in the total output than in any smaller format.

These are asymmetrical facts - they don't apply in reverse. LF is at the far edge of the distribution curve and the smaller formats are closer to the peak, but the curve itself is not a function of hardware but of photographer's skill.

Granted, there are classes of images that each format naturally excels at, some of them even to the point of exclusivity, but those are mostly extremes. Much bigger limitation could , IMO, be a level of photographer's skill within a particular technology/workflow.

[rdenney]

Granted, there are classes of images that each format naturally excels at, some of them even to the point of exclusivity, but those are mostly extremes. Much bigger limitation could , IMO, be a level of photographer's skill within a particular technology/workflow.

The tricky bit is drawing the line between these, if indeed a line must be drawn. The equipment affects the photographer's vision, and the photographer's vision explores the capabilities of the equipment. Yes, LF photographers are out on the tail of the distribution in terms of care and quality (or it is to be hoped), but they are also out on the tail of a different distribution of having an intimate relationship with the capabilities of their equipment and knowing what they want from it. I'm quite sure there are small-format photographers whose understanding of their cameras is as comprehensive and practiced as it is for large-format photographers, but if you compare the works, differences will likely be seen.

The example of Jiri's excellent work seems to me to exemplify the influence of the photographer more than the equipment. His work has a contemplative and harmonious balance that is often lacking in small-format work, but this isn't the result of the format as much as it is the approach. But the equipment enforces that approach or it doesn't, and certainly many of us lack Jiri's eye but still struggle with big equipment.

By altering the solution space, the equipment affects the decisions made by the photographer. The examples I gave were such that no solution existed in the other format, but it's not a sharp boundary around the edges of those solution spaces. Even where an image is possible with both, the equipment will influence one approach versus another approach with the change in format and equipment size. Even images that seem hard to distinguish will have subtle effects--the tilted focus plane that might even be all that apparent initially, the motion effects of moving subjects, the selection of subjects will all cause a body of large-format work to have a different feel than small-format work, unless the photographer's vision is so strong one way or the other that they force the equipment to cross that boundary.

One more comparison from me:

Would most LF photographers visualize this image this way using a LF camera:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/san-jose-tower-lores.jpg

Would most small-format photographers visualize this image this way with their DSLR?

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/Concepcion022793-8_lores.jpg

Both images are possible in both formats, of course. But I think both reflect choices compatible with the solution spaces presented by the equipment. I think it would be difficult to compare these on the basis of quality, but most LFers wouldn't exaggerate the vertical perspective in the first image quite that way, and most DSLRers wouldn't choose such a dark black and white rendering, in addition to desiring an image with so much tiny detail and texture, in the second.

Rick "and both effectively avoid the quality issue:( " Denney

[Kirk Gittings]

the discipline of LF shows through more than the technical side of the equipment.

Bang on Kevin.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . It's a strange debate, really. There *must* be visual differences in the formats, and compelling ones at that, or else why would we bother?Darin

The OP was talking about viewing images on the web, where there really isn't any compelling reason I know of to use a LF camera.

As for prints, the reasons why I started out with LF no longer apply (at my usual print sizes the differences in technical quality between 4x5 and my digital gear aren't big enough to matter if they exist at all and I can make most of the same corrections in Photoshop that I used to make with camera movements). I continue to "bother" (or will again soon) because I enjoy LF photography much more than using my digital camera. But I'm not kidding myself that there's any real consistent, obvious technical quality reason for using LF at my usual print sizes of roughly 12x16 and smaller.

[Chris Strobel]

The OP was talking about viewing images on the web, where there really isn't any compelling reason I know of to use a LF camera.

As for prints, the reasons why I started out with LF no longer apply (at my usual print sizes the differences in technical quality between 4x5 and my digital gear aren't big enough to matter if they exist at all and I can make most of the same corrections in Photoshop that I used to make with camera movements). I continue to "bother" (or will again soon) because I enjoy LF photography much more than using my digital camera. But I'm not kidding myself that there's any real consistent, obvious technical quality reason for using LF at my usual print sizes of roughly 12x16 and smaller.

Brian. I've always admired your style.If you don't mind me asking, what digital camera and lenses are you now using?

Thanks.................Chris

[Darin Boville]

The OP was talking about viewing images on the web, where there really isn't any compelling reason I know of to use a LF camera.

As for prints, the reasons why I started out with LF no longer apply (at my usual print sizes the differences in technical quality between 4x5 and my digital gear aren't big enough to matter if they exist at all and I can make most of the same corrections in Photoshop that I used to make with camera movements). I continue to "bother" (or will again soon) because I enjoy LF photography much more than using my digital camera. But I'm not kidding myself that there's any real consistent, obvious technical quality reason for using LF at my usual print sizes of roughly 12x16 and smaller.

I guess I'm failing to make my point clear. I'm still saying that at web sizes you should be able to tell the difference fairly easily, given enough samples (I'd guess ten is enough). This is because the kinds of photos made by LF and DSLR (for example) tend to be different, and they tend to be different for both technical and social reasons. Thus, if the OP is looking at photos on the web he/she will likely be able to say "hey, the LF ones look different than the others" and he/she would be right--but when it got down to single picture vs. picture comparisons those differences would tend to get blurred.

Just to be clear I'm not denigrating one format or the other. I just looked at the portfolio book I'm sending around and here are the formats I used for each project:

1) Video still frame
2) 4x5
3) Scanner
4) 4x5
5) Digital point and shoot
6) AP-C DSLR
7) AP-C DSLR
8) 4x5
9) 4x5

And I recently bought an 8x10 off of a board member that I'm still getting rolling with. With enough ingenuity I probably could have done all of these on 4x5 or all of these on DSLR. But that is not how it really happens...

--Darin

[JeffKohn]

I guess I'm failing to make my point clear. I'm still saying that at web sizes you should be able to tell the difference fairly easily, given enough samples (I'd guess ten is enough). This is because the kinds of photos made by LF and DSLR (for example) tend to be different, and they tend to be different for both technical and social reasons. I don't think that's true, at least not in both directions.

The universe of small-format photography is far more diverse than LF; there's lots of stuff which LF just isn't practical to shoot, and when you see those images you're going to have a pretty good idea they were shot on smaller formats. So if you include all those images in your comparison, then sure it will be pretty easy to say that they're not LF. But that doesn't mean the opposite is true.

You seem to be saying that LF shooters tend towards certain styles and subject matter, and I suppose that's true. But I don't think any of those styles or subjects are uniquely or even predominantly LF, with the possible exception of the extremely shallow DOF possible with LF (8x10 in particular). There are lots of small-format photographers who shoot landscape and nature from a tripod with just as much care and precision as LF requires; same thing goes for architecture (just ask Kirk). And with the recent rise in popularity of high-quality tilt/shift lenses you can't even assume that perspective-correct images are LF. LF movements are certainly more extensive than what a T/S lens offers, but that's not going to be apparent from looking at images in most cases.

So if you were to limit your image comparison to photos from a particular genre, I don't think it would be nearly so easy to tell which are LF versus small format.

[Greg Miller]

Even if true, if it takes 10 images to be able to distinguish between a portfolio of LF and DSLR images, then it is hard to make a strong case for a "LF look".

[sanking]

I don't think that's true, at least not in both directions.

The universe of small-format photography is far more diverse than LF; there's lots of stuff which LF just isn't practical to shoot, and when you see those images you're going to have a pretty good idea they were shot on smaller formats. So if you include all those images in your comparison, then sure it will be pretty easy to say that they're not LF. But that doesn't mean the opposite is true.

You seem to be saying that LF shooters tend towards certain styles and subject matter, and I suppose that's true. But I don't think any of those styles or subjects are uniquely or even predominantly LF, with the possible exception of the extremely shallow DOF possible with LF (8x10 in particular). There are lots of small-format photographers who shoot landscape and nature from a tripod with just as much care and precision as LF requires; same thing goes for architecture (just ask Kirk). And with the recent rise in popularity of high-quality tilt/shift lenses you can't even assume that perspective-correct images are LF. LF movements are certainly more extensive than what a T/S lens offers, but that's not going to be apparent from looking at images in most cases.



Good points. I tend to use DSLR and medium format pretty much as I do LF and I think one would be hard pressed to look at my work on the web and with any confidence identify individual prints by format. Fact is, one the discipline of LF is learned it tends to carry over to smaller formats, or at least it does for me. I tend to compose with DSLR, MF and LF the same way, and whenever possible I work with all three on a tripod at the optimum aperture. And I use Photoshop with perspective control with all three formats, though it has to be used carefully with DSLR.

Looking at my prints in front of me I am certain that the MF and LF work has a kind of acutance or sharpness to it that my DSLR work does not have. I notice this especially in carbon printing where the sharpness given by relief is much more pronounced with MF and LF work than with the DSLR work, even though my work flow for both through the production of a digital negative is very similar. This is for fairly small print size since I rarely make carbon prints larger than about 16X20" in size.

Sandy King

[Robert Hughes]

I will agree that a high-speed sports or wildlife action is very unlikely to be shot using LF (or even MF), but that's about as far as my agreement with this statement goes.
Oh, you mean like all those sports shots taken before 1965? Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio? Those famous shots all came from press cameras.

[Steve Hamley]

I think Marko and Kirk are on the right track. I've known at least 2 4x5 shooters that went digital, and the opinion among their peers, most of whom are not LF shooters, is that their work generally isn't as good. But it has nothing to do with resolution or lens focal length.

We believe they're taking a LOT of shots that they wouldn't have with 4x5 (much less 8x10), because of convenience and lower "instantaneous" cost. Light not as good, marginal compositions, etc. Then probably thinking they look "O.K." after Photoshopping.

I also believe that most folks shooting LF for a long period are more committed to photography which usually means better photographic results. Let's face it, it does require a higher level of commitment to keep at it with LF. The same could be said of the commitment to learn to be a master printer in the darkroom, of course their prints are better.

Disclaimer: I use a view camera mostly because I like to use one, therefore I'm exempt from being a better photographer!

Cheers, Steve

[Jack Dahlgren]

is it me wanting there to be a difference or does it really look and feel more classy side by side, like for like?

Kevin.

I think that the answer is that LF photographers are more classy. We have seen that within genre - there is little or no discernable image quality difference at web-sizes.

The fact that there are some areas where one format is more capable is one trick to discerning the two, but I don't think that these areas contribute significantly to the "classy" feel. In fact, looking at images posted here, often the scans give a poorer impression than the other formats as some LF photographers are not well equipped to scan/post process their images.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian. I've always admired your style.If you don't mind me asking, what digital camera and lenses are you now using?

Thanks.................Chris

Hi Chris - Thanks. I've been using a Canon 5D. I have a 5D Mark II on order that's due to arrive tomorrow. Lenses are a 20mm f2.8, a 24-105 f4 L, a 70-200 f4 L, and a 300mm f4 L.

[Chris Strobel]

In fact, looking at images posted here, often the scans give a poorer impression than the other formats as some LF photographers are not well equipped to scan/post process their images.

Bingo.Go look at the 8x10 group here http://www.flickr.com/groups/8by10/ Almost an embarrassment for the format :eek:

[Robert Hughes]

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6567/presentation1kz.jpg

[willwilson]

A large portion of histories master photographers shot LF, because it was the cutting edge photo making technology of the time. That is why there is an "LF look." Hop in your time machine and give Edward Weston a 5dMKII and some L lenses and he would click the shutter on some amazing things. At high levels of art tools are just tools. The look is the artist not the format.

[Kevin Thomas]

While I agree that it is the photographer that makes the image I feel uneasy with the assertion that a camera is just a tool and a tool is just a tool. Yes, you could give Edward Weston a 5dMKII but would he use it?

That seems to be the question asked of all of us in this forum - why in this digital age do we persist in this effort intensive and expensive pursuit?

For myself moving up formats was not about how it would look at 72dpi. To be honest I had long ago realised that the appreciation of one of my photographs bore no correlation with the skill or effort in making that image.

Is there a LF look? Yes, definitely, there is even a lens look and a film look - okay you can't see it now on the web but if one day it goes High Definition than perhaps quality will count.

[Marko]

While I agree that it is the photographer that makes the image I feel uneasy with the assertion that a camera is just a tool and a tool is just a tool. Yes, you could give Edward Weston a 5dMKII but would he use it?


I don't know about Weston, but I know that Adams would jump at the opportunity if only it were available in his day. He said as much himself, very clearly right there in the preface to The Negative, as the irony would have it.

Hardly any photographer could personify LF more thoroughly than Ansel.

[Merg Ross]

I don't know about Weston, but I know that Adams would jump at the opportunity if only it were available in his day. He said as much himself, very clearly right there in the preface to The Negative, as the irony would have it.

Hardly any photographer could personify LF more thoroughly than Ansel.

Marko, with all respect, and you have given me much to ponder with your posts, I think with Weston and Adams you are comparing peppers with apples.

You may very well be correct in your assertion about Ansel. I knew him, and he loved to be on the cutting edge of any development in photo technology, be it capture or reproduction. Witness his affiliation with Din Land, and his work with Polaroid, and the continuing high standards for the reproduction of his own work, culminating with laser printing.

It is a bit of a stretch to consider Ansel the personification of large format. Perhaps his iconic images were large format, but were you to view his archive, I suggest that the majority of his work was not.

Weston, however, never made an exposre that was not large format.

[Drew Wiley]

On the other hand, if Adams had all the conveniences of the automated gadgetry
available today, and had not been disciplined in the school of large format, would
he as an artist have even existed in the sense we now recognize him? A hypothetical question of course. The are real advantages to getting slowed down and learning to
seriously look through a groundglass. Even when I pick up a Nikon I still think like
a large format photographer; and unless I'm just trying to finish off a roll to get it
developed immediately, I come back with a high percentage of very good negatives.
They are best suited for very small prints, unlike my 8x10's, and obviously allow a
more fluid shooting style, but otherwise, they're just as carefully composed. I never had this kind of control over my vision until I too became accustomed to that
opalescent upside-down manner of composition behind a darkcloth!

[Marko]

Merg, I love the peppers and apples analogy and I don't doubt for a second what you said.

I used Ansel to illustrate my point that it is the photographer that makes the image and not the camera precisely because he did not constrain himself to one tool but was so open to experimentation.

And yes, I did exaggerate a bit, but to no one's harm I believe... Perhaps if I said that no one personifies LF quite like him in the eye of the general public? :)

[Darin Boville]

>>Perhaps his iconic images were large format, but were you to view his archive, I suggest that the majority of his work was not.<<

And from what I've seen of his 35mm work, it looks nothing like his LF work...

Could it be he recognized that different camera are different tools for different purposes...dare I say different "looks"? :)

--Darin

[Noeyedear]

>>Perhaps his iconic images were large format, but were you to view his archive, I suggest that the majority of his work was not.<<

And from what I've seen of his 35mm work, it looks nothing like his LF work...

Could it be he recognized that different camera are different tools for different purposes...dare I say different "looks"? :)

--Darin

I think second guessing other photographers attitude to new technology is very difficult and somewhat pointless. Fashion, attitudes, pace of life was all very much different. Each photographer now in their own situation has to make the decision for themselves, their is a School of philosophy which believes answers are not important, the power is in the question.
Since I asked the original question my thoughts have moved on, if only I had thought more deeply I would of realised I already had the answer. My own photography is proof.
For years I shot MF film, now 35mm digital, the only reason I ever shot LF was simply because I needed or the client needed a bigger negative, I did not view 5x4 any different than I did MF. The 5x4 would just sit in the same space as the Hasselblad and take the same shot.
All my commercial work is digital now. The reason I've taken to LF for my leisure shooting I've come to realise is because I wanted a different journey to the end result. I thought the journey alone would add the extra to the final image. I was wrong, I am still looking at images to take like I would with my Canon, hence I am not over the moon with my LF images. Yes I get sharp well exposed, evenly processed negatives, but I am not happy with the content, is says nothing to me.
I think if I had looked harder at my own question and believed in the power of the question and not wanted answers I would of come to the conclusion I asked the question of a "LF Look" because I don't have it and want it.
The old masters shot what they did because the choice was small and the pathway for their vision was clear. Now we have other considerations in the mix. I do believe they would produce wonderful images with any new technology, I also think you can't take away from them what they learnt on LF and that would be applied to any photography they do, just as I am struggling with bringing smaller format thinking to LF, so I get small format images only bigger.

Kevin.

[Dirk Rösler]

What you may be looking for is an "effect", which occasionally might be there in LF and even visible, but effect does not equal vision, even though it may support it. The old masters used LF because they had to, but they are masters after all and don't need the artifacts (if any) produced by a camera or format to excel. "Leica photography" is another of these type of discussions... Good luck, I think you have made an important realisation already. Now you have to take it to the next level.

[cjbroadbent]

Why was there a banquet camera? So that everyone could recognise his own face on a contact print.
Since then, LF has just meant less hassle in the darkroom and, above all, in the photo-lith process.
After Art Kane broke the system in the 70's with 35mm Kodachrome, you couldn't tell the men from the boys anymore.
Now digital is picking up where LF left off, even for banquets (Seitz). Look was never an issue.

[Drew Wiley]

To me, Art Kane's look seems horrendously dated, even on the edge of corny stereotypical. Don't tell me tools don't count. How come the guy with the chainsaw
sculpts cutesy bears out of redwood stumps with a chainsaw, while across the street there's someone making fifty thousand dollar coffee tables with his Italian panel saws and hundred dollar apiece Japanese chisels? We match the tools to our vision, and learn to master our tools. Photography is both art and craft.

[jnantz]

Bingo.Go look at the 8x10 group here http://www.flickr.com/groups/8by10/ Almost an embarrassment for the format :eek:

why is that ?
there are good and bad images here, there and everywhere.

[Chris Strobel]

why is that ?
there are good and bad images here, there and everywhere.

I'm talking about the basic scan quality, not the merits of the photos themselves.

[John NYC]

I'm talking about the basic scan quality, not the merits of the photos themselves.

Are you looking at the original sized images, or the small ones displayed after you click on one of the thumbnails? Quite frankly, flickr does something uncontrollable with some sort of auto-sharpening for everything you upload at any size displayed other than the original. Most people don't pay for their flickr account so can't even make that available.

I'll bite. This is my first 8x10 image taken ever. Click on the link called "See Original Size For Max Details" in the explanation to view the original. Is this a bad scan? If so, why? Going to be hard to hurt my feelings since after image number one, I have nowhere to go but up and better.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33946021@N04/4287103126/

[Chris Strobel]

Are you looking at the original sized images, or the small ones displayed after you click on one of the thumbnails? Quite frankly, flickr does something uncontrollable with some sort of auto-sharpening for everything you upload at any size displayed other than the original. Most people don't pay for their flickr account so can't even make that available.

I'll bite. This is my first 8x10 image taken ever. Click on the link called "See Original Size For Max Details" in the explanation to view the original. Is this a bad scan? If so, why? Going to be hard to hurt my feelings since after image number one, I have nowhere to go but up and better.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33946021@N04/4287103126/

Hi John,

Well apart from the small newton ring in the upper left (not visible in the smaller size) it looks good to me.I like the photo quite a bit.Reminds me of Steiglitz a little.Definitely one of the better ones over there, and its nice you made the original size available.

[John NYC]

Hi John,

Well apart from the small newton ring in the upper left (not visible in the smaller size) it looks good to me.I like the photo quite a bit.Reminds me of Steiglitz a little.Definitely one of the better ones over there, and its nice you made the original size available.

Thanks. Steiglitz is a hero of mine so, really, thanks!

I really am a newborn babe at this stuff ("serious" photography in general also.) But I bought anti-newton glass (for $100 bucks) and I still seem to get the newton rings. Not sure what I am doing wrong. I put emulsion side down and then anti-newton side down on top of what is the back side of the film. I read this was the right way? Any tips would be appreciated. I get tons of newton rings when the image is mostly black as on some of my MF stuff.

[Chris Strobel]

Thanks. Steiglitz is a hero of mine so, really, thanks!

I really am a newborn babe at this stuff ("serious" photography in general also.) But I bought anti-newton glass (for $100 bucks) and I still seem to get the newton rings. Not sure what I am doing wrong. I put emulsion side down and then anti-newton side down on top of what is the back side of the film. I read this was the right way? Any tips would be appreciated. I get tons of newton rings when the image is mostly black as on some of my MF stuff.

Hi John, yeah I battle the rings too with my Epson 4990.The only way I've been able to get completely ring free scans with my 8x10 negs is with wet mounting, but that's a pain.So If its in an area like the sky in your image, I just photoshop it out.Much quicker and less messy than wet mounting :)

[John G.]

to answer the original question.. yes I think there is something definative about LF images even at web resolution. Here's why....

6 months ago, apart from the odd linhoff rail camera in studios I'd never seen a technical camera. A lot of that has to do with where I live I suspect. However in my search for "which high end digital am I upgrading to next" I chanced across a few LF images. Hell I didn't even know they made field cameras anymore. But those images stood out enough to pique my interest.

Now I'm eagerly awaiting delivery.

What nailed me straight away in those first few LF shots I saw was the perspective control. So, to me at least , there is a visible difference, at least in photos that emphasise LF's strengths.

[Noeyedear]

Hi John, yeah I battle the rings too with my Epson 4990.The only way I've been able to get completely ring free scans with my 8x10 negs is with wet mounting, but that's a pain.So If its in an area like the sky in your image, I just photoshop it out.Much quicker and less messy than wet mounting :)

Have you tried warming the glass and negative first, I recall doing this with glass neg carriers.

Kevin.

[Brian Ellis]

to answer the original question.. yes I think there is something definative about LF images even at web resolution. Here's why....

6 months ago, apart from the odd linhoff rail camera in studios I'd never seen a technical camera. A lot of that has to do with where I live I suspect. However in my search for "which high end digital am I upgrading to next" I chanced across a few LF images. Hell I didn't even know they made field cameras anymore. But those images stood out enough to pique my interest.

Now I'm eagerly awaiting delivery.

What nailed me straight away in those first few LF shots I saw was the perspective control. So, to me at least , there is a visible difference, at least in photos that emphasise LF's strengths.

If by "perspective control" you mean that in the photographs you saw lines that were parallel or at right angles to each other in the original scene were parallel or at right angles to each other in the photograph, that can be accomplished in Photoshop after using a smaller format camera. The ones you saw that exhibited that quality happened to be LF. You could just as easily seen the same thing from someone who had used a smaller format camera and made the necessary adjustment in Photoshop or who just took a lot of care to get those things right in the original (e.g. by photographing from a position above ground level).

If this isn't what you mean by "perspective control" then perhaps you could explain what you do mean.

[Chris Strobel]

Have you tried warming the glass and negative first, I recall doing this with glass neg carriers.

Kevin.

No I haven't myself.I assume you do this by making several passes on the scanner before doing the actual scan?

[ret wisner]

If by "perspective control" you mean that in the photographs you saw lines that were parallel or at right angles to each other in the original scene were parallel or at right angles to each other in the photograph, that can be accomplished in Photoshop after using a smaller format camera. The ones you saw that exhibited that quality happened to be LF. You could just as easily seen the same thing from someone who had used a smaller format camera and made the necessary adjustment in Photoshop or who just took a lot of care to get those things right in the original (e.g. by photographing from a position above ground level).

If this isn't what you mean by "perspective control" then perhaps you could explain what you do mean.

photoshopping perspective control , ha dont make me laugh

lf is the only true way of doing this, photoshop just stretches the image

[John G.]

If by "perspective control" you mean that in the photographs you saw lines that were parallel or at right angles to each other in the original scene were parallel or at right angles to each other in the photograph, that can be accomplished in Photoshop after using a smaller format camera. The ones you saw that exhibited that quality happened to be LF. You could just as easily seen the same thing from someone who had used a smaller format camera and made the necessary adjustment in Photoshop or who just took a lot of care to get those things right in the original (e.g. by photographing from a position above ground level).

If this isn't what you mean by "perspective control" then perhaps you could explain what you do mean.

in the shot that initially grabbed me it was both that parrelell lines stuff and depth of field. Sure I can do it in photoshop... I can superimpose image on image to get the focal depth right... in the shot would have only taken 15 layers or so.. then stretched it.. then tidied it up. Then wondered why it didn't look right.
Hell, I'm a photoshop whizz... give me enough computing power and acess to good imagery and I can give you a perfectly believable rendition of Mount Everest smack bang in the middle of Kansas without even picking up a camera... you want some UFO's with that???

Unfortunately I'm also one of those fools that actually hates photoshopped images. I take pride in knowing that my work is very rarely enhaned beyond the limits of my capture system. Guess I must be a photographer not a graphic artist huh?

[Vaughn]

photoshopping perspective control , ha dont make me laugh

lf is the only true way of doing this, photoshop just stretches the image

Actually, moving the back of the view camera just "stretches" (and shrinks/compresses) the image, too. Using the movements of the view camera is not really much different than using some of the controls in PhotoShop.

That said, what I appreciate about view cameras, and what attributes to the "LF Look", is the creative control one has in perspective and in determining where to place the plane of focus. That, plus the larger mount of information one can get on a sheet of large film allows for a smoother tonality.

Vaughn

[Hoang]

in the shot that initially grabbed me it was both that parrelell lines stuff and depth of field. Sure I can do it in photoshop... I can superimpose image on image to get the focal depth right... in the shot would have only taken 15 layers or so.. then stretched it.. then tidied it up. Then wondered why it didn't look right.
Hell, I'm a photoshop whizz... give me enough computing power and acess to good imagery and I can give you a perfectly believable rendition of Mount Everest smack bang in the middle of Kansas without even picking up a camera... you want some UFO's with that???

Unfortunately I'm also one of those fools that actually hates photoshopped images. I take pride in knowing that my work is very rarely enhaned beyond the limits of my capture system. Guess I must be a photographer not a graphic artist huh?

Please don't go there.....
There is no cheating.. only a photograph that interests people and a photograph that doesn't.

[Kirk Gittings]

Unfortunately I'm also one of those fools that actually hates photoshopped images. I take pride in knowing that my work is very rarely enhaned beyond the limits of my capture system. Guess I must be a photographer not a graphic artist huh?

Take a deep breath.....you haven't even made a LF image yet. Brian is a very experienced large format and digital photographer and is perfectly aware of the capabilities and strengths of both LF and PS. He was trying to be helpful.

[John G.]

Point taken.

I apologise.

[Brian Ellis]

in the shot that initially grabbed me it was both that parrelell lines stuff and depth of field. Sure I can do it in photoshop... I can superimpose image on image to get the focal depth right... in the shot would have only taken 15 layers or so.. then stretched it.. then tidied it up. Then wondered why it didn't look right.
Hell, I'm a photoshop whizz... give me enough computing power and acess to good imagery and I can give you a perfectly believable rendition of Mount Everest smack bang in the middle of Kansas without even picking up a camera... you want some UFO's with that???

Unfortunately I'm also one of those fools that actually hates photoshopped images. I take pride in knowing that my work is very rarely enhaned beyond the limits of my capture system. Guess I must be a photographer not a graphic artist huh?

I wasn't talking about moving objects into a photograph such as UFOs or Mount Everest. I was talking about making adjustments in Photoshop so that the subject appears more realistic (as opposed to how a photograph of a building looks when, for example, a camera without movements is aimed up at the top of the building from the ground). In other words, I was talking about the opposite of what you're talking about when you mention moving UFOs and Mount Everest into a picture.

While the movements of a view camera may have been used to alter the plane of focus (the depth of field or "focal depth" you mention) there are other ways of achieving that look besides using the movements of a LF camera. It's possible to do it to a limited extent at least in Photoshop or it can be done at the time the photograph is made with a smaller camera. So just seeing that look doesn't mean a LF camera was necessarily used.

In my previous message I wasn't demeaning LF photography and certainly wasn't saying that anything that can be done with a LF camera can be done equally well in Photoshop. I'm just suggesting that the two things you saw that led you to think there is a LF "look" perhaps weren't really peculiar to use of a LF camera.

[Brian Ellis]

photoshopping perspective control , ha dont make me laugh

lf is the only true way of doing this, photoshop just stretches the image

No, Photoshop doesn't just stretch the image.

[Noeyedear]

No I haven't myself.I assume you do this by making several passes on the scanner before doing the actual scan?

More a gentle blow with a hairdryer, to remove moisture from the neg and the glass.

Kevin.

[Noeyedear]

No, Photoshop doesn't just stretch the image.

I have not always been convinced about my Photoshop straightening, yes I can put a grid over it that says everything is level and upright, it still looks odd sometimes to me, sorted of twisted. Is there a trick to getting it right in Photoshop?

Kevin.

[Steve M Hostetter]

I think the difference is in the meticulous preperation and execution of the technical camera..

I also believe this thought is universal in every personal endeavor, from traveling 7 miles under the surface of the ocean (1960) to making a pizza with a distinct flavor ( Ray's in NYC )

steve

[Ken Lee]

The original question basically puts the cart before the horse.

It might be more instructive to ask: Why do some photographers prefer Large Format, even when other equipment is available ?

[Steve M Hostetter]

I believe the tools are basiclly the same to make pizza but it's the ingredient, temp, time, and passion for the finished product