Hello... New to forum; exploring LF

Hello everyone,

I'm new to the forum, and have already enjoyed going through many interesting and thoughtful posts/discussions, here. I've been photographing -- both B&W and color -- with a 35mm Canon outfit for years (AE-1 and F1N), and am currently researching equipment for LF photography.

I'm primarily interested in environmental portraiture (but not exclusively), so I'm investigating folding/field cameras and appropriate lenses. I'm just not sure whether I'll jump into 4x5 or 8x10. I'd like the flexibility of a few output/presentation options, whether they be enlarging, contact printing (silver and alternative), scanning/digital printing/web presentation; we'll see...

Some LF photographers that I admire and have followed through the years: Eugene Atget, August Sander, Evelyn Hofer, Jan Groover, Sally Mann, Judy Dater, Frank Goelke, Thomas Struth, Alec Soth, among others.

I look forward to participating in the forum.

Cheers,

Andrew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewh

... I'm just not sure whether I'll jump into 4x5 or 8x10. ...

---

Hello Andrew. Welcome. You'll get plenty of conflicting advice on this. Mine is to jump straight into 8x10 and contact printing.
There's less gear, less hassle and you're miles away from medium formatl (4x5 is just a bigger medium format and needs a real darkroom). 8x10 helps you think before you shoot.

The question of 4x5 versus 8x10 comes down to whether you intend to enlarge. If you don't, then 8x10 is about as small a format as allows contact printing with useful print sizes for display (5x7 and 4x5 seem to me just too small). But 8x10 can be reasonably scanned in affordable scanning equipment. So, if your enlargements can be in the digital domain for when you need a larger print than 8x10, then that format might work for you.

If you hate the notion of digital print processes and still want to make bigger prints, then 4x5 enlarging is dramatically easier to do than 8x10 enlarging, and it makes a much smaller demand on the size darkroom you'll need. Good 4x5 enlargers are nearly free for the asking, but 8x10 enlargers are rare enough to still want real money.

4x5 opens a whole new world of image control compared to medium format, though these differences might not be relevant to environmental portraiture. If you desire exceedingly thin depth of field, then an f/5.6 plasmat on an 8x10 camera is going to be hard to beat.

Smaller than 4x5 makes much bigger demands on scanning equipment to make decent-size prints. Also, with the exception of a few expensive rollfilm view cameras, medium-format generally limits the image management capability of 4x5 and larger view cameras.

Thus, given your requirements, either 4x5 or 8x10 could be the optimal choice. Don't let comments like "4x5 is just bigger medium format" sway you. Mr. Broadbent was engaging a bit of dry humor, I suspect. The boundary between what is acceptably large varies quite a lot. Just consider your requirements not only for the camera but also for your whole print-making process, and evaluate the alternatives against those requirements.

Rick "for whom 8x10 is just too expensive and impractical" Denney

Welcome aboard, Andrew. You will find this forum a wealth of info where well known photographers participate. This is a great place to learn and to share.

andrew

"Omnes relinquites spes, o vos intrante."

I'd suggest you find yourself and 8x10 camera with a 4x5 reducing back. That was you can shoot both formats. And in the future you can get 5x7, 5x8, half-plate and other format films.

Or you can do what most of us do — mortgage the house, sell the wife and kids into indentured servitude, give our souls over to the Devil, and get a bunch of cameras, lenses, holders, meters, loups, cloths, dodads and whatnots — why it's a GAS.


Brian

Thanks all!

Brian, I'm starting to like your 2nd advice...:)

Cheers,

Andrew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewh

Thanks all!

Brian, I'm starting to like your 2nd advice...:)

Cheers,

Andrew

---

Keep the dog, though...

Welcome to group therepy, Andrew. :) I'm not gonna get into the size debate other than to say that I use only 4x5 and smaller formats on my architectural work, but I do not do any of my own processing; I do sometimes scann negatives and slides for inkjet prints up to 11 x 14 maximum and I sometimes have the processor scan some of the film for me.

Welcome.

Thanks again, everyone!