To go LF or not

**Kirk Gittings** · 22-Apr-2013, 20:58

You can't measure the quality of a file or a print or your pecker based solely on resolution or dpi.

He needs to see a real live p.....rint.

**KristerH** · 23-Apr-2013, 01:25

Thanks everyone. Very helpful.

My question for a scanned file was maybe a little stupid.

Ken Lee - I looked at your web site and it answered a lot of my questions. Thanks
I am amazed when I see the amount of knowledge people are prepared to organize an share.
You make the world a better place.

**Lenny Eiger** · 23-Apr-2013, 10:25

Kirster,
I would say go for the 4x5. I've done extensive testing on the capability of 6x7 negs vs 4x5. The print quality from a scanned 4x5 is amazing. (And no, the latest Nikon digital does not come anywhere close, its a ridiculous contention. Certainly not in b&w.) A drum scanned 4x5 is a thing of beauty, and it does exceed what medium format can deliver, in terms of smoothness. As many have mentioned, it has a lot to do with what you want to create. If you want to make something that looks like a Frederick Evans platinum print you need a decent-sized piece of film.

There are a couple of additional issues. I happen to like shooting with a view camera. It slows one down, there is extra depth of field and the whole process of looking at the ground glass and using a tripod seem to make the photography a bit more considered. That isn't to dismiss the great work done by street shooters, journalist and others. It's just a look that I like. This is the main difference.

The other thing is that it takes at least as long to produce a great print with an inkjet printer than it does from a darkroom. The process is very similar, one makes a print and then looks at it, decides if any adjustment is required, if so, then makes another. It's true that one doesn't have to be in the dark to do it, but it takes at least as much time, costs easily as much, etc.

Kirk is right, you have to look at prints. You have to look at great prints and decide for yourself what makes them great and them try and reproduce those qualities in your own images.

I hope this helps,

Lenny

**perfectedmaya** · 23-Apr-2013, 19:44

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

Kirster,
I would say go for the 4x5. I've done extensive testing on the capability of 6x7 negs vs 4x5. The print quality from a scanned 4x5 is amazing. (And no, the latest Nikon digital does not come anywhere close, its a ridiculous contention. Certainly not in b&w.) A drum scanned 4x5 is a thing of beauty, and it does exceed what medium format can deliver, in terms of smoothness. As many have mentioned, it has a lot to do with what you want to create. If you want to make something that looks like a Frederick Evans platinum print you need a decent-sized piece of film.

There are a couple of additional issues. I happen to like shooting with a view camera. It slows one down, there is extra depth of field and the whole process of looking at the ground glass and using a tripod seem to make the photography a bit more considered. That isn't to dismiss the great work done by street shooters, journalist and others. It's just a look that I like. This is the main difference.

The other thing is that it takes at least as long to produce a great print with an inkjet printer than it does from a darkroom. The process is very similar, one makes a print and then looks at it, decides if any adjustment is required, if so, then makes another. It's true that one doesn't have to be in the dark to do it, but it takes at least as much time, costs easily as much, etc.

Kirk is right, you have to look at prints. You have to look at great prints and decide for yourself what makes them great and them try and reproduce those qualities in your own images.

I hope this helps,

Lenny

i will take your advice seriously, as i am a newbie in printing, i am always thinking using digital printer will speed things up as we have lots of software to help in digital darkroom. I also thought it will be alot cheaper.

I guess it will be futile to ask why it takes as much time, effort and money to make a good print from a digital printer and from a enlarger.. but if you don't mind to elaborate, please kindly do so.

**Jim Andrada** · 23-Apr-2013, 20:23

I think that the problem is that we have so much great software. Each program has an immense learning curve, and becoming proficient takes longer than it used to take me to learn to print in the darkroom. The other aspect is that it is very difficult to get perfect correlation between what you see on screen and the output from the printer. Of course you can use more software (with it's own learning curve of course) to bring monitor and printer closer, and then you can get rather expensive monitors that will make it even closer. But in the end, looking at a printed image will still be different than looking at an image on screen. A backlit display is different than a reflective piece of paper, which has color and texture of its own, and the whole experience of looking at one is different than looking at the other.

Having said all that, in my experience, the modern displays and printers and software will indeed get you technically (but maybe not artistically) very close, and you should definitely use a color managed workflow. BUT - no matter how perfectly the print technically matches the screen, in the end you have to think about what you want the print to "say" and the only way I know to do it is to print, then think - should the cropping be a bit different? Should the contrast be a bit stronger or weaker? Does the subject need a bit of retouching?

So many creative decisions to be made and so I think it is rare that you will be satisfied with the first print. Maybe at first, but after looking at it in different lighting and thinking about it, I think you will want to try some variations before deciding that you have done it!

And no matter - a few weeks will go by and you will think of something else that should be changed.

**Bernice Loui** · 23-Apr-2013, 22:25

The image making tools and methods of choice, be it digital or film (analog) depends on what your expectations and image making goals are. This decision should be made based on a good and deep understanding of the strengths and limitations of what each tool-set and process has to offer and their limitations.

There is far more than simply format size, resolution and ... to what makes a expressive image.

Expressive images can be made using a pin hole camera, iPhone to a 16x20 view camera.

Resolution and "sharpness" alone are not going to make an expressive image, it requires much more than that. Know film offers a different set of advantages and problems compared to digital and the same applies to digital.

What I will say is sheet film can offer more than simply resolution/sharpness, it can offer tonality, contrast range and image quality that is distinctly different than digital. To get the most from either, a mastery of the technical aspects are required to some degree. Beyond that, the images created depends more on the individual artist, who they are and their life's experiences.

Do visit a local art museum that offers a display of traditional view camera photography. This can give some idea of what the sheet film/silver gelatin print process can offer.

Regardless of the process of choice, Digital or Film. The choice should be driven by what your expressive images require.

Bernice

**JeRuFo** · 24-Apr-2013, 04:27

Since the process of making the final print is very important to you, I would focus on your workflow. If you shoot a lot, then developing, selecting and scanning it all can be a pain.

The camera has been adressed a lot already and is probably equally important. A view camera takes time, if you are a quick shooter or don't have much time on site, then a view camera is not the way to go.
But since you're obviously set on making an informed decision, I would just go out and buy a cheap view camera and see what you like and don't like about it. LF can get you great resolution and tonality, but you have to make the effort with every shot to get it out. It's not particularly hard, it is just a little more labour intensive.

**George Pappas** · 24-Apr-2013, 05:52

Kister,

I will add to what many others are saying here. Using a view camera is about much more than image quality, it is a very different way of seeing (and photographing) the subject. For many people, it is a large positive for this reason alone. For others, this makes the view camera very slow/hard to use and does not suit either their subject matter or temperament. This is issue is more important for you than ultimate image quality; if shooting with a view camera won't agree with you or the kinds of subject matter you photograph, image quality won't matter.

JeRuFo had an excellent suggestion - get access to a simple view camera outfit and use it for a little while - then you will know if it can indeed work for you.

Best Regards,
George

**jnantz** · 24-Apr-2013, 06:25

SNIP

Originally Posted by KristerH

I started out with film a long time ago, both 6x6 and 4x5. It was all analog and the prints were made in the gloomy red light of a darkroom.
I don't have the energy or will to once more spend my days in a dark room producing prints.

Thanks

Krister

hi krister:

you mention you don't really want to do darkroom work anymore ...
will you be having the film processed by a lab ? i am not sure where you are located
but where i am, there aren't as many labs remaining that process sheets of film ... so
you may actually end up in the dark room ...

good luck !
john

**KristerH** · 24-Apr-2013, 06:36

Thanks guys.
I like this forum more and more as you are very "un technical" and more see the big perspective of this strange thing called photography.

I had to change direction late in life and went into photography 12 years ago.
For ten years it was hard work and Canon DSLR:s. Dead lines and stupid customers made me money but in the end I hated it all so I quit.
Sold everything and got myself a sailing boat. I have now sailed for three years and have finally found some well deserved peace and quiet.
Did not touch a camera until now. Three months ago I got myself a small, basic camera and suddenly photography was fun again. More fun than ever, so this is what I am going to do the rest of my life. Take pictures based on my own style and perspective.
I love to go slow and to think. My motives are mostly sort of quiet so LF will suit me fine. In my youth I had a Tachihara 4x5 so I know the LF philosophy.
I have an Alpa with an Aptus 75 digital back as well. Thats were this question started. My plan was to upgrade the DB to a modern high pixel back as I want to print large and love detail (the Alpa is also some 7 years old and have need for some repair) BUT !
After a few weeks of testing and thinking I have come to the conclusion that this kind of money, which I have to take from my hard earned bank account, is not delivering what I am looking for. It has no soul.
As I am a traveler my plan is to continue my journey, on land this time, and make, hopefully, great photographs along the way that can be books or exhibitions later on.
In this perspective it would be nice to return with good enough, quality vise, pictures. Thats why I am asking.
Even though I have an Alpa and a DB I am NOT a rich guy so money is a big part of the equation. That and the joy of owning the hole process makes me want to
develop and scan the film myself. Its part of the LF zen I think.
To develop traditional prints in dark room is not on top of my list, yet.