Examples of Large Format shots that cannot be done with small

[goamules]

Best, most thought out answer so far! Now, someone give us some example shots! Here is what I wonder, is there a photo that the average photographer with a DSLR would have difficulty accomplishing? Or a photo that if someone saw it, they'd recognize it was uniquely large format, instantly? I can hold up a wetplate, and people say, "wow, that's different...only one way to do that!" or such. But I think the reason LF is not popular is there is no apparent difference. Don't want to tell them, want to show them. But even I'm not sure.

I don't have really any images to share since I use LF images mainly for resolution and big prints, but here are some thoughts:

Technical differences:

* extreme tilt/shift/rise/fall/swing movements not available on even the best adapters or tilt-shift lenses -- compare a LF monorail vs. anything else for small formats, for example
* generate extremely high resolution in one shot images (100-300 megapixels for 4x5), versus multiple shots merged together for smaller formats
* excellent dynamic range rivaling the best digital sensors (with negative film anyway)
* ability to easily use a huge array of historic lenses, equipment, and processes (film/chemical/wet plate etc.)
* very thin depth of field if you want it, for less money than the ultra-rare ultra-large-aperture lenses on 35mm -- e.g. 300mm f/5.6 on 8x10 is about the equivalent of a 50mm f/0.7 on 35mm
* contact prints with virtually infinite resolution to the naked eye -- nothing else looks the same

Qualitative ("if you're into that") differences:

* starts a conversation with almost every passer by
* allows for a very different form of interaction with a portrait sitter -- far more sociable, in my opinion
* a slower and more mentally-engaging process -- instead of taking 1,000 images and choosing the best one on the computer, you visualize 1,000 images and take only one
* allows for all the "fun" of darkroom work -- if you consider that to be "fun" (i do not, but some people do)
* can work in the same way as famous past photographers like Adams, Weston, Avedon, Karsh, etc.
* can work completely without electricity if you want

...

Still, I think you have to be fair about all the things LF can't do that digital can. And there are a lot. Fast-moving subjects, quick changes in focus and composition, each exposure is basically free, easier editing, blah blah blah we've heard it all before...

[jp]

Jim's description of "brute force" of LF for soft focus is valid to me. Soft focus on 8x10 or 4x5 is just different than 35mm. You can get close with 35mm, but it's not the same. I'm inclined to do soft focus as it was originally designed, not as adapted for small cameras. (I am coveting the Velvet56 lens though but don't expect it to be a substitute)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/137596...7638315179513/

Big dynamic range is something LF can do well too. Digital you can do with HDR, but that's different. LF can do it in one shot. I think negative film has more DR than digital, and that's probably before you start doing things like zone system, etc...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/137596...posted-public/



The Aero Ektar can work with 35mm, but you won't have the same field of view. So I say it requires LF or something real close.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/22819787429

I've seen instant photography setups with digital cameras tethered to dye-sub printers that would probably beat a polaroid for utilitarian purposes. Chemically made instant photos have a charm that's hard to fake though.

[Kirk Gittings]

I see my subtlety didn't escape you! And you did give one thing LF can do that 35mm can't, it's process. So thanks. I just found it ironic that I asked a question, and you and several others answered to not ask that question, or that you don't worry about it, personally. I didn't ask for personal beliefs. I asked if there were examples of how LF can do things that 35mm cannot. It's pretty straightforward, that I'm looking for examples. Not metacognition on what motivates us, what we've done in our careers, etc.

I guess you are looking for examples from true believers. Don't think I can help you there.

[Drew Wiley]

Not all things are equal. You encounter a swath of nettles, blackberries vines, and poison oak twigs across the trail. Which works better - swatting at them out of the way with a DLSR or the big Ries tripod? Size matters. Same goes for rattlesnakes and pesky tourists.

[Kirk Gittings]

Not all things are equal. You encounter a swath of nettles, blackberries vines, and poison oak twigs across the trail. Which works better - swatting at them out of the way with a DLSR or the big Ries tripod? Size matters. Same goes for rattlesnakes and pesky tourists.

[fishbulb]

Big dynamic range is something LF can do well too. Digital you can do with HDR, but that's different. LF can do it in one shot. I think negative film has more DR than digital, and that's probably before you start doing things like zone system, etc...

From my experience there are several sensors on the market* that produce pretty huge dynamic range (14-15 stops) from one frame, easily rivaling the best I can get from 4x5 negative, color or B&W (I use the zone system and a Pentax Spotmeter for everything too). I even sometimes do two scans with my Howtek, one for the shadows and one for the highlights, then merge the exposures, to increase dynamic range of the final image. Even then, it's really hard for me to still bang the drum for film's superior dynamic range, to be honest. Not that far apart anymore.

*These sensors include the Sony/Nikon 36mp 24x36mm sensor, the Sony 42mp 24x36mm sensor, and the Sony/Pentax 50mp 33x44mm sensor. Looking forward to seeing what Nikon's new D5 sensor can do as well.

[Darin Boville]

Polaroid.

This is the best answer here (out of four pages so far). The key is to think what is an honest or natural characteristic of a process or medium. Every process has these characteristics, even the apparent chameleon of digital. In photography the vast bulk of these characteristics are shared, which is why we call it all "photography" even if the processes differs a great deal.

Bill's answer gets to the heart of one of LF's key distinguishing characteristics, that it is a chemical process. One of its natural ways to look different than other types of photography (if that is the desired goal) is to accentuate that chemical process. All Alt processes do this. All contact printing processes do this.

Bill's answer takes this a step further and highlights one of these chemical processes that is generally more satisfying with larger images than smaller ones. The 20x24 Polaroid is more acceptable for most photographers than the 35mm one. I can't recall ever seeing a 35mm Polaroid that worked for me.

Honesty matters. The presence of an authentic object matters. A few months ago I was at an exhibit in Ashland, Oregon of Chuck Close works. Nice show. One piece was a contact sheet of faces (his own) with one of the frames marked with Sharpie or some other marker. It was beginning of his new (now famous) style of work. It was very cool--until I realized it was a reproduction of that contact sheet. I was no longer physically close to an artifact from an notable moment in art history. It made a different in how I reacted to the work.

No process is inherently better or more noble than any other process. But each process has its natural characteristics. You can take great advantage of that in your work rather than just reaching for any one process without considering these issues.

--Darin (who is shooting video at the moment)

[Paul Metcalf]

Here's one that can't be made on 35mm or digital, because it's on private land and only I know where this is at and I only took this picture with using LF.
And also the discarded horse-drawn implement is no longer there and the frost is gone LOL.

I've actually got a couple more like this.

[Bob Salomon]

This is the best answer here (out of four pages so far). The key is to think what is an honest or natural characteristic of a process or medium. Every process has these characteristics, even the apparent chameleon of digital. In photography the vast bulk of these characteristics are shared, which is why we call it all "photography" even if the processes differs a great deal.

Bill's answer gets to the heart of one of LF's key distinguishing characteristics, that it is a chemical process. One of its natural ways to look different than other types of photography (if that is the desired goal) is to accentuate that chemical process. All Alt processes do this. All contact printing processes do this.

Bill's answer takes this a step further and highlights one of these chemical processes that is generally more satisfying with larger images than smaller ones. The 20x24 Polaroid is more acceptable for most photographers than the 35mm one. I can't recall ever seeing a 35mm Polaroid that worked for me.

Honesty matters. The presence of an authentic object matters. A few months ago I was at an exhibit in Ashland, Oregon of Chuck Close works. Nice show. One piece was a contact sheet of faces (his own) with one of the frames marked with Sharpie or some other marker. It was beginning of his new (now famous) style of work. It was very cool--until I realized it was a reproduction of that contact sheet. I was no longer physically close to an artifact from an notable moment in art history. It made a different in how I reacted to the work.

No process is inherently better or more noble than any other process. But each process has its natural characteristics. You can take great advantage of that in your work rather than just reaching for any one process without considering these issues.

--Darin (who is shooting video at the moment)

http://www.google.com/search?q=nikon%20polaroid%20back

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ck_II_for.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=Leica%20polaroid%20back

[Darin Boville]

http://www.google.com/search?q=nikon%20polaroid%20back

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...ck_II_for.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=Leica%20polaroid%20back

I'm not quite sure what you mean, Bob. I'm familiar with Polaroid film backs. I've shot a few things on the Nikon back, played with the 8x10 back a little, shot with the 2 1/4 back (still own one), and done plenty of work on with the 4x5 and pack-sized backs (still own several including the 600 SE). I've never used the big studio Polaroid but have seen lots of examples of what it can produce over the years. Heck, in the early days of the Web I was one of the first photographers to put up online exhibits. My first one, somewhere in the mid-1990s, was called "52 Photographs." There were three dozen images in the show, the "52," of course, referring to "Type 52" Polaroid film. The next show, "Later that Same Day," was also all Polaroid.

Funny, but you can still see remnants of this exhibit on the web:

http://www.art-photo.com/photo/galle...inb/index.html

http://photoarts.com/pac/exhibition/...e/Boville.html

I *think* you are making the same point that you made earlier in this thread, that these backs do indeed exist at the smaller sizes. True, of course. But if chemical photography is on the fringe, then Polaroid photography is the fringe of the fringe, and that makes 35mm Polaroid photography the fringe of the fringe of the fringe. Still can't recall any memorable work done with the format (35mm instant). Reminders/links would be welcome.

My point remains (Bill's point, really) is that Polaroid/Instant film is one of those things that LF does better than other formats.

But we should be speaking in shades of gray (no pun intended), not absolutes.

--Darin