One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?

[6x6TLL]

Hi Peter,

thank you for your reply. It's a great point, that it isn't necessarily the quality, but rather the process by which one arrives at the final image that is the draw with LF.

I tend to look at digital vs analog in a similar way -

1. one can spend a lot of time pre-exposure planning the shot, setting up a tripod, framing the composition, checking/adjusting the lighting, etc, and finally making the exposure at the critical moment. One or two shots are usually all that's needed.

or...

2. one can fire off rapid fire at something that looks interesting, or one feels inspired, and then spend the same amount of time sorting through hundreds or thousands of images, fixing things like composition, lighting, exposure in post, to arrive at the final image.

I wonder if the total time spent is pretty close in practice.

Obviously, and especially for professionals, there's nothing precluding using approach 1 while working with a digital camera. It's just that the different technologies tend to encourage different approaches, and people end up working quite differently.

I know that in the days of film, many pro's would also fire off rolls and rolls of film to get the one perfect shot. I still feel personally that I'd rather prep the shot as much as possible ahead of time, and capture one or two exposures of exactly what I've envisioned, rather than taking hundreds "just in case" or to find the "perfect" one. Maybe that's why I don't work for Magnum or National Geographic, lol.

An example I'm always reminded of is taking pictures of my son at an amusement park years ago with my FM3a (a rare instance of me not shooting MF), standing beside another proud dad waiting for his daughter to come out of the same ride at the same point, shooting digital. Both our kids came out of a tunnel on the ride at about the same time. I fired off one, two, possibly three frames at most, waiting for the critical point where the composition was perfect and my son was looking forward. I had already pre-focused and calculated exposure. At the same time I heard a machine-gun like barrage from my neighbor, he must have taken about 30-40 pictures as she rolled out of the tunnel. Most of my work was done ahead of time, and I allowed myself a few options to make sure I captured a good expression. Most of his work lay ahead in sorting, choosing, and photoshopping whichever he ended up with as his keeper(s).

Personally, I prefer the first approach. Photographically, I'm lazy, like a lot of people, and don't tend to plan my shoots to well, instead wandering around aimlessly waiting for inspiration to hit or something interesting to happen to photograph. Probably not the best way to approach LF, although once that part is determined, the rest of the process does appeal to me. Maybe I should work more on defining my vision and what I'd like to convey....

[Two23]

I shoot 4x5 and now also 5x7 for entirely different reasons. My cameras allow me to use just about any lens from any period. I have six lenses made between 1845 and 1860. I use these to photo Civil War re-enactors and whenever I want a more ethereal look to my photos. I also have about half a doze or so lenses made 1900-1925 and use those to make photos with a classic turn of century look. Finally, I do have three modern lenses (1990s) but generally only use those when I need flash sync. I've begun shooting dry plates, which I love the result from. I'm also planning a move into wet plate next spring. My 4x5 and 5x7 allow me much more flexibility than any film camera. I enjoy owning and using historical lenses and cameras. My three cameras are: 1905 Century Camera Co. folding 4x5, 1925 Gundlach Korona 5x7 (& 4x5 back) field camera, and a 2009 Chamonix 045n 4x5. I love these cameras!


Kent in SD

[Jim Jones]

I enjoyed the versatility of large format cameras. Modest view cameras have movements for all their lenses that are only available on expensive lenses for smaller cameras. Almost any view camera can be used with a great variety of lenses. Large film is needed for the contact printing required for some printing processes. Image quality can be great, although even Ansel Adams's 8x10 negatives sometimes don't look so good when enlarged to mural sizes. Some large format cameras, new and old, are elegant. On the other hand, Monday evening I took 160 digital images at a junior high football game. Today I'll cull those down to less than a hundred, burn them to CDs, and donate them to the school and a few individuals. This might take an hour or two, and cost me less than one sheet of large format film. Also, in that prevailing light, I would not have tried even one sheet of film. Every photographer has to decide for themselves what formats and type of cameras best suit their particular circumstances.

[jnantz]

hi OP

i shoot LF because i like to hand coat my paper &c
and while i can and have shot hand coated paper or glass or plastic or metal
in a 35mm or MF camera and i don't mind jewel prints and bigger-small-prints
... ( yes i scan and enlarge them so there really is no advantage to LF sometimes )
regarding can stuff that is done with a LF camera be done with a smaller format?
yeah it probably can. lensbaby+lomo make lenses like some of the older vintage LF lenses
and its not hard to put something besides film ( see my previous comment ) in a smaller camera
and use that.
at this point a lot of reason to do LF is to say you are doing LF .. and because its kind of fun.

good luck!
john

[Liquid Artist]

6x6,
I started shooting bigger and bigger cameras because I am getting older and my eyes are getting weaker, and a bigger camera is easier to focus.
Plus I prefer lifting heavy cameras over pumping iron.

I jumped right in, including built a small darkroom, and haven't looked back.
However I do strongly recommended meeting up with another shooter ( if possible ) and trying a camera along with ask them for any advice.
If they have multi formats I would try them all.

[Oren Grad]

I do it for the contact prints.

[Thalmees]

...
1. Individual development of each negative for better/finer control (doesn't PhotoShop make up for that, unless you're contact printing?)
...!

Unfortunately, Not.
Because no decision can be made with Photoshop.
Photoshop can provide unlimited brilliant choices, but No decisions taken. Remember, every thing in the digital process is in para-reality if not outside reality, and every/any step can be UnDone or ReDone(undo/redo) at any time, at no cost whatsoever and at no time. That by definition are choices, Not decisions.
That's only part of what's actually the difference. The next is more important.
The "Visual Experience" of the photographer when managing single film, is pure Optical, Light and Optochemical effect. It mixes and react with human memory/emotions very well, interact and develop with time, like any "Visual Experience" of any classic or hand made Art. Please continue reading.
Furthermore, the "Latent Image", which is the Artistic Imagination Substrate in all classic Arts, is inevitably compared with possibilities/limitations of the craft/medium and with reality, every time a single film is developed and printed. Film "Latent Image", with time and experience(memory/practice), will be the equivalent of Artistic "Latent Image". It's well related to(it is), "Previsualization/Visualization" in the Art Of Photography.
Then, the "Methods/Process". Again, different worlds, actually. From before exposure, until having a dry print, the photographer is involved wholly, emotionally, mentally, visually and physically. That makes true artistically recallable memory. Sort of augmentation to the true "Visual Experience".
All of that is not attainable in digital photography or in any modern digitally based activity. Digital photography is an Art of its own character. It's also a professional money maker tool.
.

...
Can anyone link to a photographer or two, some examples (modern/contemporary) of shots that would not have been possible or wouldn't have had the same impact if they hadn't been made on LF?
...

It's impossible. You have to see real print with your real eyes in the reality, to reach a good conclusion for your self.
On computer LCD, the best work from Ansel Adams will looks like any other good B&W photo from 12MP digital camera.
.

...
It's a great point, that it isn't necessarily the quality, but rather the process by which one arrives at the final image that is the draw with LF.
I tend to look at digital vs analog in a similar way -
...

...
It's just that the different technologies tend to encourage different approaches, and people end up working quite differently.
I know that in the days of film, many pro's would also fire off rolls and rolls of film to get the one perfect shot.
...

For professionals(earning their money) and manufacturers, yes, it's just different tools.
For artists, it's different worlds.
No "Latent Image" of any kind in any digital activity, which means No "Imagination".
No "Hand Craft" in any digital activity, which means No true consistent "Visual Experience".
That does not dispossess digital from being art, at all. Digital can make the best Digital Arts.
If you are concerned with the job done, like professionals, happy to you, Go Digital.
If you are concerned with the Digital Arts, like many, happy to you, Go Digital.
If you are concerned with making Art, like the art made since hundreds of years, go classic, Do Film.
.

...
1. one can spend a lot of time pre-exposure planning the shot, setting up a tripod, framing the composition, checking/adjusting the lighting, etc, and finally making the exposure at the critical moment. One or two shots are usually all that's needed.
or...
2. one can fire off rapid fire at something that looks interesting, or one feels inspired, and then spend the same amount of time sorting through hundreds or thousands of images, fixing things like composition, lighting, exposure in post, to arrive at the final image.

I wonder if the total time spent is pretty close in practice.

...

It's the contents and experience within that time that matters, not just the quantitative measure of time.
Please read above comments.
.
Please review thread: Wondering why I still shoot film. Post#117:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...oot-film/page3

[Pere Casals]

I'm curious - why go with LF?

1. Individual development of each negative for better/finer control (doesn't PhotoShop make up for that, unless you're contact printing?)

The tonal curve is easier adjusted in photoshop, but a really skilled optical printer usually obtains a level of excellence that's really hard to beat. I can easily design an sculpture with Blender software and printing it 3D, but Michelangello made the Pietà with a hammer.

For me it's difficult to explain it, but being directly in touch with that medium allows to see things form another point of view. Digital offers more powerful tools to correct things and to manipulate the image, but a true artist may not require that. A soprano like Anna Netrebko does not use Auto-Tune gear, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Tune, pop artists use it and then their singing has no defects, but Anna's throughput plays in another division.

2. Movements for perspective control. Necessary in architectural shots, helpful in landscapes, any use elsewhere?

Movements are amazing for portraiture, you inclinate the plane of focus to obtain depth and to remark the features you want.

and am really curious about getting into LF, but am not sure what more it will offer.
I was wondering why people choose to go with LF. What's the advantage or appeal? No right or wrong answers, just wondering out loud.

First it will offer is drawbaks and complications. Slower, way more weight, investment requirements, higher cost and manpower per shot. And metering LF is an adventure...

Why do you shot 6x6 and not 35mm? 35mm is more agile, cheap and you shot more frames !!!

... but I guess you have better images in the 12 shots of a 120 roll than in the 36 shots of a 135 cartridge.

With LF it may happen the same to you. You perhaps will make 1/4 or 1/10 of the shots you make with MF, but perhaps (or not) you probably will obtain a better result.

With LF you may obtain total image quality (+200mpix worth), you obtain integrated camera movements for creative usage, you obtain the look from longer lenses for same scene (defocus roll-off, beyond DOF) and you can mount a legion of vintage lenses having a rebel personality.

Still today LF is the top notch in many ways, you may want it or not. But remember, if you make the mistake to look through a 8x10 ground glass you may not find the way back, it can be addictive.

[Eric Woodbury]

You'll find you make different kinds of photographs with LF. And the pace is different.

Enjoy.

[6x6TLL]

Wow, a lot of great responses here, thank you all.

Liquid - great point and one I'm noticing already in MF and even the 4x5 I tried out, even with glasses it's getting harder to see and focus (and I'm not that old!).

Oren - is there such a thing as 4x5 contact prints? The prevailing wisdom so far seems to indicate 4x5 is a good place to start, before eventually moving up to 8x10.

Thalmees - I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "decision vs choice", both imply the same thing in my head. I do understand and largely agree as far as the craft and human aspect goes compared to digital. I'm already shooting film, and will continue to. The issue at hand is whether to buy a LF rig and work more in that format, or simply continue with MF as I have been for a very long time now.

Pere - I shoot MF because I was never satisfied with the tiny 35mm negatives, or the tonality, resolution, etc. I'd rather have 12 frames to really concentrate on making count than 24-36 that were less critical and received less attention and care. Plus I much prefer composing in the wasit level finder on the ground glass, the whole image is right there in front of you to see. Also, it's easier imho to keep contact and rapport with a living subject, when shooting portraits, I can talk and keep up a banter while still shooting. The size & weight difference between the gear (35mm & MF) was negligible until I got a bunch of Rollei gear, which is much heavier than the Bronica was.

Eric - I think you may be right, which is what I notice with MF, and even when shooting 35mm film, I approach it differently than I would if I were shooting digital.

Thanks again.