LF and DSLR... a few questions

[MJSfoto1956]

Jerome makes a great point -- using a "big" camera changes the way you see. Perhaps the best way to imagine it is thus: when shooting with a "big" camera, each image is precious. And thus you tend to invest more of yourself into it. A "small" camera by comparison is better at taking "informal" photographs. It is not uncommon to click 20, 30, or even 40 images or more of the same subject with a smaller camera regardless of whether or not it is film or digital. Of course, this is precisely what you need if you are attempting to capture sports or anything with significant "action" (although truth be told, it is still possible to pull this off -- with much skill -- using a "big" camera).

So yes, the resulting photos are generally quite different as are the techiniques used to acheive them. Personally, I believe a trained eye can tell the difference immediately (regardless of resolution or even dynamic range). Time and time again, the "big" camera delivers a precious quality that a smaller camera generally doesn't. Conversely, a smaller camera delivers a "looseness" that generall a large camera has trouble with.

[Mark Sawyer]

"However, there are obviously some major drawbacks to LF, as I am sure you know better than me. Besides the weight, the likelihood of error, and the general tedium that I associate with the darkroom..."

Go digital, whatever the format. If you don't enjoy the darkroom, you will never excel there, and there is no honest reason you would want to.

"Uelsmann has been combining images in the darkroom for 40 years and is a master at the technique. Much of the technique can now be done in the computer with PS."

One can also take a photo of two dogs humping and with the right software, turn it into a Van Gogh-style expressionist nightmare. That doesn't make it a Van Gogh...

My God, photoshop may be the only software package ever created where every item on every menu is a synonym for "lie to make it look better..."

Sorry, two glasses of home-made apple-wine and I turn into a troll...

[Ballpointpenner]

Wow,

I am amazed by both the quantity and the quality of the answers provided. Thanks guys.

Gary, your offer is both extremely generous on your part and an amazing opportunity for me -- I think this will make all the difference, moreso than any kind of advice ever could. I will definitely take you up on it, so expect an email.

Robert, that link is great; this is indeed the direction which I wish to explore. Actually, the whole website is pretty cool and has many photographers which I never heard of.

The rest of you have also been very helpful.

- Bpp

[Jay W]

This has been an interesting thread. I've been following the progress of digital cameras thinking that there will be a point where digital quality will be "good enough" to drop the big packs of gear. So it's really interesting to hear that folks think of digital in the same terms as a smaller film camera.

Here's a curve ball suggestion. You could try medium format for a while. The gear is very cheap now, the image quality very good, and you could have a go at developing and darkroom work (maybe borrowing some darkroom time) without investing a ton. Medium format negs can be enlarged with good results, but you may find that you don't make really large prints very often because it takes a really good image to justify a really large print. (At least that's the case for me.) Using roll film is very convenient and makes for fewer mistakes.

Jay W

[photographs42]

I second that advice. As a newbie to the format, when you try it, even for just a day or two, you'll know. At least that's how it was for me.......

This reminds me of my first experience with LF. For years I used a 35mm for family stuff and 26 years ago, when I started to photograph seriously, it was with the 35mm. About a year later, I started thinking…All of my images were made with the camera on a tripod, using a shutter release, and the subject wasn’t going anywhere. I had never used a LF camera but thought….. This is what LF is for. A few weeks later I found a used Port-A-View kit camera and for $175.00 I bought the camera, a lens and two film holders. I thought for that small of an investment I couldn’t go wrong.

The next day I took my new camera and a peanut butter sandwich into the woods and fell in love! The thing that struck me the most was that I could really see what I was photographing. Instead of peeking at the image with one eye through a little hole, I was looking at it with both eyes and the difference was a quantum leap. WOW! I knew in a minute that I could not go back to peeking through that little hole. It was a while before I found a 4x5 enlarger that I could afford, but when I did, I was hooked for good. Once I printed from a large negative it was all over for the 35mm. I kept the Port-A-View for a couple of years while I invested in some good lenses. My theory was: When the shutter opens, there is nothing between the film and the subject except the glass. Eventually I bought a 4x5 Linhof Technika and in 1999 I purchased a 5x7 Technika, which I currently use.

In my day job, I am an Architect, but I often do Architectural photography for the company I work for. A few years ago we decided to switch to digital for most of the Architectural work. Most of it is for publication and the D200 does a decent job. It has many advantages over 4x5 film and a few drawbacks but for the intended use it works OK.

As I get older, and I’m already old, it gets harder to lug the LF stuff around. I could switch to MF or DSLR, but that’s not what I want to do. I could scan my negatives and print on an inkjet printer, but that’s not what I want to do.

I just returned from an Art Fair in Pontiac, MI. The show draws a crowd of over a million people. It’s a white bread world. Most of those people don’t know and don’t care if the image was made with a film camera or digital, traditional silver gelatin or inkjet. They are looking for something that is cute or that matches their sofa. But the people looking for actual Art, know the difference and appreciate the quality of a selenium toned silver print from a LF negative. That is my market, but I don’t do what I do for them, I do it for ME.

Jerome

[Patrik Roseen]

...
The next day I took my new camera and a peanut butter sandwich into the woods and fell in love! The thing that struck me the most was that I could really see what I was photographing. Instead of peeking at the image with one eye through a little hole, I was looking at it with both eyes and the difference was a quantum leap. WOW! I knew in a minute that I could not go back to peeking through that little hole. It was a while before I found a 4x5 enlarger that I could afford, but when I did, I was hooked for good. Once I printed from a large negative it was all over for the 35mm.

... But the people looking for actual Art, know the difference and appreciate the quality of a selenium toned silver print from a LF negative. That is my market, but I don’t do what I do for them, I do it for ME.

Jerome

Jerome, Now I understand why my 35mm does not get used so often anymore. Very well put in words. Thank you!

(BTW, I miss the peanut butter sandwiches I had for school lunch during a few years living in Menlo Park, California in the late 70's...I need to remember to buy some on my way home...I wonder if I can find the 'crunchy' type?)

[photographs42]

This has been an interesting thread. I've been following the progress of digital cameras thinking that there will be a point where digital quality will be "good enough" to drop the big packs of gear. So it's really interesting to hear that folks think of digital in the same terms as a smaller film camera.

Here's a curve ball suggestion. You could try medium format for a while. The gear is very cheap now, the image quality very good, and you could have a go at developing and darkroom work (maybe borrowing some darkroom time) without investing a ton. Medium format negs can be enlarged with good results, but you may find that you don't make really large prints very often because it takes a really good image to justify a really large print. (At least that's the case for me.) Using roll film is very convenient and makes for fewer mistakes.

Jay W

Jay,
Most people think that way because the DSLR is affordable. Digital backs that begin to equal LF film are very expensive and while they produce good results, the end product is different. “Good enough” is a relative term at best.

I have a photographer friend who is fond of saying; “If you buy a camera, you are a photographer. If you buy a flute, you own a flute.” This is even truer now that the digital revolution has arrived. The craft of photography has been reduced to being able to press a button and make a few adjustments in Photoshop. For some people that’s “good enough”. I know a lot of people who own digital cameras that don’t know an f stop from a bus stop, but they think of themselves as photographers. Oh, well…..

As it is with any art form, the Art of photography is, however, independent of the tools used to produce it. Great photographs have been made with cameras of every size and shape. A painter doesn’t choose between a brush or a palette knife because it’s the latest thing, he or she chooses the tool that matches his or her vision.

Perhaps my biggest objection to the digital process is that it has spawned far more bad art than I could have imagined. OK, you digital aficionados out there can beat me up over that one now.

Jerome
http://www.jeromehawkins.com/

[photographs42]

Jerome, Now I understand why my 35mm does not get used so often anymore. Very well put in words. Thank you!

(BTW, I miss the peanut butter sandwiches I had for school lunch during a few years living in Menlo Park, California in the late 70's...I need to remember to buy some on my way home...I wonder if I can find the 'crunchy' type?)

Eating smooth peanut butter is like peeking through that little hole.

Jerome