Heresy

[Charlie Stracl]

This has turned out to be a wonderful discussion thread.

I've yet to fully master LF work in 4x5, but the biggest gain I've found is in tonal range and smoother micro-contrast. You won't see these in TMax unless you really work out your exposures & developing system. It's pretty easy to see in traditional films, though, such as AgfaPan, FP4+, HP5+, Tri-X. Get the Film Developing Cookbook (Troop & Anchell). It has a good discussion of film/developer combinations, and tells you why the TMax films don't deliver everything they seem to promise, and how to get the best out of them.

At 4x5, the grain won't appear that much better on the available traditional 4x5 films than with MF AgfaPan 25.

[Jeff White]

To me the advantage of LF is the means of operation. When I am finding a photograph, it is a much more deliberate process than when working with a handheld camera. I know that there will be more work in the darkroom precisely developing each sheet for the particular subject matter, not to mention the added expense. I think that it is this attention to detail that tends to make LF images better. When I look at prints from Ansel Adams, John Sexton or Ray McSavaney and the like, there is grain in their photographs. Fine grain and sharpness tend to be at opposite ends of the spectrum. For me the advantage of using a LF camera is the mind set that I use in the process. I must say that since I have learned the lessons of LF that my smaller format work has improved.

[Doug Paramore]

I have never felt that sharpness was the deciding factor between medium, 35mm or large format. I will agree with you in an instant if you say your Canon, Nikon or Hasselblad lens is sharper than my 4x5 or 8x10 lens. I suspect some of the smaller point and shoot cameras might have sharper lenses. The difference comes with the room on the negative. That room delivers smoothness, contrast between adjoining tiny image areas, and gradation. My LF prints look sharp due to the above mentions advantages. I am satisfied with the way they look, as are my customers. I have never had a single customer say they my prints needed more sharpness. I have two prints that are good sellers that were made with what most younger photographers would say were piece of crap lenses. One was made with one cell of an uncoated, triple convertable Wollensak lens that does not even begin to quit being fuzzy until about f16. The other is an 8x10 shot made with a Gundlach anastigmat that is from the turn of the century. Both prints appear sharp, have great tones, and have won numerous prizes at art shows. They are sharp enough. On the other hand, were I doing studio work, I would not consider large format even though I learned to shoot portraits on a 5x7 Noba stand camera. The Hassys, Bronicas, Pentax 6x7 and RB67s run rings around LF for color studio work. They are cheaper to operate, have great film capacity and much easier on the photographer. Outdoors is a different story. I want those movements, even though I do 99 percent of my scenic work with front and back tilts. I very, very seldom use sliding front or back movements and only very rarely swing movements, but I want them there if I need them. One camera type does not replace another. I certainly would not want to photograph a football game with my 8x10 or 4x5, although sports were covered for many years with LF. Give me a 35mm with motor drive and 36 exposures for such events.

[Brian Ellis]

You didn't mention the size of your enlargements. I use both 6x7 (usually HP5+ or T Max 100) and 4x5 (same films). When I enlarge to 8x10 I see no difference in "sharpness" with either size. When I enlarge to 11x14 I don't usually see a "sharpness" difference but I think I sometimes see better tonal gradations with 4x5. When I enlarge to 16x20 (which I don't do very often) I see a definite difference in both sharpness and tonality with 4x5. However, even if you never enlarge beyond 8x10, as others have said there are reasons to use large format besides "sharpness."