Format Sizes...I'm going absolutely Crazy...HELP!!!!

[cotdt]

audioexcels, you should really get your film professionally scanned, they are so much better than the consumer scanners. not only the much higher resolution, but the better shadow detail and three dimensionality is amazing. like you say, if you're only going to make small prints, you can do that with your digital camera. for cheap black and white work, you're better off with an enlarger than scanning from a consumer scanner. you can do contact prints but eventually you'd want bigger.

i never get any flare with 4x5, no matter what lens i use. i've actually never seen a large format lens flare, like my 35mm zoom lenses do.

> You just have the wrong lenses :-)... I certainly won't argue the many advantages of 4x5... but all my lenses cover 5x7 with plenty of movements...but thats because I geared up for larger formats. If I was only going to shoot 4x5, I would have bought smaller lenses as all that added coverage is a waste in both resolution and lens size/weight.

Sadly, I have a low budget so lenses like the 110XL are not an option for me, and besides, I need to carry all the equipment in my backpack. Film is also expensive, especially Velvia. I can shoot hundreds of pictures in a one-day trip, so costs add up quickly and here 4x5 saves me a lot of money. To summarize:

1) 4x5 is smaller and cheaper. film, processing, lenses, holders, camera, assesories like flashes, etc.

2) 4x5 can use movements, whereas for 5x7, only a small selection of (very expensive) lenses can. i'm talking mostly about wide angle lenses.

3) If you're getting your film professionally scanned, 4x5 is the sweet spot in terms of resolution and practicality. bglick calculates 8x10 as only having 1.3x the resolution of 4x5. 8x10 is simply too big to bring to trips.

4) 4x5 ground glass is still quite a bit better than the small, choppy LiveView screens of digital cameras. You can match the focal length of your lens with a screen optimized for it, to get brighter and less grainy viewing.

5) 4x5 aspect ratio is perfect for enlarging to 8x10 paper! great for portraits.

[David A. Goldfarb]

As for 4X5 and movements, how do you use a lens with extreme movements without flare occuring due to the shorter bellows? I was always curious about this question=short bellows or is it "larger" bellows that helps with lens flare?

1--"Extreme movements" aren't that common except in still life photography. You might use a lot of front rise or shift for an architectural, but for portraits and landscapes, you don't need much movement.

2--Try it, and see if bellows flare is really a problem for you. You seem to be worrying about a problem that you haven't actually experienced.

3--Use a compendium shade to restrict the image circle to the minimum necessary, and you'll avoid the problem of bellows flare and will reduce internal lens flare.

4--An oversize bellows does help to reduce bellows flare, but it's only really a practical solution in the studio, since most people don't want to carry an oversize camera in the field.

[audioexcels]

Thanks David.

[audioexcels]

audioexcels, you should really get your film professionally scanned, they are so much better than the consumer scanners. not only the much higher resolution, but the better shadow detail and three dimensionality is amazing.

I agree. I imagine the clean file is wonderful to see. Let me ask you this one...why are there other formats if 4X5 can do it all? Why would people ever hike with an 8X10 Philips Compact or go around the world with such a large camera? I suppose the question is why would anyone use anything but 4X5 by virtue of your argument?

BTW, the 110XL is a very very light/compact lens IMHO...It's perfect for packing/travel trips.

[Kuzano]

Example. I bought a brand new Shen Hao a few years ago. Used it a few times and sold it for what I paid. Why? I met an old friend from school years, who is a 40 year Art History professor retired. All his life in academia he has been shooting large format in Colorado and the 4 corners area. He has an unbelievable archive of 4X5 negs and transparencies. I asked him if I could bring my two large cameras to him for advice on which one to keep.

One was a 3 pound (with lens) Calumet based on the Gowland Pocket... very small monorail with back tilt (thats all) and front rise, swing, shift, and tilt. The Shen Hoa was 6 pounds without the lens and a wondrous range of movements for a wood field camera. Obviously there are other difference in quality and setup procedures. The Shen locks down better than the Calumet, but the Calumet is imminently usable with a little patience and care.

Bottom line, my friend looked at the two cameras and told me to keep the Calumet. I asked why... His response. "Look, I know what you want to shoot. Why in the hell do you want to pack around all those movements?" he went on to tell me that movements for landscape and much other photography are highly over-rated. The Calumet has 95% of the most used movements, outside of studio work, if you know how to set up the camera properly.

The Shen Hao was $700 new from Badger with the folding door over the GG. The Calumet was $160 on eBay and appears unused. The money is not the decisive factor, but is good news. I saved enough to buy two good lenses on eBay in shutter.

It's so easy to get caught up in the "how many movements" does it have and pay by the movement.... The longer the list, the more money for the camera body.

Just another opinion.

Oh yes, and the Calumet also has a graflok back, so I can use the 6X12 and 6X17 addon backs that are available.

[cotdt]

BTW, the 110XL is a very very light/compact lens IMHO...It's perfect for packing/travel trips.

There's quite a big difference in size between the 90mm lens that I use and the 110XL:



In fact, my 4x5 camera would no longer fold with the 110XL attached.

Let me ask you this one...why are there other formats if 4X5 can do it all? Why would people ever hike with an 8X10 Philips Compact or go around the world with such a large camera? I suppose the question is why would anyone use anything but 4X5 by virtue of your argument?

Actually I've never actually seen anyone shoot an 8x10 camera in person, though I've met plenty of 4x5 professional photographers all over the place. 4x5 is still pretty common here in California, where you can even go to the shopping mall and see magazine photographers using such things on their tripods, 8x10 I bet is pretty rare. I'm guessing people shoot 8x10 for the contact prints. On the streets I see people selling 4x10 and 8x10 B&W contact prints for $60 each, and a lot of people buy them. In my opinion these contact prints are not even well made, but they sell like hotcakes anyway.

[sanking]

I agree. I imagine the clean file is wonderful to see.

Don't underestimate scanners like the V750. You can easily do up to 3X-4X with this scanner and I doubt many people could tell the difference on the print from a scan made with a much more expensive scanner, especially if it is an inkjet print. That is about 12X15" - 16X20" from a 4X5 negative, and 15X21" X 20X28" from 5X7. If you want larger prints than that for special images pay someone to do a scan for you on high end flatbed or drum scanner.

I use an Epson 4990 to scan some of my 5X7 negatives, and if the magnification is not greater than 3X-4X results are just as good in inkjet prints as from scans made with more expensive scanners. An Epson 4990 is capable of about 2000 ppi efffective resolution, which amounts to about 40 lines per mm. If you start with 40 lines per mm on your film, which is not hard to do with a 4X5 or 5X7 camera, doubling the size twice still leaves you with 10 lines per mm in the scan with an Epson 4990. 10 lines pe millimeter is more resolution than you can get from an inkjet printer.

Sandy King

[audioexcels]

Don't underestimate scanners like the V750. You can easily do up to 3X-4X with this scanner and I doubt many people could tell the difference on the print from a scan made with a much more expensive scanner, especially if it is an inkjet print. That is about 12X15" - 16X20" from a 4X5 negative, and 15X21" X 20X28" from 5X7. If you want larger prints than that for special images pay someone to do a scan for you on high end flatbed or drum scanner.

I use an Epson 4990 to scan some of my 5X7 negatives, and if the magnification is not greater than 3X-4X results are just as good in inkjet prints as from scans made with more expensive scanners. An Epson 4990 is capable of about 2000 ppi efffective resolution, which amounts to about 40 lines per mm. If you start with 40 lines per mm on your film, which is not hard to do with a 4X5 or 5X7 camera, doubling the size twice still leaves you with 10 lines per mm in the scan with an Epson 4990. 10 lines pe millimeter is more resolution than you can get from an inkjet printer.

Sandy King

Thanks Sandy. What's your own experience doing a 5X7 contact vs. using the Eversmart or Epson to do a 5X7 scan/post-process/inkjet? I know about the debate that has resulted in those that do not see a difference and those that do. With the new papers, it doesn't seem to matter and they are made to look identical to a contact, etc. etc. Just curious if you see that something special in the contact print or 1X enlargement that has a 3-D type put your and into the image feel?

It never seizes to amaze me that when looking at "art" work in galleries, the most amazing stuff still seems to come from these very old and big blowups in some random place like a local seafood restaurant where they have photos from late 1800's/early 1900's that are not so pinpoint sharp, but have this incredible life-like look to them, making these other prints done likely on smaller formats from whatever time period of 90's/2000's look like garbage...I mean, a poster sized print vs. 1/2 of that size looking not only sharper, but also taking you into the image is really impressive considering the major difference time periods (basically 100 years apart).

[audioexcels]

There's quite a big difference in size between the 90mm lens that I use and the 110XL:



In fact, my 4x5 camera would no longer fold with the 110XL attached.



Actually I've never actually seen anyone shoot an 8x10 camera in person, though I've met plenty of 4x5 professional photographers all over the place. 4x5 is still pretty common here in California, where you can even go to the shopping mall and see magazine photographers using such things on their tripods, 8x10 I bet is pretty rare. I'm guessing people shoot 8x10 for the contact prints. On the streets I see people selling 4x10 and 8x10 B&W contact prints for $60 each, and a lot of people buy them. In my opinion these contact prints are not even well made, but they sell like hotcakes anyway.

Hehehehehe...check back on my post on those contacts from 5X7 by Lauren Rabbit off Flickr. The one photos I linked to is the exact type of 3-D look I cannot put my finger on, but that hair on the left photo looks like it is stitting in a window of a shop and not a photo!!! I've simply never seen this "look" in anything but some 4X5 polaroid shots I have taken...well...not quite that amazing, obviously, but the same essential 3-D look I do not see with any other format I have shot with.

I'm curious if people buy those contact prints just because they say "contact print", etc...though they don't look so good.

You can see the 110XL is a lens that certainly rocks that 90 out of the water, but in my world, if you want the 90XL out for a comparo, hehehehehe...watch out But remember, regardless of folding a camera or not, these lenses do not weight excessively much. The 90XL is a bit of a best, definitely. The 110XL is not. I can "easily" take along the 90XL/210mm Symmar S/and the Nikkor 300M and have with me a 4X5 reduction back for the 5X7/8 or 6X8 main back. The holders for the 6X8 back are very very light...not like a Fidelity or QL, but compared to them, they really are not that much heavier...more like "bulkier"...meaning, just gotta carry a larger bag. I bet I could put together a camera that can shoot 6X8, 4X8, and 4X5 all in one package for 20lbs max, and have an Arca Swiss for rigidity sakes...

I disagree with the person above about the tiny weighted camera in the field. It can do the job just fine, but I'd sacrifice 3lbs to have a weigh more sturdy camera with full yaw free control...

[David A. Goldfarb]

Oh yes, and the Calumet also has a graflok back, so I can use the 6X12 and 6X17 addon backs that are available.

I had a 4x5 Gowland PocketView (and still have an 8x10"), and I would be a bit wary of using heavy rollfilm backs on it. Maybe a lightweight 6x12, but the 6x17 expansion back might be a bit too much.