Large Format Shooters... MF as backup?

[Capocheny]

The reality for me is that my buying public cannot and does not care about the slight difference in sharpness between a 16x20 print produced from my 4x5 as compared to my Mamiya 7. Sigh... I have to remind myself of this quite often. My best selling 16x20 prints are still from 120 film. This is a drag because the 4x5 prints are superior, but darn it my buying public buys the "image" and not sharpness and perspective control.

Cheers,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Do you mount the Mamiya 7 on a tripod when shooting? And, are you having the negs drum scanned for your 16x20?

Reason I'm asking is because I've seen some MF enlarged to 20x24 and they look absolutely amazing. Yes, 4x5 and larger may give more but the MF at 16x20 should be pretty decent as well.


Eli,

I've just returned from an afternoon of shooting with the Blad... first comment is, "what a joy it is with not having to carry 45lbs of gear on my back!"

Second comment is that, "As much as I enjoy shooting 4x5 and larger... I really, really enjoyed shooting with a 6x6 format! It was an exciting couple of hours... almost a rebirth!" :>0


jvuokko,

I liked the square format so much I think I'll mark the ground glass on my 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 for future outings.


Cheers

[Henry Carter]

I have been using a 4x5 Linhof Master Technika for almost 10 years, and really like its versatility as well as the option to use it hand-held with rangefinder focusing. I love seeing prints from good 4x5 negs!

When travelling, especially with family, shooting 4x5 is really not a populat option, especially with a large tripod and fussing over the ground-glass. Last year I came across a late production Linhof Super Technika V 2x3, and after an overhaul by Linhof and camming 3 new lenses, I have a perfect 2/3 size Technika with most of the funtionality of its 4x5 big brother, but in a smaller/lighter and more portable package.

It is much easier to travel with (and using only roll-film is liberating), it is easier to shoot hand-held, and with a small bag you can use it as a take on the fly snapshot camera. You can also get away with a smaller and more compact CF tripod.

I am very pleased with the results from 6x9 negs. The added versatility of the camera opens up new photographic directions, and I find myself taking the 6x9 camera with me when in the past I would never have thought to grab and go with the 4x5.

I do not use MF as a back-up to 4x5, but as a complement to it, extending my range of options. If 4x5 were a warm winter coat, MF would be a spring or fall jacket. Taken together they extend your season.

May Ilford live long and prosper. Here's to HP5 processed in PMK Pyro!

[sanking]

Hi Peter,

Do you mount the Mamiya 7 on a tripod when shooting? And, are you having the negs drum scanned for your 16x20?

Reason I'm asking is because I've seen some MF enlarged to 20x24 and they look absolutely amazing. Yes, 4x5 and larger may give more but the MF at 16x20 should be pretty decent as well.


Cheers

In order to get the most out of a Mamiya 7 negative you definitely need to use it on a tripod at the optimum aperture and scan the negative with a dedicated film scanner or drum scanner. with that technique, and use of a fine grain film like Tmax-100 or Acros you can easily make prints up to 35X45" in size of image quality equal to 4X5" film. A friend just printed a 44X60" (Epson 9800) print for me from one of my Mamiy 7 negatives, Fuji Acros developed in two-bath Pyrocat-HD. The negative was shot on a tripod at f/11 and scanned at 5080 spi with a dedicated film scanner. With no interpolation the file prints 36X44"" at 310 dpi so it still contains incredible detail and sharpness at 44X60", and is virtually grain free. I am attaching a file showing the entire scene with a crop.

I sometimes use MF to back up my LF outfit, but with the Mamiy 7 outfit I use MF where LF is not possible or practical.


Sandy

[Peter De Smidt]

Sandy, I seem to remember you saying elsewhere that prints bigger than 16x20 were "obscene." That's a really nice image, btw.

[ljsegil]

For a fraction of the cost of the new Bessa III one can pick up a vintage MF folding rangefinder like the Zeiss Ikonta series with excellent Zeiss Tessar glass or the prewar Voigtlander Bessa RF camera with a Heliar lens (postwar Bessas get kind of pricey), their folded size falls between that of two to three 4x5 film holders in thickness and a bit less than a holder in length and width (outweigh the holders by a bit, however). Same large 6x4.5-6x9 negatives, depending on model (variable format on some if the mask has not been lost), and if one finds a sample with a good lens and reliable shutter (most seem to be Compurs) the results can be excellent, and achieved with minimal cost, weight, and lost space in the bag. Once folded they seem to be quite rugged as well, which I suppose accounts for their continued existence in good condition.
And thanks once more, R. S., for adding to my collection!
This is to take away nothing whatsoever from the new Bessa III which I'm sure is outstanding and a delight to use, but that does take more bling than I can budget these days, while these older guys are more in my current league and do produce a similar negative.
Larry

[sanking]

Sandy, I seem to remember you saying elsewhere that prints bigger than 16x20 were "obscene." That's a really nice image, btw.

Peter,

I did write that, but my friend saw a 12X18" carbon print I made from this negative and was so impressed with the detail that he volunteered to make me a very large print on his 9800. The print quality in the big print is just unbelievable.

Now what to do with this big print? It is really much too large for my home.

Sandy

[Mike Reyburn]

This has been a very informative thread. I also travel with a Mamiya 7II to complement my 4X5 for the same reasons listed above. However, I miss the ability to develop individual sheets (B&W) and the camera movements. I recently upgraded the 135mm lens on my old Crown Graphic ( 135mm Nikkor W) and try and use this camera in windy conditions where I can either focus by rangefinder or GG and "lean" on the camera to minimize vibrations. It is also nice to be able to shoot one or two frames hand held if there is sufficient light and time is short. I carry the graphic in a Domke satchel bag along with 5 or 6 holders, light meter, loupe filters, cable release, etc.

[Mcqueen278]

Mamiya RB/RZ67 make a little more sense to me than a Blad as a "back up" piece. The 6x7 aspect is nice and the weight shouldn't bother you because you already have a tripod for the LF gear handy. Blads are really for a whole different kind of work/fun than LF.

[Capocheny]

In order to get the most out of a Mamiya 7 negative you definitely need to use it on a tripod at the optimum aperture and scan the negative with a dedicated film scanner or drum scanner. with that technique, and use of a fine grain film like Tmax-100 or Acros you can easily make prints up to 35X45" in size of image quality equal to 4X5" film. A friend just printed a 44X60" (Epson 9800) print for me from one of my Mamiy 7 negatives, Fuji Acros developed in two-bath Pyrocat-HD. The negative was shot on a tripod at f/11 and scanned at 5080 spi with a dedicated film scanner. With no interpolation the file prints 36X44"" at 310 dpi so it still contains incredible detail and sharpness at 44X60", and is virtually grain free. I am attaching a file showing the entire scene with a crop.

I sometimes use MF to back up my LF outfit, but with the Mamiy 7 outfit I use MF where LF is not possible or practical.


Sandy

Hi Sandy,

Your techniques make perfectly good sense to me. With the Arca Swiss ball head and plate system... I'll be mounting the Blad on it whenever I'm out shooting just for the added stability.

Sure can't complain about the details in your shot...

That was why I asked Peter about his comment, ".... slight difference in sharpness between a 16x20 print produced from my 4x5 as compared to my Mamiya 7." As I had mentioned, I've seen some pretty tack sharp images come off of the Mamiya 7 when enlarged to 20x24. I can only imagine the 44"x66" sized print as that's another HUGE step up from the 20x24 that I've seen.

Btw Sandy, out of curiosity, do you shoot the Acros at the manufacturer's suggested rating? [I've just shot my first roll of Acros 100 and haven't gotten the results back yet.]

Cheers

[sanking]

Hi Sandy,

Your techniques make perfectly good sense to me. With the Arca Swiss ball head and plate system... I'll be mounting the Blad on it whenever I'm out shooting just for the added stability.

Sure can't complain about the details in your shot...

That was why I asked Peter about his comment, ".... slight difference in sharpness between a 16x20 print produced from my 4x5 as compared to my Mamiya 7." As I had mentioned, I've seen some pretty tack sharp images come off of the Mamiya 7 when enlarged to 20x24. I can only imagine the 44"x66" sized print as that's another HUGE step up from the 20x24 that I've seen.

Btw Sandy, out of curiosity, do you shoot the Acros at the manufacturer's suggested rating? [I've just shot my first roll of Acros 100 and haven't gotten the results back yet.]

Cheers

Depending on the subject and subject brightness range I expose Acros at EF 25-50 when using the built-in meter of the Mamiya 7II. If I were using an incident metering I would rate the film at EFS 100 and take the reading in the open shadow area of the scene.

Sandy King