I'm a big fan of reducing backs. I have backs for my Deardorff from 8x10 down to 3x4, and I can even use roll film with the 4x5 back. I wouldn't want to work any other way in the studio; I can't imagine setting up a different camera every time I wanted to use a different format. There are good reasons to use reducing backs in the field, as well.
Another good reason is that larger cameras tend to have longer bellows draw. While 300mm might be the upper limit for a typical 4x5 field camera, it's more like 600mm for an 8x10 folder. That sort of extension enables the use of long lenses, and lets us focus rather close if we like.
Conversely, use of wide angle lenses with reducing backs can be annoying. My 8x10 Dorff can barely handle a 120mm, but my favorite wide in the field for 4x5 is a 90mm. So, while a reducing back is great for certain things like studio portraiture, it doesn't necessarily replace another camera for other uses.
John Youngblood
www.jyoungblood.com
Excellent point !
I tend to use the widest lens on the largest format. I have an 8-1/2" Goerz I like as a moderately wide on 8x10, a normal on 5x7, and a very nice portrait lens on 4x5. Wide angles on the smallest format is not a good scenario for reducing backs.
Nice one. Very organic, even though in some sense it's not.
Originally Posted by Donald Miller
Nice shot Mike.
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. ~ Mark Twain
Thankyou Mark, nice to hear from you.
Parking Garage, Portland
5x7 Mentor, X-ray agfa film, rodinal
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks