Move from 35mm to 4x5

[Jamie123]

Get a medium format camera. I'd go for a Mamiya RZII set up.

Let me tell you why you should go MF instead of LF. Firstly, you might be mislead a bit about the advantage of the large ground glass. Yes, it is big but it is also upside down and can be somewhat dim at times as the maximum aperture of most LF lenses is not that large. And then there's the fact that, once you have all your settings in place, you have to tell the subject to hold still while you close down the lens, cock the shutter, slide in the film holder, remove the darkslide and make the exposure.
An MF camera such as an RZ in comparison is much easier to use. You have a large sized ground glass you can look at with both eyes, the image is right side up and, since it's an SLR, you can capture spontaneous expressions much more easily. That, and you can shoot more frames than you could with LF for the same price.
Don't get me wrong, I love LF portraiture but for someone coming from 35mm digital I think it would be wise to first go with MF. It's still a somewhat slower, more contemplative process than 35mm but not as extreme as LF.

Now as for quality, I really think there's no need to go 4x5 or 8x10 just because you want to print big. For years people have shot billboard campaigns on 6x7 film with no problem. And that was before there were such fine grained films like Kodak Portra 400/160 or Ektar 100.

As for your 'vision' and your project, I'd advise you to take things slowly. One thing you have to understand is that when you start using a new format and equipment it takes time to adapt and perfect your vision in that medium. You might want to first try out a few things and make sure you're really comfortable with your chosen format before you start with your project and, more importantly, before you spend lots of money.

[Len Middleton]

First, welcome to the asylum. The inmates here are an opinionated lot, and most are very happy to provide one to you. All you have to do is sort out which bit of advice would work best for you. So you did come to the right place...

I expect that from what I remember in Port of Spain (in 2006 when the Soca Warriors were in the World Cup), that you are likely on your own, with little infrastructure to support you.

A LF (large format) 4x5 or 8x10 will very obviously change the way you work in a very big way. MF (medium format) will be a change, but not as radical.

You can of course limit the composition and focusing issues through preperation and advanced set up for either LF or MF.

The bigger issue will likely be the lack of resources to manage the output. Shipping a Jobo processor will likely be expensive, maybe more than the purchase price. You might consider the use of Jobo drums, but on a motor base instead rather than a Jobo processor. I do not know how at what temperatures the C41 chemcials need to be used at or how sensitive they are to temperature variation. That might have an impact as well.

As I do only wet darkroom, others can better advise you on digital scanning and output.

Good luck with your project,

Len

PS I would not bring the LF camera to a match for the Soca Warriors or the West Indies.

[laroygreen]

I wouldn't bring those to a match either! Waste of film

Anyways, I thought of medium format, and to me, I might as well stick with my DSLR if that is the case. The advantage just doesn't seem to be much worth it (as mentioned, the real issue is probably developing film, though I guess 120 would be easier than sheet). Also been thinking that in this day and age, you really don't need a ground glass on modern SLRs as you can just hockup a mini hdmi monitor or laptop and just use live view on a larger, probably brighter screen. But, that wasn't my initial aim in any case, as I probably won't even be directly behind the camera, but more off to the side directing the models (read, not fashion!), i.e. once the focal length and focus is set, I'll only be re-engaging the shutter and changing film.

, still don't know. Anyways, I'm going by the gallery I want to show in sometime this week, so maybe I can get some guidance and see what their looking for (also, the owner was a popular film photographer in his younger days, who shot large format, who knows, he might have stuff laying around I could buy or even borrow )

P.S. My shipping company has a simple formula, basically 2/3 the cost of the item would cover customs and shipping. So, if a jobo costs 500 USD I'd have to pay around 330 USD in shipping and customs. So, even though I say I could spend up to 2000 USD, in reality, I'll probably spend around 3300 USD in total. Truly depressing but, that's just how it is.

[Jamie123]

Well, if you think your 35mm DSLR comes anywhere near 6x7 film you're terribly mistaken. I use both a Canon 5DII and 6x7 film and, believe me, the 6x7 is much better. It's not only the resolution but also the soft gradations. IMO the difference between 35mm and 6x7 film is a lot bigger than the difference between 6x7 film and 4x5 film.
You can buy a simple Jobo drum (no need for a heavy processor) for very little money and do the development by hand. The smallest ones that work for 120 film take two rolls on one reel so with 6x7 that's 20 shots. Personally, I've never developed C-41 at home but a friend of mine does it and says it's a piece of cake. All you have to look out for is that the initial bath is the right temperature but after that there's not much you can do wrong.
Anyways, are you sure you can't have film processed locally at a decent quality? Ask that gallery owner, he might know someone that does it.

I don't know what kind of gallery you're looking at but if you're talking about a serious art gallery it's surely not as easy as just telling them about your vision and asking what they're looking for. I don't want to discourage you but you may want to do the project first and then approach the gallery. Also, what they are looking for should be irrelevant to your project.

[Brian C. Miller]

Martin Schoeller, New York 8x10 portrait photographer, YouTube video

OK, here's my experience with color developing: you have to have a lot of film ready to go, otherwise the chemicals will go bad on you fast. While color is just as easy to develop as black & white, the chemicals oxidize very quickly. You can't put them away like you can with b&w chems.

A Jobo CPE2 can be easily used with the 4x5 reel tanks (2551/2553), no problem, I do it myself. However, you will need either an ATL or late model CPP2 to use the big expert drums. The color chemicals need to be around 40C, and the CPE2 will be good enough for that. The temperature control is not calibrated, so you have to use a lab thermometer (about $30) to get the actual reading.

As for scanning, the smaller the negative means that you'll need a better scanner. Based on my experience, I would use drum-scanned MF up to 48 inches. 4x5 is better quality, 8x10 is better quality yet. If you use 8x10, then you can also use an Epson 700 or 750 scanner. These will get reasonably good detail from the negative. There is a scanner comparison page here where you can match up scanners for comparison.

Come to think of it, since you're next door to Venezuela, is there a lab there that can develop color for you?

[laroygreen]

Was just thinking that MF won't get me to where I want to be, so might as well stick with the lesser (easier and cheaper) of 2 evils (in this case). Kinda like sticking with your old car, rather than buying a new Toyota, when you really want a Ferrari . But, you are right, physically, 6x7 isn't that much smaller than 4x5, but since starting this thread, I've graduated from 4x5 to 8x10

With the Jobo drum, seems like a good idea (I've seen this on Vimeo as well), but I just wanted to make sure I minimized the potential for mistakes (by automating as much as possible, especially the temperture). May be overkill to get the whole thing. I'd rather send a negative to the US than Venezuela. Not for any other reason than I would have to find someone reliable who could recommend a good lab that would do mail in processing. For the US and UK, you can see those endorsements online all the time.

I've never done anything of this scale before photographically, and it will be a big gamble. I don't expect any financial reward, but I'll be so disappointed if I can't pull this off in the way I intend to (forget the large prints for now). I really want to get these images out of my mind on onto paper as exactly as the laws of reality allow. I can't paint or write, so photography is the only way I can show it to people. It may be that no one wants to see it, but once I transfer my vision to paper, I'd be happy regardless. So, as long as my pursuit for a larger negative doesn't detract from my primary aim, I'll pursue it just because it provides more options later. If it starts to interfere (cost, quality, etc.), then I'll revert to 35mm.

So, I guess its settled then? 8x10 view camera!

I've seen some recommendations for view cameras in the thread (thanks!), but, I'll go and do some reading first to make sure I understand what I'll need and why before asking about any specific gear to buy. The local library has copies of Ansel Adams' books, and they also have a few other view camera books from yonder years (good thing the technology hasn't changed much).

Thanks all for the help and I'll be back soon!

[Two23]

The difference between 35mm and 4x5 is like the difference between a toy piano and a Steinway. If you are shooting in a studio only, an 8x10 might work for you. If shooting at different locations, a 4x5 would be a lot easier to work with and more economical. Modern lenses have Copal shutters, and you can attach CyberSync etc. triggers to pop the monolights. Don't forget that LF has much less DoF than 35mm, but that might actually be an advantage for portraits.


Kent in SD

[Greg Gibbons]

Well, I'm not a pro, but I am an engineer, so maybe my two cents is worth a little. I've also shot digital, 6x7 and 4x5 and 35mm. If you successfully get the resolution you want out of 35mm at 20x30", then 6x7 is roughly the same resolution at 40X60. That's nearly life-size, which is what you said you wanted. IMHO, 35mm doesn't really print without grain quite that big, but you know what you currently get and what you want.

4X5 is nearly double each dimension again over 6x7, so you can get either the same resolution you're getting from 35mm 20x30, but now at 80"X 120". Or, you could get better definition, grain, detail, and gradations at four feet by 5 feet.

That's just the engineering bit. The practical bit is that with sheet film, it's easy to take 2 shots of the same thing, and keep one in reserve. Send one shot off to a lab in the States without worrying, because you have a backup even if they screw it up. If you clearly label it photographic film, I doubt you'd have a problem, although you might have extra insurance if you used Quickloads, which ARE still available. (They are individually wrapped, so to speak).

Yes, you can shoot a billboard on 6x7 film. Ever seen a billboard up close? It's one of those things where you can't even tell what you're looking at other than a bunch of colored dots. It doesn't sound like you plan to make people stand 30 feet away from your prints.

[laroygreen]

well, 20x30 isn't really that good if you print it straight out of camera (at say 180 PPI). You have to do a bit of post-processing (up-rez, noise reduction, sharpening, etc.) before it looks passable, and even then, you have to print on a textured paper to hide any small artifacts (but to most viewers who aren't photographers, the pictures will still look really good). This was my approach, and mileage varies a lot, and I'm no expert on print quality either.

[David de Gruyl]

One thing I can say: My 8x10 camera is (without a doubt) one of the cheapest camera systems that I own. The whole kit could be had for ~$700, including the lens and tripod.

On the other hand, you pay for it in per-shot costs. But looking at a good negative (or better: a transparency) is like magic. Mostly, I bought mine to do contact prints with / from.

Consider something: can you reasonably work with 2+ GB files? That is the size you are looking at from a fairly high resolution, 16 bit color scan. ~500 MB base files in 4x5 (2400 dpi, which is on the low side). Can you afford to / do you want to upgrade you computer. (Yes, I am assuming a hybrid workflow. You can ignore this if you are printing optically, but then you need to get a LARGE enlarger.)