Show me what you can do with LF! (That you can't with smaller formats.)

[tgtaylor]

For fun, let's go a step further with the topic of this thread and ask: "How many permutations of an image, if any at all, can a LF VC achieve over the small format camera equipped with the latest and greatest T/S lens?

Let X be the number of permutations achieved with the small camera.

Then 2X is the number of permutation that can be obtained with the VC.

"But," rejoinds an earlier poster, "a tilt or swing of the smaller camera is the same as a tilt or swing on the rear standard of the VC." "True," I reply, "but that movement is also included in X as the VC's body can also be swung or tilted."

So to answer the OP's question "Show me what you can do with LF! (That you can't with smaller formats.)" "2X", I say.

Thomas

[rdenney]

For fun, let's go a step further with the topic of this thread and ask: "How many permutations of an image, if any at all, can a LF VC achieve over the small format camera equipped with the latest and greatest T/S lens?

I think it might be possible for some view cameras to apply a tilt off-center because the tilt axis is downstream of the shift axis. That would be difficult with a tilt/shift lens, which might not have the tilt axis in front of the shift movement. (Or vice versa.) Many, many large-format cameras have significant limitations on such movements. My Sinar applies swing below the shift movement, so that swing is always centered on the rail, but the lens is not always centered on the swing movement, which would achieve an off-center swing. If the shift movement were below the swing pivot, it would be otherwise.

Now, is this important? Maybe there's some image somewhere that took advantage of the particular movements provided by a particular camera. I would submit that these are sufficiently rare not to constitute a quality that is unique to large format. It would not be all that difficult to construct a small camera that had the same mechanical design (such as Cambo's Ultima 35). It would only take enough of a need to justify the expense of creating such products. Kirk has already given you the answer to that one.

Being able to independently move both front and back on a view camera is a convenience. I would appreciate it if you could describe an actual photographic scenario that required that capability. Don't quote out of a book whose purpose is to provide instruction on view camera usage. That quote is not defining what a view camera uniquely does, it's providing instruction on how to use it.

Of course, my Speed Graphic has few of these movements--far less than any tilt/shift lens on small camera--even less than I get from my old Canon 24mm lens. That brings up another point.

The OP asked what is possible with large format that is not with small format. Not all large-format cameras have extensive movements, and some don't have movements at all. But they do provide something no small format camera can provide: an inexpensive way to make very large prints of high quality. There are other things, too (that make use of extremely narrow depth of field, for example), but that's the main one.

Rick "who can't afford all of what makes good business sense for Kirk" Denney

[Kirk Gittings]

The eclipse photo recorded the brightness and movement of the moon through the sky, limited by an old shutter's accuracy and by my timing. We can composit almost anything. Hollywood regularly demonstrates this, and with moving subjects. Such composits are true fabrications which distort reality. Somewhere I have the original capture that would convince many photographers that the eclipse was indeed photographed in one series of exposures spaced two minutes apart on one sheet of film. A true skeptic could honestly claim that even that sheet of film could be a copy of a physical, not temporal, composit. Since I have neither the desire nor the ability to go through such contortions, the eclipse was photographed in the most direct way.

Someone could also claim that using VC movements is dishonest. True, but that dishonesty records information that permits us to better interpret the subject.

What you are saying is that your intent was honest and the film is the proof? When I was shooting color transparency film for commercial architecture, I routinely burned in the moon into twilight shots of architecture via a separate exposure and a longer lens. It was really quite simple once I worked out the procedure resulting in a single original transparency with two exposures on it. By the logic of your original statement it would seem that this was more honest than doing the virtually the same exact composite with two different captures layered in PS because it was on one sheet of film? Both are really identical fabrications. Intent aside I suggest the film proves nothing about honesty. Though it makes an interesting sales pitch these days to potential print buyers.

I suggest that the reputed "honesty" of film is a myth perpetuated by film shooters trying to find something to hang there hat on. Every sheet of film I ever shot was a personal interpretation of a scene manipulated by POV, lens selection, use of filters, choice of B&W over color, choice of a super saturated color film over a more neutral one etc. etc. etc. ie art.

[Jim Jones]

What you are saying is that your intent was honest and the film is the proof? When I was shooting color transparency film for commercial architecture, I routinely burned in the moon into twilight shots of architecture via a separate exposure and a longer lens. It was really quite simple once I worked out the procedure resulting in a single original transparency with two exposures on it. By the logic of your original statement it would seem that this was more honest than doing the virtually the same exact composite with two different captures layered in PS because it was on one sheet of film? Both are really identical fabrications. Intent aside I suggest the film proves nothing about honesty. Though it makes an interesting sales pitch these days to potential print buyers.

I suggest that the reputed "honesty" of film is a myth perpetuated by film shooters trying to find something to hang there hat on. Every sheet of film I ever shot was a personal interpretation of a scene manipulated by POV, lens selection, use of filters, choice of B&W over color, choice of a super saturated color film over a more neutral one etc. etc. etc. ie art.

One of my best selling photos has a moon composited into it. Earliest versions were composited in an enlarger; the present version was digitally composited. I do tell buyers about that little deception. I consider adding a correctly oriented and exposed moon in a photo an acceptable enhancement unless journalistic accuracy is required.

Some dodging and burning is not only acceptable, it is often necessary to compensate for the difference between what we see and what a print can show. Even a capture on film is not perfectly honest; it is limited by the character of film. However, the original film is, in most ways, more honest than versions enhanced (or corrupted) by further processing.

[tgtaylor]

Now, is this important? Maybe there's some image somewhere that took advantage of the particular movements provided by a particular camera. I would submit that these are sufficiently rare not to constitute a quality that is unique to large format. It would not be all that difficult to construct a small camera that had the same mechanical design (such as Cambo's Ultima 35). It would only take enough of a need to justify the expense of creating such products. Kirk has already given you the answer to that one.

Being able to independently move both front and back on a view camera is a convenience. I would appreciate it if you could describe an actual photographic scenario that required that capability. Don't quote out of a book whose purpose is to provide instruction on view camera usage. That quote is not defining what a view camera uniquely does, it's providing instruction on how to use it.

Mount Williamson Ansel Adams, circa 1944:


In discussing the making of this image on page 68 of Examples:The Making of 40 Photographs he writes: "I pointed the camera down a little and tilted the back to hold the near rocks and distant peaks in sharp focus." What he doesn't write, and which he surely knew, is that when he tilted the back he also changed the size of the rocks. But that notwithstanding what you and Kirk can't do with your little cameras is "point it down..and (tilt)" the back at the same time

Thomas

[Ken Lee]

Another nice feature is being able to capture an image at very high resolution and dynamic range, in a single shutter-click. An 8x10 negative, scanned in 16-bit grayscale, is around 1GB of uncompressed data. Doing it all in one click, makes it possible to shoot moving subjects, like clouds or horses. Sometimes it's important to capture one moment. Even if we "settle" for 4x5 at around 230MB of uncompressed data, we're still getting something rather... appealing.

Of course, we don't need a scanner. We can make lovely analog prints. They can look pretty nice too. I vividly remember seeing this photograph for the first time, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York. I'll bet the 30x36 inch poster is lovely too. After all, it's only a 3x enlargement from the 8x10 negative.

The notion that it's the latest thing in 19th Century technology, is just icing on the cake.

[John NYC]

Another nice feature is being able to capture an image at very high resolution and dynamic range, in a single shutter-click. An 8x10 negative, scanned in 16-bit grayscale, is around 1GB of uncompressed

I don't want to get into a digital versus 8x10 thing again in regards to resolution, but that raw data amount is not all "good" data that is comparable to a smaller format pixel. You don't get 480 megapixels of good clean data from an 8x10 scan at 2400 dpi. There are so many weak links in the LF chain, that you really wind up with an effective megapixel count of about 100, give or take 50 depending on who you are arguing with... But like I said, I really don't want to start this again!

[Bob Salomon]

Soft focus options...



Each good MF system has at least one soft focus lens option. LF has dozens, and they are all a little different. So soft focus options rather than just one soft focus lens.

Neither Rollei or Hasselblad offered a soft focus lens. Both offered the Softar but that was an add-on and not a true soft focus. Schmactenburg made a special version of the 120 and 150mm Imagon for any 35 or MF camera and Rodenstock had a system for the 200mm Imagon as did Zoerk for 35 and mf. But the Rollei and Hasselblad did not sell one.

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with Jay. The important thing is that the experience of photographing with a LF film camera can't be replicated by shooting digital, and if you enjoy the LF experience, then that's reason enough to use large format. This won't change no matter how many new developments happen with digital photography.

[John NYC]

I agree with Jay. The important thing is that the experience of photographing with a LF film camera can't be replicated by shooting digital, and if you enjoy the LF experience, then that's reason enough to use large format. This won't change no matter how many new developments happen with digital photography.

+1

All that extra time REQUIRED by 8x10 usually leads me to making a better shot. I know you CAN take all that care with digital, but because I don't have to, I rarely do.

It would be different if I were shooting digital for living, and I would start taking that time with that format. But I am not. I am just a guy who makes photos for fun.

John, not a photographer, NYC