Go to 4x5 or Stay with 6x6 - I need some clarification

[Jim Galli]

I also progressed from 35 to MF then on to LF. But......if I get an assignment for punchy color pics (just finished a large Nevada Commission on Tourism grant for 14 20X30's) I use the Mamiya. Had someone ask if those 20X30's were from 8X10 originals! So even though I have the bigger cameras and am enjoying them for B&W work, a good MF system and Velvia is all anyone needs for color work as far as I'm concerned. 4X5 Velvia etc. is expensive compared to 120 roll. And then you start the dust hassles! And then you go to "readyloads." And then it's REALLY expensive. I remember a View Camera piece about 6 years ago now where a guy was knocking himself out carrying an 8X10 all over the desert SW and making these killer Velvia chromes. Even then and increasingly since, no one appreciates all that hard work. They just figure you pumped it all up in photo shop with the "hue-saturation" slider.

[Brian Ellis]

I use 6x7 and 4x5 in black and white only. I don't know how well my experience with black and white will help with your color but FWIW I see no difference in "sharpness" or tonal gradations between 6x7 and and 4x5 with my prints up to 11x14. If you crop your 6x6 to a 645 aspect ratio you might see a difference but I'd guess not though I don't know for sure since I've never used 6x6 or 645. I've shown prints made from both 6x7 and 4x5 at John Sexton's workshops and he couldn't tell which was which (I don't mean to suggest that was because I'm such a great photographer or printer, just that someone with an outstanding eye and a lot of experience couldn't see a difference with 11x14 prints).

Whether movements alone are enough reason to change is up to you. You presumably aren't doing any architecture and with landscape in Yosemite (BTW, it's really tough luck having to live right next to Yosemite, we all sympathize with you : - ))I imagine your main interest in movements would be using rise and/or tilt to keep the trees from looking like they're falling over backwards and perhaps using tilt to change the plane of focus so that things very close and very far both appear to be in focus. As I'm sure you know, several medium format camera manufacturers make shift lenses that help with the falling backwards trees. I use one with my Pentax 67 system. But shift lenses don't let you change the plane of focus.

Since you work slowly already you might enjoy the contemplative aspects of large format work, plus it's really nice looking at the image on a ground glass.

[John O'Connell]

You're invested in 6x6. Stick with it until you need movements. And if you don't know that you need movements, you probably don't need them.

I don't think there's a huge quality jump between 6x6 and 4x5. At 11x14 I don't think you'll see much difference, especially if you scan, which I think obliterates some of 4x5's advantage at such small print sizes.

It's also easier to get consistent originals in roll film formats. Dust is much less of a problem because it's only a concern after processing. Movements don't cause unintentional unsharpness. Film holders have a certain old-fashioned charm but when one goes it's really not pleasant; tossing one can be expensive (film + time lost + replacement cost).

I like LF a lot, personally, but I bought into it because it was cheaper than MF. You already have MF and don't have a need yet to go bigger. So... don't.

[Sergio Caetano]

To this classic question I would like to point something about "needs". Somebody needs or not better tonal range, sharpness, graininess, resolution, movements, composition (ground glass)etc ? Except that somebody is only interested on photographing party of his/her kids or the weekend barbecue, I think he/she needs to improve his/her photo work. I can't imagine somebody like Hugh, with the privilege of being every week on friday afternoon in Yosemite not needing: raising/falling the lens to adjust the horizon line, tilting for focus and utiling best f/stop, getting big negative for high quality print etc. Hugh, you DO need LF. (I wish I could be there...)

[dan nguyen]

I use both format depending on situation, time, weather.... I suppose that you don't need to sell the MF to get a 4x5. So, why don't give the 4x5 a try and use both of them. Get a basic 4x5 gear (around $1000 or less) and if you like it then improve it or move to something according to your taste and to what you have learned...I think you will like the LF.... good luck

[dan nguyen]

Also.... if you go for LF, be prepared to answer questions from other people when your head is under the dark cloth.... :-)

[QT Luong]

People are attracted to LF for two reasons: (a) the results (b) the methods. If (and that's a serious if) your goals do not change, you don't need LF to achieve them. Whether you'd like working with LF rather than MF is difficult to predict.

[James Phillips]

I've been shooting 4x5 for a little more than 3 years, so I'm still a tadpole with tiny legs starting to show, in this pond. :>))

When I entered into the area of landscape photography with my first 4x5 it was because I needed to slow down and learn more. The process of carrying a hand camera and moving easily here and there for a shot was probably quite detrimental for my learning process. I am still struggling to learn when it is appropriate and when not to use camera movements. (the temptation to explore movements is sometimes over powering).

The truth is that sometimes I miss having my MF camera because I do incorrectly asses a scene and waste away the good light taking down and setting up again somewhere. There have been enough times where I have been frustrated trying to get set-up quickly while the "sun in the clouds" movement is just right only to be frustrated by the slowness of the LF procedure and losing the wonderful opportunity provided by a special moment of sun, cloud and shadow. The reason I do not have my MF gear during these times is the “carry weight” consideration when in the mountains. If you are shooting from beside your vehicle then this would not be a problem.

The point made about less dust problems with roll film and how much easier it is to carry a few rolls in comparison to many sheets is quite valid. Conversely having the ability to decide at the moment whether to slide in the “chrome” or a B&W negative (assuming you have loaded film carriers with different films) is a real treat out in the field. The other part which I truly love is the ability to process each and every negative independently though I do not need to do this for each negative but rather as the situation and my photographic visualizations dictate.

On the flip side, like many others I find the size of the negative, the actual total control of movements (when I get them correct), and the lack of concern about grain to be very alluring. Also for myself I feel that I need to go through this slow set-up, compose, adjust and shoot process in order to become a better photographer. So like QT Luong has indicated, whether you'd LIKE working with LF rather than MF is difficult to predict

Kind Regards,

[Peter Galea]

If you see the world with two eyes, you will love using the groundglass.

[Marc Alberts]

Great question, Hugh. After all, if the new equipment is not going to do anything for you, why shoot with it? Hopefully, these responses and mine help.

<<1)If I don't make prints larger than 11x14 is there any reason to shoot 4x5?>>

Yes and no. From a grain perspective, you're probably not going to see a ton of difference with 6x6, but there might be some. However, as Hogarth pointed out, being able to correct perspective can really improve your photos, especially in a place like Yosemite where you're looking across the valley at very tall things. Shooting up at that angle will make the lines on an El Capitan converge just a little bit, so it will lose some of it's majesty, which you can get back with a view camera.

One thing that you'll probably find, as I know I experienced it and many others have as well, is that once you see those big, gorgeous chromes on your light table, you'll never want to shoot anything else. It's kind of a zen moment.

<<2) Would having movements alone be reason enough to go to 4x5 considering that I may not get any better resolution.>>

It really depends on your shooting style. You've mentioned that you are deliberate, which is a necessity to shooting 4x5, so that will help. You'll be able to do much better composition on the larger ground glass, and with the movements, you'll learn how to do really amazing wide angle shots using the movements for perspective control. It's something else.

<<3)Can I get super sharp prints scanning 4x5 on a Epson 3200 or am I better off saving for a dedicated scanner for my 120 film.>>

Unless you're going to be saving for an Imacon, you're definitely better off scanning 4x5 on your Epson. The consumer-grade scanners tend to really block up quite a bit Velvia, even with medium format film. So all the effort to carefully expose the image leaves you without significant shadow detail, compressing what might have been a 4.5 stop exposure into a 3.5 stop scan. With the bigger chromes, you should be able to do a little better, since you'll have more gradual gradiations.

<<I know there are a number of fabulous landscape photographers who don't print more that 16x20 and use fine grained transparency film. Why do they use 4x5 - why not just 645??>>

One of the big differences that really hasn't been brought up above except for James' response that I want to reiterate is that you can direct development to each individual frame. If you need to push a shot, you no longer have to shoot the entire roll pushed. Also, if you see a shot that's screaming for B/W, you can easily do it, without having to waste the roll. It can really improve your shooting, since the look of a pushed Velvia slide (not to mention a pulled Velvia slide--don't do that unless you want to see golf balls!) is significantly different from a straight development. If you're working in high contrast light, you'll learn to appreciate this.

As far as cost, it's true that each individual image is more expensive. However, you'll probably find that you shoot fewer exposures with 4x5, even if you are deliberate in your style. For me, on my average hiking trip, I'll shoot 5-6x the exposures I will do with large format, but I'm generally more satisfied with my large format slides.

<<Is it solely the process that attracts you to the view camera or focusing ground glass? Any input would help me.>>

It's a big part of it, but I would say that it's more an artistic freedom issue for me. There are some shots that you can't get with a large format camera, but if you're shooting landscape, you should be able to get almost any shot you can pre-visualize to show up on the emulsion. I've found that there have been shots I simply couldn't make look right with medium format, and even fewer that come out right when I shot 35mm. Part of it is the ground glass, since being able to properly place a graduated neutral density filter on a 4x5 is a thousand times easier than with medium format. But being able to control each and every aspect made me look at composition and how I shoot in an entirely different light, and it's much more satisfying to me. It might be for you as well.

<<I want to make the most professional, artistic looking prints I can at home without having to pay $$$ on drum scans.>>

4x5 will definitely help, I think. I've had a tough time getting the results I want out of Nikon Coolscans and the like, as discussed above.

One suggestion: if you have a camera store you can easily access, I'd recommend renting one and grabbing a book like Steve Simmons' "Using the View Camera" or Leslie Stroebel's "View Camera Basics" and give it a try. Better to see if you're going to be satisfied with the process before dumping the dollars, and either of those books will walk you through the process pretty quickly so you will be able to hike out and give it a try.

I have never shot in Yosemite, but I would also make sure that whichever camera you get, make sure it is going to lock down very firmly if it gets windy there. The first 4x5 I ever got was a Tachihara, which probably would have been fine in normal circumstances, but wouldn't lock down tight enough to be used for beach shots. I ended up trading it in on a used Linhof field camera, which is all metal, and thus much stiffer, and my photos have improved greatly.

To give you an idea of prices, the Linhof was $700 used, and the lens was about $300 used (my first lens was my Nikkor 180W, which is a very inexpensive normal lens for a 4x5 with good coverage, and a great price). I haven't used one, but the Shen-Hao cameras seem to get good reviews, and they are about $700 new when shipped, so that might be a good option for you as well. Add in a really good spirit level, a cable release, a dark cloth, a half dozen film holders and a box of film, and you'll probably be looking at about $1500 or less for the full kit if you're a good bargain shopper. Something to take into account. You can definitely do it for a little less, but I think that's a pretty fair range for a starter view camera kit.

Anyway, I hope that helps.