Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

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

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2

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

    On the non-technical side, I find LF fun. You might too. See if you can find a place to rent one for a weekend, and try it. If nothing else you will have some 4 by 5 _Slides_ of Yosemite to make us all jealous (ok, _more_ jealous).

    Enjoy.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Besançon, France
    Posts
    1,617

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

    Some other arguments, purely technical, plus one, not technical at all, in addition to all what has been said. There are many non-technical arguments which are for me as important, but I do not want to elaborate on the real joy to use a LF camera. I like 6X6 cameras as well (TLRs and SLRs).

    #1 If you build your home digital "darkroom" for colour, as of 2003 the best ratio between quality and price is obtained with a 4"x5" image scanned on a flatbed scanner. I totally support Hogarth Hughes's opinion.

    I had the opportunity to attend an unformal and friendly session of French LF aficionados, where a friend (a professional) brought in a side-by-side comparison of a colour inkjet print obtained with a 6x6 combination (Hasselblad / Planar2,8-80 / 120 'chrom / Imacon scanner / inkjet) as compared to (Linhof Technika / Apo-Symmar-4"x5" 'chrome / flatbed scanner / inkjet).

    The 4"x5" solution wins easily but yes, both prints were bigger than 11"x14". I do not want to underestimate the role played by the Linhof camera, but I've seen similar prints taken with a 4"x5" wooden field camera fitted with a modern lens, they are very similar.

    #2 Another argument can be interesting if by "6x6" you mean 6x6 SLR. What follows does not apply to MF rangefinder cameras for which wide angle lens design is somewhat similar to LF lens design (except for image circle, no movements being required).

    6X6 SLR cameras are handicapped by the flipping mirror. 645 cameras slightly less. The best example of this handicap is the evolution of the 40mm Zeiss distagon for 6X6 SLRs. It took about 40 years and 3 generations to Zeiss engineers to design a 40mm retrofocus for 6x6 that could rival the non-retrofocus biogon. Here we are now, with the very last 40-CFI-IF with floating elements... but check for the retail price.

    There comes an important advantage of 4"x5", the fact that for wide angle shots, you can use the best non-retrofocus lenses available, they cover much more than a MF lens, they cost less and their performance is superb. Check for the price of a 55m apo-grandagon view camera lens covering 110 degrees and compare with any 6X6 SLR wide angle lens even up to 90 degrees (40mm 6x6). The non retrofocus lens is lighter cheaper and will allow you much more room for movements.

    However if you are interested in long focal length with little use of movements, 6X6 or 35mm are much more comfortable.

    So as a summary, two arguments among many other excellent arguments in favor of LF photography : home digital darkroom is top-class with 4"x5" and a flatbed scanner, and for wide angle shots view camera lenses are unrivalled both in performance and price.

    A last argument may be valid for France where very few amateurs are using view cameras, the fact that unformal meetings between amateurs and professionals take place with extremely fruitful exchanges. The situation is very strange. Most French professionals cannot continue to use view cameras because they have to go digital to make a living. French professionals that I have met are delighted to see that amateurs will continue the art of large format photography, and exchanges are very friendly, very different from before when pros would hardly ever speak to amateurs, would consider the view camera as their exclusive tool, or would consider amateurs as unfair competitors.

  3. #23

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

    I think I am going to be one of the dissenting voices on this one. If color is your preference then (and some of you are going to keel over seeing me write this) perhaps staying with MF would be best for you, and use digital for your prints. If my limited understanding of digital is correct then I beleive that the "enlargement" depends on scan resolution. A MF transparency has more than enough information to allow for high resolution scans which will allow you to make 11x14 prints or perhaps even a bit larger.

    The equipment is a lot lighter than LF which allows you to explore more (unless of course you are doing like St. Ansel and have a burro to help you). From what I understand scanners for 35 mm and MF are much more common, cheaper and better than those for LF.

    IMO movements for landscape are not that important, sure there might be a few instances where you might wish you had them, but I think a higher percentage of shots does not need them or needs very limited movements, for which with careful planning and composition you might not require them at all. Since you are working already like this, why change something that is working for you?

    Then we come to the equipment part, in B&W we can get away with using cheap lenses if we take care to control flare, but with color IMO more modern lenses with coatings etc are a greater necessity to render color and tonality better. If you get something cheap like a Crown Graphic or a Speed graphic with an old lens, you are not much better off than with your MF system, sure you get the bigger negative, but movements are limited and the lens will not even compare to your modern MF lenses.

    I think Graeme said it best, rent a camera, see how you like it, see if you really need the movements. Compare expense vs quality and see if you are really that much better off with a bigger tranny. I love LF, but my hassy sees a lot of use also.

  4. #24

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

    1. Don't forget that LF lenses have considerably less DOF than MF lenses. Sure, you can tilt in LF to get the foreground and background both in focus, but with MF you might not need to bother.

    2. You don't mention if you use auto-focus, auto-exposure, zooms, or really long lenses; none of these features are available with LF.

    3. It is the case that you *will* miss some shots due to the slowness of the LF process. The dang sun set on me just last week.

    4. I feel like there is an LF community; I've never noticed that with MF. I met a big deal professional photographer in Yosemite and had a wonderful chat for about an hour with him. I was shooting my $300 used Gowland, and he came over to ask *me* about *my* camera.

    5. No law says you can't do both (except maybe the law of economics ;-)). Though I wouldn't recommned doing both in the same outing.

    6. Personally, I prefer LF because it is more fun, makes me feel connected to photography of the past, and is the furthest away from my day job in computers. I am much more interested in the process than in the relative results.

    CXC

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    El Portal, CA (Yosemite)
    Posts
    110

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

    Thank you for your insight and detailed responses. I appreciate all the time you gave to answer my questions. What I am especially intrigued by is the idea of making scans on a flatbed such as the Epson 3200, being able to switch from velvia to astia without wasting a role, possibly making panoramics, and of course perfecting my images through the use of movements ( at least for some images - most are just fine). If I do go with 4x5, I certainly won't abandon my other formats completely. I would like to find a used metal press or field camera. Right now I'm looking at a Speed Graphic (good value - not much movements), possibly a Linhof III (better built, maybe more movements, but expensive lens boards????), or a Linhof IV - now that is a beautiful piece of equipment (heavy, well made, expensive lens boards). If I can find a good deal on a Linhof, can I find affordable lenses (Around $300.00)?? Maybe this would be easier if I were a profesional with concise goals and requirements. Instead I'm like one of my students who has just discovered the joy of the river and can't get enough.

  6. #26

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

    From a newcomer to LF:

    I like the process of large format photography. I almost never make a print so, though the idea of the possibility of large prints appeals to me, negative size isn't really part of it for me.

    I can get images on LF that I can't without movements. But the reverse is true, too, in that some things are easier with smaller formats, especially macro work. However, since I do mostly landscape I find I'm pretty happy with the capabilities of LF. For example, I have lots of shots of El Cap, Half Dome, Sentinel Rock, etc., with converging trees and have long wanted to shoot in Yosemite with a view camera. I'm finally going to get my chance as I'm spending the first week in November in the Valley.

    I use an Epson 3200 scanner. I have yet to get a scan I liked out of it. But I'm getting close. I scan twice at different gammas and combine the results. Still not perfect, but OK for now. For serious work I send chromes down to your neck of the woods for West Coast Imaging to drum scan.

    Gary DeWitt

  7. #27

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

    Hugh wrote: <<What I am especially intrigued by is...possibly making panoramics>>

    Panoramics really work great--you can either simply crop your 4x5, or (for may 4x5 systems) get yourself a roll film back which will shoot 6x9 on 120, in case you don't want to crop. Good times!

    <<and of course perfecting my images through the use of movements ( at least for some images - most are just fine).>>

    I can only speak for myself, but once I discovered what movements could do for me, I was never satisfied with not doing a little tweaking in almost every photo. Funny how that works.

    <<I would like to find a used metal press or field camera. Right now I'm looking at a Speed Graphic (good value - not much movements), possibly a Linhof III (better built, maybe more movements, but expensive lens boards????), or a Linhof IV - now that is a beautiful piece of equipment (heavy, well made, expensive lens boards).>>

    If you can do it, definitely get the IV over the III. The III has a few things missing you probably would like, including front swings, and isn't as stiff a body (or as smooth, IMO, since the IV and later feel like all the movements are done by magic movement elves--it's a real mechanical pleasure). Furthermore (and this will answer your other question, I think), the III uses a different lens board which is not compatible with the IV, and therefore not compatible with Tachihara, Wista, and about 3/4 of all the lensboards you can buy now for non-Graflex 4x5s. The linhof branded boards may indeed be expensive, but Wista boards are considerably less and will work on the IV (not the III), and Bromwell boards at B&H will set you back a whopping $34, so it won't really break the bank. It's not like you're buying a Canon EOS or Nikon system where you're going to want 75 lenses, anyway.

    Anyway--I hope that helps. Just remember--the first thing you're going to want to do when you check out your new-to-you field camera is look for light leaks in the bellows. With the older bellows, they can develop tiny leaks, and changing the bellows is difficult. However, if you get a good set of bellows, and you take care of them, they should last for years.

    Good luck!

  8. #28

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

    If you can do it, definitely get the IV over the III. The III has a few things missing you probably would like, including front swings, and isn't as stiff a body (or as smooth, IMO, since the IV and later feel like all the movements are done by magic movement elves--it's a real mechanical pleasure). Furthermore (and this will answer your other question, I think), the III uses a different lens board which is not compatible with the IV, and therefore not compatible with Tachihara, Wista, and about 3/4 of all the lensboards you can buy now for non-Graflex 4x5s. The linhof branded boards may indeed be expensive, but Wista boards are considerably less and will work on the IV (not the III), and Bromwell boards at B&H will set you back a whopping $34, so it won't really break the bank.



    The Linhof Tech III has front swings, what it doesn't have is forward tilt, you can "fake" this movement by swinging the camera on its side and using the swing as tilt.

    The early Model III does have a "less" rigid body, what this means is it can only be dropped from a height of 8 feet not 9 and 1/2.

    Later Tech III's, the ones with an angled front are a lot stronger. The last Tech III actually has the same body as the Tech IV, but with Tech III movements, and the Tech III method of removing the back.

    Avoid non-Linhof boards anyway on a tech IV and up, the fit, but have problems-kinda like how horseman boards fit Sinar's, but the emphasis is on the word "kinda".

    Tech III's use the same board as the
    "Linhof Standard Press", and Tech III boards show up on EBAY quite often.

    All in All, the IV and later cameras are "better", but why writeoff an equally usable camera.

    If rangefinder focusing is your thing, look for a V or newer, where they standardized the cams and the whole thing (lens, and camera) does not have to sent to Linhof or Marflex (in the USA) to be matched.

    Fred Picker's old assistant (or something or another) grinds cams for the model III, so all is not lost if that is what you want.

  9. #29

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

    If you ask them why they don't just use 645 take a good look at the finnished print, I would recommend wholeheartedly that you read an article in View Camera magazine(nov 2002) titled " does the view camera still matter" pg 36. The conclusion is yes! simply due to the impact the final print has. As stated earlier an 11x14 from a 4x5 is like a 3x5 from 35mm :large negatives impart an undefinable, unmeasurable impact to any enlargement, just look at a contact print from a 5x7 sometime. I have shot 6x6, 6x9, 35mm, and have now settled on 4x5 and 5x7. it all boils down to what you want.....I don't make a living from photography so its easy for me....the end product only has to please me and those I share it with. If you're making a living from it use the tools that best suit you,99% of the people out there couldn't tell the difference or care! national geo. still uses 35mm and I don't think I've ever heard anyone gripe about the quality of their photo's. The impact thing is hard to describe, but if you're ever in seattle go downtown there is an art gallery there with quite a few of Edward Curtis' original photogravures......they are stunning. The final note has to be a great photo is more about content and the feeling it generates with the viewer than any absolute scientific measurement you can make.

  10. #30

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

    Most has already been said, therefore just some short comments:

    - if you like panoramic formats, using a 6x12 rollfilm back on a 4x5" camera or even a 6x17 on a 8x10" (do they fit a 5x7"?) camera might be the way to go.

    - shooting with really long lenses on 4x5" *is* possible, contrary to what somebody stated above. I personally use a 1200mm lens (on a standard Arca with the long bellows) and I've seen some 1800mm Apo Ronar (or was it Apo Germinar?) lenses. Your choice of camera is a little bit more restricted, though, and handling is certainly not as comfortable as with 35mm or MF.

    - if you frequently take photos under changing and interesting light conditions, a MF camera has the big advantage of being faster (translate it as "fast enough").

    - wasting rolls of film for push/pull development of individual photos is only marginally (if at all - depends on how many shots of the roll you actually used) more expensive than 4x5" sheet film. You should not base your choice of camera on this, if you don't do it excessively. And then, there are still the MF cameras with interchangable back...

Similar Threads

  1. where to stay in Hawaii
    By tim atherton in forum Location & Travel
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 25-Oct-2008, 06:03
  2. Kodak T Max 400 LF/ULF Clarification
    By Michael Kadillak in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20-Dec-2005, 08:13
  3. Clarification about Pyro
    By steve simmons in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 17-Jun-2004, 20:07
  4. When to go 4x5? Or to stay with mf?
    By Ag Jones in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 17-Jun-2004, 07:27
  5. Clarification of Cut Film Holder Sizes
    By frank ferreira in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 8-Jan-2002, 23:15

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •