Why don't my 4x5 images have that large format snap?

[Jan Pedersen]

Of course if you get an 8x10 you will see a difference over medium format!

Yes, that is when the fun starts!

[SergeiR]

I think this thread illustrates a lot of the mythos surrounding 'large format' photography. If you're not enlarging to 16x20 or using vintage soft focus lenses or (....), you could just as well take your shots with a consumer-level Nikon or Canon dSLR, and you won't be able to tell one from the other.

Actually it is nearly always visible on stuff that isnt photograph of brick wall or some other traditional test target. Same as it is visible when you go from digital 35 to digital MF. As Ken correctly pointed out - if subject lacks tonal gradations - you will not see it. Specially on web size. But even on web size, if shadows and lights are played in photograph (and they should, this is what photographing is about after all) - we start to see difference. It will go away with some post processing, indeed, but not entirely.

However in 80% of cases people dont care. I do believe it there was very good comparition on that in "Edge of Darkness" between half frame film, mf film and then venturing toward LF.. Prints look almost indistinguishable, but only up to certain magnification.

Issue is that many people do expect format magically solve problems for them (not attacking OP, just observation based on some exp). Slap some famous lens on 4x5 or 8x10 and it will produce super duper 3d look and some other traditionally recognized qualities. But lenses dont do that. Nor does format. All you get with larger formats is more tonal gradations to record between points (and more details to not magnify, but for sake of argument - this is not important). Yeah, there is all that stuff about bokeh and movements. But it is in the end of the day - secondary. What primary is - more gradations means you can record more 3d-ness (as we percieve image on 2D media as 3D only when shadows are presented) when image goes from highlights to shadows. But if light isnt right - that possibility is never used.

Now, there is asian school of notan style of photography.. but this is completely different kettle of fish Folks from China do some amazing stuff with it.

[Ken Lee]

Now, there is asian school of notan style of photography.. but this is completely different kettle of fish Folks from China do some amazing stuff with it.

Could you share a link? I'd like to see some of those.

[Ken Lee]

Here's another kind of shot that's hard to do with smaller equipment. I've tried this with 6x7 and a dedicated film scanner, but once we enlarge past 8x10, the result is mush.

Even on 4x5, it's a challenge to make it look really right: digital sharpening can help, but can also spoil the nuances.

I really prefer 5x7 or larger for "real" landscape images, where we want to appreciate the look of blades of grass and other distant detail. Many people have asked me why old photographs (early 20th century and before) look so much clearer. To them, it seems that the further back we go, the better the image quality. I explain to them that in those days they used very big cameras and made giant contact prints from glass negatives.

I guess we could stitch MF images to get this right, as long as the subject and his dog don't decide to walk into the other parts of the scene

[Andrew Tymon]

tripod is steady, mostly doing portraits so the lens is generally set to f8 or wider.

Large format lenses usually have an optimum aperture of F11-F22, try stopping down a little or make multiple images of the same subject at different apertures to find the optimum apertures for the lenses you have.

I'm looking at a batch of negatives now and they are consistently dense. perhaps I need to lighten up on my dev. times or drop the water temp?

It takes a while to get used to processing sheet film, I'm not sure what you mean by processing bucket style. Consistent processing will lead to an increase in quality. I lived in northern Louisiana and in summer it was hard to keep the water temp consistent ( I kept water in the refrigerator and used zip locks filled with water in the freezer to float in the water bath). Why don't you post a scan of one of your negs so we can see what 's going on.

Hope this helps

[SergeiR]

Could you share a link? I'd like to see some of those.

Sure. This is guy i remember seeing few years back. Still makes my jaw drop. Alas, he died in 2004.

http://www.photoeye.com/Gallery/form...age=1&id=96098

Main thing is that this style, even though made om large format, doesnt go after blur or 3dness by using shadow transfers. Its about tones and composition.

And here is article about his teacher Chin San Long , with his photos.

http://www.dinkle.com/_english/01_ab...2_01.php?ID=14

[Ken Lee]

It may be possible to produce a Notan-like effect using Photoshop. Here's the same photo as before, with a little "adjustment"

[SergeiR]

Ah, yes, effects in Photoshop it is generally possible to achive look of pictorial movements using curves and toning - somewhat true both for european and asian schools. But there is much more to it than simply look it is also subject choice and compositional choices. In notan your choices based on aestheticaly pleasing shapes fomed by light and dark tones.

While it is great to have bright circle within frame to hold viewers eye, in this case it is disturbed by vertical shapes in shadows and nothingness in center, where eyes are held ( that said i never properly studied asian ink drawing in school, so i might be off, of course)

In either case - i am just fascinated by pictoralism in general, as i have come to photography from painting, so my view is seriously biased. Doesnt mean to be final judgement or anything

[armentor1@mac.com]

Oh 8x10 will definitely be the next step, but first things first learn the technique.

I was also thinking about the water temp fluctuating through the process may be causing an issue. I'll try and gain more control of this .

I'm leaving town for a few days but when I get back im going to print out one of my negs at a larger size to see the effect.

I'll post a few of the scans once i get to my computer this afternoon.


Thanks for the links and ideas -
Dave

[Brian C. Miller]

ok here it is, I'm invested now, 2 years in the lf world and finally getting the hang of this crazy camera. It is really fun but I feel as though I putting a lot of extra work for a bigger negative and am not seeing enough of a return in the image quality. I'm wondering why my images don't have better tonality, gradient and sharpness. they don't look like large format images?

#1 question: are you using movements?

The reason I got started in LF was because I absolutely needed movements. The larger film size (and detail) was just a bonus. The ability to adjust the camera is very important to me.

Equipment isn't magical. It is a tool, used to achieve something. The reason to use the tool is because it gives you an advantage. This weekend I was using rear swing, front rise, and front tilt. I can't do any of that with my Pentax cameras.

If you aren't using the movements and you are only printing small, then the LF tool won't give you an advantage over the smaller format tools.

Here's another kind of shot that's hard to do with smaller equipment. I've tried this with 6x7 and a dedicated film scanner, but once we enlarge past 8x10, the result is mush.

Even on 4x5, it's a challenge to make it look really right: digital sharpening can help, but can also spoil the nuances.

You have a lot of very fine detail in the photograph. Unless Lenny did the scan (or someone equally competent with a drum scanner), I wouldn't expect the detail to be preserved. You'd need a physical enlarger. Just for grins and giggles, send the 6x7 negative out to a good printer and have it optically printed, and then see how that compares to your digital prints.