What do you consider large format? I use a 6x9 arca with a digital back for food photography. I see that many, if not most of the posts are related to film cameras. How many of you guys use digital backs on your view cameras? It's the best of both worlds!
Thanks
MR
http://www.professionalphotography101.com
I consider 4x5 and larger large format.
Regarding digital backs, sorry, there's no point. There is no way to lug a laptop, batteries, and the digital back in to the backcountry. Just too heavy. For commercial work in the studio, I'm sure it's fine, but it just wouldn't work in the field where I go.
As with most things, digital backs have their place, but they're not good for all things.
I consider my 6.5x9cm VAG a LF camera, since it has basic movements and takes sheet film. I'll reconsider if I get a rollfilm holder for it...
As for digital, I agree with Ken M. A sheet film holder is far more practical for field work than a digital back, a PC, a small tent, and 5000 meters of extension cord.
This question comes up every now and again. If it's got movements, then it's LF...
Ole,
he'll need more that 5KM of extension cord, at a standard 220 VAC there would be an awful lot of power loss. I suggest a couple of transformers at each end to set up/down to 50KV. These come in at around €5000 each and have a shipping weight of 500Kg. I'm not sure if Lowepro make a backpack capable of carry such a load?
It might just be easier to use film.
There are probably two issues here
1/ image quality related to a minimum detector size,
2/ camera movements and how easily they can be controlled and fine-tuned.
As of 1/ image quality, we should probably acknowledge that, when the
final destination of the image is a digital file (printed images for
catalogues, newpapers, magazines, books etc, are processed 100%
digitally) half of the surface is sufficient to a silicon detector vs.
a film detector+scan. In other words, and again if the final image has to
be processed digitally, a 24x36mm silicon detector matches the
quality of a 4,5x6cm film detector + scan, a 4,5x6 cm silicon detector
will probably yield the same quality as a scanned 2"x3" (6x7 - 6x8 - 6x9 - 6,5x9cm) film
image. So as soon as we get one-shot 6x8cm silicon detectors, a 4"x5"
scanned film image will not be better if we demand digital files as
the final output. And very probably, for perfectly still subjects in colour, a
4"x5" digital scanning back is already better than a scanned 8"x10"
'chrome.
As of 2/ precise control of camera movements, it is probably easier
with the direct view of a traditional big ground glass, the larger the
better, 6x9 cm being considered a bit small by LF aficionados. Of
course you may use a binocular viewer on a 6x9, this is really more
comfortable.
But on this issue Michael could tell us more about what
kind of work he does with a silicon detector, and how he uses camera
movements, if needed.
When tethered to a high quality computer screen, the actual silicon detector size becomes irrelevant if all adjustments are made from a monitor. In many optical instruments, direct view of the optical image is combined to or even replaced by a control monitor with digitally-generated reticles and alignment marks. For example fine alignment in photolithography is made easier and more precise by looking at a computer monitor instead as a direct view through an eyepiece. Of course as an amateur I support the idea of the direct optical image with no batteries and no computers in the field... but some day for sure energy supply and image storage in digital backs will no longer be an issue. Whether I could afford such a system soon for amateur use on my family budget is another story.
Another issue is direct contact print in a 100% hand-made and analog
photochemical and optical process, 100% silicon- and computer-free.
Here LF starts probably with the 13x18cm - 5"x7" format... and no upper limit ;-);-)
I consider any camera that can take sheet film to be LF. Most 6X9s can take either sheet film or roll film so they count for me. A dedicated roll film camera like the fuji SW690, or whatever it is called, is MF. As for digital backs, you are probably using the same back as someone with a 4X5 so I don't see that as an issue. The extent of my digital use is scanning of 4X5 transparencies.
If pressed, I'd say that LF begins where the smallest dimension of the format is over 6cm, although I don't consider 70mm LF. For me, the smallest LF is 3x4.
Jay
Large format to me means large image captures. I'm thinking at least 100 cm^2 here. Your 6x9 wouldn't quality under my definition.
Bruce Watson
Hmm.
There was a sheet film, single-frame adapter made for Contax 35 mm cameras at one time -- I see one every so often on eBay, though typically without the film holders. Presumably they could be used with cut strips of regular perforated 35 mm film as well, since the frame mask would still be 24x36 mm. There were also 6x4.5 cm sheet film backs sold on some Certo Dolly Super Sport cameras -- a 6x6 on 120 roll film camera with 6x4.5 vertical mask, the optional sheet film back would take 6x4.5 horizontal sheet film. Earlier still, there were cameras that took multiple tiny (1/4 inch circular) exposures on glass plates as small as 2x2 inches. And I don't think any of us would try to argue that the 9x18" roll film format used in the Gigapixl camera isn't "large format".
So, I have to say the definition of anything that takes sheet film being large format doesn't really fit, for me.
There have also been a number of roll film cameras with limited movements, some made as late as 1920 or so, and at least one using 120 film (most were 116 or the genuinely "large" 122 postcard format) -- and I think most of us would agree that 120 is medium format, not large. And never forget that almost every 35 mm SLR mount system has at least one shift/tilt lens available.
To me, "large format" requires a "large" negative -- nothing more. I usually draw the line at 9x12 cm, which (at 3 1/2 x 4 5/8 inches) is the common European format closest to American 4x5 inch. There were a large number of press cameras made for this format from before the First World War until the onset of the Second; they were loaded with sheet film or glass plates in single (or occasionally double) holders, with darkslides; many would accomodate roll film adapters, but in the same way a Speed Graphic or Arca Swiss would -- at the cost of severe cropping. All had at least limited movements -- rise, and often shift -- and a few had a drop bed that could act as tilt or had genuine front tilt. And all had provision for focusing on ground glass. And yes, I do include roll film formats with large negatives -- besides the relatively common A3 postcard format, I've seen roll film adapters for 4x5 cameras that took 5 inch wide paper backed film on perfectly conventional, if very large, spools, and I don't see any way to argue that if the sheet format is "large" the exactly same image on a roll isn't.
And what about the (relatively common) 4x5 box cameras, both the ones with slide-in film holders like modern ones, and the falling-plate variety? Not even to mention the dedicated film-pack type -- to me, those are all still large format, regardless of the lack of features on the camera -- they still produced negatives big enough to contact print and pass around the result without a magnifying glass. And then there are the pinhole 4x5 models -- just a box with a mount for a film holder and a pinhole at opposite sides, and one or two tripod sockets.
One might make a sensible argument that quarter plate, aka 3x4 format should be included in this reckoning -- though smaller than postcard, it's still a good bit bigger than 120 (about double the negative area of 6x9), and many of the cameras were functionally similar to the 9x12 plate cameras of the between-wars era -- but to me it's just not that much different from 116 (postcard format, OTOH, is actually a larger negative than 9x12 cm, and it was common for postcard cameras to accomodate both roll and sheet film).
If a contact print at arm's length is too small to see, you need a bigger camera. :D
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks