Am I wacko for even considering LF?

[Ellen Stoune Duralia]

Hi all! Now please don't think me unbalanced but I'm having a tough time making up my mind and would appreciate your input. So here goes... I do product/advertising type photography and am considering getting a LF camera. Am I nuts to even consider using film in this digital world? Are there any pros on this forum that can relate their present day experiences using LF in commercial photography?

I posted a similar question on the photo.net forum and one helpful fellow suggested that to invest in anything non-digital simply isn't a good idea (to paraphrase). True or no?

I'm currently using Canon digital gear but what irks me is that about a year from now, I'm going to looking to upgrade. My thinking is that at least with a good LF system (I'm looking at Horsemans and Sinars), it'll be around for a good while and upgrading will mean getting a new lens or a digital back perhaps.

So what do ya'll think?

Thanks in advance :-)

[Bill_1856]

I'm not a commercial photographer but it seems to me that you need to answer two questions: 1) How valuable is your time, and 2) how pushy are your clients. Make that THREE questions: How hot is your competition?

[Scott Rosenberg]

ellen... weigh the responses you get here by considering the bias of your audience. the contributers to this forum are all large format devotees, many of whom, mysellf included, will continue to use film long after digital makes even more significant inroads. i suspect that you will get a much different response from a forum devoted to digital photography.

that said, there are many talented photographers on this site that use both digital and film, but there are also lots of die-hard filmies here.

my spin, worth every penny you paid for it, and not much more, is that you could invest in a digital system, and a year later, reinvest in the next generation of digital gear as the digi cams get closer to the current LF stuff. or, you can simply buy a lf system and be conteted for many, many years. furthermore, i would think that the movements a view camera offers would be another HUGE advantage over the current crop of digicams for what you do.

good luck,
scott

[Calamity Jane]

I'm not a professional so I can't address the "logic" of your question but I will say that the more WOMEN totting LF gear, the BETTER! ;-)

From a business case, if your clients are (or will) require your product in digital form, you might as well go digital all the way. If your clients want transparencies for offset lith or other optical reproduction, then LF makes sense.

Aside from the business case, you could always join us amateurs who follow the wet work for the sheer joy of the process AND have the advantage of being able to write off the equipment!

[Ted Fullerton]

Ellen,

Is the root of your consideration of LF the film size and qualities, the camera movements, or both?

Is there a specific problem you're trying to solve with your product/advertising photography, or are you thinking, "I wonder if I'm missing something?"

[JZ]

I'd say that among the benefits to using LF, there are two that are most apparent (though certainly not the only ones): Larger negative and perspective control. Being that I've never done any commercial photography, I can't really say if either of these two attributes would be helpful. But, if I had to guess, I'd wager that while the larger negative isn't all that useful if these shots are used in magazines or the like, but I would think that the perspective control may be quite helpful. If you really are just looking for perspective control, then you can always try one of those devices that replaces the normal ground glass back with a digital camera (I believe Calumet has an entire line around this idea). This will give you all of the movements (I believe, never really tried it) of a view camera, and will still allow you to use a regular SLR digital camera.

Granted, this doesn't solve the digital upgrade problem, but then I really don't believe this problem will go away anytime soon.

[Ellen Stoune Duralia]

Jane, I hear ya girl! Wonder why the photography profession is so male dominated?? LOL

Ted, I guess it's a little of everything you pointed out. I want the movement that LF will provide; The film size is pretty darn cool and helpful because I can't afford the out-of-this-world prices for drum scanning (unless I'm billing it to a client) and will be utilizing an Epson to scan with; And yeah, I do kinda wonder what I'm missing. I get some degree of perspective control with my T/S lens and I do like to try and minimize perspective correction in PS as it can degrade the image.

While I will mostly be using an LF (should I decide to get one) in the studio for commercial stuff, I also want to play with some fine art stuff. Maybe a little landscape work but not anything that would require much of a hike from the car!

Keep those replies coming folks - this is fascinating and helpful! Thanks :-D

[QT Luong]

Apparently you are not saying that you are considering moving to LF because your Canon doesn't deliver the quality you need, but rather because of the upgrade problem. Consider that the depreciation rate on a 1Ds/1Ds2 is only 2000$/year, and compare that with the cost of film, processing, and scanning. Add the time savings of the more efficient workflow. I'll think you'll find that in a commercial environment, *provided that the Canon delivers the quality your clients demands* (and I think it does for most clients) it makes much more sense.

[Ted Harris]

Following on with QT's remarks yet another consideration may be portions of the market in which you cannot compete without using LF movements. That does not necessarily mean film. Commerical photographers who make their living shooting for catalogs often use a view camera with a digital back. You should talk with prospective new clients and with members of professional associations such as local advertising council, etc. Get a feel for what you might gain (if anything) from the investment in LF.

[chris_4622]

I'm a beginner in lf but my comments are from the perspective of a consumer. A few years ago I was having a brochure printed (lithograph) and when I went to the professional photog I had him shoot it in 4x5 transparencies. The quality was spectacular.
Any time you are doing something for money rather than fun it changes things so you will have to understand whether your clients know the difference between the formats and are willing to pay the extra for that difference. I'm a woodworker and constantly have to figure out how to make something and make money at the same time. Know your clients, and get the lf gear anyway for fun.

[John D Gerndt]

I am not a professional. I have had my degree in photography for some 20 years and have studied human visual perception (at Cornell) as well as the market for aspiring photographers (in and around Detroit anyway). Go digital if you wish to stay in the game. It seems like your issue (a well considered one) is if you have enough money for the ante. That, I am sure, depends on your client base.

Digital will win (if you haven’t conceded it yet, you will). Digital will win because it will get better (if it really needs to) and it will get more convenient. It may never match wet work in absolute quality. I will say unequivocally that some qualities off wet work will never transfer to digital, yet the people who hire work are not all that concerned about this. Just ask them.

Cheers,

[Dave Moeller]

Ellen-

If you think your question was unbalanced, then I'm about to demonstrate that at least one person here can be even more unbalanced...I'm going to disagree with something the owner of this board said.

QT Luong: Consider that the depreciation rate on a 1Ds/1Ds2 is only 2000$/year...

Although this has been historically true, the reality is that the value of these cameras could plummet to almost nothing tomorrow if the right product came along. I admit that it's doubtful that someone is about to bring out a 32MP full-frame DSLR that can shoot 20 frames per second and that sells for $2500, but it could happen. (Yes, I know this example is extreme...but stay with me here for just a moment.) The reality with digital is that there isn't enough historical data yet to know what the value of the equipment will be in the future. But this only makes a difference if you're looking at the purchase as an investment in the equipment. That's almost certainly the wrong way to look at this. You should be looking at the equipment as an investment in your business.

The rest of what QT says, and what most other people who don't have an axe to grind will agree with, is true. If the quality from a DSLR is good enough for your clients, then digital has too many advantages in the commercial world. Lower cost-per-shot, faster turn-around, very efficient workflow...LF only makes sense in a commercial environment if you need the quality it delivers. Chances are that you don't. In fact, chances are that any decent 6-8MP DSLR will be good enough for most professional photographers, and the full-frame Canon's will satisfy almost all of the rest. Given that you're talking about scanning LF negatives on an Epson flatbed, the quality of your output won't come close to approaching what LF can really deliver.

Having said all of that, the price of used LF equipment is pretty low these days, so if you want to supplement your digital with a used 4x5, even if it's only to play with, then you can probably swing a decent system for less than the price of a cheap DSLR body. If you're willing to use a monorail, you can find bodies with lenses on eBay for well under $500. A few film holders...some film...an old black t-shirt for a dark cloth...and you're on your way.

Good luck with your decision.

[tribby]

good advice from dave.

you'd best stick to digital for the work side of your photography. that shouldn't, however, discourage you from buying a view cam. thanks to digital's lionshare, prices couldn't be better for large format. on the rare occasion where a lax deadline allows, shoot big film and wow the clients with a nice chrome. chances are they'll order a few prints for display around the office.

plus, there's simply no better way of learning what camera moves do than seeing it happen in real time on the ground glass.

g'luck,

me

[David Karp]

Ellen,

I have a good friend who is a professional photographer. For most of his catalog work, he uses a Canon digital camera. Most of his clients do not need large photos and could care less about perspective control, overall image quality, etc. All the photo need be is good enough.

He has a few clients who are more demanding, and actually require him to photograph their products with 4x5. For that he uses a Sinar P2. These clients are sophisticated, and sell high end products that justify the extra time and expense.

Perhaps this is of some help to you.

[Jess Lee]

If your concern is related to your business just ask your clients.
If your concern is for your own satisfaction, get the large format because yes, you are missing something.

[John Kasaian]

I have to agree with tribby on this one. Get a 4x5 that'll wow 'em with 1:1 and add a portrait lens for retro looking portraits, or a hand held like a crown graphic for lf quality action shots. You'll be adding a little something extra to your 'bag of tricks' for a small investment and have some fun besides.

[Ralph Barker]

Ellen - I'd agree with those suggesting that you examine both the business side and the art side of the decision. From a business perspective, you need to examine:

1. what your current clients require and what market segment they fall into,

2. what potential new clients (and market segments) that would become available with LF capabilities might require,

3. what services are available to you in your area, and

4. what the turn-around is that you need to provide.

In large cities, there are E-6 labs that will turn around a couple of sheets of 4x5 or 8x10 in an hour. Elsewhere, you might need to send it to a distant lab and wait a week or more. Certainly, you could process the film yourself, but that takes time away from shooting - the higher-value billable hours. On the flip side of the coin is whether your digital customers are accepting charges for the time you spend in digital work flow and image adjustments.

Digital offers many advantages in a commercial environment in terms of turn-around and immediate image approval - as long as the image size and quality meets the clients requirements. The wrinkle that you're facing now is that a digital camera needs to pay for itself in about a year. After that, it will be obsolete compared to the market, and you may need to invest a similar amount (or more) to keep up with market trends and client perceptions. ("You're only shooting with a 12 megapixel camera? Sorry, we can't use you any more.")

Based on your answers (to yourself) to the above questions, you might want to poll your existing clients to see how they would feel about the increased image quality available from large format and the differences in pricing (once you've calculated those). Then, do what your clients want, and are willing to pay for.

In the interim, feel free to get a large format camera for your own satisfaction, and for keeping your creative juices flowing. That aspect will benefit even your digital clients.

[Peter Witkop]

I personaly think that using a view camera, and using one well is very good skill, it teaches you alot. And I think for product work, a view camera is a bordering on essential. But really, for commercial work, digital is the way to go, there is still some niche work for film in product work, but you need to be able to capture digitally just for the efficiency alone.

Shooting digitally doesn't mean not using a view camera though. A leaf back on a view camera is a wonderfull product rig, allows tripple or signel capture, flash or continious light, and very clean images. That's an expensive setup though, a scan back isn't a bad option either, they're cheaper (still not cheap though) than the leaf system once the shutter, etc. needed for the leaf system is considered, and their image quality is truely second to none in the digital areana. The down side to scan backs is they need continious light, and alot of it; you're essentially looking at having a minimum shutter speed of around 1/8'th, and you subject must be still. Another option if you like using a dslr as a capture device, something like and ultima 35 from cambo, which is a view camera that uses a dslr as it's catpure device, and allows you full perspective control.

Hope that gives some ideas about the options you have, other than just a film/digital choice.

Peter

[Steve Hamley]

Ellen,

I'm going to suggest something different. I understand you are intending to shoot professionally, and I note your interest in LF. Why not give it a try? Nothing says your work can't be fun, and the one common characteristic of most of us here is that we shoot LF because we think it's fun. You might too. And if it is fun, you'll find ways to be creative with it. Buy prudently and it won't cost a lot to try.

If you're in Raleigh, NC, (IIRC) come visit the Southeast Nature Photographers of Nature Photographers Network. You might find it fun to try LF in the field, and Raleigh has a growing contingent of LF shooters. If you haven't ever shot LF and want to try, I'm sure one of us would volunteer to let you use our stuff and come along on a shoot, although none of us use studio gear. We're all primed for snow in the Smokies or Blue Ridge this weekend. Also, surprise! SENP have women members, and one shoots 8x10.


http://forums.naturephotographers.net/6/ubb.x?a=frm&s=8306088241&f=1826080172 (http://forums.naturephotographers.net/6/ubb.x?a=frm&s=8306088241&f=1826080172)

Steve

[Ellis Vener]

Ellen,
Dave karp's advice is the best I've read here becasue the place it stats from is the question; "What satisfies the needs stated by specific clients ?"

If you do architectural work and want to be in the league of people who get hired by "Archtectural Digest" then you are going to need a 4x5 as your primary camera and you back that up with a high end (kodak Pro SLR/c or EOS 1Ds mk.II) DSLR.

To restate: You need to find out what the clients you want to hire you are expecting of you.

For a professional photographer , a camera or format is just a tool to master. Each has its place. I have a friend (a woman as it happens who is a terrific photographer of people for high end editorail and advertising and corporate work. She only shoots with a 6x6cm medium format cameras (Rollei 6008) and pretty much just uses one Comet 2400 head in an Elinchrom Octalight.. Her name is Pam Francis , http://www.pamfrancis.com (http://www.pamfrancis.com). She is very successful. another good friend has made more money from photography than anyone here and photo.net and any other phtography forum combined. He used to just use Nikon 35mm cameras -- now days he uses Nikon DSLRs. His name is Jay Maisel: http://www.jaymaisel.com (http://www.jaymaisel.com)

What are you missing by not using a 4x5 monorail view camera; image quality, long exposures, the ability to make multiple exposures a couple of degrees of detail, several degrees of control, hassles with labs, Polaroids, the ability to shift, swing and tilt the lens plane and the film plane ,the ability of every lens to be swung shifted and tilted.

if you are dealing with an al ldigital wroute you have the digital darkroom to master: you have to learn how to process raw files, how to use Photoshop both creatively and effectively, how to manage color on your monitor and in your output. What yo ugain is speed from shoot to client approval to delivery.

So you see, both routes have their own hills to climb, potholes to avoid and strengths to exploit.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi there,

Not a pro but I do play with both and you are missing quite a bit by not playing with L.F.. For business stay with digital if it's good enough for the clients. Remember P.T Barnum:

"No one ever went broke UNDER-estimating the taste of the American public"

For personal pleasure, amusement, curiosity or triumph you are missing out not playing with film. Yes it can make you crazy but it feels great when you beat all the odds and NAIL IT. I will arrogantly suggest 5X7, the ultimate format, and a 4X5 reducer back for the largest selection of film.

Smile

[Scott Fleming]

Here is a large thread, contributed to by pros shooting LF and top end digital, that might contain information that could bear on your decision making.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=303171&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

[Kirk Gittings]

I walk in two worlds, commercial and art, view cameras and scanning.

I am kind of a dinosaur in new suit.

I am an aging architectural photographer in a shiny new digital world. Have you had your teeth x-rayed lately?

My clients want scans. I like view cameras (I've used them almost exclusively for 30 years). But my clients want digital files. So I shoot film and scan it for them. Since I am a respected dinosaur my clients don't think I'm odd using a view camera. They assume I know what I am doing. If I was young and starting out I'll bet my clients would think I didn't know what I was doing and wonder why the hell I wasn't shooting digital. Commercial photography clients are as fadish as the images they consume. In commercial photography you need to look like you are up to the minute technically even if it is just a meaningless fad.

You need to think about your fascade when shooting for commercial clients and your soul when shooting for yourself. Buy an old view camera and make some meaningful images for yourself. Those images will invigorate your commercial work and you can be a closet dinosaur.

[tribby]

was that barnum or mencken?

pretty sure it was hl,

me

[Alan Davenport]

Am I wacko for even considering LF?

Yup. And now that you've considered it, you won't be happy until you've tried it. Welcome to the funny farm!

[Capocheny]

Ellen,

Maybe the best thing for you to do at this point is to forget about ALL the questions... simply go out and rent one for a weekend and have fun with it. It MIGHT not even be your cup of tea; Or, it just might be!

But, I suspect that once you see an image from one of these cameras... you'll have all the answers you need!

Cheers

[Paul Butler]

Digital still looks like crap compared with film, but the question is whether your clients will notice. You can get good quality images if you have $25,000 for the right digital back, but you need to be hard-nosed about the initial cash layout and the time over which you can amortize the expense. You need to do a business plan on a spreadsheet and think seriously about all the variables.

What was stated earlier is correct, that the LF negative offers real advantages if you are scanning yourself with a flatbed scanner transparency adapter. This is only realistic, however, if you have access to a good lab. Sending MF negatives out for scanning may be more cost effective and still give you the results you want. You have to do the same hard-nosed analysis of the cost of the film and processing for LF vs. the cost of amortizing the expense of the digital equipment. The cost of the film and processing is much smaller, but is an ongoing expense whereas the depreciation on the equipment will be a small factor in your yearly projections (except for the capital outlay for a decent scanner, which will depreciate comparatively quickly). With the digital equipment, by contrast, the initial expense is high and the depreciation is extreme except for the lenses, but there are few ongoing expenses (it is all depreciation).

In either scenario, you need to master photoshop but this will be time and money well spent for your career.

The problem with your image in the eyes of the editors accepting your work is another independent matter, if they all wonder why you're not following the same fad as the other photographers that they work with!

Please note that most of us working in LF all thought we'd just casually try it, once upon a time, but then we got hooked. It was easier than we thought and the results were so stunning!

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

Ellen.
I am an photographer/artist of many years. I have adopted the idea over my working life that to get noticed and stay ahead of the oposition, you have to offer a service that is apart from the rest.
Where most professionals are getting the jitters about their film camera investment and seriously thinking of going entirely to digital, I am still building on my much used and loved Sinar LF gear.
I ordered a new Horseman this week to compliment the Sinar system!

Stay enthused: Stan. L-B PicTecUK

[Nick Morris]

Hello Ellen,

I have done very little commercial photography, but the last work I did was because of my LF camera, and a client that needed exterme enlargements. However, all the professional photographers ( and a number of amatuers) I know have gone digital, even though they may still retain and use film equipment.

For what it is worth, my current 8x10, an Ansco outfit, I bought for $300, which included 8 1/4" Dagor lense, 3 backs - 8x10, 5x7, 4x5; a case; and 3 film holders. As others have noted, there are some good deals in the marketplace. Except for family and event "snaps", I have photographed exclusively with an 8x10 for the past three years. In commercial work the equipment is only the tool to get a job done. I think it is safe to say that for most, if not all, people in this forum, the use of a LF system is an experience in itself that goes beyond simply getting an image.

Try it, you'll like it.

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Ellen, I get great joy our of my LF equipment but if I were doing this proffesionally I would be shooting MF and pick up an refurbished Imacon 343. You will get similar quality to LF and a flatbed scanner and it will be much more cost effective. If you must have movements, I would first look into TS lenses and if they don't meet your needs, then look into a 6X7/6X9 view camera. When picking a MF system I would choose one compatable with current digital backs.

[Ellen Stoune Duralia]

Bravo! I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd get this level of information when I posted my question. The pure joy you folks express about using your LF gear really comes thru and it's such a refreshing change from the typical "you gotta have the latest and greatest blah, blah, blah" if you even hope to capture a usable image. It's not the camera - it's the photographer!

Kudos to all of you - I do so much appreciate the advice.

So, I reckon I will keep my eyeballs open for a deal on some LF gear, learn how to use it, and offer it as a format choice to those who require/want the quality that LF can provide. The fun I will have with using LF in my personal work will be a nice bonus.

Thanks again everyone!

p.s. To Mr. Simmons, I read your book "Using the View Camera" and it was very enlightening. Amusing that you stated most folks wouldn't read it cover to cover in your opening paragraphs. LOL It's gotten cold here, REAL cold and so with a nice cup of tea I sat down to learn. Good stuff there! I like View Camera magazine too. If I may make one small suggestion... Please do remember that there are newbies (like me!) who would appreciate seeing more technique related material in your magazine. Thanks again :-)

[Janko Belaj]

Ellen,



I'm working in design/prepress studio (about 60 employes) as photographer for about 4 years now. I think that about 90% of my work have been done with digital cameras and 10% with film cameras. Mostly medium format and some 35mm. Since I bought LF gear for my self (2 years ago, I think), I have done only 3 shots with my Sinar for the firm where I work, but on this monday (4 days ago) our management decided we have to create the best possible presentation of our own work, so right now I'm playing with Sinar and shooting 2-3 shots in a day. It is (finally) a big joy. I hope that this catalog we are making right now will bring us much more jobs for my 4x5 systems...



When I decided to buy LF gear I wasn't thinking about price of shots at all. I was considering only what I will get with that kind of tools. I'm usually shooting architecture, sculptures and similar stuff (my own jobs, outside of the firm where I'm working). I'm lucky that we have a bunch of high-end scanners and that I worked as scanner-operator few years in past, so I can scan my slides on fine tools without additional cost (except my own time). But, if I will ever loose that opportunities, I don't think I will stop using LF and film. Ofcourse, it will be stupid to shot some dog-food-bag with 4x5 film if the final picture will be smaller. Every tool for its own purpose...



Well, what I wanted to illustrate with above sentences is, if you can buy some basic (why not used too) stuff, try do your work with it, and if it wont give you (artistic and financial) satisfaction, sell it. Or buy better, and better, and... good luck.



Janko

[Steve Hamley]

Tribby,

You are correct - Mencken, although I'm not sure this is an exact quote.

If I were rich, I'd put this on a billboard at the entrance to Pigeon Forge, TN.

Steve

[Diane Maher]

It's good to see more women shooting (or considering shooting) LF. I tried 4x5 a few years ago and started with 8x10 last year (mostly black and white, but I do shoot the occasional slide). For business, do what you think is right for the business and for your personal stuff, definitely consider LF.

[John Kasaian]

Barnum, not Mencken:-)

[tribby]

john,

don't make me whip out my bartlett's.

slitting throats,

me

p.s. barnum said the sucker born every minute thing. lots of folks attribute 'broke' to barnum but it just isn't so.

p.p.s. i'm the proud owner of both mencken chrestomathies.

'a man is happiest when he's tight'- henry louis m.

[Neal Shields]

If you want something that offers movements for table top and almost limitless resolutation and dynamic range that won't ever go obsolete check out this site:

betterlight.com

[David A. Goldfarb]

Mencken, of course.

Back to the original question--whether you use LF commercially or not, it will still be worth doing, because it will make you approach photography in a new way and with a deeper understanding of what you can do with the medium, and chances are, when you see what LF can do that you can't do by other means, you'll offer it as a service, and maybe you'll attract clients who can pay for that service, because they need it. If you don't try, then you can't offer it.

[paulr]

Wait .. did someone just poke her head into the looney bin and ask the inmates' opinions on going on a shooting spree?

The answer is, go for it, of course.

[Steve Hamley]

Ah!

Another person who know what a chrestomathy is (and that Mencken had them).

Steve

[David Beal]

Ellen, you've gotten a lot of good advice.

If you make pictures for pay, you always need to give the client what the client wants, not what you think the clients wants or should have, and certainly not what somebody else tells you the client wants. And digital capture is just another way to give the client what the client wants. It's a tool, not a religion.

Having said that, please do acquire some LF equipment. If possible, both a field camera and a studio camera; if not, at least a field camera with some movement. Learn to load film holders and process your own LF b/w. Get some Efke PL50 orthopanchromatic film, made on decades old machinery with lots of silver, and create portraits with unbelievable tonal range, unassisted by electronics or computers. Learn how to make every one of the dozens of mistakes than can be made when you use LF.

We don't do advertising. We do a few weddings, families, and portraiture. We don't use digital directly, but do occasionally scan negatives if it helps to give the client what the client wants. If we did more weddings, I'd invest in digital equipment.

But I won't stop using LF, because we occasionally have a client who is willing to pay for the kind of service and product that is only possible with LF; and because that's what I take out in the middle of the winter, to capture a piece of landscape that will never exist again. As was said above, that makes me a better photographer.

Good shooting.

/s/ David