LF and DSLR... a few questions

[Ballpointpenner]

Dear LF shooters,

To begin with this is my first post here, and I was not quite sure which section to put it in.

This is my situation. I`ve had an interest in photography for some years now, but have thus far always kept most of my shooting to very limited point and shoot, and the occasioinal SLR. Various people had suggested that I had a good eye and that I should go deeper into it, but for various reasons, I never did. Now, for the first time, I am in a situation where I have the time, money (at least much more so than before), and desire to go further with this hobby. More than that, I have a wealth of beauty just outside my doorstep, so there is no shortage of subject-matter. So, the time is ripe.

Obviously, there are many directions which one can take with photography. Over the last few weeks, I`ve been doing quite a big of research on DSLRs, and now have an ok picture of whats out there. While I was doing that research, I also had time to think of exactly what kinds of pictures I wished to produce. I realized (and now we`ve entered my imagination) that I wanted to make large, monumental, poster-sized prints which were primarily black and white. I also realized that I had a desire to experiment with something that had not appealed to me in the past -- editing; specifically, the merging together of contextually different images.

Now, something that I only began to realize a short while ago is that DSLRs are perhaps presently unequal to the first of these tasks. This consideration has lead me to look elsewhere, specifically LF photography. Indeed, only a few days of research has already shown that this medium is far better suited to my first criterion.

However, there are obviously some major drawbacks to LF, as I am sure you know better than me. Besides the weight, the likelihood of error, and the general tedium that I associate with the darkroom,　large format is unlikely to meet my second criterion: I imagine it would be extremely difficult to combine several large format shots into one without having the resulting image be two shots on top of each other. With a DSLR, I imagine that this would be possible, though I admit that I still have a lot of researching to do on that front.

Right now, some of you are probably thinking that my head isn`t really where it should be if I am honestly considering such disparately different formats for such ambitious project, having almost no experience working with either to boot. You`re probably right.

Reguardless of what I choose, I intend to initially invest in a budget system and start getting my hands dirty. That will tell me what I need more than anything else can. So, by now you`re probably wondering what kind of advice I wish to get from this forum. My questions are as follows:

1. In what ways am I wrong in my assessment of DSLR vs LF, particularly in relation to my two criteria?

2. Is there a possible compromise, perhaps something like the EOS 5D DSLR (not that I would invest in something in that price-range at this point)?

3. To get a better idea of the mediums, I would love to go see some quality prints of both kinds. Besides jumping in myself, I doubt that there is a better way to learn what I am really looking for. I am presently in Japan`s Niigata prefecture. Does anyone know any good galleries exhibitions that feature large format photography, as well as ones that feature digital enlargements, in my vicinity?

4. Based on what you`ve read above, what do you suggest?

OK, those are probably the biggies for me, at this point. Its true that a lot of this post is outlining a kind of ambitious ideal, and I myself would be surprised if I actually succeeded in attaining it in the near future, but one must try.

Thank you for reading.

- Bpp

[Patrik Roseen]

Hello Bpp,
Not too long ago I went through a similar thinking as you. DSLR or LF.
I chose LF beacuse of all the possibilities and quality to a reasonable cost when buying used equipment.

You will probably get alot of responses to your questions so I will not answer them completely. But here is what I have learned so far.

The obvious difference between a DSLR and LF is that at the time of capturing the image - one is digital and one is analog using film (unless having a digital back instead of film on the LF-camera).
The process of getting an image from a DSLR to a poster print requires post processing in a Photoediting SW and then printing the result on paper (poster size).

For LF you have two choices once the film is developed:
A) the wet darkroom - Using an enlarger the image can be put on photographic paper(develop, fix, rinse and dry) and then put on the wall. There are several techniques for creating 'mixed' images in the wet darkroom.

B) the digital darkroom. The film is scanned in scanner and a digital file is created. This digital file is no different than the digital file from a DSLR, and the postprocessing and printing is the same for reaching the final result. Any kind of digital alteration by using the Photoediting SW is possible here just as using a DSLR. Scanning a 4x5" filmsheet will give you more detail than most reasonably priced DSLRs.

I think LF is more fun since there are so many possibilities for 'creating' the image I want already at the time of exposure. And it offers the possibility of both the wet- and digital darkroom. Good luck!

[Gary Smith]

BPP,

Feel free to email me! I live in Niigata, and have been here for nearly 10 years. I can help you, and let you use some LF cameras if you are interested.

Regards.

Gary

[Frank Petronio]

I think you just have to try different tools and media and maybe you'll be lucky and find something that is perfect. Or maybe in the process of making the quest you'll make some great images along the way, even if you bounce from tool to tool (that is what I try to do.)

To me, the dSLR -- the less expesive ones, like the Nikon D70, along with a small, fast prime lens (a 35/2 is "normal" on a cropped APS size sensor camera) -- is the fastest, most "Leica-like" camera for spontaneous "street" shooting. And 4x5 or larger formats are almost the complete opposite. So I like switching between the two extremes of working methods -- fast and loose versus slow and formal. The end result is a mix of both influences -- somewhat looser large format, sometimes more thoughtful grab shots. And switching gears (swapping equipment) breaks up the old habits and makes the brain learn new things.

The key thing here is to keep it simple. A Nikon D70 with a small 35/2 is a great combination with a 4x5 Crown Graphic and 135 lens. Neither are very expensive and you can produce images that rival anything being made by photographers using much more expensive and fancy gear. Don't let the cost of your gear make you think you are doing something not quite as professional or "as good".

[Leonard Evens]

You are right that you can't presently make large prints with a lot of detail from a single shot with a DSLR. You can do that by patching together many images from such a camera.

As has already been noted, if you scan negatives, you can also patch together 4 x 5 images the same way, but you need not do so to make large prints.

You can have film developed by a pro lab and thus avoid the darkroom work. But just developing film is not terribly difficult once you've developed the skills. Makeing large poster sized prints is probably not something you are going to be able to do yourself. Again you will have to use a pro lab for that, and it will be expensive.

Whatever you do, you will need considerable knowledge of photography and also of digital methods to do what you envision. The route to high resolution images would be shorter with 4 x 5. But if you are willing to devote sufficient time to mastering mozaic images, you will eventually be able to do it the other way. But there is a lot for you to learn first.

[Robert Ley]

If you are interested in combining multiple images, check out the work of Jerry Uelsmann. You can get some basic info and a start to tracking down some of his images herehttp://www.profotos.com/education/referencedesk/masters/masters/jerryuelsmann/jerryuelsmann.shtml
Uelsmann has been combining images in the darkroom for 40 years and is a master at the technique. Much of the technique can now be done in the computer with PS.

[Brian Ellis]

"I imagine it would be extremely difficult to combine several large format shots into one without having the resulting image be two shots on top of each other. With a DSLR, I imagine that this would be possible, though I admit that I still have a lot of researching to do on that front."

You seem to be creating a dichotomy that doesn't necessarily exist between 4x5 on the one hand and dslr on the other. While there are many many differences between the two types of photography, if you scan a 4x5 image it's the same from an editing technique standpoint (e.g. combining two or more photographs) as a dslr image.

[Ron Marshall]

I scan my 4x5 and 5x7 images, manipulate them in PS, then print on an inkjet using septone inks.

One can learn to develope LF film quickly. Scanning b/w is not difficult. Learning Photoshop takes some time, but a good book really makes the difference here.

If you want large prints, ie. bigger than 20x24 then LF is the way to go.

[photographs42]

I use a Nikon D200 for Architectural Photography and a Linhof 5x7 for B&W landscape photography. The two tools are as different as night and day. They are not just different from a Digital VS film standpoint, they are different ways of SEEING images.

Aside from “having a good eye”, you don’t tell us the extent of your photographic knowledge. My impression from your post is that it is limited.

You indicate that you have used an SLR and a digital P&S. You don’t indicate any experience with any photo editing software. Working with a DSLR is no different from a film SLR, so you have that experience. LF is very different. It requires a slow methodical approach. It is not hard to learn but takes effort to master. Gary has offered to let you experience a LF camera. I strongly advise taking him up on his offer. If you haven’t used a photo editing program, you can do so with images from your P&S.

My point is, you have the tools available to you to make some basic decisions. Before you worry about making poster sized prints, I think you should explore photography further with the tools you have or, if you decide you are a LF type, a basic set up can be purchased used for a reasonable sum.

Another question that only you can answer is “what kind of art do you wish to produce?” If you will be satisfied with inkjet prints then you will need to invest in and master photo editing software. If you want silver gelatin prints, you will need to master the darkroom.

Jerome

[alec4444]

Gary has offered to let you experience a LF camera. I strongly advise taking him up on his offer.

I second that advice. As a newbie to the format, when you try it, even for just a day or two, you'll know. At least that's how it was for me.

Some food for thought: One reason why I haven't jumped into the DSLR market is that anything I buy today is pretty much outdated in a year. And the equipment does not hold its value. Quite the opposite for large format. If you were to spend $2000 today on a full large format outfit and you decided after a year you hated it, you'll probably have somewhere around $2000 to put towards a DSLR system that's one-year better than today's stuff. You won't be able to reverse that statement.

--A

[MJSfoto1956]

Jerome makes a great point -- using a "big" camera changes the way you see. Perhaps the best way to imagine it is thus: when shooting with a "big" camera, each image is precious. And thus you tend to invest more of yourself into it. A "small" camera by comparison is better at taking "informal" photographs. It is not uncommon to click 20, 30, or even 40 images or more of the same subject with a smaller camera regardless of whether or not it is film or digital. Of course, this is precisely what you need if you are attempting to capture sports or anything with significant "action" (although truth be told, it is still possible to pull this off -- with much skill -- using a "big" camera).

So yes, the resulting photos are generally quite different as are the techiniques used to acheive them. Personally, I believe a trained eye can tell the difference immediately (regardless of resolution or even dynamic range). Time and time again, the "big" camera delivers a precious quality that a smaller camera generally doesn't. Conversely, a smaller camera delivers a "looseness" that generall a large camera has trouble with.

[Mark Sawyer]

"However, there are obviously some major drawbacks to LF, as I am sure you know better than me. Besides the weight, the likelihood of error, and the general tedium that I associate with the darkroom..."

Go digital, whatever the format. If you don't enjoy the darkroom, you will never excel there, and there is no honest reason you would want to.

"Uelsmann has been combining images in the darkroom for 40 years and is a master at the technique. Much of the technique can now be done in the computer with PS."

One can also take a photo of two dogs humping and with the right software, turn it into a Van Gogh-style expressionist nightmare. That doesn't make it a Van Gogh...

My God, photoshop may be the only software package ever created where every item on every menu is a synonym for "lie to make it look better..."

Sorry, two glasses of home-made apple-wine and I turn into a troll...

[Ballpointpenner]

Wow,

I am amazed by both the quantity and the quality of the answers provided. Thanks guys.

Gary, your offer is both extremely generous on your part and an amazing opportunity for me -- I think this will make all the difference, moreso than any kind of advice ever could. I will definitely take you up on it, so expect an email.

Robert, that link is great; this is indeed the direction which I wish to explore. Actually, the whole website is pretty cool and has many photographers which I never heard of.

The rest of you have also been very helpful.

- Bpp

[Jay W]

This has been an interesting thread. I've been following the progress of digital cameras thinking that there will be a point where digital quality will be "good enough" to drop the big packs of gear. So it's really interesting to hear that folks think of digital in the same terms as a smaller film camera.

Here's a curve ball suggestion. You could try medium format for a while. The gear is very cheap now, the image quality very good, and you could have a go at developing and darkroom work (maybe borrowing some darkroom time) without investing a ton. Medium format negs can be enlarged with good results, but you may find that you don't make really large prints very often because it takes a really good image to justify a really large print. (At least that's the case for me.) Using roll film is very convenient and makes for fewer mistakes.

Jay W

[photographs42]

I second that advice. As a newbie to the format, when you try it, even for just a day or two, you'll know. At least that's how it was for me.......


This reminds me of my first experience with LF. For years I used a 35mm for family stuff and 26 years ago, when I started to photograph seriously, it was with the 35mm. About a year later, I started thinking…All of my images were made with the camera on a tripod, using a shutter release, and the subject wasn’t going anywhere. I had never used a LF camera but thought….. This is what LF is for. A few weeks later I found a used Port-A-View kit camera and for $175.00 I bought the camera, a lens and two film holders. I thought for that small of an investment I couldn’t go wrong.

The next day I took my new camera and a peanut butter sandwich into the woods and fell in love! The thing that struck me the most was that I could really see what I was photographing. Instead of peeking at the image with one eye through a little hole, I was looking at it with both eyes and the difference was a quantum leap. WOW! I knew in a minute that I could not go back to peeking through that little hole. It was a while before I found a 4x5 enlarger that I could afford, but when I did, I was hooked for good. Once I printed from a large negative it was all over for the 35mm. I kept the Port-A-View for a couple of years while I invested in some good lenses. My theory was: When the shutter opens, there is nothing between the film and the subject except the glass. Eventually I bought a 4x5 Linhof Technika and in 1999 I purchased a 5x7 Technika, which I currently use.

In my day job, I am an Architect, but I often do Architectural photography for the company I work for. A few years ago we decided to switch to digital for most of the Architectural work. Most of it is for publication and the D200 does a decent job. It has many advantages over 4x5 film and a few drawbacks but for the intended use it works OK.

As I get older, and I’m already old, it gets harder to lug the LF stuff around. I could switch to MF or DSLR, but that’s not what I want to do. I could scan my negatives and print on an inkjet printer, but that’s not what I want to do.

I just returned from an Art Fair in Pontiac, MI. The show draws a crowd of over a million people. It’s a white bread world. Most of those people don’t know and don’t care if the image was made with a film camera or digital, traditional silver gelatin or inkjet. They are looking for something that is cute or that matches their sofa. But the people looking for actual Art, know the difference and appreciate the quality of a selenium toned silver print from a LF negative. That is my market, but I don’t do what I do for them, I do it for ME.

Jerome :)

[Patrik Roseen]

...
The next day I took my new camera and a peanut butter sandwich into the woods and fell in love! The thing that struck me the most was that I could really see what I was photographing. Instead of peeking at the image with one eye through a little hole, I was looking at it with both eyes and the difference was a quantum leap. WOW! I knew in a minute that I could not go back to peeking through that little hole. It was a while before I found a 4x5 enlarger that I could afford, but when I did, I was hooked for good. Once I printed from a large negative it was all over for the 35mm.

... But the people looking for actual Art, know the difference and appreciate the quality of a selenium toned silver print from a LF negative. That is my market, but I don’t do what I do for them, I do it for ME.

Jerome :)

Jerome, Now I understand why my 35mm does not get used so often anymore. Very well put in words. Thank you!

(BTW, I miss the peanut butter sandwiches I had for school lunch during a few years living in Menlo Park, California in the late 70's...I need to remember to buy some on my way home...I wonder if I can find the 'crunchy' type?)

[photographs42]

This has been an interesting thread. I've been following the progress of digital cameras thinking that there will be a point where digital quality will be "good enough" to drop the big packs of gear. So it's really interesting to hear that folks think of digital in the same terms as a smaller film camera.

Here's a curve ball suggestion. You could try medium format for a while. The gear is very cheap now, the image quality very good, and you could have a go at developing and darkroom work (maybe borrowing some darkroom time) without investing a ton. Medium format negs can be enlarged with good results, but you may find that you don't make really large prints very often because it takes a really good image to justify a really large print. (At least that's the case for me.) Using roll film is very convenient and makes for fewer mistakes.

Jay W

Jay,
Most people think that way because the DSLR is affordable. Digital backs that begin to equal LF film are very expensive and while they produce good results, the end product is different. “Good enough” is a relative term at best.

I have a photographer friend who is fond of saying; “If you buy a camera, you are a photographer. If you buy a flute, you own a flute.” This is even truer now that the digital revolution has arrived. The craft of photography has been reduced to being able to press a button and make a few adjustments in Photoshop. For some people that’s “good enough”. I know a lot of people who own digital cameras that don’t know an f stop from a bus stop, but they think of themselves as photographers. Oh, well…..

As it is with any art form, the Art of photography is, however, independent of the tools used to produce it. Great photographs have been made with cameras of every size and shape. A painter doesn’t choose between a brush or a palette knife because it’s the latest thing, he or she chooses the tool that matches his or her vision.

Perhaps my biggest objection to the digital process is that it has spawned far more bad art than I could have imagined. OK, you digital aficionados out there can beat me up over that one now.

Jerome
http://www.jeromehawkins.com/

[photographs42]

Jerome, Now I understand why my 35mm does not get used so often anymore. Very well put in words. Thank you!

(BTW, I miss the peanut butter sandwiches I had for school lunch during a few years living in Menlo Park, California in the late 70's...I need to remember to buy some on my way home...I wonder if I can find the 'crunchy' type?)

Eating smooth peanut butter is like peeking through that little hole.

Jerome