I don't own a large format camera...

[Jesse-Califonia]

Yet.

Hi all, i'm new to the forum and plan on using it a lot. i have been a photographer for 4 years, but never shot 4x5 until recently (renting). I'm in my 20's and have made a few bucks off my fashion work and a couple pieces in galley shows so far.

I am planning a move into shooting fine art exclusively and need a format that can blow up to 60in beautifully. I'm going to go look around the site and soak up as much info and experience off you guys as i can, while asking a few questions here and there. Talk to you soon :)

Jesse

[BradS]

Hi Jesse. Welcome.

[Brian Ellis]

Welcome.

A 60 inch long print is a 12x enlargement from the long side of a 4x5 negative, way too big a magnification factor to produce a high quality print at least for me, 4x is about my usual maximum and I think something in that range is a common maximum for others. If you're thinking in terms of beautiful prints that size from film you might want to consider 8x10.

[Marc B.]

A few things to consider regarding which size of LF equipment to acquire.

If you will adopt a hybrid work flow; shooting film, then scanning into the digital realm, finishing with an ink-jet print, I would suggest nothing larger then 8 X 10, with 4 X 5 probably your better bet to start with.

Lenses that cover 4 X 5 will be less expensive, with greater availability then those for 8 X 10, or larger.
Greater availability of scanner options for the pro/semi-pro in the 4 X 5 size.
A wider choice of film emulsions are available in 4 X 5, followed by 8 X 10.

There are still two sizes of Fuji instant pack film, (and used backs for this film), available for 4 X 5 backs. The film for the smaller size is $0.80-$0.90 cents a shot.
In LF, that is very cheap learning. Of course, there are 4 X 5 reducing backs for 5 X 7, and 8 X 10 cameras.

5 X 7 is sort of an odd-orphan film size today; limited film choices. But, if a 5 X 7 camera comes your way, at a great price, and it comes with a 4 X 5 reducing back, that could be an option for an entry level starter.

Since you say you want to print out to 60 inches, then you will probably be sending your printable images out for drum scans. You will want a scanner at home for previewing your images, only sending your keepers out for drum scanning.
Drum scans can range in price from $25-$40 to start, up-wards to $100-$150, per image.
Good 4 X 5 drum scans are cheaper then good 8 X 10 drum scans.

Just a few quick thoughts for the moment.
Marc

[jayabbas]

Welcome to the rodeo !! Comin out of the chute with 5 foot print capability is certainly a tall order. Remember that with larger everything comes larger trials and tribulations and immensely larger cost. For years I have been happiest with smaller enlargements in the 11x14, 12x20, 16x20 range. Size in this field almost always follows the rule of large size equals cubic dollars and cubic effort. Still you are on a great journey and I hope you enjoy your travels.

[Jesse-Califonia]

thanks for the welcome. i know i'm heading down an expensive road, but i have the marketing and gallery support so I at least hope i won't go broke.

I am thinking about starting off shooting color transparency and checking my work after it's processed without scanning, probably scanning at home cause why not. Then drum scanning, digitally editing and printing the final selection.

As far as going 8x10, those cameras are beasts and probably won't fit what i'm trying to accomplish without a team of assistants (which i won't have). Print size will ultimately end up on my eye when it comes time to print, so 60in may be pushing it, 40in would not be bad with a matte and frame, but hopefully i don't have to go smaller then that.

[D. Bryant]

thanks for the welcome. i know i'm heading down an expensive road, but i have the marketing and gallery support so I at least hope i won't go broke.

I am thinking about starting off shooting color transparency and checking my work after it's processed without scanning, probably scanning at home cause why not. Then drum scanning, digitally editing and printing the final selection.

As far as going 8x10, those cameras are beasts and probably won't fit what i'm trying to accomplish without a team of assistants (which i won't have). Print size will ultimately end up on my eye when it comes time to print, so 60in may be pushing it, 40in would not be bad with a matte and frame, but hopefully i don't have to go smaller then that.

You can easily make 60 in.prints from 4x5 film, though you will need top notch technique and enlarging lenses or drum scan as Mark B. suggests.

Though I will say that LF photography doesn't necessarily equate to fine art photography.


Don Bryant

[John NYC]

+1 for everything Marc B said.

I went from 4x5 to 8x10 a couple years back, and I can tell you that while I love it, it is another world in terms of the compromises you have to make and it is far more expensive if you shoot a lot of film. If you shoot relatively little, dev yourself and make only b&w contact prints, it can be cheaper than enlarging 4x5 to 8x10 at a lab. But then again a 4x5 enlarger can be had for very little, and then the favor for cost turns back to that format.

Bear in mind, depending on where you live, it might be hard to find labs with an 8x10 enlarger. If you are scanning and need resolution for large prints, you will want a drum scan, and as Marc B said, those are even more expensive for 8x10.

Take some time to do the research to find out exactly what your all in costs versus your goals are going to be.

[Greg Y]

I'm a big fan of the "odd-orphan" film size 5x7. Admittedly I only shoot B&W...but I love the proportions....and 35 sq" is almost double the 20 sq" size of 4x5. I used both 4x10 and 8x10 for a while but settled on 5x7. I either contact print for the intimacy and detail or enlarge on a much-appreciated Durst 138 which found its way to me. Whatever your choice....just start somewhere, and the rest will follow.

[Jim Andrada]

Funny, but I tend to make bigger prints from my Canon 5D than from my 5 X 7 negatives - probably because when I use the big camera I want to put more emphasis on texture and detail - I can print up to 17 X whatever which would be more like a 3X enlargement but usually stay with 11 x 14 or 8 1/2 X 11.

[Adamphotoman]

If you want Big beautiful prints then 4X5 or 5X7 is the way to go. Keep in mind that transparencies require dead on exposures and centre filters with wide angles. You might want to start with Black and white or colour neg film [to start with.] Also SOME of your lenses can be used on multiple formats. A 360 Apo Ronar can act like a telephoto on 4X5 and be almost normal on 8X10.
With each format increase the level of difficulty, speed, and cost goes up almost ex-potentially. The effort is worth it. But how much weight do you want to carry? What do you want to accomplish?

It's fun.

welcome to group therepy...

Grant

[John Flavell]

Welcome to the good part of the dark side. It'll make you slow down and really think about photography.

It's like turning a writer into a poet.

And you won't need no stinkin' writers.

[cyrus]

Wait - I thought digital was the Dark side.

[Scott Davis]

Who's saying you need a bunch of assistants to shoot 8x10??? Only if you're trying to do high-volume catalog production or something. For personal work, 8x10 is a piece of cake! Easy to load, easy to handle, easy to process. You want to talk turkey about shooting big film? There are those of us who shoot ULF (11x14 and bigger - my current monster is a 14x17) without an assistant! Granted I'm only taking 1 shot every 20 minutes or so, but I don't want rapid throughput on a shoot with something like that. I couldn't afford it at $325/25 sheets of film.

[Andrew O'Neill]

As far as going 8x10, those cameras are beasts and probably won't fit what i'm trying to accomplish without a team of assistants

Don't know where you heard that before. 8x10's are not beasts and you certainly do not need a team of assistants. My 14x17 is a beast and yet I do not need a team of assistants.
Anyways, welcome to the forum.

[atlcruiser]

The slippery slope of LF; welcome

I would go straight to 810. FIlm is not cheap but cheap film can be found to make the learning curve less expensive. I use the arista 400 in 810.

I have found 810 is ideal for me to work on composition and exposure. The bottom line is that you can see more of the subject.

The workflow has taken me a little while to figure out but I am getting there. With 810 a good drum scan will run about $100. An epson v700 will make great proof scans and web scans. They can be had refurb for about $450.

One great advantage of large format is contact printing. Even 45 looks great with a good contact print. My expectations of size of print has fallen all the way back to contact prints.

Another very cool option is to have the neg drum scanned then either work it yourself or hire the work out and have a digital negative made in any size you want/need. The file can be worked so that you get almost the same resolution as a straight contact print in the default fim size. Once you have the digital neg you contact print that. It is a very nice way to get large, hi quality traditional prints that cna be superior to an enlarged print.

I strongly suggest developing yourself. The almost instant feedback has been invaluable to me in moving forward in LF. I can shoot in the early am and have negs within an hour or so. Let them dry 2 hours and scan :)

[E. von Hoegh]

As far as going 8x10, those cameras are beasts and probably won't fit what i'm trying to accomplish without a team of assistants (which i won't have).

Really? I've lugged mine - tripod, 2 lenses, a couple filters, 4 filmholders, meter, and all that miscellaneous stuff - including lunch - as far back in the woods as I could go and get out before dark, say 7 or 8 miles. No assistants. And I'm an old f@rt.:)

[Jesse-Califonia]

Whoa, all you 8x10 guru's got the wrong idea. i'm setting out to capture social settings and working entirely with people sometimes in found locations and light. Some of my planned work incorporates agency models but even then i will need to work faster then 20min a shot.

I'm worried about staying nimble, like maybe skipping a rail system all together, let alone a bag with a bunch of 8x10 film holders and the big camera/tripod setup? Not to say i couldn't do it, maybe set up a home base of sorts and dip back in for lens changes and new film holders, just would be afraid i'd miss too many shots. Any of you guys have experience to share please do....

i feel like maybe i should start a new thread at this point.

[mdm]

What you need is an 80 megapixel MF digital system.

[Mark Barendt]

Hi Jesse,

This is not said to discourage you from trying LF but given your subjects, your want to avoid a tripod, and your need for speed & spotanaity, I think you may want to consider MF. Say a GF 670 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/678957-REG/Fujifilm_16019089_GF670_Rangefinder_Folding_Camera.html) .

LF logistics can be considerable. Some cameras like a Speed Graphic are quicker than others but still not near as quick as a roll film camera for your found situations.

Reading this paper (https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/505) on soft focus lenses. One of the interesting bits in there was that part of the drive to make SF lenses was that once wet plate and albumen prints came into use the detail available had gotten "too good", "too truthful", all of a sudden portrait sitters were complaining about blemishes and retouching became imperative. Soft focus lenses reduce the need for retouching.

My point here is that your need for detail at 60" may be different than others. Sure if your from the f/64 school of thought, 4x may be a good limit. To me it doesn't sound like you are there though.

Where LF may shine for you though is in controlling the focus to isolate a subject. For example you could skew the camera to focus on only one person in a police lineup. This though takes time and tripod to do well. This can be done nicely on 4x5 but larger cameras like 5x7 and 8x10 make this easier to see.

[atlcruiser]

Mamiya 7 is what you might want. Crazy good lenses that many say make negatives that are as good as 45, light. smallish, fast etc......


I know one for sale cheap :)

[John NYC]

What you need is an 80 megapixel MF digital system.

Agree. The large print size he wants at gallery quality and the fact that he wants to work quickly definitely says Phase One (Mamiya) or Hasselblad MF digital to me.

Of course, you are talking a lot of money for that type of system.

[GPS]

Yet.
...
I am planning a move into shooting fine art exclusively and need a format that can blow up to 60in beautifully
....
Jesse


Whoa, all you 8x10 guru's got the wrong idea. i'm setting out to capture social settings and working entirely with people sometimes in found locations and light.
...

It seems your basic problem is that you don't know what you're talking about...

[John Kasaian]

Sounds like the option for a handheld camera maybe worthwhile---like a Crown Graphic or Linhof Technika.
I shoot 8x10 without any assistants (but I seldom try to shoot anything thats moving!)

[Rick A]

IMHO, getting "gallery quality" while shooting on the fast is a near impossibility, unless your style is fuzzy 30x40's. Shooting off a tripod nearly insures sharp crystal clear enlargements every time. When I say nearly, I mean it's still a matter of critical focus, and scene preperation. Twenty minutes per shot with an 8x10 is still fast enough to keep the momentum up and not lose models attention and enthusiasm. Most pros take longer than that to set up, then shoot a crap load of MF to get one or two good negatives. I'll stick to my 4x5 and keep up a running dialog with my subjects to get all in the mood I am after.

[Mark Barendt]

I agree with Rick in the sense that rushed work tends to be sloppy, I think that's true regardless of format. (That's one reason that when doing paying work I almost never handhold with any format, a monopod for fast work, tripods otherwise.)

That doesn't mean LF work can't be done quickly. A "Speed" or "Crown" graphic or similar camera can be used very quickly.

Even an 8x10 "C" series Calumet can be worked quickly as long as it's on the Tripod already and you aren't boxing and unboxing for every move.

In a "found" social situation though, like the OP shoots, I'm thinking the shear size of an 8x10 and the foot print of a tripod might become a real issue. A SpeedGraphic on a monopod might just work.

On the thought of sharpness I'm not sure that matters so much. With people as the subject, it's more about emotional impact, short depth of field to set the subject apart, mood and, a lack of blemishes visible. That trumps high detail/sharpness regularly.

[Rick A]

I think that if the OP studied up on Weegee he might get a better idea of what he would need for the situations he's thinking of shooting.

[Mark Barendt]

I think that if the OP studied up on Weegee he might get a better idea of what he would need for the situations he's thinking of shooting.

+1

[John NYC]

I think that if the OP studied up on Weegee he might get a better idea of what he would need for the situations he's thinking of shooting.

Didn't Weegee also use flash quite a bit to get his large DOF? That really makes it impossible to be inconspicuous in found situations as the OP indicated.

MF film or digital seems the best solution for him to me.

[Scott Davis]

Well, if he MUST shoot 8x10 in reportage-style, there's always a Hobo or a Fotoman... and figuring out how to daisy-chain/slave a cluster of Vivitar 283's would be a good idea too, to have enough flash oomph to cover f22 on a 210mm/180mm-ish 8x10 lens.

[rdenney]

Well, if he MUST shoot 8x10 in reportage-style, there's always a Hobo or a Fotoman...

Or an 8x10 Gowlandflex...

Rick "giggling" Denney

[atlcruiser]

Well, if he MUST shoot 8x10 in reportage-style, there's always a Hobo or a Fotoman... and figuring out how to daisy-chain/slave a cluster of Vivitar 283's would be a good idea too, to have enough flash oomph to cover f22 on a 210mm/180mm-ish 8x10 lens.

that is a situation that screams out for flash bulbs...or flash powder :)

[John NYC]

I think we lost the OP here possibly but if not wanted to point out more directly what has been said here already... 8x10 is not much at all slower for me with my Wehman camera than 4x5 was with my Shen-Hao. You still have to set up the tripod, decide on your lens and mount it, roughly aim the camera, level the camera, put on your hood and critically adjust the camera and composition, possibly re-level, do your metering, set your lens aperture and shutter speed, get back under the hood and critically final focus, take off the hood, put the holder in and then fire the shutter.

Order may change somewhat depending on what you are doing and the light conditions.

[Jesse-Califonia]

thanks everyone for your input. I think i know what i'm going to buy, I'm looking for a 4x5 field (collapsable) system bundled with some lenses around the used market to start off. Upgrading from my pentax 645n to a Mamiya 7 is a fun idea too, but i think i like the movements with LF.

As far as speed and mobility, all i was talking about is the weight and bulk of about 10 8x10 holders and the bigger tripod and camera. I'm scheduling to meet people, or groups at their homes, ranches, places of worship etc. and photographing them for a solo show. I will have plenty of time to set up but i will be finding the shots in some cases, and want to be able to move easily and not draw too much attention to myself with a huge bag + camera.


sorry, i don't understand the post about me not knowing what i'm talking about. Fine art at 60in is not at odds with social settings, people or possible found light. i don't get it.

[John NYC]

As far as speed and mobility, all i was talking about is the weight and bulk of about 10 8x10 holders and the bigger tripod and camera.

it isnt as much as you think. Yes, the holders are the worst part, but if you bring four to six holders and a small changing tent, it isn't that bad.

My camera is a wehman at 7.2 pounds. I use the same 3 pound carbon fiber tripod I used with 4x5. If you choose your lenses wisely for portability, the difference there is negligible.

If you want really large prints 8x10 is the way to go, mainly for tonality.

Remember that frame and glass traditional mounting of such prints is going to cost you a fortune. Look into that also.

[John NYC]

And if you are inside, you are most likely going to need lights to shoot people with large format, unless they are next to a bright window and willing to be very still for an f16 1/4 second exposure.