-
One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
I'm curious - why go with LF?
There are 3 immediate reasons I can think of, but wanted to ask here.
1. Individual development of each negative for better/finer control (doesn't PhotoShop make up for that, unless you're contact printing?)
2. Movements for perspective control. Necessary in architectural shots, helpful in landscapes, any use elsewhere?
3. Large negative. Great for contact printing (I sold my darkroom, including a really nice DeVere 504 with color head).
I use MF exclusively, and am really curious about getting into LF, but am not sure what more it will offer.
I was wondering why people choose to go with LF. What's the advantage or appeal? No right or wrong answers, just wondering out loud.
Thanks!
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
I'm curious - why go with LF?
Because the cameras are big and heavy, the process complicated, the cost very high and all of that make you feel superior to those who use dinky formats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
No right or wrong answers, just wondering out loud.
There are right and wrong answers, mine is probably wrong. If you need validation of your decision not to use LF, look elsewhere.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Virtually complete control is possible, one just needs to learn how to get there; that's real the fun part.
Mick.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Thanks for the replies guys (are there any women here in the LF forum?)
As I said, I've been interested in and curious about LF for a long time, wanted to try it out but never got that far. Now that I'm on the cusp of actually putting my money on the table, I want to check with myself why exactly I want to use LF, what I hope to get out of it, what's the attraction. To be honest, I'm still not sure, but hearing other people's reasons and rationales sometimes help one become clear of one's own.
I do know that there are some landscape pics I've done where I really wish I had movements to get more DOF, and I'm really intrigued by the portraiture possibilities and application as well, using the limited DOF and movements to lead the viewers attention, hide and reveal different parts of the composition. But I'm not sure that's enough of a reason (for me anyway) to spend a bunch of money. Especially when I already have a bunch of quality gear, and never enough time to really use it to it's fullest.
The other thing that appeals is the methodical and slow way one is forced to work (hand held Graphlex aside, although I expect even there a tripod would improve the results noticeably), although I'm wondering if I actually have the time to dedicate to it.
I'm one of the odd people who tend to go against the stream, and in many cases prefer quality to convenience, despite the majority of the world heading the other way, where convenience always trumps over everything else. Which leads me to think that LF might be a really good fit for me. But I'll never know until I try.
Thanks.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
A few women post, who knows how many just read.
Questions about where are the women may be destructive.
Next time you join a male-dominated forum try a female name and see what happens.
Randi Moe
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
That's a shame if true, and says more about the men online than anything else... :eek:
Can anyone link to a photographer or two, some examples (modern/contemporary) of shots that would not have been possible or wouldn't have had the same impact if they hadn't been made on LF?
I'm still trying to get a handle on what the advantages offer, maybe seeing some images would help make that clearer.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Just a couple of things. What format will allow you to have a 5x7, 4x5, 6x17, or even DSLR attached - all in one camera ? I could attach 35mm film rig too, but that would be right down silly, tho someone has done it.
OK, PhotoShop or not (not everyone uses that software)....what MF or DSLR allows you to use a myriad of lenses that are out there, I mean going back to mid 19th century ? Just having a lens is one thing, but to be able to come up with an interesting and quirky image (using it) is way more meaningful.
Les
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
OP, I don't really belong here. The largest format I shoot is 6x12.
I started out with 35 mm still, to shoot live fish in aquaria. I eventually went on to shoot flowers and insects and such in the field. This is somewhat problematic with 35 mm still. One can get as good detail as possible in the subject by filling the frame with it, at the cost of losing its setting. Or one can place the subject in its setting, at the cost of losing good detail. Can't win.
So I moved up to 2.25 x 3.25 (2x3 for short, 6x9 in metric) to be able to get as much detail as I'd been getting with 35 mm plus more of the setting. As I've already mentioned, this is much more difficult than using a 35 mm SLR. As I haven't mentioned explicitly, I wasted a lot more shots with 2x3 than with 35 mm.
So why move up in format? Because larger format gives a larger negative. Opinions differ on this, but film can't be enlarged more than around 10x. 8x10 is 35 mm's limit. Larger prints need a larger negative. And there you are.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
The other thing that appeals is the methodical and slow way one is forced to work (hand held Graphlex aside, although I expect even there a tripod would improve the results noticeably), although I'm wondering if I actually have the time to dedicate to it. .
Your underlying question gets asked and turned into threads periodically. The "quality" argument goes both ways, i.e. some argue that the large negatives and individual control cannot be matched by any other approach. The counter argument is that with ever-improving sensors, tilt lenses, and PhotoShop, one can now make images of equal quality in the digital domain. Without taking a personal side in this debate (I have one, but it is no more valuable than all the others), I would throw in that PhotoShop does add a degree of creative flexibility that does not exist in the LF/darkroom world.
But the part of the argument that seems to be agreed to by most, including myself, is that one chooses to do LF work precisely because one enjoys the method. The thought-process, choice of subjects that lend themselves to LF imagery, and the detailed actions required in the process is not just a by-product, it is a large part of the rationale for choosing the process. I attend a monthly get-together of photographers using all mediums, although digital now outweighs film considerably. I have come to recognize that I cannot "justify" my love for LF in terms of somehow "better" imagery, I stick with it because I enjoy the process much more than any other. I include in this the simple tactile enjoyment I get from holding large negatives in my hands, which you will recognize again as a "process" argument rather than a "quality" one.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Hi Peter,
thank you for your reply. It's a great point, that it isn't necessarily the quality, but rather the process by which one arrives at the final image that is the draw with LF.
I tend to look at digital vs analog in a similar way -
1. one can spend a lot of time pre-exposure planning the shot, setting up a tripod, framing the composition, checking/adjusting the lighting, etc, and finally making the exposure at the critical moment. One or two shots are usually all that's needed.
or...
2. one can fire off rapid fire at something that looks interesting, or one feels inspired, and then spend the same amount of time sorting through hundreds or thousands of images, fixing things like composition, lighting, exposure in post, to arrive at the final image.
I wonder if the total time spent is pretty close in practice.
Obviously, and especially for professionals, there's nothing precluding using approach 1 while working with a digital camera. It's just that the different technologies tend to encourage different approaches, and people end up working quite differently.
I know that in the days of film, many pro's would also fire off rolls and rolls of film to get the one perfect shot. I still feel personally that I'd rather prep the shot as much as possible ahead of time, and capture one or two exposures of exactly what I've envisioned, rather than taking hundreds "just in case" or to find the "perfect" one. Maybe that's why I don't work for Magnum or National Geographic, lol.
An example I'm always reminded of is taking pictures of my son at an amusement park years ago with my FM3a (a rare instance of me not shooting MF), standing beside another proud dad waiting for his daughter to come out of the same ride at the same point, shooting digital. Both our kids came out of a tunnel on the ride at about the same time. I fired off one, two, possibly three frames at most, waiting for the critical point where the composition was perfect and my son was looking forward. I had already pre-focused and calculated exposure. At the same time I heard a machine-gun like barrage from my neighbor, he must have taken about 30-40 pictures as she rolled out of the tunnel. Most of my work was done ahead of time, and I allowed myself a few options to make sure I captured a good expression. Most of his work lay ahead in sorting, choosing, and photoshopping whichever he ended up with as his keeper(s).
Personally, I prefer the first approach. Photographically, I'm lazy, like a lot of people, and don't tend to plan my shoots to well, instead wandering around aimlessly waiting for inspiration to hit or something interesting to happen to photograph. Probably not the best way to approach LF, although once that part is determined, the rest of the process does appeal to me. Maybe I should work more on defining my vision and what I'd like to convey....
-
3 Attachment(s)
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
I shoot 4x5 and now also 5x7 for entirely different reasons. My cameras allow me to use just about any lens from any period. I have six lenses made between 1845 and 1860. I use these to photo Civil War re-enactors and whenever I want a more ethereal look to my photos. I also have about half a doze or so lenses made 1900-1925 and use those to make photos with a classic turn of century look. Finally, I do have three modern lenses (1990s) but generally only use those when I need flash sync. I've begun shooting dry plates, which I love the result from. I'm also planning a move into wet plate next spring. My 4x5 and 5x7 allow me much more flexibility than any film camera. I enjoy owning and using historical lenses and cameras. My three cameras are: 1905 Century Camera Co. folding 4x5, 1925 Gundlach Korona 5x7 (& 4x5 back) field camera, and a 2009 Chamonix 045n 4x5. I love these cameras!
Kent in SD
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
I enjoyed the versatility of large format cameras. Modest view cameras have movements for all their lenses that are only available on expensive lenses for smaller cameras. Almost any view camera can be used with a great variety of lenses. Large film is needed for the contact printing required for some printing processes. Image quality can be great, although even Ansel Adams's 8x10 negatives sometimes don't look so good when enlarged to mural sizes. Some large format cameras, new and old, are elegant. On the other hand, Monday evening I took 160 digital images at a junior high football game. Today I'll cull those down to less than a hundred, burn them to CDs, and donate them to the school and a few individuals. This might take an hour or two, and cost me less than one sheet of large format film. Also, in that prevailing light, I would not have tried even one sheet of film. Every photographer has to decide for themselves what formats and type of cameras best suit their particular circumstances.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
hi OP
i shoot LF because i like to hand coat my paper &c
and while i can and have shot hand coated paper or glass or plastic or metal
in a 35mm or MF camera and i don't mind jewel prints and bigger-small-prints
... ( yes i scan and enlarge them so there really is no advantage to LF sometimes )
regarding can stuff that is done with a LF camera be done with a smaller format?
yeah it probably can. lensbaby+lomo make lenses like some of the older vintage LF lenses
and its not hard to put something besides film ( see my previous comment ) in a smaller camera
and use that.
at this point a lot of reason to do LF is to say you are doing LF .. and because its kind of fun.
good luck!
john
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
6x6,
I started shooting bigger and bigger cameras because I am getting older and my eyes are getting weaker, and a bigger camera is easier to focus.
Plus I prefer lifting heavy cameras over pumping iron.
I jumped right in, including built a small darkroom, and haven't looked back.
However I do strongly recommended meeting up with another shooter ( if possible ) and trying a camera along with ask them for any advice.
If they have multi formats I would try them all.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
I do it for the contact prints.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
...
1. Individual development of each negative for better/finer control (doesn't PhotoShop make up for that, unless you're contact printing?)
...!
Unfortunately, Not.
Because no decision can be made with Photoshop.
Photoshop can provide unlimited brilliant choices, but No decisions taken. Remember, every thing in the digital process is in para-reality if not outside reality, and every/any step can be UnDone or ReDone(undo/redo) at any time, at no cost whatsoever and at no time. That by definition are choices, Not decisions.
That's only part of what's actually the difference. The next is more important.
The "Visual Experience" of the photographer when managing single film, is pure Optical, Light and Optochemical effect. It mixes and react with human memory/emotions very well, interact and develop with time, like any "Visual Experience" of any classic or hand made Art. Please continue reading.
Furthermore, the "Latent Image", which is the Artistic Imagination Substrate in all classic Arts, is inevitably compared with possibilities/limitations of the craft/medium and with reality, every time a single film is developed and printed. Film "Latent Image", with time and experience(memory/practice), will be the equivalent of Artistic "Latent Image". It's well related to(it is), "Previsualization/Visualization" in the Art Of Photography.
Then, the "Methods/Process". Again, different worlds, actually. From before exposure, until having a dry print, the photographer is involved wholly, emotionally, mentally, visually and physically. That makes true artistically recallable memory. Sort of augmentation to the true "Visual Experience".
All of that is not attainable in digital photography or in any modern digitally based activity. Digital photography is an Art of its own character. It's also a professional money maker tool.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
...
Can anyone link to a photographer or two, some examples (modern/contemporary) of shots that would not have been possible or wouldn't have had the same impact if they hadn't been made on LF?
...
It's impossible. You have to see real print with your real eyes in the reality, to reach a good conclusion for your self.
On computer LCD, the best work from Ansel Adams will looks like any other good B&W photo from 12MP digital camera.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
...
It's a great point, that it isn't necessarily the quality, but rather the process by which one arrives at the final image that is the draw with LF.
I tend to look at digital vs analog in a similar way -
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
...
It's just that the different technologies tend to encourage different approaches, and people end up working quite differently.
I know that in the days of film, many pro's would also fire off rolls and rolls of film to get the one perfect shot.
...
For professionals(earning their money) and manufacturers, yes, it's just different tools.
For artists, it's different worlds.
No "Latent Image" of any kind in any digital activity, which means No "Imagination".
No "Hand Craft" in any digital activity, which means No true consistent "Visual Experience".
That does not dispossess digital from being art, at all. Digital can make the best Digital Arts.
If you are concerned with the job done, like professionals, happy to you, Go Digital.
If you are concerned with the Digital Arts, like many, happy to you, Go Digital.
If you are concerned with making Art, like the art made since hundreds of years, go classic, Do Film.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
...
1. one can spend a lot of time pre-exposure planning the shot, setting up a tripod, framing the composition, checking/adjusting the lighting, etc, and finally making the exposure at the critical moment. One or two shots are usually all that's needed.
or...
2. one can fire off rapid fire at something that looks interesting, or one feels inspired, and then spend the same amount of time sorting through hundreds or thousands of images, fixing things like composition, lighting, exposure in post, to arrive at the final image.
I wonder if the total time spent is pretty close in practice.
...
It's the contents and experience within that time that matters, not just the quantitative measure of time.
Please read above comments.
.
Please review thread: Wondering why I still shoot film. Post#117:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...oot-film/page3
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
I'm curious - why go with LF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
1. Individual development of each negative for better/finer control (doesn't PhotoShop make up for that, unless you're contact printing?)
The tonal curve is easier adjusted in photoshop, but a really skilled optical printer usually obtains a level of excellence that's really hard to beat. I can easily design an sculpture with Blender software and printing it 3D, but Michelangello made the Pietà with a hammer.
For me it's difficult to explain it, but being directly in touch with that medium allows to see things form another point of view. Digital offers more powerful tools to correct things and to manipulate the image, but a true artist may not require that. A soprano like Anna Netrebko does not use Auto-Tune gear, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Tune, pop artists use it and then their singing has no defects, but Anna's throughput plays in another division.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
2. Movements for perspective control. Necessary in architectural shots, helpful in landscapes, any use elsewhere?
Movements are amazing for portraiture, you inclinate the plane of focus to obtain depth and to remark the features you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
and am really curious about getting into LF, but am not sure what more it will offer.
I was wondering why people choose to go with LF. What's the advantage or appeal? No right or wrong answers, just wondering out loud.
First it will offer is drawbaks and complications. Slower, way more weight, investment requirements, higher cost and manpower per shot. And metering LF is an adventure...
Why do you shot 6x6 and not 35mm? 35mm is more agile, cheap and you shot more frames !!!
... but I guess you have better images in the 12 shots of a 120 roll than in the 36 shots of a 135 cartridge.
With LF it may happen the same to you. You perhaps will make 1/4 or 1/10 of the shots you make with MF, but perhaps (or not) you probably will obtain a better result.
With LF you may obtain total image quality (+200mpix worth), you obtain integrated camera movements for creative usage, you obtain the look from longer lenses for same scene (defocus roll-off, beyond DOF) and you can mount a legion of vintage lenses having a rebel personality.
Still today LF is the top notch in many ways, you may want it or not. But remember, if you make the mistake to look through a 8x10 ground glass you may not find the way back, it can be addictive.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
You'll find you make different kinds of photographs with LF. And the pace is different.
Enjoy.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Wow, a lot of great responses here, thank you all.
Liquid - great point and one I'm noticing already in MF and even the 4x5 I tried out, even with glasses it's getting harder to see and focus (and I'm not that old!).
Oren - is there such a thing as 4x5 contact prints? The prevailing wisdom so far seems to indicate 4x5 is a good place to start, before eventually moving up to 8x10.
Thalmees - I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "decision vs choice", both imply the same thing in my head. I do understand and largely agree as far as the craft and human aspect goes compared to digital. I'm already shooting film, and will continue to. The issue at hand is whether to buy a LF rig and work more in that format, or simply continue with MF as I have been for a very long time now.
Pere - I shoot MF because I was never satisfied with the tiny 35mm negatives, or the tonality, resolution, etc. I'd rather have 12 frames to really concentrate on making count than 24-36 that were less critical and received less attention and care. Plus I much prefer composing in the wasit level finder on the ground glass, the whole image is right there in front of you to see. Also, it's easier imho to keep contact and rapport with a living subject, when shooting portraits, I can talk and keep up a banter while still shooting. The size & weight difference between the gear (35mm & MF) was negligible until I got a bunch of Rollei gear, which is much heavier than the Bronica was.
Eric - I think you may be right, which is what I notice with MF, and even when shooting 35mm film, I approach it differently than I would if I were shooting digital.
Thanks again.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
Oren - is there such a thing as 4x5 contact prints?
Of course there is. My favorite format is 6.5x8.5, but I'll gladly take 'em in any size for which I can get sheet film and feel up to lugging the camera on a given day, from 2.25x3.25 up to 12x20.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
More on small contact prints. The first camera I used, when I was probably around seven years old, was a bakelite Brownie Hawkeye. It shot 620 film, made 2.25" x 2.25" (in metric, 6x6) negatives. The lab we used for processing returned contact prints.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
I'm curious - why go with LF?
1. Individual development of each negative for better/finer control (doesn't PhotoShop make up for that, unless you're contact printing?)
No, I process ten or five at a time, usually all the same because I print on multigrade paper.
Quote:
2. Movements for perspective control. Necessary in architectural shots, helpful in landscapes, any use elsewhere?
Somewhat, but I can use 6x9 for that also. Problem is 6x9 does not hold flat.
Quote:
3. Large negative. Great for contact printing (I sold my darkroom, including a really nice DeVere 504 with color head).
No, I don't contact print, I use the big negatives for big enlargements.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Age 7 I was doing Minox film contacts. Father would not allow me an enlarger. Foolishness he said. Now I collect enlargers.
The real trick here, is this forum, has a place for every format and type of image maker.
In the right category/thread. Read our rulebook.
I may be forced by aging eyes into only contact printing. So my film will get bigger. Eureka! ULF in studio...
There is no single path to walk.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Randy Moe
Age 7 I was doing
Minox film contacts. Father would not allow me an enlarger. Foolishness he said. Now I collect enlargers.
The real trick here, is this forum, has a place for every format and type of image maker.
In the right category/thread. Read our rulebook.
I may be forced by aging eyes into only contact printing. So my film will get bigger. Eureka! ULF in studio...
There is no single path to walk.
Wise words. See if you can borrow some equipment. Also think about your output pathway whether it be scanning to inkjet, analog printing with enlarge, analog contact printing, or creating digital negatives on acetate. What process, whether it be silver, cyanotype, platinum etc.
Almost always a good idea to start small as in a 4x5 view camera, a few holders, and one normal i.e. 150mm f5.6 modern lens in order to master the techniques and then consider alternative directions such as panoramic, 8x10 or ULF.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
6x6,
If you are in British Columbia (preferably Kelowna) let me know and I will take you around for a day and let you try my 3 main cameras.
A 4x5 Linhof press camera.
5x7 Burke & James
And an 8x10 Kodak 2D
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
Oren - is there such a thing as 4x5 contact prints? The prevailing wisdom so far seems to indicate 4x5 is a good place to start, before eventually moving up to 8x10.
I contact print 4x5, and mat it to 8x10. Looks great. The small image is nice to handhold. They make great assemblages - I have some small places in my house that I can stack 3 of these prints on top of each other to make a series (I have done this for 3 images of the same place, for instance). I am learning that dense, busy images do not work, which in hindsight is a bit obvious. Better images have simpler composition and larger elements to stand out in the small size.
I also contact print 8x10 and 8x20. 8x20 contact images are really something - at the art festival I did last weekend, the couple I brought really made an impact. Probably could've sold this print 4 times but only had one matted and framed. Need to make more, clearly - and I have a couple other negatives ready to print.
Anyway - I have some 13x19 prints from 6x9 negatives and they are just about as good as a 4x5 enlargement. Larger enlargements, I prefer 4x5, and am working on my 8x10 enlarger and a way to develop up to 40x50 inch prints. Soon. Well maybe next year, we'll see how the next couple festivals go. The arguments for LF are long and varied. Most could get the same images or close to it with a $400 DSLR but you know, personal choice. Just get a cheap Crown Graphic or whatever and give it a whirl. What's to lose.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
I shoot MF because I was never satisfied with the tiny 35mm negatives, or the tonality, resolution, etc. I'd rather have 12 frames to really concentrate on making count than 24-36 that were less critical and received less attention and care.
6x6TLL: a few observations based on various posts in this thread.
I agree with your comparison between 35mm and MF. Like you, I find the tonality and resolution significantly improved in MF. However, in my experience, the difference between 6x6 and 4x5 is much less obvious. I print my good images on 11x14 FB paper (usually with a bunch of iterations to get burning, dodging, and contrast where I want them). At that size, I see little difference between my MF and LF work; I'm tempted to say none, because I'm happy enough with the prints made from MF negatives to not feel any compulsion to do careful side-by-side analysis. I carefully specified maximum print size; I am aware that at larger magnifications I'm probably wrong.
Another post mentioned that the kinds of images you make with LF are different from smaller formats, certainly 35mm. Again, keeping my answer specific to my own experience and "eye," I have noticed that regardless of format, I tend to take "LF" images. There is a bit of chicken-and-egg here, I don't know if my love of LF has made me more aware of static architecture, landscape, and interiors, or whether I always had the interest and concluded that LF worked well with those subjects. I still shoot 35mm, but only when the subject requires it (I was a serious bicycle racer for many years, and while I would photograph races I wasn't in myself, it would never have made sense to use either MF or LF). My MF use is almost always simply a "travel choice," it is easier to pack and carry one MF camera with one lens and no tripod, versus my LF backpack with multiple lenses, holders, meters, tripod, etc. But the subjects I choose are almost always the same ones I would photograph with my LF camera if I had it with me. So you have to think about the kind of images that attract you.
Lastly, following your own questions and posts, I suggest you have answered your own quality of camera question. I would say that if money were no object, you could but together an Arca-Swiss packable option, with the folding rail, that would probably meet any need you could come up with; a Linhof Technicardan would do the same thing at similar cost, and both offer a tactile precision-engineered feel that can't be bettered. But ... given your questions about why use LF when you already have MF, I think you should gain enough experience with a lower-cost LF camera and one lens, to decide whether the format appeals to you. If it does, then you can jump to the highest quality camera you can afford.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
It is both mentally and physically demanding figuring out how and finally getting all your camera stuff where it needs to be.
Focusing on a ground glass is dang near mystical...or magical. The bigger the gg the more fantastic it gets. A 12x20 gg can give me vertigo.
Mixing large amounts of chemicals fulfills some ancient urge recalling alchemy, witchcraft, and 1950's mad scientist "B" movies
Watching a contact print come to life in a tray of developer is like watching creation.
Besides it's a heck of a lot of fun!
Contact printing is about as hands on as it gets---minimal equipment----it's as if contact prints have some unique energy.
Besides it's a heck of a lot of fun! Oh wait, I already said that.:o
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Working in large format is bucket list stuff.......you don't know until....you know!
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Large negatives for contact printing in alternative processes.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
It's performance art. If I just want a picture of something, I use my phone like everybody else.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jody_S
It's performance art. If I just want a picture of something, I use my phone like everybody else.
Lol!
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
6x6TLL
Pere - I shoot MF because I was never satisfied with the tiny 35mm negatives, or the tonality, resolution, etc.
In theory 35mm MF and LF have the same tonality for the same film (and development). We may use different films in 35mm than in MF, because grain size of the film. I always like the TX grain with MF but only sometimes with 35mm.
I also consider MF being a very powerful size, you made a good choice. A good MF shot delivers more image quality than the eye can discern in most practical situations, grain is delicate and nice or not seen. Nice out of focus roll-off nature, Convenient and portable. It was a very Pro choice.
Today it's still the workhorse of top notch wedding photographers... that's amazing in these digital days.
LF offers you a new set of aesthetical tools, IMHO the motivation to make the step to LF should come from those resources, because you have to enlarge a lot to see the better image quality from LF vs MF.
I'm a newcomer to LF and still exploring those aesthetical resources, this is not something I could get explained in short.
But I still realized that LF has an impressive aesthetical heritage that's for the future. Perhaps one day this will be rediscovered by a mainstream of photographers.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
I contact print 4x5, and mat it to 8x10. Looks great. The small image is nice to handhold. They make great assemblages - I have some small places in my house that I can stack 3 of these prints on top of each other to make a series (I have done this for 3 images of the same place, for instance). I am learning that dense, busy images do not work, which in hindsight is a bit obvious. Better images have simpler composition and larger elements to stand out in the small size.
I would like to see some examples if you have them. This is something which interests me
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
I am doing it because I can do foolish things at times. I don't have the talent or the patience but I came across a great deal on a Calumet C1 8x10 camera, a Dagor 10 3/4 inch lens and 4 near new film holders for $300 and I said WTF I'll try it. I just found a used tripod to hold the weight and hope to try my first one this weekend. I intend to do contact prints.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
campy
Calumet C1 8x10 camera
Yousuf Karsh "settled on the Calumet C-1 8×10 for the vast majority of his work". http://www.anatomyfilms.com/yousuf-k...trait-royalty/
This is well known, but's nice to remember it.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
I was bitten by the shutterbug in '89 when I watched my first paper pinhole neg image form in the developer tray. Personal pleasure is the primary reason my top two weapons of choice are an 8x10 pinhole and a Crown Graphic Special 4x5. Procreation can be achieved in the test tube but many still prefer using the traditional method when possible. All formats serve a purpose, even if as a toy format for children. Traditionally, medium and larger formats offered the excess quality one need to make internegatives or color separations for printing without any easily detected loss of quality. A 6x6 transparency can be enlarged to 4x5 internegative to produce gorgeous 40x60's. Minimizing everything until you have just enough image quality to make the predetermined maximum print size from a camera rendered jpeg seems to be the driving concern these days. You can print awesome 13x19's from a high quality micro 4:3 camera with a good capture / editing. A 4x5 neg gives you the option of doing anything with it, even enlarged negs for contact prints. The average person born after 1970 who hasn't been exposed to pro or advanced ameratuer photography, is probably unaware of medium and larger formats. When you expect an 11x14 print to show grain and then see a 16x20 from 4x5, it's quite impressive (as are ture silver gelatin prints even if produced by lightjet). After thirty years, I don't want to go out and get as much practice capturing images as possible. Occasionally, I go out to shoot and never pull out the camera. I prefer to be in the darkroom with 4 negs rather than at my computer with 400. The 4x5 view camera is the classic tool for learning. I you acquire the understanding and skills to use one, you won't find two many cameras that you can't operate in manual mode once you find the controls. At the end of the day, for me it's about working in and keeping alive the tradition of 20th century fine art black and white photography and doing whatever I can for younger folks who are interested in doing the same. Traditional photography requires not only a financial investment, but investing time and effort. To me, that adds value.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IanBarber
I would like to see some examples if you have them. This is something which interests me
Here's a single image in the 8x10 mat, with a black "frame" added in Photoshop. I frame them with full borders from the film (they are contact printed onto 5x7 paper):
http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/pho...t-7321ssmf.jpg
I have a friend who owns a frame shop cut them to my exact dimensions, 10 or 20 at a time.
I would take a pic of one of my triptych assemblages but everything is packed up for art festivals so they aren't hanging at the moment.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Beautiful, Bryan (Corran),
thanks for sharing. It looks great, quite striking.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Thanks! Folks love the black outline, especially when I explain why it's there. So don't think you can't contact print these (kinda) small negs. I also contact print 6x17 negatives!
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marky
Because the cameras are big and heavy, the process complicated, the cost very high and all of that make you feel superior to those who use dinky formats.
HELLS YEAH..... after shooting 11x14... I scoff at all you 'pudie format (4x5 & 5x7) users'.....MAN UP!!!
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Corran
Here's a single image in the 8x10 mat, with a black "frame" added in Photoshop. I frame them with full borders from the film (they are contact printed onto 5x7 paper):
http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/pho...t-7321ssmf.jpg
I have a friend who owns a frame shop cut them to my exact dimensions, 10 or 20 at a time.
I would take a pic of one of my triptych assemblages but everything is packed up for art festivals so they aren't hanging at the moment.
Very nice. Thats the sort of presentation I am looking for. Do you happen to know the dimensions he cuts them to
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
This is the template I send to her. I don't weight the mat because I use these for both horizontal and vertical and it hasn't much been an issue.
http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/pho...g/mat81045.jpg
It's great to work with a frame shop who knows you and what you need. She's used to working with these templates and includes the template in with the cut mats in bags so I can easily find what I'm looking for, which is great when I'm matting 40 prints in a week...
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Thanks, are you making a custom black border or just letting the outer edges of the 7x5 go to black when exposing under the enlarger
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Nope it's just the paper, film, and then glass in an 8x10 contact printer. There's no reason I can think of to mask off just the film. Well, I suppose if you were dry mounting and so want a white border on the paper, maybe that would be good, but with the overmat it doesn't much matter.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
You mention an 8x10 contact printer. Would 2 sheets of 3mm glass do or do you think a proper contact printer helps to get a sharper image
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
The contact printer has a thick sheet of glass - probably 1/4" or so. Not sure how two glass sheets would work. I've also used thinner acrylic sheets with weights on it (1/2" metal bars that I use in my scanner for weights on ANR acrylic).
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
"One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?"
For the best reason of all... because I want to.
-
Re: One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?
Late to the party, but oh well, if it were not for serious soft focus lenses, I would not bother with large format film cameras.
The dreamy soft focus interpretations that are only possible with the brute force of gigantic real estate; (ie. 5X7, 6.5X8.5, 8X10 film) and ancient soft focus portrait and pictorial leneses, are to me the final hold out.
These images to me at least (and in my world, I'm the only vote that counts) are a breath of fresh air in a sea of stupid-sharp-all-the-sameness. I'm weary of perfect pictures. Give me a piece of film with the dirt and grit and nose hairs left over from me cutting it to the size I needed for the camera.
On a summer evening at 6000 feet elevation where I live, if I'm alone, the potatoes go in the oven for 2 hours of baking, and I get in the survivor Ford and go looking for some kind of a back drop. Almost anything will do.
In this case, the 7" (178mm, Virginia) Verito is a bit undersized for the 5X7 film, which is why it gets to swirling out on the far edges. Yumm. Even better.
I have a hundred ancient lenses with a hundred different personalities, and honestly, that's the only reason I keep taking pictures.
Of course the Nikon D200 is handy for when I horse trade on ebay :~'))