Examples of Large Format shots that cannot be done with small

[goamules]

Like most of you, I shoot a lot of formats and types of cameras. On small format forums the small vs large or digital vs film always, without fail, only focuses on one aspect - resolution, "sharpness." When I try to advocate the purposes of Large Format, I talk about a lot of seemingly subjective things like dynamic range, tone, print sizes, aspect ratio and such. People "don't see the difference" there, and I don't have comparison examples. When I mention view camera movements, to say get both eyes in focus on a portrait where the sitter is facing at an angle, they throw out their googled knowledge of tilt/shift attachements for small format. Basically, only examples of what LF is good for would help.

I'd like this thread to be for posted examples of what you "cannot do" or cannot easily do with a 35mm or DSLR handheld camera. Post your photo, and why you could not have done it without LF. Or explain setup, etc. I'd like to be able to point to some LF shots and say "tell me how you'd do that with your DSLR or Cell Phone or 35mm Leica."

[goamules]

Here is one thing most easily done with large format, soft focus. There were dozens of soft focus lenses made for LF cameras for many decades.

[Tin Can]

Good thread idea.

Last night before I read this I decided to try shooting images that show my actual eyesight and how I see the world without my glasses.

It's way more soft or out of focus than your shot.

I'll put my results in a different thread as that's not your goal here.

[Bob Salomon]

Here is one thing most easily done with large format, soft focus. There were dozens of soft focus lenses made for LF cameras for many decades.

And an Imagon is easily used on medium format as well as 35mm cameras. Rodenstock and Zork both made mounting systems to put the 200mm on Rollei, Hasselblad, Mamiya medium format cameras. Schmactenburg made systems to put the 120 and 150mm Imagons on virtually any interchangeable lens 35mm as well as most 6x6 medium format SLR cameras, except for Bronica.

So soft focus on smaller formats was most certainly easily done and was the hallmark of photographers like Frank Cricchio, Monte Zucker, Al Gilbert and Tibor Horvath.

[goamules]

But I'm not comparing LF to Medium, I'm comparing it to small format 35mm and digital full-frame, APS-C, 4/3, and Micro 4/3 sensor cameras. I'm not asking if someone like Schmactenburg made a rare adapter that was rarely used for a task commonly used in all LF portrait studios in the 1940s (soft focus). Nor asking that if you put a diffusion filter on a Nikon F3 if it's as good as a Kodak Portrait 305. I'm not asking if a LensBaby can do what movements on a Deardorff do. These are exceptions to the rule. What is LF BEST for?

Now, moving on, and I knew this would happen. I suppose there will be NO real techniques that LF does that someone cannot refute and say 35mm can do easily. At the end of this experiment my hypothesis may be broken, and I'll have to admit there is no difference.

My question, again is: What can LF do that SMALL format (35mm and DSLR) cannot do, or cannot easily do (yes, I know people have shot wetplate with 35mm SLRs, but it's not easy, or the norm)? If you know, can you post examples?

[goamules]

Good thread idea.

Last night before I read this I decided to try shooting images that show my actual eyesight and how I see the world without my glasses.

It's way more soft or out of focus than your shot.

I'll put my results in a different thread as that's not your goal here.

Thanks Randy, for understanding my intent it not to start another endless debate topic. It's more along the lines of "Post your Waterfalls." If you have a waterfall, post it. If you have an example of something LF can do better than small format, post it!

[Bob Salomon]

But I'm not comparing LF to Medium, I'm comparing it to small format 35mm and digital full-frame, APS-C, 4/3, and Micro 4/3 sensor cameras. I'm not asking if someone like Schmactenburg made a rare adapter that was rarely used for a task commonly used in all LF portrait studios in the 1940s (soft focus). Nor asking that if you put a diffusion filter on a Nikon F3 if it's as good as a Kodak Portrait 305. I'm not asking if a LensBaby can do what movements on a Deardorff do. These are exceptions to the rule. What is LF BEST for?

Now, moving on, and I knew this would happen. I suppose there will be NO real techniques that LF does that someone cannot refute and say 35mm can do easily. At the end of this experiment my hypothesis may be broken, and I'll have to admit there is no difference.

My question, again is: What can LF do that SMALL format (35mm and DSLR) cannot do, or cannot easily do (yes, I know people have shot wetplate with 35mm SLRs, but it's not easy, or the norm)? If you know, can you post examples?

Schmactenburg made adapters in the late 80 and the 90s. He was a baby in swaddling clothes in the 40s. And the adapter was not that rare. First Frank Crichhio and then we sold a lot of them in the 80s and 90s. They just didn't enter your sphere of interest then. In fact, they were so in demand that Rodenstock reintroduced and began construction again on the 120 and 150mm just for Schmactenburg and Prontor made a special version of the Prontor Professional shutter just for his system. Schmactenburg made the body adapters and the focusing tubes and the lens adapters for these lenses. Rollei also made a special adapter tube for the 6XXX system cameras also, just for the 120 and 150 Imagons. This adapter mounted these lenses into the variable focus tube/shutter for the 6XXX series cameras. This was hardly a mid 20th, or earlier, system.

But your soft focus example is not correct. And, if one were to obtain a 120 or 150mm Imagon in one of Schmactenburg's focusing mounts for any 35mm, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax 645 or 67, etc. camera they could very easily mount it onto any mirror less digital, as well as many DSLR cameras with easily available Novoflex adapters.
And, while we are at it, the modern Petzval lens from Lomo is also for any camera in Nikon or Canon mount and, with adapters, almost anything else.

What you should be concentrating on is what a view camera, 69 pr larger, can do that other cameras can't do. And, for the most part, at infinity, that would be camera movements. Although there are some exceptions like Scheimpflug control on SL66 cameras and tilt/shift Novoflex bellows for most small cameras.

[Kirk Gittings]

I'd like this thread to be for posted examples of what you "cannot do" or cannot easily do with a 35mm or DSLR handheld camera. Post your photo, and why you could not have done it without LF. Or explain setup, etc. I'd like to be able to point to some LF shots and say "tell me how you'd do that with your DSLR or Cell Phone or 35mm Leica."

Frankly I posit this question differently for people, because I know that from vast comparable experience that I can fairly well match MY LF images with a DSLR and T/S lenses.

I don't need LF-I like LF. I like the methodology. I like the historic practice. I like the challenge. I like the deliberateness and the pace. I shoot digital almost every day for commercial work. I appreciate that my personal work is done radically different so it doesn't feel like just more work.

[goamules]

....
And, while we are at it, the modern Petzval lens from Lomo is also for any camera in Nikon or Canon mount and, with adapters, almost anything else.

What you should be concentrating on is what a view camera, 69 pr larger, can do that other cameras can't do. And, for the most part, at infinity, that would be camera movements. Although there are some exceptions like Scheimpflug control on SL66 cameras and tilt/shift Novoflex bellows for most small cameras.

Exactly, that's what I keep asking for. So can we do that? I just started with soft focus as one vaguely relevant thing. Oh, and the Lomo lens is not a Petzval. I've examined them, they aren't. They are another example of small format people trying to emulate large format.

[goamules]

So far the answer from two of our most experienced Large Format photographers is there is nothing LF can do that 35mm can't do also. Did I hear that right?

Anyone else?