Examples of Large Format shots that cannot be done with small

[Michael R]

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?

Not exactly. It is a difficult question because in addition to it being somewhat subjective, digital introduces additional possibilities. I would offer the following opinions/generalizations (which can be problematic):

1) In some ways it is easier to alter plane of focus and/or image shape with LF cameras
2) At least in the context of film, there are image structure and/or tone reproduction differences (subject to magnification factor in the final print). For example you cannot make a "grainless" 16x20 print from a 35mm negative, etc. However it is strictly a matter of personal preference/opinion when it comes to whether or not this means a given picture can or can't be made with a small format camera.

Virtually any of the differences one might cite, including the two above, are arguable and come down to subjective variables including aesthetic preferences, one's own conceptualization/visualization of any given shot etc.

[fishbulb]

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?

I don't have really any images to share since I use LF images mainly for resolution and big prints, but here are some thoughts:

Technical differences:

* extreme tilt/shift/rise/fall/swing movements not available on even the best adapters or tilt-shift lenses -- compare a LF monorail vs. anything else for small formats, for example
* generate extremely high resolution in one shot images (100-300 megapixels for 4x5), versus multiple shots merged together for smaller formats
* excellent dynamic range rivaling the best digital sensors (with negative film anyway)
* ability to easily use a huge array of historic lenses, equipment, and processes (film/chemical/wet plate etc.)
* very thin depth of field if you want it, for less money than the ultra-rare ultra-large-aperture lenses on 35mm -- e.g. 300mm f/5.6 on 8x10 is about the equivalent of a 50mm f/0.7 on 35mm
* contact prints with virtually infinite resolution to the naked eye -- nothing else looks the same

Qualitative ("if you're into that") differences:

* starts a conversation with almost every passer by
* allows for a very different form of interaction with a portrait sitter -- far more sociable, in my opinion
* a slower and more mentally-engaging process -- instead of taking 1,000 images and choosing the best one on the computer, you visualize 1,000 images and take only one
* allows for all the "fun" of darkroom work -- if you consider that to be "fun" (i do not, but some people do)
* can work in the same way as famous past photographers like Adams, Weston, Avedon, Karsh, etc.
* can work completely without electricity if you want

...

Still, I think you have to be fair about all the things LF can't do that digital can. And there are a lot. Fast-moving subjects, quick changes in focus and composition, each exposure is basically free, easier editing, blah blah blah we've heard it all before...

[Mark Sawyer]

Historically, Edward Weston found large format cameras were much more effective for talking attractive young women out of their clothes. Quite a bit of contemporary work, some even on this forum, validates this...

[goamules]

Thanks Adam, good bullets. Thanks Mark, good purpose. Thanks Kirk and Paul and the others that shrug off or don't want to win/argue the point, but paradoxically weighed in anyway.

I'll give you my impression too. I don't see a single result from LF other than a nice, easy contact print that knocks my socks off and makes me thankful I just shot LF. Oh, and the ability to use antique lenses. And sometimes the movements. And the attention it gets. Girls. Wood. Brass. But otherwise, I like the results of my digitals just as much as from my LF. Experiment over, thread closed.

[fishbulb]

Oh yeah I forgot about contact prints, added that to my list above. There's something about the ludicrously high-resolution of a contact print that you just can't replicate with anything else.

Also added an interesting qualitative difference... you can work totally without electricity, if you want to.

[ckagy]

How about shooting macro without needing a special lens? As long as you can rack out the bellows far enough you can shoot macro with no special equipment.

Also, with a small format camera you can tilt/shift the lens, but not the film plane at the same time. I think of images like Ken Lee has shared here that require both the plane of focus and the plane of film to shift: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/htm...aMovements.php

Finally, does being able to shoot multiple formats, even multiple film types, without resetting the camera count? I can't take 2 shots at ISO 100 negative, then 1 shot 6x12 chrome, then a final shot ISO 400 negative of the same scene, without moving my camera, when I use a 35mm. This one's dubious because digital can change ISOs at will.

-Chris

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Kirk and Paul and the others that shrug off or don't want to win/argue the point, but paradoxically weighed in anyway.

Its not a paradox to me. I answered because you asked in a community forum that I have a long commitment to-answering when you have some knowledge related to the question is simple courtesy in an online community. Beyond that I made up my own mind about these issues a decade ago based on years of actual testing and now make images accordingly and continue to test as materials and technology change. I don't really care whether you or anyone else follows my example as my MO works for me. If someone learns from my practices great. If not....I gave up on "winning" such discussions awhile ago. There is no winning unless one is looking for followers or converts or a boost to their self esteem which I am not. Didn't Weston say something about "I don't care if you print on a bathmat as long as its a good print?" That's my philosophy. In my lifetime I've seen great work done with virtually anything photographically imaginable and in the end does anything else matter? Not to me.

[vinny]

great thread. I'm really enjoying all of the images.

[Vaughn]

Do people here think my posted image can or cannot be made with a 35mm camera? I do not think so, but one probably could get close enough not to make a difference to anyone but me.

[goamules]

Its not a paradox to me. I answered because you asked .....

I see my subtlety didn't escape you! And you did give one thing LF can do that 35mm can't, it's process. So thanks. I just found it ironic that I asked a question, and you and several others answered to not ask that question, or that you don't worry about it, personally. I didn't ask for personal beliefs. I asked if there were examples of how LF can do things that 35mm cannot. It's pretty straightforward, that I'm looking for examples. Not metacognition on what motivates us, what we've done in our careers, etc.