One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?

[Oren Grad]

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.

[Dan Fromm]

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.

[ic-racer]

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.

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.

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.

[Tin Can]

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.

[angusparker]

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

[Liquid Artist]

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

[Corran]

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.

[Peter Lewin]

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.

[John Kasaian]

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.

[DG 3313]

Working in large format is bucket list stuff.......you don't know until....you know!