Is it worth it to use the Speed Graphic handheld from time to time?

[RLangham]

I see a lot of contradicting opinions on this, and really, I hold a lot of contradicting opinions about this. So I've been shooting LF for about eight months (two packs of Shanghai 100 and a couple of new handmade dry plates from J. Lane on Etsy,) on a 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic (pre top-rangefinder, pre-Graflok).

My first instinct is to say that using a large-format handheld at all is a waste of film. The real advantage of LF to me is the ability to record detailed, sharp, technical images. The Speed Graphic's handheld nature, really, is a product of a long-gone era when A: LF was the predominant form of photography, and B: AP photographers needed to be able to distribute usable prints to the presses in a hurry, and so would want a large format such as 4x5" or 5x7" for making contact prints--I think of dear old Uncle Uscher developing in the trunk of his car. Most of us don't have the concern about making prints for the newspaper now, and 4x5 is usually at least a dollar per shot, so it would seem like there's no excuse to shoot LF without a steady tripod and critical focusing to get the best quality image possible.

But I also see contemporary LF photographers shooting 4x5 handheld. For instance, there was a YouTube video where a guy talked about his Crown Graphic and his Linhof Technika (I think), saying he treated them both the same way he treats a small-format camera: handheld when the need arises, tripod where possible, et cetera. Furthermore, most people that I've seen online with restored Graflex SLR's from the real old days often shoot them handheld, as was the practice at the time. I've seen a lot of pictures of people in recent years shooting handheld, especially with Speed Graphics. So... what do they know that I don't? Can you really get an image quality worth spending the money on by shooting a Speed Graphic handheld? And if so, would you do it with the front or the back shutter? I could see arguments for either. I will say that I have very precisely calibrated my rangefinder, if that helps matters.

[Dan Fromm]

What works, and doesn't work, for me has no bearing on what will work for you. Do what works for you.

FWIW, all of my Graphics' RFs are off calibration. That's irrelevant most of the time because I use more than one lens with them. I almost always shoot from tripod. But that's what works for me. Do what works for you and don't worry about what other people do.

[Alan Gales]

What works, and doesn't work, for me has no bearing on what will work for you. Do what works for you.

FWIW, all of my Graphics' RFs are off calibration. That's irrelevant most of the time because I use more than one lens with them. I almost always shoot from tripod. But that's what works for me. Do what works for you and don't worry about what other people do.

I agree. Sports photographers used Speed Graphics hand held back in the day.

Personally, I can get better results handheld with a smaller and lighter medium format camera. Of course I have had a back fusion which affects hand held shooting for me. I posted this a few years ago and Frank Petronio copied me and said it took him years to figure that out for himself.

Like you say, Dan, everyone is different so results vary.

[Corran]

Can you really get an image quality worth spending the money on by shooting a Speed Graphic handheld?

Don't get preoccupied by such things as "image quality."

Of course you can shoot handheld. That's what the thing was designed to do. At f/22 and with 400 speed film, you would technically be shooting around 1/200 anyway in full sun, and can play with the exposure from there depending on your needs.

Tripod is NOT a requirement for LF.

I've shot plenty this way - here's a shot on 4x5 Ektachrome E100VS with my Linhof Technika and 150mm f/2.8 Xenotar:



And here's a whole thread of images shot PJ style with same:

https://www.largeformatphotography.i...onding-protest

I have shot handheld with my Speed, Linhof, and even a Polaroid 900 converted to 4x5. If you want to do it, you can make it happen.

[RLangham]

Don't get preoccupied by such things as "image quality."

I think what I mean is, as long as I'm getting better sharpness and resolving power than 35mm, I'm happy. Conversely, if I could have shot it easily on 35mm, I wish I would have saved the money and done that instead.

At f/22 and with 400 speed film, you would technically be shooting around 1/200 anyway in full sun, and can play with the exposure from there depending on your needs.

I have done a lot rating my Shanghai film @ 100 (box speed), f/16 and 1/120 on sunny days, going down to 1/60 on overcast days--sometimes f/11 and 1/120 instead. If I need to expose it more than that, often I'll just make a note to push process it. I've been nervous about using f/22, since I'm so used to 35mm where the diffraction gets noticeable at f/16 and bad at f/22, but at any rate, I'll take your advice and try f/22. FWIW I've heard that f/128 is not only available but also very usable on some large format lenses--that's surreal to me. At any rate, thanks for the advice! The picture looks great, by the way! Is that straight from the scanner?

I have shot handheld with my Speed, Linhof, and even a Polaroid 900 converted to 4x5.

Cool! I've wanted to buy a Polaroid 800 that they have at my local antique store and use it for 4x5" and 120, but haven't gotten around to it.

[Corran]

I think what I mean is, as long as I'm getting better sharpness and resolving power than 35mm, I'm happy. Conversely, if I could have shot it easily on 35mm, I wish I would have saved the money and done that instead.

I have done a lot rating my Shanghai film @ 100 (box speed), f/16 and 1/120 on sunny days, going down to 1/60 on overcast days--sometimes f/11 and 1/120 instead. If I need to expose it more than that, often I'll just make a note to push process it. I've been nervous about using f/22, since I'm so used to 35mm where the diffraction gets noticeable at f/16 and bad at f/22, but at any rate, I'll take your advice and try f/22. FWIW I've heard that f/128 is not only available but also very usable on some large format lenses--that's surreal to me. At any rate, thanks for the advice! The picture looks great, by the way! Is that straight from the scanner?



Cool! I've wanted to buy a Polaroid 800 that they have at my local antique store and use it for 4x5" and 120, but haven't gotten around to it.

RL,

You'll want to ditch your preconceptions from 35mm shooting. f/22 is the most common aperture for shooting LF and many/most lenses are optimized for those apertures. Many here shoot 4x5 commonly at f/32 and f/45 for DOF considerations. Diffraction is absolutely a non-issue for most as very few are enlarging anywhere near to the size needed to see diffraction. For 8x10 and 8x20 I shoot at f/64 and f/90 commonly (contact prints).

Also, sharpness and resolving power are not the sole reasons to be shooting LF (or anything larger than 35mm). There is no comparison between 35mm and LF in terms of tonalities and at middling apertures (f/8ish) LF still has very shallow DOF compared to small format. That's a big part of what handheld 4x5 images bring to the table IMO. I still shoot 35mm and 120 though btw...

Polaroid cameras will need to be converted to shoot 4x5, so if you can do that cool or there are plenty of shops doing that work nowadays. And if you want to shoot handheld I do suggest getting 400-speed film like HP5+, especially with a Speed Graphic where you can still use really fast shutter speeds.

[RLangham]

RL,

You'll want to ditch your preconceptions from 35mm shooting. f/22 is the most common aperture for shooting LF and many/most lenses are optimized for those apertures. Many here shoot 4x5 commonly at f/32 and f/45 for DOF considerations. Diffraction is absolutely a non-issue for most as very few are enlarging anywhere near to the size needed to see diffraction. For 8x10 and 8x20 I shoot at f/64 and f/90 commonly (contact prints).

Hmm, I see. I will say that both the Optar and the Xenar I will shortly be replacing it with both only go up to f/32, if I remember right. I will certainly look at getting some better film soon... I'm about done with this Shanghai nonsense, but for sometimes 25 dollars and free shipping, there is a case to be made for it. Thanks for the advice!

[ic-racer]

Use High-power Xenon flash when hand-holding. Then it all makes sense....sharp lens, accurate rangefinder, large format, absence of motion without a tripod or gyro stabilizer, enough light to stop down appropriately etc. I'd not worry that it might be 'daylight', when you can use the fastest shutter speed on the lens with a Xenon flash.

[Tin Can]

I am upgrading my 1951 4X5 Speed especially for handheld with one lens and working hard at getting RF to match

I will add a laser inside FocuSpot for usage with non human and other animals

Will use strobes and flashlube depending...

I still use my plastic toy 4X5 with fixed set distance focus

[jp]

If your rangefinder isn't proven to be working, it's sort of a last choice to shoot handheld. If you focus on the groundglass you have to have some distance between your eyeball and the groundglass, then you pull it up to your eye to frame the shot in the viewfinder or sportfinder and your focus is off by a foot instantly because you moved the camera to you and away from the subject. If you can focus and then step toward the camera that's good. We generally like to keep the camera close to our body for stability. In the 1930's you didn't have much of a choice but to use it handheld for quick photos. I have not much experience using flash handheld 4x5. Monopod can work great since it forces you to keep the camera in one spot if you are mindful of not moving the foot of the monopod.

The SLRs work better for handheld but have no movements, fewer lens choices..