Precision and Accuracy in LF Photography: How much is enough?

[Havoc]

It's often like a contest. I often wonder if it's worth my time.

Amen. I came to the same conclusion. For some reason, LF is just a lottery.

I found early that LF seemed to have less latitude than smaller formats, so got compulsive then, and gained experience holding that line... Most serviced shutters are good enough...

Which is a fallacy. There should not be any difference in lattitude compared to other formats. Any optical property is determined by focal length and diaphragm. Whatever the format behind that. But if you then get consistent good results in 35mm of MF but not in LF, then there is something wrong with LF.

I got fed up with it after I got these images:






Same lens, same light (images taken seconds apart) light metring incident with a L578, different films, same developer, developed according to the datasheets of the makers of the film. Focused with a Gaoursi 8x loupe and sharp on the GG. Camera was a Wista 45 with a Fujinon 180 CM-W in a black copal on a tripod with a cable release. Negative is just as woozy as the scan. Shoot this with a Mamiya 645ProTL and a 55mm and chromes and you get razor sharp negatives. It is hardly possible to make out if those "towers" are brickwork or concrete.

Thing is the next time you use the same camera, lens, film and developer you get nice razor sharp negatives with plenty of grey.

There just isn't any consistency in LF. It is just guesswork and hoping that the moon, saturn and tides align and that you haven't angered some unknown god. Maybe it helps to draw a pentagram and sacrifice a chicken but you have to draw a line somewhere.

[BrianShaw]

If that’s what you think and have experienced, perhaps water color painting would be a better option.

[Havoc]

If you know better, then please explain what is the cause. I'm really wanting to know and I want to learn. But your answer doesn't help for that.

Sorry if I sound aggressive but I really am thinking about chucking it all out of the window.

[BrianShaw]

No, you’re not being aggressive... I understand you completely! Sorry for both your frustration and my snarky response. I cannot explain why your results are so variable. You should have more consistent results. Consistent results with LF have been possible since the dawn of photography.

What film were you using? That’s about the only part of the equipment you didn’t identify. But I really think that something is inconsistent in your process.

[Havoc]

What film were you using? That’s about the only part of the equipment you didn’t identify. But I really think that something is inconsistent in your process.

Those are 4 different films, exposed to their nominal iso rating, developed according to their makers datasheet for the developer used. It was Delta 100, Fomapan 100, FP4+ and Adox CHS100II.

[LabRat]

If you know better, then please explain what is the cause. I'm really wanting to know and I want to learn. But your answer doesn't help for that.

Sorry if I sound aggressive but I really am thinking about chucking it all out of the window.

If all things were equal, put your negatives on a lightbox and eyeball... This looks like your negs will have a different overall density, so this would be caused by exposure level differences, which would be the result of the iris or speed setting... The exposure difference is a stop or more between shutter releases, so I'd go with shutter severely inconsistent...

Super sharpness can be inconsistent due to film uneven due to film buckle due to changing temps, humidity, loading tensions etc, but the + one gets not with super sharpness, but the beautiful tonality between sharper points... There are other sharpness eaters with vibration, wind, unstable camera mounting etc, but not in your case probably...

LF photography is not necessarily "bigger is better", but different... It's more about a different rendition of subject... As Bernice always sez: "it's about your image making goals"... One who wants super (unnatural) sharpness has many digi and film choices, but these sometimes over 100 yr (or more modern) systems have a "vibe" of their own to be explored (like musical instruments), so continue the path... But the instruments and "music" need to stay in tune or it "sounds" horrible... But you need the right type of "music" you can "jam" well to...

Don't throw out your camera (s) yet, the best is yet to come!!! ;-)

Steve K

[LabRat]

Those are 4 different films, exposed to their nominal iso rating, developed according to their makers datasheet for the developer used. It was Delta 100, Fomapan 100, FP4+ and Adox CHS100II.

Saw this after typing last post... "Box" speed + different developer/time combinations will produce different results... First rule is to standardize materials and process... And stick with that combination...

Testing, testing, testing...

Steve K

[Michael R]

Part of what makes LF work more predictably is doing it with regularity. The “well oiled machine” analogy applies. If it is sporadic, particularly if you’re relatively new at it, it is clunky, and prone to error.

Even if you’re well practiced, things can and will still go wrong, because several steps in the process of making a large format photograph, from loading film holders onward, are always potentially problematic.

I think the vast majority of people wanting to make the best photographs and prints they can, with higher image quality than 35mm film, are better off with medium format and/or digital.

If you know better, then please explain what is the cause. I'm really wanting to know and I want to learn. But your answer doesn't help for that.

Sorry if I sound aggressive but I really am thinking about chucking it all out of the window.

[BrianShaw]

I think the vast majority of people wanting to make the best photographs and prints they can, with higher image quality than 35mm film, are better off with medium format and/or digital.

I love shooting LF but can attest to the veracity of this statement.

[LabRat]

I love shooting LF but can attest to the veracity of this statement.

Yea, in general, with the process individuals use, but practice, testing, and approach makes the difference between good and great... And all formats have their own +/-'s...

I came back to LF after recovering from "pro burnout" having shot way too many 4X5 chromes that were good, but the same film look was getting tedious, and a large rig was bulky for pastime use... I wanted to make a jump upwards to 11X14 to shoot shots that would "count" more for me, but still would not give me the freedom of spending all day on feet exploring urban areas... At the same time, started to experiment with raw chemistry formulas, and while testing with 35mm strips, was getting better and better 35mm test strips, so had to consider 35mm as a major shooting format again... Improved procedures, found the sweet spots on lenses I had, improved enlarger printing etc, and shot major bodies of work on the 35mm... Fine until after 10,000 's of exposures, then wanted to slow down and see one shot going through to the process at a time... (One picky old pro I worked for asked me if the portraits he saw were 4X5 or 8X10 camera negs, and I told him 35mm Nikon... He gasped...) So it's all in the refining the process, not as much with the gear and mastery of the formats used...

Color is different, but after long shifts at color labs (and the perk of cheap/free color film & processing, as well as coping with client's errors), this expanded my knowledge base and expanded my range...

But for the casual user, the more they do, the more they learn, so keep at it!!! After the first few chapters of photo 101, it is about practice, gaining experience, more time in the field, analizing errors as educational, and remembering the 1000's of do's and don'ts... Then film is remarkably consistent... Don't give up, your great shots are coming!!! ;-)

Steve K