Hello,
I'm just starting my large format journey as a continuation of my photographic hobby. I'm currently using a Hasselblad 203FE and 903 SWC for film, both of which I really like, mainly for the interchangeable film backs and their optical and build quality.
I have used and sold a Voigtlander Bessa II, Rolleiflex 2.8F and a Minolta Autocord which I enjoyed but not enough to keep. Regretting the Rolleiflex now though!
I also use a Canon 5D Mk1 for digital with old manual lenses which I like for ease, speed and quantity.
However the images that I most enjoy are invariably the ones taken with film. Even with (or perhaps because of) their imperfections they strike me as having so much more character and impact. The look is just so hard to replicate with digital and in a way I don't want it to.
Those precious exposures that took more effort to create give more pleasure because of the work that went into crafting them.
I recently took my tripod with me whilst shooting with the Hasselblads in an effort to improve my image quality and forced myself to use it on all my trips out during the summer holidays, which got me thinking:
If I'm going to all this effort for medium format, surely it'll be worth the extra to shoot large format instead? A camera's character changes once it's mounted on a tripod. Composition becomes much easier and considered without having to worry about shutter speed and camera shake.
I had previously dismissed LF due to the unwieldliness and slowness.
So I purchased a 4x5 Graflex Pacemaker Speed Graphic setup (3 lenses, flash, film backs) to go with the Dallmeyer 8inch F2.9 lens I recently acquired, but really on the lookout for a working RB Auto / Series D / Super D.
A Chamonix 45H-1 is also on the list since I enjoy taking wide-angle landscapes.
The main problem will be hiding all this new kit from the wife.
Bookmarks