LF and DSLR... a few questions

[Ballpointpenner]

Dear LF shooters,

To begin with this is my first post here, and I was not quite sure which section to put it in.

This is my situation. I`ve had an interest in photography for some years now, but have thus far always kept most of my shooting to very limited point and shoot, and the occasioinal SLR. Various people had suggested that I had a good eye and that I should go deeper into it, but for various reasons, I never did. Now, for the first time, I am in a situation where I have the time, money (at least much more so than before), and desire to go further with this hobby. More than that, I have a wealth of beauty just outside my doorstep, so there is no shortage of subject-matter. So, the time is ripe.

Obviously, there are many directions which one can take with photography. Over the last few weeks, I`ve been doing quite a big of research on DSLRs, and now have an ok picture of whats out there. While I was doing that research, I also had time to think of exactly what kinds of pictures I wished to produce. I realized (and now we`ve entered my imagination) that I wanted to make large, monumental, poster-sized prints which were primarily black and white. I also realized that I had a desire to experiment with something that had not appealed to me in the past -- editing; specifically, the merging together of contextually different images.

Now, something that I only began to realize a short while ago is that DSLRs are perhaps presently unequal to the first of these tasks. This consideration has lead me to look elsewhere, specifically LF photography. Indeed, only a few days of research has already shown that this medium is far better suited to my first criterion.

However, there are obviously some major drawbacks to LF, as I am sure you know better than me. Besides the weight, the likelihood of error, and the general tedium that I associate with the darkroom,　large format is unlikely to meet my second criterion: I imagine it would be extremely difficult to combine several large format shots into one without having the resulting image be two shots on top of each other. With a DSLR, I imagine that this would be possible, though I admit that I still have a lot of researching to do on that front.

Right now, some of you are probably thinking that my head isn`t really where it should be if I am honestly considering such disparately different formats for such ambitious project, having almost no experience working with either to boot. You`re probably right.

Reguardless of what I choose, I intend to initially invest in a budget system and start getting my hands dirty. That will tell me what I need more than anything else can. So, by now you`re probably wondering what kind of advice I wish to get from this forum. My questions are as follows:

1. In what ways am I wrong in my assessment of DSLR vs LF, particularly in relation to my two criteria?

2. Is there a possible compromise, perhaps something like the EOS 5D DSLR (not that I would invest in something in that price-range at this point)?

3. To get a better idea of the mediums, I would love to go see some quality prints of both kinds. Besides jumping in myself, I doubt that there is a better way to learn what I am really looking for. I am presently in Japan`s Niigata prefecture. Does anyone know any good galleries exhibitions that feature large format photography, as well as ones that feature digital enlargements, in my vicinity?

4. Based on what you`ve read above, what do you suggest?

OK, those are probably the biggies for me, at this point. Its true that a lot of this post is outlining a kind of ambitious ideal, and I myself would be surprised if I actually succeeded in attaining it in the near future, but one must try.

Thank you for reading.

- Bpp

[Patrik Roseen]

Hello Bpp,
Not too long ago I went through a similar thinking as you. DSLR or LF.
I chose LF beacuse of all the possibilities and quality to a reasonable cost when buying used equipment.

You will probably get alot of responses to your questions so I will not answer them completely. But here is what I have learned so far.

The obvious difference between a DSLR and LF is that at the time of capturing the image - one is digital and one is analog using film (unless having a digital back instead of film on the LF-camera).
The process of getting an image from a DSLR to a poster print requires post processing in a Photoediting SW and then printing the result on paper (poster size).

For LF you have two choices once the film is developed:
A) the wet darkroom - Using an enlarger the image can be put on photographic paper(develop, fix, rinse and dry) and then put on the wall. There are several techniques for creating 'mixed' images in the wet darkroom.

B) the digital darkroom. The film is scanned in scanner and a digital file is created. This digital file is no different than the digital file from a DSLR, and the postprocessing and printing is the same for reaching the final result. Any kind of digital alteration by using the Photoediting SW is possible here just as using a DSLR. Scanning a 4x5" filmsheet will give you more detail than most reasonably priced DSLRs.

I think LF is more fun since there are so many possibilities for 'creating' the image I want already at the time of exposure. And it offers the possibility of both the wet- and digital darkroom. Good luck!

[Gary Smith]

BPP,

Feel free to email me! I live in Niigata, and have been here for nearly 10 years. I can help you, and let you use some LF cameras if you are interested.

Regards.

Gary

[Frank Petronio]

I think you just have to try different tools and media and maybe you'll be lucky and find something that is perfect. Or maybe in the process of making the quest you'll make some great images along the way, even if you bounce from tool to tool (that is what I try to do.)

To me, the dSLR -- the less expesive ones, like the Nikon D70, along with a small, fast prime lens (a 35/2 is "normal" on a cropped APS size sensor camera) -- is the fastest, most "Leica-like" camera for spontaneous "street" shooting. And 4x5 or larger formats are almost the complete opposite. So I like switching between the two extremes of working methods -- fast and loose versus slow and formal. The end result is a mix of both influences -- somewhat looser large format, sometimes more thoughtful grab shots. And switching gears (swapping equipment) breaks up the old habits and makes the brain learn new things.

The key thing here is to keep it simple. A Nikon D70 with a small 35/2 is a great combination with a 4x5 Crown Graphic and 135 lens. Neither are very expensive and you can produce images that rival anything being made by photographers using much more expensive and fancy gear. Don't let the cost of your gear make you think you are doing something not quite as professional or "as good".

[Leonard Evens]

You are right that you can't presently make large prints with a lot of detail from a single shot with a DSLR. You can do that by patching together many images from such a camera.

As has already been noted, if you scan negatives, you can also patch together 4 x 5 images the same way, but you need not do so to make large prints.

You can have film developed by a pro lab and thus avoid the darkroom work. But just developing film is not terribly difficult once you've developed the skills. Makeing large poster sized prints is probably not something you are going to be able to do yourself. Again you will have to use a pro lab for that, and it will be expensive.

Whatever you do, you will need considerable knowledge of photography and also of digital methods to do what you envision. The route to high resolution images would be shorter with 4 x 5. But if you are willing to devote sufficient time to mastering mozaic images, you will eventually be able to do it the other way. But there is a lot for you to learn first.

[Robert Ley]

If you are interested in combining multiple images, check out the work of Jerry Uelsmann. You can get some basic info and a start to tracking down some of his images herehttp://www.profotos.com/education/re...uelsmann.shtml
Uelsmann has been combining images in the darkroom for 40 years and is a master at the technique. Much of the technique can now be done in the computer with PS.

[Brian Ellis]

"I imagine it would be extremely difficult to combine several large format shots into one without having the resulting image be two shots on top of each other. With a DSLR, I imagine that this would be possible, though I admit that I still have a lot of researching to do on that front."

You seem to be creating a dichotomy that doesn't necessarily exist between 4x5 on the one hand and dslr on the other. While there are many many differences between the two types of photography, if you scan a 4x5 image it's the same from an editing technique standpoint (e.g. combining two or more photographs) as a dslr image.

[Ron Marshall]

I scan my 4x5 and 5x7 images, manipulate them in PS, then print on an inkjet using septone inks.

One can learn to develope LF film quickly. Scanning b/w is not difficult. Learning Photoshop takes some time, but a good book really makes the difference here.

If you want large prints, ie. bigger than 20x24 then LF is the way to go.

[photographs42]

I use a Nikon D200 for Architectural Photography and a Linhof 5x7 for B&W landscape photography. The two tools are as different as night and day. They are not just different from a Digital VS film standpoint, they are different ways of SEEING images.

Aside from “having a good eye”, you don’t tell us the extent of your photographic knowledge. My impression from your post is that it is limited.

You indicate that you have used an SLR and a digital P&S. You don’t indicate any experience with any photo editing software. Working with a DSLR is no different from a film SLR, so you have that experience. LF is very different. It requires a slow methodical approach. It is not hard to learn but takes effort to master. Gary has offered to let you experience a LF camera. I strongly advise taking him up on his offer. If you haven’t used a photo editing program, you can do so with images from your P&S.

My point is, you have the tools available to you to make some basic decisions. Before you worry about making poster sized prints, I think you should explore photography further with the tools you have or, if you decide you are a LF type, a basic set up can be purchased used for a reasonable sum.

Another question that only you can answer is “what kind of art do you wish to produce?” If you will be satisfied with inkjet prints then you will need to invest in and master photo editing software. If you want silver gelatin prints, you will need to master the darkroom.

Jerome

[alec4444]

Gary has offered to let you experience a LF camera. I strongly advise taking him up on his offer.

I second that advice. As a newbie to the format, when you try it, even for just a day or two, you'll know. At least that's how it was for me.

Some food for thought: One reason why I haven't jumped into the DSLR market is that anything I buy today is pretty much outdated in a year. And the equipment does not hold its value. Quite the opposite for large format. If you were to spend $2000 today on a full large format outfit and you decided after a year you hated it, you'll probably have somewhere around $2000 to put towards a DSLR system that's one-year better than today's stuff. You won't be able to reverse that statement.

--A