Handheld LF, why?

[Roy Kersey]

A little thought tells me that Pete may be right that the blur is proportionally larger for angular movement depending on the size of the format. For translational movement, I don't think this is so. One of the photo mags had a feature on resolution loss with handholding a 35 mm some years ago. The conclusion was that, for most people, the 1/focal length rule for the shutter spped was too liberal by a stop, but that at double that speed there was no loss in resolution from the very fast speds such as 1/1000. Then, as others have pointed out, one has to admit that the greater mass of the LF camera and the leaf (vs. focal plane w/ reflex mirror) shutter should allow hand holding at a slower spedd with equivalent results. Since the LF photographer can use 400 speed film easily for most work without objectionable grain, and since the sunny 16 rule modification for full shade is about f5.6, this gives 1/400 @ f5.6 for full shade. With a 135 or 150 mm lens, this is more than adequate if the study is to be believed, and 1/250 should work, or something even slower if the greater mass of the camera and the leaf shutter improve results some. While hand holding inside without flash might result in some degradation, it seems that much could be done outdoors even on an overcast day or later in the day. If you had a Xenar (f2.8?) you could do even better. If you braced on a wall or had a monopod, that would extend the range, too. I've about got myself convinced to try it.

[Bill Jefferson]

HI All,

I havn't mastered setting up the tri-pod for action shots. planes on take off, chasing trains, ballons in the winter, doing the foilage tour in vt. now for my 8x10, havn't figgured how to hand hold that yet.

[Mark Nowaczynski]

As an ex 35mm shooter who now regularly shoots LF hand-held (Linhof Master Technika with coupled rangefinder) as well as MF (Rollei TLR) I would like to dispell some of the misconceptions expressed above.

A 16X20 print from a 4X5 B&W negative, taken hand-held, shows far greater detail and richness of tonal information than a print from either a hand-held or tripod mounted 6X6 negative. I have many examples on the walls around me (of tripod and hand-held 35mm, 6X6, and 4X5 shots printed to either 11X14 or 16X20), so I speak from experience. I am not giving you an 'opinion' based on the conjecture of pseudo-expertise, but facts based on proof. I do not pretend to be an expert, but I do have some expertise to share.

From experience I can also say that camera-shake becomes more of an issue as you move to SMALLER not LARGER formats. For example, a 1mm vertical movement of the film plane during exposure creates far more image degradation in a small 35mm negative than the same 1mm vertical movement in a comparatively huge 4X5 negative. Think of the effect of the apple that landed on Isaac Newton's head compared to the gravity of the situation caused by the one that landed on the ant basking in the sun next to him.

This is not the first time Mr. Andrews expresses incredulity at the use of 4X5 hand-held (see previous thread):

"Oh come on! We are talking hand-held 5x4 here are we? At f/22 in available light? MTF curves! Taking a couple of tranquiliser tablets would surely have more effect on image quality than whatever lens is on the camera. Or is this just a leg pull?

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), February 02, 2000.



To expound on some previously made enlightened comments:

One of the most celebrated images of the 20th century, Migrant Mother, was taken in 1936 by Dorothea Lange using a hand-held 4X5 camera (Graflex). To quote Robert Cole's essay in "Dorothea Lange- Photographs of a Lifetime" regarding the taking of 'Migrant Mother': "She was retutning home on a rainy, cold, miserable March evening... Lange spent less than ten minutes with the woman, making five exposures." He further added: "She seldom shot indoors, seldom used artificial light."

Even Alfred Stieglitz used a 4X5 camera hand-held. There is a long and rich tradition of hand-held 4X5 photography. Press photography was, for many decades, dominated by hand-held 4X5 cameras (look at Weegee).

And no, I doubt that f22 would be the aperture of choice for hand-held available light 4X5 photography. That is why MTF curves at f5.6 and f8 are so important, because these apertures would actually be used if necessary!

'Migrant Mother' was taken in poor light, hand-held, without flash, using a relatively slow emulsion by today's standards. I am sure the lens was close to being wide open... Today we have faster and sharper films, sharper and contrastier multicoated lenses and better engineered and built equipment for hand held range-finder 4X5 picture taking (Linhof Master Technika?).

As for the unkind suggestion to take tranquilizers... Pry open your mind and expand your imagination and accept new creative possibilities. Not all large-format photographers are worrying about what zone to place the foot of Mt. St-Ansel in as they try to pre-visualize it with the entire scene in focus, their lens at infinity and set at f22, displaying ultimate depth of field...

Diversity of thought and creative expression is what makes the art of photography so rich, compelling, and absorbing.

I will enjoy a different way of making images with a large format camera. I certainly will not be the first to do this, nor the last. Let the nay-sayers laugh, for they will cry at my next exhibit and wonder how the hell I did it!

Regards from Toronto, Dr. Mark Nowaczynski (I am only licensed to prescribe tranquilizers in the province of Ontario)

-- Mark Nowaczynski (archivalprints@home.com), February 02, 2000."

[Mark Nowaczynski]

See another previous thread on this topic titled 'Observations on hand-held large format photography':

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004G64

[Mark Nowaczynski]

See also the thread I quoted from in my first message on this topic in this present thread:

'Hand-held Linhof Technika lens choice?'

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002SVA

[Pete Andrews]

Mark wrote: "For example, a 1mm vertical movement of the film plane during exposure creates far more image degradation in a small 35mm negative than the same 1mm vertical movement in a comparatively huge 4X5"No, it doesn't. Work it out. Moving the camera 1mm doesn't create 1mm of image movement, except at 1:1 magnification. The image movement is simply the camera movement multiplied by the subject magnification, and for a given size of final image, the image movement is the same and the negative size is irrelevant.The fact that you can get acceptable results from handheld 5x4 proves nothing, I can tell you that I didn't, and no longer attempt to.

"This is not the first time Mr. Andrews expresses incredulity at the use of 4X5 hand-held "That's because I'm still incredulous that anyone would want to do such a thing.

"One of the most celebrated images of the 20th century, Migrant Mother, was taken in 1936 by Dorothea Lange using a hand-held 4X5 camera (Graflex)."Yes, and that image, even in a small reproduction, clearly shows the effect of camera movement. This in no way detracts from that very moving and powerful picture, or Dorothea Lange's skill as a photographer. However, I'm pretty sure that had Ms. Lange had the benefit of modern films, and a more flexible editorial attitude to back her up, then she wouldn't have chosen to use a Graflex, and the image would be just as moving.

I'm sorry Mark, but none of your invective has changed the laws of optics one little bit, nor answered the question of why anyone, with modern materials and equipment at their disposal, would choose to use handheld 5x4.

[Erik Ryberg]

What a strange and ridiculous argument. I chose 8x10 because it was the only system I found that gave me the results I like. Mark chose hand-held 4x5 for the same reason. He isn't taking pictures of things that let him use a tripod. He is getting better results than when he used 6x6. So that's what he uses. The world is a diverse and beautiful place, and people have different styles and different approaches. You use a tripod, Mark doesn't. Yet it is theoretically possible that neither one of you belongs locked up in the asylum, despite this difference. The sun sets, and the sun also rises.

[Mark Nowaczynski]

I am responding late in this thread to again counter the re-itteration of half baked miconceptions about and prejudice against hand-held LF photography. Opinions without the substance of experience are not a substitute for facts. When we were teen-agers we all had friends who were obsessed with sex (as we were ourselves) and who were vocal sex experts even though they were virgins.

This forum also serves as an educational resource and therefore it is important to embrace differing points of view. For example, I don't use the Zone System for the simple reason that its not geared to hand-held situations, and moreover I use an incident meter exclusively. Brett Weston didn't even use a light meter, never mind previsualizing zones... There is no single RIGHT way of exposing a negative. There are alternatives and variations that WORK and give outstanding results. If the results obtained meet your goals, your methods are thus validated. Brett Weston's prints are no less excellent than St-Ansel's, despite his 'deviation' from the 'true path'.

I shoot 4X5 on a tripod as well as hand-held. You simply have a greater range of photographic oportunities this way. Its called the best of both worlds. Hand-held LF gives better results than MF (tripod or hand-held). That is a simple fact that makes the time, trouble and expense worthwhile. It is also one hell of a good excuse for buying a Linhof Master Technika. Thus begins one of life's great creative adventures with one of the 20th century's great photographic tools.

Dorothea Lange's 'Migrant Mother' is perhaps not the best example of the technical excellence possible with hand-held LF photography. It is a great and moving image despite its flaws. The single greatest technical problem with the image is that the centre of interest, the mother's face and right hand, are out of focus. The plane of sharp focus is behind her face. Look at her right shoulder, her left shirt collar, and the top left of her hair as well as the hair of the blonde child on her left shoulder. All of these listed areas are tack sharp and show no evidence of camera shake. There is beautiful tonal and textural richness as well as detail. That is, all the hallmarks of good LF photography. (Not all reproductions of this image are equal, the best approximation of the original I have had the priviledge of seeing on a museum wall can be found in Keith Davis 'The Photographs of Dorothea Lange', Hallmark, 1995).

Why is her face out of focus? Because there is punishingly little depth of field due to the adverse conditions that Dorothea Lange had to contend with. It was the end of the day, it was overcast and there was a drizzle. The light was very poor and she probably had great difficulty seeing well enough to focus in the dim low contrast light. Her lens was probably wide open, and the shutter speed slow (it is amazing how slow a shutter speed you can use hand-held with a big camera and still maintain sharpness, so this is not a factor contributing to image degradation).

The other important factor in 1936 was film speed. According to 'Das Linhof Kamera Buch', Verlag Photo Technik International, Munich 1990, under the description of the Linhof Technika in 1936 (page 106): "...the fastest films of that period rarely exceeded the equivalent of ISO 10". ISO TEN!!!!

So in fact 'Migrant Mother', even though the centre of interest is out of focus, actually shows the the advantages of hand-held LF photography despite the multitude of adverse factors faced by the photographer.

And people revere the 'Mona Lisa'. Well eat your heart out Leonardo.

[Alan Gibson]

A one-degree rotation of the camera, enlarged to a 10x8 print, will indeed give the same blur, no matter what the format.

This is not the reason some of us like handheld LF. Sure, a 5x4 SLR has enough shake to frighten the subject, and me, when that mirror goes BLAM. Quiet a stupid camera, really. But a more conventional LF has that very quiet 'chut' that is a joy to hear. The real pleasure comes from the image qualities: all those square inches do count.

As a general rule (I do hate general rules), all other things being equal, larger format gives better quality than smaller format. Tripod vs. tripod, or handheld vs handheld. Unfortunately, none of my LF cameras has a decent f/1.2 lens, nor could I lift it if it had. But the Schneider 47mm makes for a lovely little hand-held camera, lighter than a Nikon F, and vastly superior images (when there's a decent amount of light).

[Emile de Leon]

L.F. handheld is meditation pure and simple....catching the transitory and the ephemeral(people and things in real life situations)...using your OWN body as the tripod/instrument...being in the moment without needing to previsualise...reacting to the environment...and getting the great 4x5 image complete with flaws. Pure emotion...One of my favorite images of my mother(recently deceased) was obtained this way with a speed graphic with a blown rangefinder....just focus on the ground glass...position body...stop down...engage film holder...click....NIRVANA. I'm glad I had the 4x5 instead of 35mm or 2 1/4. ALSO....This way of creating images is FUN/SPONTANEOUS and RISKY...which much L.F. could use in it's vocabulary. The images are tack sharp even in declining light at 1/15th.