Two years with large format

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Hello everyone, it now has been two years since I started thinking about working with large format 4x5” film, and what an exciting, inspiring ride this has been! Working with large format proved to be everything I hoped for and more; after two years, I am fully convinced that this has been the right choice for me and that large format film is the medium that best helps me express myself through my photography.

Between our Workshops and my personal work, my wife and I do travel a lot; however, I was surprised to see that, grouping together all our travels, since I got my first 4x5” camera I had the opportunity to work with large format for a total of about 365 days in the field over two calendar years!

While the learning never stops, after these two years I now feel confident enough about sharing some thoughts about this photographic experience and all it entailed, hoping you’ll find them interesting and useful regardless of any eventual interest you may have in working with film.

The article is way too long to share here; if interested, you'll find on my blog, here: https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2026/05/two-years-with-large-format.html

Enjoy the read and let me know your thoughts! Best regards,

Vieri

 

[gbroadbridge]

I enjoyed that article.

Thanks.

 

[StefantheHun]

Me too.

As of now I contemplate wether the advantages of Fuji GFX 100S-photography (no dust on film or print; easier carrying and using in the field, no fear of X-ray machines, unlimited mileage negative-wise) outweigh the shoot analog first, digital later approach or not since in both cases you end up with a digital file limited by the GFX system used.

Did you make any comparison shots with the GFX parallel to 4x5 to answer this question? Or is it more the mindset that dictates or influences the outcome (having to ponder focal lens restrictions, number of shot restrictions, film speed restrictions)?

For example, when I am in a bad, uninspired mood and perhaps also physically exhausted, my creativity is down and I simply overlook many photographic opportunities - so my mindset is highly relevant for the outcome in terms of recorded pictures.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I enjoyed that article.

Thanks.

me too; awonderful read.

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

I enjoyed that article.

Thanks.

Thank you very much, happy you enjoyed it!

me too; awonderful read.

Thank you Ralph, happy you liked it!

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Me too.

As of now I contemplate wether the advantages of Fuji GFX 100S-photography (no dust on film or print; easier carrying and using in the field, no fear of X-ray machines, unlimited mileage negative-wise) outweigh the shoot analog first, digital later approach or not since in both cases you end up with a digital file limited by the GFX system used.

Did you make any comparison shots with the GFX parallel to 4x5 to answer this question? Or is it more the mindset that dictates or influences the outcome (having to ponder focal lens restrictions, number of shot restrictions, film speed restrictions)?

For example, when I am in a bad, uninspired mood and perhaps also physically exhausted, my creativity is down and I simply overlook many photographic opportunities - so my mindset is highly relevant for the outcome in terms of recorded pictures.

Hello Stefan,

thank you for your comment, happy you enjoyed the read.

As far as your question, I did not make a direct comparison between my 4x5" negatives and the Fujifilm GFX100. However, I came from a Phase One IQ4 Achromatic, so I do have a pretty good idea about the differences in look.

You made two points: one of convenience, one of output.

Starting from the latter, as I wrote in the article, "After digitising about two thousand 4x5” negatives, I am absolutely convinced that a digitised film negative still looks like a film negative, with all its silver crystals there to see, and that the aesthetic qualities of a large format negative, the tonal range, that ephemeral, hard to define “look” that is so unique to large format film, are all still there."

I don't see the Fujifilm GFX100, as good as it is, as a comparable alternative in terms of the look of the final file, regardless of the fact that my negatives end up as digital files eventually.

When it comes to convenience, on the other hand, there is no doubt that the Fujifilm GFX100 has the upper hand.

Of course, there is no doubt that modern digital medium format systems achieve extremely high levels of image quality, when it comes to details and resolution, all in a very convenient package. I personally decided to live behind the convenience of my Phase One IQ4 Achromatic system for the quality of 4x5" film negatives and live with all the complications that this entailed; during these last two years, I never once regretted my decision, but that's me of course.

Hope this helps, best. regards

Vieri

 

[StefantheHun]

Dear Vieri,

thank you for fast response! I never used the DxO film packs, but my understanding was that you can digitally mimick the look of your preferred film type using them.

Perhaps the large format look also results from the inherent restrictions (focal length, exposure time, set up time for each shot) of the medium that directly influences your perception of the surrounding world and resulting choice of your subject? Or did you experience no such shift of awareness when going from Phase One to 4x5?

My experience is that when I have (only) a fixed lens camera with me, I mainly respond to scenes that can be covered with that particular focal length. Only when a very strong photographic opportunity presents itself I sometimes think „Shit, I have the wrong focal length with me“.

Kind regards,

Stefan (I am only in my first months into large format, and my goal was to stay analog up till the small format silver print - in contrast to my digital workflow)

 

[blee1996]

Hi Vieri, thank you for the inspiring article and great photos accompanying them! Comparing to old masters in large format, you bring in fresh perspective of modern photographer who has even more choices than before (including medium format digital). But the creative vision and techniques remain your core assets. I will be happy to continue following your adventures.

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Dear Vieri,

thank you for fast response! I never used the DxO film packs, but my understanding was that you can digitally mimick the look of your preferred film type using them.

Perhaps the large format look also results from the inherent restrictions (focal length, exposure time, set up time for each shot) of the medium that directly influences your perception of the surrounding world and resulting choice of your subject? Or did you experience no such shift of awareness when going from Phase One to 4x5?

My experience is that when I have (only) a fixed lens camera with me, I mainly respond to scenes that can be covered with that particular focal length. Only when a very strong photographic opportunity presents itself I sometimes think „Shit, I have the wrong focal length with me“.

Kind regards,

Stefan (I am only in my first months into large format, and my goal was to stay analog up till the small format silver print - in contrast to my digital workflow)

Dear Stefan,

thank you for your reply. I used DxO and Nik for years during my digital years; none of them even remotely looked like the real thing for me. There is something about both film grain and especially about the "gentle sharpness" of film that seems to be impossible to replicate.

I think the difference in look is a function of the relationship between negative size and focal length, so to speak. Using a 47mm lens as your ultra-wide is different from using a 8mm one on APS-C.

The difference in awareness definitely comes from the more deliberate, reflective approach that large format forces you to adopt. As mentioned in the article, one could do that with any camera system; but in my experience no digital photographer ever takes nearly as much time as a large format photographer, when it comes to set a shot up.

That, as you said, is even more evident when using a zoom lens vs a fixed focal one.

While not for me, I applaud your intention to stay analog all the way to the print! How is that going so far?

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Hi Vieri, thank you for the inspiring article and great photos accompanying them! Comparing to old masters in large format, you bring in fresh perspective of modern photographer who has even more choices than before (including medium format digital). But the creative vision and techniques remain your core assets. I will be happy to continue following your adventures.

Hi blee, thank you very much for your comment and kind words about my work, that is truly much appreciated! Glad you enjoyed the article and the photographs coming with it. I think we all are the product both of our times and of what and who came before us (if we study it enough), both technically and artistically. Then, the goal to me should be that of producing work that is the expression of us and whatever aesthetic and philosophic ideas we want to express.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[StefantheHun]

Dear Vieri,

thank you for your insightful explanations!

An analogy with the could/would approach from patent law came to my mind (now guess my profession…): Yes, you could take the same photographs with other cameras - but would you actually do it? Probably not, because the limitations of the respective medium and set up influence your decision-making process leading to the final shot.

In patent law: „i could have invented that, too!“ - „But would you have done so without knowing the invention? No, since you didn‘t in the first place!“.

My motivation for analog from shot to print started with the monochromatic digital cameras on offer which nearly got me. So: If Black and White, then from start to finish „the old way“. My memories of early cumbersome darkroom work had vanished sufficiently, and I thought that large format allows for contact printing, i.e. easy living. Well, the negatives were too contrasty for contact print paper, Multigrade paper was much too sensitive for the contact print lamp, and 4x5 prints looked rather smallish. Right now I‘m enlarging them slightly to 8x10, and I am starting to understand the charme of scanning and pigment ink printing them… Right now I‘m into the next challenge: get the baryta paper prints flat. And again: A desktop (or larger) printer could help. So the saying „ It‘s hard being perfect, but someone has to do it.“ does not refer to me.

Kind regards,

Stefan

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Dear Vieri,

thank you for your insightful explanations!

An analogy with the could/would approach from patent law came to my mind (now guess my profession…): Yes, you could take the same photographs with other cameras - but would you actually do it? Probably not, because the limitations of the respective medium and set up influence your decision-making process leading to the final shot.

In patent law: „i could have invented that, too!“ - „But would you have done so without knowing the invention? No, since you didn‘t in the first place!“.

My motivation for analog from shot to print started with the monochromatic digital cameras on offer which nearly got me. So: If Black and White, then from start to finish „the old way“. My memories of early cumbersome darkroom work had vanished sufficiently, and I thought that large format allows for contact printing, i.e. easy living. Well, the negatives were too contrasty for contact print paper, Multigrade paper was much too sensitive for the contact print lamp, and 4x5 prints looked rather smallish. Right now I‘m enlarging them slightly to 8x10, and I am starting to understand the charme of scanning and pigment ink printing them… Right now I‘m into the next challenge: get the baryta paper prints flat. And again: A desktop (or larger) printer could help. So the saying „ It‘s hard being perfect, but someone has to do it.“ does not refer to me.

Kind regards,

Stefan

Dear Stefan,

you are very welcome! Indeed, we could say that the road to absolute consistency and monk-like approach to anything is paved with good intentions, but then reality has a way to come into play and to let us see reason

Seriously speaking, and back to the topic, I think that for me what counts is getting the look and feel I like out of the final print. For that, I found that 1. replacing the clinical, cold sharpness of digital with the "gentle sharpness" of large format; 2. replacing the clinical, cold perfection of pixels with the warmer and messier randomness of silver crystals; 3. replacing the less "organic" tonal range of digital for the better one of film; was enough for me to be happy with the final look.

As a plus, I retained the ability to post=process digitally, with all its power, and print digitally with all its convenience.

So, for now I am very happy with my current setup. Plus, if in the future I will feel that I need to go that extra step towards a more absolute consistency of the analog process, I still can do that with the negatives I have.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[StefantheHun]

Dear Vieri,

I totally agree with you!

Maybe age (or character?) brought with itself some stubbornness in me, so I also went 8x10 in order to get contact prints of desirable size. And guess what? It‘s bulky, heavy and expensive! Who would have thought of that? At least I am rewarded with an Ansel Adams kind of feeling from time to time (but so far never climbed on top of my car).

Well, the proof of the pudding is (in) the eating, and the digital darkroom offers at lot in terms of digestion of the negatives. Surely your not-so-apodictic approach offers much more flavor for the pudding - the grandeur of the pictures in your article speak for themselves!

Yours humbly,

Stefan

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

Dear Vieri,

I totally agree with you!

Maybe age (or character?) brought with itself some stubbornness in me, so I also went 8x10 in order to get contact prints of desirable size. And guess what? It‘s bulky, heavy and expensive! Who would have thought of that? At least I am rewarded with an Ansel Adams kind of feeling from time to time (but so far never climbed on top of my car).

Well, the proof of the pudding is (in) the eating, and the digital darkroom offers at lot in terms of digestion of the negatives. Surely your not-so-apodictic approach offers much more flavor for the pudding - the grandeur of the pictures in your article speak for themselves!

Yours humbly,

Stefan

Dear Stefan,

I applaud your dedication, 8x10" is much more than I am ready to carry! I have to admit that I am a bit jealous of the ability to do contact prints, but for the foreseeable future I'll have to stick with my mixed workflow and hope that the purists out there will not cringe too much at it

As far as the pudding, flavour is in the tastebuds of the beholder, so to speak - and, I don't see it necessarily as a "better than" or "worse than" situation. As with many other application of human ingenuity and creativity, in Fine Art photography as well there are many different flavours and the differences, to me, are what makes this beautiful thing we call photography interesting. After all, how boring life would be if we all loved the same things!

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Shaps]

Hello Stefan,

thank you for your comment, happy you enjoyed the read.

As far as your question, I did not make a direct comparison between my 4x5" negatives and the Fujifilm GFX100. However, I came from a Phase One IQ4 Achromatic, so I do have a pretty good idea about the differences in look.

You made two points: one of convenience, one of output.

Starting from the latter, as I wrote in the article, "After digitising about two thousand 4x5” negatives, I am absolutely convinced that a digitised film negative still looks like a film negative, with all its silver crystals there to see, and that the aesthetic qualities of a large format negative, the tonal range, that ephemeral, hard to define “look” that is so unique to large format film, are all still there."

I don't see the Fujifilm GFX100, as good as it is, as a comparable alternative in terms of the look of the final file, regardless of the fact that my negatives end up as digital files eventually.

When it comes to convenience, on the other hand, there is no doubt that the Fujifilm GFX100 has the upper hand.

Of course, there is no doubt that modern digital medium format systems achieve extremely high levels of image quality, when it comes to details and resolution, all in a very convenient package. I personally decided to live behind the convenience of my Phase One IQ4 Achromatic system for the quality of 4x5" film negatives and live with all the complications that this entailed; during these last two years, I never once regretted my decision, but that's me of course.

Hope this helps, best. regards

Vieri

I think there is another aspect in the digital vs film debate. I began serious photography as a teenager in the 1960’s back when there was only film. As the years went by I moved to digital when the digital process began to rival film quality in the ‘90’s. A few years ago I went back to film and realized and enjoyed the process that it took to make an image using my 6x17 camera. I had not noticed how with digital everything can move much faster in producing an image and how often I took many many exposures, sometimes over 1,000 in a day. Now with film each image takes longer to make but is much more meaningful to me.

 

[Vieri Bottazzini]

I think there is another aspect in the digital vs film debate. I began serious photography as a teenager in the 1960’s back when there was only film. As the years went by I moved to digital when the digital process began to rival film quality in the ‘90’s. A few years ago I went back to film and realized and enjoyed the process that it took to make an image using my 6x17 camera. I had not noticed how with digital everything can move much faster in producing an image and how often I took many many exposures, sometimes over 1,000 in a day. Now with film each image takes longer to make but is much more meaningful to me.

Absolutely agree with you. Of course, people would say that one could take the same reflective, more meaningful approach to photography with digital as well - in my experience, though, that seldom happens. With film in general, more so with medium format and even more so with large format in particular, one is forced by the medium to do so, removing all "temptations" to shoot first and think later, so to speak.

Best regards,

Vieri