6x7 or 4x5

[markbarendt]

Yes an 8x10 or 11x14 from a 4x5 negative will beat 35mm hands down, but it won't really beat 6x7 in any noticeable way in my opinion.

11x14's from 6x7 negs are a sweet combo.

If those are your print sizes then a move to 4x5 should be driven by something other than simple print "quality" like desire to learn the methods of large format or to use movements or whatever.

Without a LF camera my photographic education would be much poorer.

 

[ColColt]

I have several 16x20's from the 6x7 and to my eye there's about as good as it gets. Sharpness, grain free and just superb. They were studio shots but I loved the outcome. This is one of them but the scans, of course, don't do the original justice.

Francis and Kami006ab by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[DREW WILEY]

Let me put it this way: a bit of dust or film blemish which barely shows on sheet film might look like the Goodyear Blimp on an open sky of
a medium format neg. This isn't just because of the greater magnification required, but also due to the much flimsier nature of acetate roll film. You also give up the more accurate focus and plane of focus control inherent to view cameras. But otherwise, the pros and cons really
go beyond this particular discussion. Sheet film is a lot more expensive, for example.

 

[ColColt]

I think it's safe to say most everything involved is more expensive the larger the format. For instance, a Jobo 3010 will cost you upward of some $550 or about $350 ebay.

 

[MattKing]

I think it's safe to say most everything involved is more expensive the larger the format. For instance, a Jobo 3010 will cost you upward of some $550 or about $350 ebay.

The Mod54 processor is a reasonable alternative - you just need to add the Paterson 3 reel tank: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/S.../phd/4053808673/N/4294255798?origSearch=Mod54

 

[Paul Howell]

As a person who shoots with both MF and 4X5: I shoot with Speed and Crowns, I got my first Speed in 1965, and as well a view camera I would not dispute what anyone has said. The advantage to me is that a LF negative is it just that large, more detail per square inch than a smaller negative. Shooting one sheet at a time allows for adjusting the development time to match the dynamic range, or shooting the same scene with different emulsions. A press camera can be hand held or shot while using a monopod. My Speed was camed for a 152mm, the rangefinder no longer works, while the Crown is set up for 135mm. I can use longer or wilder lens and focus using the ground glass back. I develop 4X5 in film drums or in 5X7 trays, when developing more than just 3 or 4 negatives I use hangers and deep tanks. My Crown is lighter than my Mamiya Universal and about the same as my Kowa Super 66. What I like about MF, longer lens, I have the 250mm for the Kowa and 150 for the Mamiya. I have the 6X7 and 6X9 backs for the Mamiya and I like the 6X9 for landscapes. Sometimes shooting a roll is more convenient than having to deal with film holders. I use my view camera the lest, there are times when full movement is needed, just not that often.

While some see a press camera as a gateway drug to LF, I think a press camera has a lot to offer, does not replace a view camera, just different.

 

[ColColt]

The Mod54 processor is a reasonable alternative - you just need to add the Paterson 3 reel tank: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/S.../phd/4053808673/N/4294255798?origSearch=Mod54

I'll be it would be tricky loading that bad boy in the dark.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think it's safe to say most everything involved is more expensive the larger the format. For instance, a Jobo 3010 will cost you upward of some $550 or about $350 ebay.

I got mine at FreeStyle for around $300US.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Using a LF camera such as a Crown or Speed Graphic allows one to process each sheet of film separately and differently. One could become a Zonista if they chose.

 

[ColColt]

I think a lot can be said for LF be it a press camera or a Sinar. There's something to be said for processing one negative at a time and I like that idea. I've seen so many instances on 35mm with 24 exposures how the light could fluctuate up and down the scale on one roll of film and that's hard to process for when you have a Sunny 16 day that suddenly turns to heavy overcast.

 

[Black Dog]

I've used both MF and 4x5 over the last 20 years or so. As others have said , going from 35 mm to MF felt like a much bigger quality jump than going from MF to 4x5-that said, the difference did show with faster [ISO 200 or above films]. Printing just felt easier with a much bigger neg to work with, and some of my favourite films, such as Fortepan 200 were only available in sheet sizes. Regardless of all the technical stuff though, I just found LF the most enjoyable to work with and my ratio of successes to film shot was highest with it [and 4x5 trannies are just mindblowing to look at as well, and a great way of showing your work...used to love Agfa Scala!]. Now I find myself wanting to work with 8x10, but I still love my Mamiya C330, because it's great to have a variety of tools in your kit and there are times when LF just isn't practical, or you just want a different look/feel to my pictures. Delta 3200 in 120...mmmm!

 

[ColColt]

I have to wonder what a film like FP-4 or PanF would look like on 4x5...staggering I would imagine.

 

[ColColt]

I got mine at FreeStyle for around $300US.

I don't know when you got yours but they've skyrocketed since then.


http://www.freestylephoto.biz/3010-Jobo-Expert-Drum-10-Sheet-Developing-Tank

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't know when you got yours but they've skyrocketed since then.


http://www.freestylephoto.biz/3010-Jobo-Expert-Drum-10-Sheet-Developing-Tank

About five years ago. Just jump into your time machine.

It is still worth it for the reliability and consistency of processing. Besides you will use it for ever.

 

[ColColt]

I wish there was a time machine. I'd go back to 1967 to the PX in Frankfurt and buy half a dozen of those Nikons I could only lust after then.

 

[markbarendt]

I have to wonder what a film like FP-4 or PanF would look like on 4x5...staggering I would imagine.

You can find out, at least with FP-4,

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/24665-REG/Ilford_1678279_FP4_Plus_4x5_25.html

 

[Sirius Glass]

Using the money that you had then or the money that you have now?

 

[ColColt]

The money I have now. Back then Uncle Sam only paid SP-4's about $140/month.

 

[Ai Print]

The 3010 drums are *so* worth it, I have three of them and can get through a batch of 80-100 sheets in a single day, I am not one of those one sheet at a time folks and have never needed to be. My two biggest systems are 6x6 Hasselblad and 4x5, enormous amounts of infrastructure in supporting 4x5 but worth it.

But....6x6 tends to just run away with it in terms of sheer image impact and productivity for me. One of the big reasons for this is it is far, FAR easier to control pre-exposure dust using roll film than it is in 4x5. I know many on here will say they have no issues with dust getting on the film during exposure but just ask John Sexton how he feels about it, his #1 complaint about 4x5 once ready loads went bye-bye.

I'm not knocking 4x5, I use it, love it and when "Dust Bracketing" works in my favor and I get a sublime neg, well nothing prints easier than that. But it is a lot of work and when you employ it professionally like I do, the cost can be pretty darn huge.

Medium format rules the roost for this guy....

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree about dust. I run a HEPA air cleaner. I blow out holders with canned air. I even load them holding them upside down and it still gets me. My latest acquisition in the dust war is one of the Zone VI electric anti static brushes. Haven't tried it yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[ColColt]

With all these potential problems listed about dust makes me wonder how Weegee survived working out of the trunk of his car.

 

[MattKing]

With all these potential problems listed about dust makes me wonder how Weegee survived working out of the trunk of his car.

Somehow, I don't think many of Weegee's shots of gang crime and similar would have been much affected by dust - especially when they were reduced to newspaper half tone.

And FWIW, those of my friends who use the Mod54 indicate that it is just about as hard to learn to use as roll film reels.

 

[Sirius Glass]

With all these potential problems listed about dust makes me wonder how Weegee survived working out of the trunk of his car.

They did not have dust back then. Also there was no color. And in the UK and Canada there was no colour.

 

[markbarendt]

With all these potential problems listed about dust makes me wonder how Weegee survived working out of the trunk of his car.

One of the things that has come over the last 40 years or so has been the advent of near perfection as an expectation. When I was young we tuned up our cars every 3000 miles, now every 100,000 or more.

In WeeGee's world the 4x5 press camera was high-tech, even with the occasional dust speck it was the best thing going.

Dust can be annoying but if you are careful it's not a problem on every frame and not the end of the world when there is a speck.

If a shot is real important, shoot two sheets. If not just shoot one.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A can of Dust Off! can go a long way to combat dust.