6x7 or 4x5

[ColColt]

4x5 view cameras always intrigued me-not so much press cameras but I find most all cameras interesting. However, I have foregone the 4x5 issue in favor of making my life simple at this age by continuing with 35mm and 6x7. I will say this. I do wish now that I had long ago when I first became interested in the view camera(about 1979) to have gone ahead and got one at that point rather than shun them now.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

The work flow per subject was:

Wind Speed Graphic focal plane shutter to maximum tension.
Insert Grafmatic and cycle it to frame one.
Press shutter release.
Cycle Grafmatic to frame two.
Press shutter release again.
Cycle Grafmatic to frame three.
....and so on.

The result was a set of six sheets exposed at all the speeds the focal plane shutter would deliver. One exposure would be near enough...

...and thus autobracketing was born. I really hope she didn't do that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh. I cut my teeth on large format Cibachromes, which were utter purgatory to spot. You just didn't get dust on the film, either when you shot it or
when you enlarged it. Had to do things right the first time. Period. Just like everything else, it's a process of eliminating all the offending issues, one
at a time. Yeah, I've got some pretty nice digs now, including a true cleanroom for film work. But I sure didn't when I started out. In fact, my first exhibition was done with an enlarger in a shag-carpeted bedroom, with the window blocked out. Where there's a will, there's a way. And if my cats
correctly assume they rule the house, they aren't allowed in the lab building whatsoever. They know it too.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

LF is handy when you need the versatility of several films e.g. for long-haul travel. I used a Horseman 45FA in the early to mid-1990s as an associate to a wedding photographer. But his overriding preference was always 6x7 with a rollfilm back. When he retired, he offered to sell the Horseman to me. I baulked at the $4,000 asking price (with 2 lenses). I was perhaps too jaded by his 6x7 colour work to be bothered about the "benefits" of LF.

Now, in my eyes, there was no difference between Ilfochrome Classic prints produced from 6x7 and 4x5: the quality of the print (and quality was inherently woven in to the Ilfochrome Classic workflow, provided the manufacturer didn't stuff up QC prior to freighting...) transcended any idealised, romanticised preconceptions about format (every single format you can think of was represented in the halcyon days of Ilfochrome). The technical quality of the photographer's knowledge of the subject is, as always a great deal more important than equipment.

 

[trondsi]

No camera expert, but I do shoot 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5. My large format camera is a Crown Graphic. It's often the most frustrating of the cameras I have (among the four I actually use), but it also can produce some absolutely brilliant results. All in all, my Rolleiflex medium format is probably my best camera, but I suspect that the Crown Graphic will grow on me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Roll film is a pain in the butt for color printing, as was especially obnoxious for Cibachrome because that flimsy acetate stuff doesn't like to stay in
register with the masks. By comparison, polyester sheet film is a joy to work with in the darkroom, esp 8x10. But even I trade off that fact for the travel convenience or affordability of roll when it is good enough. I never sacrifice print quality per se; but that doesn't mean I always need big
enlargements.

 

[Ian Grant]

No camera expert, but I do shoot 35mm, 6x6, and 4x5. My large format camera is a Crown Graphic. It's often the most frustrating of the cameras I have (among the four I actually use), but it also can produce some absolutely brilliant results. All in all, my Rolleiflex medium format is probably my best camera, but I suspect that the Crown Graphic will grow on me.

I have and occasionally still use a Crown Graphic, I wouldn't recommend one though as a general purpose 5x4 camera due the minimal movements. My main 5x4 camera is a Wista 45DX which I've owned for nearly 30 years and has more than enough movements for my use.

More recently I've also been using a Super Graphic mostly while in Turkey/Greece and unlike the Crown this has reasonable movements, is very practical hand held and I really enjoy using it. Reasonable movements are important with LF work and quite often necessary to achieve the images you want, so it's important to use a camera that doesn't impose limitations.

Ian

 

[trondsi]

To be honest, my frustrations probably has had more to do with simply learning to use large format. I have had double exposures, leaky film holders, accidental light leaks when pulling the dark slide etc etc. The Super Graphic sounds nice though.

 

[Tim Layton]

Quality is subjective. However, clearly 4x5 large format sheet film has the ability to produce very large prints, if that is your goal. If you want to contact print, then 4x5 sheet film is also a good choice over 6x7 120 roll film. Aesthetics like tonality, shadow detail, and so on can be achieved with any format. The Pentax 67 also has a mirror that can drastically impact sharpness if not managed properly. The 4x5 requires a lot more time to setup and create a single exposure. So on and so forth. I would suggest that you really think about and consider your creative objectives and requirements and then pursue equipment after you understand that a little bit more. If you are creating with intent, then the tools that you choose will become obvious very quickly. Good luck in your journey and most importantly have fun.

Tim

I've been looking at the Speed/Crown Graphic cameras lately but started thinking, other than having something to walk around with that few have or have even seen before, other than TV-will it give me any better quality than the 6x7 Pentax? Many times I've read the "6x7 approaches 4x5 quality".

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah... Pentax 67... I was out shooting the 300 EDIF lens the other day with it. Realistically, have to use the same big wooden Ries tripod that I also
use shooting 8x10. Or it can be shot even handheld resting atop a jacket on a car roof or fencepost, but only at high shutter speeds which finish
before the mirror slaps. Mirror lockup depends; it's more dicey than with shorter lenses, even with tons of tripod support (I bolt the lens directly to the tripod top, and don't use a tripod head at all!). But simply shooting at high speed without a tripod at all, just resting atop something, often works because my main intended use for this lens either involves distant subject or shallow depth of field shots like wildlife where a very wide aperture is appropriate. But that is a big heavy cannon barrel of a lens. By comparison, if I let the bellows do that extension on a 4x5 and use a 120 roll film back instead, I can employ a tiny little 300M Nikkor lens, along a serious but far lighter CF tripod, have full view camera movements for plane of focus etc, but obviously a slower working pace. Both methods are a lot of fun. But there is no way I'm going to lug a 300 P67 lens on a two week backpack trip! There are many scenarios where a true view camera gear kit, at least 4x5, comes out lighter than most MF SLR's equivalents.