Do you still use Large Format or have you moved on?

[Hatchetman]

have dabbled and will continue to do so. Never became really competent. It is something to challenge myself with going forward.

 

[grahamp]

I use most formats from 6x4.5cm up to 5x4". The only 35mm film I use goes in a panoramic camera. I pick the tool I want to use, and the format just comes with it. The larger format cameras give me some options I do not have with the roll film cameras - and vice versa.

 

[Luis-F-S]

My commercial work is all digital; my personal work is MF to 8x10. L

 

[flavio81]

I used 4 x 5 a lot in the 70's, for about 2 years. Then gave it up.

I discuss the anal large format personality versus street / documentary personality here. (Right after 35mm and 6 x 6 film, about 60% down the article.)

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/what-is-the-best-camera-in-the-world/

I had to decide to feed my ego or do good street and doc work. Ego lost out, I was cured of Edard Westonitis and street and doc work flourished when I dumped the 4 x 5. and I concentrated on my Leica M3/M4, Nikon F and SWC.

Nowadays, the closest I will go to large format is a SWC with a ground glass screen and hood magnifier. Reminds me enuf of large format for my taste.

It seems that 80mp medium format digital is in the ballpark of 4 x 5 sheet film. If so, the large format guys are shooting the highest grade digital on the cheap. But view cams have their drawbacks when it comes to fast shooting, so that leaves me out.

Thumbs up for your blog!! Good article.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I bounce back and forth between shooting large and medium format. My daily user is a Rolleiflex, but for specialty shots, I use everything from 4x5 to 14x17. Needless to say the 14x17 doesn't get used very much because at $15+ per exposure, it's a bit salty to stock the film for, let alone make mistakes with.

 

[waynecrider]

It's an enjoyable format if you have the time and like to work slower. I moved back to MF and 35mm then back to 35mm strictly. Did enjoy the developing and zia prints from the negs tho, but I need lighter weight (older body) for longer hikes when I do go out west into the mountains. Still a fun format tho.

 

[JLP]

I have used large format cameras for a number of years, in the last several years almost exclusively 8x10 but, I have just finished selling all my LF gear.
An 8x10 negative is hard to beat, makes excellent contact prints but the format it to slow for me. I can get what I need in medium format and have both Hasselblad and Rolleiflex cameras for that format.
The darkroom is gone so the output is now hybrid when I do shoot film. My most used cameras these days belong to another forum so I won't mention them here.

 

[Wayne]

I only recently started using anything other than LF. I bought an RB but haven't used it in over a year. I pulled out the old 35mm that had been gathering dust but don't do serious photography with it. It's handy to expose film with when I'm too lazy to set up 4x5 or 8x10. It also helps to keep me "seeing" things photographically when I can't afford to buy or expose sheet film. But LF will always be #1 for me.

 

[eddie]

There are reasons for the different format choices. Depending on subject matter/ photographic interests, each has a place. In the last 3 months, I've shot half-frame, 35mm, 6x6, 6x9, 6x12, 4x5, and 5x7. I enjoy them all, and would hate to be without any of those options.

 

[JackRosa]

Contact Print?

I have used large format cameras for a number of years, in the last several years almost exclusively 8x10 but, I have just finished selling all my LF gear.
An 8x10 negative is hard to beat, makes excellent contact prints but the format it to slow for me. I can get what I need in medium format and have both Hasselblad and Rolleiflex cameras for that format.

Who said anything about contact printing an 8x10? The fun is in enlarging it to 20x24 or 30x40! Even more fun, making said enlargements and adding unsharp masks, SCIMs, dodge/burn masks, fog masks, ....

 

[Kilgallb]

I have a 4x5 camera and two lenses. I find the movements on the lens are critical. I could do medium format but to get movements means really expensive lenses. Digital would be out of sight expensive to get the required movements and megapixel equivalent to 4x5.

So for now, I keep to film for my landscape work.

 

[removed account4]

Still shooting 4x5 along with 35mm. Hate the camera work, but like the negatives. I suppose "ideally" I'd shoot 5x7 but it was always too much of a hassle for me to get into 5x7. For me, 4x5 is a good compromise. If I went any bigger I'm certain the quality of my photography would suffer.

hi michael
i know it's none of my business but ...
why would the quality of your photography suffer if you used a 5x7 negative ? ..
you are already methodological with your 4x5 ..

 

[Mick Fagan]

Currently have three monorail units, one wooden folder and a Razzle which is a converted Polaroid rangefinder, all 4x5”.

The monorails will be culled down to two at most, probably one in the long term.

The Razzle is one I love and hate. It’s great for walk around stuff and super quick informal portraiture with a Grafmatic back attached, allowing 6 sheets to be exposed in quick time. It’s reasonably heavy after a couple of hours of walking, but it delivers the goods.

The wooden folder is a Shen Hao, great unit and now that I pretty much know the limitations of my lenses and how to use them, capable of superb imagery.

I decided a long time ago that 4x5” is pretty much the smallest big format that allows one as an amateur, (now retired) to play with big toys without bankrupting oneself. Also, one can have a great time enlarging this format, as it’s so small and easy.

The slowness of using cameras with movements, which I may or may not need, is one of the more satisfying aspects of this type of photography. Shooting less, but with a higher strike rate, is also satisfying.

I still prefer the 135 format for walk around, portraiture and general mucking around stuff, as well as holidays overseas.

My go to cameras these days, are definitely any of my 4x5” units.

Mick.

 

[Drew B.]

Move on to what?

 

[removed account4]

hi michael
sorry, i didn't mean to open a can of worms
i thought it was a size and bulk and maybe a lens related problem ...
not something else .... i'm not sure what you mean by
the camera drives the photography, but i guess i understand
because it is more of a " look what i did and with what " than
"look at the photograph, and it doesn't matter about the gear " sort of thing ...

john

 

[RobC]

Move on to what?

To whatever takes your fancy.

 

[removed account4]

I'm all good with cans of worms - it's just this is the kind of topic that will bring out some serious batshit mouth-foaming. Size, bulk are a part of it, for sure. The equipment tends to be a detriment to "vision". This is what I've observed, and so I assume the same would apply to me if I went bigger. I wouldn't mind getting into more of a discussion but not in this thread.

huh, interesting observations ..
almost like the ground glass has a opiate/hypnotic effect ..
thanks for your observations

john

( i'll look for the thread, it sounds "entertaining" )

 

[Doc W]

I still have my RB67 and use it frequently but more and more I am using my 8x10 and 5x7.

 

[NedL]

I use a couple homemade box cameras with paper holders. Not sure if that counts.... neither of them has movements. One is fixed focus and the other is a sliding box with ground glass. I like the larger paper negatives for contact printing. Both cameras can use either 8x10 or 7x11 paper.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Do you still NOT use large format? If so, why? Life just sounds so ... well, boring without large format.

 

[removed account4]

I use a couple homemade box cameras with paper holders. Not sure if that counts.... neither of them has movements. One is fixed focus and the other is a sliding box with ground glass. I like the larger paper negatives for contact printing. Both cameras can use either 8x10 or 7x11 paper.

ned

maybe RobC needs to clarify what large format is

 

[Trail Images]

I'd shot nothing but MF for years, then went to LF 4x5 and shot it for many years. Now, I split the time between the two platforms. As a result of varying lenses I own for each platform that can dictate the usage more often then size requirements for me anyway.

 

[Tom Taylor]

Depending on the subject matter, I shoot 35mm (Nikon F6), 645 and 6x7 (Pentax), 4x5 and 8x10 (Toyo): 135 and 120 for street photography, 4x5 and 8x10 for landscape and alternative processes.

Thomas

 

[GKC]

LF---mainly 8x10 with some 5x7, nearly exclusively. I'm just getting back into 35mm for one project with my son, but my Rolleiflex has been collecting cobwebs for well over a decade

 

[Doc W]

I used 4 x 5 a lot in the 70's, for about 2 years. Then gave it up.

I discuss the anal large format personality versus street / documentary personality here. (Right after 35mm and 6 x 6 film, about 60% down the article.)

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/what-is-the-best-camera-in-the-world/

I had to decide to feed my ego or do good street and doc work. Ego lost out, I was cured of Edard Westonitis and street and doc work flourished when I dumped the 4 x 5. and I concentrated on my Leica M3/M4, Nikon F and SWC.

Nowadays, the closest I will go to large format is a SWC with a ground glass screen and hood magnifier. Reminds me enuf of large format for my taste.

It seems that 80mp medium format digital is in the ballpark of 4 x 5 sheet film. If so, the large format guys are shooting the highest grade digital on the cheap. But view cams have their drawbacks when it comes to fast shooting, so that leaves me out.

It wouldn't make any sense to do street photography or documentary with a large format camera. I understand your choice of camera. However, I don't understand why you feel it necessary to ridicule others in order to justify what you do. Man, talk about stereotyping. Live and let live.