Get into 4x5 or Just Stay in MF?

[ntenny]

Let's not forget the existence of press cameras, which have established a pretty good track record for street shooting and spontaneous portraits (Weegee, anyone?). That approach probably isn't too feasible above 4x5, which suggests that someone who's interested in large format but not in the stereotypical "landscapes and studios" repertoire should stick to that size.

I'm going to disagree with those who have said 4x5 is too small for contact printing. It produces *small* contact prints, but I don't see why there's anything wrong with that; it wasn't that long ago that 6x9cm contact prints were the norm for family snapshots, and if you give one of those little prints some attention you can just fall into the details. They're problematic to hang on the wall gallery-style, but I've got little contact prints in 6x9cm and 9x12cm in tabletop frames all over the house and I like 'em.

That said, the desire to be able to print larger *did* eventually drive me to 5x7. The upward slippery slope in format size is very real. But I don't think you can bypass it---don't the people who start out at 8x10 find themselves saying "if only I could print at 20x24"?

MF and LF are very different processes, as others have said. Medium format is quite like 35mm in the sense that you drop a roll of film in the camera, determine appropriate parameters, and shoot accordingly---you aren't making processing decisions individually for each shot, just exposure decisions given a set of fixed assumptions about processing. Sheet film can, if you want it to, throw this relative simplicity into a cocked hat; this sheet goes at box speed, this one is pulled a stop, this one pushed in a different developer with reduced agitation to control what you suspect will be a hot highlight area, this one is a backup copy of the box-speed one and if the first version works out OK you might try something odd with the backup like solarisation...You don't *have* to do this stuff---you can shoot each sheet like a "roll" of one frame and still get the benefits of tonality, grain, contact printing, &c.---but you *can* do it, and it's fun and gets you profoundly involved in the *whole* process of turning photons into silver. To me that's the big difference between LF and roll formats.

-NT

 

[Bruce Watson]

Question is: Do I take a dive in 4x5, which I understand is very different from MF, or do I go ahead and delve into digital 35mm and buy a body that backs up my film 35mm (and MF to a degree). My forté is portraits, not landscapes.

You are right that LF is very different than MF. Sheet film is a different animal -- no "motor drive" feature.

If you are interested in tonality, it's nearly impossible to beat increasing film area. More film = better tonality, and better tonal transitions IMHO.

The choice of which format will come down to your workflow and your final output. If you want contact prints for example, you probably will want to go bigger than 5x4. And this will pretty much limit you to shooting from a tripod (which you may find frustrating or not, depending on how you like to work). If you are going to enlarge, there's no reason at all IMHO to use anything larger than 5x4. And if you want to hand hold, you can still do it with a 5x4 camera -- something from the Graflex family of press cameras for example.

When you get to LF lenses (lens manufacturers and camera manufacturers don't need to match in LF), there are bunches of old portrait lenses out there, and therefore a range of effects from very sharp to very soft focus.

One other thing to note -- the bigger you go, the smaller your DOF at a given aperture. With a 24x20 inch camera you have to decide which eye lashes you want in focus and which to let go. Really.

 

[Bokeh Guy]

Wow, leave the Mac for 10 minutes and . . .

All the comments have been extremely helpful; I've decided to forget the 35mm digital SLR to go 4x5. With 35mm and a couple of Rolleiflexes, I believe that I'm pretty stocked up on equipment for street shooting and the spontaneous portrait. I read Vanessa Winship's account of her use of an Ebony 4x5 for her recent Sweet Nothings work and it mirrored many of the comments here. So I guess I'll take the dive. But I also got lucky; sold off my redundant 35mm film camera and lenses (for pretty good prices) and found a mint 4x5 for a steal. That always helps.

 

[Mike1234]

Congrats, BG!! Keep in mind how you like to crop. If you like longer prints with 2:3 or 1:2 ratios then you're losing some film real estate. In fact, if you crop 1:2 then you might as well shoot 6x12cm roll film because that's basically what you'll be cropping 4x5in to. I like the wider formats so my 4x5 will be dedicated to 6x12cm roll film only. If I want bigger I'll go much bigger. No use in taking tiny steps, IMHO. If you don't at least triple your film area then the step is barely noticible, IMO. I would suggest 5x7 (if you like wider images) but, as much as I like it, I can't in good conscience do so because the support from color film manufacturers is dwindling.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I would like to ask what the motivation is to move from MF to 4x5. In answering that you may well answer the questions above as well.

Contrary to most here, I loathed the experience of shooting sheet film, and I didn't find that out until I had spent about $2k on a camera, lenses, holders, dark cloth, processing equipment, a new enlarger, etc. I had to make due with getting $900 for it when I sold it two years later.
My motivation for 4x5 was to get a higher quality print. Well, after I got rid of some film developing problems with uneven densities, dust problems on the negatives, and finally was able to crank out negatives worthy of printing, I found myself reaching for the Hasselblad. Loading film holders, unloading, dust care, time to set up each shot, etc - I really hated it, with a passion. It did not suit my work flow at all.
Now that I have film developing of my 120 material completely under control, I just don't miss the larger negative, not even from a print quality standpoint. I don't miss it for one second.

I gained a little bit, just a tiny bit, in image quality. But I lost so much in spontaneity and capturing beautiful moments. The cost / benefit analysis was a no-brainer for me. I sold the 4x5 rig at a HUGE loss, and was very happy to do it. Never again, unless it's ULF, like 11x14 and contact printing. That would be cool!

I just wanted to give you a different account. Think long and hard WHY you want to 'upgrade' before you take the plunge. Borrow a camera if you can to try it out. Do every step of the process on your own up to the printing stage, just to see if you like it enough to take advantage of a larger negative.

- Thomas

 

[keithwms]

Enjoy! Now just take a while to meditate on the strengths of this new format. It's not another way to do 35mm or MF... it's a totally different way of photographing... and of seeing and relating to your subject. When I first started 4x5 I lamented (1) the slow lenses; (2) the slow shutter speeds; (3) the number of sheets I had to schlep around; (4) the bulk and weight of the kit... etc. etc. But of course now I see around those things and even consider some of them to have been a real advantage or at least an important lesson for me.

P.S. I do certainly agree with those who say 4x5 contacts can be effective... it's just that 4x5 is still quite easy to enlarge and usually winds up being enlarged, whereas once people hit 5x7, the number of enlargements from that goes to ~zero. I have no statistics to back this statement up but I will assert: most 4x5 negs are enlarged for the final print, whereas most 5x7 negs are contact printed for the final print. It's up to the individual to see whether this is true for them. Not much point in debating what someone should or should not do... ultimately it's something a person needs to explore for themselves.

 

[Mike1234]

Enlarging options limited for film larger than 4x5... (digi haters close your eyes)... yes unless one scans and prints digitally or makes digital contact negs.

 

[keithwms]

I agree Mike, and the thing is, if someone really wants to go that route, they could (and probably should) kiss traditional b&w developing goodbye and go pyro. Anyway that is another topic for another place...

 

[noumin]

I second Thomas Bertilson. If you can, borrow a LF camera and try it out first. Your experiences as a MF shooter
won´t help you here, it´s another world. I wouldn´t spend my money on a 4x5 just because the money is there, or just out of curiousity.
You don´t tell us what you´re actually expecting from such a move. Regarding MF you point out big negatives, tonality etc. so I asume these are the primary reasons. You´re right, but the difference is smaller than you might expect, unless you plan to go for the really BIG prints.
You trade that gain in quality for equipment that forces you to go slow (I don´t like to be forced to something by my equipment), that´s nothing negative per se, but spontaneous portaits ... ? I don´t know. Also a large camera can be intimidating to the sitter.
You trade an (relatively) easy way to get decent pictures in, for inconvenience, expense and effort. You´re not telling us how you work, but the slow process of photographing LF is not for everyone.

As for me, the Rolleiflexes had an impact on my photography, but in a slightly different way.
The first one showed up three years ago, since then, the largeformat equipment is only gathering dust. With the Rollies (both TLR and SLR) I do much more and much more better stuff, pretty hard to find that out after shooting LF for 20 years. But well, better to find out late what suits you than never. I have now decided to eventually sell the LF gear off, I will have some money then, I will invest it in a couple of beers and celebrate the day my LF-period ended.

 

[Bokeh Guy]

Again, thanks for all the comments.

As to the few "negative" comments, I think that if I didn't take a shot at 4x5 then I'd be asking myself why I never explored LF later on. And, yes, I'm looking into some really big prints - the bigger the better. If it does appear to be too much of a pain, I figure that I can sell off the equipment and any loss (which I doubt would be much) I'll just chuck up to experience and buy that digital 35mm body that is losing value even as I type this reply.

So, thanks for all of the comments. It'll be fun to see just what kind of damage I can do with a LF camera.

 

[brian d]

It'll be fun to see just what kind of damage I can do with a LF camera.

Now there's a drawback to 4x5 that I had forgot about. I took a couple of close up portrait shots of a (ex) lady friend. Nice tones,razor blade sharp
every line, wrinkle,grey hair, crow's foot...

 

[nick mulder]

Ok,

haven't read any of the replies in any depth other than to note that most recommend 4x5

I'll say it also: Portraiture... 4x5 ? yes yes yes !!!

bigger if you have the cash (B&W aint too prohibitive) but 4x5 really is so much more than 6x7 for me.

 

[markbarendt]

Enlarging options limited for film larger than 4x5... (digi haters close your eyes)... yes unless one scans and prints digitally or makes digital contact negs.

Or do like Ansel did and make an enlarger out of an old 8x10.

 

[BrianShaw]

Now there's a drawback to 4x5 that I had forgot about. I took a couple of close up portrait shots of a (ex) lady friend. Nice tones,razor blade sharp
every line, wrinkle,grey hair, crow's foot...

This phenomenon is not limited to LF. One can lose a lady friend with MF too if not sensitive to this issue!

 

[keithwms]

Well, this issue of a portrait being too sharp is easily handled in LF (and some MF) with variable/soft-focus lenses. The thing to remember is that while we may not want superhigh line-pair sharpness/contrast in a portrait of your wrinkly gradma, we still do want well-resolved, smooth tone transitions!

There are plenty of affordable LF lenses that do just this. Alas, there are few (if any) small-format lenses that do it well and that is for a simple technical reason: with small format you are projecting image information on a small area of film in such a way that grain begins to affect tonality (and can actually bitmap it, I would argue). With LF what you are doing is projecting a massive excess of information onto a much larger piece of film, and in the end barely enlarging it at all.

So... you can of course put a soft-focus lens on a 35mm camera, but unless you are shooting with very fine-grained film or using a chromogenic... the tonality just isn't so easy to get. The line-pair resolution and tonal resolution are thus quite inseparably linked in small format, whereas with LF you can pretty much shoot through a coke bottle and get superb tonality... even if the resolution sucks.

Of course, you can get superb results with small format... and plenty of folks here do. It's just not so dumb-easy and fun as it is with LF.

 

[Trevor Crone]

As I mentioned in an earlier post sharpness can be played with, explored with the use of a view cameras movements (swings and tilts). For example you can just put the plane of focus across the eyes and/or nose. With LF the out of focus areas, as mentioned, have a wonderful tonality.

 

[Mike1234]

Well, this issue of a portrait being too sharp is easily handled in LF (and some MF) with variable/soft-focus lenses. The thing to remember is that while we may not want superhigh line-pair sharpness/contrast in a portrait of your wrinkly gradma, we still do want well-resolved, smooth tone transitions!

There are plenty of affordable LF lenses that do just this. Alas, there are few (if any) small-format lenses that do it well and that is for a simple technical reason: with small format you are projecting image information on a small area of film in such a way that grain begins to affect tonality (and can actually bitmap it, I would argue). With LF what you are doing is projecting a massive excess of information onto a much larger piece of film, and in the end barely enlarging it at all.

So... you can of course put a soft-focus lens on a 35mm camera, but unless you are shooting with very fine-grained film or using a chromogenic... the tonality just isn't so easy to get. The line-pair resolution and tonal resolution are thus quite inseparably linked in small format, whereas with LF you can pretty much shoot through a coke bottle and get superb tonality... even if the resolution sucks.

Of course, you can get superb results with small format... and plenty of folks here do. It's just not so dumb-easy and fun as it is with LF.

Keith, I am truly humbled by your ingenious political correctness.

 

[keithwms]

Haha :rolleyes: Well I do have my moments... very occasionally

 

[Asmara]

I vote for 4x5 step. You will get much more discipline about composition and conceptualization than 35mm format could offer. That will assist you in any format for the future. It sounds like your not averse to digital workflow so why not scan your 4x5 negatives and get the equivalent of a 300MB back with a 4x5 outfit. Best of luck.

 

[EASmithV]

Again, thanks for all the comments.

As to the few "negative" comments, I think that if I didn't take a shot at 4x5 then I'd be asking myself why I never explored LF later on. And, yes, I'm looking into some really big prints - the bigger the better. If it does appear to be too much of a pain, I figure that I can sell off the equipment and any loss (which I doubt would be much) I'll just chuck up to experience and buy that digital 35mm body that is losing value even as I type this reply.

So, thanks for all of the comments. It'll be fun to see just what kind of damage I can do with a LF camera.

If you like Bokeh, You want large format. The longer the focal length lens = better the Bokeh. The bigger the film, the wider the angle. A 300mm lens on 8x10 film gives you incredible circles of confusion, and a 50mm equiv perspective. The same goes for 4x5.

As for cameras, I suggest, as usual, that you try a Graflex. With a model in good condition, you don't really lose that much mobility.

 

[Bruce A Cahn]

I think that those of you who are hesitant about large format should jump right in and give it a try. I believe that whatever medium you work in, you owe it to yourself to try the variables. If you draw, you should try pencil, pen & ink, brush & ink, watercolor, pastel, conte, charcoal etc. One of those may be just right for you and you won't ever know it if you don't try. Same in photography. Learn 35mm, medium format film, digital, 4x5 and even 8x10. I waited until I had many years of experience as a photographer before I tried large format, and am sorry I did not do it sooner. I started with an 8x10 Calumet, and no instructor or experience. What a great adventure it was. Overall it was probably easier than learning digital. Now I like to use them together. I do the shoot with digital, and keep an 8x10 or 5x7 film camera ready to record the shots I like best, on film.

 

[Roger Thoms]

Definitely go with 4x5, nice addition to MF. Lots of gear for good prices and if you don't like large format you can always sell the gear. I usually bring a my 35mm or Rolleiflex along with my 4x5. Gives me more options and really useful if I shoot all my 4x5 film.

Roger

 

[paulie]

i now only contact print using 5x4 and 10x8, my darkroom consists of a light bulb and grade 5 and 0 filters , a piece of glass and three trays, i use a crown and a calumet with 1 lens between them and a couple pinhole cameras.all my gear can be carried in my arms including my darkroom.

i did have a 5x7 durst enlarger and a smaller durst enlarger, trays, focus scopes,spare heads condensers, and all the bits for printing and in the end i just cleared the lot out and now use my trust 15 watt bulb

liberating is the word, my 8x10 pinhole briefcase camera can also be use to store all the bits and pieces from the darkroom.

i dont miss the amateur formats ,there a hassle waiting for a roll to be finished, blanket developing all the frames, lifeless enlargments, loads of large equipment to store.

i am now building a led light source to replace my 15w bulb and will run it using a battery (also will include a safe light red led), i can then make a print anywhere (if its dark) without power.

i want my photography to be as simple and compact with a huge sense of diy and custom design

my advice ditch the 120roll and enlargements and get contacting baby

 

[Bokeh Guy]

I appreciate the last few comments. Yep, I think I need to wade through LF as part of some experimentation. Also, as with Paulie's comments, I find myself miffed at waiting for 35mm and even 120 rolls to be finished and blanket developing/scanning. And, in contradiction to some of the comments about spontaneity (which I do like), there's also something to be said about folks "sitting" for a portrait -- Penn had some great things to say about that.

 

[tubetime]

I came to 4x5 after shooting 35mm and then a brief foray with a DSLR camera. My digital experience was very dissatisfying, for me it became all about speed. Take a shot, check the LCD, take another shot, take a hundred shots and sort them out later. You can always find a "good" one in a hundred shots. So, realizing that it was the speed/convenience that wasn't working for me, I started to slow things down. I then decided to go real slow and went to LF. With a view camera, setting up a shot is slow, I use a piece of cardboard with a 4x5 hole cut in it to help find my shot and what lens I will use. Then I get the camera out, level it, put the lens on, etc. etc, etc. If I take 5 shots in an outing, that's a big day for me.

So, I do feel that if you like slow and deliberate photography, then LF will be enjoyable. Actually, I have slowed things down even more and enjoy using long exposures. Waiting 30 to 40 minutes before closing the shutter puts me into a contemplative frame of mind and I really have to be sure about the shot before committing one hour to taking it.

Aside from the slowness thing, I love my 4x5 because it has movements. Being able to put the plane of focus anywhere you want, or straightening vertical elements in the shot, is an amazing thing. Plus using ground glass may give you a whole new definition of focus. Be aware though, that LF is a steep learning curve. The ground glass image is upside down and backwards, the movements take a bit of practice, and you'll need to get a grasp of zone system exposure. I found I learned more about exposure and photography in my first 20 LF shots than I did in the previous 10 years.

I also use a Rolleiflex for more 'candid' shooting, and think this is a nice balance for me. Oh, and about the cost. You can get into LF with a decent used tripod, a used camera, and a couple of used lenses for around $1500.00. Sorry if I sound like a LF zealot but I really do enjoy this kind of photography.