Invest in 4x5 equipment?

[Paul Howell]

How can you say 4x5 is not better in image quality than MF. The fact that it has more grains per square inch, gives it better image quality in terms of resolution of detail.

With modern films, Tmax 100 200LPM, very small grain, in 8X10 to 16X20 a 6X9 negative provides enough detail and small grain, sure a 4X5 will have more, but detail that you really cannot see at viewing distance.

 

[cliveh]

With modern films, Tmax 100 200LPM, very small grain, in 8X10 to 16X20 a 6X9 negative provides enough detail and small grain, sure a 4X5 will have more, but detail that you really cannot see at viewing distance.

Please define enough detail to large format users on this site (although I'm not one of them). Tmax is also available in 5" X 4" and 10" X 8". What if you want to enlarge much bigger than 20" X 16"

 

[MARTIE]

I feel this question essentially boils down to whether the photographer is either fundamentally more result orientated then it's more about destination or fundamentally more process orientated then it's more about the journey.

Neither is better or worse, just different.

 

[P Sanders]

I agree with Isaac7. It’s the process of large format 4x5 and larger. Visualizing the shot, deliberate exposing and developing with film and the process of making a contact print. The tones rich in detail that you can see and feel.

I may scout out an area and use MF but in truth, yes I have a Nikon Z7ll with a ton of pixels, can edit in Photoshop / Affinity and choose color or convert to b+w, can choose my asa from one shot to the next, bracket and combine into a single image and then make the same 4x5 or 5x7 sized print with an ink jet.

It may be nothing more than being comfortable with 50+ years of seeing and feeling. . . but when shooting LF I’m miles away from the modern world, literally focused on a scene and visualizing how the print will look. Achieving it on the other hand is the enjoyment.

 

[Paul Howell]

Please define enough detail to large format users on this site (although I'm not one of them). Tmax is also available in 5" X 4" and 10" X 8". What if you want to enlarge much bigger than 20" X 16"

If you want larger prints, then 4X5 and larger formates are a better option than MF. It has been maybe 25 years that I last printed 20X24. At 11X14 MF or even 35mm Tmax 100 produce excellent prints. But, Tmax 100 in 6X9 will outperform Foma or ILford HP5 in 4X5. For me when I'm in a zonal state of mind, sheet film, 2 1/4 by 3 1/4 or 4X5 (same cost) single exposure, adjusted develpment time for visualized highlight, able to use adjustment for perspective control, sheet film comes into it's own.

 

[chuckroast]

Over the years , I built a working set for 35mm MF and 4x5, but I have no intention of growing the 4x5 set. With 35mm and MF system cameras, I've got all I need for my photographic future. 4x5 is not better in image quality than MF. So why 4x5? What do others think?

I have lots of 35mm and 120 options available to me but I still shoot 4x5 for three reasons:

1. It gives me tremendous control of the plane of focus and framing via the camera movements.
   
   
2. Even the best 120 doesn't really compete at large print sizes, although now that I have seen TMAX, that may not be so true.
   
   
3. It forces me to slow down and really work for- and think about the image I am making.

 

[_T_]

A sheet of portra 160 in 4x5 has about 300MP of resolution. There are currently no consumer digital cameras that can do that so if you need/want that much resolution your only choice for now is large format film.

Of course my scanner can’t resolve all of that information so I’m getting something like 100MP out of my scans. To get the same amount of information out of a digital camera I would need to spend at least $6,000 on the camera alone. Whereas my entire outfit for 4x5 was less than $1000.

Which means I would have to take about 400 shots of portra 160 before I would spend the same amount on either system, digital or film.

Plus I get all the physical benefits of lens design for a larger sensor and built in camera movements.

I shoot digital also but I’m not willing to spend $6000 on a camera so I’ll probably keep shooting 4x5 until they stop making it and then keep shooting the 4x5 camera with a digital camera adapter.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I got my 4x5 to try unusual lenses & to make use of movements. The investment has been fairly small, despite growing the kit far more than I should have.

My first 5x4 camera ended up costing only about a third of the cheapest usable interchangeable lens medium format body I've seen.

Very little of my camera gear has been brought as an investment, even if that's the impression I've given my wife on occasion. I'm a hobbyist it's brought for enjoyment rather than finance.

I wasn' talking about a financial investmeny but an investment in one's photography.

 

[mshchem]

4x5 back on 'yer 8x10

Contact prints on Azo

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

I rarely use the 4x5 outfit I have as I am more than happy with the size of prints I am making from medium format (Pentax 67), currently 60x49cm for exhibition, though I can go larger if cost is no object (and it is!). Similar case using 35mm and top-drawer L-series Canon lenses. Besides which, I do not have the patience of a Hindu cow now for the dedication and fiddling requisite of LF.

There are distinct advantages to LF, particularly the level of detail available at the start, and which is held the bigger the reproduction. But there are significant disadvantages for those who do not process themselves or who do not have the monetary leverage to feed box after box of sheet film through the cameras.

Compact, portable and free of gremlin things like flaking batteries and intemperate winding mechanisms (and rolls of film that slip betwixt the digits and this unravel...), forbys still find favour, albeit among an increasingly diminishing cohort of dedicated producers. But in Australia LF, particularly 4x5, is not especially prevalent now, post-pandemic; back in the time when we had a greater variety of film and the availability (or not) of that film was not shackled in mystery – forbys were plentiful scene-stealers on outings and bushwalks. I rarely see them now, save for last week's commissioning briefing in Tasmania, where a 4x5 Ebony titanium beauty turned up for 'show-and-tell'!

Just about all of the high-calibre LF photographers I have known for decades have shifted entirely to digital production, with no chance, given the investment in new equipment, of ever going back to analogue. .

 

[Don_ih]

Use whatever you feel like to get the result you want. No, you can't get 4x5 results out of medium format. But if you're satisfied with medium format (and there's not much reason to not be satisfied), don't bother with large format. Chances are, if you're fine with medium (or small) format, you don't find you need camera movements very much.

 

[BrianShaw]

I buy equipment mostly based on requirements for what I want to do, but occasionally on desirements.

 

[pbromaghin]

I have accumulated 4x5 simply because I want to shoot 4x5. Film photography is my hobby and 4x5 is just one more reason to descend further into the rabbit hole. I tend toward medium format and the best results come from 6x6. Fairly new in the darkroom, I am looking forward to printing 4x5.

I had a disastrous experience with 4x5 about 10 years ago when not ready for it. But now I have done a TON of reading and purchased a Speed Graphic and a View II with various lenses and a 23 back. My darkroom and equipment will print up to 16x20, but my skills are nowhere near that yet. I want to go bigger and that will require bringing 4x5 negatives to a professional-level printing company in Denver.

When everybody was throwing their film equipment away, I was accumulating, and ended up with 4 complete darkrooms for next to nothing. Financially, my photography equipment is not an investment, but the tools for a hobby. After keeping the best for myself, the excess could still sell for a pretty good amount. There is an annual Denver photo swap meet and I could get a table, but do I really want to bother? I might just leave it for my wife and daughter to wonder what to do with all this shit when I die.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

With modern films, Tmax 100 200LPM, very small grain, in 8X10 to 16X20 a 6X9 negative provides enough detail and small grain, sure a 4X5 will have more, but detail that you really cannot see at viewing distance.

if both are enlarged to ,let's say, 8x10. you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

 

[John Wiegerink]

if both are enlarged to ,let's say, 8x10. you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

A 4X5 with good lens and a 35mm with good lens or 6X6 camera with good lens might yield close results at 8X10, but what if you have an exception image and want a 20X24 or larger print? I'd much rather try a 20X24 with 6X6 than the 35mm, but even the 6X6, having to be cropped for 20X24, won't equal the 4X5 print. Close, but no cigar. For most of us here it depends on the time we can spend on a shot (how long does the wife like waiting in the car), how far away the shot is (hills, mountains, etc.) and the weight we want to or are able to carry. 6X6, 6X7 and 6X9 are my preferred formats to carry at 76 years old when I want the best quality and reasonable portability. For some that might be 35mm, but not for me. Yup, I use 35mm, but not for pictures that I might want to make a big print from. I'm not saying you can't make a BIG print from 35mm, but it's just not my style. Whatever floats your boat I guess!

 

[Don_ih]

"Quality" aside, using large format or medium format or whatever format is a choice that a photographer makes based on what he or she wants to do and wants to get. Comparisons between formats are always going to be most aptly judged on that personal, preferential basis.

 

[xkaes]

I've made some great 24" prints from 16mm cameras, but there's no comparison in resolution with a 4x5" enlargement -- using the same film -- even though the 16mm lenses are sharper than the 4x5 lenses.

 

[Milpool]

if both are enlarged to ,let's say, 8x10. you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference.

I see a difference. Whether or not the difference is meaningful or important is just a matter of individual taste. I use both 35mm and less frequently 4x5, and don’t print larger than 8x10. I like the big negative and make a lot of use of rise/shift but other than that I dislike everything about large format, especially the camera work. Also, in my experience most people do better work with smaller formats.

 

[Pieter12]

A sheet of portra 160 in 4x5 has about 300MP of resolution. There are currently no consumer digital cameras that can do that so if you need/want that much resolution your only choice for now is large format film.

Of course my scanner can’t resolve all of that information so I’m getting something like 100MP out of my scans. To get the same amount of information out of a digital camera I would need to spend at least $6,000 on the camera alone. Whereas my entire outfit for 4x5 was less than $1000.

Which means I would have to take about 400 shots of portra 160 before I would spend the same amount on either system, digital or film.

Plus I get all the physical benefits of lens design for a larger sensor and built in camera movements.

I shoot digital also but I’m not willing to spend $6000 on a camera so I’ll probably keep shooting 4x5 until they stop making it and then keep shooting the 4x5 camera with a digital camera adapter.

But since you point out that you only get 100MP from your scans, you should be comparing it to a 100MP digital camera or back. And are you even printing anything that large that would need the resolution anyway?

 

[chuckroast]

But since you point out that you only get 100MP from your scans, you should be comparing it to a 100MP digital camera or back. And are you even printing anything that large that would need the resolution anyway?

I think that print size is only one input into the question of resolution. Very high res capture allows you to crop without visible loss of image fidelity at more "normal" print sizes. That's true for both negatives and digitally captured images.

 

[Pieter12]

I think that print size is only one input into the question of resolution. Very high res capture allows you to crop without visible loss of image fidelity at more "normal" print sizes. That's true for both negatives and digitally captured images.

Proper composition and framing does that, too. And only requires the investment of time.

 

[chuckroast]

Proper composition and framing does that, too. And only requires the investment of time.

Sometimes that isn't possible. Yes, you always try to fill the frame, whether film or sensor, but there are any number of circumstances where you cannot approach the subject closely enough, are not granted access to the area of concern, don't have the right glass, etc.

IMO, the obsession with insisting on printing to edge of frame in every circumstance is kind of an "art school" vanity. The object is a superb final image. How you get there is subordinate to the image.

Certainly, filling the frame is a necessary learning technique, but thereafter anything that makes the image better should be in bounds.

 

[Pieter12]

Sometimes that isn't possible. Yes, you always try to fill the frame, whether film or sensor, but there are any number of circumstances where you cannot approach the subject closely enough, are not granted access to the area of concern, don't have the right glass, etc.

IMO, the obsession with insisting on printing to edge of frame in every circumstance is kind of an "art school" vanity. The object is a superb final image. How you get there is subordinate to the image.

Certainly, filling the frame is a necessary learning technique, but thereafter anything that makes the image better should be in bounds.

Certainly true. But is the investment in high-resolution (either digital or larger format film) worth those few shots? And if there are more than a few shots that need to be cropped tighter, maybe the investment might be better in a longer or zoom lens. There is a price to pay, longer lenses on larger format (whether film or digital) tend to be big, heavy and expensive and often require the use of a tripod. Maybe pass up on those shots that will require such extreme cropping and call it a day.

 

[chuckroast]

Certainly true. But is the investment in high-resolution (either digital or larger format film) worth those few shots? And if there are more than a few shots that need to be cropped tighter, maybe the investment might be better in a longer or zoom lens. There is a price to pay, longer lenses on larger format (whether film or digital) tend to be big, heavy and expensive and often require the use of a tripod. Maybe pass up on those shots that will require such extreme cropping and call it a day.

I don't do this because I have to or because it is a profession. It is a passion and I want to execute it to the limit of my ability every time (which is not the same thing as saying I am doing it well . Discarding a potentially great picture because I don't want to crop the image seems, well, kind of silly to me.

Here is an image I took on an old Yashica MAT-124G. The flower occupied perhaps the central 25% of the negative. I much preferred this compositionally to the full frame. In my view, the ability to crop turned a boring picture into something more interesting. You might not see it that way


[March 2021] The Optimist

Yashinon 80mm f/3.5, FP4+, semistand Pyrocat-HD, scan of silver print

 

[_T_]

But since you point out that you only get 100MP from your scans, you should be comparing it to a 100MP digital camera or back. And are you even printing anything that large that would need the resolution anyway?

At the print sizes I make, at the viewing distance intended, yes I can see a significant difference between the quality of a 100MP scan from a sheet of 4x5 and the 35MP of a 6x7 or the 42MP of my mirrorless.

That’s not the driving factor for me, however. For me the optical benefits of a larger sensor are far and away the greatest benefit provided by large format. There are physical limitations to smaller sensors that are difficult or even impossible for lens designers to circumvent with current technology.