Invest in 4x5 equipment?

cliveh said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Paul Howell said:

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.

Click to expand...

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"

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.

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.

cliveh said:

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"

Click to expand...

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.

RalphLambrecht said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Petrochemist said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

4x5 back on 'yer 8x10

Contact prints on Azo

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. .

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.

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