• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Invest in 4x5 equipment?

Pieter12 said:
Proper composition and framing does that, too. And only requires the investment of time.
Click to expand...
and often either access to a suitable point or a different lens.
In smaller formats I've taken many thousands of photos where 'zoom with your feet' would have been physically impossible.
 

fair comment
 
Is the tonality difference between a scene photographed with say medium format and the same scene photographed with say 4x5 — then both printed/scanned to the same size/resolution — noticeable?
 
Last edited:
ediz7531 said:
Is the tonality difference between a scene photographed with say medium format and the same scene photographed with say 4x5 — then both printed on the same size paper — noticeable?
Click to expand...

The issue with that question, as with every other point trying to be made here, is the answer is "It depends on ____". No definitive objective answer. Even if there was, it still wouldn't mean one should necessarily be preferred over the other. Taste is too subjective - and assessment of "quality" is always subject to taste. (As in, "That's so sharp, it's amazing! or "That's so sharp, it's awful!" could be said about the same photo by two different people.)

And that's ignoring the fact that you'd normally need different focal lengths on each format to get the same scene photographed from then same location. I guess you could take the lens off the 4x5 and use it on the medium format - and move much farther away to take the photo.

Look at it this way: if you took a photo with 4x5 and then took a photo from the same location of the same scene using that lens on medium format, you'd get a 6x6cm square that would be identical to the same 6x6cm area in the 4x5inch negative. But you'd have all the extra area around that in the 4x5.
 
Around five years ago book publishers started accept mobile phone photography as an illustration in equal terms with other photo medium.
Thats my experience as photo editor.
I do not share their opinion.
My point is - mainstream iconographic consumerism do not give a sh...t in to technologocal nuances, leaving alone difference between MF and LF or digital vs analog.
That said investing in to LF is kind of least rational thing you can do.
Leaving alone rationale there is aesthetical side.
I'm in to it.
I see a difference between LF and other formats (4x5 is kind of starting point) and it gives to me a lot of joy of freedom in creativity.
So yeah, I'm investor!
 
ediz7531 said:
Is the tonality difference between a scene photographed with say medium format and the same scene photographed with say 4x5 — then both printed/scanned to the same size/resolution — noticeable?
Click to expand...

I never compared directly myself but I doubt it; yhat would make for a nice test one day!
 
My scans with an Epson V850 seem to give better results with 4x5 than 6x7. That's for viewing results on a computer or the web. I haven't tried printing.
 
Alan Edward Klein said:
My scans with an Epson V850 seem to give better results with 4x5 than 6x7. That's for viewing results on a computer or the web. I haven't tried printing.
Click to expand...

I have found it difficult to scan negatives (or at least a lot more fiddly) to get the results to look like a final print. I find that printing first and then scanning the print for web sharing to have far more fidelity to the image and way easier to do.
 
I'm in Ralph's camp, stayed in medium format basically because of the practicality and lifestyle. I want to be mobile and even mostly handhold my medium format (I know!).
If I were to move up to LF, I would love to do 8x10".

Sharktooth said:
medium format have now been completely replaced by digital imaging
Click to expand...
For me "finally" around 2022-23 ditched 35mm but the larger medium formats still keep that particular look so I am happy with my GW690. Aside of resolution and pure image quality aspects, there are the classic film characteristics which might be preferred. I'd say more than pure resolution, larger formats have that drawing due to the FoV and longer focal lengths.
As of phones, am more than happy that they are good and better for snapshot photography. Still have very good quality and nowadays with large-ish sensors too. Interestingly, sometimes the fixed large aperture of its lens and on some near subject there is a larger than expected format look (bokeh).
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...
An economic reason is the price per frame. Locally there are a few LF photographers, but running T-grain type films in smaller formats does punch very nicely up, whereas I see most of them sticking with Fomapan due its affordability. Then color, is a whole pricy (but beautiful) ordeal.
You win the comment section. I share the feeling about not having the patience of a hindu cow!

I have however helped out studio setup 4x5 and somehow been rather proficient at using it despite never owning one.
 
Prest_400 said:
I'm in Ralph's camp, stayed in medium format basically because of the practicality and lifestyle. I want to be mobile and even mostly handhold my medium format (I know!).
Click to expand...
In terms of mobility, my Mamiya 6 (50s version) and Yashica TLR are light and easy to carry, do not take up a lot of room in my bags. My Graphic Crown with a couple of lens, 5 or 6 4X5 holders is much lighter and more compact than either my Kowa Super 6 or Mamiya Universal. As a Press Camera the Crown can be shot hand held, or used with monpod. On the other hand my New View twin rail view camera while light is bluky as it cannot fold up. I guess the compermise is a 2 1/4 by 3 1/4 press camera. I have a baby speed and a Bushman which have sheet film backs, the Speed with a Super Topcon lens has good coverage for movemants. Both are light, fold up, the Speed no longer has the rangefinder, so I need to use a tripod, while the Bushaman can be hand held. I use both when hiking.
 
Some of the more sought after lenses for 4x5 have appreciated dramatically so some of them have been good investments. It might be too late now but if you bought them 10 to 20 years ago one would get a good return on investment today. Am thinking from experience the Rodenstock Apo Sironar S line and The Schneider 110XL Super Symmar F5.6. I'm sure there are many other sought after lenses that I'm not familiar with that have gone up quite a bit.
 
Alan Edward Klein said:
My scans with an Epson V850 seem to give better results with 4x5 than 6x7. That's for viewing results on a computer or the web. I haven't tried printing.
Click to expand...

If taken to the print-step, the results will not be very different in terms of 4x5 or 6x7, providing your technique and the lens in question has a pedigree e.g. the 67 system's 75mm f2.8AL lens allows printing much bigger than my usual 60x48cm size from 6x7. The only restraint being the cost of framing and the gritty problem of transporting to such big prints to exhibition! The larger you go when printing, the greatly more costly the finishing is; latterly I allow clients to select a cotton rag matt-board so they can organise their own framing.
 
ediz7531 said:
Is the tonality difference between a scene photographed with say medium format and the same scene photographed with say 4x5 — then both printed/scanned to the same size/resolution — noticeable?
Click to expand...

MF and LF do not use mutually exclusive scan settings; one setting does all, and LF does not require 1200dpi resolution; there are folks out there who scan at 3,000 to 6,000dpi resolution, keen to extract every last damn pixel from the scan, and wonder why their computer crashes and burns (to say nothing of the poor scanner!).

Tonality is so starkly different between the compressed format of the miniscule 35mm for example, and the 400% bigger 6x7, format where contrast and tone is spread out; same thing again with 4x5 — MF and LF are much easier to work with than 35mm, while that smaller format provides the challenges in skillful metering and scene analysis lest you poke the camera at a scene that is way beyond the dymannic range capability of e.g. transparency film. In all cases, metering technique will also have a major part to play in how well the finished image will be brought to life in terms of management of tone and contrast of the scene, whether the end-result is a slide, a scan or a print.
 

Why is the print the standard and not the web? Most photos we look at aren't prints.
 
Alan Edward Klein said:
Why is the print the standard and not the web? Most photos we look at aren't prints.
Click to expand...


The web is a ubiquitous technology but cannot be "the standard" until/unless everyone has fully calibrated monitors with large color gamuts. Both of these are unlikely to happen. That's why neither digital source material nor scans of analog images look consistently the same across various displays.

As an example, I have two displays on my system. One has an 8-bit LUT and the other is a wide gamut monitor with a 10 bit LUT connected to an Nvidia card via DisplayPort. Both are of approximately the same vintage. I have carefully calibrated the latter and used it to adjust the former. No matter what I do, I cannot get them to match the look of a given image. IOW there is a wide variation monitor-to-monitor rendering - and this from the same manufacturer, BTW.

The web was always designed to be a "good enough" technology for cheap mass distribution and it succeeded admirably. But when I want to see the richness of an image, whether produced digitally or analog, I want to look at a print. However, I do look at the web for cat pictures...
 
Last edited:

......the web (IMO) is the newsprint cyber version of viewing images......
 
GregY said:
......the web (IMO) is the newsprint cyber version of viewing images......
Click to expand...

Well ... it's somewhat better than that. A modern display can certainly render both text and images with higher fidelity than the Ye Old News, but it doesn't remotely approach the fidelity of a well made physical print, whether produced analog or digital.
 
" doesn't remotely approach the fidelity "......exactly what i meant....(isn't a little exaggeration a good thing....?)
 
GregY said:
Most photos you look at aren't prints.....
Click to expand...

Well, OK, let me be more precise. Most photos everyone looks at are first on their phones/tables and then computers.

But when we want to consume serious images fully, we (most of us) want to see prints.
 
chuckroast said:
But when we want to consume serious images fully, we (most of us) want to see prints.
Click to expand...

That's likely changing. Most people are becoming familiar with the "great" names of the photographic past by viewing images online. People are completely assessing the value of an image from whatever they happen to find on some random website. That is becoming more and more true. Second to that would be photobooks - and that's a very distant second place.
 

Yes, the technology and thus the culture is changing. The advent of phone cameras created the ability to create high volume dreck, for example. The unwashed masses don't know or care.

But we're talking about us here - serious photographers who pour a tonne of effort, time, and money into creating images. For we few, we happy few, I suspect we mostly would prefer a beautiful print to view than a greasy screen. I could be wrong ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register