Invest in 4x5 equipment?

Vaughn said:

While what you say is true, it is also true, in my opinion, that one’s tools has a great effect on one’s work. Basically, the tools shape us as much as we shape with the tools.

For me, one of the important parts of visualization is being able to see as the camera sees. And every camera sees differently.

Click to expand...

I would counter that with it is the photographer's vision that has the most effect on the work. I have seen LF photos that rival 35mm cameras candid images as well as 35mm image as studied and attentive as view camera work. One's attitude directs how one uses the camera.

Vaughn said:

While what you say is true, it is also true, in my opinion, that one’s tools has a great effect on one’s work. Basically, the tools shape us as much as we shape with the tools.

For me, one of the important parts of visualization is being able to see as the camera sees. And every camera sees differently.

Click to expand...

Went through three phases of this:

Rookie: The equipment makes ALL the difference. Better equipment inherently produces better results.

Experienced: The equipment makes NO difference. I am an arteeste, by golly, and will produce excellence no matter what I use.

Seasoned: The equipment is PART of the process. My experience influences me selection of the appropriate tool and the tool influences how I work.


Still To Come: I can't even carry the equipment...

Pieter12 said:

I would counter that with it is the photographer's vision that has the most effect on the work.

Click to expand...

To a point. 35mm can be well suited to fast moving action in a way that LF isn't. I can think of shot where I saw something, pressed the shutter with a 35mm AF camera on full auto and then the opportunity was gone. I could not have got the shot on LF.

I had a thread going on the lfpf forum that was maybe an adjacent line of thought to what the OP was asking. After shifting some gear around, here is where I ended up.

For me, the simple act of being outside and photographing is enjoyable so to an extent the format I head out with doesn't matter. I almost always have fiber-based prints in mind as my intended output, so that does influence things.
Sometimes I want to carefully consider each negative, and sometimes I want the seemingly increased freedom that is afforded by roll film.
(one can agonize over each frame on a roll to be sure)
As to further investment within systems, There might be 1 or 2 large format specific lenses I will keep my eyes open for, but other than that, I am in the care and maintain phase; if I break something it will likely be fixed or replaced.
35mm is capped unless a freind/colleague says "hey, take this camera that's been sitting around."

Medium format is also likely capped unless my Mamiya 6mf breaks and cannot be fixed a 4th time.

Bear in mind that I am a hobbyist and derive zero income from photography. This decision tree for a working pro could look quite different.

Having just shot a session with empty film holders... it's the slower, deliberate process and performance art of using a view camera.

People respond differently to different cameras and techniques. Having a portrait done with large format implies that the photographer is taking extra time and expense on their account and that often shows in the results.

Franklee said:

Having just shot a session with empty film holders... it's the slower, deliberate process and performance art of using a view camera.

People respond differently to different cameras and techniques. Having a portrait done with large format implies that the photographer is taking extra time and expense on their account and that often shows in the results.

Click to expand...

Unless they are told or seek out a certain photographer, generally people have no clue as what equipment the photographer is using. If anything, they might think that the photographer does not have the money to purchase modern gear and why they can't see the photo right away.