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.

chuckroast said:

Went through three phases ….
Still To Come: I can't even carry the equipment...

Click to expand...

From wandering under the redwoods to hanging the framed print — all one process. It can get a bit disjointed and the timeline jumpy, but such is life.

When I can’t move the equipment that will be the time to go thru my boxes of negatives and keep printing…round out and complete some portfolios for the boys. Perhaps find old negatives, forgotten and abandoned, that I now have the experience to work with.

Pieter12 said:

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

Click to expand...

Absolutely no argument there! My point was just that the tools (the whole process actually) influence the photographer’s vision…they help to shape the vision as well as be the tools to give life to the vision.

Sorry for the multiple edits…

Vaughn said:

Absolutely no argument there! My point was just that the tools (the whole process actually) influence the photographer’s vision…they help to shape the vision as well as be the tools to give life to the vision.

Sorry for the multiple edits…

Click to expand...

I agree - however my own observation is that those influences can be negative, not just positive. I think the former is actually the case for many (regardless of whether or not they realize or admit it).

Milpool said:

I agree - however my own observation is that those influences can be negative, not just positive….

Click to expand...

I will go for overwhelmingly positive since I am referring to the experience and learning gauned through the feedback back-and-forth between one’s equipment and process, and one’s vision.

I think the word "different" is fine. A different camera will possibly encourage you to do something differently. Whether that's good or bad depends more on you (and how you do and judge things) than the camera.

Vaughn said:

From wandering under the redwoods to hanging the framed print — all one process. It can get a bit disjointed and the timeline jumpy, but such is life.

When I can’t move the equipment that will be the time to go thru my boxes of negatives and keep printing…round out and complete some portfolios for the boys. Perhaps find old negatives, forgotten and abandoned, that I now have the experience to work with.

Click to expand...

What I mean is in my estimation most people will do better photography (and even prints) with smaller formats, so while the experience of using the larger camera is an experience, I guess, I think it is more of a photographic hindrance for many. I realize that opinion runs counter to the usual thing everyone says about the bigger the camera the more contemplative etc. etc. but I think it is largely a fallacy that the slower, more deliberate bla bla (whatever other attributes people throw around) leads to better photography.

Milpool said:

What I mean is in my estimation most people will do better photography (and even prints) with smaller formats, so while the experience of using the larger camera is an experience, I guess, I think it is more of a photographic hindrance for many. I realize that opinion runs counter to the usual thing everyone says about the bigger the camera the more contemplative etc. etc. but I think it is largely a fallacy that the slower, more deliberate bla bla (whatever other attributes people throw around) leads to better photography.

Click to expand...

I think it all depends on your frame of reference.
If it's about the number of 'keepers' or 'negatives worth printing', then the larger the format the higher the rate for me.

However, if it's about shots per square inch of film, well that's another matter...

Milpool said:

What I mean is in my estimation most people will do better photography (and even prints) with smaller formats, so while the experience of using the larger camera is an experience, I guess, I think it is more of a photographic hindrance for many. I realize that opinion runs counter to the usual thing everyone says about the bigger the camera the more contemplative etc. etc. but I think it is largely a fallacy that the slower, more deliberate bla bla (whatever other attributes people throw around) leads to better photography.

Click to expand...

Mil, Why do you assume prints will be better w smaller formats?
"(and even prints)"

Put it this way, as an analogy : a careful sniper is more apt to hit the target than someone with a scattergun approach. There are exceptions of course; it's difficult to hunt flying ducks with rifles. I've taken many long strenuous treks with 4x5 gear and sometimes come back with only two to four exposures, but these were exceptional and quite worthy of printing. But my companions, whether equipped with small film cameras or digital equivalents, came back with hundreds of shots; and while some of those were interesting and pretty in a screen viewing sense as travel documents, but not one was really print-worthy in my estimation. And these were talented guys.

A former backpacking pal of mine lived right next door to an exceptionally well-known travel and expedition 35mm photographer of that era, whom I won't name. But my friend watched him working at the light box and tossing hundreds of slides into the trash can after every trip, just to salvage a handful of images for publication - and even those would have ended up in my trashcan if I had taken them. This fellow also gave workshops, where his mantra was,
"Shoot as much film as possible" - in other words, bet on luck. No wonder Fuji sponsored him. When luck didn't turn out so well, those remaining slides became fodder for Photoshop
abuse - blatant re-colorization etc, trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Milpool said:

What I mean is in my estimation most people will do better photography (and even prints) with smaller formats, so while the experience of using the larger camera is an experience, I guess, I think it is more of a photographic hindrance for many. I realize that opinion runs counter to the usual thing everyone says about the bigger the camera the more contemplative etc. etc. but I think it is largely a fallacy that the slower, more deliberate bla bla (whatever other attributes people throw around) leads to better photography.

Click to expand...

So the logical extension of this theory is that digital cameras will "do better photography" due to their ability to shoot much more than even small format film photography. Do I have that right?

djdister said:

So the logical extension of this theory is that digital cameras will "do better photography" due to their ability to shoot much more than even small format film photography. Do I have that right?

Click to expand...

That doesn't follow. He said most people will find the ease and swiftness of the use of a smaller-format (perhaps autofocus and autoexposure) camera will result in more better photographs than using an all-manual large format camera that likely needs a tripod and a darkcloth. And - it's true. Most people won't get very good photos from a large format camera. Even fewer people will get very meaningful photos from one. The majority of the most significant photos taken over the last 100 years are from small or medium format.

If you consider a camera a tool, the more transparent the use, the more effective the realization of your idea. Yes, higher quality from a larger format - but only if used properly and effectively. Higher quality vapid photography isn't of much value. The added bother and expense makes it worth less than lower quality vapid photography.

An artist will use the tool that is appropriate for their intentions if it is available. Just as one would not make a fine sculpture with a jackhammer. Large format takes some getting used to, the image in the ground glass is dim, reversed and upside down. A 35mm point and shoot camera may not allow for fine tuning a composition due to the small and possibly inaccurate viewfinder. Both have their place and advantages, both can affect the process. It is up to the photographer to choose the one to use for the intended image that fits their vision.

That's not what I mean. I mean based on all the photographs and prints I've looked at (and including work by people using multiple formats - usually MF and LF are the case), it just doesn't seem to me the stuff about LF slowing you down, making you more critical with composition etc. really holds any water. There are a few people who have been really great at say 8x10 photography, but they were just as good at smaller formats, whereas more often it appears to me there are people who are better at smaller formats than they are at larger formats. I think part (not all) of that has to do with the "act" / effort itself of making a LF exposure becoming comingled with the seeing as part of the overall sense of accomplishment, and that this can often get in the way of making the best photographs one can. The idea the slowness of the process makes for more discernment seems reasonable enough but in practice I don't think it works that way for most people. I include myself in this broad group, and once I admitted it (during a period of doing mostly LF after having transitioned to it) I think my photography (and my LF photography - although I use it less) improved.

Like I said, I don't expect it to be a popular opinion. Also in case it is worth repeating this is obviously a generalization (as most things are), not a rule.

djdister said:

So the logical extension of this theory is that digital cameras will "do better photography" due to their ability to shoot much more than even small format film photography. Do I have that right?

Click to expand...

I agree, Millpool. Just like a small auto focus camera is no more spontaneous in its use than an 8x10 in the field.

The personality of the user will have a greater effect on camera choice and use.

After shooting 4x5 exclusively for over a decade, all my smaller format shots got way better too. My only regret is that I didn't get into 8X10 instead right from the start. But I didn't have the budget or space for an 8X10 enlarger yet.

In my photography my oeuvre is visible and the same in any of the formats I work in, being 35mm (a format I used and refined skills and visualisation with over many decades) and medium format (6x6 pinhole and 6x7). Introducing a larger format e.g. LF (which I do have but rarely use now) did not and will not change anything from my long-established approach and methodology; if anything, unpacking the thing, sorting film holders, setting up etc — that is what slows things down, and all that fussing and fiddling is definitely not something I want in my well-known line of work of photographing in drenched and dripping rainforests!

Too many of the works I have seen coming from large format — 4x5 (especially), 8x10, 11x14 (and bigger, too) etc., have been very lacklustre, dull, bland and unserviceable — generally deficient in insight and execution of reading and interpreting a scene with the camera, not through it. Hobbyist stuff rather than serious work that commands intellect and justification of the format. It does strike me as being peculiar to spend comparatively huge amounts of money on such a format, only to print to postcard size! I can think of some of Tim Rudman's prints (among legions of others) being in this category. We're not in the 19th century. Granted, a few practitioners certainly do print larger, but this repeating motif of tiny prints coming from large format cameras doesn't sit well with me. If I presented a postcard-sized print to a client, I would expect blowback.

Milpool said:

What I mean is in my estimation most people will do better photography (and even prints) with smaller formats,

Click to expand...

There's much that could be read into that.
I had been printing from 35mm (Ilfochrome Classic, then RA4 and latterly giclée for decades before my jump to MF and printing from there too. That came with the revelation, of sorts, of printing much bigger still, and another revelation that it is 3x more expensive to fully frame larger prints than those I routinely made on 35mm! I would not say my prints from 35mm are especially better than those from 6x6 or 6x7, or for that matter, the other way around. Each format has its particular 'presence' to the viewer, and what is critically more important is the knowledge, interpretation and execution of the subject, not the format. I have not once been asked, from memory, of the type of format my photographs are made from. If they see one of the cameras, an educated person will know, or it will be explained to them. Yes, a Pentax 67 has been mistaken as a "35mm camera on steroids!".

Taylor K Nankervis said:

Granted, a few practitioners certainly do print larger, but this repeating motif of tiny prints coming from large format cameras doesn't sit well with me. If I presented a postcard-sized print to a client, I would expect blowback.

Click to expand...

Platinum prints are all contacted printed, so if you have a knowledgeable client, I wouldn't expect blowback based on print size.

I'm just too dominated by fun to get too doctrinaire about such choices (or perhaps I can be doctrinaire about all of them respectively). Today I was in a mood for the Nikon with Ektar color neg film in it - went out during a break in the rain, wonderful light with lots of early Spring color. Had a blast, lots of good shots. Will go back Wed, which allegedly will have a similar weather forecast, but take the 8x10 instead, and reshoot a couple of the best locations, one shot each. Whatever format I actually have along is always the best one!

On occasion I take a break from the clinical, deadly accurate approach to photography and play around with things that don't particularly work well with my less-than- perfect eyesight! So I have a roll of Ilfochrome Classic transparency film for my XA. I suspect it might be Ektachrome 100 – we'll see when it is processed.