is LF really complicated?

stradibarrius · Feb 10, 2011

is LF a lot more difficult than shooting MF? As much as I love photography I don't like or care for the extreme details like formulas and ratios.

David William White · Feb 10, 2011

What you see is what you get.

TheFlyingCamera · Feb 10, 2011

It's only as complicated as you want to make it. The one thing you REALLY have to know about is exposure compensation when focusing. The simple rule is that when focused at 1:1, you have to add two stops of exposure comp. At 1:2, you add only 1 stop. This is seldom an issue when shooting with smaller formats if you are doing landscape or even portraiture (a 4x5 portrait, even a tight headshot, is still not even 1:2 reproduction). It's pretty easy.

Barry S · Feb 10, 2011

Large format is simple--a piece of film, a lens, and an empty box. A couple simple rules are all the math you need.

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 10, 2011

Yes and no. It's easier because the camera is usually a lot simplier. The hard part for me is looking at an upside down image on the ground glass. The swings and tilts took a while for me to learn. Once you've mastered LF cameras, it's very rewarding. I learned a lot through using Polaroid type 55. It gave me instant feed back. It's going to be harder because Polaroid is no more

Wayne · Feb 10, 2011

Do the bellows extension math once for each lens, mark it on a ruler, tape measure or your camera bed, and you never have to do it again. Or just eyeball the extension and add 1/2 stop for every additional 20% of extension over the focal length. Bring a table or graph along for reciprocity corrections at various speeds and you will be math free, until you start adding filters. The only time I start to get confused is when I'm combining bellows extension with long reciprocity corrections, then my brain sometimes swells. But slowing down and being careful takes care of it.

removed account4 · Feb 10, 2011

hi barry

a lf camera is only more complicated because you
have more things to remember ...
for example : " did i close the shutter after i focused "

and it is cheaper than film, because you can
shoot paper negatives when you are learning the ropes
and process your exposure in 2 mins, instead of shooting rolls of film

have fun !
john

Paul Sorensen · Feb 10, 2011

Actually, the issue with bellows factor is not much different than using an extension tube or other macro device. If you not doing closeup type work, you will not have to deal with it much. It becomes a bigger issue on larger formats, where a head and shoulders portrait can be approaching 1:2 or even 1:1.

The other issues that might seem confusing have to do with movements. There are formulas or rules for determining the plane of focus but most of us don't to too much with that and can get what we need from eyeballing it.

The only thing I would say about large format is that it does take a lot more time. There are a bunch things to check that you don't have to do with MF or especially don't have to do with a modern whiz bang 35mm. Of course, many of use find that the benefits of slowing down and paying attention to everything outweigh the costs in time.

Sirius Glass · Feb 10, 2011

Since there are not interlocks, LF photography allow one to make mistakes in many unimaginable ways. Your inventiveness in finding new frontiers of screwing up will amaze you. Then you will establish a set pattern of doing LF photography and most mistakes will disappear.

Steve

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 10, 2011

I think for some applications 4x5 is excellent. It slows you down so it makes one see differently. I like cook so I see it like cooking from scratch with a stove verses microwaving a tv dinner. One is more an art and the other is just do what is necessary to get the job done to eat.

keithwms · Feb 10, 2011

stradibarrius said:
is LF a lot more difficult than shooting MF? As much as I love photography I don't like or care for the extreme details like formulas and ratios.

Don't sweat the formulas; we don't photograph formulas.

Just try LF and see if the simplicity of the gear appeals. That's definitely LF's main attraction to me: simplicity. Less gear and gizmos... just you, your film, some bellows and a lens. Photography in its purest form; you add the complexity, not the gear. Limited and limitless at the same time.

If you decide, in the future, to use the analytical approach to optimize this or that technical element in your images, then fine. But you certainly don't have to do that. Remember, Weston developed a deep intuition based on ~zero analytical training, and he used some of the simplest gear possible. Adams was far more analytical, but did he install BTZS formulas on his iphone?

Christopher Walrath · Feb 10, 2011

I don't know if it will help, but I have a dumbed down LF video in the APUG video archives. It's the B&J video. Might make it look simpler than you're thinking it is.

Christopher Walrath · Feb 10, 2011

Oh, and so does Jason Brunner.

totalamateur · Feb 10, 2011

I started shooting film 18 months ago on a kodak 8x10 view, but switched to a 4x5 because film was cheaper and easier to get. I've got a Mamiya TLR, and Holga (so I can be trendy), a DSLR, a couple of digital point and shoots (all that for only 18 months of GAS) The 8x10 is by far the simplest - to - use camera I have. 4x5 is a very close second, but has front swings where the 8x10 doesn't, so it's got one more knob.

There's no white balance, center weighted or evalauteive metering, wandering autofocus, batteries, power button, blah blah blah , blah blah. Hell, with film, the exposure doesn't even matter that much, so I don't even use a meter - sunny 16, shady 8 rule for me - If i'm a stop or two one way or the other Tri-X doesn't seem to care that much, so I don't worry - I spend more time looking at the scene and trying to visualize what i want on the film - which was the whole point to begin with.

The only caveat is that if the subject is moving quickly, in low light, and all you want is a record of events, not a "wall hanger", there may be a more "useful" system. Holgas with big effing flashes have their place.

Paul Sorensen · Feb 11, 2011

Christopher Walrath said:
Oh, and so does Jason Brunner.

Jason Brunner is simpler than we think he is?

Paul Sorensen · Feb 11, 2011

totalamateur said:
There's no white balance, center weighted or evalauteive metering, wandering autofocus, batteries, power button, blah blah blah , blah blah. Hell, with film, the exposure doesn't even matter that much, so I don't even use a meter - sunny 16, shady 8 rule for me - If i'm a stop or two one way or the other Tri-X doesn't seem to care that much, so I don't worry - I spend more time looking at the scene and trying to visualize what i want on the film - which was the whole point to begin with.

This is all a really good point. While trying to make things simple, modern technology can create complexity beyond what we are really capable of dealing with.

David Grenet · Feb 11, 2011

Christopher Walrath said:
Oh, and so does Jason Brunner.

Yeah, except now whenever I start to consider bellows factor I get this craving for bacon which can be quite distracting when out in the field...

vdonovan · Feb 11, 2011

This is a great post. Thanks for putting this up. You've inspired me to do some LF.

totalamateur said:
I started shooting film 18 months ago on a kodak 8x10 view, but switched to a 4x5 because film was cheaper and easier to get. I've got a Mamiya TLR, and Holga (so I can be trendy), a DSLR, a couple of digital point and shoots (all that for only 18 months of GAS) The 8x10 is by far the simplest - to - use camera I have. 4x5 is a very close second, but has front swings where the 8x10 doesn't, so it's got one more knob.

There's no white balance, center weighted or evalauteive metering, wandering autofocus, batteries, power button, blah blah blah , blah blah. Hell, with film, the exposure doesn't even matter that much, so I don't even use a meter - sunny 16, shady 8 rule for me - If i'm a stop or two one way or the other Tri-X doesn't seem to care that much, so I don't worry - I spend more time looking at the scene and trying to visualize what i want on the film - which was the whole point to begin with.

The only caveat is that if the subject is moving quickly, in low light, and all you want is a record of events, not a "wall hanger", there may be a more "useful" system. Holgas with big effing flashes have their place.

David Grenet · Feb 11, 2011

Oh, that's right there was a point to this thread originally too, wasn't there...

Not more complicated at all. Borrow a camera if you can and have a go, otherwise just jump in and do it. When I first started in LF I didn't worry too fuch about the finer details (including bellows factor) and if you're shooting landscapes or other things which tend to be focussed at infinity it doesn't come in to play anyway...

Movements can be learnt later too, and it sounds like you'd be best served just spending some quality time under a dark cloth and playing with tilt and swing until you get an intuitive understanding of how they work.

heespharm · Feb 11, 2011

Try it... But to warn you... Once you look in the front of a multicoated plasmat lens, you be mesmorized into buying more... Such pretty glass... My prrr... My prrr... MY PRECIOUS!!!

2F/2F · Feb 11, 2011

I wouldn't call it more complicated in the way of being much harder to understand...perhaps in the "more involved" meaning of the word. You need to be "on it" all the time or your shots don't come out at all. It is rather unforgiving of user error. The technical things that really matter (understanding light and metering, for example) are the same across all formats. You don't have to worry about the exposure compensation unless you are focusing on a close subject, and even then, the formula is simple (one act of subtraction, one act of division and one act of multiplication), and there are ways (including gizmos) that let you avoid plugging numbers while working.

Willie Jan · Feb 11, 2011

Life is complicated too.

If you see the quality once, you're lost...
A single lens can be used from landscape until macro by just extending the bellow. With MF you have a minimum distance. tilt,shift etc.. can be used to adjust your image. But it's heavier and slower than MF...

Steve Smith · Feb 11, 2011

Paul Sorensen said:
This is all a really good point. While trying to make things simple, modern technology can create complexity beyond what we are really capable of dealing with.

Edwin Land, inventor of Polaroid instant film, promoted "simplicity through complexity". i.e. using complex design and manufacture to make the user interface as simple as possible. This was true of his Polaroid cameras as they were easy to operate.

Modern designers of all electronic cameras might think that they are doing the same thing but they are not so much hiding the complexity, rather they make it all user adaptable by putting in multiple layers of menus.

Steve.

Ian Grant · Feb 11, 2011

Barry, there's nothing remotely complex using a LF camera, however it's well worth spending an hour or so with an experienced LF user, it's far easier to see and grasp things like movements with guidance & practice than reading books etc.

As others say you can mark the bellows extension/exposure factors on the camera and it's very straight forward.

Ian

jp80874 · Feb 11, 2011

A different approach. Goal orientation. Look at a good contact print, 8x10 or larger. If you can see and enjoy that quality, the work to get there is nothing compared to the reward.

On the other hand the formulas are nothing compared to having to carry a big camera and that stuff a mile or two in a babyjogger.

John Powers

is LF really complicated?

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency