Large format photography

Dave Miller · Jul 18, 2008

Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?

jmcd · Jul 18, 2008

I can make an 8x10 contact print that looks noticeably better, right up close and from across the room, than any enlargement I can make. To get an enlargement to look anywhere near as good requires much more technique, effort, and time. I love shooting and printing the smaller formats, but the print quality suffers in comparison to a contact.

Ian Grant · Jul 18, 2008

Does that mean you're going to be selling your 5x4 then Dave ?

Ian

JOSarff · Jul 18, 2008

It didn't seem to slow Edward Weston down.

Seriously, I use LF for the larger, non-digital negatives for Pt/Pd, carbon and other processes. The craft and knowledge LF requires plus the patience are both rewarding.

Rob_5419 · Jul 18, 2008

Dave Miller said:
Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?

Absolutely....however the problem with this kind of sentence construction belies an attitude which smells of penis envy.

Having worked with 10x8" for 30 years before retiring, I find the tonality of the large negatives pleasing. Portability and spontaneity are factors which leads people to buy digital cameras, a kind of practice associated with digital mast..er....well you get the comment

Valerie · Jul 18, 2008

I just started using a large format camera after many years of 35 mm and MF. I adore the long process of setting up my big camera for a shot. Like extra-long foreplay instead of a quickie! Both can be satisfying in the end. Its not about the superiority of one or another... its the entire act of creating.

David Brown · Jul 18, 2008

Dave Miller said:
... it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy.

OMG! I thought I was the only one that felt this way ...

By the way, have you seen my 500mm tele for medium format? The hood alone is 6 inches!!

Ole · Jul 18, 2008

Dave Miller said:
... much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity ...

8x10" and ULF are used precisely for that reason: It eliminates portability and spontaneity, and thus enhances stationarity and contemplativity. and eccentric spelling too, but I can't be bothered with that right now.

gr82bart · Jul 18, 2008

I've been shooting a lot with my Pentax 110 recently, does the inverse hold true? Though it's been shooting blanks, which is a whole other euphenism ....

Regards, Art.

RobC · Jul 18, 2008

Assuming you can get critical sharpness in the neg, then 8x10 allows much bigger enlargements and also contact prints for the ultimate in definition in 8x10 prints. But how big do you want to print? Do you want to print everything at 8x10? Have you got room in your darkroom for an 8x10 enlarger?
If 4x5 doesn't give you the quality you require, does medium format? Do you need camera movements for the type of work you do? Medium format uses shorter focal lengths so gives better DOF for the same subject.
I have heard it said by many that composing on an 8x10 GG is a far better experience than composing on a 4x5 GG. 8x10 makes everything more critical to get right as you are playing with very limited depth of field.
You would need developing tanks for 8x10, bigger lenses, expensive film holders, bigger rucksack, bigger tripod, bigger muscles. What is the benefit?
Many have said the 6x7 will produce very high quality 30x20 prints. For most that is more than big enough. Most will never print on bigger than 20x16 paper which means never more than 4 times enlargement from a 4x5 neg. If that isn't giving you superb quality, then something is wrong.
However, if you are scanning to print digitally, then an 8x10 neg allows the use of consumer grade scanners to give high quality results at quite big print sizes. With 4x5 you won't get past a 20x16 print before quality starts dropping off because the scanner isn't good enough. But you could always use medium format and get drum scans done.
Justifying 8x10 would be a very hard thing for me to do. Very high quality is obtainable with medium format. But if you need to use swings, tilts and shifts in your work, then a technical camera is a must.

Akki14 · Jul 18, 2008

As Valerie mentioned, MF & 35mm are quickies, LF is a long slow... rack and pinion focusing, knob twiddling. I wanted a 4x5 camera so I could do proper sized alt process prints as opposed to my box brownie 6x9 negatives. I like close up shots and the 4x5 camera is quite good at that without needing extra lenses.
I have patience for craft, less so for process, whatever gets me there in the end.

And honestly I like developing sheets singly as I could never really finish off a roll of 35mm. I have a few rolls of 120 hanging around in some cameras too, one of which has been in there for definitely over 6 months. It's almost more immediate, in that context, that I can shoot something, pop it in my paterson tank (yeah I know I'm weird), pour in some rodinal-y water, shake shake shake, 15minutes later I can see how the exposure was and in the context of my self portraits, if I got the focus right or the composition right.

clay · Jul 18, 2008

It's repressed only if you don't buy an 8x10. Once you buy one, all that repression is released.

Dave Miller said:
Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?

epatsellis · Jul 18, 2008

clay said:
It's repressed only if you don't buy an 8x10. Once you buy one, all that repression is released.

and you get even more liberated the larger you get...

c6h6o3 · Jul 18, 2008

The only photographer whose enlargements are so close in quality to his contact prints that I have trouble telling the difference is Brett Weston. However, I cantell the difference if I look really closely, so if you want truly best possible print quality out of a negative, don't enlarge it. But you're only gaining 2% or so of quality. Is it worth it? Maybe.

Rob Skeoch · Jul 18, 2008

.... it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy.....

... not only do we use big equipment.... it gets a lot of use, which might be more important.

-Rob

Alex Hawley · Jul 18, 2008

Caressing the voluptuous 8x10 (err, 10x8) is far more gratifying than the teeny 35. Sliding the film holders in and out is like an act of love with each shot.

papagene · Jul 18, 2008

I get great enjoyment outta racking my bellows in and out!! - :rolleyes:

gene

df cardwell · Jul 18, 2008

Actually, using an 8x10 brings liberating physicality to the act of making a photograph.

Of course, that's true if you use a big camera to make pictures of people.
If you just shoot rocks and trees, you have other problems.

smieglitz · Jul 18, 2008

Dave Miller said:
...it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy...

Depends if you are one of the straight photography crowd or not.

Pinholemaster · Jul 18, 2008

LOL

Oh Dave, Dave, Dave, please stop showing your ignorance and spend some time learning.

Allen Friday · Jul 18, 2008

Actually, it's the 35mm photographers who are most concerned with "enlargement."

WarEaglemtn · Jul 18, 2008

Are you speaking from experience Dave?

MurrayMinchin · Jul 19, 2008

Dave Miller said:
Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?

Did I miss a memo? Is there some sort of contest to see who can come up with the most contentious thread without that thread ending in the soap box?

Murray

RobC · Jul 19, 2008

Dave Miller said:
"it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy"

That's the sort of comment you might expect the other half to come out with when you suggest it would be a good idea if you bought one.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 19, 2008

Nah, everybody knows that the relationship between camera size and sexual capacity is overrated. I'm confused though. If I use my 4x5 - does that make me less 'impressive' than when using a Holga? How about a Minox? I've got one of those. Hmmm...
I think I feel inadequate today - I think I'll bring out the Minox just in case hotties are near. They'll go 'Wow, look at that impressive man, he looks like he could really be packing, being all happy with that ridiculous little camera'...

Large format photography

Dave Miller

jmcd

Ian Grant

JOSarff

Rob_5419

Valerie

David Brown

Ole

Moderator

gr82bart

RobC

Akki14

clay

epatsellis

c6h6o3

Rob Skeoch

Advertiser

Alex Hawley

papagene

Membership Council

df cardwell

smieglitz

Pinholemaster

Allen Friday

WarEaglemtn

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

RobC

Thomas Bertilsson

Large format photography

Moderator

Advertiser

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency