Large format photography

rob champagne said:

But I seriously question the need for 8x10 for the work that most people do.

Click to expand...

True. I do 4x5 because it's the largest format that you can enlarge with reasonable equipment and also because a well put together 4x5 setup rivals similar MF or even DSLR setups in terms of weight - you can't get a 90 or 150mm lens that weighs between 150-200gms for those.

8x10, on the other hand is the sweet spot for contact printers - the ideal compromise between contact print size and portability.

Thank you all for you considered input; I now have a much better idea on how to respond when toting my 10x8 around town.

Excellent post Dave....

Before this goes on any longer, especially for those that have taken it a bit seriously...Have you considered that Dave was pulling your leg?

photomc said:

Excellent post Dave....

Before this goes on any longer, especially for those that have taken it a bit seriously...Have you considered that Dave was pulling your leg?

Click to expand...

Well spotted Mike How are you these days?

photomc said:

Excellent post Dave....

Before this goes on any longer, especially for those that have taken it a bit seriously...Have you considered that Dave was pulling your leg?

Click to expand...

Nah, he's got GAS and is looking for some reassurance on an impending purchase.

Its not an american obsession with things big. Its not a genitelia-envy thing. Its not about looking retro. Its not about being a slow, old geezer revolting against the quick, short attention spans of young punks. Its not a big camera ego thing. What is it then? I mean it can't be about big negatives and moving bellows...
On the other side of the scale, any man standing in the middle of the street and pausing to take photographs with this, is very, very secure, or very, very gay:
Dead Link Removed

Ian Grant said:

Almost same vein of dismissive comments: "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?"

Ian

Click to expand...

Huuummm!! Wonder if that has anything to do with why I recently bought a 20X24" camera?

Better check with Zebra to see how he is doing.

Sandy King

Anupam Basu said:

True. I do 4x5 because it's the largest format that you can enlarge with reasonable equipment and also because a well put together 4x5 setup rivals similar MF or even DSLR setups in terms of weight - you can't get a 90 or 150mm lens that weighs between 150-200gms for those.

8x10, on the other hand is the sweet spot for contact printers - the ideal compromise between contact print size and portability.

Click to expand...

Interesting - those are exactly the reasons why I prefer 5x7" and 24x30cm!

Les McLean said:

Well spotted Mike How are you these days?

Click to expand...

Very well Les, laughing through this one for sure. Hope this find you well, from what I can tell you have been on the road quite a bit lately. Good to hear from you, Sir.

Before this goes on any longer, especially for those that have taken it a bit seriously...Have you considered that Dave was pulling your leg?

Click to expand...

...but are you sure?...

photomc said:

Excellent post Dave....

Before this goes on any longer, especially for those that have taken it a bit seriously...Have you considered that Dave was pulling your leg?

Click to expand...

was I?

Shall we now address the question of image quality?

Dave Miller said:

Thank you all for you considered input; I now have a much better idea on how to respond when toting my 10x8 around town.

Click to expand...

8x10!!!

I told you about that slippery slope Dave



ps Great post

My statement regarding image quality in the opening thread seems not to have met with universal acceptance, even though true!

Consider the following.
Imagine my 10x8 is set up with lens fitted, focused and the required exposure set. It’s film holder is loaded it with Ilford FP4 and the shutter tripped. Next I transfer the lens to my 5x4 mounted in the same position, focus on the same spot, and make an identical exposure, again on FP4. Now consider my 35mm panoramic film back fitted to the 5x4 without changing any of the camera or lens settings. It’s loaded of course with FP4, and an exposure made. Following processing of the film, what difference in quality may I expect to see when examining the negatives?

None!

I will see a change in image quantity, but not in quality.

I suggest, for the purpose of promoting further discussion, that any change in image quality between the formats only becomes apparent at the printing stage, and is solely a factor of enlargement.

BarryWilkinson said:

8x10!!!

I told you about that slippery slope Dave

Click to expand...

You were, as ever, quite right Barry. 110 is the way to go.

Dave Miller said:

was I?

Shall we now address the question of image quality?

Click to expand...

Hmmm...I always figured that the photographer was responcible for image quality...and that the camera/lens/film combination (along with the exposure and development) were the determinators of the quality of the negative.

If I make a shitty image -- that's my fault, not the equipment/format.

Vaughn

Dave Miller said:

I suggest, for the purpose of promoting further discussion, that any change in image quality between the formats only becomes apparent at the printing stage, and is solely a factor of enlargement.

Click to expand...

But it's three different images.

8x10 contact
4x5 contact. Centre part of the first and smaller.
35mm pano. Even more selected image.

It's sort of like arguing if you change from B&W to colour film you end up with the same photograph.

"Consider the following.
Imagine my 10x8 is set up with lens fitted, focused and the required exposure set. It’s film holder is loaded it with Ilford FP4 and the shutter tripped. Next I transfer the lens to my 5x4 mounted in the same position, focus on the same spot, and make an identical exposure, again on FP4. Now consider my 35mm panoramic film back fitted to the 5x4 without changing any of the camera or lens settings. It’s loaded of course with FP4, and an exposure made. Following processing of the film, what difference in quality may I expect to see when examining the negatives?

None!"

Absolute hogwash. You MUST be playing devil's advocate here, or I am just flabbergasted!

This is ignorant of field of view and composition, which are the real issues when photographing. You don't make a photograph to display image quality. You make one to display composition and/or content. Of course if you crop an 8x10 neg down to the point where you are only using a section of neg as large as a 4x5 neg, image quality will be the same as if you had popped a 4x5 reduction back onto the same camera setup that you had shot with 8x10. Any idiot can figure that one out on their own.

*This has almost ZERO real-world application, so is useless as far as comparisons are concerned.*

You're not going to be sitting there thinking, "Gee, I have my shot composed on 8x10. Maybe I should leave the camera set up exactly like it is, but use a 4x5 reduction back instead..." That's throwing away 3/4 of the shot you just set up and changing your shot entirely. That is like deciding whether to print something in 12 point font size and cut a square out of the middle of the page to read it, or printing it at 6 point size so it all fits on the same-sized square. Doing it the first way makes the page "impossible" to read as intended by the author.

The only possible application of your info is when your lens is simply too short for what you want, and you know you will need to crop way way down and waste 3/4 of your negative anyhow when you print. In that case, use the 4x5 reduction back rather than wasting a piece of 8x10 film. Similarly, if you know you will need to extensively crop your full frame digital shot to get the field of view you want on your print, use an APS-C camera instead for better image quality...but you won't ever ask yourself, when your full frame camera is sitting there on a tripod, shot beautifully composed, "I wonder if I should swap the camera out for my APS-C body instead...."

Instead, do this little test using the same horizontal field of view with each of the formats, then enlarge them. Put a 300 on your 8x10 and take the shot. Put a 150 on the camera, put on the 4x5 reduction back, compose just like the first shot, and take the shot. The 8x10 shot has to be enlarged 1/2 as much to make the same sized print. Your 35mm bit makes no sense, as you are using a view camera anyhow (wasn't that the original gripe...having to use a big camera?), and using the same width of film you are using on a piece of 4x5 film, so if enlarged the same amount horizontally, "image quality" will *obviously* be identical save for differences in processing, and other variables such as base thickness, different emulsion batches, etc.

Your way, you would shoot the shot on 8x10 with a 300mm. Then pop a 4x5 reduction back on and shoot it with a 300mm, changing nothing. I suppose that if you brought your 35mm camera with a 300mm lens, pointed it the same way you could take a shot with it as well.

With your way, you simply DO NOT get the same shot. It is a ridiculous and useless technical exercise that only illustrates that magnification is independent of format. Big whoopdeedo. You will never, ever have this consideration come up in real life shooting.

I don't use LF, but I think I get what Dave is saying. Of course you will have three different photographs, but the quality of each image will be the same: the sharpness, the contrast, the detail etc.

Dave Miller said:

My statement regarding image quality in the opening thread seems not to have met with universal acceptance, even though true!

Consider the following.
Imagine my 10x8 is set up with lens fitted, focused and the required exposure set. It’s film holder is loaded it with Ilford FP4 and the shutter tripped. Next I transfer the lens to my 5x4 mounted in the same position, focus on the same spot, and make an identical exposure, again on FP4. Now consider my 35mm panoramic film back fitted to the 5x4 without changing any of the camera or lens settings. It’s loaded of course with FP4, and an exposure made. Following processing of the film, what difference in quality may I expect to see when examining the negatives?

None!

I will see a change in image quantity, but not in quality.

I suggest, for the purpose of promoting further discussion, that any change in image quality between the formats only becomes apparent at the printing stage, and is solely a factor of enlargement.

Click to expand...

The 8x10 will of course have captured a much larger part of the subject scene than the 4x5 and far more again than the 35mm, but are you discussing format or lens quality? (none if the same lens is used and each negative is cut to the same size as the 35mm negative).
If you were to use a 35mm SLR with the manufacturers own 300mm telephoto to take the picture and an 8x10 LF with a LF 300mm lens and cropped the centre of the 8x10 or 4x5 negative to 24mmx36mm size and compared them, then I think you would see a difference in resolution and sharpness.
For large print sizes, an enlargement from a larger negative will always have a smoother transition of tones than from a smaller negative. If you don`t enlarge on papers sizes above 11x14 or 12x16, then an enlargement from a 6x7 negative will usually be very satisfactory. Large-Format is also about perspective control and not just image quality.

Dave Miller said:

You were, as ever, quite right Barry. 110 is the way to go.

Click to expand...

Hey Dave, wanna buy my Sinar Norma 8x10?

Andy K said:

I don't use LF, but I think I get what Dave is saying. Of course you will have three different photographs, but the quality of each image will be the same: the sharpness, the contrast, the detail etc.

Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the contrast is different. Certainly, if all three films are developed in the same developer with the same dilution, temperature and time the contrast will be different. I use 35mm, 6 x 6 and 5 x 4 and have tested FP4 as described above and did find differences in contrast, albeit, subtle.

Dave Miller said:

Consider the following.
Imagine my 10x8 is set up with lens fitted, focused and the required exposure set. It’s film holder is loaded it with Ilford FP4 and the shutter tripped. Next I transfer the lens to my 5x4 mounted in the same position, focus on the same spot, and make an identical exposure, again on FP4. Now consider my 35mm panoramic film back fitted to the 5x4 without changing any of the camera or lens settings. It’s loaded of course with FP4, and an exposure made. Following processing of the film, what difference in quality may I expect to see when examining the negatives?

None!

I will see a change in image quantity, but not in quality.

I suggest, for the purpose of promoting further discussion, that any change in image quality between the formats only becomes apparent at the printing stage, and is solely a factor of enlargement.

Click to expand...

Of course. I don't see your point at all apart from stating an obvious fact. Has anyone ever argued that the superior image quality produced by larger film size is NOT a factor of enlargement? Larger film needs to be enlarged less (or not at all for contacts) and so produces better, tonality detail etc.

In fact, many 35mm systems will give better images than LF systems in terms of pure LPM resolution, but that advantage is lost because they need to be enlarged so much more.

Oh! and the way you ignore the difference in FOV (quantity, in your words) is just dazzling in its wrong-headedness.

-A

Dave Miller said:

Consider the following.
Imagine my 10x8 is set up with lens fitted, focused and the required exposure set. It’s film holder is loaded it with Ilford FP4 and the shutter tripped. Next I transfer the lens to my 5x4 mounted in the same position, focus on the same spot, and make an identical exposure, again on FP4. Now consider my 35mm panoramic film back fitted to the 5x4 without changing any of the camera or lens settings. It’s loaded of course with FP4, and an exposure made. Following processing of the film, what difference in quality may I expect to see when examining the negatives?

None!

I will see a change in image quantity, but not in quality.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Your example is purely theoretical and takes no account of real world systems.
For 35mm photography you would actually use lenses specifiically designed for 35mm and lens would be perfectly perpendicular to film and film would be held in absolute correct plane and be under tension and flat. Same for medium format system.
Once you go to 4x5 the film slops about in the film holder and try as you might, the lens will not be perfectly perpendicualr to film plane becuase zero detents on large format cameras are not as accurate as fixed system like 35mm and medium format.
When a lens is slightly off axis then aberations are increased and combined with the fact that large format lenses are not built to the same high tolerances of the best 35mm and medium format lenses, then you can't expect the same potential resolution. However, film resolution is not the equal of lens resolution so the critical factor is film flatness and lens alignment and on large format that is not the equal of 35mm and medium format.
Thats why so many people opt for fuji or kodak readyload systems which use a pressure plate to always put film in same plane. But is film plane at same depth as ground glass?
On 8x10 film flatness is an even bigger potential problem as 8x10 has a bigger area and is even more floppy than 4x5. Tilt your film back forward and the film bulges.

If technique and system is operated to perfection then all well and good. But in reality in the field, that rarely happens.

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?

Click to expand...

I would imagine running around with 10X8 camera would be rather odd.

Me? I prefer my 8X10.

The whole thread reads like a Chapter in "The Edge of Darkness". Barry alludes to motor bikes, he was probably a mod as he had a scooter, Vespa then Lambretta, 2/3rds of the chapter later you realise he's switched to format sizes.

So Dave's Lambretta (FP4) performs the same on a B road (back road - 35mm), A road (main road - 120 camera) or Motorway (Freeway/Autobahn - LF camera) at the same speed with the same lens etc.

But reality is very different move over Dave and put a different driver behind the wheel and you'd get totally different performance.

Ian