LF 4x5 vs. MF 6x7 -- at what point?

[Jedidiah Smith]

Hello to the LF crowd.
I have a question regarding LF 4x5 vs. a MF 6x7. I am going to be moving up to a larger format at some point, and I'm debating how far to go. I have shot 6x4.5 and 6x7 MF before, and I have to admit the tonality blows my 35mm prints out the water. I have never shot LF before...is it really that hard?

At what point (i.e. size of enlargement) would you consider MF to be at the end of its rope, and LF taking over?
One of the books I have is Capturing the light by Peter Watson. He uses both a Tachihara 4x5 and a Mamiya RB67 throughout, and to be honest, in the book prints I can't tell the difference - they all look beautiful. Both setups are capturing more tones than the prints from my 35mm...although I have had good results with very careful shooting of slide film, it is time to move up.
I am thinking of getting a small 35mm range finder or pocket size digital to go along with the larger MF or LF camera that I buy. Since I have used MF cameras before, I am not considering any MF smaller than 6x7. Should I consider larger MF, such as 6x8 or 6x9, or just go straight to LF 4x5?

Any tips/advice will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jed

 

[rorye]

Hi Jedidiah,
I'm in San Rafael,
Feel free to PM me and come check out some LF stuff and see if it feels comfortable.
Best,
Rory

 

[jeroldharter]

Of course, many variables are at play especially film type and the eye of the beholder.

I have made nice 6x7 prints up to 20x24. However, I think I can tell the difference between 6x7 and 4x5 even with 8x10 prints. I am sure that some mathematician/ophthalmologist type could explain exactly why. As soon as you start enlarging the negative you start to see some difference. I assume you are printing 8x10 or larger. I always use my 4x5 for that when I can. Sometimes if I am taking more "action" kind or portraits of my daughter that will be no larger than 11x14 then I use the 6x7 or any photos where I don't use a tripod. But otherwise, the 4x5 is much better.

No, large format is not more difficult. In some ways it is easier: fewer lenses, fewer exposures, no automation, slower pace. But you do have to think more at times, learn basic camera movements, and be meticulous in your approach.

 

[Ian Grant]

I think you actually need to approach moving to LF in a different way.

Back in the 80's I made a decision to change how I worked, I began using the Zone System I was getting superp prints with my 645 camera but I needed more control and camera movements. I had been using LF or commercial work but never considered it for my personal work.

Using LF isn't difficult it's almost ritualistic, and more importantly it's fun. Most of my LF prints from 5x4 & also 10x8 are no larger than I used to make with my 645's (which I still use for commercial shoots). But I have made far larger prints for exhibitions.

For 20+ years I've shot LF, mainly 5x4, and used an M3 Leica almost as a diary, much as you are thinking.

LF photography is cerebral you need to think harder, but in reality it's far simpler, you just don't bother to shoot images that won't really work. So you shoot far less film but have a far higher success rate. Go for it.

Ian

 

[AlanC]

Jed,
There is no point in "moving up" as you put it, just for the sake of it. All formats have their own qualities. You say that your 6 x7 prints blow your 35mm prints out of the water. I could equally say that my 35mm prints have a gritty graininess that blows my 6 x 7 prints out of the water. My 5 x 4 prints have quite different qualities to my 6 x 7 and 6 x 6 prints - more sharpness, more information in general and a different tonality. If these are the qualities that you are seeking, and you can't see them in 6 x 7, then go for 5x4. I doubt you would see them in 6 x 9.

Alan Clark

 

[Nick Zentena]

I think you'll find many of us use many [too many -)] formats. The MF cameras bring some things that LF won't. Ease of use. Some have smarts [metering etc]

It's not one or the other. 6x9 RF like my Fuji is easier to handle/use then my RZ. But it's fixed lens so has different issues.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Thank you. Rorye, thanks for the offer - I will PM you later this weekend here (I am leaving in 10 min. to see my grandparents in Sacramento).

Alan - I see what you mean. I am looking for MORE detail the closer you get to the print, not LESS like with my 35mm prints. For example, I have just a few of what I would call "perfect" 35mm slides that I have printed at a prolab at 16x20, and they look gorgeous. Until you get closer than about 2 feet...I want to be able to print something at 16x20 that looks more detailed, sharper, more tones even at 1 foot away.

I hope that makes sense...I will certainly have a smaller format (i.e. 35mm) around for the everyday shooting. But I'm asking myself why such disciplined shots (tripod, cable release, mirror lock up,etc) on 35mm film, when with just a little more work, I could have the result on a 6x7 MF or 4x5 LF negative!
Thanks,
Jed

 

[Shmoo]

... but I needed more control and camera movements.
Ian

A bigger negative gives you more of what you already have, but I think Ian's comment is significant. The movements of an LF camera give you even more control of the camera and can have stunning results that cannot be had by a smaller format.

 

[AlanC]

Jed,
When I was thinking of building my first 5x4 camera I went to see John Blakemore. He was kind enough to show me some of his 5x4 prints. When I held them in my hands I could immediately see attractive qualities- more information, a mass of detailed texture - that I had never seen in medium format prints. I was bowled over. Take up Rory's kind offer. Go and look at his prints.

Alan Clark

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

An RB67 and a view camera are really different beasts that do well at different kinds of tasks. Absolute resolution based on film format really isn't the most important consideration for me in most cases, because I don't often make big enlargements, and in any case I can see the difference between formats usually in small prints.

I have a 6x6 SLR for studio portraits, moving subjects, and such that I want to enlarge. I have a 5x7" SLR that I like for negs in available light situations that I plan to contact print, because the camera doesn't have any convenient method of flash sync except for open flash, and I only have a 4x5" enlarger. I have view cameras of various sorts that shoot 6x7cm through 11x14" and 7x17". If I'm using a smaller view camera rather than a larger one, it's usually for reasons of convenience or how important I think the project is. If I'm shooting larger, it's probably because I want a negative big enough to contact print or because I want to use a historic lens that looks best with a contact printed neg.

 

[Ian Grant]

Alan, as I write this I can see one of John Blakemore's prints. I guess I first met John 20 years ago, and ironically 2 of his children live just down the road from me in the UK.

John Blakemore once told me I was a master of understatement, talking about my photography. His own work is similarly understated and under appreciated, if he was an American it would be very different. John's work is certainly as important as Minor White, Paul Caponegro, Kim Weston etc and he has been a pivotal influence on UK landscape photography since the early 70's.

Jed needs to search & find someone near him who can help him with his development

Ian

 

[timbo10ca]

I can't answer your question as to when 4x5 negatives outclass a 67 to the normal but discerning person, but physics dictates you'll always get a sharper image from a larger negative. Mind you a 67 neg from a smokin' lens would probably be better to enlarge than a neg from an old beater on a 4x5. Money may help you decide, but I don't know enough about MF systems to guess on what the lenses cost in comparison to LF. So many factors come into play when choosing a system, be it 35mm, MF or LF- how big do you see yourself enlarging, regardless of format. Would you consider a LF enlarger, or would you just contact print? How much time do you have to photograph? How much of a control freak are you? Do you have a zen-like approach to shooting, or an energizer bunny approach? As said, using a view camera is a different method of photography entirely. It forces you to slow down, and really "see". I find it very relaxing, and is my favorite form of photography. Additionally, it allows mega control regarding composition (movements) and development of the negative. However, there are occasions when I have a decent amount of time to shoot, but don't feel up to the "hassle" of LF and I still want reasonably sharp negatives. That's when I take out my MF. There are other times when I have high energy, jump from subject to subject and maybe don't mind a bit of grit to the photos if enlarged alot, or I don't have alot of time to be out shooting. This is when I use 35mm- it's easy, hassle free, and at least I'm *out shooting*. So I think there is a place for all 3 formats for most people. Personally, I went quickly from 35mm to LF with a short forray into MF. I picked up a YashicaMat124 on ebay and was so amazed with the quality of the enlargement I got from a very basic, quite old camera with only an "ok" lens, I realized I had to go bigger. I feel the Yashica is good enough for the times I'm in a MF mood, so I don't really consider getting a serious MF system. Trying to choose which LF to go with took a while- 4x5 (light, cheap, common), 5x7 (light, less cheap, less film, but nice contact print size and nice ratio for those used to 35mm), or 8x10 and larger with reducing backs (nice contact prints but expensive all round, and heavy/unweildy for a backpacker/cyclist like me). I went with the 5x7 because it's a good trade-off, with a 4x5 reducing back for film testing and chromes. If I ever got an enlarger, I'd just get a 5x7 one rather than a 4x5 one- no more room required in the darkroom, so why not? If you're like most others afflicted with the photography disease, even if you choose an MF system now, you'll probably work your way to LF. Whether you stay with it or not probably depends alot on your personality and expectations. So my long- winded advice boils down to checking out a LF system before deciding, or get an inexpensive MF for the times you'd use it and go with the view camera. Hope this helps.

Tim

 

[naturephoto1]

I can generally tell and see the difference in sharpness between my Mamiya 7 II Glass (wonderful lenses) and my Linhof Technikardan 45S or my Toho FC 45X (with my recent Rodenstock, Schneider, Fuji or Nikon Glass) certainly by 11" X 14" prints (including digital scans and prints off of the Chromira Printer). However, the cameras handle differently and I can count on faster and a more portable and packagable system with the Mamiya. The Toho FC 45X is in between in size packagability and portability. It is extremely light stripped at about 44 oz with Quick Release; the Mamiya 7 II with the Kirk L bracket weighs 40.4 oz. So weights are close. The Toho is not nearly as rigid though as my 7 1/2 lb Linhof Technikardan 45S. The 4 X 5 cameras do offer the flexibility of perspective control and the associated Depth of Field. The 4 X 5 cameras though are not as fast to operate and not nearly as convenient. But.... You get the idea.

Rich

 

[ic-racer]

I actively use formats from 8mm film, Minox, 16mm, 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x9cm, 4x5 and 8x10. If you want the sharpest, clearest image, the larger format the better. No question. No mater how much effort you put into a smaller format, if you duplicate that effort in the larger format you will be rewarded even more!!

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Depends on image type. I find that with landscapes where fine details are evident and the tonality is IMO more of an issue, 5x4 comes into its own by about 12x16 over 6x7. By 20x16 it is very obviously 'different'. For street images I dont feel the need and enjoy 35mm-MF enlarged by a far greater factor than I would like in a landscape, because crunch from the grain to me works fine whereas in landscapes I normally (not always) dont want visible grain, only creamy tones.

The Mamiya 7 lenses give 5x4 a run for its money in outright resolution terms on 16x12 and sometimes even 20x16 images, depending on whether movements allowed optimal apertures on LF etc. however, the tonality is always less smooth on 6x7 because of the physical neg size once past 3-5x enlargement.

Shooting landscapes in mono, if using 16x12/20x16 as your standard size 5x4 is IMO most definitely worth it. On 20x16 even a 5x7 will be noticeably smoother than 5x4 with some traditional film emulsions, such as FP4+. 20x16 off 10x8 is like butter at 20x24!!!

It is not hard, you just get into a routine. If you want o keep it simple and use mainly wides, look at a non folder such as the Ebony 45S or walker XL. fast, simple and great with wides.

 

[OldBikerPete]

All formats have their strengths and weaknesses. Most 6x7 cameras will shoot almost as fast as a 35mm so if you are into sports or fast-moving stuff this is probably better. OTOH, LF camera's movements are often able to greatly expand apparrent depth of focus when shooting landscapes or architecture and a x8 enlargement of a 5x4 is larger than that from a 6x7.
Both formats involve about the same bulk and weight to carry if you need to backpack.

So what subjects do you want to shoot?

 

[AlanC]

Ian,
I absolutely agree with what you say about John Blakemore. Perhaps you should start a thread on him!
Alan Clark

 

[walter23]

You can do great stuff with the 6x7 format, for sure, and in many cases get pretty close to what you'll get with 4x5 in terms of sharpness & tonality. The major difference is that something like an RB67 or pentax 67 doesn't have view camera movements for perspective control and composition (though there are a couple of MF view cameras, like the horseman VH-R).

Roll film is cheaper than large format sheet film and there are probably (though I'm not sure) more options in terms of emulsions.

Most 6x7 kits are similar in bulk and weight to a 4x5 field camera kit, so that's not a major consideration. 6x7s are usually quicker to set up though.

Scanning LF sheet film (should you ever go that route ever) is easier. I find processing sheet film and handling it in the darkroom a lot easier than roll film.

You can make small 4x5 alt-process prints with 4x5 sheet film.

In other words, image quality is one of the less important considerations.

Hello to the LF crowd.
I have a question regarding LF 4x5 vs. a MF 6x7. I am going to be moving up to a larger format at some point, and I'm debating how far to go. I have shot 6x4.5 and 6x7 MF before, and I have to admit the tonality blows my 35mm prints out the water. I have never shot LF before...is it really that hard?

At what point (i.e. size of enlargement) would you consider MF to be at the end of its rope, and LF taking over?
One of the books I have is Capturing the light by Peter Watson. He uses both a Tachihara 4x5 and a Mamiya RB67 throughout, and to be honest, in the book prints I can't tell the difference - they all look beautiful. Both setups are capturing more tones than the prints from my 35mm...although I have had good results with very careful shooting of slide film, it is time to move up.
I am thinking of getting a small 35mm range finder or pocket size digital to go along with the larger MF or LF camera that I buy. Since I have used MF cameras before, I am not considering any MF smaller than 6x7. Should I consider larger MF, such as 6x8 or 6x9, or just go straight to LF 4x5?

Any tips/advice will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jed

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Thank you. This has helped a lot. I will PM Rory back about the kind offer to come see some LF in a minute.
Just while I'm on the subject - I am definitly leaning toward cashing in the 35mm SLR system and coming out with a 35mm range finder and a LF camera. I think that would give me both worlds - street and landscape.
How much larger of a beast is something like an 8x10 to shoot over a 4x5? I see the weight and lens focal length is quite a jump!

I just moved to the Bay Area from Alaska, less than 1 month ago. I always shot landscapes (nature) on slide film in Alaska...but I am getting the itch to do some street shooting down here in San Fransico, etc with gritty B&W like Tri-X. I have always used the 35mm, even for landscapes, but with very precise, detailed technique. I got to thinking...why am I packing around this huge 35mm SLR kit? If I'm going to just grab a camera and shoot street, then I need something small and portable. If I'm going to pack some weight and do landscapes - why not a LF or something that will get some detail?
I guess that's where I'm at...can't wait to see some LF prints, handle the equipment and see for myself...
Thanks again for the discussion,
Dr. J.T.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

8x10" is significantly larger than 4x5", but there are ways to do it compactly to an extent. My 8x10" Gowland PocketView is about 6.5 lbs., which is about the weight of a 4x5" metal field camera, and I can get the whole kit down to under 20 lbs, if I want to go really light, but that means, among other things, not carrying as much film into the field as I would with 4x5". With normal filmholders, maybe 10 sheets max and more in the car, if I'm in a position to return to the car, while it's fairly easy to carry 20-30 sheets of 4x5" using Grafmatics or Kinematics. If you have a heavier camera, you need a bigger tripod and a sturdier head. That and filmholders add up.

On the other hand, you have this big negative to work with. I find it more intuitive to compose on the larger groundglass. There are a lot of classic portrait lenses designed for 8x10" or thereabouts. If you only contact print, you can skip the whole enlarger business and have a very simple darkroom.

 

[keithwms]

Just to chime in on what Walter said, I agree about the handling of sheet film. After movements, the next biggest advantage of LF, in my opinion, is.... sheet film. Being able to develop the sheets one at a time and then deal with a robust and curl-less neg or positive, whether for printing, scanning or just admiring on a light table, that is a great thing.

Note that you can shoot sheet with an rb. I have a few 3.25" x 2.25" backs for it and those are very good; when I use those for b&w, I use staining developer and I really like the results.

But, you know, contact printing, 5x7 and up.... that is a real joy. Something everybody has to try at least once! The simplicity is so refreshing.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

The only point here I would disagree with is that 6x7 gets close to 5x4 for tonality and sharpness. Maybe at smaller prints sizes, yes, but at the larger sizes 6x7 IMO does not come close. A 20x24 detailed landscape from 5x4 is very obviously different to the same scene on 6x7, even when the 6x7 is a Mamiya 7 which has about the sharpest lenses available in MF. You have more emulsions in MF, but few are not available in MF, esp the fine grained ones. Pan f is one example, but you can use Tmax 100, delta 100 or Acros in 5x4 all of which are similarly fine grained (delta less so, but it is sharper). I think handling is the biggest issue - getting the shot. If 5x4 still works (landscapes, architecture etc) it would be my choice. Where it does not, 6x7 is still just great...or 35mm when I want a certain look or need speed. One thing is for sure, a 6x7 Acros neg is a long way behind a 5x4 Acros neg on a 20x24 print if smooth tonality is your goal. 10x8 blows 5x4 away on a 20x24 and it is not a small difference.

 

[Ian Grant]

Tom, when APX25 was available in 120, and APX100 in 5x4 I found that images made with my 6x9 back with APX25 were extremely close in tonality, sharpness and grain to images shot at the same time on 5x4 with APX100. I'd expect similar results could be obtained with Pan F & MF 6x7 or 6x9 and FP$ or Delta 100 & 5x4.

Ian

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Tom, when APX25 was available in 120, and APX100 in 5x4 I found that images made with my 6x9 back with APX25 were extremely close in tonality, sharpness and grain to images shot at the same time on 5x4 with APX100. I'd expect similar results could be obtained with Pan F & MF 6x7 or 6x9 and FP$ or Delta 100 & 5x4.

Ian

This is probably true comparing these two films, but APX 25 was once also available in sheet (maytbe not)?

When image plane characteristics prevent movements on LF and one has to stop down more, this erodes the potential resolution advantage of the bigger neg, but when one can use a higher resolving aperture on 5x4 due to movements (and one cannot on MF) it can actually result in less stopping down on 5x4 than MF.

APX100 is not that fine grained/high res, although the tonality IMO is the finest there is. Delta 100 has far higher image detail, finer grain and exceptional apparent sharpness, although it is grainier than Tmax/Acros (whihc both have similar fineness of grain as Pan F). Even the Eastern Eurpean 25 speed fimls are available in sheet so there are few emulsions now in 120 that cannot be matched in sheet. I remember an article by a Mamiya 7 user before APX 25 departed making teh same point as you about APX25 in 6x7 vs APX100 in 5x4.

Another perspective would be this: For some images (street etc) I want some bite from grain and would actually prefer a smaller format over LF at 20x16/20x24.

The biggest negs give more room for error technically In think. When everything comes together perfectly with 35mm (aperture, stability etc), the prints at 16x20 can look like they challenge the avergae MF shot, but the same argument keeps holding true up the formats. I feel that it just gets easier in this regard up the formats, although actually preparing for and taking the image gets heavier and harder! Long live 120 RFs and light non-folding LF cameras like the Ebony 45s and Walker XL.

 

[Ian Grant]

No APX25 was never available as a sheet film. We have to disagree about APX100 I always found it to be very finest grained with superb resolution, and I used it for that reason in 35mm too.

My usual decision for choosing format is based on whether I'm shooting hand held, in which case it's 35mm, or 120 645 for mre critical work. If I know I'm using a tripod I shoot 5x4 or larger. That's changed more recently because I'm now shooting some 5x4 landscapes hand-held but only where tripods aren't permitted - and as the light is usually close to the maximum my meter will read to I have can use fast shutter speeds and stop down reasonably.

Ian