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

Shhhhh

A
Shhhhh

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
rooflines

A
rooflines

  • 0
  • 0
  • 5
Misc. Abstract

A
Misc. Abstract

  • 1
  • 0
  • 14
Death's Shadow

A
Death's Shadow

  • 2
  • 4
  • 84
Friends in the Vondelpark

A
Friends in the Vondelpark

  • 2
  • 0
  • 96

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,457
Messages
2,759,470
Members
99,377
Latest member
Rh_WCL
Recent bookmarks
0

keithwms

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
6,220
Location
Charlottesvi
Format
Multi Format
Well, when comparing the jump from 35->645, and 6x7->4x5, the scale factors are similar:

35mm: 24x36 mm = 863 mm^2
645: 56×41.5 mm = 2324 mm^2 = 2.7*[35mm area]

67: 56×70 mm = 3920 mm^2
4x5: ~12903 mm^2 = 3.29*[6x7 area]

Of course, the leap to 5x7 and 8x10 is much larger....

5x7: ~22580 mm^2
8x10: ~51612 mm^2
 

Bruce Watson

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
497
Location
Central NC
Format
4x5 Format
Hello to the LF crowd. :smile:
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?
No, it's not all that difficult. Mostly it's just different.
At what point (i.e. size of enlargement) would you consider MF to be at the end of its rope, and LF taking over?
I think most film is good for about 8-10x enlargement, regardless of format.
Should I consider larger MF, such as 6x8 or 6x9, or just go straight to LF 4x5?
Now that's the question isn't it? I haven't seen (doesn't mean it's not there) on this thread some of the information you need to know about this.

Primarily, 35mm and MF are similar types of photography. The film plane and lens plane are in general locked together. Hand holding the camera is more or less easy. There are many automatic functions on the cameras from metering to autofocus.

When you get to LF, nearly all that stuff is gone. It's really not very hand holdable (even so-called press cameras are big heavy affairs). With non-press cameras you will always use a tripod. You therefore can no longer stick the camera up to your face and "compose with your feet." Instead you'll be walking the scene without the camera, learning to see without a camera up to your face. You'll find the correct perspective for the photograph first, then set up your camera on that spot. Just about exactly opposite of how it's generally done with smaller formats.

There's no pentaprism -- when you look through the lens you'll see everything upside down and backwards. You'll get used to this, but it takes some practice.

The lens plane can be manipulated separately from the film plane with a view camera. Learning how to use movements (tilt, swing, rise/fall, shifts) isn't that hard but does make you think.

You'll use a separate light meter and have to make all the decisions on how to expose the film on your own. No automatic systems to help you with that. But that's why we have things like the Zone System -- to help you make sense of exposure, etc.

Film comes in sheets. Film holders have to be kept scrupulously clean. And you load/unload them in complete darkness.

But mostly it's the far slower, more contemplative method of working that sets the view camera off from the smaller formats.

I'm just saying that it's not solely about film size. It's a completely different ball game. I've never had such fun with photography. I'll never go back to any of the smaller formats. But just because I love it doesn't mean that you will. So consider all of it, not just film size, when you make your decision.
 

eddym

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
1,924
Location
Puerto Rico
Format
Multi Format
The only point here I would disagree with is that 6x7 gets close to 5x4 for tonality and sharpness.

Just to ask a totally off the subject question, with absolutely no offense intended...
Why is sheet film 5x4 for our British cousins, but rollfilm in the format under discussion not 7x6?
 
OP
OP
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
441
Location
Ventura, CA
Format
35mm
Thanks everyone! And Bruce, I like the advice about the composition and thoughtful approach of LF...I've been trying to shoot 35mm like that! :smile: I'm certainly thinking about this now. Rorye has offered to have me come see his LF gear in San Rafael, and I'm going to take him up on it! We'll see what I think of it when I actually handle it? :smile:
Happy shootin'
Jed
 

Tom Stanworth

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
2,021
Format
Multi Format
I think film is good for 10X or more enlargement or more for certain work (street etc) but, personally, for traditional landscapes, I feel 3-4X is preferable in order to retain the smoothness of tones. Quite a huge difference I know!

LF non-folders make the transition into LF less of a leap IMO. Worth considering if you don't need long extension.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom