Wanting to try 5 x 4 large format

[Alan Edward Klein]

Of course there are differences, Alan. Some sheet films once had a retouching "tooth" over-layer, which might affect scanning. Some current Kodak sheets have an overcoat they claim improves scanning. It does suppress Newton Rings a bit too. There are Ortho Litho sheet films like the current Arista product with a distinct texture to allow better drawdown under a vacuum blanket, which no doubt have some kind of effect. Then throw scanning fluid into the equation, and there's yet another variable, generally for the better.

If you get a contact printing frame, make sure it has Anti-Newton glass in it. You can develop small black & white film and prints using a simple "tray ladder" in a closet (hopefully with some ventilation). I did that briefly. Steiglitz made famous prints in that manner. Or a basic "slot processor" would work. I wouldn't develop color that way; not if you value your lungs.

Tmax seems to do a nice job of scanning. It was made for it according to Kodak. Likewise Ektar 100. However, I don't like negative color film to scan. The colors are hard to get right. Velvia 50 chrome seems to scan pretty well although I don't believe it has any special scanning properties. Provia and Ektachrome seem OK too. I'm passed the point of a darkroom and frankly, there's no real room and I also have to maintain peace in the family.

 

[GregY]

Alan "Tmax seems to do a nice job of scanning. It was made for it according to Kodak"

Considering that Kodak Tmax was introduced in 1986, I doubt very much that TMax was "made for scanning".....

 

[DREW WILEY]

TMax has undergone refinements. It's slightly different than when it was introduced. But commercial scanning in the printing industry was in motion well before consumer scanners were available. I don't personally know any details relative to TMax and scannning per se. The pro service bureaus could work with almost any film. Current Kodak color sheet film - Portras, Ektar, E100 - does have a special surface treatment.

 

[GregY]

We've drifted a long way from the "100% analog/traditional workflow" ......
Drew, you're right, commercial scanning was available, but in 1986 the bulk of photo printing done by labs in Western Canada was analog...& i admit California was always a step ahead
BTW, Come to think of it, we were (in 35mm) still in the pro using film era.... in 1986, neither the Canon EOS-1 nor the Nikon F4 had been introduced yet....

 

[pbromaghin]

I recently threw in the towel on large format and sold the big camera and tripod, deciding to stick to medium and 35mm. I just couldn't stand the frustration and aggravation of continuing to discover, one at a time, all the endlessly available errors. It really wasn't a format problem, but a "me" problem. It's my retirement hobby and 645, 6x6 and 6x9 are challenging enough.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Greg. Being here right smack in the middle of the Tech Empire, what is so interesting is having tech workers out on a hike themselves or trail biking, and coming up to me with my big view camera and wooden tripod set up, asking to look under the darkcloth, and then asking what it takes to potentially get into that themselves. The last thing people who spend endless hours doing digital imaging and software design want to do as a hobby is more of the same keyboard work! I once had the CEO of one of those Silicon Valley companies lift his grandson up on his shoulders so he could look through the ground glass of a "real camera" - his words, not mine. Of course, there are all kinds of hybrid options too, so it's sorta the golden age of printing potential; but I personally prefer straight-through optical workflow.

Another factor is how the central California coast is ground zero for the West Coast tradition of photography, with a lot of famous names behind it. So "real film" and darkroom work is generally admired by locals as still being something special. And one day when I returned from a hike over at Pt Reyes, and was taking off my big backpack with a bit of round railing sticking out both sides of the top, there was a Chinese tourist just getting out of a car next to me. He didn't speak any English, but pointed to my pack and asked, Sinar? It nodded yes, and he gave me a thumbs up.

On the other hand, at a much busier beach area, I've encountered tour buses with Japanese tourists, who, rather than taking pictures of the scenery, gather around to take cellphone pictures of a weird American using something terribly old fashioned. Some did speak English. "Why are you using that old thing, why not a cell phone?" I simply reply, if it's so old, why is it made of machined stainless steel or titanium (depending on the camera), and Delrin gearing? That makes them think twice.

 

[braxus]

Id say stick with medium format for the most part. Yes 4x5 will give you better tones and colors, and way less depth of field. But its so much easier to screw up a 4x5 shot then 6x7. I find large format almost overkill for most of todays needs really. Its fun, and it really slows you down, but the need for a negative that large today, is very little. 6x7 does most of what you'd need in most cases. 4x5 is the one format I have tons of film still for, yet rarely use. I tend to stick with 645 and 6x7 for most of my needs.

 

[cirwin2010]

Expanding on what a few people have mentioned so far, don't necessarily expect miracles in resolution going from medium format to 4x5 large format. Resolution is obviously not the only thing that large format has going for it, but it was a huge part of the draw for me as I like to print upwards of 16x20 for landscapes and architecture. I still getting my footing in large format, but I learned the hard way that even high quality, modern large format lenses are still going to be softer than many medium format lenses.

For example I made two 16x20" prints of different, but similar scenes. One was taken with a Mamiya c330s with the 80mm S lens (@ f/8) on Fuji Acros II developed in Rodinal. The other was taken on my 4x5 with a Fujinon-A 240mm lens (@ f/16) on Ilford HP5+ developed in HC-110. Looking at the negatives with a 10x loupe the 6x6 negative is extremely sharp and reveals even the the finest of details such as distant brick work. The 4x5 negative while still sharp and in focus, looks much softer by comparison. A given area of the negative lacks the same level of detail and crispness. Looking at the prints side-by-side, they come out nearly equal in grain and detail thanks to the 4x5 only needing 4x enlargement vs. 8x on the (cropped) 6x6. There are differences in the appearance of grain if you press your nose to it, but there is not a substantial difference between the two. The medium format print may bit a tad crisper in appearance, but that may be due to my choice of developer and film.

Obviously the above is not an apples-to-apples or scientific experiment by an means and Your choice of film, development, lenses, and technique will matter. I personally I was a bit disappointed that 4x5" was not necessarily the straight upgrade in print detail I was hoping for, but 4x5 is still awesome for other reasons so I won't be giving it up.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Id say stick with medium format for the most part. Yes 4x5 will give you better tones and colors, and way less depth of field. But its so much easier to screw up a 4x5 shot then 6x7. I find large format almost overkill for most of todays needs really. Its fun, and it really slows you down, but the need for a negative that large today, is very little. 6x7 does most of what you'd need in most cases. 4x5 is the one format I have tons of film still for, yet rarely use. I tend to stick with 645 and 6x7 for most of my needs.

I agree that LF gives one so many ways to mess up a photograph.

 

[MattKing]

I think it is more accurate to say that all the Kodak films - T-Max films included - have been tweaked/refined/adjusted to scan well.

Many of the refinements are related to the physical - not optical - nature of the film, and probably don't impact optical printing much, if at all. I wonder though whether:
1) negatives might be flatter, and therefore easier to use in glassless carriers; or
2) whether there might be a resulting difference in the need for anti-newton glass in glass carriers.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I find 4x5 sharper after scanning than my 6x7s. Tones look nicer too. OK, movements help. Whether these things are worth the effort is personal.

 

[wiltw]

My question is why do want to shoot 4X5 and what are your expectations?

It is not simply

• because the film is bigger and photos less grainy
• because the camera slows me down in my shooting

...there are other benefits.

I just posted this on another thread on Photrio, but it is quite apropos as to the benefit of shooting large format...amazing DOF control via the movements available to the photographer using a monorail camera.

Why large format?

It’s all about size. As is now, 8K only makes sense with projection. Or with unnaturally close inspection of the relatively small screens possible. I visited Best Buy and they're selling 8K Tv's As far as I know, Hollywood isn't filming in 8K, no one has the bandwidth to receive 8K, no one is...

www.photrio.com

And movements can help eliminate perspective distortion, so that objects are rendered in a 'less distorted' manner.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Matt - film flatness is noticeably superior with relatively thick PET based sheet films versus either acetate sheet film or, even more dramatically, thin acetate roll film. For optimal results you need a full glass carrier sandwich both sides when enlarging, preferably AN glass. Any kind of serious enlargement deserves that; I can't imagine glassless carriers except for casual use. People spend tons of money on camera lenses trying to obtain the most crisp images, then throw it all away by cutting corners in the darkroom. Doesn't make sense.

And at the time of the shot itself, any sheet film larger than 4x5 is going to distinctly benefit from a precision vacuum or adhesive film holder, since the larger sheet film sizes can definitely bow or sag; again, anything acetate or thin being worse in this respect. I use personally adhesive holder for 8x10 color film, size this might get printed up to 30x40 inches on a high-detail print medium. But I never print black and white over 20x24, and use only stiff PET sheet film, so just use ordinary film holders in that case. 4x5 doesn't sag enough to worry about it unless photogrammetric or astro photography is involved, which is the main reason TMax was once available coated on 4x5 glass plates.

 

[btaylor]

Looking at the negatives with a 10x loupe the 6x6 negative is extremely sharp and reveals even the the finest of details such as distant brick work. The 4x5 negative while still sharp and in focus, looks much softer by comparison. A given area of the negative lacks the same level of detail and crispness.

Couple of notes here- I looked up the DOF tables for the formats, f/stops and lenses you used in your test. At 20 feet, using an 80mm lens on a 6x6 camera at f8 the DOF is 15ft. A 240mm lens on a 4x5” camera at f16 at 20ft yields 1/2 that, 7.5ft. So it’s not surprising the background was less sharp.
Second, your 4x5 camera may not be perfectly set up, or your Fujinon may have an issue. On a view camera it is possible the groundglass and film are not on the same plane- the “T” distance may be off requiring adjustment.
I bring this up because I had never seen such extreme sharpness in my grain focuser until I ran some TMax though my Technika. There was no grain on which to focus, I had to use the subjects in the photo and find edges.

 

[GLS]

Couple of notes here- I looked up the DOF tables for the formats, f/stops and lenses you used in your test. At 20 feet, using an 80mm lens on a 6x6 camera at f8 the DOF is 15ft. A 240mm lens on a 4x5” camera at f16 at 20ft yields 1/2 that, 7.5ft. So it’s not surprising the background was less sharp.
Second, your 4x5 camera may not be perfectly set up, or your Fujinon may have an issue. On a view camera it is possible the groundglass and film are not on the same plane- the “T” distance may be off requiring adjustment.
I bring this up because I had never seen such extreme sharpness in my grain focuser until I ran some TMax though my Technika. There was no grain on which to focus, I had to use the subjects in the photo and find edges.

Not to mention he's comparing two very different films, and using different developers. Acros will inherently have a huge advantage over HP5+ when it comes to resolution and apparent sharpness.

 

[cirwin2010]

Couple of notes here- I looked up the DOF tables for the formats, f/stops and lenses you used in your test. At 20 feet, using an 80mm lens on a 6x6 camera at f8 the DOF is 15ft. A 240mm lens on a 4x5” camera at f16 at 20ft yields 1/2 that, 7.5ft. So it’s not surprising the background was less sharp.
Second, your 4x5 camera may not be perfectly set up, or your Fujinon may have an issue. On a view camera it is possible the groundglass and film are not on the same plane- the “T” distance may be off requiring adjustment.
I bring this up because I had never seen such extreme sharpness in my grain focuser until I ran some TMax though my Technika. There was no grain on which to focus, I had to use the subjects in the photo and find edges.

I understand the differences in DOF between the two. The subjects of both images were far enough away that the DOF differences didn't come into play much. Plus camera movements on the 4x5 helped everything important was in the plane of focus.

My testing with macro has not revealed any issues with the focus plane being different between the ground glass and film and this is a brand new Chamonix camera. As far as lens sharpness, I got similar levels of sharpness with my Schneider APO 135mm lens. Not saying its impossible that my Fujinon or Schneider are having issues and my sample size for my non scientific testing is pretty small. If there is an easy to do test to ensure everything is good I'm all ears.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Any modern lenses will be PLENTY sharp, even most older ones. Don't waste time there. Manufacturers have already done that chore, and way way better than any typical individual or superficial web review can. And you don't have to worry about brand much either - any of the "big four" large format optics makers - Fuji, Nikon, Schneider, and Rodenstock, are essentially equal (though each does have certain speciality lenses of their own too). The odds of a defective "lemon" from any of them is extremely low (old abused lenses and shutters should be checked). Instead, spend your effort on view camera basics, especially the implications of movements, and logistical use of them in real world depth of field and composition issues.

 

[RuthD]

Hi All, this is a superb thread - I’ve recently joined the community after having watched it from afar for a while. I’m also looking into dabbing into 5x4 as very attracted to the possibilities of developing every negative individually! As a hobbyist I’m learning as I go along - are there any books on LF that you’d recommend? Thanks!!

 

[koraks]

are there any books on LF that you’d recommend?

Ansel Adams' trilogy still works even though it was written decades ago. 'The Camera' would be the logical place to start. It taught me just about everything I needed to know, although truth be told I only read it after I had been doing LF for a while already, so it was more of a confirmation of things I already figured out through online sources and experimentation. Still, if there's one conveniently succinct book that sums it all up, this would be it.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Hi All, this is a superb thread - I’ve recently joined the community after having watched it from afar for a while. I’m also looking into dabbing into 5x4 as very attracted to the possibilities of developing every negative individually! As a hobbyist I’m learning as I go along - are there any books on LF that you’d recommend? Thanks!!

I would suggest the best book is, "View Camera Technique" by Leslie Stroebel. ISBN 0-240-80345-0 (Focal Press) mine is dated 1999, so not that old, although it comes from a longish line of editions. Any of the editions would be good, I have the 7th Edition and it is superb.

While it is technical, sort of, it covers pretty much everything you would like to do and it will also give you some wonderful examples of techniques applicable to stretching the possibilities of view camera technique, as it's name implies. The text is written with simple English and wonderful pictures to show exactly what one can achieve using the controls of a view camera and not using the controls.

 

[GLS]

I would suggest the best book is, "View Camera Technique" by Leslie Stroebel. ISBN 0-240-80345-0 (Focal Press) mine is dated 1999, so not that old, although it comes from a longish line of editions. Any of the editions would be good, I have the 7th Edition and it is superb.

While it is technical, sort of, it covers pretty much everything you would like to do and it will also give you some wonderful examples of techniques applicable to stretching the possibilities of view camera technique, as it's name implies. The text is written with simple English and wonderful pictures to show exactly what one can achieve using the controls of a view camera and not using the controls.

Agreed. Fantastic book.