Wanting to try 5 x 4 large format

DREW WILEY said:

Ah, yes indeed. Nowadays everybody expects everything instantly, delivered yesterday if possible. That's how you miss life. Large format slows you down and demands you to look at things carefully. The hunt is just as important as the kill. Soak in the light. Study the subtle relationships between hues. Enjoy the opalescent ground glass and its native compositional boundaries. ... But if you're just going to turn around and nuke the whole thing in loud Fauxtoshop syrup afterwards, why bother? Just take your cell phone instead.

That being said, there are numerous situation requiring greater spontaneity. View cameras also become kites in especially windy weather, so there's that too.
And it helps to be in shape carrying a larger gear load. But in terms of getting in shape, it's a thousand times better to do that out in a lovely landscape with a big camera pack than running on a treadmill like a mindless hamster in some stinky gym.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice

By the way, I've used Mamiya C's series cameras, 645 1000s, Mamiya press cameras and RB67 series cameras. Would agree with lens advise. You will be hard pressed to get technically better/sharper lenses. IMHO, Mamiya lens provides the best price/ratio of all manufactures. I replaced 645 by a Bronica etrs because I preferend removable backs and havent used press camera in a while but still actively use C330f and RB67pro and get very nice negative.

Good luck on your exploration

Marcelo

Hi everyone
Apologies for the late reply. My phone network cut me off for not paying my bill on time.

Thanks for everyone for the advice, really appreciate

One thing I forgot to mention is the I found the 7x6 negs tended to sag or warp a bit if washed.
Are the 5x4 negatives just a flimsy? This is one thing that annoyed me with 7x6. :/

Marcelo Paniagua said:

By the way, I've used Mamiya C's series cameras, 645 1000s, Mamiya press cameras and RB67 series cameras. Would agree with lens advise. You will be hard pressed to get technically better/sharper lenses. IMHO, Mamiya lens provides the best price/ratio of all manufactures. I replaced 645 by a Bronica etrs because I preferend removable backs and havent used press camera in a while but still actively use C330f and RB67pro and get very nice negative.

Good luck on your exploration

Marcelo

Click to expand...

Thanks

Chrishuddersfield said:

Hi everyone
Apologies for the late reply. My phone network cut me off for not paying my bill on time.

Thanks for everyone for the advice, really appreciate

One thing I forgot to mention is the I found the 7x6 negs tended to sag or warp a bit if washed.
Are the 5x4 negatives just a flimsy? This is one thing that annoyed me with 7x6. :/

Click to expand...

It depends on the film used. What film stock you tried on 6x7?

Marcelo

By the way, I mostly use Arista for 4x5 and end up with quite flat/stable negatives, no complain.

Hi Chris,
My only LF camera (I bought it 20 years ago, Arca Swiss 4x5) is my least used one.
As other forum members wrote, and you must know after using 5x7, LF is good or superior in very few situations...
Mostly for Architecture, if apart from its format, the camera has all the movements for perspective control and for selective focus.
Or for portraiture, because of the mix of smooth tone and a natural tendency to separate foreground and background beyond what MF does.
Sharpness is close to what I get with my Hasselblad with tripod, mirror lock-up and cable release.
I think 8x10 must be cool for contact printing, but I have not used that format.

Chrishuddersfield said:

Are the 5x4 negatives just a flimsy? This is one thing that annoyed me with 7x6. :/

Click to expand...

No, large format sheets are made with a thicker base (apart from a few oddball exceptions like IR400), so do not generally curl or sag much at all in 5x4 sizes.

As to your original questions:

Yes, I would say 5x4 is definitely worth trying. The Mamiya 7 is already pretty much at the top of the heap in MF in terms of lens quality, so improvements in resolution and tonality going to 5x4 are moderate (but do still exist). A well exposed large format slide in particular is something to behold.

The main benefit of large format is in camera movements to control perspective and focus. The power of these functions cannot be overstated, especially for certain kinds of photography. LF also absolutely forces you to slow down and consider carefully what you are doing, which tends to result in a higher success rate with images once the technique of it all becomes second nature. This latter point is important, because there are many ways to screw up with LF. Practice is key.

The main cons are the associated costs and weight/bulk of equipment, but again that can be seen as another incentive to only produce images when it is worth doing so. Length of exposures and wind can also be an issue sometimes. If you are on the fence I suggest you rent or borrow a camera first if possible, to see if the whole process is for you before spending your hard earned.

If you are serious about learning LF I highly recommend Leslie Stroebel's "View Camera Technique" book, now in its 7th edition. It's a little dry perhaps, but a goldmine of information.

Sirius Glass said:

Consider a 4"x5" press camera which will let you shoot hand held and still has limited movements. Look at graflex.org in the forum and informational pages.

Click to expand...

McDiesel said:

How to evaluate large format lenses? Due to the smaller LF userbase, online information is not as rich. Google any 35mm lens from any major manufacturer and you get samples, MTF curves, etc. Large format lenses are more mysterious to me. Some are $300 while others are over $1K and no easy way to tell why. Just like the OP I am toying with the idea, and it's not clear what to look for when browsing this page.

Some descriptions describe the image circle ("covers 5x7") while others do not. Does this mean the lens covers 8x10? If there the default image circle they all have?

Click to expand...

What Sirius said. Worked for me. Holders are a little tough to handle if it’s run and gun which I did a lot. Think press reporter. Shot quite a bid of positive’s which I liked also but expensive now if still available. Just contact print and frame b&w’s and hang.

Ps, don’t forget you scan those 4x5’s and print. Won’t have to worry about enlarging and big paper.
(Gee, think I want another 4x5 now!)
You can shoot, develop, scan and be done same day except maybe for printing; and you won’t have to shoot up a roll that’s hanging around.

What do you want to get out of large format? What are your expectations? If you are looking for the ability to make bigger enlargements, smoother tonality, the ability to control exposure and processing on an image-by-image basis, and the ability to control the image in-camera, then large format is a good option. There are lots of options people have discussed here already - the basic camera types are press cameras, field cameras, and view cameras.

Almost all large format cameras (with a few highly specialized exceptions) have interchangeable lenses. One nice feature is that you are not limited by brand or vintage in which lenses you can use. I can use a lens from the 1850s on my ca. 2010 camera, and a 1950s lens on my ca. 1880 camera.

A press camera has very limited movements, and the primary benefit to a press camera is the big negative. Some press cameras, most notably the Speed Graphic, have a focal plane shutter that will let you use a very wide range of lenses including antique lenses that lack an internal shutter. Press cameras also have limited bellows extension, as they were optimized for a mild-wide-angle (127-135mm) lens (the equivalent of a 35-40mm lens on 35mm). They are also limited at the wide end, with a 90mm being about the widest you can use (28mm equivalent) practically. They9 are self-casing, with the bed and focusing rails forming the door to the body of the camera, so they can be carried around and used in almost any circumstances. Most have a fixed back in the horizontal orientation, so if you want to shoot portraits with it, you'll have to turn the camera sideways, but there are some like the Busch Pressman that do have a revolving back. Because of these limitations, press cameras are generally inexpensive.

A field camera has more movements and much greater flexibility in bellows, allowing for use of a wider range of lenses. Field cameras are also, for the most part, self-casing so they can be transported easily. This is the camera type most people think of when they think of large format - Ansel Adams on the roof of his estate wagon, photographing in Yosemite National Park. Field cameras run the range of price from inexpensive (maybe $300 or so) on up to multiple thousands of pounds, depending on the features you want and how light weight you want it to be. Field cameras come in an impressive array of sizes and formats - I have field cameras in my arsenal ranging from 4x5 up to 14x17, with stops along the way at 5x7, 5x12, 6.5x8.5, 8x10, and 11x14.

A view camera (also often referred to as a monorail) has a rail (very rarely two rails) on which front and rear standards that hold the lens, bellows, and ground glass/film stage are mounted. Monorails also come in a bewildering array of sizes, configurations and options. The big benefits to monorail cameras are the nearly unlimited amount of movements you can apply, and the theoretically unlimited extension of the bellows that is possible (this allows you to use very long telephoto lenses or do extreme macro work (closer than 1:1). Most monorails come with a base rail and allow for extensions, but some inexpensive ones (like the old Kodak/Calumet/Orbit monorail camera) have a fixed length rail somewhere in the 18-24" range. While this allows for a fair bit of flexibility in choosing lenses and focusing close, the downside is that they are not very compact or portable. If you think you want a monorail camera, but also want to use it in the field, I would highly recommend looking at a Sinar F/F+/F1/F2 (different generations of the same camera). Sinar makes a minimum 6" base rail you can slide the front and rear standards on to for transport, and then easily add and remove a 12" extension rail when you are at your location (the F in the model name stands for Field, as opposed to their P series, which are very precise, professional instruments - thus the P).

I realize this is a tremendous amount of information to sift through, but I hope it helps you come to a better understanding of the various camera types and what particular applications they fit. This is not a complete comprehensive guide to all large format camera types (for example there are large format SLRs, but that's yet another kettle of fish). Please ask specific questions and we'll try to help out as best we can (the we here is the members of the forum, not me using the royal we).

The limited movements of my 1953 Pacemaker Speed Graphics allows me to use from rise enough to straighten up buildings. Also it has a drop front which allows one to use very wide angles lenses. More than enough for most tripod work.

One thing to be aware is that an small movement/shift have a big impact on image. Those image of twisted bellows are exaggeration of what you actually need/use.

McDiesel said:

Some descriptions describe the image circle ("covers 5x7") while others do not. Does this mean the lens covers 8x10? If there the default image circle they all have?

Click to expand...

Minimal Image Circle
4x5 153mm.
5x7 180mm
8x10 300mm

One need to check individual lens to see if it will cover the choosen format. Like everything, most of the times there is a trade off. Smaller lenses give smaller image circle.

This should help

4x5 Lenses
5x7 Lenses
8x10 Lenses

Pick a smaller size/smaller image circle lens for portability. Choose a larger image circle lens when you expect do use lot of movements, like architectural/close up work.

Marcelo

Thank you everyone who chimed in.

Hi,
I've shot on a Mamiya 7 almost exclusively for the last 4 years and I recently rented out and borrowed from a friend 2 large format cameras to experiment with. When I made the jump from 35mm to 6x7 on the tack-sharp Mamiya, it was revelatory. The 4x5 jump feels revelatory in the same way. The quality is superb...outstanding....it should be illegal. It's poetic kind of that to achieve this you really need to slow down your process a LOT. It's a much needed departure for me, as for a while I was taking a volume based approach, running rolls and rolls through the mamiya and relying on the quality offered by the lens to provide the impact in the images. Would not recommend.

But actually USING one (if you can rent in your area) actually helped clarify a lot of things I was confused about because large format as a topic is so deep, modular and many manufacturers cross streams. So it was confusing until I took a weekend to shoot and was like "oh so THAT's why I would need a recessed lens board" or "ah, I see how a monorail camera differs from a field camera now" etc etc

Hi Chris. I love LF and use formats from 5x4 through to 14x17. I say go for the 5x4 intrepid. It's basically a field camera, so it'll be quick to set up and take down. 5x4 film is readily available. You mentioned saggy medium format film, which is normal as it's roll film and needs to be on thinner base. Most LF film is on a thicker base, with the exception of a few like Rollei's IR 400, and Adox CMS 20 II.
Once you see that large negative, it'll be love at first sight!

Andrew O'Neill said:

It's basically a field camera, so it'll be quick to set up and take down.

Click to expand...

That's a very important consideration. While I love the flexibility of the Sinar monorail I use around the house, I hate hauling it to locations and instead carry an old Toyo Field. I would actually recommend looking into those instead of the intrepid; the Toyo's are a little more solidly built and somewhat less bulky than the Intrepid. Of course the Intrepid is available at just a click on a webstore, while you'll have to look for a Toyo on the second hand market (contact B.S. Kumar; he often offers them at a reasonable price).

> it'll be love at first sight!
Oh boy, it sure will! Personally I really like shooting 4x5". I also have an 8x10, but it's boxed away and I have virtually never used it. But a 4x5" field camera is only marginally more cumbersome than shooting medium format from a tripod, while it does give all the benefits of sheet film. I also personally think that 4x5" is the smallest format on which contact prints start to make sense.

Chrishuddersfield said:

Hello all,

I’ve just finished my first year at uni (part time).
For much of the course I’ve been specialising (well trying..) in analog/darkroom and most of my photos were taken with the Mamiya 7ii, which I have been very impressed with, apart from the focusing which proved difficult.

I’ve posted many questions here over the last year and the feedback and help has been great, so thanks to everyone that helped me out there. Appreciated.

For my second year I’m wanting to migrate( or try) to 5x4” large format and I’m considering purchasing an intrepid camera when I’m more flush.

Does any one have experience with the format ?
Is it worth trying? In terms of description is it a big leap from 7x6? I’ve not yet witnessed anything yet ( in the physical) with large format, however some people on the course said it’s amazing. I gather it will be better in terms of quality, but what about the latitude? I remember when I migrated from 35mm to 7x6 and I was very impressed by medium format and the description/tonality etc. What are the pros and cons? Any advice, information, experiences would be appreciated.

Thanks

Chris

Click to expand...

It seems like you're still learning medium format, darkroom work, and photography in general. I would stick with that before moving on to large format if you decide later on. Don't complicate things for yourself.

Well, my med format phase lasted less than two years, and then it was strictly 4x5 for the next 20 years, until I fell even more in love with 8x10. Now in my 70's I'm back to shooting MF frequently, mainly for its spontaneity; but large format view cameras are still my preference. I'm a printmaker, and it's in the darkroom that one can most appreciate the advantage of sheets.

DREW WILEY said:

Well, my med format phase lasted less than two years, and then it was strictly 4x5 for the next 20 years, until I fell even more in love with 8x10. Now in my 70's I'm back to shooting MF frequently, mainly for its spontaneity; but large format view cameras are still my preference. I'm a printmaker, and it's in the darkroom that one can most appreciate the advantage of sheets.

Click to expand...

When do you graduate to 16"X20" and join the big boys?

DREW WILEY said:

Well, my med format phase lasted less than two years, and then it was strictly 4x5 for the next 20 years, until I fell even more in love with 8x10. Now in my 70's I'm back to shooting MF frequently, mainly for its spontaneity; but large format view cameras are still my preference. I'm a printmaker, and it's in the darkroom that one can most appreciate the advantage of sheets.

Click to expand...

What advantage are sheets in the darkroom not available in medium format?

Alan Edward Klein said:

What advantage are sheets in the darkroom not available in medium format?

Click to expand...

Alan, probably the first thing one notices in the darkroom when using sheet film, is the rigidity of the film itself. I'm sure you have noticed the different rigidity factor between sheet film and roll film yourself from your film scanning.

Then there is the larger image of a given subject on a sheet film negative compared to a roll film negative shot side by side. This difference is usually noticeable where the image is changing from light to dark. The distance between where a shadow merges into a highlight is longer as the real estate on a larger negative is greater, thereby giving a much more pleasing rendition.

4x5" negatives being larger than the next common roll film size of 6x7cm are really the first usable contact print negative; although to be honest they are still on the small size.

5x7" negatives are pretty much the perfect size for contact prints as the shape of the 5x7" negative is very pleasing and the negative size lends itself to be very readable with the naked eye.

8x10" contact prints are where you are starting to get into the premium contact print area and once you get to see a very good 8x10" negative contact printed, you should understand where I'm coming from. 8x10" film enlarged well is also in a class of it's own, it has to be done right and when it is done right, it really shines.

Hi Alan. Mick has stated it well; but I'll repeat a few things. For one thing, sheets are obviously much larger, so dust spots etc appear smaller. There's a lot more potential detail and tonal nuance inherent to bigger area too. But PET or Estar film base is also stiff and dimensionally stable, while roll films are thin and squirrely in that respect, a headache, really. I do print a lot of 120 film as well as 4x5 and 8x10. But the sheets are certainly easier to work with, with the exception of about a decade when color sheet film itself was only available in triacetate. Since I have done a lot of precise masking work relative to color printing, any dimensional change in the film creates real problems in consistent registration. Most black and white sheet film has been firm PET base all along, at least in my lifetime.

Then, like Mick mentioned, 8x10 format is a decent contact printing size too. I don't often contact print; but looking at a few I did a couple years ago, am certainly tempted to do more. I used MGWT just like for enlarging, and absolutely love how well it tones. I like enlargements for all the detail they bring out; but contact prints have a special tonality that can be especially rewarding. And I prefer my own method using a versatile neg versus slow Azo paper and an especially dense or "thick" neg.

I'm curious if anyone knows whether there are variables in scanning results depending on the thickness and type of films as they seem to vary. I'm not referring to the difference due to the size of real estate, but thickness and type of film.

Unfortunately, I don't have a darkroom. Contacts of 8x10 sound interesting though. I saw what seem to be contacts of real small shots in the Getty Museum of the Brooklyn Bridge by Walker Evans. The frame was about 8x10 so the pictures were real small. So there's even hope for them as contacts, assuming that's what they are?

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.