What do you do that you need LF?

[Ric Trexell]

This was suggested from a different post and I thought I'd take up the advice. Although LF does give you a better picture, just what do you do with that better picture? I mean, a MF will blow up to 16X20 or 20X24 with great clarity, so why go beyond that? Is it just the tilts and twists? I know there are some calenders and advertising places that demand it, or some magazines like Arizona Hiways I guess, but for the average guy, what is the need? Am I missing something? Ric.

 

[richard ide]

Apart from the ability to control your composition and plane of focus with camera movements; You can use just about any lens you wish. I use enlarging lenses and process camera lenses with a packard shutter. They are a lot cheaper than lenses with shutters.

 

[srmcnamara]

It's simply more fun.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

...but for the average guy, what is the need?

None, really. The world is filled to overflowing with average. And therein lies the point, I think. Perhaps those who choose to use LF do so because they are trying to achieve something beyond average.

Ken

 

[BradS]

I don't really do anything that requires Large Format. I rarely enlarge beyond 8x10 and rarely use movements. Probably 90% of the 4x5 negatives I have were shot hand held with a Crown Graphic and enlarged to 5x7 or 8x10 at the largest. I also shoot 35mm SLR and again, rarely ever enlarge to bigger than 5x7. And while I agree that a decent 8x10 (or 8x12) print can be made from a carefully made 35mm negative, I can definitely see a very noticeable difference between an 8x10 from a 35mm negative and an 8x10 from a 4x5 negative. There is also a very, very noticeable difference between an 8x10 enlarged from 4x5 and an 8x10 contact print. I'll also add that it is much, much easier for me, with my meager darkroom skills to coax a decent 8x10 print from a 4x5 than it is from a 35mm negative. I also shoot some 6x9 & 6x7 and you're correct, the difference between these Medium formats and 4x5 is small but, again, the experience is different.

So, I guess I don't do anything that really requires LF but, I do prefer it. Interestingly, the 4x5 Crown Graphic isn't much more of a burden to carry or use than an RB67...and so, I choose the Crown.

Finally, once you've seen a 4x5 color slide on the light table...you'll never wonder why someone would bother with LF again.

 

[Ian Leake]

I think large format is as much a state of mind as it is a piece of equipment. It makes you see and think in different ways to other formats - or it does for me anyway.

 

[BradS]

I think large format is as much a state of mind as it is a piece of equipment. It makes you see and think in different ways to other formats - or it does for me anyway.

Yes. I agree.

 

[Vaughn]

All of the above and the desire to make prints using camera negatives using alternative photographic processes.

 

[papagene]

It's simply more fun.

I just like the process of photographing with my 4x5 or 5x7 cameras.

 

[wobsy]

Having moved house I lost my darkroom and wanting to return to 'real' photography I saw the route to be alternative contact printing with large negs. So, I bought an old B&H 5x7 and am now very happy in the half light of the alternative.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I don't need LF, Ric. I prefer it and I love it.

 

[pgomena]

Large format IS a state of mind. It makes you slow down and concentrate before you release the shutter. LF also is very versatile when it comes to shooting architecture, nature, or still-life pictures. The ability to keep your vertical lines parallel, and manipulate focus using camera movements is quite valuable in my opinion. Individual sheet film processing to control negative contrast is another plus. Then as jnanian said above, you can use all kinds of lenses. I have one set of lenses that will work for 4x5 or 6.5x8.5 whole-plate. Image quality is different than MF enlarged. Better than MF even in 4x5, but not alarmingly better. Big contact prints are something else entirely. Scrumptious is the best work I can think of at the moment.

Peter Gomena

 

[JBrunner]

I can make contact prints with other formats, but I like to mat and frame mine for others than just the cat.

 

[fotch]

If I go into a bad part of town, I like having my Speed Graphic in case I have to bean somebody with my camera. Size does matter.

 

[Jesper]

I have just delivered a picture that measures 1.2m x 5.4m. Prints like that requires large negatives.
Apart from that I agree with the previous posts.
The slow pace of LF makes you think about the picture in a different way.
I don't NEED LF but it gives me peace of mind working with it.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I am an average guy, say hobbyist, started with film just this year [2010], was impressed of the results i've got from it, i shoot only MF with film, i did this jump from digital because i was impressed with digital MF over digital 35mm by a way, i see the difference clearly, now when i read about film and read that LF is way better than MF film so i couldn't stop myself to read about LF, still i didn't read much about LF yet, but when many coming here or on the net and saying that they prefer or can see noticeable difference between MF and LF then i will not be a different person and say i never see any difference, MF showed me the difference already over 35mm, so i am sure that LF will blow my mind and i can expect it, i just got a Speed Graphic few days ago but only body, and i will try to complete it so i can start using it and see the difference and maybe i will go with another LF in the future if needed [but ofcourse i will always want and want ].

 

[rrankin]

For me, it is therapy. I don't even always need to print my negs. But the slowness and deliberation involved is so enjoyable in the cell phone age.

Richard

 

[2F/2F]

I use it:

1. When I want prints of an extremely high technical quality (i.e. there's no replacement for displacement, as the drag racing phrase goes)
2. When I want a whole lot of fine control over the shape of the image and the plane of focus (i.e. almost every shot, if I have the time and the quality of sheet film is not overkill)
3. When I want to make 4x5 (or 5x7) contact prints
4. As a default camera when I have the time to carefully set up for a picture
5. When I want to take extremely fine control over my film developing by being able to process certain shots (or one shot) separately from others (i.e. I want to use single sheets of film instead of rolls)

I opt for 6x9 or 6x7 now for many of the things for which I used to use large format. It is cheaper and more convenient (i.e. faster and easier to carry) when traveling, I tend to get to processing my film more frequently, and the quality is good enough for almost everything I shoot. I do miss the camera movements like crazy, though. I think the next serious camera for me is a Linhof Technika 6x9 or Fuji 6x8 (GW model, not the rangefinder). I am leaning toward the Fuji.

 

[BetterSense]

For the size of prints I make, MF would be more than adequate. I thought about getting some kind of MF camera, large format ended up cheaper (I got my 4x5 camera for $40, use a $50 construction tripod, got my film holders for free, and who needs a light meter?)

 

[2F/2F]

Large format IS a state of mind. It makes you slow down and concentrate before you release the shutter. LF also is very versatile when it comes to shooting architecture, nature, or still-life pictures. The ability to keep your vertical lines parallel, and manipulate focus using camera movements is quite valuable in my opinion. Individual sheet film processing to control negative contrast is another plus. Then as jnanian said above, you can use all kinds of lenses. I have one set of lenses that will work for 4x5 or 6.5x8.5 whole-plate. Image quality is different than MF enlarged. Better than MF even in 4x5, but not alarmingly better. Big contact prints are something else entirely. Scrumptious is the best work I can think of at the moment.

Peter Gomena

This reason is often stated, but I don't agree, personally, at least not in the way I shoot.

Yes, you do move slower with large format, out of simple physical necessity.

However, when setting up a tripod, I don't find myself approaching photographing things much differently (i.e. concentrating more) with large format than I do with any other format.

The difference for me is mainly that when I am using something other than large format on a tripod, I am often cursing of the limitations of the camera I am using.

Also, when working (hand held, especially) with smaller cameras, I find myself bemoaning the fact that using large format for the pictures I happen to be taking with those smaller cameras would simply be impossible, due to speed of the lenses and the need to move quickly and be more spontaneous. I would love to have the quality or contact printing ability of LF for many candid shots. In an ideal world, I would be able to apply camera movements with any camera in any format to any shot, hand held or not. There is almost never a shot, in any format, and of any subject, for which I would not find a use for camera movements.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've used LF for about 34 years initially for commercial necessity, but really began using one for my personal work about 10 years later because I found I needed movements for some of my images, prior to that I used Mamiya TLR's then 645's.

The major decision was go for an RB67, used on a tripod or 5x4, and in practice my Wista (field camera) and lenses are no heavier or bulkier than an RB but more practical because I have a good range of movements which I use at least 80% of the time, although mainly just rear tilt.

Apart from the ability to use movements the other advantages over 120 formats for me are increased tonality from a larger negative, less grain and the ability to make much larger prints when needed. It's also as others have said the contemplative way of working.

Ian

 

[Rick A]

For me, its all about being in control. My 35mm cameras were controling me with all the built in functions. I found myself spending far too much time figuring out the camera and not enough time taking photographs, and decided to take back control of the process. Now its up to me to know what to do, and not leave it to a machine and electronics limiting me with what they are capable of. I love the quantity of info thats available in a larger negative, and the relative ease in extracting it. I rarely print larger than 8x10, and am totally blown away by the crispness and lack of grain in my prints.

 

[eclarke]

My favorite thing isn't exactly the size, but it is movements and mainly the ability to control each and every frame in development...EC

 

[Sirius Glass]

Because I want to. I have 35mm and 6x6 that I develop and print in color and black & white. I was planning on getting a Hasselblad FlexBody, but that seemed like a lot of money for a little used camera with limited movements. I will shoot 4x5 handheld for a while. Later I will put the cameras on tripods and work with the movement. If I find that I like using the movements, I will consider a field camera.

Steve

 

[Ric Trexell]

Thanks for all that responded. I only expected a few answers and have 24 already. I know that one great advantage of LF is that even if you only use a small portion of the negative (crop) you can get a decent picture. For example if you shoot a building and then see that a kid was looking out the window, you can make a fair enlargement of that. In the last catalog I received from Freestyle, they didn't even sell a LF camera any more. They used to always have a Toyo. In the first catalog I got from them they said something about supporting the LF community. I guess things have changed. Ric.