What do you do that you need LF?

[fotch]

I still do not quite understand the oft-stated reasons about how the use of large format by itself makes one shoot very much differently than smaller formats. I don't see why people think that they cannot use the same care, deliberation, and intent with medium (and small) format as they do with large format. No one is forcing anyone else to be any quicker and dirtier just because his or her camera is smaller. It's a different tool, and you do use it differently, but I don't think this means that it should necessarily make one "think" differently about intent and other such things.

The way I look at it, if anything, the situation should determine ones ability to apply strong intent. Sure; the situations in which smaller format cameras are usually favored over larger format limit ones ability to have full control of ones intent (e.g. hand held candid shots, journalism, and what have you). However, small and medium format cameras are very often not used in these situations (e.g. landscapes, staged portraiture, products, etc.).

So, I think the fact that using large format "forces" you to be more intentional, deliberate, and the like is something that you should not necessarily see as a benefit of using large format, but something that raises the question of why you aren't doing that with the smaller formats as well, when shooting in similar situations.

I understand what your saying and don't totally disagree, however, many if not most do not have the discipline or even the full understanding of what they are doing, when shooting smaller formats, especially 35mm. Its been noted here many times on how digital shooting, people are taking hundreds of extra shots, that they don't need nor know what to do with.

After shooting with a 4x5 with sheet film, and especially my view camera, it awaken in me an awareness that I lacked before. Now, no matter what format I shoot, I find myself paying more attention details. I prefer a handheld meter with all formats, pay more attention to lighting, background, my surroundings.

Your right, I should of been doing this all along. However, my entry into photography started as a snap shoot with a box camera, and although as time went by and I could afford more equipment, more expensive equipment, my abilities grew very slowly.

I am not saying I am a good photographer, especially with some of the posters at APUG, just that I am better than I was, and I think the view camera helped with my photography education. With view cameras becoming so affordable, everyone should try one.

JMHO

 

[MattKing]

IMHO, composing using a ground glass full format screen is quite a bit different then composing using a waist level finder and really, really different then composing using a prism finder.

It is hard to express how this makes a difference in your photography, but it definitely does.

 

[BradS]

I still do not quite understand the oft-stated reasons about how the use of large format by itself makes one shoot very much differently than smaller formats.

(....snip....)

So, I think the fact that using large format "forces" you to be more intentional, deliberate, and the like

I kinda agree but, I would also point out that a large format camera does not necessarily "force" a slow deliberate approach either. A rangefinder focused, hand held 4x5 press camera can be used quickly and with spontaneity too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Adding to your points about WA lenses, on LF all are true wide angle designs where as all the wide angle lenses on MF SLR's are inverted telephoto designs.

There is a significant increase in quality well over and above the format change and far less distortion because of this. So much so that Haselblad make the SWC for more critical WA work.

Ian

Whoa! First we get him committed to LF, then we tell him about the Hasselblad and Mamiya Biogons.

You both got it wrong! First I got two Nikons [N75 and F100], then I got a Hasselblad 503 CX. Next I got a Hasselblad 903 SWC. Then I got a 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic. Coming soon - 4x5 Graflex Model D.

Steve

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Re 2F/2F's comment: Depending on one's discipline, you will be contemplative, intentional and deliberate using any format you have chosen to photograph with. It is not restricted to, or endemic to, large format: it doesn't lend itself to a high speed set up, focus and shoot: it just doesn't work that way — the photographer with LF has to work methodically through set up, assessment, exposure and take-down and he cannot do it half-heartedly. I've never been a fast set up photographer using 35mm or 120 when creating my works; and that can be vouched for by anybody who has seen me at work. I'm often the last to pack up and move along (if that's all right with the rest of you...? )

 

[Ian Leake]

To me it's more than the pace of working although that is a factor. I feel closer to my photography when I'm using large format. I have a big clunky wooden box, and I physically move bits of it about when I'm composing; and as I do this I see the composition emerge on a TV-like screen in front of me. This is a magical experience, quite unlike what happens when I'm using a smaller camera. In the darkroom I process specific sheets of film by hand in trays, and again I have much more physical contact with my materials than when I'm developing roll film. And finally I contact print which is also an intimate experience - more so than enlarging.

When I use smaller formats I tend to make different pictures - I think they are more 'in the moment' and less contemplative. These pictures can be equally satisfying, but they are different.

This is only a personal perspective, and I'm well aware that it says as much about me as it does about the different formats. Other people have different needs, different mindsets, and different styles. And that's fantastic. Vive la différance!

 

[2F/2F]

Re 2F/2F's comment: Depending on one's discipline, you will be contemplative, intentional and deliberate using any format you have chosen to photograph with. It is not restricted to, or endemic to, large format: it doesn't lend itself to a high speed set up, focus and shoot: it just doesn't work that way — the photographer with LF has to work methodically through set up, assessment, exposure and take-down and he cannot do it half-heartedly. I've never been a fast set up photographer using 35mm or 120 when creating my works; and that can be vouched for by anybody who has seen me at work. I'm often the last to pack up and move along (if that's all right with the rest of you...? )

My point exactly.

 

[Ross Chambers]

Salt and Cyanotype contact prints (5x7") or Platinum/Palladium if I could afford it. Beats farting about with interpos/internegs, cheaper than buying the computer wherewithal for digital negs.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Salt and Cyanotype contact prints (5x7") or Platinum/Palladium if I could afford it. Beats farting about with interpos/internegs, cheaper than buying the computer wherewithal for digital negs.

And even when you get in to ULF sizes, while the up-front cost may be higher than that of the computer, you have a zero obsolescence factor so you don't have to replace it every four years.

 

[Wade D]

And even when you get in to ULF sizes, while the up-front cost may be higher than that of the computer, you have a zero obsolescence factor so you don't have to replace it every four years.

Large format is something you do for the pure joy of it. Computers are obsolete almost as soon as you buy them.
Mine is 10 years old and still works fine. I would love to upgrade but film and chemicals come first.

 

[ic-racer]

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.

I usually won't place 16x20s from 8x10 negatives and 6x6cm negatives side-by-side. The "great clarity" is much, much better on the print from 8x10.

I'd say that 80% of my LF images I apply a movement to correct for converging lines. In about 60% I use a movement to alter the plane of focus.

 

[wclark5179]

Thinking of getting back into large format capture.

My take:

Large Format = Take time to smell the roses!

 

[removed account4]

i shoot LF "from the hip" like i shoot 110, or 1/2 frame 35mm ...
i like using LF because the obstacles that are inherent in the process
(sometimes bulky camera, more space needed for fewer exposures, sometimes tripod needed,
more "difficult" to process film, expense of film, awkward in many situations, not very stealthy &C )
.... the obstacles make it more fun.

 

[Dave Wooten]

set up the camera, stretch the bellows way out, pop in and out of the dark cloth, run to the front and fiddle with the lens....a crown begins to gather....duck back under the dark cloth, a gasp here and there, the gee whiz moment, the audience with dropped jaws, the finger pointing, the crowd closes in, and questions begin, the photographer begins to lecture, to inform the unenlightened, to wax eloquent....he slides the film holder into the camera back 'ka-chunk' and pulls the slide, the audience watches intently , the 1 second exposure shatters the silence, applause...

For this performance one does not have to have a pricey sheet of film in the holder.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

“... MF will blow up to 16X20 or 20X24 with great clarity, so why go beyond that?”

[...]At the other end of the scale, a 35mm negative will, I think, with excellent lenses, go up to an 8x10 without an objectionable loss of sharpness or about 8 times enlargement. So, when an 11x14 print will do and I do not need movements, I use a medium format camera. On the other hand, if I want to print larger or I need movements, I want a large format camera

That's correct, "with excellent lenses" and skilled technique, 35mm will enlarge to 30x45cm and more, way beyond the much-fancied 8x10.

I've never seen anything bigger than 8x10 prints coming from LF users and this has long puzzled me, for I don't generally produce prints smaller than 30x45cm Ilfochromes. I print up to 20x20cm from 120 in my pinhole.

 

[keithwms]

If I had to explain what I need LF for, then I would need to explain what I need MF for, and then 35mm, and then... it's a slippery slope. I prefer not to go there!

 

[premo]

Because it helps me see better

When I was 10 years old, in 1948, my grand father gave me his old speed graphic because he had just gotten a 5X7 graphic. His rational; The smallest decent print is a 5X7, and the only decent print is a contact print, and therfore this 4X5 speed graphic was surplus to his needs, but okey for a kid to learn on. I was rationed to one ansco ortho press film pack per month, and learned to develope by inspection. So two things happened immedietly. The upside down and backwards image made composition much easier for me, and watching the negative come up in the tray souped in rodinal, 1 to 48 until done, I said "Its Magic", and he said "exactly". Well, I still find it easier to compose on the ground glass, and I still use ortho film 95% of the time. I don't know of any format I hav'nt tried, but I always go back to LF.

 

[Ric Trexell]

Thanks to all that gave their reasons. I have learned a few things. As the eyes get older, looking at that 4x5 or 8x10 ground glass would be a plus for sure. I think when I look over the posts, the big thing is the tilts and swings. Next is probably the contact prints being about as sharp as you are going to get. I would agree that a larger view forces one to slow down and look over the image. I noticed that going from 35mm to MF. Although on my RB67 it always causes me to ask, why is that tree over on the left side of the viewfinder when it is on the right side of my body? And if I'm going to follow that kid on the bicycle, I have to remember to move the camera in the direction of the bike and not what the viewfinder says. So anyway, thanks for your comments. As I said, I did learn a few things. Ric.

 

[removed account4]

And even when you get in to ULF sizes, while the up-front cost may be higher than that of the computer, you have a zero obsolescence factor so you don't have to replace it every four years.

regular people subscribe to " upgrade everything every 4 years " ??
i don't think so ...

the only people i know who do that are product photographers ( commercial )
because they shoot all day every day and their equipment gets worn out ...

i have computers. cameras and peripheral devices that are well over 4 years old
as well and i only upgrade things when they break ...

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I'm with a state of mind camp. It slows my shooting down and using the camera is meditative.

 

[archer]

Since my specialty is group portraiture, I find that I have many less blinks, shrugs, coughs and movement when I shoot with LF than with MF. It seems the group take the moment more seriously especially when I pull the darkslide and tell them to look only at the dark slide and hold it directly above the lens. With MF there is always someone in the group that just has to look at the flash no matter where I tell them to look, not so with LF.
Denise Libby

 

[John Kasaian]

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.

LF gives a very tactile & contemplative feel to the procees of taking and printing photographs. It is also a link to the shared memory of past photographers. In the face of Post-modernist nihilism, I find it a comfort.

 

[juan]

I take my 8x10 to the beach and have pretty girls in bikinis walk by, stop, and say, "Now, that's a camera." They don't do that with my Nikon F or digisnapper.
juan

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I very much agree with this. The format introduces some constraints, of course, and creativity can be defined by those constraints, but I think that if one takes a longer view of the history of the technology, it isn't obvious to me that a larger format means "slow and deliberate." Medium format was introduced as a format for handheld photography, and there is a great history of the 4x5" press camera for capturing action on the fly and candid portraits. My 5x7" Press Graphic SLR was the standard journalistic camera of its day (around 1915). Nicholas Nixon shoots 8x10" in a way that retains the spontaneous feel of 35mm.

I find that using a t/s lens on a small format camera for still life requires more deliberation than a large format studio camera, because the little t/s lens is so limited by comparison, so one has to think about how to do something indirectly with the t/s lens that could be done directly with a Sinar P.

LF is slow and deliberate because it is not spontaneous — that's it's nature. I've seen WYNO here on APUG go through his paces with a massive Tachihara 8x10 — hardly the stuff you can horsewhip quickly! It has little to do with creativity, supreme image quality (to a point; the difference between a 35mm print shot by a skilled professional vs a LF print of equivalent dimensions will be modest, until 35mm is enlarged beyond acceptable viewing quality) or being, "better" in whatever way. The small, oft-derided 35mm format is capable of quite astonishing results.

And yes, the smaller format only requires very small movements to affect a comparable change (to LF, a point made clear by a Dutch publication pitting LF against 35mm TS-E lenses), and such small movements usually require enhanced viewing magnification as the delineation of focus/field is not as distinct. I've been using Canon's TS-E lenses since 1996 and believe me it is a very slow, at times tedious business. I use TS-E in the landscape context, not still life (though I have done portraits with the 90mm TS-E). A few people buy a TS-E lens (almost twice as much as a decent Schneider LF eye) with absolutely no idea what they are doing, frustrate themselves, chuck it in and migrate to LF and believe they have suddenly been endowed with great skill. Really?

In January 2011 I will be migrating to LF not because I yearn for twist and shout (sorry, swing...) but because a slow and deliberate approach, spot/multi-spot/incident/weighted metering and everything else is not alien to me, and oh joy, the LF outfit will doubtless be lighter to boot!

 

[David William White]

For me it is slower and more deliberate than MF or 35mm. With the smaller formats, my motto was 'when in doubt, shoot anyway' whereas now I go out for a couple of hours with 2 film holders so my motto is 'when in doubt, fuss about and recompose'. But I should say I've gotten away from having 'deliverables' to produce, and it's all for me now.

Contact printing does simplify the workflow for me as well.