Why do you shoot LF?

[polyglot]

Polyglot, I personally think that the cost/benefit comparison to roll film is a false economy for at least some of us.

One of the biggest problems I have is not finishing a roll when I shoot.

I'm to a point where when I see a shot that I want, 2-4 frames are normally more than plenty for a given subject. I roll 20-shot rolls for 35mm to minimize this, but I am finding that getting even 10 shots in a row, with the old RB, is becoming a real streatch most of the time.

If that's how you work, I can't sit here and tell you you're wrong. However, my approach is that I have four backs for my RZ and keep each loaded with a different type of film. And if I don't finish a roll, it can sit there happily until I need that film type in another week or four, at which point it'll be finished off and I don't waste any. I can put up with waiting to get my images, in fact I often have a little backlog of 5 to 15 rolls before I fire up the Jobo.

I'm not sure if it makes sense to talk about "stop of detail", because the way we view images is so nonlinear. As far as information in the frame goes, the difference isn't enormous---a factor of 3 between 6x7 and 4x5, given equal film resolution---but clearly a lot of people find the visual impact of that modest difference to be disproportionate, perhaps because it crosses some critical perceptual threshold for them.

In any case, I think "detail per frame" is more important than "detail per unit area" in practice (I think that's what you're comparing above; Acros apparently costs twice as much per unit area in 4x5 as in MF, right?). One of the points of shooting large format is precisely to enlarge less, i.e., to put more film area in the image; of course that costs more per frame, and of course it doesn't make the underlying resolution of the film any higher, but it does deliver more film resolution to the viewer.

In short: It's not that you double your cost (per unit area) to keep the same resolution, it's that you sextuple your cost to triple your resolution. Diminishing returns to be sure, but somewhat offset if, like many of us, you get a higher fraction of keepers in LF.

I was referring to detail and cost per frame (35-50c vs $1.80, for first-rate films), not per area so I think we mostly agree here. I have a pair of 16x20" prints on my cubicle wall: one from 6x7 TMY2 and one from 4x5 Fomapan (Arista) 100... they have the same level of perceptible detail and the better film in smaller format gives about 4 stops of speed advantage. So even though a large negative is nice, my subjective experience is that it makes no (when using cheaper films) to visible-but-not-earthshattering (using identical films at 5x $/frame) difference in final appearance. I'd much prefer to shoot 5x7 but I can't really get the films I want in that size and my enlarger is only 4x5. The extra area would probably make more difference if I could print at 32" or 40" but I can't as yet.

Maybe I'm an incompetent, but my keeper ratio for LF and MF is about the same unless I'm doing higher-risk (uncontrolled subject) shots like candid portraits that have an inherently lower keeper rate due to fleeting expressions, etc.

 

[markbarendt]

If that's how you work, I can't sit here and tell you you're wrong. However, my approach is that I have four backs for my RZ and keep each loaded with a different type of film. And if I don't finish a roll, it can sit there happily until I need that film type in another week or four, at which point it'll be finished off and I don't waste any. I can put up with waiting to get my images, in fact I often have a little backlog of 5 to 15 rolls before I fire up the Jobo.

I've got 3 backs for my RB, essentially bought for the same reason as you state and to avoid having to reload at inopportune times. 4 Nikon bodies allow the same in 35mm.

Kept coming to the weekend though, wanting to print from the 2 or 5 or whatever number of shots I grabbed as I went through the work week.

The problem compounds itself when I shoot those "5" shots on 3 types of roll film.

I've tried upping the shot volume too; more shots of the same subject, more subjects even if they weren't all that exciting to me. That hasn't gotten me any more keepers though, typically just more stuff to wade through.

Don't get me wrong, roll film cameras have there place in my life, but sheet film is darn handy for low volume work.

 

[cepwin]

I do it because it is fun and interesting....and the big negatives are easier to print....and believe it or not, it is cheaper than shooting small format.

Thats interesting....I always thought LF was much more expensive in terms of cost per image, etc. Also aren't enlargers that can handle LF expensive or are enlargers not even used?

 

[MattKing]

Thats interesting....I always thought LF was much more expensive in terms of cost per image, etc. Also aren't enlargers that can handle LF expensive or are enlargers not even used?

Used 4 x 5 enlargers tend to be quite inexpensive, because they are large and heavy and because there aren't as many people using them commercially as there used to be.

I bought mine (an Omega D6 with a good set of carriers and lenses, an Ilford Multigrade light source, a condensor light source and a bunch of other goodies) off of Craigslist for a very reasonable cost. I know others who have essentially been given one free.

A new one is, however, very expensive.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think the pursuit of technical excellence can be a mark of an artist... it serves the pursuit of a look.

 

[markbarendt]

Thats interesting....I always thought LF was much more expensive in terms of cost per image, etc. Also aren't enlargers that can handle LF expensive or are enlargers not even used?

I found an old Elwood 5x7 that needed some work for $100ish as I remember. Probably have $200 in it total. It is almost a piece of art itself. Gets the job done, I'm sure a more modern one would be easier to use but I'm in no rush to upgrade.

If you are up to a road trip freebies pop up now and again, on the large format forum or here. A WTB ad would probably drag one out reasonable.

There are some on EBay right now that are reasonably priced too.

Of course with 8x10 and larger cameras contact prints become a real option, a light bulb hanging on a wire in a closet becomes a practical darkroom setup.

 

[fastw]

Now I have one request: can you Guys post some of your work, especially something you think you couldn't have shot with Medium Format. Please.
Cheers, Wojtek

 

[markbarendt]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30056819@N00/4152134119

The plane of focus has been swung around on this one so that it isolates the main subject, Per Volquartz. The plane of focus actually gets the Chauncey in the far back too.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

How about any photograph made where the plane of focus is not parallel with the film plane?
(Ahh... I see Mark beat me to it.)

How about any first-generation contact print larger than medium format?

How about any practical photograph made with an antique brass lens from the 1800s?

How about any photograph where the camera is not level, but all verticals in the picture are truly vertical. (And you didn't have to spend a gazillion dollars on a specialty PC lens?)

Like (there was a url link here which no longer exists), where the camera was actually pointing slightly upward, yet there is no vertical convergence.

Ken

 

[polyglot]

Now I have one request: can you Guys post some of your work, especially something you think you couldn't have shot with Medium Format. Please.
Cheers, Wojtek

A typical technophile shot (of questionable artistic merit) using movements:

See the focal plane (quite shallow!) follows the front plane of the car due to use of lots of front swing.

Strictly speaking you could achieve that with a medium-format view camera (GX680, flexbody, etc) but those are either so large or expensive as to be (IMHO) fairly pointless; you might as well just get a 4x5.

Other common things to do are plane of focus follows the ground (more stuff in focus without losing sharpness to diffraction) and parallel sides while placing the focus through carefully selected points.

 

[removed account4]

Now I have one request: can you Guys post some of your work, especially something you think you couldn't have shot with Medium Format. Please.
Cheers, Wojtek

hi fastw

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
all shot with paper negatives between 4x5" and 11x14"

 

[Chuck_P]

Now I have one request: can you Guys post some of your work, especially something you think you couldn't have shot with Medium Format. Please.
Cheers, Wojtek

In this one, the camera was pointed up at about a 30 degree angle, both the lens plane and the film plane are rotated to the verticle position. There are no structural verticals in this photo, but if there were, they would not show any convergence.

I think Mark's picture is a real good example of how the plane of focus can be placed just about anywhere the photographer wants it, relative to the camera's position---------opposed to a fixed lens system where the plane of focus is always parallel to the film plane.

 

[papagene]

Now I have one request: can you Guys post some of your work, especially something you think you couldn't have shot with Medium Format. Please.
Cheers, Wojtek

Here's one:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Kav]

I like that it slows me down. And it's so much easier for me to develop. I friggen hate loading film onto a spool. I suck at it.

 

[Vaughn]

Most of my work could not be taken with anything else than a LF camera. Because a large negative is part of my work flow and personal process.

Just duplicating the image with a MF negative (even exactly) would create a different final product, because the entire process would be different, from going out to photograph to the hanging of the image on the wall.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Now I have one request: can you Guys post some of your work, especially something you think you couldn't have shot with Medium Format. Please.
Cheers, Wojtek

Sure, just click on my name over in the left-hand column and click "view gallery uploads," and most of the images I've posted are large format.

You can also check my flickr stream.

These are all 8x10-- http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/tags/8x10/

These are all 4x5-- http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/tags/4x5/

Or parsed another way, these are all albumen prints (one is MF, the rest LF)-- http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/tags/albumen/

 

[eddie]

Are you sure, John?

Because the logical extension of your answer would be to take the position that any artist who feels the need for greater levels of technical perfection in the use of his chosen medium (in order to more clearly express his vision in whatever medium that might be) cannot, by definition, create a work of art.

Ken

But don't you think becoming a slave to technical perfection can be a hindrance to creating a work of art? I'm not really disagreeing with you, Ken (competence in use of materials IS important), but sometimes it's best just to let go, and do...

I think this is sort of a chicken/egg question. One needs the technical proficiency to create art, and one also needs the artistic vision to fully utilize the technical proficiency. I don't think either successfully works in a vacuum.

 

[rakmaya]

Just started with 4x5. To me it is has been fun so far. I am a big fan of 35mm and personally I think if I am to give up the benefits of 35mm it must give me something much better to offset. Medium format is only marginal for me.

 

[Cybertrash]

I got into 5x4 because the shooting experience is different. Not only is it slower, but the camera itself works in a very different way (compared to 35mm or medium format) with the groundglass and bellows focusing and so on. It also seems like a much more "streamlined" or "pure" way of photography, reading about large format has made me understand some of the aspects and techniques of photography that I didn't before.

 

[ntenny]

I'm pretty sure there's very little that *can* *be* done in one format and not another, except for things directly tied to the size of the image on film (you can't make an 8x10" contact print from a 35mm negative), but that doesn't mean different formats don't have different strengths. You *could* set up a 35mm camera with a very, very fine lens in a tilt-shift arrangement, use an extremely high-resolution film, and carefully calibrate the position of the film so that you could cut the frames apart in the dark and process them all individually with different development. You could...but you wouldn't, because it would be a ridiculous mismatch between the tool and the job.

I solarize negatives occasionally and I contact print, so LF has obvious attractions. For me, the movements aren't a huge deal most of the time, but when you need them you need them, and obviously for many LF shooters they're a critical working tool.

-NT

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Back in college, I worked in the rare books and collections area of the UGA library. One of their holdings was an 8x10 contact print of an Ansel Adams winter snow scene in Yosemite. It was the single most beautiful print I had ever seen, and I've never seen anything that surpassed it in terms of physical beauty. It was like looking through a window into another dimension.

I got seriously choked up! Large format haas never quite worked for what I want to do as a photographer, but it's always been a dream to work that way. I particularly admire Paul Strand's jewel like portraits, contact printed at 5"x6".

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But don't you think becoming a slave to technical perfection can be a hindrance to creating a work of art?

Yes, I do.

But that's not the context in which Clive chose to frame his question. He chose to explicitly limit the possibilities to either "art" OR "just photographic technical perfection." With the "just" seemingly tipping his personal preference.

I simply logically extended his question into converse equivilency in a bid for confirming clarity.

Ken

 

[eddie]

I see, Ken. I responded to your response to John's post, not Clive's post. "Just" does have a bias, and I see why you would seek some clarity.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

My response to John was the same as it would have been to Clive, had Clive also confirmed my sense of his original question.

If the answer is "Yes" then no art which may rely on the "pursuit of technical perfection" is possible. If the answer is "No" then the presence or absence of "technical perfection" factors out of the equation, and the work's assertion as "art" must be assessed using other criteria.

It's not just a case of splitting semantic hairs. If the answer is "Yes" then an entire class of potential art is summarily dismissed. And dismissed based on one person's singular opinion. And of course, if that can happen within this particular discussion, then... well...

Photography is a big tent. It needs to remain open and accessible to all interested parties, regardless of their choices of styles or approaches. Or even talent levels.

Ken

 

[eddie]

Ken- Technical perfection and Art are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a degree of both are required. Whether it's 50/50, 75/25, etc., varies.
I've seen technically perfect photos that have left me cold. I've seen great concepts ruined by a lack of competence. I think the danger lies in an over- reliance of one over the other. I think the trick is in knowing which area one is weaker, and working to improve that aspect of the work.