Why large format?

[Jay Schrotenboer]

I was not entirely happy with the heftiness of the Gitzo for both berry vine bashing and creek crossing, but in the tighter places amongst the blackberries, it was easier to use against the vines than the Ries would have been (and the weight would have stopped me...I was freshly coming off a bout of Covid). I had a bottle of Scotch with me (transferred to a flask for the hike) to share with any of my hairy brothers who might come by. None did, so I actually hiked out with some still in the flask. Buchanan's Deluxe Blended Scotch. Not too bad...a gift for watching a friend's dog for a few days. They would have liked it...

I should go out shooting pictures with you some time, I like scotch!!

 

[Vaughn]

I should go out shooting pictures with you some time, I like scotch!!

Oh, I don't know...all who wander are not lost, but some of us should not be followed.

But on topic -- I used a touch of front tilt quite often out there on my hike. I was photographing a lot out in the open along the creek -- deep amongst the redwoods themselves, I tend to use less movements...too much chaos to be fooling too much with the plane of focus!

 

[Steven Lee]

I hope this is the appropriate place to ask: are there any brand new LF lenses? B&H lists a bunch of large format lenses but they seem to be optimized for digital backs. It's strange that they're calling them large format.

 

[Oren Grad]

I hope this is the appropriate place to ask: are there any brand new LF lenses? B&H lists a bunch of large format lenses but they seem to be optimized for digital backs. It's strange that they're calling them large format.

There is limited stock remaining of the 210, 240, 300 and 360mm focal lengths in the "Edition" series of the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S, and I think also of a couple of the Schneider Fine Art XXL series, all at breathtakingly high prices. AFAIK there's nothing currently in production - stock of new Copal shutters to mount LF lenses in is long gone.

 

[Bob S]

There is limited stock remaining of the 210, 240, 300 and 360mm focal lengths in the "Edition" series of the Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S, and I think also of a couple of the Schneider Fine Art XXL series, all at breathtakingly high prices. AFAIK there's nothing currently in production - stock of new Copal shutters to mount LF lenses in is long gone.

The eShutter is available for view camera lenses that fit a 0 size shutter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There is such a glut of barely used modern LF lenses available that needing to buy something brand new is a non-issue. Of course, some lenses are way more in demand than others and likely to cost more; but still, there are plenty to choose from.

 

[trondsi]

The last few of days I’ve been shooting four 4x5 E6 sheets in the morning and developing them at home in a small tank a couple of hours later. Getting positive images so fast has some of the charm of an instant camera / Polaroid, but with superb image quality transparencies

 

[serouscam]

Take a look at a contact print. I use 4"x5" mostly handheld with a Speed Graphic or Graflex Model D. The right tool for the right time.

There is no Model D, it is called Series D

 

[Sirius Glass]

There is no Model D, it is called Series D

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you like to fiddle with stuff, LF will satisfy you.

 

[grat]

If you like to fiddle with stuff, LF will satisfy you.

Don't like to fiddle.

I'm opposed to violins.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

"I've embraced GAS and learned to live with it. In my post here I'm asking for your help to talk myself into getting a 4x5 view camera."

OP doesn't need any help. With quoted syndromes OP will get 4x5 field, press and studio cameras. At least...
No, 4x5 enlarger is a must. Scans are for losers!

I'm 100% sure OP will do it without any help, because I did the same, some years ago while film was still affordable.

Still have Omega XL something collecting dust...

As non OP related "WLF?" factors I consider LF been most filmish format.
And if you have attention disorder syndrome, LF is real medicine.
Forget about light and something moving, by the time you'll set it all up, all is gone and you are photographing some leftovers.
It is all about meditation, filmish look will cover the lack of timing anyway.
Nothing looks like LF.

I remember how I was told here "I could set it in thirty seconds". It made me LOL. With my all mechanical Leica I could walk in, find some artist mood by looking around, guess exposure, set camera and have plenty of time for framing and even walking away ten meters to repeat the same at different angle. While thirty seconds dudes have to jiggle for another thirty seconds to put it all back before they could somewhat move.

 

[Tim Stapp]

Lots of interesting ideas...however with LF you do need a darkroom and it's no longer reasonable, for most, to shoot E6 (almost all good labs died).

Not all are dead. Check these folks out.: https://www.agximaging.com/

 

[PhotoPham]

I hope this is the appropriate place to ask: are there any brand new LF lenses? B&H lists a bunch of large format lenses but they seem to be optimized for digital backs. It's strange that they're calling them large format.

There is this Tri Tran guy who's reselling these new lenses made in Vietnam by a craftsman named Den Thoi Ngo but you're looking at $3000+ after tax.
Another thing is that these lenses are soft-focus lenses, so if you're all about sharpness, these lenses are not for you.

TT Signature lens — Tri Tran Photography

Introducing the Tri Tran Signature Fine Art Lens Tri Tran is pleased to share his Signature Soft Focus Fine Art Lens Series. Inspired by the Soft Focus Lenses favored by Pictorialist Era photographers of the late 19th and early 20th century, Tri Tran’s Signature Lens is a single meniscus

www.tritranphotography.com

 

[Steven Lee]

@PhotoPham $3K+ is not for me but it's great to know this exists! Thank you!

 

[Eric Rose]

Oh, I don't know...all who wander are not lost, but some of us should not be followed.

But on topic -- I used a touch of front tilt quite often out there on my hike. I was photographing a lot out in the open along the creek -- deep amongst the redwoods themselves, I tend to use less movements...too much chaos to be fooling too much with the plane of focus!

Exactly my sentiments as well. I'm a firm believer in KISS. Not the band.

 

[Roger Cole]

McDiesel, Since you've posted your LF desire in the analog section....I'll just say unless you're going to process your own film, & contact print or enlarge darkroom prints, i'd avoid LF. So much of the experience is tied not only the the big film, but the output.
I've worked with 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 & 4x10. You can do outstanding work with any of the formats, and as mentioned the tonal range and delicacy of contact prints is something special. If you sub out any part of the process, you're missing out on a great deal of the beauty of large format.

I'd say that "unless you're going to process your own film, & contact print or enlarge darkroom prints" I wouldn't bother shooting film of any size at all. For me the darkroom is at least half the creativity and two thirds of the fun of film photography. I love it, whereas I work in telecom as an IP network engineer for a big ISP and "drive a keyboard" all the time. The last thing on earth I want to do for a hobby or art is to spend yet more time at a #%$% computer. That said, now that I'm getting back into photography after a long break, I may end up doing SOME hybrid mode work, mainly because I can enlarge negatives up to 4x5 but not larger and I'm interested in shooting 8x10 so besides the (admittedly they can be magical as people have said, but limited size and no cropping without shrinking) chance to make 8x10 contact prints I'd be stuck.

But in a way you and everyone are right. With modern films there isn't much difference at normal print sizes. When I work in medium format I shoot either my Mamiya 645 Pro or my RZ 67 Pro II. What I do with those is sort of a simplified zone system where I have three film backs loaded with the same film. One will be for N development, one for "plus some" and one for "minus some" typically about +1.5 and -1.0 or so. Given the contrast range modern VC papers can handle with still excellent results, there's rarely if ever any real need for more than N-1 or N+1.5, at least for me. But here's another odd advantage: my 4x5 kit with camera body, filters and gel filter holder, spot meter, three lenses, dark cloth etc. is still considerably smaller and lighter than my RZ 67 kit! I've been shooting with an old Technika III which is a pretty compact camera, and my lenses are old and small, but still perfectly adequate at 4x5. There are, of course, smaller and lighter options than an RZ 67. The rotating back means the camera has to be the size of a 7x7 camera. My 645 is much smaller and lighter and very easy, virtually as easy as my 35mm gear, to shoot handheld, unlike my RZ, but that's also giving up a lot of negative size. Where I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 16x20 print made from one of my 4x5 negatives and one made from an RZ 6x7 negative, I COULD tell the difference between the 4x5 and a 645 one, especially with faster films. And I tend to shoot in late afternoon into evening and even night, or in deep shade in the woods, so I typically shoot 400 film.

Also, do not dismiss the usefullness of camera movements until you've tried them. I'm not sure I have EVER taken a 4x5 shot without SOME movements, typically some tilt to keep the foreground sharp. That's actually what I miss most when shooting landscapes with the RZ. Yes there are tilt and tilt-shift lenses for MF cameras but they are pretty limited compared to even a basic view camera.

OTOH, what many have already said is also true: aside from a few very specific reasons like alternative process contact prints, the main reason is because it's just a different approach, and one that I enjoy a lot for the same general reason that I love darkroom work: it's slow and contemplative. I can be just as rushed all the time as many other modern people and it literally makes a lot of us sick, or at least less healthy than we'd be if we'd slow down. I enjoy the fact it takes me 10 minutes to take a shot. Heck, many times I've spent 10-20 minutes setting up and ended up thinking, "nah, this just doesn't work like I thought it would" and not even exposing the film. But I really studied that scene and thought about composition and exposure. That may be way more annoying than fun (like someone said it was) for some people and quite enjoyable for others.

I am not getting back into LF until I can replace my old Technika though. The thing is held together, more or less, by wire and good hopes and has more electrical tape than leather on the ancient bellows. But I do plan to replace it.

If you could find someone or a group locally that shoot LF and tag along, that might help decide if it's for you.

 

[Roger Cole]

Why do large format ? Why not? Old fogged photo paper makes ideal paper for negatives, you can use almost anything that light transmits through as a lens, and you can have people ask you endless questions on the street like "do they still make film for that" or "is that a hasselblad" when you are taking pictures. If you want a GIANT large format camera I think the Abe Morelle book gives you the ingredients to make a room into a camera like his hotell room sceries.

I often enjoy serious questions, but I am really sick of "do they still make film for that?" or even "do they still make film?" even with my medium format cameras, at least with my TLRs. My M645 Pro looks enough like a digital camera that I think people assume it is, at least until they hear the winder.

I've been known to smart off in reply and say, "nope, sure don't, I just like to pretend." Ask a stupid question...

 

[Roger Cole]

If the main attraction is playing with the large format cameras, rather than resolution, you could consider putting a 120 roll film back on a large format: all of the fun and hassles of large format cameras with none of the film processing hassles or resolution advantages. You can have a lot of fun with a Crown Graphic or Century Graphic (technically, the Century isn't considered large format by some) and a 90mm Wollensak WA Optar for very little money. And there's those cool flash handles and sizzling flash bulbs...

Given my intense hatred of dust on sheet film I've often thought that a medium format view camera would in fact give me the best of everything (used with a roll film back, not 2-1/4x3-1/4 sheets bought annual from Ilford or whatever.)

The "thinking about LF" set should be aware of that - if you get dust on the sheet of film in the holder, and you WILL at least sometimes, it's far more hassle than on a negative in the darkroom. White spots are not that hard to spot out, but dust on the film when it's exposed lead to white spots on the negative that print black, a far more difficult issue to deal with. There are ways, none of which I've found completely satisfactory. You can use a temporary removable medium of some kind to spot the negative so that it prints white then spot the print as usual. That usually results in a spot roughly the size and shape of Texas on the final print or, if you're skillful and lucky, maybe Wyoming. You can try to bleach back the black spot on the print, in which case it's easier, heck the only way to make it work, to bleach it too far and then spot it as usual, even harder than spotting the negative. With some papers you may be able to use an etching knife and carefully remove some of the density from the print. As I said, I've found none of them really satisfactory. Of course if you are working with a hybrid approach and scanning all this goes away in two seconds with the clone stamp or equivalent.

 

[Roger Cole]

Why large format? Well for one thing, according to everybody's favorite commentator on photography (Ken Rockwell), large format is about the most economical film format to shoot. Why? Because each shot is so expensive that most people who shoot large format take very few shots. There's probably at least a grain of truth to that.

Meh, maybe, sort of. It's not so much the cost as the slowness of the process, at least in 4x5 black and white. (Color is very different and Ken tends to write about that, so maybe that's what he meant.)

If one can get along with Foma film, and I've shot a fair bit of the 400 without any of the QC issues that people have reported plaguing the 200, you can get Foma 400 in 4x5 direct from Fotoimpex for about eighty cents a sheet, given today's favorable EUR-USD exchange rate (favorable to those of us in the US.) Of course there's shipping and even currently a Covid surcharge, but the latter is per-order. Bottom line is that even with shipping it's still far cheaper than even the Freestyle rebranded Arista version. It's not "cheap," it's certainly not 35mm, and for that matter no one will confuse the film with HP5, but it's not THAT bad.

But when it takes me ten minutes to set up and get a shot, and that's if I hurry, I just wouldn't be shooting dozens of shots a day even if the film were as cheap as a 35mm shot.

 

[Craig]

If one can get along with Foma film, and I've shot a fair bit of the 400 without any of the QC issues that people have reported plaguing the 200, you can get Foma 400 in 4x5 direct from Fotoimpex for about eighty cents a sheet,

I just did an order from Fotoimpex and though about adding some Foma film and then I didn't. If I'm going to the effort of taking a LF camera out and setting up the shot I want to make sure that my film is perfect.

For the relatively small difference in cost between Foma and Ilford, relative to the costs I might incur getting to a location (gas, meals, hotel etc) and processing the film, it's a very small price to pay for the certainty that there will be no QC issues with my film.

Not only does one need to account for the cost of the film, but the cost of failure of cheap film too.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Roger Cole and @GregY I hear you! But let's not get into subjective matters here. I understand that computers are a turn-off for many, especially if one needs to spend a lot of time with them at work.

But I love them. In fact, computers are a bigger passion of mine than photography, my house is full of them. I have personal cloud accounts on all major cloud providers, plus my own rack in a data center. My intent is to scan my 4x5 negatives. There's no reason not to. I've done hardware, software, I know Photoshop inside and out, I love scanning and love my results, and looking forward to scan large format as well. Trying to steer me away from computers is pointless. The definition of a photograph for me is a well-done scan. End of story.

The darkroom will come later. I had one before. Yes I miss it and I know what I'm missing.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Resolution is not a luxury or a specmanship contest. It’s a real important parameter, with real emotional impact, that is paramount for some types of photo.

I suspect that this is true, but do not yet grok this to be true. I am looking forward to the day when I can truly see this in my own work.

 

[GLS]

I hope this is the appropriate place to ask: are there any brand new LF lenses? B&H lists a bunch of large format lenses but they seem to be optimized for digital backs. It's strange that they're calling them large format.

"Large format" in that context means "larger than 35mm"

As to new large format lenses, Cooke is another manufacturer that still makes them. They are serious $$ though. Their PS945 is somewhat legendary.

Cooke Lenses - Shop by Brand - Optics - Specialist Photography Cameras Filters Lenses Lighting Camera Heads

LEE Filters, Zeiss lenses, Voigtlander camera bodies, studio equipment, lighting and studio accessories suppliers with expert UK support.

www.robertwhite.co.uk

 

[PhotoPham]

I've been considering moving up formats, currently on the fence about pulling the trigger for an 8x10 camera. So satisfying looking at these giant negatives on a light source.
Currently using 5x7 gear.