Why large format?

[PrairiePhotographer]

The only other thing I would add: when I shoot portraits with my 4x5 Graflex, the subject is more engaged. It feels like a special occasion - even an event. Everybody seems to participate in a different way than when I pull out my 35mm film camera.

 

[greg zinselmeier]

Ok … so, seeing “image” upside down and backwards allows you to forget the name of the thing one sees so one’s mind can revisit the content anew

 

[grat]

Ok … so, seeing “image” upside down and backwards allows you to forget the name of the thing one sees so one’s mind can revisit the content anew

No, but it can allow you to focus on the composition rather than the objects. The brain has relatively low processing power, so it tends to make assumptions, and extrapolate. My brother, who has severe dyslexia, learned years ago that he made fewer mistakes measuring with a ruler/tape if he read it upside down. Since he's a carpenter, that's kind of important.

 

[jtk]

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).

I do miss 4X5 (e.g. Toyo) and studio lights and same day E6 processing. I love the alternative, which relies on youknowwhat.

 

[grat]

however with LF you do need a darkroom

Why? I fully admit that by not being able to darkroom print at huge x monstrous sizes, I'm missing out on one of the benefits of LF, but quality scans of a 4x5 negative can be turned into rather large prints via my own, or third party, printing devices.

 

[jtk]

Why? I fully admit that by not being able to darkroom print at huge x monstrous sizes, I'm missing out on one of the benefits of LF, but quality scans of a 4x5 negative can be turned into rather large prints via my own, or third party, printing devices.

I loved shooting 4X5 in studio and on location, made half my living with that for a long time. However....it never occurred to me to make giant prints. If that's important to you...and if you don't need camera movements (which I used routinely)...you'll probably find that the unmentionable-here technology along with minimal computer tweaking, will print just as beautifully. Ansel shot a lot of 6X6 and nobody complained. Some did complain when he started peddling for Polaroid.

 

[ragazzo]

For black and white I find the where LF excels isn't resolution, it's tonality. Leaving aside all the perspective controls, which are useful once you understand them, LF is a completely different way of photographing something. It is by necessity much slower, and I find much more contemplative.

I have spent half an hour looking at a scene, walking around and visualizing how a print would look, and in the end decided to not bother setting up the camera. It wasn't time wasted, but it was still productive in the sense that I was forced to consider what I really wanted my print to look like. With 35mm or MF I probably would have taken a few shots and then never printed them.

As an experiment one time I took a photo of a small creek in the mountains. I used a slow shutter speed to blur the water and shot it with 35mm using Delta 100, and 4x5. I printed then both to 11x14, and made them as close to each other as I could. Then I took them to work and asked my co-workers which print they preferred. Every single one picked the print from the 4x5 negative, as it had much better tonality. For lack of a better word, it had more greys than they 35mm print. Resolution and detail was good enough on each, but the smaller format couldn't compare to the smooth gradation between the greys.

This is a useful insight. I suppose it all has to do specifically with the jump in size. That is, how the tonality and smoothness of the gradients are rendered. With more space to travel, perhaps the tones just "appear" more complex, whereas on a smaller format, say 35mm, the grain begins to overtake what might otherwise be smooth and crisp on 4x5. Not talking about edges or sharpness, but smoothness of tonal gradients...maybe?

 

[ragazzo]

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).

I do miss 4X5 (e.g. Toyo) and studio lights and same day E6 processing. I love the alternative, which relies on youknowwhat.

There are some labs in NYC that can do less than 24 hr turnaround....and one that charges double for a rush but can do it practically while you wait.

 

[Tel]

Imo, viewing upside down and backwards allows “a type” of contemplation that for me is quite satisfying.

That's a good point. I find that when I'm shooting with an SLR I compose more instinctively--I just put the camera up to my eye and shoot. When I'm shooting LF (and even MF sometimes) I find myself using another part of my brain and activvely thinking about how I want to frame the shot, what do I want to be in focus, etc.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That's a good point. I find that when I'm shooting with an SLR I compose more instinctively--I just put the camera up to my eye and shoot. When I'm shooting LF (and even MF sometimes) I find myself using another part of my brain and activvely thinking about how I want to frame the shot, what do I want to be in focus, etc.

Maybe I'm spoiled by using 35mm cameras most of my life, but I find it's easier to compose right side up. That's how my brain works. It is more instinctive for me. So, I'll use a micro 4/3 digital camera to compose my shot like a director's viewfinder. Then switch to my 4x5 to photograph it using the LF camera basically to focus and make minor adjustments to framing already decided. I also have an eye-level prism that converts the 4x5 screen to right side up that I use from time to time.

 

[waynecrider]

1. For me it’s all about getting out in nature with a 4x5 Graphic and discovering special places.
2. I love developing in deep tanks with hangers. So easy.
3. Ziatypes are easy to do with a split back printing frame using the sun for exposure.
4. Scanning for the big prints.

 

[Duceman]

Frankly, if I had to do it over, I would have passed on LF and stuck with MF. Now I never know which format I want to shoot in.

A year ago this past May, I was really on the lookout for a LF camera, specifically a SpeedGraphic (or its equivalent) in 4x5. There was one for sale locally. Set up a time to meet the seller. Spent almost an hour and a half at his place, wherein he talked me out of buying his camera! In retrospect, I'm sorta glad we had that conversation and am happy that I didn't end up purchasing. I have so much other equipment (in MF and 35mm) that I should focus on, and adding LF would have meant getting more equipment for developing, and especially if I wanted to make prints. If one were to take out the "print" aspect, and simply stick with scanning, the seller convinced me that the added benefit of 4x5 would most likely be minimal, and considering the extra hassle, may not be worth my time/energy, and that I should focus my resources on what I already had. It was good advice.

 

[markaudacity]

You don’t use LF to put it on a tiny/low res 8K screen.

8K isn’t low-res, let’s not get so carried away in preferring analog that we start denying reality. Your eyes can’t even discern 4K, much less 8K.

 

[jtk]

There are some labs in NYC that can do less than 24 hr turnaround....and one that charges double for a rush but can do it practically while you wait.

Back when pros really did shoot a lot of film it was routine in civilized places to get 2 hour turn around on E6 in genuinely professional labs without any special charge (a half dozen in San Francisco, for example). It was relatively easy to get same-day processing of Kodachrome in Kodak's then-wonderful Palo Alto lab.

 

[KenS]

Imo, viewing upside down and backwards allows “a type” of contemplation that for me is quite satisfying.

Greg,
Some 65+ years ago my mentor indicated the image when in focus on the ground glass was ALWAYS "Downside UP.

Ken

 

[waynecrider]

@GregY that's great insight, thanks! My current place is to small for a darkroom, but next time I move, it will be a requirement!

For now, why not develop in the bathroom and just scan till you get setup.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A year ago this past May, I was really on the lookout for a LF camera, specifically a SpeedGraphic (or its equivalent) in 4x5. There was one for sale locally. Set up a time to meet the seller. Spent almost an hour and a half at his place, wherein he talked me out of buying his camera! In retrospect, I'm sorta glad we had that conversation and am happy that I didn't end up purchasing. I have so much other equipment (in MF and 35mm) that I should focus on, and adding LF would have meant getting more equipment for developing, and especially if I wanted to make prints. If one were to take out the "print" aspect, and simply stick with scanning, the seller convinced me that the added benefit of 4x5 would most likely be minimal, and considering the extra hassle, may not be worth my time/energy, and that I should focus my resources on what I already had. It was good advice.

Not only the cost for the 4x5 equipment, but another $1150 for the V850 scanner.

 

[Helge]

8K isn’t low-res, let’s not get so carried away in preferring analog that we start denying reality. Your eyes can’t even discern 4K, much less 8K.

33 MP is not a lot if you enlarge and inspect at close range.

 

[Duceman]

Not only the cost for the 4x5 equipment, but another $1150 for the V850 scanner.

I believe my V750 is capable of handling 4x5.

 

[Vaughn]

Ok … so, seeing “image” upside down and backwards allows you to forget the name of the thing one sees so one’s mind can revisit the content anew

Sorry, but I have a slight defect that does not allow me to pass up the chance to say that on the GG, we see the image upside down (or downside up), but not backwards.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

33 MP is not a lot if you enlarge and inspect at close range.

I have a 75" TV. It's a 4K meaning 8mb of pixel resolution (3840x2160). I've compared 8mb and 2mb pictures displayed at 4K (8mb) and 2K (2mb) 1920x1080 uprezed to 4k by the TV for full display. Unless you get 3-4 feet from the screen of the TV, you really can't tell any difference. I normally sit14 feet away, so I can't see the difference. There is a sharpness sometimes I think I see with the 4K. But it may be an illusion on my part and psychological fakery.

I really can't understand new TVs with 8K resolution. That would be 32mb. If you can't see the difference between 2K and 4K, how would you see anything better with 8K? It seems like an invention looking for a market. Plus, no one's transmitting bandwidth at 8K and there's no content that's being filmed that way except for very special projects.

 

[Tel]

I really can't understand new TVs with 8K resolution. That would be 32mb. If you can't see the difference between 2K and 4K, how would you see anything better with 8K? It seems like an invention looking for a market.

Bragging rights? I can't see any other reason.

 

[Helge]

I have a 75" TV. It's a 4K meaning 8mb of pixel resolution (3840x2160). I've compared 8mb and 2mb pictures displayed at 4K (8mb) and 2K (2mb) 1920x1080 uprezed to 4k by the TV for full display. Unless you get 3-4 feet from the screen of the TV, you really can't tell any difference. I normally sit14 feet away, so I can't see the difference. There is a sharpness sometimes I think I see with the 4K. But it may be an illusion on my part and psychological fakery.

I really can't understand new TVs with 8K resolution. That would be 32mb. If you can't see the difference between 2K and 4K, how would you see anything better with 8K? It seems like an invention looking for a market. Plus, no one's transmitting bandwidth at 8K and there's no content that's being filmed that way except for very special projects.

It’s all about size. As is now, 8K only makes sense with projection. Or with unnaturally close inspection of the relatively small screens possible.

 

[MattKing]

It’s all about size. As is now, 8K only makes sense with projection. Or with unnaturally close inspection of the relatively small screens possible.

Or if you are using it as a computer monitor for digital post-processing work in respect of files intended for larger prints, and need to be able to drill down to examine fine detail.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Or if you are using it as a computer monitor for digital post-processing work in respect of files intended for larger prints, and need to be able to drill down to examine fine detail.

If you display the entire 100MB image on the monitor screen showing 32MB of it (8K), you probably won't be able to determine the resolution anyway of small areas. Plus, you can zoom into a 100mb image to see the fine detail of small areas on a 1920x1080 screen. You don't need a screen with more resolution. Zooming does that for you.