Why large format?

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

I visited Best Buy and they're selling 8K Tv's As far as I know, Hollywood isn't filming in 8K, no one has the bandwidth to receive 8K, no one is transmitting it except as an experiment.

It's like camera manufacturers upping the resolution game for years much higher than 99% of the people need just to create a new market each time to sell stuff.

 

[Vaughn]

Ultimately (IMO), one's tools shapes how one works, as well as shapes the work itself.

As an artist, choosing tools is an artistic decision.

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

Ultimately (IMO), one's tools shapes how one works, as well as shapes the work itself.

As an artist, choosing tools is an artistic decision.

Well said, and my choice to stick with black and white has actually opened up more options for me than it has limited me. Sticking with one “tool” is allowing me more opportunities than I could have ever imagined. I say limit yourself to a set of tools and you will grow far more than your realize.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well said, and my choice to stick with black and white has actually opened up more options for me than it has limited me. Sticking with one “tool” is allowing me more opportunities than I could have ever imagined. I say limit yourself to a set of tools and you will grow far more than your realize.

I agree there is much that one can learn by starting with one camera, one lens, one film and one developer. Not swapping lenses when starting out has its advantages.

 

[Vaughn]

I agree, but at the same time realizing that people learn in all sorts of different ways productively. While my path down LF and silver gelatin printing was one lens/format and fairly conventional, I would not recommend to anyone the method I taught myself carbon printing...but I cannot picture myself going about it any differently and still getting similar results. The same relationship between tool and artist can exist between process and artist.

 

[alanrockwood]

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.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Why large format?

Large format slides, including B&W, give an extraordinary viewing experience that the smaller formats can't match.

 

[Helge]

I visited Best Buy and they're selling 8K Tv's As far as I know, Hollywood isn't filming in 8K, no one has the bandwidth to receive 8K, no one is transmitting it except as an experiment.

It's like camera manufacturers upping the resolution game for years much higher than 99% of the people need just to create a new market each time to sell stuff.

Except large format is literally almost two centuries old.
The resolution possible and what is possible with that resolution has been used and appreciated in the 20th century for many applications.

 

[grat]

If you can't see the difference between 2K and 4K, how would you see anything better with 8K?

But my 4k TV definitely has a sharper image than my previous 1080p unit. I can easily tell the difference between 1080p and 2160p. I've seen the math that categorically states, if our eyes were digital, that there is no point to anything about 720p, but empirically, it's BS.

 

[grat]

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.

I have a similar defect-- when I look at text in the ground glass, it is upside down, and reversed. If I only flip vertically, the text is still backwards. I am officially confused.

 

[Helge]

But my 4k TV definitely has a sharper image than my previous 1080p unit. I can easily tell the difference between 1080p and 2160p. I've seen the math that categorically states, if our eyes were digital, that there is no point to anything about 720p, but empirically, it's BS.

How would digital eyes even work? No such thing as a digital sensor.

The bigger resolution also makes the motion artifacts that results from the sample and hold, magnified by the saccades of our eyes, that is the basis of updating of any LCD and OLED screen.

 

[grat]

How would digital eyes even work? No such thing as a digital sensor.

The bigger resolution also makes the motion artifacts that results from the sample and hold, magnified by the saccades of our eyes, that is the basis of updating of any LCD and OLED screen.

Sorry, I tend to take verbal shortcuts sometimes. The argument is that human eyes have a specific resolving power which is immutable (and based on the idea of a camera sensor, hence my comment about "digital eyes"), and that even a lowly 1K display at 12 feet (4m) displays pixels that the human eye is incapable of resolving, thus, no one needs even a 1080P display screen.

Personally, I find this argument to be similar to the ones that claimed people would suffocate above 30 miles per hour in a car, or that bumblebees can't fly-- if empirical evidence contradicts your calculations, the calculations must be suspect.

 

[Helge]

Sorry, I tend to take verbal shortcuts sometimes. The argument is that human eyes have a specific resolving power which is immutable (and based on the idea of a camera sensor, hence my comment about "digital eyes"), and that even a lowly 1K display at 12 feet (4m) displays pixels that the human eye is incapable of resolving, thus, no one needs even a 1080P display screen.

Personally, I find this argument to be similar to the ones that claimed people would suffocate above 30 miles per hour in a car, or that bumblebees can't fly-- if empirical evidence contradicts your calculations, the calculations must be suspect.

It’s just classic reductionist positivist thinking, using poorly understood psychosensorics and even poor physics understanding to arrive at a nice convenient problem that has a bewitchingly straightforward answer.

Same type of thinking that arrived at speakers where the spectrum is split between two or more driver units with a crossover network. Without ever really considering whether the human ear was sophisticated enough to easily hear the jump between different materials and physics of the drivers and the networks influence.

Trouble is humans are also very adaptable. When subjected to a new thing for some time, if it isn’t directly/immediately hurting to the body, the human mind will readily accept it as normal and good. And even resist change to something that should be better.

The human eye can resolve much more than it’s given credit for with this type of thinking. For amongst other reasons that it’s a scanner, not a camera.
A single “shot” with an eye doesn’t exist and wouldn’t make any sense of it did.
The eye is meant to move and does so constantly.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

But my 4k TV definitely has a sharper image than my previous 1080p unit. I can easily tell the difference between 1080p and 2160p. I've seen the math that categorically states, if our eyes were digital, that there is no point to anything about 720p, but empirically, it's BS.

I've run both 1080 uprezed to 2160 and 2160 innate on a 4K screen one right after the other. I just can't tell the difference from 14 feet back. I do grant you that sometimes the 4K seems sharper. But the difference is so negligible, it's hard to tell. Of course, if I sit closer, it becomes more noticeable. How far back do you view and what size is your TV?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

1080 has a lot of artifacts that 2160 does not. But from 14 feet, you can't see them. They are noticeable from up close. I suppose they do create less clarity, but gee, I find it hard to see. Maybe my eyes are getting old.

 

[BHuij]

It sounds like for your style of shooting, large format probably doesn't make sense. If you don't feel you need perspective control, focal plane control, or resolution offered, then by all means keep shooting medium format and be happy. Large format ain't for everyone.

A few other things I rather enjoy about large format (in addition to the perspective control, focal plane control, and resolution, which for me are actually a huge deal):

• Single sheet developing. I can custom develop every image. I can go out for 2 hours and come home with a single frame sometimes, and that feels like enough.
• Process. Setting up the camera, taking my time to very precisely compose, focus, and meter the scene, etc. is a very zen-like and relaxing way to photograph for me. It helps me concentrate on the art and take better images. I suppose I could do that process with other cameras, but I don't. With 4x5, I'm forced to slow down.

Those two things are worth considering, but for me personally, they wouldn't on their own be a good enough reason to shoot 4x5. And if I'm honest, I frequently can't be bothered to get out the large format camera. Sometimes I prefer the simplicity of working in medium format instead, and I find that MF gives me enough resolution for the prints I want to make about 95% of the time. In fact this spring I really shot a lot more 35mm than I usually do, and it was a delightful change of pace for me to walk around without even a tripod and just shoot without overthinking everything or wondering whether each exposure was worth the film cost. I even got a frame I really like, and one that works well with the softer "enlarged" look I get printing 11x14 paper from a 35mm negative.

All in all, I'd say you probably shouldn't get a large format camera.

That said, if you ever find yourself in Utah and want to try the whole 4x5 thing out without spending any money, send me a message. I'll be happy to let you shoot mine and find out once and for all whether you get the bug like I did

 

[cjbecker]

Ultimately (IMO), one's tools shapes how one works, as well as shapes the work itself.

As an artist, choosing tools is an artistic decision.

This is one of the reasons I'm using more and more 4x5. The imagery that comes from 4x5 is a more refined way of seeing a scene. It would be like family pictures compared too environmental portraiture

 

[MattKing]

I've run both 1080 uprezed to 2160 and 2160 innate on a 4K screen one right after the other. I just can't tell the difference from 14 feet back. I do grant you that sometimes the 4K seems sharper. But the difference is so negligible, it's hard to tell. Of course, if I sit closer, it becomes more noticeable. How far back do you view and what size is your TV?

1080 has a lot of artifacts that 2160 does not. But from 14 feet, you can't see them. They are noticeable from up close. I suppose they do create less clarity, but gee, I find it hard to see. Maybe my eyes are getting old.

I know this may seem like the pot calling the kettle black, because I'm guilty of participating in it too, and I'm not specifically looking at Alan's posts as anything but examples, but I think we have wrung out all the available value from the digital comparisons in this thread.

The thread is about the value of large format film photography and is posted in a strictly analogue sub-forum. So can we please keep it there from now on.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Going back to a much earlier question when the thread was still at least marginally on-topic, one of the reasons FOR large format is depth-of-field control. Note I said control, not overall depth-of-field. Because of the ability to apply movements, you can more precisely place the depth-of-field where you want/need it, and it also helps when you need to use a larger aperture so you can use a faster shutter speed to control movement, for example. Also when doing still life/tabletop/macro, being able to control what is in or out of focus at any given aperture is a big plus.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I could give all kinds of technical arguments in favor of large format. But how about a subjective response to "why"? ... Cause it's darn fun !

 

[Sirius Glass]

I could give all kinds of technical arguments in favor of large format. But how about a subjective response to "why"? ... Cause it's darn fun !

I use LF because I enjoy using the equipment and having the control. When I choose to go more automated or use different equipment I set aside the LF and pick it back up when I choose.

 

[Vaughn]

This is one of the reasons I'm using more and more 4x5. The imagery that comes from 4x5 is a more refined way of seeing a scene. It would be like family pictures compared too environmental portraiture

I agree as long as it is understood that in this case the photographer is doing the actual refining -- guided and aided by the tool, not just because of the tool's use. And I will add that this refinement can be achieved without LF...and of course definement* can be achieved with LF. One should be careful about using tools as crutches, as handy as they can be at times. Although my Gitxo tripod (Reporter series) came in handy as a hiking aid when backpacking in and along Redwood Creek last week. Only one fall -- slipped on some slippery pollywogs, I think. Not too wet.

* made-up word to be the opposite of refinement.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A big wooden tripod with spike feet is better for whacking nettles or poison oak vines out of the way, or for defending oneself against a Sasquatch attack in the woods. One more valid reason for LF photography.

 

[Vaughn]

A big wooden tripod with spike feet is better for whacking nettles or poison oak vines out of the way, or for defending oneself against a Sasquatch attack in the woods. One more valid reason for LF photography.

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...

 

[wiltw]

Going back to a much earlier question when the thread was still at least marginally on-topic, one of the reasons FOR large format is depth-of-field control. Note I said control, not overall depth-of-field. Because of the ability to apply movements, you can more precisely place the depth-of-field where you want/need it, and it also helps when you need to use a larger aperture so you can use a faster shutter speed to control movement, for example. Also when doing still life/tabletop/macro, being able to control what is in or out of focus at any given aperture is a big plus.

Illustrating DOF control made possible by large format movements of a monorail camera, and a not-small aperture...what TheFlyingCamera writes about...
Decades ago, while still a novice in large format movements, I took a large format movements workshop. (about 15 years earlier, when I was only 16yo, I loaded my first large format film holders, shot and then processed the film shot with the Speed Graphic owned by my HS newspaper.) Some 15 years after my first LF film shooting, these two Polaroid shots were part of my exercise in that workshop using a monorail camera and its greater flexibility movements...

First shot with no large format camera movements

Second shot with swing and tilt movements