Why large format?

[McDiesel]

First, let me get vulnerable here and admit: I am a gear whore. 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.

What would be the point? Looking at the first principles here, I am immediately dismissing the resolution. I already have too much of it on medium format. I downsample most of my 6x6 scans to 5000x5000 pixels, maybe to 6000x6000 pixels for the rare few, 6x7 scans to maybe 6000x7000 and so on. And even then I never print this large. A few prints I have max out at 14" on the wider side.

DOF control with movements looks like a fun thing to try. Once. Because I don't remember wishing for more DOF ever. Usually when I need depth without subject isolation I have a prominent foreground object with an interesting background, and those tend to be wider angle shots (say 50mm on medium format) that already give me the depth I need when stopped down.

What else? Perspective correction and shifting seem interesting, but I wonder if those are ever used outside architecture-style photography which I don't really enjoy. Am I missing anything else?

So far I've been quite happy with my gear acquisition. Each camera has a purpose, is used frequently, and brings me joy. Not feeling the same way towards LF, could this be due to something I don't know?

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Optical characteristics aside, contact printing and slide/reversal film can be more interesting with larger formats. E.g. any case where you aren't enlarging / projecting the developed film. Paper negatives become a possibility as well.

A large format camera is the last thing I'd try to convince someone to buy unless they already knew why they needed it. Spend $60 on a Minolta 16, some 3d printed cassettes, and 100' 16mm film and see how much resolution you really need.

 

[Helge]

You don’t use LF to put it on a tiny/low res 8K screen. You use it to print it.
Either contact, optical or huge, from a really good scan.

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.

Perspective correction and DoF manipulation is something you learn the importance and utility of when you use it.
It is applicable in almost any kind of photo. Landscape, indoors, macro, even portraiture.
You can emphasize certain things while downplaying others. And you can get impossible views on things you thought you knew.

 

[Paul Howell]

There are the intangibles, shooting a sheet at a time, on a heavy tripod, cable release, dark cloth, using zone, I think about a scene differently than when shooting roll film. Although I can get really good resolution with 6X9 Tmax 100, on occasion there are times that a 4X5 negative makes the sense to me. And, well just because it's fun.

 

[abruzzi]

for me, 90% is the process. I just prefer the more deliberative process that takes at minimum 5 minutes to take a shot, viewing upside down with a sheetover my head, but there are a lot of other reasons that are obviously more important to others--

- opticaly printing a 5ft wide print
- scheimpflug
- n, n+1, n-1, i.e. developing a shot at a time
- contact printing

 

[Helge]

In addition:
- DIY material.
- Plates.
- Photo paper of all kinds (bears repeating).
- Cheap and/or exotic film. X-ray is just one example.
- Pinhole with surprisingly high resolution.
- Use weird lenses, enlarger, projection, copier, biconvex etc. quite easily.
- Shoot Instax wide with a good lens with the special back.

 

[gone]

My job is to talk you out of it. Unless you have a passion for it, I can't see it working. My photography has always been 35mm and MF, but I once took a 4x5 Graflex and a tripod out to the Organ Mountains in Las Cruces, New Mexico w/ a LF shooting neighbor.

It sucked, at least for me. We took what seemed like forever to set up the shots. I had brought along 2 MF cameras just in case, and took about 20 pics w/ them in less time than it took to set the LF stuff up. Not to mention lugging that heavy equipment up the trails.

We got the 4x5 color slides back from the lab, and the first thing we saw was that there was absolutely no difference in our pics, even though he had a high end Sinar camera w/ a 300mm Nikon lens and a Pentax spot meter, and I used the Graflex w/ a 203 Ektar and a hand held meter. So much for high end LF equipment.

Then I got the film back from the 2 MF cameras, and preferred those hand held shots to the tedious tripod LF shots. So unless you have a specific purpose for LF, like studio portraits or Ansel Adams-like trail hiking, I can't see the point of it. You can do some seriously creative stuff w/ 4x5 and old vintage, soft focus lenses, but for anything else, LF is slow, heavy, and expensive to shoot.

 

[abruzzi]

My job is to talk you out of it. Unless you have a passion for it, I can't see it working. My photography has always been 35mm and MF, but I once took a 4x5 Graflex and a tripod out to the Organ Mountains in Las Cruces, New Mexico w/ a LF shooting neighbor.

It sucked, at least for me. We took what seemed like forever to set up the shots. I had brought along 2 MF cameras just in case, and took about 20 pics w/ them in less time than it took to set the LF stuff up. Not to mention lugging that heavy equipment up the trails.

We got the 4x5 color slides back from the lab, and the first thing we saw was that there was absolutely no difference in our pics, even though he had a high end Sinar camera w/ a 300mm Nikon lens and a Pentax spot meter, and I used the Graflex w/ a 203 Ektar and a hand held meter. So much for high end LF equipment.

Then I got the film back from the 2 MF cameras, and preferred those hand held shots to the tedious tripod LF shots. So unless you have a specific purpose for LF, like studio portraits or Ansel Adams-like trail hiking, I can't see the point of it. You can do some seriously creative stuff w/ 4x5 and old vintage, soft focus lenses, but for anything else, LF is slow, heavy, and expensive to shoot.

You say tedious, I say fun!

Also, Las Cruces...Organ Mountains...really? I've never seen another LF camera in this town other than mine, and rarely seen another MF camera...I guess we're few and far between.

 

[Oren Grad]

For me, sheet film is for contact printing. I really like contact silver prints, and it's not possible to replicate their distinctive attributes with inkjet or any other output medium available for digital files. If you're interested in darkroom printing and in finding out whether contact prints have any magic for you, then sheet film is worth a try. Otherwise, given what you've told us, maybe not.

Working with an image on a big ground glass is fun, too, but I wouldn't put up with the logistical hassles just for that entertainment. The desired final product, and what's required to achieve it, is the key consideration for me.

I will add that I tried LF in the first place just because I wanted to see what it was like. That wasn't an LF thing specifically - over the past 30 years or so I've tried almost every kind of film camera - and more recently also digital camera - under the sun. I enjoy learning about each, cutting through the hype and deciding for myself what I think about them. In the process I figure out which ones suit me and for what purposes, and so are worth keeping, and which don't and aren't. If you too enjoy that kind of exploration, that could be reason enough to try LF.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

 

[McDiesel]

It would take a lot of time to thank each of you individually, so let me just say: I appreciate your all's input, it's been helpful, you're awesome.

 

[btaylor]

I enjoy the LF process. Everything is deliberate, no interlocks, I always make at least one mistake that looses a shot. If you don’t find that enjoyable don’t go down that path! I also enjoy baking bread. It wasn’t very good at first, and I can buy an excellent artisan loaf for $4-6 at the store. I experimented, made hundreds of loaves, and finally came up with a recipe that’s excellent. It takes about 18 hours to make my bread now. I get so much personal satisfaction from the process, just like LF. If it looks like a pain in the ass for you to go through the process, don’t do it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Without the interlocks, LF allows one to find new and unique wonderful ways to make mistakes. Oh the joy!

 

[jimjm]

Like others here, I enjoy the entire process of shooting LF. It requires 100% attention from beginning to end and it's easy to screw up if you're not committed. Perspective correction can be useful for both landscapes and portraits, and ability to change plane of focus is also beneficial.
Sure, the first time you try 4x5 it may be awkward and slow, but you get a lot quicker the more you shoot. If you move up to 8x10 or larger, then 4x5 will seem like a piece of cake.
I can get images that are just as sharp with MF, but there is a noticeable difference with an LF negative. I don't know how to define it, but they are different. The first time I saw Brett Weston's contact prints in person, I was blown away. For me, that's a level of quality throughout the entire process that I strive to reach. I'll never get to that level, but it's exciting to learn and 8x10 contact prints are a joy to make in the darkroom.
The #1 reason to not shoot LF is if speed and portability is a priority for you. #2 reason is current cost per sheet of film.
For those of us that don't mind those inconveniences, it's a heck of a lot of fun!

 

[Paul Howell]

If OP wants an entry level camera that is good handheld and be carried on a hike, as noted above a Speed or Crown Graphic, the Crown is lighter than the speed as it lacks the focal plan shutter. If OP is thinking about movements, a Graphic View II.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Have all the exposure setting done, focusing done and composition set before pulling the dark slide.

 

[GregY]

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.

 

[McDiesel]

@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!

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

If OP wants an entry level camera that is good handheld and be carried on a hike, as noted above a Speed or Crown Graphic, the Crown is lighter than the speed as it lacks the focal plan shutter.

+1 ... Add a couple Grafmatic backs loaded with 400 speed film, set the hyperfocal distance and have yourself one heck of a press camera. Extra speed points if there's such a thing as a self-cocking shutter w/ X-sync.

LF doesn't have to be slow but does benefit from thoughtful technique, especially when using camera movements and when that exposure might cost upwards of $5, as is the case with 4x5 ektachrome.

 

[Craig]

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.

 

[jimgalli]

Skip 4X5. You're right it's pointless. The reason I indulge (in 8X10) is precisely the opposite of higher resoulution blah blah blah. With 8X10 you can shoot wide open with giant lenses with giant apertures and make images with razor thin sharp zones and everything else in beautiful bokeh. Brute force. It can give a signature unlike anything else you can achieve with smaller formats. And then of course there's the 8X10 contact prints also unlike anything else going. 4X5 is like HO trains. Why bother when there's Standard Gauge Lionel's from 1929. Just saying.

 

[Tel]

I shoot a lot of LF. The satisfaction for me is in the deliberate nature of the process. If I want to shoot quickly I'll use 35 or 120 (or 127). I mostly keep my 35mm cameras for travel shooting, because they pack well and I can get 35mm film anywhere if I don't want to risk x-ray damage at the airport. I also don't shoot a lot of 4x5; I mainly use it for shooting color because larger color film is hard to find, though I just bought a batch of 5x7 Portra thanks to Keith Canham. Part of the fun IS the size and exponential improvement in detail. And sometimes it's the contact printing, since I don't have room to set up an enlarger.

I also don't have room to set up a dedicated darkroom, but that doesn't matter. I use Unicolor drums, so I can develop anything up to 8x10 in my kitchen. Got a Photoflex Changing Room dark tent that mostly lives in a corner of my living room. I did spring for a larger changing tent to do 8x10 loading and unloading, but the Changing Room does fine for anything from 35 up to 5x7. I find myself shooting 5x7 most often when I do LF; I like the aspect ratio and the size of the cameras--it's just a bit more portable than 8x10.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'm nuts like you. At the beginning of Covid with nothing else allowed to do, I bought a Chamonix 4x5 and 4 lenses. I figured I could get out by myself in the woods and be happy alone. I was shooting medium format for years as a hobby and didn't really need the LF. I guess it was gas. I don't develop at home so it's expensive but I don't shoot that much. Then I went out and spent $1100 on a new scanner for 4x5 (Epson V850) making my V600 superfluous since it only shoots up to 6x7 MF.

LF is even more deliberate shooting than MF which is nice when you want to contemplate your navel. I don't print but the tones do look nicer than smaller formats. See my Flickr for a comparison of the different formats both in color and BW.

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.

 

[ic-racer]

If shooting landscape with wide angle, unless you have a very tall tripod, seems almost everything benefits from some front rise.

 

[Vaughn]

1) Generally, one has more DoF issues with LF than smaller formats (LF tend to use longer focal length lenses). One does not increase DoF using LF movements -- one can place the DoF (plane of focus, actually) more usefully.

2) Image construction via the GG -- if you don't need/want to do so, use a roll camera.

3) Movements are used on almost all images taken with a LF camera -- just some of the movements are used zeroed.