To Go to LF or not...

Note to myself -- never argue with anyone who thinks a Canon dSLR can beat the results of a 4x5 in areas where it matters (landscapes, architecture), or questions the superior ability to use a traditional enlarger for quality results -- not worth the time. Next thing they'll claim is that their 5MP cell phone camera will beat it, too...

Wow things got stirred up!

 

What are you saying Mike?

All I need is a camera phone! ?

 

I do not have a scanner at home and therefore would be paying a lab to do my scans, and

I expect I will pay for the highest quality scan they offer... any recommendations for labs

on the San Francisco Peninsula?

 

Chris, I have done the panoramic stitching, and enjoyed the results, thanks for the

suggestion.

 

But I am searching Ebay right now for a LF deal

Luca,

 

You will find that once you have the 4x5 that to get the results from those negatives you have to pay high prices for scanning. You have 2 ways around it. One, shoot 6x12 and get a Nikon 9000 scanner for top notch results. Then get a el cheapo flatbed for smaller prints to edit through your 4x5 images... the best ones you send for drum scans or a flatbed scan on a Creo IQ3(West Coast imaging has it, cheaper then drum scans because faster and less work for them). Also several people mentioned the Creo beats the Tango drum scanner. So its cheaper and top quality. Second choice, shoot 8x10 and scan on a Epson 4990, should cover 95% of your needs unless you need humungous prints.

 

Unless your printing over 16x20, you might be better sticking with what you have. It depends how far you want to go with this. It is not just the cost of 4x5 gear, but also the cost of establishing a top notch lightroom. Before you needed a top quality enlarger with great lenses, now you need a top quality scanner.It is your weakest link. There is no free ride here. Next step up in scanners (drum) used start at about $2-5k on Ebay, but it is very easy to spend 8-12k. If your a pro, no problem. Unless your a very serious amateur, you might not like the expense. Most people shoot 6x12, 4x5, then edit on a Epson and send out for pro scans. Figure maybe 1 in 20 images need this special treatment. Don't want to scare you, but if you want the quality that 4x5 has to offer, you have to pay the price. If the image is really good, a Creo scan isn't that expensive (around $80 for a 300 meg file). Good luck.

 

I recommend rent a 4x5, then bring in the film to a store to try on their Epson flatbed, and see what your quality standards are when printed at home. You can't trust everything your read, not because people are lying, but because everyone has different skill levels and knowledge as to what represents a quality print.

one more point (I just thought of) is vibration.

 

While I'm sure you are well aware of image losses due to camera shake, I've personally found that it gets worse as format goes up. I can "get away with" hand holding on my 2/3 digicam that my 10D images don't tolerate. I have found the same is true again with 4x5.

 

I've spoiled all my efforts on some images due to small wind induced vibration in my camera (its quite a sail compared to a DSLR). It really doesn't take much to spoil the difference between "wow" and "hmmm not much better".

 

So, if you're going to commit to the lenses, the scan costs, and the hassle in general then keep thinking "bigger negatives don't necessarily make better images".

 

pardon me stating the obvious (again)

 

:-)

"So, if you're going to commit to the lenses, the scan costs, and the hassle in general then keep thinking "bigger negatives don't necessarily make better images".

 

 

http://www.davidbrookover.com/interior.html

 

He shoots 8x10, and believe me no one wants to carry an 8x10 camera, the per pound sheet holders, etc...unless it is worth it. Chris made a good point, you would need to upgrade your tripod too. A 4x5 field camera is very stable in the wind (forget monorails), but a 8x10 with a 600mm lens on it would have your bellows extended and increasing the chance of wind giving you problems. However, I prefer sticking to the 300mm range and down, what I use for my 4x5. In other words I don't see using 8x10 as a tele camera, use the 4x5 instead. Film real estate ALWAYS matters. This is why 35mm is dead, and 6x6 formats are doing poorly, while 6x7,6x9,6x12,6x17(very popular), 4x5,8x10 will not be out performed the more you go up in film size. Dslr hasn't a chance, medium format digital backs are wonderful, but to be similar to 4x5 your looking at a P45 back (only $39k although I think prices have come down, better grab one quick..lol). So grabbing a large format film camera is a dirt cheap solution for top quality. You just have to deal with how to get around the scanning issue. Shooting them is not expensive once you learn to be selective about what you shoot. You edit with you Epson (still getting nice 16x20), only sending out for scans for the very best images.

"VAN CAMPER: The bottom line, you will NEVER get the same quality from the Canon 5D as you would from a 4x5 properly scanned."<P>BS (IMO).

BOB, 100% agree!

Van

<P>

when I said <i>"bigger negatives don't necessarily make better images"</i>

<P>

I was meaning that you can just as easily get an inferior image or perhaps no better than a 35mm with even an 8x10 if you <i>fluff up</i>.

<P>

Using big formats is not by itself a recipe for fine art, and there can be weak links anywhere in the chain.

Luca,

 

I have seen side-by-side comparison of a print made from a drum scanned 4x5 transparency and from $35K MF digital system. The print size was about 30x40". No, one cannot do this comparison on a computer screen. This was done by a master photographer AND a master printer AND a Photoshop expert who used to shoot 4x5 LF for 20+ years (may be longer!) and now shoots MF digital. There are too many variables that could skew this comparison one-way or the other including the scanner expertise, the image content, amount of sharpening applied, printer, ink, paper, etc. THE RESULTS WERE VERY CLOSE. I will let you draw your own conclusions.

 

"any recommendations for labs on the San Francisco Peninsula?"

 

I would highly recommend Calypso imaging:

http://www.calypsoinc.com

 

They used to be located in Santa Clara and have moved to Santa Cruz. They have a drop off place in Santa Clara. They do E6 processing, Heidelberg Tango drum scanning, Imacon 949 scanning, LightJet printing, Epson printing, etc. Many famous photographers (including many outside of SF Bay Area) get their work done at this lab. I'm in no way affiliated to this lab other than I get my work done there.

 

 

// Atul

"bigger negatives don't necessarily make better images"

 

Sorry Chris, your right. I read it wrong.

Luca,

 

"Wow things got stirred up! What are you saying Mike? All I need is a camera phone! ? "

 

Not exactly -- what I'm saying is that if you have the applications where LF is at its best (Landscapes, Architecture), then get a LF camera, and don't let the "digital trolls" tell you otherwise. It is a slippery slope, though, once you get started and start appreciating the benefits. Before you know it, you'll be looking for a LF enlarger etc. ;-)

 

Enjoy the LF journey!

You will never get the quality from a Canon 5D (or 1DS Mk III, or D3) that is readily

delivered by 4x5 film. It's not even an argument, really. An SLR is obviously the way to go

for handheld photography or for working super fast, but for deliberate tripod work, a 4x5

in the hands of an experienced large format photographer will deliver a better quality

image. It's just a fact: 12 to 17 mega-pixels v. 100+ mega-pixels, not to mention

perspective and focal plane control. Of course, pure aesthetics don't rely entirely on

format. Truly great images can be made with digital SLRs, but they are of course an

entirely different thing from large format view cameras.

 

Then again, one can put a Phase One P45 digital back on their view camera and start to

compete with 4x5 film, but who wants to spend $35,000 plus the cost of a new set of

digital optimized lenses just to accomplish what film has been able to do for decades? Still

not convinced? Try dropping a P45 in a creek, versus a Fuji quickload holder and a few

sheets of film. Who is out of commission? The film or digital shooter?

Mitchell - you make too much of digi.

 

Luca - 4x5 gear has never been so cheap. The glass is second to none. The downside is that it is time consuming, methodical. Diff way of acheiving results based on the goals. You must ask yourself if you can/want to work at the slower pace.

 

Best - Paul

I have a different experience to share regarding the advantages of large format. Learning how to use a 4x5 camera was the best thing I've ever done to increase my skill as a photographer. Two years ago I shot 4x5 almost exclusively. Last year I bought a DSLR and loved it so much I shot far fewer 4x5s than usual. My photographs were MUCH better two years ago. I see the world differently, and more artistically, when I spend my time in nature visualizing 4x5 (and 6x17) compositions with my mind than I do while looking through the viewfinder of my DSLR and hoping to stumble on a pleasing composition. Not that this is the best way to use a DSLR of course, but it is seductively easy for me to fall into this trap, which is never a problem with the 4x5.