In a digital world what are the "defacto" advantages of Large Format?

<p>The biggest advantage of LF film over digital is also the most obvious one: the simple fact that it's film.</p>

<p>To Cyr.<br /> When Haas made that statement digital wasn't even arund of the corner, so just think about it and I dont realy think it fits in here. but as allways digi people using comments like this to defend their lock of knowledge or lasyness (seen it here in Swedens photo site many times they even call you primitive that says a lot )and just because we others don't wanna get into your game like spending a lots of money and uppdating for the quality or the action we don't like. Or that we are rather outdoors and PHOTOGPAPH insteed of sitting home and try to do images (forge) which J NANIAN formulated so nicely " make them look-like they were made with a film camera"<br /> To JD<br /> There is people who buys Picasso and there is people buys a poster of Picasso. That is the big difference. And if you are a push/pull or the on/off guy with a flashing leds as the turn signal on you car you realy should'nt be here. This is an LF secrion of this site, and LF is 4x5" or bigger. Just because you using digi back on your 4x5 camera it doesn't make it to LF. Not to talk about your printing industry. See, what you do is not a geniue handcrafted art it's a poster.<br /> And to other people with some carazy ideas: "The photographic art it's the art of seeing and feeling trought the whole process" That includs the final handcrafted fine art prints.</p>

<p>Added eccentricity.</p>

<p>I have found that the ground glass of a large format camera is large enough to accommodate everyone's point of view.<br>

Thank you for the postings. Very informative and enjoyable.</p>

<p>LF (with film) is about as anti-Crackberry you can get these days. It's my middle finger to the texting, cell phone, bff , 24/7 (i hate that term)world we live in today. But what do I know.</p>

<p>A silver black and white negative or print is probably the most archival way to store an image.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find this comment offensive. I happen to enjoy large format photography using film. I don't need to have this arrogant twit tell me that I'm wrong because I haven't jumped into digital stuff.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think anyone has told you that you are "wrong" - it's only a comment that a 4x5 digital back may provide even better image quality than film in the same view camera. I fail to see a problem with the statement . </p>

<p>Why is it that many people who use film appear to be insecure dilettantes that require self-justifying their way of working in order to make themselves feel better? That's the part I don't get. </p>

<p><!-- @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --><br /> Just wait a minute! What do you mean by this?<br /> "Why is it that many people who use film appear to be insecure dilettantes that require self-justifying their way of working in order to make themselves feel better? That's the part I don't get."<br /> It could be the other way around too you know with all those digi people . It could be also that Digi people feel they aren't on the right truck too.<br /> I remember when I made some short surrealistic movies on 35mm film and recorded over to a broadcast standard videotape because I wanted to show it to my friends and to other people and all this because the 35 mm projector wasn't available for my private use. Than when that disappeared it went over to another format again with a loss of quality and than when that one disappeared come new formate the VHS and the films are now absolutely not enjoyable. Of course the original film is still there with it's quality but I still haven't got the 35 mm projector. I don't have the VHS either this days because the DVD replaced it and now I can't show them any longer.<br /> Now where on earth I can re formate the35mm film to DVD? Not in my hometown anyway.:-)<br /> So, no wonder why that people don't want to use Digi other than mass producing commercial work and specially not people with LF and ULF cameras as they understand and aware of what they got.<br /> This is pure knowledge!<br /> Lets say we all know that film is a stable medium and been with us for quite a long time now and our cameras gives quality that no other tool able to give. People who got used to it have big difficulties to give it up for less. Lets say: over my dead body.<br /> Is this the part which you didn't get? :-) That we know what we are doing and why?<br /> Now the ethical part of that whole we call the photographic art is (and I feel like a tape recorder now) that some of us still wants give a quality print “the original handcrafted image” which is the upper class of its own with all our feelings baked into that silver image. Do you think it's wrong? That we don't want to compete with the printing industry? :-) And giving away posters?<br /> The interesting side of this is the theory is that I have find out that the color photographers have easier to except printing machines as the majority of those never did their own print anyway. And most of them because the lock of knowledge. And now I'm not talking about all artists but some of them and all amateurs. Now it would be like if I got the idea for a painting and do some drownings than I let you paint than I sign it and I sell it under my name<br /> They are mostly the lovers of the digital today. Anyway, those artists whom worked with black and white are the last one to give it up and this for a good reason. If we are talking about archival quality there isn't any material which you can compare with those prints except some historical alternatives.<br /> Well, this must be the other part which you didn't get. Is that so?</p>

<p>It looks like those that shoot digital in LF are those that shoot for commercial work and can justify the digital backs that costs thousands. Heck, Hasselblad has a MF camera that cost $43,000.00! Maybe they get to write off the cost of the back as a business expense. Those who are amateurs, must have money to burn, to buy a back that cost as much as some new cars. Pros need to have it done yesterday. Because their competitors need it done that fast, too. Then, there are those, that either are amatuers, or do more of a fine art photography. They can take their time, do B&W,don't have the money to spend $20,000 on a digi back.<br>

There are many people that not only like film, but, can't afford these super costly digi equipment. I don't need to justify using film, even though some comments I've seen on the internet act like we are fools to use something that went out with the stage coaches. I do feel that Frank is right about the B&W users are the last to give up on film. and, the color users don't care if somone else makes their prints. Since, most of them didn't do their prints anyway.</p>

<p>Using a large format camera is a very nice way of making pictures out of the physical impressions that real things make in sensitive surfaces.<br>

Using a digital camera is a convenient way of collecting photometric information about subject matter so that a machine can draw a picture of it.<br>

Digital can mimic large format appearances to the casual observer but the underlying technical, aesthetic, and emotional factors, the ones that lie outside the world of surface appearances, are very different.</p>

<p>Large format attracts more women than digital, and certainly more than the paltry 35mm film enthusiasts. The bellows look really cool, so the ladies assume you must be smart and creative to want to work with such a thing of beauty as a wooden camera with bellows. I mean, who wouldn't dig a large format renaissance man?<br>

I assume it works the same way with the genders reversed, but have no direct experience to comment.</p>

<p><!-- @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --><br /> :-) Thats it! I'm single, so now I see why I got to finish that 20x24" mammoth very soon. :-) And reading between the lines yes, the film is there so as the quality and the print a nice B/W which lasting longer than any other image.<br /> The ladies have that sense to feel when guys doing it right. The love and the care of course makes they brain translate this to other aspects in life! :-) Now, my former wife performed different and it depended on which camera I lay my hand on.<br /> If it were a Nikon F2 there was no way for me to get out from usual things like shopping and other for me not so interested things but when I took my LF there were no discussions. Than she knew that I went to do intresting things like to creating art which she can put up to the wall. That is thats why I do LF and not for a film.! :-) Anyone can understand that, right?<br /> I must mention to that when I took my Nikon there where always questions about where I go or what I'm gonna do and it's only because she wanted to know if any of her activities would feet in.<br /> So guys thats why the LF is different. Keith might be very right there. The only thing I would disagree its that renaissance man :-) Because I do got a lots of digital stuff at my home even a one billion pixel Kodak easy share. :-) God I hope that no one come up with that bright idea to digitalized my oil colors and my canvases. :-)</p>

<p><em>Why is it that many people who use film appear to be insecure dilettantes that require self-justifying their way of working in order to make themselves feel better? That's the part I don't get.</em></p>

<p>Why is it that many people who use digital appear to be insecure dilettantes that require self-justifying their way of working in order to make themselves feel better for spending a fortune on soon to be outdated equipment? That's the part I don't get.</p>

<p><!-- @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --></p>

<p >Steve, nobody going to give you answer to that one at least not that strait open as I do it for you. Its a lots of low knowledge guys with cellphones (at least thats how I call the digis) who owns Photoshop, printing machines and thinks that they are Allen.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also they had been created and cheated by the industry to buy those nothing worth gadgets which they had to update almost a day to day basis instead of learning real photography.</p>

<p >It's because the industry find it out that they really had only two chances closing down or find a new toy for the masses. Really just think about it, there is so many functional cameras on the market that they just couldn't sell no more. Now of course digis they wanna have a piece of the cake too.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now we aren't effected by this as we always had our old junks as they would say and we knows what those are going for. Don't we? We are a people with the real thing and the knowledge. I don't even know why we bother with them at all.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If they call me a renaissance man or a primitive man as it happened here in Sweden because I own cameras from the 1898's (which by the way I never had to update) it says it all. Sxxxxd axxxs who won't understand that we know and aware what we got and what kind of quality film and the final print gives. And than I don't even talked about the joy and tranquility of the whole action.</p>

<p >Now they probably realized this mistake and very aggressively lobbying try you to to make that very same mistake. I can think of some 35mm guy throw in the towel but I still believe in film and I load my Nikon F2 which I don't even know how old he is with just that.</p>

<p >Anyway it haven't been updated lately either.</p>

<p >It's like we saying here “the same children play best” And of course until you exist you always going to be a kind of dark cloud in the sky.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But we are toking about people know nothing and they never going to understand either the meaning and the work flow of the real thing. They don't even wan to try. And just to demonstrate this low know nothing people they just stealing from us everything</p>

<p >How come the poster called for an image or a fine art and there were a guy in this forum who wanted to know how he can do with a digital camera to copy alternative printing process and of course a lots of images are on the alternative site made in digital</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >And somebody please tell me why the digi people need “digital darkroom” for I just really wanna know what exactly digi people does in the dark.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p>Thanks to all the above for the interesting discussion. I have just a few things to add. I must admit, I've never used (nor seen results of) a scanning back on a 4x5. Even if not available yet, I can conceive of a digital imaging device that could produce 'better' images than film. Sadly, I also expect the day will come when film is unavailable and I have no other options. When that day comes, some of us will use digital for some things (even as now)..... and some of us will go back to coating wet plates in an orange tent.</p>

<p>I spend too much of my workday in front of computers, rather than with people or at the lab bench. Often, the *last* thing I want to do on my time off is to plant myself back in front of a monitor, such as each of us is doing right now. In those spare moments when I have time to do so, the tangible nature of working with solutions, film, light, and my hands gives my brain a chance to function in different ways. I'll also concur with the folks mentioning the continuing utility of cameras older than us with nary an upgrade. </p>

<p>Finally on trolls: while this may be an artifact of my lurking only in virtual places focused on film (pardon the pun), I've yet to see a digital vs. film 'discussion' started by the analog folks stating that all digital is bunk; the converse is not so true, in my experience. </p>

<p>Best wishes to all, in all your various media, for the new year.</p>

<p>Kurt Griffin<br>

Tucson, AZ</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Why is it that many people who use digital appear to be insecure dilettantes that require self-justifying their way of working in order to make themselves feel better for spending a fortune on soon to be outdated equipment? That's the part I don't get.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My observation, is that for the most part people who use digital equipment really don't care how the photograph gets made. If, by your transmogrification of my statement, you're implying that I am an insecure dilettante using digital - nothing could be further from the truth. I have 13 film cameras and one (1) digital camera. I use all of the cameras as tools for whatever image I'm making - as opposed to a life style choice.</p>

<p>Another observation from this thread is that for many people it appears that it's more important as to <em>how</em> a photograph is made rather than <em>why</em>. Just read all of the self justifications that abound throughout the thread. Complete with totally inapplicable and nearly incomprehensible comparisons to transferring images to video tape...????</p>

<p>DH Lawrence, perhaps said it best: "So much depends on one's attitude. One can shut many, many doors of receptivity in oneself or one can open many doors that are shut."</p>

<p>Why is that I get the impression from this thread that I hear doors slamming shut instead of opening? I think what you really need to do is open your mind to all possibilities in making an image instead of working only within a single paradigm that is constructed around using film and its print as the aesthetic - instead of an aesthetic that includes an interesting image.</p>

<p>Steve<br /> "Complete with totally inapplicable and nearly incomprehensible comparisons to transferring images to video tape...????"</p>

<p>Sorry if it doesn't went throught but it were a 35mm motion picture a "Movie" film and it meant to demonstrate that technics are changing fast and the original film /movie/ is still there with all its quality but the copy one which were copyed to different video systems as the old fast disspeared say; vent throught a lot of different fofmaing and therefore now its not enjoyable.<br /> Those are short movies (5-30 minits) from my surrealist period still on the original 35mm movie film enjoyable if one have a 35 mm movie projector to show it.<br /> With this just I wanted to demostrate that digital system used today might not be available in the future and therefore might not be possible to show your images or the quality be even worst as it is and medium like film which is hudred years old made on glass (in my collection) still possible to enlarge, with high quality as result.<br /> But of course we living in the free world and any one do as choose or like just don't call your digitaly manufactured poster to fine art print.<br /> For some of us both "why" and "how" is very important.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If, by your transmogrification of my statement, you're implying that I am an insecure dilettante using digital - nothing could be further from the truth. I have 13 film cameras and one (1) digital camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, not aimed at you. Just a general observation. I have about 28 film cameras and one (not recently used) digital so I think our views are probably similar.<br>

Oops.. Looks like I 'transmogrificated' a bit of your post again! (Note to anyone as pedantic as me: Yes, I know that's not a word).</p>

 

<p>For me, as much as I love photography, I also love the hands on approach to it. That's why I love film and especially the old processes. It's not the slamming of doors or anything like that. Making a print in Photoshop with a couple clicks of the mouse, isn't that appealing.<br />About that comment on the power saw or handsaw. I would pick the handsaw. When I had that garage, I had a $1000.00 band saw and a table saw that would cost $3000.00 today. But, my favorite tools were the hand plane, chisel, drawknife and spokeshave. I would pick a woodenboat over a Tuperware one any day. It's more fun to do photograhy by hand, than by machine. (or Software). To develope the film, use carbon tissues for the carbon process. Watch the excess colored gelatin leech out from the paper in the warm bath, etc.<br />Many people don't care how the photo is made, but, some of us, making it is half the fun. That's why many still make tintypes. This 2 clicks of the mouse for B&W, and 5 for color. That's not for me. But, I will admit for my prints larger than 4x5, I do make digital negs. Because I can't afford a larger camera. Even though I would like to afford about a 5x7.</p>

<p><!-- @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --></p>

<p >Sure, why not? I'm sourcing after somebody who could make me a huge digi neg for gum printing (didn't find it yet, maybe Jack?) but it's just one stop between and the result going to be a handcrafted fine art print.</p>

<p >I've got two exhibitions coming up and to one of them I would like to make something special. The other one is very interesting in any aspects as its going to be in Windhoek, Namibia showing of a freeze to death cold and snowy Swedish landscapes. (I think its going to be fantastic) In the country were the majority of people never have seen snow. It would be nice to have it in the big frozen room to add something to the visual as well.</p>

<p>LF with film is on the long run saver, no virus can kill your pos or neg so fast as any virus.<br>

Booth worlds have there pros and cons and I like booth!</p>

<p>Cheers Armin</p>

<p>JD,</p>

<p>Without getting into the "film versus digital" war, there is at least one example that seems to specifically fit your question. It's depth of field.</p>

<p>If you're shooting an f:4 or f:4.5 lens on say 8x10 wide open, it's very difficult if not impossible to reproduce that effect of shallow DOF on smaller formats for an equivalent focal length, even 4x5. Reproducing the effect in MF or smaller formats (digital or film) will be impossible. You might check out some of Jim Galli's 8x10 portraits.</p>

<p>The converse is also true, you can get a large depth of field using smaller formats than is much less easily attained with larger formats using equivalent focal length lenses.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>Heavens! So much heat. It must be generated by all those dollars we invest.<br>

Well, I shoot both, and I enjoy the LF film best. Not just habit...that big groundglass is a joy to use, and my kit (Technika with four lenses) fits into a Tamrac bag that I used to use for 2 Nikon F2's and a handfull of lenses. That is, I carry no electronics, listen to the shutters with my ear, and use a magnifier to tell me what I want to know before I release that shutter. And for me, working speed is a big issue, because I usually photograph people with this kit. No polaroids, no step by step, play the hunches informed by lots of experience...my Technika is a #2 pencil in action, no kidding.<br>

Digital; well, I can ship it quickly, yes. And God knows I can get it on the computer screen quickly. But I can't switch emulsions for a different look, or shoot in the rain (yes, I do that), or bang the gear around in the trunk of the car (yes, I do that too.) If I could sum up what happens to my consciousness when I set out to take a digital picture, "fussy" is the word that leaps to mind. I don't want to be fussy. And I love doing what I do with gear that I paid a few hundred for, twenty and thirty years ago. Yes, the baby still needs shoes...in fact, when I take that Commercial Ektar out of the bag, I am suddenly in company with some wonderful people I made images of, years ago, with that very lens....fun.<br>

And one more thing: I have never had a mechanical shutter or a camera body just die while sitting on a shelf...but I have had four digital cameras do exactly that. A digital back, too.<br>

Just my two cents worth.</p>

<p>Quite right, Mr. Hamley. I even mentioned that very advantage in an earlier thread just a couple of days ago.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00S2sU</p>

<p>In a world full of zeros and ones it's nice to just do it all yourself, like there's something very personal about a sheet of film. I admire the innovation that Wayne Belger http://www.boyofblue.com/ displays, that is using a pinhole...no glass between the subject and the emulsion. The same air that touches the subject contacts the emulsion too, that idea tickles me. <br /> I have an upcoming exhibition in a couple of months which I'm currently wrestling with a selective focus camera to shoot 4x5 B/W and that will provide me with an interesting challenge, I mean an exhibition using digital wouldn't be the same, as much as I like using it. I figure I might do what Wayne does, that is to display the camera as part of the exhibition. I'm sure it would seem a bit weird to whack the old 5D in a glass case?<br /> I see so many customers buy DSLR's and instantly aspire to becoming this overnight success.....but I bet they wouldn't know which is the emulsion side of a 4x5 sheet. Kinda sad really.</p>