My Dilemma - To 4x5 or Not to 4x5

<p>Good for you Daniel. You made a lot of money on a photo. You should be proud.</p>

<p>You should also understand that what you made on that photo has absolutely NO bearing on what other work is worth, nor on what other people need to get the work that they want.</p>

<p>It adds nothing to the conversation, and as such you're adding just as much hot air as the people you're complaining about.</p>

<p>Zack:<br>

You have made some excellent points in this thread, but so has Daniel. Joe started this discussion with some rather negative comments about Canon and 35mm Dslr's, and I understand his need/desire to produce the best quality print/neg he can produce. He is not alone in this quest.....</p>

<p>There's an old saying, "You don't need a sledgehammer to drive a nail". Hell, you don't even need a hammer. It can be done with a good rock..however both the sledge and the hammer have it's uses. Film and digital are different. They always will be. Just as watercolor and oil paintings are different, and both have achieved commercial success, as well as bringing fame to certain artists. Both Ansel Adams and Nan Goldin have become famous, using different equipment, however, you can be commercially successful without being famous, and you can be FAMOUS without having commercial success (Van Gogh, among others)....</p>

<p>From Joe's post, money seems to be a big factor (what one can afford)... most of us are limited by this factor. What we would like to use, and what we can afford. Zack offered a good compromise, an inexpensive view camera with good glass (oh the value of good glass). Another option is a good MF camera with an awesome scanner (as you know, that alone can kill your budget).....At any rate I applaud your quest to be your best. History has revealed that great photography has NOT de-valued paintings, nor will great digital devalue film photography. As long as camera companies compete, the quality will only get better, or should I say DIFFERENT.</p>

<p>Final point, there seems to be this bias toward those on PN who have acheived commercial success, and /or have mentioned or boasted about receiving awards. I think it's great for anyone who can make a living doing photography. Daniel made a statement about showing proof before telling others what they can or can't achieve with certain equipment. I agree with his point. What one chef can create with a knife and a saucepan can be completely superior to another with the same equipment.....</p><div></div>

<p>Making photographs is not a competitive sport (despite the tone of some of the cr*p on here). And selling a photo for a lot of money confirms nothing much.<br>

To any informed reader the O.P.'s questions were clearly the questions of someone inexperienced in LF. The O.P.s subsequent comments were clearly the comments of somebody who's a little naive about photographic practice. The appropriate response is surely to be patient, and pragmatic about what's actually involved in resolving the original question, and ignore the more naive bluster.<br>

I find it a little discouraging that the Photo.net LF forum should turn into the sort of discussion seen here. If I want that I can just read the juvenile comments on youtube videos etc. LF is really suffering as a viable practice - I've noticed how the forum here has dried up over the last few years (I've been visiting the site for over a decade and have learned a lot). I hope all the sensible practitioners have not been lost to digital, and that the LF forum isn't left with the cranks. There are young people interested in analog, and LF, and they will be looking to places like this for advice and guidance. Discouraging them with exchanges such as we've seen here is going to help kill off LF film production, and kill the resale value of all my kit too when the D800e finally arrives! (Edit: Last bit is humor!) </p>

Phil, my comments weren't designed to start a pissing contest and you must take it in the context of what I was referring

to "landscape photography". For your style of work the 5D II would be well suited! That I wouldn't argue. However, show

me a Julius Schulman, a Peter Lik, an Elliot Porter, Ansel Adams... any gallery print (that people would pay thousands of

dollars for time and again) that you can point to and say.. "THERE, now THERE'S Canon or Nikon at it's finest".

 

We ALL KNOW the answer to that though... don't we Phil. ;-) And there lies the rub as Shakespeare would say.

 

No worries, great discussion and I've sourced a Fuji GX617 for a good price that I'm going with.

Gerard I feel you and I think the pool is indeed shrinking. I must be nuts but I just LOVE shooting film. Trecking through

the woods, holding a light meter - using Ansel zone method to determine the best shutter speed, loading film... and then

the not knowing I think it the best part. It's like a birthday present everytime I develop film (I don't process my own I send

it out). I've shot stuff that isn't flattering but with years of practice I've learned to remove the lens cap - then fire ;-).

 

And I've yet to see any digital device match the color tone and contrast I get with Fuji Velia or even Kodak E100.

<p>Must admit, I get rather tired of digital continually blowing out the highlights...something rarely experienced with 4x5...no matter how incorrect the exposure is. I too had a 5D MK2 and was amazed at how much noise is evident.<br>

So much so I ditched it in favour of the new Olympus OMD and fitted with a 58mm (116mm) f1.2 Minolta lens, the OMD actually gives a film like appearance at f2.<br>

It's a great camera, but 4x5 is still way in front.</p>

<p>Hi Zach,<br>

So I got word from Audrey Jonkheer at Kodak this morning, they have not discontinued Ektar in any format, only that 8x10 is made to order and they are about to revamp the page for it on the Kodak site, so lets keep supporting them, nix the rumors by getting the facts and make some great images with it, regardless of format.<br /><br />I use it in mostly 120 and now 4x5 for an ongoing body of work based on multiple exposures, it is stunning film. </p>

<p>That 617 is a nice camera Joe, I have a ton of Techpan that would look incredible with it, so enjoy it! But just realize, it is just a camera and even though the tech side of this craft has always been a big start of debates, it is far worse than ever in the internet and digital age, so when you come out of the gate saying what you did about a proven piece of equipment, you are not serving even your own purposes very well. You want input, but you don't want to alienate people either, that is why I called you on posting some images...I see a lot of talk, right or wrong, I want to see the work too.</p>

<p>As for loving film use, man...you are preaching to the choir, my goal being to shrink digital use down to no more of 20% of my annual shooting. I have at least a 10 year supply of film, paper and chemistry to my name and rotate stock evenly. But I also know that I can take a camera like a D800 and make it sing in a big print kind of way. <br /> That is the beauty of being a photographer in this day and age, we have a lot of choices and even though some are shrinking, a lot of the best stuff is still left. When you consider some of the best work out there, Michael Kenna, Jeff Wall, etc, they use at most two films and make it happen. They stock a lot of it, they use what has the best quality and consistency and above all, the highest probability of sticking around. So yes, the pool is shrinking, but that is to be expected, we have to give up some of the least used products in order to keep the best of it all.<br>

<br /> And Zach, I am not bragging by giving examples of the whys and whats of my opinions, I am just backing it up so that when those young people come on here to get information, they get tangible results of my personal findings and opinions.<br>

<br /> In my opinion in mentoring young people in photography, there are a few things that will inspire a youth to try out film, one big one being a FRESH new look on what is considered an old medium, push the boundaries, not wax poetic about how it used to be, show these kids that film is not done yet because the talent that uses it is not done imagining new ways to use it...<br>

<br /> For example:</p>

<blockquote><a href="http://vimeo.com/m/39578584">http://vimeo.com/m/39578584</a></blockquote>

<p>So nice to see Chris Usher on the US campaign trail shooting 4x5 film with a camera of mine.....A bigger supporter of Kodak film I've yet to see.</p><div></div>

<p>John, I also did a lot of shooting with the Fuji GSW690 and loved the little camera. Light and easy to take even if you are loaded with 35mm gear for birding. I bought a old used Graflex 4x5 and hit the used shows and B&H for used lens and lens boards. My lens are older and most don't have flare coating, but I figure I have around $2500 total in 4 lens, light meter, camera, tripod and film backs. I shoot and own 35mm, 2/14, 6x9 and 4x5 and frankly love my 4x5. Such incrediable detail. I also print off a 7800 so can go big where the detail really shows. But there is something about the process of 4x5; setting up carefully after studying the light, viewing the image upside down as you tweak the focus. It seems so much more like art. Instead of just banging away with 20 shots to be sure, you have to take your time, understand the transfer from 3D to 2D, the light, the composition because you will only shoot one or two films and they have to be right. On some of the landscapes I shot, I often go back to shoot when sun is in different locations to see result. One lake landscape took me 3 years to get just right, but the biggest problem of wind stirring the lake surface.<br>

Couple of hints I found; for reasons I don't know, 4x5 seems to have more exposure latitude than 35mm even using the same film type. My favorite lens is a used 60mm with a recessed lens board. I would get a field camera next time, easier to carry. Stay away from self loads if possible, it just takes on small hair to ruin a slide, I only shoot slide film. Fuji makes a unit that takes preloaded film and last time I looked, was still supplying Velvia and Provia. You will need a good light meter. NO one knows how long film processing and film will be around but you can still get E-6 chemicals, and while the processing is tight, for 4x5 it is not difficult. <br>

35mm is for work. 4x5 is for pleasure.<br>

Good luck,<br>

Howard</p><div></div>

<p>Dan: If you want to try large format. Rent or buy a 4x5 press camera---like a super graphic. <br>

Load a couple of holders. Go outside a few hours before sunset and shoot four sheets of whatever you care about. <br>

Take it to a lab and ask them to make contact sheet. Then choose the best for an 11x14 enlargement.<br>

If the lighting and subject are decent, you'll see the difference.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for the great input and I promise when I can scan what I have on film I will post some shots at a later date. For example, here is a shot of Fallingwater in Bear Run, PA. I shot this composition both on film and digital; the shot here is from my 5DMKII and 24mm TSE series 1 lens. The original digital RAW file was horrid when compared to the raw film slide shot on Velvia 50 from a Fuji GSW690III. Again, when I can show the film to compare you will see what I'm talking about. (Hey, how do I upload images here?)</p><div></div>

<p>Daniel, here is another shot from my 5DMKII, 24mm TSE II lens. This was two shots combined, shifted at opposite extremes. Here the Canon works well for interiors however the highlights and even the mid-tones are not as strong as they would be shot on film with a Mamiya 7ii.</p><div></div>

<p>This is probably one of the best examples of stitching with a 5DMKII: this was shot (just for fun) one a day trip to Seattle. I had my 50mm 1.4 lens on and used a nodle slide adapter with the camera turned vertically. This is a series of 5-6 shots, stitched and processed from RAW images. If you look closely enough, you will notice banding and again, the general lack of strong contrast and detail that film coupled with good glass can provide.<br>

The Canon 50mm 1.4 obviously is a cheap portrait lens but for the "35mm DSLR" die-hards, I'll reshoot this next month when traveling that way again, this time with a FUJI GX617 and I'll scan it so you can see the clear difference.</p><div></div>

<p>rent a camera &c and see if it works for you.<br />cameras and lenses are affordable used<br />and don't cost close to 3K. <br>

there aren't many color emulsions left in 4x5 or bigger<br />so if C41/E6 is what you are planning on using, you might<br />be better off using a smaller format. <br /><br />the quote "if the entire image isn't in focus, you're lying" is kind of funny<br />seeing if everything is in focus it is just as much as a lie.<br>

good luck - </p>

4x5 yet has utility beyond just resolving power (which it also has in abundance, with good technique and lenses used at optimal apertures on well-scanned film). My feeling is that many of the most interesting landscape scenes have a subject and a background that call for extreme depth of focus. Beyond 645 or 2-1/4" formats, camera moves such as tilts and swings become necessary to achieve that result (or at least these moves become quite useful). With a camera doesn't have moves, I'd either be gravitating away from these scenes, or using sub-optimal apertures.

<p>I had similar feelings about digital, though I don't want to spark more debate on that issue. I switched to the Mamiya 7II system, and then 4x5.</p>

<p>The Mamiya 7 has wonderful lenses and the prints, up to 40x50in, from Portra 160NC are very sharp and detailed. The new Portra 160 wasn't out yet, but it would be even better. But after shooting with the Mamiya for a relatively short time, I realized that I was shooting primarily on a tripod, and that I could really benefit from camera movements since I usually shoot in urban environments and I like to keep vertical lines vertical.</p>

<p>So I switched to 4x5, and I love it. The quality from a drum-scanned 4x5 negative really has to be seen. I've printed up to 48x60in. and the prints are sharp, even when viewing from very close. They also have a unique quality that only comes from film, I think. The grain is not objectionable even at large print sizes, but it does add texture that actually tends to make the prints look even more sharp.</p>

<p>Your idea of picking up a Nikon digital is a good one if you plan to do commercial work. The profit margins probably won't support the expense of shooting film. But for personal projects or if you do work for gallery shows, I think you'd be more than happy with the results. I'd argue, though, that a 4x5 kit would be a better complement to a digital kit. The reason is that you'd have two very different options. The digital kit would be fast, responsive and usable handheld. The 4x5 would be slower, stuck to a tripod but with extremely high image quality. If you choose a digital kit and a Mamiya 7 kit, there's more overlap.</p>

<p>The only question is if large format suits your style of working. You'll always be working from a tripod, it takes a few minutes to set up a shot, and it's somewhat slower than smaller formats. But if you're ok with these things, I'd give it a try. Before you spend a lot on gear, can you borrow/rent a camera or maybe take a class or workshop? </p>

<p>You don't need to spend a ton of money. I would advise that you buy used gear. You'll save a ton and not really lose anything. LF gear is simple and usually quite durable. You could buy a cheap Sinar monorail for a few hundred bucks. Field cameras are more portable but also more expensive, but even there you don't need to go crazy. You can find used Linhof Technika IV's for under a grand. Used Toyo metal field cameras sometimes show up for as low as $500, and they're quite good. </p>

<p>My favorite focal length for urban landscapes and architecture is a 120mm, but a 90mm would come close to your 24mm Canon lens and they're plentiful and cheap on the used market. Add a 150 and maybe a 210 and that's probably all you'd ever need. </p>

<p>If you're going to spend $2k on the nikon kit, that would leave around $2400 for a 4x5 kit, and that's definitely doable.</p>

<p>I sold my Canon kit and I'm going to be picking up a Fuji GX617. It's a limited format for shooting but boy what results! I've wanted one for years and just recently renewed my rental insurance so I can shoot with the GX617 and then rent 4x5 or a Mamiya 7ii to test the composition more.<br>

Thanks to everyone that responded.<br>

Best wishes!</p>

<p>Joe, I shot the same scene that you did at Union Station L.A. on 6x7 negative film with a 50mm ULD lens on Mamiya RZ. For some reason your shot looks like it was compressed in the horizontal direction. Also I have a lot more fine detail in the negative than you ur image has. Just saying. na na....na....na na</p>

<p>Joe casey, Peter lik extensively used Canon 5D mark 2, Linhof 617, phaseone and hasselblad. He is doing more post processing work then you think.So he is now fully digital(almost) and he never had problem with Canon 5Dmark2.<br /> Most people shifted from 4X5 to 35 mm others who could afford moved to digital medium format.Why not keep both formats.<br /> If yo are not satisfied with Canon you will not see drastic change in Nikon too(i am nikon shooter by the way).so why not have film medium format (mamiya RZ Pro from keh in 600 USD whole kit) and keep 5d Mark 2 for some time.Try this combo for 1-2 months and then take decision.</p>

<p>oops i just notices you sold canon..all the best with Fuji 617 its fantastic</p>

<p>Funny, but I was very disappointed with the Canon 5D MK2. A noisy and unwieldy beast that often struggled to focus in low light even with a 24-70mm f2.8. The damn focus screen often fell out and it was heavier than my 4x5 rangefinder. The MK3 is what the MK2 should have been. </p>

<p>Joe, I understand your search to find the best format / system you can within the usual constraints experienced by most of us ie cash. As an amateur, I also indulge myself in this expensive hobby. For me, a significant part of the enjoyment of LF is the much slower, more thoughtful, therapeutic end-to-end process in preparing for and creating an image with no auto-this and auto-that, followed by the developing and printing. The quality, of course, is self-evident but I find it the most satisfying workflow of all systems I use. <br>

All this enjoyment despite my lack of talent. Every time I'm out in the field, I can't believe I'm the luckiest man in the world.<br>

I use Ebony SV45U2, often with the 6x17 back when creating landscapes. Pin sharp 6x17 format with movements! Also, Schneider SS XL 110mm or Rodenstock APO-Sironar-S 135mm or Cooke PS945 forms my base system for landscapes.<br>

I also enjoy Leica M7, Contax RX, N1 & 645 and Hasselblad 203FE but I think I enjoy LF most of all. But I wouldn't trade any of my kit - they all have their place<br>

Good luck Joe, hope you make the right decision for you - may the force be with you</p>

<p>I'm with John on this...</p>

 

<p>My Razzle 4x5 just kills anything digital...simply because it's film. It's not better, just different... and the incredible detail, bokeh and general mood is unmatched. It's as simple as that. So what if it takes a bit of effort to develop and requires some chemistry? Photography should be science, art and patience combined.</p><div></div>

<p>Sunil: Peter Lik has never 'extensively' used a Canon 5DII. That's grossly incorrect! Yes, he is seen at rare times on his show (which was only one season) using a Canon DSLR with black electrical tape over the model and name, but mostly for scouting locations. I've actually been to three of Peter Lik's gallery locations and was once granted access to his personal proof book by the director of his Oahu store, which has his field notes (the book they don't sell!). ALL of the work for sale in his gallery was done with either a Hasselblad H2 (both film and digital), a Mamiya 645 and a Linhof 617, this I know for a fact.</p>

<p>Only recently did he start using the Nikon D800E, and only for a limited number of prints. I get it though... some people will get their panties in a bunch over my initial comments about Canon, however those comments stemmed from two years of frustration in working with inferior equipment! Mind you I went from using a Hasselblad H2 with P30 back to a Canon 5DII (a big downgrade), which I did mostly for size and weight.</p>

<p>If you honestly believe the Canon 5DII makes sharp images, I must ask you this: Have you blown them up to 30x40 and hung them (on a wall...) next to the same composition shot with 4x5 or 5x7 LF film? I'm certain you wouldn't like the outcome and would be left feeling rather inadequate in that circumstance. You see, what your eye perceives as 'sharp' is only relative to the size of print or image you are viewing. If you are viewing an image with a true resolution of 4000 x 6000 (just an example) yet you are only seeing it as a thumbnail or down-sized sample online then of course your eye will think what are seeing is sharp. If the composition is interesting enough and the lighting and/or subject is able to hold your attention well enough, your eyes will be more captivated by the context of the image and forget about sharp detail. Where this all changes is when you stand in a gallery and look up at a picture on the wall. Do you stand back 10 or 15' feet or do you walk up and look at within a few feet? ;-))) Most people don't stand in the next county when viewing pictures in a gallery. They walk RIGHT UP to it! And that's where the images shot on a DSLR (regardless of software processing, noise tweaking, magic powder sprinkling) cannot hold a candle to large format film. There are just too many factors to even go into here: image circle, distortion, available light (which is huge in landscapes and greatly affected in smaller format lenses, contributing to noise), resolving power, film plane size (which in the 4x5 format equals about 200 + Megapixels).</p>

<p>People / portraits, sports, weddings, action, photojournalism, yes... 35mm will dominate these areas as it still is the go-to format for specific work. The aforementioned types of photography however are not what I'm referring to. Multiple internal filters intentionally designed and engineered to BLUR the image to help prevent 'jaggies' do not result in a DSLR print besting or even equalling 4x5 film.</p>

<p>Until recently I was eyeing the Nikon D800E as I'd given serious consideration to it. I've also seen some great landscapes shot with this camera that when blown to actual size (true resolution) with a pier in the frame....</p>

<p>......IT'S GOT JAGGIES! Yep! Nikon's best DSLR still has jaggies. Those funky lines that show up (when viewed at true resolution), that cannot lie and prove why digital photography hasn't come as far as most people would like to believe.</p>

<p>I greatly appreciate everyone's input and putting up with me ;-). I've owned the Fuji GX617 for a while now and cannot express enough how much I love shooting with that camera. I'm picking up a used Wista 45SP next month with a couple of Schneider SA lenses. Sorry digital... I'll always come back and dust you off for travel shots... and taking pictures of the kids!</p>

<p>And for those worried that film is dead... it's not (still alive and kicking)... it just smells funny ;-)</p>