Shooting large format cameras VS anything else?

I no longer shoot 4x5 but I have had very good success digitizing my 4x5 and 6x6 images using my DSLR and getting large lightjet prints done, so film is not completely moot. Hopefully finish building my 6x6 camera for Christmas! Have the film in the fridge waiting.

Please show photos of the camera!

Please show photos of the camera!

The DSLR, or the 5"x4"?

 

Here's a totally gratuitous picture of my Devere Devon.

Taken with a DSLR.

Howdy folks.

 

Been sort of toying with the idea of getting a bigger camera. Along this line, I was thinking about something like a 4x5, and I'm wondering just how different this experience is from shooting a smaller, handheld camera such as medium format, or from any other camera for that matter?

 

Are exposure times, other functions, or techniques all that different?

 

Thanks!

Why do you want a bigger camera?

Why do you want a bigger camera?

 

Oh I don't know. Isn't it the Next Step? Natural evolution? More detail? Bigger negatives? Tilt/shift?

I'm just dreaming. Always thinking, Probably hurts more than it helps but hey I have fun with it.

Oh I don't know. Isn't it the Next Step? Natural evolution? More detail? Bigger negatives? Tilt/shift?

I'm just dreaming. Always thinking, Probably hurts more than it helps but hey I have fun with it.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

It depends on what you shoot and what you do with the images. Modern full frame digital gives me all I need at the sizes I can print, far more than I need for screen viewing. IMO, the biggest advantage of large format is swings and tilts. You can do things that aren't possible in small formats, even with a PC lens. If you don't need swings and tilts, the reasons for large format are greatly diminished.

I recently got 4x5 LF field camera in addition to 6x7 MF one and enjoying every bit of it.

 

Key motivation: focus and perspective control that view camera provides. Convergency of objects and lack of possibility to put near objects and infinity in focus started disturbing me at one point.

 

As a big bonus, one gets straightforward possibility to develop single negatives and thus master development process.

 

Weight is the same as MF, or potentially even lighter - there are amazingly lightweight cameras and lenses out there.

 

LF forces me to be more thorough, it’s not anymore “shooting” process, but finding the right motive, perspective, weather, light... which to me is fun on its own. The whole experience is in a way meditative.

 

Of course, it should be possible to be as thorough with MF and digital equipment, though I find that as part of natural flow with LF.

 

Film cost becomes pricey, especially for color, though it depends how you look at it. I believe that 5 *really* good images that you put effort into are better than 100 average ones.

 

The cost and slowness of it makes me think that for someone with little experience it is better to gain that experience with something else first, be it 35mm, MF or digital.

 

The drawback for me is that it is very difficult to find access to a darkroom with 4x5 enlarger, unless you have enough space for it at home. Contact prints are still too small, so I end up scanning them. Even good scanner can be both costly and challenging to find.

 

After all, I am convinced that it is not the format or equipment that is deciding, but the amount of effort, time, and persistency to improve that one puts into photography.

Thanks again to everyone for the comments. Definitely food for thought. Only one camera I use now has any sort of metering, so that's not a problem.

There is an easy calculation for bellows compensation. Requires you know the focal length of your lens in inches. And you need a pocket tape measure.

 

So say you have a 150mm lens. and you have extended the bellows 9 inches. The 150mm is close to 6". So you have 6" and 9" . Instead of thinking of these with inches in mind, now make them Apertures. So F 6 and F9. What is the exposure difference? F6 is 5.6 1/3. F9 is F8 1/3. = 1 stop. thats it done. With a little practice you can do this in about 30 seconds....

 

If I have a 210mm lens, about 8". And I have extended it and the bellows measured just a tad over 16". What is my bellows compensation? F 8 to F16 is 2 stops. Done.

 

Oh by the way, when ever bellows extension is twice the focal length( for telephoto designs which are not good up close anyway) the reproduction ratio is 1:1 Life-size and the compensation is always 2 stops. If the bellows extension is 1.5 times the focal length, the reproduction ratio is 1/2 life size and the compensation is always 1 stop.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Rod Klukas

US Representative Arca-Swiss

International Technical rep Arca-Swiss

I'm sure there are "better" digital cameras out there. I don't care. I like what I like. If I'm eventually forced to become a painter, so be it.

 

I think we're probably at about the break even point on LF v. Digital for overall data capture. Here's FP4+ in Pyro scanned via Epson V800, reduced image size 5X (to 3K from 15K pixels, long-side) for this forum. The original has much more detail, of course.

 

And then there's tonal "feel". Different films and digital management techniques are like brushes or oils v. acrylic v. sketch v. watercolor. What medium do you like?

 

I like this. It's slow and fun, and I did it all myself.

 

If I'm eventually forced to become a painter...

Hmmm, your profile is familiar to me ... painting can fill the void that photography is unable to fill. And the challenge is much greater as well as rewarding.

I don't know whether to tell you to try it or not even think about it ...

For me, large format was about finding and learning the heart and soul of photography. I had been in 35mm for about 35 years when I became curious about LF. I thought I knew photography. I did not, I only knew 35mm photography. 35mm gave me a huge head-start but 35mm and LF are miles apart in many ways. Try to imagine taking 30 minutes for each sheet of film exposed--not always, but often.

 

I shoot mostly MF film these days, but wouldn't trade my LF experience for anything.

 

One last caveat; be sure to look into the costs associated with LF film and processing before jumping in. Sheet film is expensive, both color and B&W, and you may decide you want a darkroom and a scanner to get the full LF experience.

 

Hope that helps.

 

W

Howdy folks.

 

Been sort of toying with the idea of getting a bigger camera. Along this line, I was thinking about something like a 4x5, and I'm wondering just how different this experience is from shooting a smaller, handheld camera such as medium format, or from any other camera for that matter?

 

Are exposure times, other functions, or techniques all that different?

 

Thanks!

Although you mentioned "shooting" spare a thought for the results. I use many different MF cameras but for sheer quality, 4x5 blows MF away. Yes I know some replies may say that's rubbish but in my experience a 20x16 enlargement from 4x5 is mind blowing. Once again, this is MY experience. I'm sure 10X8 is stunning but there is no way I could afford the money or space for that. I also have a 16x20 camera (but only ever used 11x14 film in it) and contact prints were fantastic.

Using LF isn't difficult, it's just different. Yes film is more expensive but you will probably use a lot less of it. I have often been out for half a day and made 2-3 exposures.

The fundamentals indeed are still the same. But it is a much slower proces. And you have to carry much more in bulk and weight.

 

MUCH more weight. That blasted tripod is almost half the weight I have to lug.

Lugged it it ONCE, never again. If I can't wheel it in a cart from my car, I don't shoot my 4x5.

MUCH more weight. That blasted tripod is almost half the weight I have to lug.

Lugged it it ONCE, never again. If I can't wheel it in a cart from my car, I don't shoot my 4x5.

What cart do you use?

What cart do you use?

 

I first used a luggage cart with a plastic milk carton case to hold everything.

But the milk carton case did not fold, so it became a hassle to put in the car.

 

Then I got a folding cart something like this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Two-Wheeled-Collapsible-Handcart-Rolling-lightweight/dp/B0798DJF9Z/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?dchild=1&keywords=tote+cart&link_code=qs&qid=1613016069&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExN0JDWTFSUVJCRktGJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMjE3MTYyVlkxRUdGSFpKNFFRJmVuY3J5cHRlZEFkSWQ9QTA4NzM5MDBLUTdKMFhXNVk4TVUmd2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGYmYWN0aW9uPWNsaWNrUmVkaXJlY3QmZG9Ob3RMb2dDbGljaz10cnVl

The problem was the wheel was too small. Small wheels do not work well on anything but smooth surfaces.

 

Then I found a similar cart that had large wheels. I think it got it at either Office Depot or Staples. But dang if I can find that cart any place online.

The large wheels make it SO much easier to pull on less than smooth surfaces. I have been using this for the past few years.

 

At a large format photo outing, I saw a gal with something like one of these:

https://www.amazon.com/Timber-Ridge-Camping-Collapsible-Shopping/dp/B078M28P22/ref=sr_1_18?dchild=1&keywords=tote+cart&link_code=qs&qid=1613016652&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-18

It easily held her 5x7 camera, tripod, and gear.

There are many different variations of this cart. Some with only 3 wheels, some with WIDE wheels for going on soft ground.

Because it is larger than my current cart, I think something like this will be my next cart.

Not sure that anything with wheels is the answer - apart from a 4x4 offroad vehicle.

 

Grass and rough terrain render small wheels near useless, and you end up dragging the thing more than rolling it. I learned this from giving my daughter rides on her wheeled toys when she was a toddler.

 

My 5x4 all-metal technical camera folds up and fits in a smallish canvas gadget bag. The bag will also take a couple of DDSs, a lightmeter, folded darkcloth and cable-release. Apart from weighing slightly more, it's no more inconvenient to carry than a DSLR kit.

 

The real pain is the tripod, but it doesn't have to be monstrous. A Manfrotto 055 is adequate, and is about the minimum I'd consider for useful stability with any camera. No matter what size.

 

I don't know what the total weight is, but it's not so excessive that a few miles walk isn't too taxing. I suspect the unseen TV cameraman accompanying any wildlife presenter lugs a lot more, and a lot further.

So it also depends on what LF camera you have.

So it also depends on what LF camera you have.

 

Yup.

My monorail is a LOT bigger and clumsy than a nice field camera.

Some field cameras fold up and form their own case, my monorail has to go into another case.

 

I've been thinking about getting a Crown Graphic or similar to use as a field camera.

The monorail is nice, but a logistical pain.

Not sure that anything with wheels is the answer - apart from a 4x4 offroad vehicle.

 

Grass and rough terrain render small wheels near useless, and you end up dragging the thing more than rolling it. I learned this from giving my daughter rides on her wheeled toys when she was a toddler.

 

My 5x4 all-metal technical camera folds up and fits in a smallish canvas gadget bag. The bag will also take a couple of DDSs, a lightmeter, folded darkcloth and cable-release. Apart from weighing slightly more, it's no more inconvenient to carry than a DSLR kit.

 

The real pain is the tripod, but it doesn't have to be monstrous. A Manfrotto 055 is adequate, and is about the minimum I'd consider for useful stability with any camera. No matter what size.

 

I don't know what the total weight is, but it's not so excessive that a few miles walk isn't too taxing. I suspect the unseen TV cameraman accompanying any wildlife presenter lugs a lot more, and a lot further.

 

Yup there are limits to wheels.

If it is too rough for wheels, I probably won't go there with my 4x5. As I dang well don't want to lug the gear by foot.

I might take the 6x6 instead.

Yup.

My monorail is a LOT bigger and clumsy than a nice field camera.

A monorail wouldn't be my first (or 2nd or 3rd) choice for location shooting. It wouldn't even be on my radar for landscape use more than 50 metres from vehicular access.

 

Apart from the weight and awkwardness, a mororail presents a big 'sail' area to the wind, and even a slight cross breeze can cause quite a lot of camera vibration.

 

A folding metal technical camera at least shields the bellows quite well within its body, and has the heft to damp a lot of wind vibration. Same for a wooden field folder, but with less weight and inertia.

A monorail wouldn't be my first (or 2nd or 3rd) choice for location shooting. It wouldn't even be on my radar for landscape use more than 50 metres from vehicular access.

 

Apart from the weight and awkwardness, a mororail presents a big 'sail' area to the wind, and even a slight cross breeze can cause quite a lot of camera vibration.

 

A folding metal technical camera at least shields the bellows quite well within its body, and has the heft to damp a lot of wind vibration. Same for a wooden field folder, but with less weight and inertia.

 

YUP, it was a real pain to setup and use. Definitely an example of "jack of all trades, master of none."

Which is why I was looking for a field camera, off and on.

You do indeed.

But it is not correct that there is a difference here between formats. There isn't.

 

What you will have to get used to is that you probably will not be using TTL metering. TTL metering is what hides the fact that you need exposure compensation. And TTL metering is the standard in miniature and even medium format photography. So stay alert and remember that you probably will need to correct a non-TTL metered exposure suggestion.

 

But no matter what format, every time you focus in from infinity, you need to compensate exposure. The more the closer you get. No difference. The same amounts.

Films latitude is enough that it's not necessary to compensate if the shot is less than about 1:1, but moving into macro the effect is significant enough that it needs to be allowed for.

The difference between formats is down to how big a subject is when shooting at macro distances. We're used to thinking of macro as small subjects no more than a couple of inches across. On medium format this isn't too far from the truth, the subjects are still quite small. But on large format this changes everyday objects are often lifesize - giving rise to enough extension to require exposure correction. My LF cameras are only 5x4 so adult portraits aren't quite macro (but a baby's face could fill the frame) Once you get up to 10x8 even an adults face is a true macro subject. :eek:

 

As others have said LF also tends to include movements that significantly slow down the focusing/composition stages.

Film lattitude is, um..., debatable. But correct exposure always trumps lattitude-will-take-care-of-everything-that's-not-quite-correct exposure.

There is no reason, really, not to determine the exposure you need and set it.

Definitely an example of "jack of all trades, master of none."

A monorail absolutely rules in the studio, but they're agoraphobic beasts that definitely don't like being taken outdoors!

There is no reason, really, not to determine the exposure you need and set it.

It's totally easy to calculate any bellows-extension exposure compensation. Just measure, or guesstimate, the fractional extension from infinity focus, and multiply the scale f-number by that.

 

Say your bellows extension at infinity focus is 6" (~ 150mm) and the bellows are now extended to 8" (200mm). That's 8/6 (200/150) = 1.33x. So just multiply your marked f-number by 1.33 to get the effective f-number.

 

Say you set f/11 on the scale, then your effective f-number is (11 x 1.33) = ~ f/15.

 

It doesn't need to be a dead accurate calculation, since chances are that your mechanical shutter isn't any closer than 1/3rd of a stop to its marked speed. In the example above, taking the nearest shutter speed to f/16 on your meter readout would be close enough.

A monorail absolutely rules in the studio, but they're agoraphobic beasts that definitely don't like being taken outdoors!

 

It's rather the person having to carry the beast that doesn't like to take it out.

A monorail is quite useful outdoors too. A field camera is that also, but has its restrictions in comparison. You're quite right that the large bellows are effective sails (i have personal experience of a heavy Sinar on a ditto Gitzo blown over as if they weigh not much in wind that couldn't blow me of my feet).

But if the venue is right (i.e. accessible, mostly), there is enough time, i see no reason not to bring a monorail. Except, of course i would rather haul a camera that weighs next to nothing.

Edited February 16, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker