Shooting large format cameras VS anything else?

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.

There are two approaches to macrophotography (or photomacrography, as it would be called properly): scale driven and frame driven.

 

If you want to take a photo of, say, a bug a 2x life time size, all you need is a format large enough to contain that image. And the smaller the format, the easier it is to use. Using a 8x10" instead of a 35 mm format camera gives you lots of other subject matter inside the frame besides the bug, but not more detail.

 

The frame approach tries to fill the frame with the subject matter. And that means that the larger formats need more magnification. Using longer lenses, in comparison to 35 mm format, already menas more extension for the same magnification. And if you need even more... It gets unpractical, not worth the bother, very fast.

The upside is that you could get much more detail. Could, because you begin to lose DoF and start seeing diffraction limits rather soon.

 

So in general, the smaller formats make more sense for macrophotography.

 

What however is not really different is that you do need to apply exposure compensation using small formats too, even at scales that are not yet macro. Use a typical short tele for a head shot, and you already might (depends on the particular lens' design) need over half a stop in compensation. The thing is that small cameras usually meter through the lens, and then you do not notice.

Edited February 16, 2021 by q.g._de_bakker

So in general, the smaller formats make more sense for macrophotography.

They make absolute sense!

 

With 50 and 60 megapixel digital cameras, and focus-stacking software readily available; you'd have to be slightly eccentric (to put it politely) to use anything bigger than 'full frame' digital for macro photography these days.

 

OTOH, if you're taking high quality architectural pictures, or anything else that needs extensive camera movements, then 5x4 sheet film or bigger still makes sense.

 

It's just a case of choosing the right horse for the course, or the right tool for the job. And leaving behind any personal media-preference prejudice.

Edited February 18, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

The upside is that you could get much more detail. Could, because you begin to lose DoF and start seeing diffraction limits rather soon.

Not really.

It works out that the aperture needed for an equivalent depth-of-field causes the same diffraction softening in proportion to format size.

 

It's a no-win situation no matter how big or small you make the format. Except that focus-stacking now makes choice of aperture a rather secondary consideration.

 

But I still don't fancy going through an entire box of sheet film, and then scanning it, to have enough shots for a focus-stacking exercise.

The thing is that you will not really end up with a more detailed image using larger formats and more magnification.

 

Re stacking: you could use digital capture on a 4x5" camera (3x4" capture area approx.), and forget about film. Upto approx. 135 MP, depending on the back used.

I never tried that though. I rather use smaller formats for macro.

A monorail works great for architectural photography because they usually put buildings in places you can drive to. ;)

A monorail works great for architectural photography because they usually put buildings in places you can drive to. ;)

There are many buildings where you can drive by them but not park/unload...

Monorails generally have much better movements so if the wind isn't going to be a problem I'd prefer them anyway.

Monorails generally have much better movements.

Yes, but movements you don't actually need unless shooting product or architecture.

 

Most landscapes won't really benefit from large degrees of swing, rise, or tilt. Maybe a bit of forward tilt to help get front-to-back depth of field - as long as you don't mind the tops of trees going a bit fuzzy. Or some drop front to get more foreground in. And any decent technical camera will provide enough of those.

 

Where a monorail excels is when fitted with a bag-bellows to accomodate an extreme wide-angle, but then the lens, and its proximity to the back, usually precludes using extensive movements.

Ray from Adelaide, Australia, here. I started photography at about 10-12 year old on my parents farm, using Mum's Box Brownie. I moved to Sydney for work in 1964 at age 19 and soon purchased a 35mm SLR. I moved quickly to doing my own B&W processing and have done so ever since, also dabbling with Cibachrome colour prints from slides. I got a Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta about 1974 (still have it - 120 roll film) and began my love with larger formats, and got a NikonD300 digital some years back. Then got 2 4x5's at an auction and began using LF, and a few years ago got an 8"x10" back after purchasing a SinarP2. I found that, although digital was ok, I got far more satisfaction and pleasure out of MF & LF, and still do. Regression to being a Luddite? I have now acquired an 8" x 10" enlarger, even though that size is good for contact prints, but yet to use this Durst enlarger. So what we use photographically is what gives us the most pleasure. My preference is B&W film using any of my several 35mm through to 8" x 10" cameras. 35mm and roll film cameras (I now mainly use my Mamiya RB67 with motor film transport backs) are more easily transported for sure. Go your own way!

When I first started, I felt I had a good understanding of the basic mechanics of LF, namely loading the holders, dark slide procedures, exposure, etc. The biggest challenge for me was learning the movements and the effects of each and how to use them to your advantage that other formats may not necessarily accommodate. Steve Simmons' excellent book, Using the View Camera helped make it all make sense. Edited May 15, 2021 by allancobb

^ Ahhhhh, loading the film holders , how many times did I get that pit in the stomach when reinserting the dark slide only to

hear the crunch of film being folded :( .Learning from errors is a painful teacher . Peter

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.

 

 

Years ago I saw someone using a golf cart (without the golf clubs, of course) to carry his LF equipment in the field.

Years ago I saw someone using a golf cart (without the golf clubs, of course) to carry his LF equipment in the field.

 

A golf cart has fairly large wheels, so even better for field use than the small wheel carts.