Handheld LF, why?

Mark wrote: "For example, a 1mm vertical movement of the film plane

during exposure creates far more image degradation in a small 35mm

negative than the same 1mm vertical movement in a comparatively huge

4X5"<br>No, it doesn't. Work it out. Moving the camera 1mm

doesn't create 1mm of image movement, except at 1:1 magnification.

The image movement is simply the camera movement multiplied by the

subject magnification, and for a given size of final image, the image

movement is the same and the negative size is irrelevant.<br>The fact

that <i>you</i> can get acceptable results from handheld 5x4 proves

nothing, I can tell you that <i>I</i> didn't, and no longer attempt

to.<p>"This is not the first time Mr. Andrews expresses incredulity at

the use of 4X5 hand-held "<br>That's because I'm still incredulous

that anyone would <i>want</i> to do such a thing.<p>"One of the most

celebrated images of the 20th century, Migrant Mother, was taken in

1936 by Dorothea Lange using a hand-held 4X5 camera

(Graflex)."<br>Yes, and that image, even in a small reproduction,

clearly shows the effect of camera movement. <br>This in no way

detracts from that very moving and powerful picture, or Dorothea

Lange's skill as a photographer. However, I'm pretty sure that had Ms.

Lange had the benefit of modern films, and a more flexible editorial

attitude to back her up, then she wouldn't have <i>chosen</i> to use a

Graflex, and the image would be just as moving.<p>I'm sorry Mark, but

none of your invective has changed the laws of optics one little bit,

nor answered the question of why anyone, with modern materials and

equipment at their disposal, would <i>choose</i> to use handheld 5x4.

What a strange and ridiculous argument. I chose 8x10 because it was

the only system I found that gave me the results I like. Mark chose

hand-held 4x5 for the same reason. He isn't taking pictures of things

that let him use a tripod. He is getting better results than when he

used 6x6. So that's what he uses. The world is a diverse and

beautiful place, and people have different styles and different

approaches. You use a tripod, Mark doesn't. Yet it is theoretically

possible that neither one of you belongs locked up in the asylum,

despite this difference. The sun sets, and the sun also rises.

I am responding late in this thread to again counter the

re-itteration of half baked miconceptions about and prejudice against

hand-held LF photography. Opinions without the substance of

experience are not a substitute for facts. When we were teen-agers we

all had friends who were obsessed with sex (as we were ourselves) and

who were vocal sex experts even though they were virgins.

<p>

This forum also serves as an educational resource and therefore it is

important to embrace differing points of view. For example, I don't

use the Zone System for the simple reason that its not geared to

hand-held situations, and moreover I use an incident meter

exclusively. Brett Weston didn't even use a light meter, never mind

previsualizing zones... There is no single RIGHT way of exposing a

negative. There are alternatives and variations that WORK and give

outstanding results. If the results obtained meet your goals, your

methods are thus validated. Brett Weston's prints are no less

excellent than St-Ansel's, despite his 'deviation' from the 'true

path'.

<p>

I shoot 4X5 on a tripod as well as hand-held. You simply have a

greater range of photographic oportunities this way. Its called the

best of both worlds. Hand-held LF gives better results than MF

(tripod or hand-held). That is a simple fact that makes the time,

trouble and expense worthwhile. It is also one hell of a good excuse

for buying a Linhof Master Technika. Thus begins one of life's great

creative adventures with one of the 20th century's great photographic

tools.

<p>

Dorothea Lange's 'Migrant Mother' is perhaps not the best example of

the technical excellence possible with hand-held LF photography. It

is a great and moving image despite its flaws. The single greatest

technical problem with the image is that the centre of interest, the

mother's face and right hand, are out of focus. The plane of sharp

focus is behind her face. Look at her right shoulder, her left shirt

collar, and the top left of her hair as well as the hair of the blonde

child on her left shoulder. All of these listed areas are tack sharp

and show no evidence of camera shake. There is beautiful tonal and

textural richness as well as detail. That is, all the hallmarks of

good LF photography. (Not all reproductions of this image are equal,

the best approximation of the original I have had the priviledge of

seeing on a museum wall can be found in Keith Davis 'The Photographs

of Dorothea Lange', Hallmark, 1995).

<p>

Why is her face out of focus? Because there is punishingly little

depth of field due to the adverse conditions that Dorothea Lange had

to contend with. It was the end of the day, it was overcast and there

was a drizzle. The light was very poor and she probably had great

difficulty seeing well enough to focus in the dim low contrast light.

Her lens was probably wide open, and the shutter speed slow (it is

amazing how slow a shutter speed you can use hand-held with a big

camera and still maintain sharpness, so this is not a factor

contributing to image degradation).

<p>

The other important factor in 1936 was film speed. According to 'Das

Linhof Kamera Buch', Verlag Photo Technik International, Munich 1990,

under the description of the Linhof Technika in 1936 (page 106):

"...the fastest films of that period rarely exceeded the equivalent of

ISO 10". ISO TEN!!!!

<p>

So in fact 'Migrant Mother', even though the centre of interest is out

of focus, actually shows the the advantages of hand-held LF

photography despite the multitude of adverse factors faced by the

photographer.

<p>

And people revere the 'Mona Lisa'. Well eat your heart out Leonardo.

How about the same reason a lot of us shoot various iterations of

Large Format camreras. Just because we want to.

A one-degree rotation of the camera, enlarged to a 10x8 print, will

indeed give the same blur, no matter what the format.

<p>

This is not the reason some of us like handheld LF. Sure, a 5x4 SLR

has enough shake to frighten the subject, and me, when that mirror

goes BLAM. Quiet a stupid camera, really. But a more conventional LF

has that very quiet 'chut' that is a joy to hear. The real pleasure

comes from the image qualities: all those square inches do count.

<p>

As a general rule (I do hate general rules), all other things being

equal, larger format gives better quality than smaller format. Tripod

vs. tripod, or handheld vs handheld. Unfortunately, none of my LF

cameras has a decent f/1.2 lens, nor could I lift it if it had. But

the Schneider 47mm makes for a lovely little hand-held camera,

lighter than a Nikon F, and vastly superior images (when there's a

decent amount of light).

L.F. handheld is meditation pure and simple....catching the

transitory and the ephemeral(people and things in real life

situations)...using your OWN body as the tripod/instrument...being in

the moment without needing to previsualise...reacting to the

environment...and getting the great 4x5 image complete with flaws.

Pure emotion...One of my favorite images of my mother(recently

deceased) was obtained this way with a speed graphic with a blown

rangefinder....just focus on the ground glass...position body...stop

down...engage film holder...click....NIRVANA. I'm glad I had the 4x5

instead of 35mm or 2 1/4. ALSO....This way of creating images is

FUN/SPONTANEOUS and RISKY...which much L.F. could use in it's

vocabulary. The images are tack sharp even in declining light at

1/15th.

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! More Nails Please! This coffin's not

quite shut!

<p>

Larger formats offer better tonality, not just extra resolution. In

any case, at infinity, or with flashbulbs, you can have the

resolution too.

<p>

Larger formats are an easy way to reduce the depth of field.

Some people find this a useful expressive tool.

<p>

In any case, there is something wrong with your original post.

Equal angular movements do give equal blur in

equal-field-of-view prints, but hands tend to shake by a constant

distance, not a constant angle about whatever they happen to be

holding. Larger formats get blurred by less because the bigger

cameras provide a longer lever arm, and so a smaller angle for

the same caffeine intake.

Decades of terrific photojournalism were performed with handheld

large format cameras. If you're seriously concerned about whether

good results can be accomplished, then you haven't tried it. Yes,

you have to be careful about what is in focus, and yes you have to be

careful not to induce some camera blur into your negative. With

almost no practice, I could accomplish the same exposures I could

with a 35 mm. Handheld 1/60th is easy, at a 30th or 15th you can

rest your elbows on things and get good results. Fortunately, many

of the lenses which come on the Graphics and Busches perform very

well at f: 5.6 to f:11, apertures I almost never use when carrying a

tripod. Even some of the very inexpensive "less desirable" original

lenses (for example, the 127 mm non-Ektars) will make very decent

11X14 and 16X20 prints from handheld negatives. For 15 years I

didn't think about adding handheld cameras to my large format

equipment, I just thought the press cameras were interesting looking

machines people collected. The last couple I have started adding a

Crown Graphic (and/or a Busch Pressman) to what I take on trips. My

family is overjoyed, not every car trip stop results in a 30 minutes

delay. (Some of them still take hours, but they're used to that.)

You will see and photograph subjects differently when you're working

them handheld. You'll explore the subject from more positions in

less time handheld. And for photos of people (something these cameras

are great for) you can produce prints which are revelations to those

brought up on 35 mm. Smooth, sharp, long scale 8X10's delight the

subject. I've just started using "grafmatics," a 6 sheet magazine

which allows you to shoot six sheets without changing a film holder.

It also eliminated the need to take out the dark slide and park it on

the back of the camera. A Crown with two lenses (the 135mm Schneider

plus the 90 mm Angulon) plus filters plus a loaded grafmatic for 6

exposures) can all fit in a small 35 mm bag. Apparently a great many

readers of the forum dismiss handheld cameras, I'm only trying to

convey what I wish someone had told me a long time ago: this (still)

works and it's fun. The investment is minimal, if you're unhappy

with your attempts at it the Crowns and Speeds and Busches all sell

like hotcakes on Ebay and you can get your money back.

Thanks for those last three considered replies. Pondering over the

problem for 6 months does tend to give less heated and more rational

responses!<br>I'm not going to argue about the more philosophical and

contemplative reasons for using handheld LF, and I'm certainly not

trying to dissuade anyone from trying it, or doing it.<br>The

fact that many great pictures were taken on handheld LF in the

past is also a total red-herring. Many great pictures were also taken

on glass plates with wet collodion, but I don't see many photographers

advocating their use these days.<p>The question, as originally asked,

was to see if there were any technically sound reasons to offset the

inconvenience of using a 5x4 camera handheld. I'm afraid I'm still not

convinced that there really are any.<br>IMHO, modern film has reduced

the tonality issue between 5x4 and MF to next-to-nothing. It used to

be easy to pick out the format used from the quality of prints in

reproduction, in galleries and at exhibitions, but nowadays, it's a

near impossible task to tell what format was used.<br>My own

experience is that by using Tmax100, I'm getting the tonality and

quality from 35mm that I used to get from FP4 on 6x6cm; and

6x6, or 6x4.5cm is giving me prints that I can't easily tell from 5x4.

This really only leaves the use of camera movements as the one strong

argument for LF, I'm afraid, and this isn't easy to implement with a

handheld camera.<p>Sorry Struan, but I'm not getting your 'longer

lever' argument. The image displacement in the final print is the same

for a given angular <i>or linear</i> movement of the camera,

regardless of format.<br>Say we're taking a picture of someone 6ft

tall, and we want a full-length shot of them, 6" high on the final

print. Whatever format is chosen, the overall magnification is going

to be 1/12th, so if the camera is moved 1mm vertically during the

exposure, then the printed image will have 1/12th of a millimetre

blur.<br>The only possible 'leverage' advantage that a larger, and

heavier, camera can have is its extra inertia, but strapping a lead

weight (or a motor-drive and metering prism, etc.) to a smaller format

camera will take even that away.

To first order, your hands shake by a constant distance. If both

hands shake in the same direction you get a linear movement of

the camera. If they shake in opposite directions you get an

angular rotation, and if you're not completely posessed, the

angle is small and so equal to the shake distance divided by the

seperation of your hands. With a bigger camera, you rotate by

less, and if you've used a lens with the same angle of view for

the larger format, you'll get less on-print blur.

<p>

The shake caused by in-sync rotation of your hands about the

wrist is, like the linear shake, unaffected by format.

<p>

I agree with you in the main, but am one of those people who

likes glasses to be half full. If smaller formats are as good as

larger ones, then larger ones are as good as smaller ones. I

often get better results handholding MF than 35 mm because I

don't firk about trying to hold the camera up at eye level.

<p>

I also just plain giggle at the idea of an 11x14 point and shoot,

and will try building one sometime. I see myself doing

immersive imaging with two Metrogons, and two plywood box

cameras hanging off me front and back like a sandwich board.

The end is nigh!

It should be obvious to all that the original poster is really just

ridiculing the concept of hand-held large format photography. Many

good points were raised above, based on experience, and not on the

prejudiced conjecture of nay-sayers. To further argue the point is a

waste of energy.

<p>

May I offer to make a portrait, using a hand-held 4X5 camera, of

heads stuck in the sand? The results should neatly place both camps

in their places...

Or should I have said: "The results will neatly place both camps in

the correct perspective"?

The current discussion on the 'Lost Art of Hand-held LF' photography

(Feb. 2002) would be enriched by perusing some of the above points...

Hi Pete

<p>

I fully disagree with your theory. I worked for 3 years as professionel

aero photographer for a company with 2 Linhof Aerotronicas 6x9cm

shooting from a helicopter.

So first the Linhofs where about 20 kg with the 450mm lens I was

shooting almost with a 1/800 sec sometimes a 1/500 seldom 1/1000 sec.

It was possible to make enlargments up to 80x1,20m in very fine

quality. The camera was hanging on a gummystrap at the doresframe.

Sometimes I made shoots with my privat 6x6 Rolleflex handheld with 1/

250 1/500 and I could they push up to maximum 18x24cm with good

results. And 2 times I tried it with my 35 mm Minolta with different

lenses but even in 9x13cm all pictures looked very unsharp just not for

use and I worked only with 1/1000 and 1/500sec.

Pete you must have somthing overlooked!!