Help me decide wheather I should move to a larger format.

I recently watched a PBS program on the life of Ansel Adams. For

some time now, I have been considering moving to a larger format(I

use ETR 645 now). My question is with the advance in quality of

film, developer chemistry, and lenses, is it necessary to make the

investment. My experience is limited, so any advice form the more

experienced out there would be appreciated.

You will get what you don't have now, judge for yourselve wheather it is important:<br>

<li>perspective control

<li>possibility of individual processing for ZONE SYSTEM (you posted to B&W film processing forum, right ?)

<li><a href="http://www.acmeenterprises.com/photography/equipment/pages/traditional_main.php">Higher image quality</a> - difference will be more visible while using traditional B&W

<li>great looking scans from $400 flat beds

<br><br>

You will loose (read, don't dump you 645):<br>

<li>speed of operation

<li>transportability of system (not necessarily though)

<li>shooting handheld

<li>cost efficiency

<li>slide projection

<br><br>

LF lenses are of great quality when you know where to look for, I was discouraged so far by relative high cost of light high quality flexible cameras (Arca-Swiss metric, Ebony, Toyo VX).

I shoot mainly 6x7 format and absolutely love it. I have two medium format

cameras: Mamiya RZ67 Pro II and the older Pentax 67 handheld. The Mamiya

is more for studio shooting, and the Pentax is more like 35mm SLR handheld

shooting, only the camera is bigger and a bit heavier. I can't recommend 6x7

enough. Amazing image quality. And, it's actually not too much of a pain. It's

more than worth it.

Ansel Adams himself answered your question by giving up his large view cameras and switching to Hasselblad. 16x20 prints of his image "Moon and Half Dome" look just as sharp and grainless as his earlier pictures made with the 8x10. Unless you're planning to make mural sized prints, stick with the 645.

You don't tell us what you do with the camera. Most any advance in film has happened in all the formats. OTOH the needs have been to improve 35mm more then the larger formats. Advanced chemistry??? I'm not sure about that. D-76 is over 70 year old. D-23 a little older then that. Rodinal is older then either. Lenses? One thing you'll find about LF format is antique lenses can carry the load just fine. Even in the 35mm world 30+ year old primes can produce some pretty good work. Many of the advances in the 35mm have revolved around convience. A winder doesn't take better pictures. Neither does AF. One simple test I think is to take a cheap 1960's MF camera and compare it with a pretty good modern 35mm. Assuming you're needs fit what that camera can do then what amounts to a junk store camera is good enough. But you already use a 6x4.5 so should have an understanding how much bigger negatives can help.

 

The investment into 4x5 is relatively modest. What one lens for some modern MF cameras cost you might get a full LF setup.

 

Now the issue is it better? Depends on what you're looking for. What you need to do. Some things are tougher to do with anything but a 35mm . Or maybe you are artisticly looking for the look that blowing up a 35mm negative to large print sizes might give you. Who knows. Better isn't a simple yes/no.

Adams also said that he used "the biggest camera he could carry," so maybe it's not too surprising that he scaled down in his later years (endorsement contracts aside).

 

Really, it's the sort of thing that only you can decide. Try out an entry-level system for a while, and see if it's for you. Each format has its own look for reasons that have nothing to do with advances in film, lenses and other materials, and in any case, those advances apply relatively equally to all formats. On the other hand, maybe you might find some "less advanced" materials to be more beautiful than some "more advanced" materials, and large format will give you the opportunity to use them in ways that you can't with a smaller format.

I bought a cheap 4x5 crown graphic. I still use my Bronica all the time, so dont sell your's. I love to just go out and shoot. It's not even about the final image. I like to contact print them and have small 4x5 pictures with great sharpness and tones. I think you should at least try it.

Like Grady shows, you can do LF on the cheap. A used low end Toyo or Graphic, and antique lens, can blow your 645 away in terms of image quality. OTOH, 4x5 image quality will probably be appreciated more by you and other photographers, than the world in general. The more important gain with LF is movements- the ability to put the plane of focus where you want it. Perspective correction is usually only important if you shoot buildings or similar objects. I use my LF *very* infrequently, but when it's the right tool for the job, nothing else will do. I don't think advances in film and chemistry have made LF obsolete, but don't sell the 645 either! If you try a simple LF rig, and like it, then worry about getting a Sinar or similar high end machine.

The one big advantage nobody mentioned is the use of swings, tilts, rise/fall, and shift. Only a view camera can give you these. If you can find a used 6x9 Galvin view it takes Graflex and Mamiya 120 roll film backs under the ground glass pane just like a sheet film holder! If you're not in need of those options, or in need of long or wide lenses, buy a Minolta Autocord and spend your money on film.

there is a best of both worlds, although it is quite expensive. It is the Linhof 679C. a medium format camera that is also a view camera. very light. takes medium format backs. but has swings and tilts.

The biggest advantage for me was that it inproved all my photography to move to LF. In this auto everything world I found myself starting to rely on the camera too much. Kinda disengage the brain except for composition. LF has made me slow down and think about everything more carefully, even in my 35mm.

 

The camera movements are pretty cool too.

The bottom line is that advances in film/chemistry/lenses apply to LF as well as MF, and there is no compensation for film area in image quality. There are subtle qualities inherent in a LF contact print that have less to do with grain size and more to do with local contrast and tonality. When enlarging, the differences become simpler; the less one enlarges, the better the image quality. One could go on at length regarding the many benefits and versatility of view camera movements, and single sheet development, but ultimately, only you can answer your question. Is it necessary for you to make the investment?

Thanks to everyone for your responses. As I told Petr, I signed into this web site only a few hours ago, and am reaping the benefits. All your comments were appreciated!!

You will find at lot of information in the archive of the Large Format Photography Forum, http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a?topic_id=1547 (look down the page for Older Questions, and also at the Large Format Photography Home Page, http://www.largeformatphotography.info/.

<<<Adams also said that he used "the biggest camera he could carry," so maybe it's not too surprising that he scaled down in his later years (endorsement contracts aside). >>> He eventually downsized to 35, and I doubt he did it for the superior image quality over MF or LF. Getting free swag from anyone never hurts either.

driving a Mazda Miata or RX-7 or (insert two-seater of choice here)

or a Mercedes Unimog? or Dodge Power Wagon?

 

In other words, what do you enjoy about what you are doing now? What is missing? If you're happy, stick with it. If you're only interested in image quality, than IMHO that's not enough of a motivation to switch. Format choice is more of a mind-set than anything and your way of working will HEAVILY influence whether you enjoy a larger format or not.

 

I NEVER thought I would shoot 8X10 and now I cannot imagine shooting anything else, unless maybe it's 11X14...others can't understand why you'd want to put up with all the bother for one shot when you could get 10~35 in less time....

 

See if you can find an l.f. shooter in your area to pal around with for a weekend and see how they work, etc.<div></div>

I shoot 645, 4x5", 5x7", 9x12cm, 13x18cm, and even occasionally 35mm.

One does not exclude the other - although the only reason for my mix of metric and "imperial" LF film sizes is film availabilty.

 

I do use my 35mm a lot less, and the Bronica ETRS quite a bit less than before. But each format has its use.

 

My latest aquisition was a 1934 Voigtländer Bergheil 9x13 plate camera. With sheet film adapters it's a great little camera, at least as portable and hand-holdable as the Bronica, but of course I can't get 15 pictures on each film. With the same film (EFKE 100), same developer (Pyrocat-HD), even the advances in lens construction in the 60 years that separate the Heliar and the Zenzanon lenses can't quite compensate for the larger negative.

 

But my two main reasons for using LF is movements and speed. It's a lot slower, so I tend to think more before I shoot. Also loading more film is slower, and has to be done more often, so I think more before I shoot.

Assuming that you develop your own film, get a few rolls of 120 tech pan and some liquid Technidol. Shoot on a pod with MLU, yada, yada. The image quality will be the best that you can get from 6x4.5. If this doesn't satisfy you, then you definitely want to consider a larger format. I've used 4x5 before, but the largest I shoot now is 6x7.

sorry to be yet another person off topic, Adams didn't "downsize" to 35mm eventually. He used whatever format worked for the moment, ever seen his portraits of Stieglitz with the 35mm? those certainly weren't done later in his life.

In his own books Adams said that as arthritis set in he used his Leica more and more, as his joints couldn't put up with the set up and knockdown of his viewcamera, let alone the carrying of the euipment. He said he appreciated the image quality that the Leica afforded him, but that he missed the movements of his LF. This is from a series of letters reprinted in a book called I believe "Adams in Color" having to do with his experience testing Kodachrome as a commissioned artist for Kodak. I can't recall if this came before or after his Gugenheim grant. A very interesting book, revealing the very human side of a legend. Adams said that he tired of people telling him he was selling out to Kodak, saying that he "didn't care where the money came from, the critics aren't paying any of my bills!"

of course he narrowed his later usage down to 35mm as he aged, that common knowledge I would think, but your earlier statement made it sound as if he never used 35mm until later in life.

Gerard, if photography is something other than a profession to you, Is it the "act" of photography, be it the being "out in the world" standing behind a tripod, or fast action street shooting with a 35mm, or the skill of developing film, or the craftmenship of printing black and white. OR is the final print that appeals to you? I shoot 8X10 now after 20 years of doing this for no other reason than I love to be in a beautiful location and the big camera is my ticket! I have a 35mm, a Hassy, a Wisner 4X5, but for me, it's the 8X10 (and the contact prints I produce) that motivates me to continue. I say ONLY change your equipment, if something is not right. If your having fun and producing good prints, then STAY 6X6!

I use a Voigtlander Avus with a 6x9 back on it, and get killer results. At 8x10, the prints have otherworldly sharpness and tonal range. It is also a very portable outfit--folds up! If you can get 9x12 sheet film, you can go even higher in quality, although you have to lug around the metal film holders.

 

And, yes, a Speed Graphic is another way to test the waters in LF. It is bulkier and far heavier than an Avus, but more flexible.