I'm going LF this year and got some questions???

<p>I'm going LF this year (8x10) and I have some questions???<br />I am a professional landscape photographer (WildforLight.com) and am moving into galleries this year and the coming years. After viewing some top class LF 8x10 prints (by quite a few top photographers, but recently Rodney Lough Jr) and comparing them to my DSLR, DSLR stitches, MF digital and MF digital stitches I finally realize that for huge mural sized prints (Fuji Flex) 8x10 is flat out awesome! Ken Duncan (AU), Rodney Lough Jr and Ben Horne have helped encourage me to come over to the dark side of film! <br />I'm still going to shoot the other formats, but for certain shots that are conducive to LF I am going to do so. The output (and goal) will be <strong>huge top resolution</strong> color (Velvia) landscape gallery prints. I mean up to the limits of Fuji Flex paper (which I think is 50"x120"). I might even use some <strong>larger paper</strong> for some Key gallery pieces. All will be laser prints (Lightjet).<br />I want to attempt to take this to a new level in resolution and print quality, and I know most will certainly consider it overkill (please don't try to dis-persuade me, my mind is made up). I want to exceed 8x10 in resolution. <br />So my first question is <strong>11x14 cameras</strong>... Are these going to produce that much more resolution (as the film size equates to)? Is there some type of blunted quality result do to say, more diffraction, or whatever... so that 11x14 does not really produce that much more resolution than a 8x10?<br />In this quest, what if I (as insane as it may sound to many) shot two 8x10 shots with a panorama head (with good nodal point technique) and sewed them together in a digital program like PS (attempting to get a quality film area of around 16x10 or larger - not print size BTW!). Would this be a better approach than a bigger camera film piece? All shots will be drum scanned to Tiff for color correction, and output.<br />Basically I know nothing about 11x14, and have only heard about them here.<br />Any resources you could point me to would be very helpful, I am just starting my initial research.<br />Also, if there is a better forum for this, please let me know.<br />Sincerely,<br />Mark</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Another newbie. Got your mind made up have you? Wonderful. Do try to keep it opened just a smidge though, because some of what you think you know, is wrong.</p>

<p>Look up DOF, and look up diffraction.</p>

<p>There are good reasons to use 10x8 cameras and larger. Increased resolution isn't one of them.</p>

<p>Do some research over on <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/">LFP.info</a> . Search around on the forum -- you aren't likely the first person in the world to come up with your questions. Every LF photographer was a newbie once.</p>

<p>I'm sure there are lots of opinions. My feeling is that film is so limited in sizes above 4x5 that it isn't worth the bigger, unless contact printing is required and digital negs is beyond consideration. I assume that you can imagine what it will be like to lug a huge camera around.</p>

<p>Also try posting your Q at Large Format Photography Forum: <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info">www.largeformatphotography.info</a></p>

<p>A couple more thoughts: I abandoned rebuilding an 11x14" camera for exactly the reason given, that film I like to shoot is so limited. 11x14" cameras are crazy big (so is my 8x10" for that matter). </p>

<p>The other problem I have is the drum scanned image sizes are so big that my computer can barely handle it, and the wait time between adjustments in PhotoShop--just for large 4x5" film--is a PITA.</p>

<p>So I would vote "insane". I would start with a 4x5" and see if that gets you where you want to go. A good drum scan of this size film will yield excellent results on a 50" print.</p>

<p>That's very cool that you are considering LF, Mark. I enjoy your work and could see how being able to print *really* large and high resolution would be a benefit. A couple thoughts on LF in general, especially 8x10 vs 11x14...</p>

<p>Wind is your enemy with a big camera. Any resolution advantage of going up in format size goes away when the wind blows. The bellows are just a huge sail. For your coastal images this could be a big problem.</p>

<p>Depth of field and diffraction are the secondary problems. Once you are dealing with a non-planar subject (ie, you have to stop down rather than tilt to gain DOF) then you really lose out to diffraction. If you go up in format size you just have to stop down more to maintain your DOF, and most of the resolution advantage of the increased format size is lost.</p>

<p>Lenses are another consideration... there are fewer lenses that can cover the 11x14 format and still give you the FOV you want with good resolution. There's not may modern high resolution wide angle optics that can cover 11x14. Most 11x14 shooters are using longer lenses and older/funky optics. There's a lot more modern choices for good 8x10 lenses, and of course even more choices for 4x5.</p>

<p>Film availability is quite limited for 11x14. Film holders are huge and heavy for 11x14... very limited in your ability to bring much film on location. 8x10 is much more doable.</p>

<p>If you do get a LF camera and want some hands on tips, drop me an email. I'm local here in the Portland OR area and shot landscape with an Arca Swiss 4x5 Field for several years before going back to digital. I'd be glad to get out and shoot and share what little LF knowledge I have.</p>

<p>Hope this helps!</p>

<p>Hi Mark: First of all it is the "dark slide" not the "dark side". 11x14 is a great format. 16x20 is better. My favorite is 14x17, because it prints on 16x20 with a nice border. I have had cameras in all these sizes. They are not that practical today because the film is hard to get. But if you are serious about 11x14, get the holders and the film first. They will be the problem. Stock up with several hundred sheets of film. Then commit to a camera. Ebony is the best, but it is very expensive. Wisner is not nearly as good, but much more affordable (used, they do not make cameras much anymore). There are also Tachihara, Lotus and various older cameras. If you need further help, please ask. </p>

<p>Mark: I spoke before reading the above comments. Do not let these guys discourage you. Depth of field and diffraction are really just words. When you get the camera in front of you, nothing is more exciting. Yes you get less depth. So what? That is the nature of the beast. Learn to make it work for you. As far as diffraction goes, I do most of my LF (and formerly ULF) shooting at f16. That is enough to get sufficient depth, and diffraction, at f16, is more theory than problem. The comments above sound like a bunch of guys who gave up on a difficult but rewarding venture. Sorry, gentlemen, but I have lots of good ULF pictures, and only gave it up because of advancing age and back problems. Re depth, get a short lens, if that is your concern. A 210 has the same depth whether exposing a 4x5 or 11x14 negative (the 210 XL is perfect for 11x14).</p>

<p>Bruce, he shoots a lot of color. Where can he get 11x14 color film, let alone 16x20 or 14x17? And who will process it for him?</p>

<p>Mark, a 50x120 is just two 50x60's, and 50x60 is no sweat for an 8x10. So I'd recommend the option of stitching a pair of 8x10s.</p>

<p>Nothing insane about stitching LF scans together, but you'll have to get some serious computing power.</p>

<p>I don't know where you plan to buy Velvia 50 in 11x14 inch sheets. Largest size I can find anywhere is 8x10. for any type of color film. 11x14 is pretty much a B&W-only format, with spotty film availability.</p>

 

<p>If you have to have color film, best to stick to a slightly smaller format, unless the budget is unlimited. In that case, Kodak will make whatever film you want, but the minimum charge is very high.</p>

<p>A bigger camera will pull out more details. Our 24x36" process camera at F22 will more out alot more info than a 8x10 camera. In like manner; a 6x6cm TLR pulls out more info than a 110 camera.<br /> <br /> ****One gets more usefull info *per square inch* of film area with a smaller format; due to mother nature ie basic optics.<br /> <br /> A 8x10 and 4x5 are fairly standard formats.<br /> <br /> Old 3x4 was/is for lantern slides;<br /> <br /> 5x7 made a nice big negative for retouching.<br /> <br /> Eons ago one could get Kodachrome in 11x14" sizes.<br /> <br /> Today most all color is 8x10 or less; UNLESS one wants to shoot three shots with color filters like graphic arts folks did for plates.<br /> <br /> A 8x10 image at 2000 pixels per inch is a 875 megs when the image is 9.8x7.8 inches .<br /> <br /> With a 64 bit OS like Old XP pro 64bit; more Vista 64 or w7 64 bits one can use more than 4 gigs of ram; and CS4 (for the PC) that supports it.<br /> <br /> If you got for a 11x14 or bigger camera; where will you get your color film? ????</p>

<p>You might try reading this to see all it takes to go big and get the resolution a really large format can do.<br>

<a href="http://www.gigapxl.org/technology-format.htm">http://www.gigapxl.org/technology-format.htm</a></p>

<p>Read all they had to do and then maybe think about if this is something you really want to do, if yes go for it.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would start with a 4x5" and see if that gets you where you want to go. A good drum scan of this size film will yield excellent results on a 50" print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I will agree with this. My cameras only go up to 5x4 format. If I were going to go to 8x10 or bigger it would be for contact printing only.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bruce, he shoots a lot of color. Where can he get 11x14 color film, let alone 16x20 or 14x17? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Badger Graphics has some 11x14 Provia <a href="https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=262">https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_list&c=262</a><br>

so film is available. Ultra Large Format or even banquet cameras do produce results that are simply amazing and film is available if you order in advance. That being said, I agree that 8x10 will probably be more than sufficient for your needs and will give you many more options as far as film, quality modern lenses, enlargers, cameras, tripods, etc. Good luck. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mark; do not get discouraged!<br>

<br> LF can yield great results.<br>

<br> Here the most common size I use is 4x5.<br>

<br> The key thing since you mentioned *color* is again like many of us have mentioned is the availablity of giant color transparency materials.</p><p><br></p><p>My gut feel is that 8x10 is the max size available in color today; maybe I am wrong.</p><p><br></p><p>Betterlight has digital backs for 4x5 too; these are actually sub 4x5 in size in the capture area <br></p>

<p>I do both B&W and color in 4x5, 5x7,8x10, and 11x14. For 11x14 color I'm using up some old film I brought on Ebay. As far as I know no one is making 11x14 color film any more. I'm not sure it matters, as I couldn't afford a good 11x14 enlarger anyway. I have an 8x10 Elwood that I use for B&W, and plan to modify for color. It's enormous. When I built my house I had 2 extra courses or cinder blocks put it the basement walls so I could get the enlarger head high. It should have been 3-4 courses extra, I still can't get the head all the way up. An 11x14 enlarger would have to be horizontal to be useable at all. Needless to say, all of my 11x14 (and 8x10 at this point) color is via contact prints. If I were to do enlargements from 11x14 negatives I would have to tear out my darkroom and rebuild it around the enlarger. It's possible to do 8x10 enlargements without such a major disruption (just barely). I suggest you limit yourself to 8x10.</p>

<p>Thank you!<br /><strong>Excellent feedback</strong> here, just as I was after. A lot to consider. I'm printing the thread off and will re read it all carefully.<br />Brian Cahn, I am in Vegas now. Will you be this way one day?<br />A couple thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li>I will only shoot certain images <strong>conducive</strong> to the LF format. As Bruce points out I would have an impossible time shooting most of my previous ocean work (and other dynamic stuff) with this type of camera. I do realize this and am going to relegate the camera to the right situations.</li>

<li>I am a hobbyist bodybuilder/power-lifter who hikes hills with a heavy backpack in my spare time so weight is not an issue.</li>

<li>I do need to go with color! I am a color photographer and Velvia lover, so I guess that relegates me to 8x10 stitching?</li>

<li>Wow those <strong>drum scans</strong> are going to be expensive! At West Coast: </li>

</ul>

<p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="3" width="61%" bgcolor="#ffffff" bordercolor="#ff6600">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td bgcolor="#ffcc99">1600MB</td>

<td bgcolor="#999999"> </td>

<td bgcolor="#cccccc"><strong>$275</strong></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</p>

<ul>

<li>For these shots I am planning on printing 6' 8' and 10', maybe bigger if I can get the right paper (I use Fuji Flex right now - and it is limited to 50 inches by 120inches). I need the highest quality scans, so unless there is something better than drum, I will have to pay the price.</li>

<li>I thrive on hard work, so "hard" does not intimidate me.</li>

<li>No desire for 4x5. I am marketing to the high end, and there is just something about looking people in the eye and being able to say "this is as good as it gets" knowing you paid a mighty price for them.</li>

<li>Over to the "dark slide!"</li>

<li>Yes, I intend on investing in a "super computer" maybe toward the end of this year, or beginning of next.</li>

<li>Thanks very much Kelly. I wont!</li>

<li>Bruce, discernible print resolution in high end fine art landscape prints is the goal. I do know what DOF and diffraction are, and though I am a newbie to 8x10, I am not to film or photography. I am open and will carefully consider all information presented here. Thanks for the helpful link. </li>

<li><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1008200">Sheldon Nalos</a> thank you. My better work is on my website not here on p.net. <strong>wildforlight.com</strong></li>

</ul>

<p>I do both B&W and color in 4x5, 5x7,8x10, and 11x14. For 11x14 color I'm using up some old film I brought on Ebay. As far as I know no one is making 11x14 color film any more. I'm not sure it matters, as I couldn't afford a good 11x14 enlarger anyway. I have an 8x10 Elwood that I use for B&W, and plan to modify for color. It's enormous. When I built my house I had 2 extra courses or cinder blocks put it the basement walls so I could get the enlarger head high. It should have been 3-4 courses extra, I still can't get the head all the way up. An 11x14 enlarger would have to be horizontal to be useable at all. Needless to say, all of my 11x14 (and 8x10 at this point) color is via contact prints. If I were to do enlargements from 11x14 negatives I would have to tear out my darkroom and rebuild it around the enlarger. It's possible to do 8x10 enlargements without such a major disruption (just barely). I suggest you limit yourself to 8x10.</p>

<p>Mark, before you take the plunge, please consider RENTING a 4x5 camera with a lens, a loupe, a dark cloth and a couple of film holders. Buy a 10-sheet pack of Velvia, load it into the holders in a darkroom or a changing bag, and get out and TRY using the contraption for a while.</p>

<p>There's nothing quite as satisfying as nailing a LF exposure, but there is a significant learning curve to the process, and it can take you ten minutes just to set up for a single shot. In ten minutes, a sunset can come and go, so you have to learn how to "predict the future" when contemplating a photograph. You also have to become very adept at metering and at adjusting lenses that seem to have been manufactured to be as difficult to use as possible. You're going to make mistakes, so be prepared for some frustration. Also, don't be disappointed if your the resolution of your expensive scans doesn't exceed the quality of today's best MF digital sensors. Scanning is an imperfect technology, and unless you're making B&W contact prints, a 60 MP sensor is at least comparable to the quality of 4x5 film (but that's another firestorm for another day).</p>

<p>I'm not trying to discourage you, only to encourage you to START SLOWLY and TAKE YOUR TIME with this adventure. You can develop LF skills with an inexpensive 4x5 camera before spending a small fortune on an 8x10 system, for instance. And with LF it's your SKILLS that make all the difference. That's why it's so demanding, but also why it's so rewarding.</p>

<p>Good luck and great shooting!</p>

 

<p><em>and it can take you ten minutes just to set up for a single shot.</em></p>

<p>An optimist.</p>

<p>Guys, the dude wants to pioneer. Such people always get shot at. Have a dream, make it happen, otherwise don't grump. As colleagues shouldn't photographers encourge our own to push it? Let the accountants nitpick.<br>

Mark: I don't know diddly about LF, but I say 'fire it up!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No desire for 4x5. I am marketing to the high end, and there is just something about looking people in the eye and being able to say "this is as good as it gets" knowing you paid a mighty price for them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is a judgment made better once you have gone through the process. There are a lot of factors involved, including things that you may never have considered such as film flatness, diffraction effects, rigidity, and the quality and assortment of lenses available for an 8x10 camera.</p>

<p>Also keep in mind that as a len's image circle becomes large, resolution drops. So even though 8x10 has four times the film surface or 4x5, it doesn't have four times the resolution. Add in the curvature of the film and the drop in clarity from shooting at, say, f/32 instead of f/16, plus the difficulties of scanning film that size, and the 8x10 shot may have no more resolution than the 4x5. The grain will look smoother, but that's about all you can count on.</p>

<p>Using traditional chemical printing the difference might be more apparent. Contact prints from large negatives are amazing, as are Cibachromes from 8x10 chromes. But in the digital world, the difference between 4x5 and 8x10 probably won't be noticeable except on prints that are at least four feet wide.</p>

<p>There are additional concerns such as portability (you can't shoot it if you can't take it) and economics (two bucks per shot or ten).<br>

<br />Again, I would encourage you to rent a 4x5 camera and see how it works for you. Have the film scanned and printed. Then rent an 8x10 and go through the same process. Look at the lenses that are available in both formats before you decide whether one or the other is unacceptable.</p>

 

<p>the idea of stocking up on film first seems to be a good one.<br>

if you get 11x14 film, you can always find a way to cut it down, if it isn't the format<br />you finally choose to shoot. just remember that a sheet of 11x14 color film costs a lot more than<br />4x5 or even 8x10 film. have fun with your adventure!<br>

john<br>

( i shoot 11x14 and 7x11 portraits, but b/w and paper, can't afford the film :) ) </p>

<p>Get an 8x10 and give it a try. I've seen museum quality (one in a museum) large prints from 8x10 negs. There is a difference from 4x5. No question. I'd say, find a cheap camera, an insanely great lens and a box of film and give it a go. </p>

<p>With process camera which is really giant LF camera one has a vacuum back to solve tbe film flatness issue. One uses timed lights; thus there is no camera shutter motion. The steel square tubing that hold the lens board are filled with punchings; to further quash any vibrations<br>

.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1238404-lg.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /></p>