Jump to content

In a digital world what are the "defacto" advantages of Large Format?


jdrose

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>The process itself, speed (lack thereof), contemplative nature of images, care in composition, did I mention speed (lack thereof). For those of us who do photography for the simple pleasure it gives, using large format is a special treat. Few things make me happier than being somewhere I can use my 4x5. It just feels right. I enjoy my other cameras, including digital. They each have their place. But when I am using my 4x5 I feel like a "real" photographer.<br>

Eric</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>With a scan back one can scan a painting or a map or china plate; or a suite/clothes and then print a large format copy in house. One doesnt have to buy film; mail away the trany to be processed; they have them scan it; or us flatbed scan it. There is not a week delay.Thus in house work a scan back can be used.<br /> <br /> But landscape work from a mountain top regular film is way easier; no cables; no laptop.<br /> <br /> Digital with large format is really very very old; our 35 Mpixel scan back was bought when President Clinton was in office. May Company in LA used digital scan backs on 4x5 over 11 years ago; I bought one of their units on Ebay ; our second unit about 7 or 8 years ago. I believe they went to digital MF.<br /> <br /> Here I tend to shoot 4x5 in B&W today for fun; or to shoot a building with a wideangle. Back in the 1960's in wedding work one fellow I worked for in Indiana used MF 120/220 for candids; and a 4x5 speed graphic for formals.<br /> <br /> In pre the photoshop era; the Kitty West retouching courses had one using an Adams retouching machine; one used 4x5 films or MF films with a retouching base; and you really WANTED a face to be at least as big as a dime on the negative; for ease of retouching.<br>

In drawing and map work the old process camera was the standard until the late 1980's to early 1990's; then Digital 36" wide large format scanners came out; and toner based printers that were digital. Our first digital/scan/print/enlarge 36" combo was about 58 k dollars; it ran a 386DX and DOS. By about the mid 1990's most process camera photographic large format units were being scrapped due to digital; really before Photo.net was born. Once ther were many makers of large format photographic process camera films and papers; Kodak; Dupont; Fuji; GAF; AGFA; plus OEM clones by K&E; Dietzgen; Post too.<br>

<br /> The *arena* of suppliers dropped to just two as volumes disappeared; ie we had Kodak and Fuji. The 2 player rule meant prices rose; no 3rd player to be a price spoiler! Then all production stopped; and the few users bought up others surplus. When I mention how an entire industry that used large format films is now long gone for a decade; and its films gone; it often does NOT register with folks that this can happen with large format pictoral films too.<br>

<br /> The current trend of E6 labs dying off is just an *echo* of what happened 10 to 18 years ago with process camera labs; one got less volume; more scrapped chemicals; prices rose and folks went digital. This process was about complete when the top cpu was a 486; and the Pentium was just coming out; ie the Win 3.11 days.<br>

<br /> Here I used in 4H club surplus WW2 4x5 Tri-x back in grade school; it that time Kodachrome was around in 4x5. Then there was this big stink/lawsuits when Kodachrome is sheets went away in the 1950's; replaced by Ektachromes<br>

<br /> My grandfather used an 8x0 camera to shoot images for the railroads int eh 1920's and 1930's; a civil engineer working on bridges; ballast; grades etc,</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>J Eric brings up the concept of LF having a lack of speed today.<br /> <br /> In the 1970's one still had film pack Kodak films; way quicker than film holders.<br /> <br /> With a speed graphic some were equipped with a focus spot; one can focus on an object in total darkness; the bulb in the RF projects two beams to your subject; one just racks the focus to make the beams align as one beam.<br /> <br /> One also had ortho films in use alot; one can develop under safelight.<br /> <br /> There were also enlargers at newspapers were one could place a still wet negative.<br /> <br /> One also had Super-X that had a super high DlogE curve that did not poop out; one did loose highlight details with over exposure. Thus in press work one erred on the over exposure route if in doubt.<br /> <br /> For strobes one had 510volt DC battery packs; recycle time was seconds; the battery directly charged the high voltage flash capacitor.<br /> <br /> As for LF lenses for press usage; there were faster LF lenses in use 50 years ago than today. Here I have a 210mm F3.5 Xenar on a 4x5 speed graphic lens board. Today a LF chap might have a F5.6 Xenar. In astro work the old 178mm F2.5 Aero Ektar was affitted to many speed graphics 50 years ago; today many folks have rediscovered the 1950's typical surplus 5 buck lens.<br /> <br /> <br /> Alot of the fast stuff for LF press usage got obsoleted as newspapers went away from 4x5 many decades ago.<br /> <br /> No asa 1250 films; no film packs for quick shooting; no local 4x5 B&W labs; NOW not even any asa 3200 Polaroid anymore for the 545 adapter; except old stock.<br /> <br /> Today a newspaper shoot and scooter is young; he/she uses modern tools; a quick fire dslr; a 1940's to 1950's chap was young too; he used film pack; bulb flash.<br>

<br /> Todays LF user is NOT a press chap; but an older chap with poorer eyes; mostly shooting static objects; plus many of the quick draw stuff was with press cameras; cameras not used as much anymore.</p>

<p>LF is slower today than the past; one is using more rail cameras; no film pack; folks are older; shooting static objects; not some sports event; wedding One has a subset of tools; an older crowd using them; plus many trick are lost with time.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The lack of speed is one of the advantages. I love the quiet look that LF gives you with portraits. As mentioned above the beautiful B&W tonal scale is one of the main advantages and the movements, which are much simpler than people think. If you read some of the technical literature written about LF it can scare you away. It is harder to follow what some of the writers are saying than it is to figure it out for yourself. I love the look of film especially sheets processed in pyro. If Ellis says digital quality with LF is better than film he is probably right. He definately knows more about digital than I do. But for me it will be film. One of the main reasons I use it is because I know how. It would take me years to get as good with digital as with film, and I would rather spend those years making work rather than learning how to do it all over again.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"If Ellis says digital quality with LF is better than film he is probably right. "<br>

But, it sure is expensive. I've seen some 5x7 and 8x10 cameras go for less than a DSLR. Those Better light backs, I saw on their website, that the cheapest is $6,500. The most expensive is $23,000. Those are all 4x5 backs. and they said that it isn't for subjects that have motion. So, it isn't possible to do landscapes because of the wind factor. One area that is increasing is ULF.<br>

I still say that digital only saves in film costs. If you take a digital image and print it on paper, then, you still have the costs of the paper, plus the cost of the ink.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> Re I still say that digital only saves in film costs.<br>

Re Landscapes</p>

<p>Here with my 4x5 scan back I have shot landscapes and buildings too; I use to a Pentium laptop; now I use an IBM T30 laptop with a scsi adapter.<br /> <br /> Its "works" if one has no wind; no birds; no cars; no folks in the field of view; if there is one can just use a film holder and shoot film too.<br /> <br /> If one has a client the scan back saves time; say ONE week; unless one wants to tack-on next day air charges BOTH WAYS to get the lab to get transparences developed.<br /> <br /> Thus in pro work with deadlines; clients might not want to wait a week; thus film with LF is tending more to be an amateur product; or pro product where time is not really an issue; ie portraits; many calendar shots; one has a 1/2 year time frame.<br /> <br /> The real reason I got 2 scan backs is because of TIME; the local E6 lab died almost 10 years ago; FED-exing fees and rush processing fees added up;the 10 grand back was a great investment; it paid fro itself quickly .<br /> The scan back is mostly used indoors; with still objects; maps; artwork.<br>

<br /> Its really just a tool; if you tell your client their project will take another week due to mailing away transparencys to be developed; they might just go elsewhere to a person who uses digital; or develops E6 in house.<br /> <br /> The developing of E6 in house would make no sense financialy for me; we have zero work one day; one week; then one week is saturated; the next is mild; one requires weekends; the next week is nothing. I might be mixing up on batch of E6 just for 1 4x5; then dumping all.<br>

<br /> The next day air by 8am or 10am fees BOTH ways are not trival either; if one screws up a trany; or the lab does' one has to resetup the customers artwork; or get it back; they might have taken it out of town too.<br /> <br /> Thus is one doesnt have a local E6 lab; digital is used my many folks for over a decade; as labs died and one still has customers with deadlines.</p>

<p>One could argue that a electric circular saw is too expensive ; just use a hand saw! :)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I forgot to say that I'm not doing commercial work, that thing I left ages ago and I hopefuly never had to get back there. My paintings pay my rent, So I have time to develop and do my own prints. There is no rush. Take it easy and live longer. :-) But, if I got to do commecial stuff again it would be digital of course, but again not portrait or any other stuff to private costumers</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bruce<br>

The ULF have retrated that's right but just because people havent look around for other alternatives like Lotus in Austria or Argentum in Hungary both makes cameras and holders in any size you want. And still the most usual sizes of ULF films are on the selfs of many well sorted shops. But of course if you own a camera with unusual sizes than you got to order and by a lot at the same time.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Frank: I am the US-Canadian importer for Lotus. A great camera but more expensive than the Wisners were, (and worth it). One of the big problems was when Bergger stopped producing film, another was the difficulty getting affordably priced filmholders.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hello Bruce, yes Bergger were in the repacking :-) industry. All films they sold were Forte so they stoped when Forte did so as J&C and Freestyle and many others:-)<br>

But how about Canham don't they do ULF? Or that Argentum thats I think still cheap and do all sizes on order and does holders too. have you tryed it? Practicaly you can order a camrera let's say in 8x20 with a dosen holders and the nice wooden carraing case and the top of that a nice wooden printing frame. They are manufacturing one for me at the moment.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The big advantage LF has over digital to me is weight. A Better Light scan back and all the stuff needed to make it run is *heavy*. I looked at it a couple of years ago and found that it would add about 10 Kg to my pack. That would put me up around 26 Kg which is just too much for my old body to withstand.<br>

The secondary advantage is that film costs so much less. It's true that if you shoot hundreds of exposures per week that digital pays for itself rapidly. But I'm not shooting hundreds of exposures per week, I'm shooting hundreds of exposures per year. Film wins with me, no contest.<br>

Third advantage of film over digital is that someone else pays for the upgrades. Kodak just released TMY-2 last year. My cost was to buy a new box of film and reap the benefits. Film doesn't really depreciate at all, where digital equipment and the push to have the latest equipment to stay competitive (in the 100's of exposures per week markets) turns one into an equipment junkie. I'd rather spend my time (what little I get for it) photographing.<br>

Get the cost of digital LF down to under $1K USD, the weight down to 2 or 3 Kg, and stabilize the image quality so it's not an equipment parade like it is now, and I'm interested. Until then I've still got film in the freezer.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I love looking at the world through ground glass. But then I like 4x5 black and white negatives. Hey, I like my black and white 11x14 prints from those negs. I also like doing what I've enjoyed for the last 40 years. Ah, the advantage of being an old fart! It's not for everyone.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Sure and if you use a BetterLight Scanning back with your 4x5 you'll have far better quality tahn film can achieve and all of those other technical benefits as well."<br>

I find this comment offensive. <br>

I happen to enjoy large format photography using film. I don't need to have this arrogant twit tell me that I'm wrong because I haven't jumped into digital stuff.<br>

I also prefer Subaru's, fountain pens with bottled ink, Firefox over IE, and fish rather than beef. My preferences are just that - my preferences. The fact that they happen to be different from those chosen by someone else doesn't make them wrong, nor do they make me a Luddite or morally defective.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here is one store that seems to sell ULF film. I have not bought from them. But, at least they have it listed. I've heard that even Kodak will sell ULF film if you order a large quanity. It seems to me that digital is so prevelant in the commercial field, not because it is always better. But, for time constraints. My local camera store still developes E-6 film.<br>

<a href="http://www.viewcamerastore.com/default.php?cPath=29_41">http://www.viewcamerastore.com/default.php?cPath=29_41</a></p>

<p>To me, digital is a more technical process, film is a hands on. Maybe that's another reason why I like film, the old processes, making guitars and wooden boats. Back, when I was lucky enough to have a garage!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>one of the advantages of shooting film in a digital world<br /> is that you don't have to spend countless hours infront of a computer<br /> monitor to post process all your views, or make them look-like they<br /> were made with a film camera, not to mention the film is tagible, not<br /> stuck inside a machine ...</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You asked the questions and the LFer's came out of the Internet woodwork. I can't disagree with any of it, and especially agree with one part. It's just a joy to challenge oneself standing there with the camera. If it takes you just a few minutest to setup, compose and ready to shoot, or like me, 30-60 minutes, everything comes down to the last few seconds and steps, cock shutter, remove film cover and release the shutter.</p>

<p>It's all about how good you are standing there. Everything else and the world is irrelevant for those few moments. Or so it seems to me. Besides I love looking at a 4x5 transparency on the light table that I took and is spot on. All the technology is nice, but it's about the human side of it, yourself as a photographer.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>One weird thing a digital back does have over film is backing out the film plane to ground glass error; sometimes as much as +/- 0.007 inches with some rigs. One does a pre scan and you tweak the focus thru a couple of trial scans. Thus I can often shoot an f stop faster. One can also back out the focus shift of a lens too. A digital back is more of a replacement for film for inside work; when one is copying artwork.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...