Jump to content

Is it wise to move up to 4X5


hjoseph7

Recommended Posts

Hello, a few years ago I took a class in large format photography which I

enjoyed tremendously. I still have the negative carriers and the extra(heavy

duty) tripod I bought for the class. Since the school supplied the rest of

equipment I had to return the TOYO 4X5 at the end of the class.

 

My question is in these days of Digital Photography where the megapixels count

seems to be increasing every other month, is investing in a Large Format

camera a wise move ? The reason why I'm asking is that Calumet Photo is

selling refurbished 4X5 kits for $799 and $899. The kits comes with a Calumet

4X5 camera, 260mm lens, cloth, 3 negative holders and carrying case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry actually the deal is 2 negative crriers and 210mm lens. here is the link: http://www.calumetphoto.com/item/CC4005KU/ Robert, the only thing that stopped me from purchasing a 4X5 is that my darkroom enlarger(23cXL) can only enlarge up to Medium format. When I purchased it the salesman suggested I get the biggest enlarger availble. Now it's too late.

 

I have an Epson flatbed scanner but I'm not really crazy about scanning unless I have to. Something allways gets lost(resolution) which defeats the purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are looking at it the wrong way. A camera, like a new car, is not an investment to a hobby photographer. It is a fun conveyance, nothing more, nothing less. If the camera pays you fun dividends, than that is the benefit of your "investment" in the camera.

 

I say shoot with what camera brings you the most joy. Not which one is the newest, cheapest, most expensive, highest resolution, or easiest to digitally manipulate the results of. For the hobbyist, this is about fun. If you are a pro, it is a different story, you may be driven by the market.

 

I personally shoot with a Canon dSLR, a Canon 35mm film camera, a Graflex Pacemaker Speed, and even a lowly point and shoot on occasion. All of them are fun in their own way. I've recently discovered that I like Kodachrome, and we all know that isn't going to end in happiness in a few years, but I enjoy it, so I shoot with it.

 

I recommend that if you enjoyed the class, and can afford the camera, buy it. The film should still be on the market for years. Plus, there are cheaper options, if the cost bothers you. The point is, if you enjoy using a 4x5, use one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should clarify one thing...

 

I was trying to say... A new car and a camera are not investments because they generally do not hold value over time. This is of course not true of collectibles. Also, a car is more than a fun conveyance. It is a you conveyance. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you have to ask youself how big you want to enlarge your prints.

My fuji s5 is great up tp 16x24 (90% of my work requirements)

The tonality and resolution of 4x5 are almost unmatched in the

digital world( exception 39 MP medium backs and limited but

useful scanbacks) If yoyu are using a digital workflow and you

can't afford a top qualty scan to take advantage of all the info on

the neg or slide I would personally stay to a smaller less

expensive format or nice DSLR. If you are printing traditionally in

a darkroom it would be cheaper. If you are a color man, You are

looking at about $4 a shot with processing, that adds up quick

.even more if you like quickloads. although, i just bought a used

crown graphic with a nikkor 135 for $200 and I really enjoying it.

If you don't need movements you can save a ton on cheap field

cameras for much much less. Good Luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you want to spend $30k for a p45 back, plus medium format camera,plus lenses? Would you want to take this into the field (electronics), and worry about rain, car theft, etc? This is the minimum price to get anywhere close to 4x5 quality. Also, a dslr camera with 10-16mp is not going to come close if you want to print 20x24 and above. You won't find the quality of any digital back matching 8x10 format for a very long time. Although we have scanning backs, they are not practical. Affordability, and technology has a long way to go to match 8x10, or 4x5. Worse, are you ready to spend the $30-40k, then realize in a few years it will be obsolete. For a working pro, in a studio setting, it is the best choice, but the rest of us prefer 6x12,6x17,4x5, and 8x10 formats.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resolution isn't the be all and end all of photography. You must have learned something about using camera movements in your class, and learned how using LF is different from using SLRs. If you like either of these things, then you've answered your own question haven't you?

 

Put another way, people tend to pursue LF photography because they can't get done what they want to get done any other way. If you think you can do what you want to do another way, why would you go with LF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Large format has many things going for it that other options don't have. For many it's a sort of zen of photography, where the setup, focusing, movements, all adds up to a way of working that keeps you more in touch with what you're actually trying to do as a photographer. <p>

 

Also, if you're talking about resolution, even a mere 1800dpi scan on my Epson flatbed scanner makes a neat 64 megapixel file from a 4x5 - and tests show that the Epson Photo Perfection still gets an increase in resolution up to around 2700dpi - that's 145 megapixels - and we're not even talking about taking full advantage of the potential image information in the film yet - and with those kinds of sizes, you needn't even get a very good scan of your film to make great prints in moderate sizes, whereas for 35mm film, you need to pull a lot more out of that tiny piece of film to make anything more than a half-decent 5x7.<p> Now, you might prefer getting a $25.000 digital solution that gives you 45 nice and clean megapixels straight from the camera, but for now, getting a good old large format film camera is (relatively) cheap, reliable and deliciosuly low-tech. Also you get shift and tilt thrown in for good measure.<p>

If you one day feel like splurging a bit and going digital with serious intent, why not get a digital back for your LF?<p>

Whatever you do - it's about enjoying what you do, and feeling that it is right for what you want to achieve - or simply for the sake of doing something you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, the best reason to go to 4x5 are the movements of the view camera. Film still makes sense for 4x5 users, as the digital capture backs are hugely expensive. On the other hand, you can get a good 4x5 enlarger/lens package very reasonably these days on eBay. I'm also not a fan of converted digital black and white capture. Yes, that may largely be an aesthetic consideration, but I'll take film printed on a good fiber-based gelatin silver paper any day. Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry,

 

I use digital and I use LF (4x5 and 8x10). Only you can decide if a LF camera makes sense for you. If it were your only camera, I'd say get a DSLR with some good lenses and fire away. If this is an extension of your artistic view, then by all means get a 4x5. Just ask yourself this one question though: how often do your enlarge bigger than 11x14, or 16x20? Most of the time you do not need a LF camera to make a great image. I love using mine, but when I look back, I often could have gotten away with a "regular" camera. If you enjoy working deliberately and the flexibility a LF camera gives you, then get one. It is NOT an investment, it is a hobby (at least if you're not a pro)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Tim H. suggested an enlarging back like a Graflarger light source is an excellent idea. You'll have to use graded paper not VC but no big deal and they're very cheap now. Also you can find Omega D2's and Bessler 4x5 enlargers for next to nothing and often for nothing now. I have a couple of other pro friends that gave away their 4x5 enlargers because no one would pay anything for them. I always wanted and finally needed a 5x7 enlarger and purchased a complete Durst 5x7 floor model with all the bells and whistles from a dealer friend for under $1,000 a few years ago. Recently I've seen the same enlarger for under $400 for sale. Originally I think these decked out were in the $10,000 plus range. I purchased a full blown Omega D5 from a dealer in San Francisco with a Ilford MG head and controller. Actually it came with a second new head and was in super condition. I purchased it for $300 plus shipping. Don't let the enlarger limit you. Look on ebay or locally and see what you can find.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still have a couple of negatives and transparencies that I shot while taking the Large Format class stored somewhere. When I have time this week, I'll scan them with the epson just to see what type of results I get.

 

That's the only part that is holding me back, the scanning. My flatbed epson scanner(v700) is supposed to be better at scanning large format than it is at 35mm so who knows, I might be impressed. The best I can do with my printer is 13X19". I noticed when printing from large negatives such as 4X5, that an 8X10 print does not do it justice. You have to print at least 11X14 to capture all of the depth and details. It's not only the resolution I'm looking for, but also the shifts and tilts, especially when it comes to architecture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are patient. intelligent, creative and love photography, large format is for you. If you are impatient, rushed, easily irritated and not willing to make a big commitment (I am not speaking about money, but energy & time) it is not for you. There is nothing to compare to a LF contact print, not so much for detail and grainlessness as for richness. Watch out for those cheap Calumet kits. Sometimes there are flimsy rivets instead of bolts and the lens will be questionable. My suggestion is to get a 5x7 and contact print the negs. Enlargements and scans only cheapen the picture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I've ever heard anybody question Calumet ruggedness before. Visit Bruce Cahn's site for his context.

 

Even if you take him seriously, remember that you can throw away three to five of Calumet's most expensive for the price of one "inexpensive" wooden field camera.

 

Caltars are commonly said to be better than typical Schneiders from the Seventies. I think Adams or Weston are rarely sneered at today for their far inferior lenses. Ansel used Calumet's cheapest-ever 4X5 monorail rather than Deardorff for some of his best work, switched to an Arca Swiss when he coulda-had a Sinar.

 

A good scan will be sharper than a good contact, and it'll enable you to pull more from the negative. Inkjet printing is capable of miracles that are unavailable in a darkroom. That's especially true with color.

 

The BIGGEST drawback to scanning and digital printing IMO is that you have to sit at a computer, rather than playing in a darkroom...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Also you can find Omega D2's and Bessler 4x5 enlargers for next to nothing and often for nothing now."

 

That is true, but my best bet would be to move to a bigger place because right now I have no spare room for another enlarger. My 23Cxl w/color head is almost in mint condition and is sitting in a large walk-in closet that I use as a darkroom.

 

One thing I almost forgot about is that there is a Community Center not too far from my home which has about 3 or 4 Omega 4X5 Enlargers. I think it's still $6 for 5 hours of printing or $48 for the entire year not including summers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ink jets have been used for years, decades even, to make cheaper knock offs of actual art work, so that bread eaters like me could afford some vestigial form of the original painting or photograph. The more things change, the more they remain the same - get an enlarger, my D5XL with a Chromega head cost me $0, compliments of the digital epidemic.

 

Counting pixels is a horrible reason to get any camera, and is symptomatic of the reasons why people go on about meaningless specs in the first place: its all they have. I think the most astute advice here was already provided: get a 4x5 if you enjoy it. God only knows I am horrible (next to incompetent) with mine, I make all kinds of mistakes and end up with mediocre results - but I LOVE IT, and I am willing to learn, because I LOVE that too. I would rather have the best PHOTOGRAPH that I can make myself - even if it is only an attempt and only approximates excellence, but is all mine, made in the sweat of my brow, and is one of a kind, mistakes and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry about the enlarger, if that is what is holding up your decision. You can always go with an Epson V700 or V750 scanner. I've heard there are aftermarket film holders that are better than the standard Epson ones, and from what I have seen, the Epson scans of 4 by 5 look very good. One can also perform wet scanning....see for example www.scanscience.com.

 

The only thing holding me back from buying a 4 by 5 is lack of time for such a hobby! If you have the time, enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Just ask yourself this one question though: how often do your enlarge bigger than 11x14, or 16x20? Most of the time you do not need a LF camera to make a great image." Juergen

 

You kiddin? I haven't made a print smaller then 16x20 over 20 yrs. What do you do when you finally get a great image, but you can't enlarge it far enough (especially with landscapes large is popular).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some great responses here. I would say it depends on what context you put the

word wise into. Is it wise if you want the best image quality (by far) for the price range you are

talking about? Yes. Is it wise if you enjoy the process and don't just want to tell everyone you

came back with 5000 images from your photo trip (machine gun photography)? Yes. Is it wise

if you are looking for something from photography beyond the final image? Yes. Is it wise if

you enjoy being in the darkroom rather than sitting in front of a computer? Yes. Is it wise if

you want to shoot 1/500 @ f5.6? No. Is it wise if you want to come back and show prints the

next day? No. Is it wise if you want to be able to take photographs very quickly and move on?

No. You can go on and on forever like this. What does wise mean to you....

For me, I have 35mm, medium format, dslr and 4x5 cameras. There is nothing more

enjoyable and satisfying than making photographs with my 4x5. It is not the easiest, quickest

or most practical camera to use. However, I know if I came across a really nice scene to

photograph and I only had my dslr with me, I would be saying to myself "I wish I had my

4x5". I know because it has happened and that is how I know what is wise for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To John Kelly: I had a Calumet 8x10 in the 1980's. It was a solid tough and dependable camera. Some years ago a friend asked me to help her get a 4x5 at a budget price. We looked at a new Calumet labelled "Orbit", as I recall, in a camera store. It was already broken. There was a cheap rivet in a crucial place where there should have been a sturdy bolt. That was the Calumet to which I was referring. My friend bought a used Plaubel Peco monorail for about $450. Solid as they get, silky smooth focusing, no cheap parts. She is still using it many years later. As far as the lenses go I had two for my Calumet. The 300mm Caltar was overly contrasty and crude. A 16 1/2 inch Goerz Dagor was fabulous. Yes it is true that the cameras in my store are expensive, except for the Osakas which are a bargain. But you large format guys, if you have never used a really good camera, you do not know what you are missing. You might want 3-5 budget cameras. Me, I would prefer one really good one. I never could understand why people who pay $200,000 for a house and $25,000 for a car complain about the relatively low cost of a good camera. I do not currently have a house or a car, but you can be darned sure that I have first rate field cameras in most sizes. I am an enthusiast of photography, not real estate. Some of you guys are happy with a beat up 40-50 year old camera with limited movements. That is fine with me. But don't criticize other people who take a little more pride in their work and want to bring it to the best possible level. These comments are made without any bad feelings or resentment and I hope they will be taken that way.
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...