What is it about LF photography?

OK, so large format offers camera movements, control of

exposure/development for each image, and better resolution. But each

of these issues can be overcome with smaller formats. E.g., With a

smaller format you use shorter focal length lenses, stop down to

improve DOF and achieve similar effects to camera movements, you can

expose and develop for individual scenes, and you can limit your

enlargement (somewhere between 5-10x) so that the final image

resolution is as good as or better than our eyes. Ok you say,

LF/tripod forces you to think about the image more pre-exposure. Yes

but you can also do this w/35mm or digital on a tripod.

 

Why then do we do LF? A purely analytical discussion I think ends

with "well it depends upon how big you want the final image to be." I

suspect that few of us are actually printing so large that we need LF.

 

Somehow I think there is still more to it.T o me there is something

about seeing my own 8x10 transparencies (even in printed form--not

light box) that is nothing like what I think the images would look if

done on a smaller format. Do others have this feeling too? Why? Is it

the combination of all these factors or is there something else about

LF images that makes them unique?

Your assumptions are flawed. There is no possible combination of varying lens lengths, increased apertures or anything else that allows you to control the plane of focus independently of the plane of the film except when using a view camera.

I used a hasselblad for a long time and found that I really wanted a rising front. Large format was cheaper than a new 40mm lens and vastly more versatile for my type of photograph which frequently contained buildings. The ability to tilt the front enormously increases the dof possibilities.

 

I must confess that in the beginning an awful lot of negatives turned out totally black or transparent!

 

I do not find my Ebony RSW much more difficult to set up than the Hassie was (by the time you've got it out of its case, selected the lens and the back, you've still got to meter etc etc)

 

I like the way LF makes you really consider a scene rather than just blasting away several rolls hoping that one or two are alright.

 

I LOVE the contact prints, even though they are small

 

Mostly though I like the total control you get. Any mistakes its down to you and not the limitations of the kit

 

Course if I did portraits for a living then it would be MF though.

There are medium format view cameras. In particularthe Linhof TK69, Cambo Ultima,

and Arca-Swiss 69FC stand out; fiull movements on front and rear standards, wide

range of lenses from many manufacturers (Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, Fujinon),

interchangable film magazines, including Polaroid backs. And of course there are

rollfilm backs made to fit on 4x5 cameras<P>

There are no substitutes for independent movements on the front AND rear

standards. Sure you can use an extremely wide angle lens and crop, and there are a

few tilt/shift lenses available for specific medium and 35mm format cameras, andthey

have their uses, but they are not real substitutes for a monorail type view camera with

full front and rear movements.<P><I>"Ok you say, LF/tripod forces you to think

about the image more pre-exposure. Yes but you can also do this w/35mm or digital

on a tripod."</I><P>Absolutely and you should be thinking that way anyway even

ifthe camera is not on a tripod.<P><I>Somehow I think there is still more to it. To

me there is something about seeing my own 8x10 transparencies (even in printed

form--not light box) that is nothing like what I think the images would look if done

on a smaller format."</I><P><B>Exactly.</B>

For me, shooting 8x10 is like meditation, complete with the occasional moment of

Zen. I enjoy carrying my 'Dorff out into the woods, setting up my tripod,

composing the shot. I love the feel of the wood and the smooth racking of the

focusing as I operate the camera. Everything just *feels* right. Looking at a ground

glass that looks like a small TV is nice, too. Add the gorgeous contact prints I get at

the end of the process to that and I have to ask myself - why <i>wouldn't</i> I

shoot LF? Large format boosts my soul.

I haven't been shooting LF for all that long, which maybe gives me a little differant percpective than those who've shot it for many years. For me the size of the neg really does make a signifigant differance. When I look at an 11x14 I've shot on a 120 neg, and one that was on a 4x5 neg, I can see a noticable (to me anyway) differance in most if not all of them. My shots from 120 look great, sharp, printing is good, but they just aren't as rich in tonality as from a bigger neg. And acctaully using a view camera really makes you think about the image you're making. After spending 5 minutes under the dark cloth composing focusing, etc I know the image I'm making quit well, I have a better feel for what I'm doing compositionally, I know (better) how I want to print the image. With roll film I don't feel like I really understand as much about the image until I get into the darkroom, which oddly enough makes me want to crop more with smaller negs which I don't have much room to crop, than with 4x5 negs which I can crop considerably. Also once I got comfortable with the process of working with a view camera, and got used to all the steps, it's much more relaxing to work with than small camera, probably because of the pace.

 

Peter

I think it is a mixture of a few things.....and it is diff. for everyone. I

love the big ground glass....but I also love the viewfinder of my

M2....I like the slowing down factor...but than I worked on two

projects that required me to shoot up to 27 buildings a day on

4x5....there is the geek factor, of shiny big components and using

a dark cloth, and "knowing" more about stuff....the feeling of

knowing IF you forget something you can't blame anyone else

(eg; locking a movement down).

 

And then there is the final un-answerable even under torture

reason: IT JUST FEELS RIGHT!!!

 

You get the same question regarding the sanity of using a Leica

M2 in 2003. You just can't answer it sometimes.....I also love

tube audio, LP's and my 69' buick....and it can't be nostalgia

becuase I am only twenty-four......

Printing to 16X20 or 20X24 using B&W film, there is most definitely

a quality difference using LF. Also, there is no way to 'simulate'

the movements a view camera provides. After 100 years the view camera

still is state-of-the-art technology. The whiz-bang digital and computer SLR may be a lot of things, but there still is no replacement

for the control and large image area of a view camera.

Obviously, we shoot LF for the social implications. How many perfect strangers have ever stopped you in the middle of setting up a shot with a 35mm camera, to ask you questions about your "antique camera?" Now, compare that result to what happens while you are setting up the same shot using your [insert your LF camera here].<P>

C'mon, admit it, it's about meeting the opposite sex...

I think Alan nailed it. It must be the chick-magnet (or, stud-muffin magnet) factor - especially how our hair looks after coming out from under the focusing cloth. ;-)

 

For me, it's mostly a combination of having maximum control over the image, along with the richness of detail and tonal gradation that the large format neg or tranny provides. But, I still use 35mm, digital, and MF for tasks for which the other formats are more suitable. Then, there's that whole "Zen of LF" thing that plays into it, as well. ;-)

"What is it...?" I just love being 12 miles from the nearest water, 8 miles from the nearest paved road, 5 miles from the nearest shade, 120 degrees with a pacific rattler coiled around one leg of the tripod, and out of nowhere someone will appear and say: "Pardon me, but is that a Hasselblad?";-)

For an amateur like me going from 35 and medium format to 4X5 30 years

ago was a major change. Before, I would carry a camera always and

shoot rolls of film hoping that maybe a few would turn out well. If it

looked the least bit photographic, I would shoot it. With the 4X5 I became more selective and thought more about what I wanted from each

picture, slowing down the whole process and overall making better pictures. The same has happened as I gradually moved up to 5X7, 8X10

and now 11X14 and making platinum prints. With that investment in time, effort, and materials you are forced to be more selective and careful about all the details at every step along the way. I realize this is the view of an amateur with no formal training which may be different from the perspective of others posting here.

For me it is the culmination of a long search for a quality I was seeing sometimes, in some of other people�s work. Now it is part of my (bigger) bag of tricks. I still shoot other formats, all formats actually. The situation and final print parameters dictate what equipment is to be used.

 

It is not the ultimate or only way to make photographs it just has a unique set of attributes that make it�luscious!

 

John

Excellence. Lingering over the local contrast that a Dagor and a 37 second exposure can put on film at f64 1/2 in a contact print. Nothing else seems good enough any more. Watching other folks look at those prints and finally just say "Mercy, How'd you do that?"

The creative control that the ability to accurately place the plane of sharp focus gives is the primary advantage for me. Stopping down to increase depth of field isn't an equivalent. The sharpness and tonal gradation are bonuses, although a good MF or digital shot skilfully enlarged can be almost a match in my humble opinion.

 

I, personally, enjoy the journey as much as the destination.

Like most here, I shoot everything from 35mm to LF.(8x10) No digital yet. I have 35 years worth of slides in my basement and half a gazillon dollars in high-end 35mm and MF equipment. Yet with LF I have one "good" lens and maybe 8 others that are bottom feeders,40 to 100 years old. Now if I look around my home,with the exception of four portraits,everything else is LF.

 

I think that with 35mm I just record things. With MF I try to make photographs. With LF I try to create art.(craft) So many times I have been in a gallery and thought,"Gee why didn't he use a big camera?" There is a big difference in quality. If a photo could have been taken with a larger format, it is usually improved with the larger format.

Like David stated, for me too it is a feeling and gratification I get shooting LF.

For work, I love doing studio tabletop stuff but when I go out to shoot personal

work, my preference is to shoot 4x5 and get into the scene. It's more than just

the output size as an end result, for me it is the tone and luminosity of the final

image and having the ability to see in B/W, gives me a better feeling for my

images. For me it is a recharging of my personal batteries. Sure you can do

alot these days with other mediums at our disposal but for me it is a personal

thing. Several times a year I have to go out and shoot pretty pictures to realign

myself and sometimes it works in B/W and sometimes it happens with color

(although I always bring both with me) but it is for me a personal

simplification, a need to capture and work the image in the darkroom to create

a vision I have had when I shot the image. For me, it isn't the size but the

quality, the non spontaneous, the...

Hi Bill

 

I use my 4x5 kits for the perspective control and the larger slides and negs and more tonality in enlargments.

And of course it is much more sexy then a MF or 35mm because they see very seldom such a large thing!

In thad case size does matter even more!

The new mini-monorails like the Sinar p3, with DidiBacks, are making LF the domain of the amataure for most applications - but we do sometimes still need very high resolution when we cannot use 16 shot.

 

Landscapes often include trees moving in the wind, or people...

Fun and harmony. I could never stand lots of darkroom-work for a motordriven 35mm shot.

I've always been accused of being too slow when taking pictures with a 35. Now I have an excuse.

 

Seriously, I love the image on the large GG, the perspective controls, and the freedom provided by each frame of film being handled separately (pull this, push that, and I think the frame in the middle needs to be color), and just the ability to quietly and contemplatively fiddle with the camera while setting up for a picture.