A question for the pros - How often do you use LF?

[digidurst]

Hi everyone! I have been learning about LF photography lately (read alot and got the

opportunity to use one thanks to a good friend) and am considering getting a LF camera

as I am absolutely fascinated with the format. I specialize in product/advertising type work

but

I also like to do fine art stuff for the fun of it. My question is for you pros out there...

 

How often do you folks use your LF gear for professional applications? Are your clients

pushing for more digital or are they still ok with the turn around time for film processing?

 

The reason I ask is because it will help me decide what sort of system to invest in. Make

sense?

 

Thanks in advance for your input! I am really forward to hearing your opinions on the

subject :-)

 

Cheers!

[john_cremati]

No bdy gits dem dar big ol camira thangies anymer...... Da al git dem camiras at Walmert so when yer den ye can just throw dem away....... I jest keep min do on da dash o me Fird trek so al da peple wilt knew I m a pofesionel fertagrifer..JC.

[capocheny]

Ellen,

 

If you specialize in product/advertising type work I would think that a LF camera

would be essential to your line of work (due to the necessity of movements.) The only

MF camera (that I'm aware of) that has movements similar to LF is the Fuji 680II...

what are you using now?

 

I would also think that image size would be a definite advantage in the professional

arena although there will be those who argue that the full-frame Canon would

produce equivalent results to a 4x5. (I won't be arguing this issue one way or the

other.)

 

IMHO, unless you're in a high volume shop and making "the big bucks," a digital back

for a LF camera is still very expensive. Having said that... you can still have your film

images digitized either on-site or at a pro-lab. Therefore, your clients can decide on

which medium they want. It would be a matter of "time" (for your clients) if you went

the film-digitizing versus the full digital back route. Would they be willing to wait for

you to process the film and then digitize for the output (assuming they want digital

images.) I would think (and some of the pros on this forum may wish to jump in and

make comments) that clients these days would prefer the fast output/results of full

digital instead of having to wait for film processing and subsequent digitization of the

image.

 

Personally, I don't shoot professionally full-time so I can't speak for those folks that

do. However, my Sinar X is far, far too heavy to carry out into the field. Consequently,

I don't use mine out in the field. That said.. I have just purchased a 4x5 field camera

that I plan on using exclusively for fine art shooting.

 

To summarize... IMHO, you need to evaluate the type of shooting you're either doing

now or plan to do in the future. If you are doing mostly product/advertising types of

work then a LF camera (either 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, or larger) makes sense. If you want to

use this camera out in the field then you'll probably require something that's lighter

but still has all the movements necessary for studio work. I'd think most LF users

would likely agree with a monorail camera such as the Sinar F2, Arca-Swiss, Toyo, or

a Linhof Technikardan. Of course, there are others.

 

Good luck on making a viable decision...

 

Cheers

[steve_hamley]

Ellen,

 

I'm not a pro, but I have a good friend who is a pro shooting both digital, a 4x5 Linhof Technika, and a 4x5 Sinar P. He shoots a lot of digital for general location shoots. He also does a lot of log cabins and shoots the Linhof or Sinar inside; the Linhof unless he absolutely needs the Sinar movements. For certain types of product shots like furniture, it's all Sinar in order to keep the perspective correct.

 

Some of his clients request digital and he accomodates them, but I suspect none of them would know the difference between digital capture and scans. In fact, he lost one job he shot all digital (at the client's request) - the winner shot film and scanned it.

 

Fine art can be done in any format of course, but LF offers the ability to make very large prints or contacts prints like Azo or platinum and other alternative processes which really aren't reproducible in other media.

 

My general feeling is that pros - defined as people who make their primary living shooting commercial photography - shoot very little LF unless perspective controls are needed. Most publications can't take advantage of even MF film quality. Dealers can't keep 8x10 and larger cameras on the shelves, and when I told my friend this, we both agreed they were likely being bought by high-end hobbyists and fine art photographers, with very few being bought by commercial professionals.

 

Steve

[johnmarkpainter]

Ellen,

 

I am a Part-Time Photog.

 

I always regret not shooting more LF because the LF shots will often get picked. I have

had several shoots lately where I have burned 20 rolls on a Hasselblad and then I shoot a

quick 4-6 shots of 4x5....the 4x5 looks SO good that it ends up getting used.

 

The other interesting side-effect is that the Subject often 'rises to the occasion' when you

get out the big important looking camera and you get a good shot.

 

If you have the Time for slower working and the money for Film then you can't go wrong.

 

jmp

[tony novak-clifford]

I think that most professionals shooting commercial work for a living do require the ability

to control perspective on a regular basis.

 

Yes, digital is being requested more and more these days. Being professional means, for

one thing, knowing which tools to bring to which application(s). There are some

assignments where digital is just not the best choice, and there are some that are perfectly

matched for digital.

 

I'm having this odd experience recently where I am being asked more and more to shoot

film again, after spending the last year shooting mainly digital capture. I have also recently

picked up a couple of commercial accounts with agencies that where having work done

previously in digital and were never happy with the end product images and have now

handed the accounts to me, insisting on large format film capture.

 

Having an in-studio E-6 line has allowed me to handle film processing as fast, if not faster

that post-editing digital raw files, so turnaround is not really an issue.

[chris a]

I do not know about "professional", but once I printed my first contact 8x10s my MF gear headed for the auction block.

[jbq]

If this is a "pro" question, you need to evaluate it strictly in terms of cost and benefits. Your clients are not the same as anyone else's.

 

If this is an "amateur" question, it all depends on how much money you're willing to spend for the fun (or non-fun) of LF gear.

 

Only you can really answer that question.

[art_haykin]

When I turned pro, the 4x5 Speed Camera and the Rollei TLRs still reigned supreme. The Nikons soon "took over" except where 35mm simply wouldn't do, and since then, more photography has been done on 35mm that on any other format.(I can't speak for digital, as I retired before it got established. My pro career lasted 40 years.) Throughout my career, I used every format, from subminiature Minox types, to 11x14, depending on the job. I owned at least one camera in every format, several in others, and rented whatever else I needed. I don't believe there is a simple answer to your question, as it is too dependent on the type of work you're doing and your level of competence. Consider renting before you buy.

[digidurst]

Thank you all for your valuable input! You've given me much food for thought. Right now

I'm using a Canon dslr with a t/s lens for those times when perspective control is

necessary. Works just peachy but obviously LF will grant much more control in that area.

 

Anyway, I do appreciate your opinions - this forum is one of the best on the net to get

answers to perplexing questions, encouragement, and inspiration!

[bruce watson]

My guess is that you are defining "pro" as commercial. That is, someone who is being paid by someone else to do photography. For example, as someone who is paid by an advertising agency to take pictures of a product. This kind of work is often done on a contract basis.

 

Another way to define "pro" is someone who makes their living from photograpy. This definition would include artists. Artists seldom have the luxury of working on contract, instead they sell a product - prints.

 

I assume from your post that you are asking about commercial work. With that, I can't help. From an artist's perspective though, I can tell you that my 4x5 equipement is the only camera equipment I own, so I'm 100% LF, and 100% film.

[per_volquartz1]

Advertising photography in color will all go digital.

Advertising photography in black and white will remain film based.

 

Fine art photography will be film based, digital based, actually it will be based on anything

that is sensiive to light and which allows you to reproduce images.

 

If you want to make money in commercial / advertising color photography (I mean a lot of

money) get a Hasselblad with an Imacon back or a Sinar P2 with an Imacon back.

 

Or you may decide to stay with film and concentrate on large format studio photography

(then get a Sinar p2) because you want to sell the unique look that film offers.

 

Fine Art is open ended.

[rob_skeoch2]

I guess we're all allowed our two cents worth so here's mine. I run a in-house commercial

studio as part of a medium sized ad agency. About a third of our work is for the one ad

agency the rest in split between various clients. We shoot mostly food/wine/table top

products. We have about a dozen people involved on a full time basis. We are on our

fourth generation of digital. We shoot no film whatsoever, and haven't been asked to shoot

film for a couple of years now. We shoot mostly with hasselbald 553's on a LightPhase

back. I also use the new canon Mark II but other's are using the Nikon D1x. We shoot no LF

at all. Although I had a 4x5, I went out last spring and bought a new 8x10 to shoot

personnel b&w landscape (I just wanted to keep the film parts of my skills alive.) Although

we shoot high end products for billboards, magazine ads and bus shelter ads, no clients

ask for LF.

If I was opening up a studio and had less than $100,000 up front money I wouldn't spend

a dime on anything that wasn't digital, and wouldn't spend anything on LF until I was

making big money and had money to burn.

Just my opinion.

-Rob

[claudia franco]

For interiors and stable lighting conditions in general, I usually use large format, and particularly if multiple lens movements are needed or composition has to be extremely precise. In situations when lighting is fickle or it's necessary to shoot under time pressure, I tend to use medium format (with lens rise and fall if necessary). Ultimately it's a question of probability--what format will best assure hopefully excellent results.

[michael_briggs2]

I don't think there is one right answer to the question of whether you should invest the money and learning time in LF. The business decision depends on your clients and your markets.

 

For many clients and photos the quality difference won't matter. It also depends on the size of your business -- someone who was doing a hundred of 4x5 transparencies per day will save money by investing in a $30,000 digital back even if the back becomes worthless in two years, but a one person business that makes a smaller number of images per year for which they want to use mediium or large format cameras or their digital equivalents might find the film and processing costs to be cheaper than the capital costs.

 

On the con side of the argument: I'm not a pro but am an experienced LF photographer. My guess is that few clients will notice the quality difference or be willing to pay for it. Your images per day will decline and so for it to make business sense you will need to either increase your prices for your LF photos or gain clients because of photos/quality you can make that your competitors can't or retain clients that you might otherwise have lost.

 

You can do things with a LF camera that you can't with a smaller format, but it takes time and higher film cost. For a business, probably the time cost is higher. You can use front tilt to change the plane of best focus and get a better photo of a product, but it will take a few minutes. For a beginning LF photographer, it might take 30 minutes, for a really experienced photog, maybe two. With the tilts you can use say f22 and take a nice high resolution photo with the plane of focus where you want it. You can feature some areas by having them in the plane of focus and de-emphasize others by having them out of focus. (f22 is a reasonable aperture in LF because the film doesn't need as much magnification.) With most smaller formats, if the depth-of-field isn't adequate, your only recourses are to rearrange the product or to stop way down. Stopping way down is fast and easy, but will decrease resolution because of diffraction. Will the client notice the difference? Will they be willing to pay for the time it took?

 

 

On the pro side: You will probably become a better photographer for learning LF and experiencing composing on the large ground glass.

 

 

The only way to know what can be done with camera movements may be to try them out. You can get into LF photography pretty inexpensively, either via ebay or a camera store that specializes in used LF equipment such as Midwest. For $1500 you can easily have a quality monorail, 210 mm lens, film holders and darkcloth. Hopefully you already have a sturdy tripod and light meter. You could always use a camera as a light meter. If after 6 months or a year you decide that LF doesn't fit into your business and that you don't want to use LF for your personal work, you can sell the stuff at a loss of a few hundred dollars. (The potential loss will be smaller by selling on ebay versus selling back to a retailer, and will depend on how much the market declines. My sense is that the rate of decline of the prices of used quality LF gear has slowed, but that is only a guess). So for roughly a few hundred dollar "rental fee" and an investment of your time, you can try out LF photography.

 

At a price of $1500 or so, it might be worthwhile to your business even if you use it only once a month. Maybe you can do the most important or difficult photo for a project with your LF camera, and the bulk of the photos with a faster digital camera.

 

Will you regret not trying out LF photography?