The lure of large format: MF shooter needs advise

[david_simonds]

Friends, I wonder if some of you who have experience with medium

format might share some observations of your move into large format.

I am considering that move as well. When I went from 35mm to my

Rollei 6008i I was stunned not merely by the size of the images but

by their depth, tonalty and crispness. And I was coming from some of

the best 35mm Zeiss available with the Contax G2 system. My MF system

has essentially replaced my 35mm as my everyday kit - from people to

landscapes. It has been a wonderful experience. Shooting this system

has taught me more about the picture making process than I ever

experienced with my auto focus glorified point and shoot Contax which

I dearly loved. I went shooting recently with a pro friend who easily

shot 10 images with his Nikon 70D to every one I took with the

Rollei. It does seem that digital imagery encourages the spaghetti

approach to the craft - throw enough at the fridge and see what

sticks. But as much as I am thrilled with the quality of the Rollei

images and what I have learned from it, it does seem to suffer some

of the creative limitations of a bellow-less sytem. I am continuously

drawn to those magnificent landscapes that have impossible depth of

field or majestic verticality. And technically, the quality of a

bigger chrome enlarged in smaller multiples than my 6x6 images is

undeniable as well. I developed some rudimentary Photoshop skills

with my 35mm system, scanning with a Canon FS4000 printed by an Epson

2200. The limitations of the tiny format was a primary motivation for

moving into the Rollei system. While my next purchase was destined to

be a scanner that could accommodate 6x6 images, the cost of a Nikon

9000 or used Imacon (in the vicinity of $2300 with the glass carrier)

got me wondering whether it made more sense to spend essentially the

same amount on a LF kit and Epson 4870, or the like. It would cost

about the same (I always have bought used), and it would not break my

heart when the $400 Epson (vs the Nikon) is obsolete in a couple

years.

So to those of you who have read this far, what would you suggest:

1. Going with a 4x5 field system (eg: Horseman 45).

2. Moving to a bigger format than 4x5 (but it must be compact enough

for work I do in the mountains, woods and on boats).

3. Stick with the Rollei, and just get the expensive scanner.

4. Other

5. At what level of enlargement is the difference between MF and 4x5

obvious, especially if not drum scanned. I'd still like to make

images with the Epson 2200 if scanned with the Epson 4870.

I would appreciate hearing from anyone who felt that the move to 4x5

from MF was not the exponential move that I got from the move to MF.

And recommendations for basic books on LF would be appreciated as

well. Thank you all in advance for your generous advise.

[jim_simmons]

David, if you'll add a note about the types of photographs you take and the sizes of prints that you make, the answers you get will be more finely tuned to help your particular situation. Personally, I skipped MF and went straight from 35mm Leica to LF. I am absolutely blown away by the difference in every image issue, from tonality to sharpness to control of the perspective and depth of field. Can't speak to the difference between MF and LF, though, as I'm waiting to receive any day now a 6x7 back for my 4x5. Then we'll see. For what it's worth, I'm scanning my 4x5s with the new Canon 9950F scanner. Once I profiled the scanner with Monaco EZcolor, the results I'm getting are excellent. For $360, I'll gladly upgrade as the technology and my bank account improve. Also, I am not making large prints at this time.

[edward_kimball]

If you are scanning with a high quality scanner and printing no bigger than 16X20 you will find little difference in final prints. If you go to a 4X5 system make sure that you get lenses of similar quality to what you are used to. My cheap 4X5 gear will stomp my cheap MF gear but your Rollie will beat both of them. How many lenses do you use with MF? If it is two or more I would stick with MF.

[tedharris]

David,

 

It's not necessarily a question of moving from one format to another. Each has its own

place and its own use. As already mentioned, tell us more and we can help with mor

eprecise answers but certain things are already apparent:

 

1) Shooting from a boat on the water with a LF is a real challenge unless you are talking

about rangefinder focusing a Linhof or Wista Technical camera using a 6x9 back and I

don't think that is what you had in mind. I do a lot of photography from boats and when

doing so my cameras of choice are a Rollei SL66, Fuji 690II and Noblex 150 F .... never LF.

 

2) The image quality difference between 2.25x2.25 and 4x5 is substantial ... do the math

... total area of 5.0625 v. total area of 20 sq inches. Big difference. As for differences in

enlargements .. at any level there will be a difference, some immediately visable to the

naked eye and others only a feel.

 

3) There is little sense to talk about scanning and scanners without knowing more about

the size of the final images you desire. One note though, there have been many who see

very very little difference in scan quality between the Epson 3200 and 4870 so if you are

going to buy an new scanner you may want to think of other options.

 

4) If you are interested in backpacking then you will definitel want to consider size and

weight of your kit and I do not recommend going larger than 4x5 initially. The Horseman

FA or HD is a good choice as it is among the lighter field cameras and is the most

compact. There arae other good choices as well though, a number with a great deal more

versitility than the Horseman (and I am speaking as someone hwo has used a Horseman

for many years).

 

Most importantly shooting LF is a very different type of experience than using the smaller

formats .... I strongly suggest you rent before you buy!

[tony_galt]

I shoot 4x5. I have also shot 35mm and 6x6 a great deal in the past. There is certainly a jump in image quality between 35mm and MF and another one, although maybe not as great, between MF and LF. However, I sometimes find myself using a rollfilm back on my 4x5 to shoot color because of the expense of using color sheet film (I am an amateur), both upfront and afterwards for developing. For me the advantage of LF with respect to MF is not so much image quality as camera movements which allow perspective control with rise and fall and maintenance of forground to distant focus with tilts and swings. Another advantage, for me, of LF is that the expense of film and processing (in time for b&w and money for color) and the complex nature of photographing (always on a tripod, needing to think about leveling, viewing on a ground glass upside down with a loupe under the dark cloth, thinking about rises, swings, and tilts) really slows me down and make me think a great deal about what I'm doing. With smaller cameras it took a maximum of maybe five minutes (even on a tripod) to fire off a number of shots. I find that it takes me a good 20 minutes to set up, think about, and expose a sheet of film. Pressing the shutter release almost seems anticlimactic. So if slow contemplative photography is what you want (with the bonus of great image quality) go to LF.

[steve_hamley]

I think you've gotten good answers so far, but that "impossible depth of field" is usually achieved by the intelligent use of camera movements, something generally impossible with typical small and medium format cameras - although there are some limited exceptions like the Fuji GX680 which will break your bank. So if you want movements and what goes with them, LF is the only way to fly.

 

Steve

[danny burk www.dannyburk.]

David, you've obviously put a lot of thought into this and are serious about expanding both possibilities and the quality of your output. I shoot both LF and MF, the choice depending on system suitability and subject matter. For landscape, I do almost exclusively 4x5: as you probably know, camera movement capability is equally important as the large image size, and sometimes more so. Because I insist upon having tilt and other movements, even my MF system has full capability: a Fuji GX680III. The latter is mostly used for close work (mainly flowers, both wild and studio, as well as other small subjects in which LF's DOF issue would create a losing battle regardless of movement capability). The Fuji is large and bulky, and my 4x5 setup is considerably easier to transport when away from the car.

 

For your landscape work at least, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the move to large format. Assuming that you're going to scan your images, I'd stick to 4x5 rather than moving to a larger format. The bulk and expense of 8x10, for instance, as well as lack of niceties such as Quickload and reflex viewer, wouldn't be an advantageous tradeoff for the larger image size unless you plan to make enormous prints.

 

I can't make suitable recommendations on the scanners that you mention; I own/operate a drum scanner and process all of my work in that way. Referring to drum scans, however, I can tell you that there is very little difference in sharpness, at 16x20 print size, of images originating from 4x5 vs 6x8. Of course, this is when good technique has been used down the line, from capture to sharpening. The prints from 6x8 have a *very* slight amount of grain, whereas those from 4x5 do not. At 22x28, there is a more noticeable difference, and even those from 4x5 are just beginning to show a bit of grain.

 

That said, a lot of the above-mentioned sharpness is due to the Fuji's movement capability. If I were using a MF camera with a fixed plane of focus, anything outside of that fixed plane would be dependent upon the illusion of DOF, which will break down further as you print larger. That nearly-equally-sharp 16x20 from 6x8 will be nowhere near as sharp if the subject (let's say a near/far wide angle image) had to use hyperfocal focus rather than tilting to place the focus plane at the most advantageous position.

 

Besides technical considerations, there is an entirely different feel to working in LF. Other users will agree that you have the feeling of *creating* an image in LF that doesn't happen in smaller formats. There's nothing like composing on a large ground glass and seeing every detail clearly.

 

I'm presently working on an extensive article that covers these very subjects, but it's not yet ready. Meanwhile, you might pick up some useful information from my online review of the Fuji GX680III, as well as several other cameras. Feel free to contact me if you have specific questions re: LF vs MF.

 

Best regards,

Danny www.dannyburk.com

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>I am continuously drawn to those magnificent landscapes that have impossible depth

of field or majestic verticality.</I><P> That is probably mostly a measure of the skills of

the

photographer and the way he or she understands and uses light and shadow. A better

scanner will help too. The real advantage of LF to any photographer is that it forces you to

slow down and really consider what is in the frame. The mechanical aspects of LF

photography -- larger image; shift , rise/fall and tilt movements -- are secondary to this.

[ronald_moravec1]

Even 4x5 equires dedication. It is hard to transport. Dust gets on the film in loading if you are not careful. Wind blows the dark cloth around and blocks your vision of the focus screen. All the LF lensen put the image upsidedown and reversed so you have to stand on your head. You look funny doing this. Your hands freeze in the winter.

 

When you get home your have to have a way to process all the film. All are expensive or use a whole lot of chemicals and/or require practice.

 

You will need almost the latest generation of lenses to match the Rollei quality of image, tonality wise.

 

Master all this and you will be rewarded with magnificent images.

 

I use Leicas and a Zone 6.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Dust gets on the film in loading if you are not careful.</I><P>Using Fuji Quickloads

or Kodak Readyloads takes care of the dust and much of the carrying weight and bulk

problem. Downsides are: up fronf costs and you are limited in film choices to ISO 160 or

slower films.

[scott_walton2]

Put your seat belt on for another joy ride (although the learning curve is a bit steeper than MF!) into the wonderful world of making images! I have been shooting LF for years and when ever I can, shooting personal images, I use my 4x5! You will find that your shooting will slow down (and become more technical) in the matter of composing and exposing and also looking more for the "perfect light/shot". You won't shoot more but your images will be better once you master the format. This will do wonders for your smaller formats when you go back to them... if you do. I would stick with 4x5 as the choice of media (better selections of films and easier to get than 8x10) and your style warrants this. There are plenty of lightweight cameras both field and monos available but I think your on the right track going with a field camera. Horseman's are nice but also look into Linhof's too. I see a difference in 8x10's on up as far as the difference between 2 1/4 and 4x5! The differences between medium and large formats is just as large as a jump in quality as in 35mm-medium formats. You will tell this more in prints or chromes than you will in your scans but your scans will have more info to work with if done right. An Imacon would be nice (we have 2 of them at work) but I'm certain you will benefit more by going into LF for more reasons than your even contemplating right now!

[troyammons]

If you were hooked on MF after viewing a 6x6 image, wait until you get back your first batch of 4x5's. They are stunning in comparison.

 

1. For what and how you want to shoot a 4x5 folder with a rangefinder viewer might be the best option, but buy the sharpest lens you can afford. After shooting a couple of 4x5 folders I opted for a Sinar F1. I recently did some hiking with it and it is heavy, but the precision is very nice. A better hiking option would be the Swiss Arca lightweight field camera. It is not a folder.

2. Swiss Arca would be the best.

3. You will never get the same quality from 6x6, but you have to use sharp LF lenses. IE a mamiya 7 would probably approach the detail of a soft 4x5.

4.5. My rule of thumb is 10-12X for a sharp photo/ sharp scan. Of course you can go larger, but you will give up detail at the print level. Thats around 22" x 22" for 6x6 and 40" x 50" for LF 4x5. Drum scanning gives the best optical scan. The 4870 is more like a 1500 optical dpi, more or less. Scanning at 1000 dpi you can not tell much difference between it and anything else. IMO the max clean enlargement out of a 4870 is more like 5-6x with a lot of work. If you want to print on a lightjet at 300 dpi, (6 lp/mm) to enlarge 10x you need a 3000 dpi scan. To print at 200 dpi or roughly 4lp/mm you need a 2000 dpi scan for a 10X enlargement. Most people scan 4x5 at 2000 dpi. I have a Drum scanner and a 4870 and the 4870 is a perfect companion for previews etc. You might want to go for a 1800 dpi Artixscan or a refurbed creo. A 3000 dpi scan is roughly equivilant to resolving 60 lp/mm at the film plane. That might be possible for something like a mamiya 7 in high contrast with clean slide film, but i have never gotten that out of my 4x5 system. Most of my 4x5 shots seem to be around 40-45 lp/mm, but that may also be due to film flatness etc. etc. My lenses tested pretty high or around 55. A true optical 2000 dpi scan can resolve around 40 lp/mm, so when you look at it like that you probably dont really need more than 2000-2500 dpi optical for 4x5. But that is optical rez, but most flatbeds advertised resolution is nowhere close to their true optical resolution except for creos etc.

 

Here are 2 4x5 shots from a recent trip. The last 3 include one crop. These were drum scanned. During this trip i shot 4x5 LF, Fuji 690 MF and SD9. Also 90% of my 4x5 photos were taken with a 150mm lens.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/blue_ridge&page=2

 

Here are some 4870 and drum scan comparisons.

 

http://www.pbase.com/tammons/drum_comparisons

 

The first three are a target drum vs 4870.

 

The next three are a still life drum vs 4870.

 

The next three (tree trunk in water) are 1 4000 dpi drum scan, and reworked. These are 1/3" square on film.

 

The next three, green trees, are a comparison of 35mm film size compared to an equiv sd9 frame. SD9 shot at 50mm, film shot with 85mm lens, IE to comensate for the 1.7x crop.

 

The next two, green trees, are a comparison of drum scanned film to the SD9 pixel to pixel. IE the SD9 is really a 2782 +- dpi scanner. Both cameras shot at 85mm. The 4000 dpi drum scan reduced to 2782 dpi and worked.

 

The next two, treetop crop, are a look at noise in E100G film, but you may be interested in the quality. The 4870 is very fuzzy compared to the drum scan.

 

The next four are a look at how the SD9 vs 35mm filmsize when interpreting up. More of a real world look at crops enlarging both to 20" x 30" at 300 dpi in final form. The 4870 was not even close to enough quality for this type of enlargement.

 

These are really big enlargements. 37x for the SD9 and a 21x enlargement for 35mm film. These are 600 x 600 crops so this would be 2" x 2" in print at 20x30. These are not sharpened or NR.

 

Hope this helps.

 

IMO if you can afford it go for a Swiss Arca field camera and 2 super sharp lenses. BTW I cant afford it either. On the scanner side go for an Artixscan and give up some rez, or go for a refurbed high end flatbed scanner with a wet mount kit, or a 4x5 2500-3000 dpi imacon (I think they make one??) or a refurbed drum scanner.

 

These are just my opinions so grain of salt please.

[edward_kimball]

Troy, for an enlargement to 16X20 would you get a better picture with a good 6X6 kit and a dedicated film scanner or a good 4X5 kit and a budget flatbed scanner?

[troyammons]

Thats hard to say without actually trying it. There are so many variables. If you have a 80lp/mm lens on a MF camera drum scanned compared to a LF camera with a 40lp/mm lens and a soft scan would be a difficult guess.

 

4x5 to 16x20 is a 4x enlargement, so as long as the budget scanner can resolve an optical 1200-1600 dpi that should work okay.

 

6x6 to 16x20 is more difficult. With cropping you end up needing a 8.4X + enlargement, so everything is more critical. The lens, scanner, film type, film flatness.

 

I guess I would give the edge to 4x5. With that said, scanning 4x5 with a 4870, even though it is close at low dpi scans, it is just never as crisp as a sharp scanner.

[david_simonds]

Gentlemen, I am so obliged for your kind and thoughful repsonses. Technical considerations aside, the main boost I got from the move from 35mm was a growing desire and ability to craft the image. Perhaps looking through that huge and bright Rollei WLF and 45 finder is what did it. No more little 35mm peephole. A thread weaving through your comments tells me that LF has that magic, perhaps to an even greater extent. I realize that in technical terms, a LF image overtakes MF primarily with larger enlargements, particularly given the outstanding qualities of the Rollei/Schneider lens. If that is the only consideration, and MF is essentialy an identical experience in most other respects, then I probably will stick with the Rollei. My Epson prints to appx 13x19. The majority of my images in 4x5 will be scanned and printed in this range. The few best images will get the full monty - drum scan and Lightjet. So it boils down to this for me: does the 4x5 offer creative flexibility unavailable with my MF kit, and if so, in what way; and would there be a demonstrable improvement in image "quality" (similar to 35mm vs 6x6)in a properly executed 4x5 vs 6x6 chrome if printed to something less than 13 x 19. Ultimately, would I be better off just springing for the fancy scanner for the MF, and just visit these pages as a curious tourist. Thanks again.

[edward_kimball]

I was figuring on a MF lens resolving 85-95 l/mm (typical for Rolleiflex at f/11), I couldn't find tests on Rollei SLR lenses, and comparing with a typical plasmet lens (60-67 l/mm at f/22). For a MF scanner, Nikon, Polaroid Sprintscan or Imacon.

[edward_kimball]

David, there are many things that you can do with a camera with movements that you cannot with most MF cameras. The question is do you want/need to? There are pictures I will take with my monorail that I cannot take with my Yashica but for the most part they are of the same style. I would be best off with a Mamyia 7 but that is way out of my budget. My best advice for you is to buy a budget field camera with a good lens. That should set you back about $1000-1200. If you fall in love with he process, buy a scanner. If you don't see a benefit, sell that outfit at a minimal loss and buy a MF scanner.

[ellis_vener_photography]

if you are going to be developing your own film, or even if a lab is going to do it for you,

sheet film has an advantage over roll film: you can developeach sheet individually to

compensate for different lighting conditions (contrast manipulation). Also there is 4x5

Polaroid whic his easier to examine than small format polaroid.

[kostak]

Though my answer is somewhat of a repeat of earlier postings, all I can say is movements, movements, movements.

 

I shoot 35 mm (Canon EOS line), 6x6 (Bronica S2A), and 4x5 (Wisner Technical field). I choose the format that is most appropriate to the subject. Obviously, I prefer to go large, but sometimes that simply doesn't make sense.

 

When I made the jump to large format, all the movements available opened up a whole new world to me. Being able to have flowers 6 inches from the lens and having the mountains in the distance is sharp focus was simply not available to me with my MF gear.

 

I was in the southwest in October, and I loved using the movements to make Spider Rock (Canyon de Chelly) stand up straight when shooting with a 135 mm lens when looking down from the overlook. Using a front rise made a huge difference when shooting the White House ruins as well (also Canyon de Chelly). Also, when shooting the wave, being able to put in a front tilt to allow for a better focus was quite handy.

 

Now depending on the kind of photography you like to do, I would suggest considering 5x7 as well. I say this because if you like panoramics from 6x17 cameras, you can do the same with film holders and a darkslide cut in half (I do this a lot when shooting with my 4x5 to create 2 2"x5"/5 cm x 12.7 cm images on a single sheet of film). You then get an image about 6.4 cm x 17.8 cm, which is much cheaper than getting a 6x17 system, plus you can shoot full frame shots as well. Just an extra thought.

[John Crowe]

I could not afford to keep my Mamiya C330 with 55mm, 80mm and 250mm lenses when I went to 4x5. I do miss the convenience (never thought I would say that about a medium format TLR) of that system. However being able to go much wider with 4x5 lenses is awesome! I also switched so that I could switch films on the fly. I can shoot transparencies, negatives and even B&W when ever I want. I also like being able to just shoot two or four frames at a time and get them developed promptly instead of waiting to finish a 120 roll.

 

 

When I tested the 4x5 against my TLR, when I had it, I did not have the best 4x5 lenses so I did not see an appreciable difference in sharpness, but the tonal range and depth of colour was superior to medium format. I have since purchased a Schneider 65mm f8 Super Angulon (30 years old) and I feel confident in saying that it has provided the sharpest results of any lens that I have used in 35mm, 120, and 4x5. So the newer 4x5 lenses of today, or even the last few years, are much likely even better.

 

 

Focusing on the groundglass under a dark cloth is sometimes a challenge as is timing a shutter speed for f32-f45 with 50 to 100 ASA film at sunrise/sunset, but all this builds character, or so I tell myself!

 

 

When I throw a properly exposed and composed (I am getting better) 4x5 transparency on the light table, it is all worthwhile. I will post the two books that got me started when I find them. By the way I have shot my 4x5 Speed Graphic from a canoe using the viewfinder/sportfinder and approximated focus, with good success. Good luck and have fun!

[troyammons]

I looked back at some of my 4x5 vs 690 photos (a 670 is a closer format) and reduced to 16x20 and 300 dpi there is not that much difference between the two. Unfortunately my lenses dont quite match. My 65mm on my 690 is not quite as wide as my 90mm lens on my 4x5. Either that or I was shooting from different spots. Also my 90mm 4x5 lens isnt even close to my 150mm LF lens as far as sharpness. All in all at that scale of print with a super sharp Mamiya 7 type 6x7 lens vs an average LF lens its probably close to a wash. A 6x7 is about 1/3 the area of 4x5. But a super sharp LF lens printed very big would make a bigger difference.

[brian_ellis16]

I've been using 6x7 and 4x5 for about ten years. Before that I used 35mm. I don't think you'll expeience the same dramatic difference in detail and tonal range when moving from medium format to 4x5 as you did when you moved from 35mm to medium format, unless you routinely make prints larger than 16x20. I think that if you're expecting the same degree of difference with prints smaller than that you'll likely be disappointed. When I show a portfolio it's usually 11x14 prints, occasionally 16x20, from both 6x7 and 4x5 negatives. Nobody has ever commented on any difference in quality or been able to tell which was which.

 

The benefits of 4x5 in my opinion are the ability to use camera movements and to individually process each negative, plus the care and deliberation that 4x5 imposes on the photograher. My only caveat is that I've never used 645 or 6x6. If you routinely crop your 6x6 negatives when printing so that they become the eqivalent of 645 maybe you'll notice a bigger difference than I did with 6x7 but I'd still be surprised if it's anything like what you experienced when moving from 35mm.

[mike_kearney]

I've been using medium format for several years (Mamiya before switching to Contax 645 after my Mamiya got trashed) and have noticed a significant improvement in tonal range and detail when using my 4x5, especially when enlarged to 11x14 with Tri-X 320. Medium format is great but large format is outstanding. I'm still using the darkroom with fiber paper so I can't comment about scanning. However, I shoot alot of children's portraits with studio lighting and the 4x5 requires a fairly cooperative kid. But when it works, the results are super.

[david_senesac]

I shot 35mm for many years then switched to mostly 6x7 and later 4x5. If the intended subject doesn't need a large print, I don't bother with 4x5 and instead use my digital or 6x7. My reason for using 4x5 is solely for making large prints. Making large prints is a very expensive scanning, printing, and framing process. There is not an abundance of subject matter that is worth printing large unless one is doing so solely for personal use. In other words the cost one must sell a large print for just to recover costs is large. There is already a lot of fine material pounding away at that wee market niche so only really good material has a chance of being sold in numbers.

 

The subject of large format tilt is oversold for field use. For subjects in a plane it works terrifically but landscapes are always a compromise of awkward objects just like with other formats. What does matter more with LF just like with MF is being able to stop way down and guessing where to place the plane of optimum focus at. LF takes a lot of careful work both behind the lens and today in front of a computer or the result is wastage. I can't imagine most ordinary photographers being able to easily handling it well in the field even after a fair amount of study and practice. One needs to be methodical and a creature of careful habit.

[glenn_kroeger]

David:

 

I concur with Danny Burkes comments (and so do others such as West Coast Imaging) that unless you are going to print larger than 16x20, you won't see much difference in MF and 4x5, assuming good drum scans. OTOH, if you are going to use a flatbed, you will find that they don't do as well on MF as LF since you need the very best scan to get great results from MF. I am looking at a 22x28 from 6x7 on my wall that is tack sharp and nearly grainless. Of course, with LF you have more room for cropping on big prints, but if 13x19 is your norm, LF isn't going to make a difference.

 

As for creativity, it depends on your style. I love the contemplative pace of LF photography, and my work is improved by the shots I don't complete because I realize that they aren't going to be special. But if moving point of view, and working quickly in changing light is where you are creative, then LF isn't for you.

 

As for the other David's comments on tilts, they aren't hard at all to master, and are essential for LF work, since DOF alone won't carry the day in most landscape shots. He is, of course, correct about the glut of LF landscape photography in the market.