LF worth it if not making own enlargements?

[david_weiner1]

Am thinking about getting a relatively inexpensive used lf camera for

landscape work as I'm really inspired by the quality, tone, colors

they produce that I just don't think 35mm or digital can match. My

question is, I will not really have access to a darkroom to make my

own enlargements or process my film (some bw but mostly velvia) and I

don't know if moving to lf will be worth it given such limitations. I

certainly realize how important the processing phase can be which is

why I am hesitant to make the lf leap. Thanks.

[always_wanderlust]

What are you doing with your 35mm now? You would do the same thing with LF - just have a professional photo-finisher do the developing and enlarging for you. You can always purchase a second-hand JOBO machine to develop your films. Since you'll be shooting a lot less film and likely will produce better composition due to the careful and slow approach, the costs will probably balance out to what you we're doing in 35mm. If you have a produce a lot of prints, you can always purchase and inexpesive drum-scanner (second-hand) or a decent flatbed and have your really good shots professionally drum-scanned. Start here for more good info: www.largeformatphotography.info

[John Crowe]

Just make sure there is a shop that handles 4x5 within a workable distance for you. I hate to make a huge generalization but if a shop is doing 4x5, chances are they're going to do a good job. Any poor shops would have already disappeared. Good luck!

[troyammons]

Maybe an inexpensive stiff rail camera, but buy the best lens you can afford.

 

A cheap lens on a so-so 4x5 camera might yeild images the same quality of a super sharp 6x7 MF system like a mamiya 7 (super expensive)and MF is much more conveinient and cheaper to shoot.

 

4x5 quickloads cost about $3 each and 4x5 is about $2 each to develop if you send them out. You can save some $ if you use film holders and load and process your own film. MF is about $1 per shot total depending.

 

I will say one thing. If you are not going to enlarge too big some of the current flatbeds like the 4870 or artixscan are good for decent size enlargements. they are good for 5-6x enlargements. With MF the scan is more critical.

 

Basically just scan it work it and send it out to print on a lightjet.

 

Personally I think its worth it. With a good lens and stiff camera a drumscan 4x5 image quality is way up there.

[jonathan_bundick]

It's worth it, so just do it. You could spend time and analyze it to death, but life is too short.

 

Buy it, use it. You won't regret it.

[dave schlick]

this may not work for you, but i use velvea, use a light box and 10x loop.. have the velviea proccessed by a very good shop, and you dont need prints with 4x5.. for me its all i need.. if i get a really remarkable slide, i dont let it out of the glasine,, noone but me touches it.. had too many shops wreck them.. but this may not fit into your scheem of things.. the slides are certainly good enough to critique so you dont need blowups just to see if they are good enought to print.. dave..

[cxc]

Do it. That's what I did. I am bored by the darkroom process, so I prefer to pay someone else to do it, even though I have room and experience to do it myself. Hey, there's even a very affordable rent-a-darkroom walking distance to my house. I just can't be bothered.

 

I expect someday to have to be bothered, when the labs shut down, or when I need to go with a neg over 8x10. I'll deal with it when it happens, no sooner.

[sanders_mcnew]

I'm surprised more have not urged you to try developing your own film by hand. Forget expensive Jobo systems. If you go 4x5 you can buy a simple daylight tank (Combi-Plan makes one, for example) and a changing bag, and so long as you are shooting B+W the processing is easy -- no need for a darkroom. You will get immense satisfaction from the alchemy of summoning an image from film, and you will save yourself oodles of dollars and hours of grief with labs.

 

On the print side, as others have said, get yourself a cheap Epson flatbed and scan the negatives into Photoshop.

 

I shoot Rolleiflexes and a 4x5 view camera. I love my Rolleiflexes, but the 4x5 negatives are just breathtaking. If your current standard is 35mm, well, buckle your seatbelt -- you're in for quite a ride.

 

Sanders McNew, www.mcnew.net

[c_p_goerz]

NO! Unless you are willing to develop the film/print the way you want it to look you will never be happy with the results. This will be only more true as time goes on and you are more comfortable with the equipment etc. LF is ALL about what shows up on the final print NOT what size of neg you use. Whether it be 35mm or 16x20, having someone else make your prints is a waste of both your time as you'll never really get what your minds eye sees. Save time and money now and when both come together to allow you to make your own prints then that is when you will really see what B+W is all about.

 

 

CP Goerz.

 

 

.

[edward_kimball]

I find that if I am not printing my one B&W the prints never turn out the way I want them to. Actually I have gotten one good print in 20 years. For colour, they have the tranny to look at and know exactly what the print is SUPPOSED to look like. From velvia (or any of the 100 iso films), 11X14s will look noticably better and 16X20s will look shockingly better with a LF original.

[brian_ellis16]

I can't imagine enjoying photography without making my own prints. I know what I want them to look like, I know how much they can be improved from the first proof to the final print, and I spend far far more time making them than any lab technician is going to spend. With the ready availability of scanners and digital printers capable of making prints at least as good as can be made in a darkroom, and with color inks now capable of producing prints with much longer lives than traditional color prints, I don't see any reason not to make your own prints except time or just not liking to do it.

 

Film is a different matter. The only advantage other than cost I know of to processing your own large format film is the ability to use different development times for each individual sheet to control contrast. Some labs might even give you that degree of personalized service if you gave them the times. So in general I don't see a big advantage, except cost, to processing your own film. Prints are an entirely different matter I think.

[george_stewart1]

I've been developing my own B&W negatives, up to 8x10", in a bathroom for years now. It's not the most effecient or fun method but gets the job done.

 

As far as printing goes, go digital, it takes little space.

[david_weiner1]

Thanks for the many helpful responses. Some definite food for thought.

[jim_simmons]

I have my 4x5 developed at an excellent local lab. I do my own digital scans and make my own digital inkjet prints, color on one machine, B&W on another. With this process, I feel like I have more control over my final prints than I ever did in a wet darkroon.

[michael erlich]

A huge part of the joy I get from B&W photography is watching the image on the

paper come up in the developer tray. It's still magic after all these years. I can't

imagine having someone else do it for me.

 

As for color, send it out for processing and scan the negs or trannies. Color darkroom

work requires a fairly large investment in equipment and time and is mostly drudgery.

[ken_schroeder]

David, I would think long and hard before investing in large format. Even with relatively simple gear, 4x5 is expensive. For landscapes, I would consider a 120 camera. The film size is larger than 35mm, and processing should be much easier and less expensive to find. I would make very certain that you have pushed 35mm and digital to the limit before investing in another format.

 

In my case, I sold my Pentax 6x7 when I bought my Wista DXII. I did this intentionally to burn my bridges behind me. I don't regret it. However, it was an expensive decision.