Is large format for me?

[parker_parrish]

Hello,

My name is Parker Parrish and I'm considering getting into Large Format. I'm a

college student and have been shooting with a Mamiya RB67 for the past two years

or so. I'm still learning but I'm very tempted to try out 4x5. I've got around

$1200 in MF gear I could part with and maybe a little more out of pocket, but

I'm not sure if it is worth the switch. I know that is a very tight budget and

I've been looking at a Shen Hao or Tachihara with a 180/5.6 and a 90/8 at some

point. I like shooting landscapes mostly, waterfalls, streams, mountain areas

and some flowers. I mainly use a 50 or 90mm on the RB. I also own a 20D but

really enjoy taking my time with the Mamiya. I'm thinking LF might even be

slightly less weight and obviously better quality. The only real drawback I see

is film costs. I'm afraid I won't shoot as much as I do now if each frame is in

the $4 range. So for me, do you think it is worth trying LF or continue learning

in the 6x7 world for now? Thanks for the help.

 

Parker

[leicaglow]

I suspect that you'd find it a toss up as to which system you'd enjoy more. The convenience of medium format is very appealing after working with LF, but there is a certain Zen when working with large, manual equipment.

 

Before making the jump, I'd see if you could rent a 4x5 camera (or borrow one) from a camera store. See how you like it. The other thing is I would never dispose of my MF gear to go into LF. I would try to have both because there are advantages with each. Also, you may find that you just don't like the results, ongoing cost, etc. of the LF system.

[eric rose]

The RB system is an excellent one. I would only consider going to LF if you find you need movements and/or you are going to make very large enlargements.

 

Weight wise it's probably a wash.

[Troll]

Stick with the RB67. Unless you plan on making prints larger than 40"x50" there is no reason to go to large format.

[Monophoto]

Parker -

 

There certainly are technical considerations involved in LF - larger negative, greater detail, more limited DOF, etc. But those aren't really the reasons for making the switch.

 

LF requires a different attitude toward photography. LF work is done almost always on a tripod. It is necessary to slow down considerably - it's difficult to set up, make a negative, and then repack your gear in less than around 15 minutes. You have to think more about what you want to photograph, both becaue of the time and because of the increased cost. The need to think more causes you to take a more studied approach - LF doesn't lend itself to the "snapshot" mode of operation. LF photographers tend to be much more "fussy" - strange as it may seem, I think LF photogaphers are more inclined to compose carefully in-camera and use the full image frame, and are less inclined to crop to achieve the final image.

 

If you find yourself using your RB in this fashion, then perhaps you are ready to make the change. But if you prefer faster shooting, either of subjects that are moving or in a studio with strobe, then you may be better off with your present format.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I'm new to large format and I love it. The tonality is amazing - and I can see it long before printing 40 x 50. I won't give up my MF gewar, though, as there are many times when I can't spend a lot of time shooting.

[User_503771]

Wow! Great questions!

 

On thing I've learned too well (through dire experience) over 25+ years of shooting is:

 

DON'T GIVE UP EQUIPMENT THAT YOU LIKE AND USE.

 

I've been in the same boat -- almost constantly -- over the years: tight budget. So, at a couple of different points I sold off equipment that I liked in order to purchase other equipment.

 

While I liked the new equipment, I ALWAYS regretted selling off the original stuff that I also liked and used.

 

The main thing is this: If the equipment works for you, and you USE it on a regular basis and like the results, KEEP IT.

 

Find a way to beg or borrow LF equipment.

 

Or, alternatively, do a bunch of reading on the subject; rent (as mentioned above) to get your feet wet; then start surfing the photo swaps and eBay for equipment that you can afford.

 

Get into it gradually, testing your new equipment as you go.

 

If costs are an issue, go cheap! Get a late-model Crown or Speed Graphic and put the real dough into lenses and film. Or an old Toyo monorail 4x5 -- wonderful cameras! and can occasionally be had for a song.

 

Spend the money on film, and lenses. And KEEP SHOOTING WITH YOUR MEDIUM FORMAT GEAR IN THE MEANTIME!!!

 

Maybe one day you'll notice that you're shooting LF just about exclusively, haven't used your MF gear for a half-year or year, etc. -- THEN AND ONLY THEN would it be time to consider getting rid of the MF gear, in my oh-so-humble opinion....

 

Hope this helps....

[jay_de_fehr]

Hi Parker.

 

A lot depends on whether you're shooting color, or B&W. If you're shooting color, the larger negative/positive is not going to amount to a lot better image quality until enlargements get truly huge, but that's just math. A field camera will allow you to take advantage of perspective control, and place the plane of focus much more precisely than your RB, even with an expensive shift lens, and that's true for either color or B&W. If you're shooting B&W, the cost of film is not a very great consideration, and you can process the film yourself, for total creative and quality control. The quality difference in B&W negatives of MF compared to LF becomes apparent at significantly lesser degrees of enlargement than is true of color materials, but MF B&W negatives are quite capable of large prints, as you probably know.

 

The inconvenience of LF compared to MF cannot be overstated. If you're using a camera that makes the most of the advantages of LF, it's not practical to shoot it handheld, which means you're married to a tripod. If you're already married to a tripod, this is not an important point, unless your curent tripod is inadequate to the task of LF, and you have to buy a sturdier/heavier tripod. To get bigger negatives, you have to use sheet film, which means filmholders, which means added weight, complexity, and handling, and more opportunities to ruin your film with dust, scratches, fingerprints and light leaks. 3 RB backs = 15 film holders, or one RB back = 5 holders, but the backs are easily reloaded in the field, making a single back practical, whereas the holders will require you to carry as many as you expect to need, or to use a changing bag. Darkslide management is a discipline in itself, and you can expect many mistakes on the way to its mastery. The exposure sequence in LF is MUCH more complex than for MF, and a mistake at any point in the sequence will almost surely ruin the negative/positive.

 

I don't subscribe to the notion that the forced discipline and slow working nature of LF is an advantage in itself, forcing one to be more selective of exposures, and to take more time in composition. I think composition is practically instinctual, and instantaneous, and the slow working nature of LF simply means more missed opportunities.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I shoot 35mm through 8x10, including an RB67 outfit, and several 4x5 outfits. For me, the RB67 is the least used. I shoot 90% B&W, and have a small darkroom, so I don't usually print larger than 8x10, regardless of the format of the negative. I use mostly 35mm for enlargements, and contact print most of my LF negatives. That being said, I dearly love my RB outfit, and will never part with it. My point is that what makes sense for one photographer is sheer lunacy for another, and we must each find our own way, but knowing the realities and consequences of our choices in advance is priceless. Best of luck to you in all you do.

 

Jay

[richard_ilomaki7]

Parker

 

For me the main attraction of LF-4x5, 5 x 7 & 8 x 10 ( particulalry 5 x 7) is teh unequaled beauty of contact prints, either on regular enlarging paper, AZO or platinum. Nothing can beat the tonality and ineffable appeal of these prints.

 

Cheers

 

PS see the post a few below on How do we know LF is for us for many views.

[aroundomaha]

Hi Parker,

 

I made the "leap" a little over a month ago from purely digital and 35mm to being the

owner of a Wista M450 LF camera. It has been such an eye opener, and one that I will

always be thankful for undertaking. Shooting LF has taught be things that have improved

my digital and film shooting immensly. Namely, composition and patience. As a digital

shooter I tended to be excessively promiscuous, just click-clicking away; sometimes for no

apparent reason. LF shooting has also improved my exposure habits a great deal. For me

it goes way beyond how the idea of what size enlargement I can make from the negative,

its about the process of composing, setting up and then seeing the results.

 

I value the 15 or so LF exposures I've made disproportionately over the hundreds of digital

shots I've taken in the past month.

 

This can all be done on a relative budget as well. I spent perhaps $650 getting everything I

needed to shoot LF (except a spot meter). In return, LF has improved every facet of my

photography. I'd say if you are curious at all then give it a shot, or you will always wonder

if you should have tried it out.

[mb81]

Large Format photography is an artform in itself. I am an 8x10 shooter, and I get asked daily, WHY? Well, its not just the beautiful contacts and enlargements I can make, but it is the whole process. You really need to involve yourself and commit yourself to working in Large Format. And after struggling a bit in the beginning, it is well worth it.

But.... I would highly suggest taking a class in large format before buying one. A LF camera is very basic, but can be very complicated.

 

You must learn how to use movements correctly, and when you do learn, you will be amazed at what you can do. Also, it is very important to learn about Bellows Draw and Reciprocity Failure. Once you get these things down, LF starts to be a lot of fun.

 

As a First LF camera, I would highly suggest the Cambo/Calumet 4x5 rail cameras. You can get a great setup (sometimes with a lens) on ebay for around $250=400. 4x5 film is more like $1.00 a sheet, not $4.00, so there is a little fresh air for you.

 

Good luck. Oh, and as said many times above, dont get ride of your MF gear. Like I said, I shoot 8x10 but every once and a while, I really enjoy pulling out my Mamiya 6x6.

[mitchfalk]

As soon as you see your first piece of 4x5 Velvia come back from the lab, you'll be hooked. I have been shooting landscapes with an old New-Vue camera I bought for $ 85. dollars and a Schneider 150mm lens w/a copal #3 shutter for another $ 150.00. The only thing is now I want a 8x10. BTW I also own 2 Hasselblads, 3 Pentax 6x7's,as well as a D-200 and D70, they are all tools for different purposes.

[greg lockrey]

Don't sell anything that you might regret later just to move to a different format. When you have the cash, then make the addition. Don't but cheap but the most that you can really afford. Never go into debt in photography because very soon you will have a lot of equipement but no money to buy film or processing etc.

[william_whitaker1]

Seller's remorse sucks.

 

Rent, borrow. Does your school not have equipment you can check out to use? Other photographers in your area? Check this forum, largeformatphotography.info and apug.org for folks who congregate on weekends with LF cameras. Your RB's a good tool, esp for the subjects you indicate you like. Don't forsake it for an unknown.

[ronald_moravec1]

Keep what you have. Try out some LF when you can afford to to do so without selling anything.

 

It`s fun. It`s nice to get a big neg. Downside is severe as you are tied to a tripod every shot and it slower to set up. Neg processing and carting a bunch of film holders is a pain. Dust and dirt problems can be nasty so it requires much attention to detail like a super clean spot to load holders.

 

Forget it when it is cold or windy `cause your hands freeze and the focus cloth blows all over.

 

The ability to move the focus plane is overrated. You can`t get the top and bottom of foreground trees and the background in focus all at once. There is still only one plane of focus. You can move it, but it is still a plane. And you have to take advantage because the debth is so small. This makes set ups long.

 

I like mine, but I need and use smaller formats more.

[brian_ellis16]

"The only real drawback I see is film costs. I'm afraid I won't shoot as much as I do now if each frame is in the $4 range."

 

You definitely won't shoot as much film but that isn't the question. The question is whether you'll lose any really good photographs by not shooting as much film. Most likely not. If you're like me you'll just take more time with your photographs and after investigating all the different possibilities in a given scene make the one photograph that you think is the best possible photograph and stop making four or five otr whatever from slightly different vantage points or with different focal length lenses or with whatever minor deviations there are from one to the other as we tend to do with roll film in an effort to ensure that you get one excellent photograph. So while you won't shoot as much film as you do now, you'll have the wonderful personal satisfaction when you make an excellent photograph of knowing it was YOU that made it, not the fact that you made five or ten exposures of the same scene and so more or less from blind luck got one good one.

 

Which, incidentally, is one of the many good reasons for switching to LF besides making 30x40 prints. In fact I don't think the ability to make 30x40 prints is even a good reason to switch to LF much less the only reason. I probably know or have met at least 50 LF photographers and if any of them have ever made even a single 30x40 print I don't know about it.

 

If at all possible I'd suggest that you try LF without selling your MF equipment. I've sold a lot of different equipment over the years as I moved from one thing to another, including a Leica SL2 camera with four Leica lenses, threee 8x10 cameras and an assortment of 8x10 lenses, and one light weight 4x5. I wish I had all of them now, not because I'd necessarily use them a lot but just because they'd be nice to have and I don't have a clue as to what happened to the money I got for them. I do know that I didn't use it to buy Google stock or a rental house that's tripled in value, it just sort of disappeared somewhere as money tends to do.

[van_camper]

You will not be happy with only a RB67, just like you won't be happy with only a large format camera. You need and want both eventually. I find there are shots where only medium format is suitable (busy crowded areas, rain, windy situations where darkcloth is hard to control, lack of time for setting up large format). Also, not every picture suits being printed very big (20x24 plus). Keep what you have, when your ready buy the other. I was amazed with the quality I got from a Pentax 6x7 and scanned with a Nikon 9000 and printed to 42.5" long.

[mona_chrome]

It's funny, I started with an RB and went to large format. After switching, I really didn't use

my RB much until I decided to go pro and then I was glad I had it. But today, film cameras

are getting so cheap that even if you sold what you have, you could probably replicate it

for less in a few years--I just saw a 3 lens, 2 body RB system for sale for $2000.

 

I don't know how you plan to print your photos, but don't forget that part of it. Large

format scanners and enlargers are expensive. Flatbed scanners, good ones, do a pretty

good job with 4x5, but not as good as a good film scanner.

 

As to film cost, before I started shooting pro, I only exposed one sheet of film for any shot

I chose to do, except in very rare situations, so film costs weren't really that bad. I also

think working in LF was a great aid in my development in seeing, as was moving to the RB

from 35mm. But I always composed full frame, the difference was the "disconnect" that

the inverted image seemed to have on my perception of things that carried over into all of

my shooting.

[troyammons]

Keep both and save some $ and buy a Super Graphic. All alum, fairly light, tough as nails, true rotating back, rangefinder, interchangeable cams. I bought a complete kit for $350 and sold a bunch of stuff from the kit and regained about $200.

 

There are situations where you just cant use a 4x5, but an RZ/RB or Mamiya 7 makes a lot of sense.

There are also times when neither a LF or RB is usable in a situation and thats when my AF rangefinder comes out like for candid, street, or odd situations.

There are tiimes when non of the above will also like shooting telephoto and your canon is perfect for that.

 

And that is my camera setup.

4x5-8x10 for ultimate quality when I want movements and have time to shoot.

RZ67 for medium size enlargments, and faster shooting etc.

Rangefinders for fast light quick shooting

DSLR for telephoto or when I dont want to screw around with film.

 

A 4x5 camera is perfect for landscape if you have time. I shoot about 4 or 5 to one MF to LF so the cost is about the same. You will find LF extremely slow shooting if you do it right so....

 

If you shoot B+W and develop your own its cheaper. If you buy your E6 film from Eb*% and develop your own you will save $ too.

 

Also scanners are an issue for 4x5 if you want the highest quality.

 

LF is basically tripod, slow shooting, movements and the best quality.

 

LF is great if you want to make mondo enlargements, but you need a top scanner, like a drum scanner and thats a real issue unless you want to send them out for scans which is expensive. A nikon MF scanner is a little more approachable than a drum scanner and definately smaller, although I bought my Howtek for 1G. A 4x5 scanned on an Epson flatbed is good for a 6x enlargement and a 6x7 scanned on a nikon scanner is good for a 10-12x enlargement, so.......

 

Try out a super graphic. They have a good resale value on the auction site.

[parker_parrish]

Thank you all for your help. I'm very impressed with this forum. I'm sure you guys are right though, I would miss the RB. I shoot mainly color and the largest size I have been printing is about 20x24. I also have access to a dark room and a bessler 4x5 that I've used for some 16x20 b&w prints. I've been using a Nikon 9000 scanner and would switch to an Epson 4999 for LF (neither one is mine). My main curiosity for LF is in the movements. I've never even used a tilt/shift lens and I'd like to see how useful features like that would be to me. I don't do anything architectural but it would be nice to be able to make trees stand up straight. I'm already married to a tripod, I've never even tried to hand hold the RB. I also don't really need to make larger prints than I do now. I'll wait until I can afford both and make the jump then. Thanks again for the input. Everyone has helped considerably.

 

Parker

[ole_tjugen]

It's quite possible to get a fully usable LF kit for $100 - I have one myself:

 

Speed Graphic, pre-anniversary 4x5", without lens: $65.

Lens: CZ Tessar 150mm f:4.5, $25.

two old wooden film holders: $10.

 

I could have saved a few dollars on the lens by using a Rapid Rectilinear lens in barrel instead of the Tessar in Compur shutter.

[mona_chrome]

To your question about movements and such. First, you will find just that LF uses much

longer focal lengths to get the same perspective--50mm rb=90-100mm LF. So, you

depth of field is reduced and a little tilt can give you more DOF than you can even get with

a 50mm MF lens. Yes, you can keep those trees straight, but on the other hand, you don't

want to lose some of the natural visual distortion--it is all a matter of taste, but that

balance will work itself out when you are viewing the image upside down and backwards

under the focussing cloth. I found, when I began, that this inverted view of things really

helped me resolve so many compositional questions/problems--which carried over into

the other formats.

 

So, with that in mind, just be sure you get a camera that has tilt/swing/shift and rise and

fall movements. In landscape, you rarely need massive movements, but you should be

able to do these things. Remember that if you back and front tilt, you can use that as rise

or fall. If they swing, you can use that for shift. If you don't have tilt at least on the front,

don't buy it!

[don_mckeith]

Is LF for you?

 

That's a tough one---College student with a nice MF set-up and limited funds.How much are you willing to suffer for your art?--

 

Read this first and see where it scores on your laugh meter-

 

http://www.webscope.com/howcome/hc3-1.html

[jeff_g2]

I do both, and there is an answer above that sounds just like me. I have an RB67 and a toyo-omega 4x5. I have a quick release on my tripod, and sometimes in the middle of a session shooting MF, I rip off the MF camera and shoot a couple 4x5 frames.

 

go cheap to start, and put the money into a good lens or two. Think of it as an adjunct to the MF.

[gene_brewer1]

Parker,

 

My suggestion is to keep your current equipment. I own and shoot 35mm, MF (6x6, 6x7, 6x9) and 4x5. I find that each format has its niche in my work. Kind of like having a full set of golf clubs when out on the links.

 

Like many have said in this thread and other subject threads like this one, the main reason I like LF can be simplified down to two things, "the simplicity and control".

 

Again to reiterate what has been said, LF done properly is not about how many images can be made but rather how the image is made and what it can be made to protray to its viewer. I hike alot with LF gear and many times I have hike for hours to take only one image or maybe no images becasue either I just didn't find what I wanted or the light I wanted only lasted for time enough for a single image.

 

By all means, I would recommend that you give LF a try. That way you will know for sure if it is for you. I would recommend that you shoot on more than one occasion and see if it grows on you, like it does most LF users.

 

Good Luck and remember, "Being there is only part of making the image"

 

Gene