large format vs 5d...

[kelly_flanigan1]

Making 50 inch wide prints from small originals is really nothing new. Even in the 1960's folks enlarged regular 8mm frames to 42" wide for court case work. The movie you watch at the movie theatre is just a dinky section of 35mm film. It looks good becuase the many frames being viewed drop the noise/grain because of averageing effect of ones eyes. <BR><BR>In weddings long ago many times 4x5 was for formats, and folks used the lessor 6x6 cm for causual candids. Folks had an industry that catered to fast press work, one had film pack films for quicker shooting. Folks used the 4x5 for a bigger negative, not the typical LFers today slow landscape stuff.<BR><BR>In printing for the public I find alot of folks lost hopefull in the mire of "can XYZ be enlarged that much".<BR><BR> A Teenager with less hangups might bring in a cellphone image, a 3 to 8 megapixel P&S image, or a 35mm disposable cameras negative, or long ago APS or 110 and have a giant poster made. A trial print can be made from the section of the poster to see what "quality" or lack of one get; ie a real world test instead of wondering and endless dogma preaching. <BR><BR>Adults seem many times to have rigider minds, "ABC says one needs Goofsus to enlarge to a Jumbtron sized image.<BR><BR> In many ways folks are paralyzed with all their experimenter DNA sucked out of their souls believing experts dogma. <BR><BR>Unless one has a defined viewing distance, illumination level and purpose the "how big can I enlarge" question has no real answer.<BR><BR> If one makes some actual LARGE sample prints or sections from inputs A, B and c then there is something tangable to compare. Here we have made 1/4 VGA images 30x40" for court cases, with images that one dosent have the luxury of being reshot. Paralyzed middle aged folks will preach one needs as 4x5 to make a 30x40, or even a 16x20 or a billboard, folks who have never really done ANY experimenting at all with enlargeability. Its like its a game, repeating dogma.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In printing a large 50" poster, having the luxury of using a 67trany, 5D's image, 4x5" trany would be a sop easy job to print.<BR><BR> Normally one has way lessor inputs,sometimes radically less. One might have only a sub VGA image to print hockey dasher boards that are 3x12+ feet. <BR><BR>Dealing with the lay public about "enlargeability" has a real cost to a printer, there are way too many folks with no real world experience preaching dogma.<BR><BR> Folks then do their own upsizeing, and usually ruin the shadow and highlights in their attempts. <BR><BR>You should allow a printer to use the raw input source too, so we dont have our hands tied with a botched image. Some folks will do real dumb things. They shoot with a 3 megapixel camera, print in out on a lame inkjet home printer, then flatbed scan in at a zillion dpi to make a higher megapixel image. I have seen this done many dozens of times, even by Photoshop certified chaps and photo school graduates. <BR><BR>Dealing with these goofy inputs and hearing preaching about "ABC says this" really costs time and money . It also ruins color matching, ruins shadows and highlights, it adds crap from folks home printers. Last 2 times we got goofy inputs like this were from an "expert" corporate photographer and a Goverment photographer.<BR><BR>In a real pro print job folks get samples done. They also have defined goals and know the viewing distances. There is no guessing, just in the mud real work done with samples, ie getting ones hands dirty with real world tests and samples to try out. Its far better to have real samples than asking a zillion folks for opinions.

[Ian Taylor]

I'm on the road right now in Asia with a 5D and a Speed Graphic. I don't use the LF very often, but when I do I'm happy I have it.

 

When you pull out a camera like that, folks treat you seriously...

[sumo_kun]

Enlargement possibilities from any format depend on the quality standards of the person wanting them done. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no use saying person A can get a quality 10 foot x 10 foot enlargement from a 135 slide and person B can only get a quality 8x10 inch print from a 4x5 slide and saying that person B doesn't know what he's talking about. Different people have different needs and if you're happy with your camera and what it produces then that's all that matters. All opinions.

[kelly_flanigan1]

One could buy a "better car" with gold plated muffler bearings, gold plated rotator splints, or have a "better" giant billboard made from contact printing. Throwing away money on things that cannot be seen or measured is not more quality, just a waste of our clients valuable capital. Many clients dont view a photographers extra expenses for things that cannot be seen as more quality, just as a waste of THEIR money. Its wise to get a handle on what your client really needs for their application, and dont waste their money with useless "higher quality" that cannot be seen. The confusion many folks have over "enlargability" often stems from not having any defined goals for task at hand. Clients will quickly go to folks that have a better understanding of "what good enough" for the job, than folks who cover their butts by always wasting their money on too expensive input requirements.

[david_senesac]

As I've suggested before, I would not recommend any person that doesn't already have solid traditional photography skills from getting into large format by itself ti create "fine art" level work because of considerable time, effort, and material costs learning how to get it right. A person that isn't already an acomplished nature or landscape photographer had best hone their skills elsewhere.

 

...David

 

http://www.davidsenesac.com

[ronald_moravec1]

The worst thing you can do is take a new untried camera on a trip.

 

As others have said, there is no way you can learn LF in time. The quality is superb, but there are many pitfalls.

 

Take a 5D and zoom lens if you must, but bring the MF with you.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<I>The worst thing you can do is take a new untried camera on a trip</i><BR><BR>Etch that in stone! Way too many get in trouble with new tools and not being so knowledgeable about them on a trip!

[karl_borowski]

If A is greater than B

and B is greater than C

A is greater than C.

 

I've shot maybe 100,000 frames of 6x7 cm, let's call that B. At 8x10, there is a clear

difference between 6x7 and a 12MP file, even a 16MP file from a digital back looks much

flatter. I have seen many examples of a 5D, which is why I wouldn't shoot with it.

 

 

 

Let's call 4x5 film A, and 6x7 cm B and 5D C, although we should call it D or F.

 

If 4x5 is better than 6x7 and 6x7 is much much sharper, even at 8x10 size (oh I print by

hand, optically with a Schneider lens; maybe you had better find a good lab, since you are

probably too lazy to print yourself) than a 5D, then what do we think 4x5 is going to rate

compared to the 5D?

 

Boy, people get really touchy about their massive investments in their new toys, aren't

they?

 

 

 

 

PATRICK: Use what you are comfortable with. I am uncomfortable with digital

for the reasons mentioned above, and will stick with my RB67 and 35mm SLRs, which I am

thoroughly familiar and comfortable with. Were I to use 4x5 more (I have an old Graphic

which I use occasionally for fun stuff), I'd probably be comfortable enough to use it, but

only after weighing the added inconvenience of working with a tripod, not that bad, but

something you have to keep in mind. Were I to consider digital up to par, as you obviously

do, since you've used it, I may very well shoot the whole thing digitally. I can shoot with a

24x30 inch view camera and still take images that look like shit. Keep in mind that the

larger formats force you to plan more due to added expense, and less portability, so you'll

generally take more well-thouhgt-out pictures, whereas with the smaller formats, you'll

take more spontaneous ones; some people consider spontaneous pictures amateurish,

others have come up with the name "photojournalistic".

 

Really, I would not learn to use a 4x5, but rather use what you are comfortable with.

There's nothing wrong ih an RZ for what you are using. I certainly don't see it being any

more of a hindrance than a 5D. It's heavier and a bit slower, but can be hand held easily.

You might want to use mirror lockup, or carry a small tripod no matter what you end up

taking. I always tend to use them for landscape work.

 

 

~Regards,

 

Karl Borowski

[lonoveracker]

What this thread needs is some contribution from the original poster. Patrick, are you still there? Has this discussion helped you in any way? Or was it really just a way to spark another pointless debate on film vs. digital?<br><br>

Lon

[karl_borowski]

I have only taken 10 pictures in my life on 4x5. I've NEVER taken a picture with a 5D. However, in my work as a darkroom technician, I have printed probably close to 1000 sheets of 4x5, and processed nearly 100 (mostly B&W) this past year. I'd say that peering at a 4x5 negative under a loupe, dusting it, and spending hours in the dark with it makes me qualified to tell you of its resolution comparable to 6x7 and to an EOS 5D. I've never shot a single frame with a 5D or any other DSLR. I've seen hundreds of prints from this camera up to 16x20, down to 4x5, and I'd say that I am thoroughly unimpressed with it even at 4x5, ppor colors, soft highlights, and a nasty tendenc to turn skin orange for whites and purple for blacks. The mere lack of grain does not, in reality, equate to an imperceptable difference from 4x5 inch negative film. I promise that I would shoot all of my work with 4x5 inch negative film, or hell, let's make it 11x14 inch if my line of work, weddings, senior pictures, and event photography were to allow for that format, or even pay for it anymore. In lieu of this, I have to "compromise" down to 6x7 cm.

 

Thanks so much,

 

~Karl Borowski

[manjo]

A lot has been said already, but I will still throw in my 2 cents... IMHO if you think something is hard and cumbersome, dont use it, stick to what you are used to. You need a lot more than 2 weeks to learn to "use" LF, ie, metering, movements etc... But that said for landscape you can get away with no movements (only little front tilt) to take photos.

 

Use a tool you are familer with to get the job done, learn new tricks when you have spare time.

[brian_ellis16]

"Boy, people get really touchy about their massive investments in their new toys, aren't they"

 

Not at all. I actually have a large investment in all three of the formats under discussion so I'm no more touchy about one than another. But when someone who has never used one camera, and rarely used a comparison camera, starts telling people who have used both cameras extensively that they're all wrong in what their eyes and experience tell them, the people who have extensive experience with both cameras feel compelled to point out the mistakes made by the people with no experience.

[images by andrea]

I agree with many of your comments. I use all of the above formats and my favourite is the 5x4. But I am a pedantic, perfectionist of a photographer (as I believe you must be to enjoy and stick with large format). I do my own processing and printing and sorry to everyone but an Ilfochrome print from a 5x4 will in an 8x10 or more so with 12x16 be immediately apparent unless viewed from a distance of 10m.

 

BUT the point is: You should feel comfortable with your eqipment and stick with what you have until such time that you have reached the limitations of this equipment and wish to push yourself further. I did not trade in my RZ until I was ready and had taken many hundreds of stunning images with it. (yes tripod - essential) Obtaining a better camera will not equal better images. You need to find that inside your heart and mind (not the shutter finger)

 

I would not shoot a wedding with anything other than a DSLR but then I would not recommend that you shoot weddings (unless you are a guest). It is probably the highest pressure job in photography and you need to be comfortable and proficient not only with your equipment but also a have fairly high degree of technical knowledge in photography. I have seen many poor wedding photos from rank ametuers.

 

There are many ways to define "fine art" but mine would be to show in galleries etc. I would only use the highest quality images for this (but then you need to have some stunners in the first place). As far a stock goes, it is a hard business to get into. I would concentrate on my photography first, build up some experience and some great images and then think of getting into it. My stock library prefers film scans but then I only shoot landscape for them.

I have a Imacon Flextight Drum scanner and I challenge anyone to tell me that a scan from this would compare to any digital camera on the market. BUT THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED REMAINS - WHAT IS THE INTENDED OUTPUT.

Andrea

[rob_skeoch2]

This is the basic difference between LF and a 5D. And I'm not really judging anything this

is just true.

with a 5D you go and shoot 300 images come back to the computer and find the good

one.

With large format you go out and shoot 4 images and come back to the darkroom to find

the good one.

Either way could work for you.

-Rob skeoch