Should I try LF?

[makenzie_ramadan]

is it worth getting into large format cameras. I know that it takes A TON of

time and waiting and setting up. but whenever i see the 4x5 negitive i always

love the quality and i love taking my time when taking pictures.and if i do

wut is a good stater camera and were is a good place to get a 4x5 camera and

film and a tripod.

 

thank you

[dan_fromm2]

Go to http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ , read the articles.

[ragc]

Read what Dan said. Yes, to me it is worth it. It's like Zen photography. A very different attitude than shooting 35mm or digital.

 

The question where and what to get has been answered in many ways, and people argue over it all the time. Some prefer new, expensive equipment, some prefer used, cheaper equipment, me, I like vintage equipment bought ultra-cheap and lovingly restored/adapted. Obviously eBay is a source if you know what you are doing, places like KEH Camera (KEH.com) are another source, Badger Graphics and others are yet a third source. You mest do your research to know what is right for you.

[mike_earussi1]

Depends on you, what type of personality you have and what kind of shooting you do. I wouldn't recommend it for sports, but it's the best thing for landscape. You just need to be patient (and have a strong back, if you backpack).

[marcus carlsson]

Well it depends on you. I can just say my story.

 

I first started with 135-film. But I felt that it came out to grainy. I built a couple of 8x10" and thought it was wonderful. But due to lack of enlarger I gave it up. I then bought a DLSR, but I gave up that too. I hated it because I feel that it doesn't make me think.

 

I then bought a Hasselblad and love it, but last summer I bought a scanner that took 4x5" and I build a new 4x5" and I must say that I just love it.

Sure it is bulkier and it takes longer time (I almosts only shoot portrait of children and my hit-ratio isn't that high)

 

But I just love that it can take 30 minutes or so to just set it up and take ONE picture. I feel that one becomes ONE with the subject and I just love that feeling.

 

/ Marcus

[randall ellis]

I wouldn't say a 'TON' of time, but it does take a bit more time than you may be used to. The equipment is heavier and takes 'more' time to setup and take down, it may not be as portable as smaller gear, and the film costs are higher per shot, but there are many benefits like absolute control over the development and exposure of each negative, the ability to use movements, the huge negative size, ability to contact print, and more.

 

If you ever see a 4x5 transparency, the decision will be made for you instantly, but don't get swept away in the vision - think hard about how you photograph and what you expect to gain by using whatever format you choose. The format can either compliment your work or hinder it, depending on how well you choose. Match up the benefits of the format with what you want to accomplish and take the time to learn how to get the most out of whatever you choose. No camera, no matter what brand name or what format, is going to radicaly change your results, only you can do that with hard work and lots of effort.

 

The camera is a tool - choose the right tool for the job and you will be able to do great things with less effort, choose the wrong tool and you'll spend all your time fighting the tool to get it to do something that it was never intended to do. I use both medium fomat and large format cameras depending on what I am working on - they both have advantages and drawbacks in various situations and no one solution will ever be the 'best' fit for every situation...

 

- Randy

[christoph_hammann]

Do you now set your camera on a tripod more often than not?<br>

Do you often fiddle with one image in the chemical darkroom or in the computer to get it

"just right" for hours on end?<br>

If the answer was "Yes!" both times, large format will make sense to you. I'd then start with a

used Linhof Technika, they can often be found on that new-fangled auction site on that

indoornet ...

[peter_yee]

I would suggest you try talking to Jim at Midwest Photo Exchange http://www.mpex.com/ . He can help you put together an LF system. You can get film from a number of places online, including View Camera Store, Badger Graphics Sales, B&H, Freestyle, to name a few.

[pico]

<i>It's like Zen photography<br>

 

Depends on you, what type of personality you have<br>

 

Well it depends on you<br>

 

The camera is a tool<br>

Do you now set your camera on a tripod more often than not?</i><p>

Sometimes you guys drive me nutz.

[William Kahn]

I've been shooting MF for years and only recently got into LF. Even my first poor results convinced me to stay with it. I think the overall image quality, compared to MF, is vastly improved, even more than what you see with MF compared to 35mm. Go for it. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

 

"Sometimes you guys drive me nutz."

 

Pico, that's no drive, that's a short putt (yuk-yuk!) Sorry, couldn't resist....:-))

[jeff bishop]

I've been shooting Nikons since 1983. I have 6 of them right now with a bunch of lenses. I have a Canon with a bunch of lenses.

 

I have three old 4x5 cameras, an Anniversary Speed Graphic from 1940's, a Graphic View I from the same era, and a black Calumet with the long rail. Nothing much worth writing home about. All three together were well under $200 combined.

 

The Nikons and Canon can't hold a candle to any of these 4x5's. They don't even come close. But honestly, what really did me in with this format was pulling that first sheet of Kodak Ektachrome out of the tank and holding it to the light.

 

There's nothing quite like it.

[mark f]

I agree with everyone. I use 35mm and 4x5. Medium format seems like the worst of both worlds to me (well, except my rolleicord!).... Crown graphic or MPP is about the cheapest way to start (assuming you are not doing studio work) and will give you good images. A Tachihara or Shen Hao will allow you more flexibility and movements. I went with the Tachihara. Get yourself a 135mm or 150mm lens, a tripod, and some darkslides and go shooting. In the US, I'd recommend contacting Midwest Photo (mpex.com) to get set up. They are good folks and will not steer you wrong

[brad_horner]

Use Polaroid 55 film. Connect with the Tao from using a positive and negative film.

[bruce_cahn]

I shot 35 and 120 from 1964 until 1982 before trying LF. Once I did I regretted having taken so many good pictures on small negatives. It is not just less grain. There is so much richness in a LF contact print that I never could take the smaller formats seriously after switching. If you have patience, and it seems you do from your comments, it is a natural for you. Possible entry level cameras are, from inexpensive to more costly, Shen Hao, Tachihara, Osaka,and the Ebony RW 45. Get the Ebony if you can afford it. You won't have to buy another camera of that size if you do. Here are some goodplaces to get equipment film and advice, also listed with the least expensive first: Bruces Field Camera Store, Midwest Photo, Badger Graphic and Lens and Repro. Ask specific questions on this forum and you will get plenty of info.

[pvp]

I'm nearing the fifth anniversary of my relationship with LF cameras. I can't say whether you will be satisfied with the process of LF photography, but I know I was another who was convinced when I put the first transparencies on the light table. Large format revitalized my photography! After more than 30 years of small and medium formats, LF was an epiphany.

[nickc1]

No way - it does not take a TON of time to set up - or few of the iconic news pictures that were taken in the first half of the last century could have happened - but you CAN take time, and indeed I find I want to take the time to set up a LF camera on its tripod in an attempt to give me the image that I am trying to achieve. The pictures can be better, (photographer dependent) and I find the process is always very rewarding in itself. I am not knocking 35mm or MF - I enjoy using them as well, but LF takes more time because you have far more control over the final image if you choose to take advantage of it.

 

Nick

[bart feliciano]

I'm still new to LF, and it definitely doesn't seem to take much more time to take a shot (field camera), at least coming from all manual 35 and 120 cameras.

 

When using a press camera with working rangefinder I don't think there's much time difference at all.

 

There is more to carry though, but on the upside I'm losing weight :)

[sknowles]

<p>I agree with those that it doesn't take a "ton" of time to setup to shoot lf. I just started

with 4x5 photography but with 37+ years in 35mm photography, it wasn't hard to learn

the basics and it's fun and enjoyable to work in 4x5. I find the time enjoyable to take the

time and see a good photograph (remember it's $4-5 per sheet to buy and process). As

for the camera I've started with a Horseman 45HD and it's take only a few minutes to setup

(level, lens, focus, etc.) before thinking through the adjustments I want, determine and set

the exposure, and take the shot.

 

<p>I always carry my 35mm camera system (film or digital) with the comparable focal

length lenses to take comparable shots and for the exposure readings with a light meter. I

keep a <a href="http://www.wsrphoto.com/lfbloglist.html">blog</a> about my

experience so far. If you go with it, remember it's a different learning curve, so you have to

give it time, and you have to bring and plug in your brain.

 

<p>Good luck.

[david_m]

Just exactly what do you DO with a 4x5 transparency other than look at it? It's too small to contact print and there is no more panalure. 4x5 enlargers are just too large to be practical for most of us.

[brad_horner]

"Just exactly what do you DO with a 4x5 transparency other than look at it?"

 

Scan it.

[vibin]

I got into LF photography in the spring of 2005. I saw a book called First Light by LF photographer Joe Cornish and I was hooked. There truly is nothing like the feeling of seeing a 4x5 transparency on a light box. And I enjoy the time it takes me to set up and shoot a photo (at least 20 minutes, even when I'm trying to be fast). It makes me slow down and consider all possible angles. It has helped me become a better photographer.

 

But here are the drawbacks I have come across. These are MY PERSONAL OPINIONS. Others are free to disagree.

 

1) Cost (i.e. approx $70 per sheet of 20 Kodak Readyload films + $2 per sheet to develop)

 

2) Weight & Volume (Not only due to the camera itself, but because you also need a heavier more solid tripod. If you like doing multi day backpacking trips, this is a huge consideration.)

 

3) Set up time (When hiking with others, you would be slowing them down).

 

4) Not as easy to scan and therefore, not as easy to share on the web.

 

Between the lens (Rodenstock 135mm), the camera (Shen-Hao), and a more solid tripod + tripod head, I spend over $1700 to get started. If I were to do it again, I would take that money and put it towards a Canon 5D.

 

If cost is not a huge consideration to you, then LF is great. But for me, in the long run, I find myself not taking as many pictures because of the costs involved.

[david_schwartz6]

As to the time to set up

There is an incredible exhibit at the International Center of Photography in NY of work by Martin Munkacsi. Much of his work is of sports and athletic events, and dancers, and almost all have a high degree of movement. I was stunned to learn that he never used smaller format cameras (which, given when he was working, in the 1920s to 1940s, probably means that the smallest camera he worked with was a 4X5 -- perhaps a speedgraphic or some such thing.) Anyway, large format sometimes takes a lot of time to set up. And sometimes it doesn't!

[lonoveracker]

Is it worth it? Only you can determine that, really. Research and read the previous references, then get yourself some equipment to start out, practice and go out and take some pictures. Once you've started you'll learn the process and see the results. You'll either love it, or you won't.

 

The best advice, from my own experience, is at some point make a conscious decision to make LF your priority and primary tool. For my first two years with LF I attempted to shoot both 35mm and 4x5. My tendancy was to shoot 35mm first, to make sure "I got the shot." Then I would move in with the 4x5. Subsequently, I was missing many 4x5 shots and would get frustrated easily trying to rush in capturing scenes in fleeting light. I almost quit LF. Once I internalized and made my priority the 4x5, I quickly became more comfortable, confident and I haven't looked back. 35mm is now an after-thought.

 

Just a suggestion, and I'm sure there are many different turning points for other folks.

 

Lon