pete_andrews Posted January 30, 2001 Author Share Posted January 30, 2001 Mark wrote: "For example, a 1mm vertical movement of the film plane during exposure creates far more image degradation in a small 35mm negative than the same 1mm vertical movement in a comparatively huge 4X5"<br>No, it doesn't. Work it out. Moving the camera 1mm doesn't create 1mm of image movement, except at 1:1 magnification. The image movement is simply the camera movement multiplied by the subject magnification, and for a given size of final image, the image movement is the same and the negative size is irrelevant.<br>The fact that <i>you</i> can get acceptable results from handheld 5x4 proves nothing, I can tell you that <i>I</i> didn't, and no longer attempt to.<p>"This is not the first time Mr. Andrews expresses incredulity at the use of 4X5 hand-held "<br>That's because I'm still incredulous that anyone would <i>want</i> to do such a thing.<p>"One of the most celebrated images of the 20th century, Migrant Mother, was taken in 1936 by Dorothea Lange using a hand-held 4X5 camera (Graflex)."<br>Yes, and that image, even in a small reproduction, clearly shows the effect of camera movement. <br>This in no way detracts from that very moving and powerful picture, or Dorothea Lange's skill as a photographer. However, I'm pretty sure that had Ms. Lange had the benefit of modern films, and a more flexible editorial attitude to back her up, then she wouldn't have <i>chosen</i> to use a Graflex, and the image would be just as moving.<p>I'm sorry Mark, but none of your invective has changed the laws of optics one little bit, nor answered the question of why anyone, with modern materials and equipment at their disposal, would <i>choose</i> to use handheld 5x4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_ryberg Posted January 30, 2001 Share Posted January 30, 2001 What a strange and ridiculous argument. I chose 8x10 because it was the only system I found that gave me the results I like. Mark chose hand-held 4x5 for the same reason. He isn't taking pictures of things that let him use a tripod. He is getting better results than when he used 6x6. So that's what he uses. The world is a diverse and beautiful place, and people have different styles and different approaches. You use a tripod, Mark doesn't. Yet it is theoretically possible that neither one of you belongs locked up in the asylum, despite this difference. The sun sets, and the sun also rises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_nowaczynski1 Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 I am responding late in this thread to again counter the re-itteration of half baked miconceptions about and prejudice against hand-held LF photography. Opinions without the substance of experience are not a substitute for facts. When we were teen-agers we all had friends who were obsessed with sex (as we were ourselves) and who were vocal sex experts even though they were virgins. <p> This forum also serves as an educational resource and therefore it is important to embrace differing points of view. For example, I don't use the Zone System for the simple reason that its not geared to hand-held situations, and moreover I use an incident meter exclusively. Brett Weston didn't even use a light meter, never mind previsualizing zones... There is no single RIGHT way of exposing a negative. There are alternatives and variations that WORK and give outstanding results. If the results obtained meet your goals, your methods are thus validated. Brett Weston's prints are no less excellent than St-Ansel's, despite his 'deviation' from the 'true path'. <p> I shoot 4X5 on a tripod as well as hand-held. You simply have a greater range of photographic oportunities this way. Its called the best of both worlds. Hand-held LF gives better results than MF (tripod or hand-held). That is a simple fact that makes the time, trouble and expense worthwhile. It is also one hell of a good excuse for buying a Linhof Master Technika. Thus begins one of life's great creative adventures with one of the 20th century's great photographic tools. <p> Dorothea Lange's 'Migrant Mother' is perhaps not the best example of the technical excellence possible with hand-held LF photography. It is a great and moving image despite its flaws. The single greatest technical problem with the image is that the centre of interest, the mother's face and right hand, are out of focus. The plane of sharp focus is behind her face. Look at her right shoulder, her left shirt collar, and the top left of her hair as well as the hair of the blonde child on her left shoulder. All of these listed areas are tack sharp and show no evidence of camera shake. There is beautiful tonal and textural richness as well as detail. That is, all the hallmarks of good LF photography. (Not all reproductions of this image are equal, the best approximation of the original I have had the priviledge of seeing on a museum wall can be found in Keith Davis 'The Photographs of Dorothea Lange', Hallmark, 1995). <p> Why is her face out of focus? Because there is punishingly little depth of field due to the adverse conditions that Dorothea Lange had to contend with. It was the end of the day, it was overcast and there was a drizzle. The light was very poor and she probably had great difficulty seeing well enough to focus in the dim low contrast light. Her lens was probably wide open, and the shutter speed slow (it is amazing how slow a shutter speed you can use hand-held with a big camera and still maintain sharpness, so this is not a factor contributing to image degradation). <p> The other important factor in 1936 was film speed. According to 'Das Linhof Kamera Buch', Verlag Photo Technik International, Munich 1990, under the description of the Linhof Technika in 1936 (page 106): "...the fastest films of that period rarely exceeded the equivalent of ISO 10". ISO TEN!!!! <p> So in fact 'Migrant Mother', even though the centre of interest is out of focus, actually shows the the advantages of hand-held LF photography despite the multitude of adverse factors faced by the photographer. <p> And people revere the 'Mona Lisa'. Well eat your heart out Leonardo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 How about the same reason a lot of us shoot various iterations of Large Format camreras. Just because we want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_gibson1 Posted February 4, 2001 Share Posted February 4, 2001 A one-degree rotation of the camera, enlarged to a 10x8 print, will indeed give the same blur, no matter what the format. <p> This is not the reason some of us like handheld LF. Sure, a 5x4 SLR has enough shake to frighten the subject, and me, when that mirror goes BLAM. Quiet a stupid camera, really. But a more conventional LF has that very quiet 'chut' that is a joy to hear. The real pleasure comes from the image qualities: all those square inches do count. <p> As a general rule (I do hate general rules), all other things being equal, larger format gives better quality than smaller format. Tripod vs. tripod, or handheld vs handheld. Unfortunately, none of my LF cameras has a decent f/1.2 lens, nor could I lift it if it had. But the Schneider 47mm makes for a lovely little hand-held camera, lighter than a Nikon F, and vastly superior images (when there's a decent amount of light). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emile_de_leon1 Posted August 21, 2001 Share Posted August 21, 2001 L.F. handheld is meditation pure and simple....catching the transitory and the ephemeral(people and things in real life situations)...using your OWN body as the tripod/instrument...being in the moment without needing to previsualise...reacting to the environment...and getting the great 4x5 image complete with flaws. Pure emotion...One of my favorite images of my mother(recently deceased) was obtained this way with a speed graphic with a blown rangefinder....just focus on the ground glass...position body...stop down...engage film holder...click....NIRVANA. I'm glad I had the 4x5 instead of 35mm or 2 1/4. ALSO....This way of creating images is FUN/SPONTANEOUS and RISKY...which much L.F. could use in it's vocabulary. The images are tack sharp even in declining light at 1/15th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
struan_gray Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! More Nails Please! This coffin's not quite shut! <p> Larger formats offer better tonality, not just extra resolution. In any case, at infinity, or with flashbulbs, you can have the resolution too. <p> Larger formats are an easy way to reduce the depth of field. Some people find this a useful expressive tool. <p> In any case, there is something wrong with your original post. Equal angular movements do give equal blur in equal-field-of-view prints, but hands tend to shake by a constant distance, not a constant angle about whatever they happen to be holding. Larger formats get blurred by less because the bigger cameras provide a longer lever arm, and so a smaller angle for the same caffeine intake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcrisp Posted August 22, 2001 Share Posted August 22, 2001 Decades of terrific photojournalism were performed with handheld large format cameras. If you're seriously concerned about whether good results can be accomplished, then you haven't tried it. Yes, you have to be careful about what is in focus, and yes you have to be careful not to induce some camera blur into your negative. With almost no practice, I could accomplish the same exposures I could with a 35 mm. Handheld 1/60th is easy, at a 30th or 15th you can rest your elbows on things and get good results. Fortunately, many of the lenses which come on the Graphics and Busches perform very well at f: 5.6 to f:11, apertures I almost never use when carrying a tripod. Even some of the very inexpensive "less desirable" original lenses (for example, the 127 mm non-Ektars) will make very decent 11X14 and 16X20 prints from handheld negatives. For 15 years I didn't think about adding handheld cameras to my large format equipment, I just thought the press cameras were interesting looking machines people collected. The last couple I have started adding a Crown Graphic (and/or a Busch Pressman) to what I take on trips. My family is overjoyed, not every car trip stop results in a 30 minutes delay. (Some of them still take hours, but they're used to that.) You will see and photograph subjects differently when you're working them handheld. You'll explore the subject from more positions in less time handheld. And for photos of people (something these cameras are great for) you can produce prints which are revelations to those brought up on 35 mm. Smooth, sharp, long scale 8X10's delight the subject. I've just started using "grafmatics," a 6 sheet magazine which allows you to shoot six sheets without changing a film holder. It also eliminated the need to take out the dark slide and park it on the back of the camera. A Crown with two lenses (the 135mm Schneider plus the 90 mm Angulon) plus filters plus a loaded grafmatic for 6 exposures) can all fit in a small 35 mm bag. Apparently a great many readers of the forum dismiss handheld cameras, I'm only trying to convey what I wish someone had told me a long time ago: this (still) works and it's fun. The investment is minimal, if you're unhappy with your attempts at it the Crowns and Speeds and Busches all sell like hotcakes on Ebay and you can get your money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_andrews Posted August 28, 2001 Author Share Posted August 28, 2001 Thanks for those last three considered replies. Pondering over the problem for 6 months does tend to give less heated and more rational responses!<br>I'm not going to argue about the more philosophical and contemplative reasons for using handheld LF, and I'm certainly not trying to dissuade anyone from trying it, or doing it.<br>The fact that many great pictures were taken on handheld LF in the past is also a total red-herring. Many great pictures were also taken on glass plates with wet collodion, but I don't see many photographers advocating their use these days.<p>The question, as originally asked, was to see if there were any technically sound reasons to offset the inconvenience of using a 5x4 camera handheld. I'm afraid I'm still not convinced that there really are any.<br>IMHO, modern film has reduced the tonality issue between 5x4 and MF to next-to-nothing. It used to be easy to pick out the format used from the quality of prints in reproduction, in galleries and at exhibitions, but nowadays, it's a near impossible task to tell what format was used.<br>My own experience is that by using Tmax100, I'm getting the tonality and quality from 35mm that I used to get from FP4 on 6x6cm; and 6x6, or 6x4.5cm is giving me prints that I can't easily tell from 5x4. This really only leaves the use of camera movements as the one strong argument for LF, I'm afraid, and this isn't easy to implement with a handheld camera.<p>Sorry Struan, but I'm not getting your 'longer lever' argument. The image displacement in the final print is the same for a given angular <i>or linear</i> movement of the camera, regardless of format.<br>Say we're taking a picture of someone 6ft tall, and we want a full-length shot of them, 6" high on the final print. Whatever format is chosen, the overall magnification is going to be 1/12th, so if the camera is moved 1mm vertically during the exposure, then the printed image will have 1/12th of a millimetre blur.<br>The only possible 'leverage' advantage that a larger, and heavier, camera can have is its extra inertia, but strapping a lead weight (or a motor-drive and metering prism, etc.) to a smaller format camera will take even that away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
struan_gray Posted August 28, 2001 Share Posted August 28, 2001 To first order, your hands shake by a constant distance. If both hands shake in the same direction you get a linear movement of the camera. If they shake in opposite directions you get an angular rotation, and if you're not completely posessed, the angle is small and so equal to the shake distance divided by the seperation of your hands. With a bigger camera, you rotate by less, and if you've used a lens with the same angle of view for the larger format, you'll get less on-print blur. <p> The shake caused by in-sync rotation of your hands about the wrist is, like the linear shake, unaffected by format. <p> I agree with you in the main, but am one of those people who likes glasses to be half full. If smaller formats are as good as larger ones, then larger ones are as good as smaller ones. I often get better results handholding MF than 35 mm because I don't firk about trying to hold the camera up at eye level. <p> I also just plain giggle at the idea of an 11x14 point and shoot, and will try building one sometime. I see myself doing immersive imaging with two Metrogons, and two plywood box cameras hanging off me front and back like a sandwich board. The end is nigh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_nowaczynski1 Posted September 5, 2001 Share Posted September 5, 2001 It should be obvious to all that the original poster is really just ridiculing the concept of hand-held large format photography. Many good points were raised above, based on experience, and not on the prejudiced conjecture of nay-sayers. To further argue the point is a waste of energy. <p> May I offer to make a portrait, using a hand-held 4X5 camera, of heads stuck in the sand? The results should neatly place both camps in their places... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_nowaczynski1 Posted September 5, 2001 Share Posted September 5, 2001 Or should I have said: "The results will neatly place both camps in the correct perspective"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_nowaczynski2 Posted February 23, 2002 Share Posted February 23, 2002 The current discussion on the 'Lost Art of Hand-held LF' photography (Feb. 2002) would be enriched by perusing some of the above points... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armin_seeholzer Posted February 27, 2002 Share Posted February 27, 2002 Hi Pete <p> I fully disagree with your theory. I worked for 3 years as professionel aero photographer for a company with 2 Linhof Aerotronicas 6x9cm shooting from a helicopter.So first the Linhofs where about 20 kg with the 450mm lens I was shooting almost with a 1/800 sec sometimes a 1/500 seldom 1/1000 sec.It was possible to make enlargments up to 80x1,20m in very fine quality. The camera was hanging on a gummystrap at the doresframe.Sometimes I made shoots with my privat 6x6 Rolleflex handheld with 1/250 1/500 and I could they push up to maximum 18x24cm with good results. And 2 times I tried it with my 35 mm Minolta with different lenses but even in 9x13cm all pictures looked very unsharp just not for use and I worked only with 1/1000 and 1/500sec.Pete you must have somthing overlooked!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now