LF is it really better?

[jon_abernathy1]

<b>Editor's warning: decide for yourself whether to take this

thread seriously or not. email sent to jona@microsoft.com has

returned "Unknown Recipient".</b>

<p>

 

 

Yesterday my dad took me into the city. We went to one of the local photo stores so I could buy some 4x5 film. The guy behind the counter told me that LF photography is dead and I can do everything I want better with 35mm and super small grain film like APX25. Is this true?

 

<p>

 

I think maybe I made a mistake buying a 4x5 camera.

 

<p>

 

Thanks

Jonny

 

[jim6]

Sounds to me like the guy behind the counter is dead.

[fred1]

Jon,

Large format is certainly not dead, and my feeling has long been that

anyone who seriously wants to learn photography, not just the

technique, but also the "seeing", should start out with large format.

I feel that you are choosing the best path available in the quest to

becoming an accomplished photographer.

 

<p>

 

Fred

[shambrick007]

sounds like a troll..........<p>

Sorry, but I just don't see how anyone could make an investment in

LF, and even consider for one second the CRAP that salesman said.

[julio_fernandez]

Jon: yes, you did make a mistake: Assuming that working behind a

counter at photo store is accredits that individual as a

knowledgeable photographic artist. To further reassure youself,

spend some time at a library to see the kind of images that LF

photographers make and then see if that kind of imagery can be found

in books by 35 mm photographers. The images from such as David

Muench, Jack Dykinga, Eliot Porter and many other LF photographers,

can't be made with 35mm. Those people know that, even if your guy at

the store does't. 35mm is indeed a great medium for other things, but

if you are intent on "making" pictures rather than "taking" pictures,

LF is your one and only medium.

[jon_abernathy1]

Wow, thanks for all the answers. I like my camera but the photo man

made me feel bad. My dad thinks that I waste money but I just love

taking pictures. I thought that this man was right cause he sells

film and cameras. When school starts again I will go the library and

look up the people that was mentioned.

 

<p>

 

Someday, maybe I will have pictures in the library.

 

<p>

 

Your friend

Jonny

[james___]

Johnny, that was a real bad man at the photo store and if I were you

I'd go tell him to stick it where the sun doesn't shine. He was a real

bad man. But I think you made a big mistake too. You should shoot only

35mm so that you won't feel so bad next time some idiot tells you

something like this. LF is for real men and not little boys that get

their feelings hurt so easily. James

[david_kirk1]

Hey, I got the same 'advice' from several places. But just one

question, if LF is dead, then how come Schneider, Rodenstock et al

keep making lenses, how come film is avaliable in 'proper'

photographic shops, quite clearly the fellow you talked to was more

interested in selling 35mm, next time they say this take care to

point out that most, if not all major product photography is done

with LF equipment either onto film or high-end scanning backs.

By the way, did you know that no-one ever uses 120 or 220 film any

more as you can't processit anymore. (Or atleast that's what the

buggers at a certain lab say - Klick photopoint in the UK do not go

near them with a f***in' barge pole).

[david_munson]

Johnny, it seems to me that this guy has no idea what he's talking

about. If it makes you feel any better, I sell cameras and film on a

daily basis, have yet to sell a medium or large format camera (stupid

P&S and digital cameras...grumble...), and can still say that LF is

not even close to being dead. If you feel like proving to yourself

(or your dad, for that matter)that LF really is better in quality

than 35mm, shoot the same scene with both 35mm and 4x5, getting the

two shots as similar as possible. Once the film is processed, get

both negatives blown up to 8x10 or 11x14 and compare the final

product. The LF shot will look better- guaranteed. Good luck.

 

<p>

 

Just a thought...

[bill_moore]

Well, it is true that you can make great enlargements from 35mm or

120 negs. if you are makeing prints 8x10 to 11x14, careful work will

give excellent results. The real reason to use large format is that

it gives total control over your work. Swings and tilts give you

control over perspective and focus, individual negatives allow exact

control of the processing of each one. If these things are important

to you, you need to use large format. If not, use something else.

[ray_dunn1]

Jon, don't get suckered into the religious war over 35mm/medium

format/large-format cameras. Use what suits you best. After

shooting 35mm for 20 years, and LF for about 18 months, I've come to

see that the mind behind the camera and the technique used

contributes more to the finished product than the choice of camera

format. I love my LF camera far more than my 35mm simply for the

control that it gives me. If I'm shooting wildlife, I wouldn't even

think about using the LF gear. I shoot mostly rocks, trees, and

streams, so I use the LF gear.

 

<p>

 

As for impressing your father with LF vs. 35mm, LF gear takes a lot

of practice and patience, both good things to learn for life. I've

got maybe 100 transparencies so far, and maybe 4 or 5 absolutely

breathtaking shots that make it all worth it to me. Just because you

use LF gear doesn't make things automaticaly come out better (just

more expensive!). Keep trying and good luck!

[sergio_caetano]

Abernathy, change photo store, the guy behind the counter has a SUPER

SMALL BRAIN.

[rocky_aaron]

Hi Jon, I have two amateurish pictures from 4x5 slides posted at

www.photocritique.net under nature, 'A 4x5 shot'&'another 4x5', hope

that won't kill your appetitefor LF. They are scanned from Ilfochrome

contact prints as I can't afford a good scanner for LF slides. The

actual slides look better.

[michael_j._kravit]

Jon,

 

<p>

 

I have been shooting 35mm for the past 30 years, Meium Format for the

past 5, and Large Format of the past 1 year. I wish I had started

shooting LF when I was your age. I am so in love with my LF camera

that I often think about selling my 2-1/4 camera. Each has it's own

use and each it's own technique. What I love about LF is being able

to slow down, think, react, compose, think again and "make a

photograph". There are many disappointing images, a lot can go wrong,

but when it goes right and everything comes together....WOW! That is

when you know that it is worth every painstaking mistake that you

have made.

 

<p>

 

My best,

Mike

[james_chow2]

Take a look at the article entitled "35mm, medium format, or large

format?" at http://www.photodo.com/nav/artindex.html . Look at the

numbered T-Max 100 shots at the end of the article, namely #4 (35mm,

Zeiss 50/1.4 at f5.6), #5 (6x6, Zeiss 80/2.8 at f11), #6 (4x5,

Rodenstock sironar 150/5.6 at f22...I don't think it was the latest

apo version, either). The conclusion is that the resolution from all

three shots is close, but they fail to mention anything about the

grain. A novice would probably say that #6 is the "sharpest," yet

it's really the reduced grain, not the resolution, that makes it

appear sharper.

[steve_roche]

The comment does not surprise me. I had a very bad time getting

started in photography becaus of this type of attitude on the part of

some retailers. Forge ahead and don't listen to negative comments (no

pun intended). If you can avoid it dont do any future buisness with

this place, part of their job is to encourage young photographers if

they want to stay in buisness. Good luck and happy shooting.

Steve

[doug_paramore2]

Jonny: You did make a mistake...It was going into the camera store

and talking to that idiot. 35mm has a place in photography, but that

place is not in making large, high quality prints. The modern 35mm

lenses are sharp as a tack, sharper in most cases than lenses for

4x5, but sharpness is not the criteria. Grain has some bearing on

larger prints, but the great advantage to 4x5 or larger negs is the

room on the negative to get the smoothness of tones and the great

detail. There simply is not room on the 35mm neg for all the tones

and fine lines to be recorded. Camera movements are very important in

controlling shape of objects, zone of focus, etc. You are on the

right track to making some of the best images you will ever make with

4x5. Learn to use it and you will be happy for most of your

photographic career. As for large format being dead, BS.

[dean_lastoria]

You know, my 4x5 Graflex was spec'd for Navy use as a coconut cracker.

So when the guy behind the counter puts the APS in front of me, I

stick it on my rails and close. If he tells me LF is dead, I'd hit him

with it. I buddy of mine hit a clerk with a Linhoff -- now who's dead?

Dean

[dan n.]

Jon, I agree with all the opinions above. Don't listen to any comments

similar to that idiot store clerk. All formats have it's own place and

use even the point&shoot, APS and digital. Using arguments favoring one

format to dowwn play the another one is a no-no. When I switch from

35mm to medium to LF, each time I though that I would sell the smaller

one and so on. Right now, I still have all the gears for 3 formats.

It's up to YOU to decide when to use which one in reference of shooting

conditions and final output. Good luck and stick to your LF. (btw, show

this thread to you father, He will understand)

[randy_shafer]

Jonny, the guy behind the counter was really trying to tell you that

he is incompetent when it comes to servicing large format customers

because they know far more about photography than he does. He

wants ignorant customers with credit cards who will swallow whatever

rediculous line he spouts to sell a camera. The only mistake you

made was in listening to the guy. There are lots of them around...

boobs with autofocus cameras and zoom lenses, and of course they are

always "experts." Perhaps that explains the rapid decline in the

quality of photography we see these days even though the optics and

film are constantly improving.