In a digital world what are the "defacto" advantages of Large Format?

[tim parkin]

<p>Personally I chose Large Format because it's the optimum size to make the most of optics and film size . Any larger and diffraction/stabillity start to cause problems; any smaller and you lose in resolution and optical design becomes more difficult..<br>

4x5 is also the optimum for portability and until you can find a 200 mega pixel sensor that is guaranteed clean and amortises to £3 per shot for 200-300 shots per year I'll be using LF+Quickloads..<br>

Tim</p>

[razzledog]

<p>Kurt, what you stated sounds like the end of the world as we know it..... "Sadly, I also expect the day will come when film is unavailable and I have no other options. When that day comes, some of us will use digital for some things (even as now)..... and some of us will go back to coating wet plates in an orange tent."<br>

I think some will jump out the windows of multi storey buildings at that point........</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>"Kurt, what you stated sounds like the end of the world as we know it..... "Sadly, I also expect the day will come when film is unavailable and I have no other options."<br>

That shoudn't be for a long time. They still make vacuum tubes.</p>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>:-) yeah I have a lots of it in my stereo amplifier and it's brand new! Just one year old. I think it's a much better investment than any digi gadgets. :-) At least I hear pure clean natural sund.<br /> Anyway, who cares if film dissaperes? I do my own on glass, and again what would the digis know about it?<br /> Nothing, however those poster makers have a "digital darkroom" but still the question remain the same. What they do in the dark??:-)<br /> Shut me please! They are all artists who do fine Art! :-)</p>

[wideopeniris]

<p>The question wasnt about film per se... no one has mentioned that with LF you can get narrow depth of field. Can someone find a 30mm F0.4 lens for my aps digital camera ? - On LF I have my 210mm pentac f2.9 and my aero f2.5 178mm.<br>

Add to that the fascination your subject gets about your unique looking camera and its long history ( a 1947 speed graphic in my case) and you get a totally different experience of portraiture. The 10 minutes it takes to setup means I have time to chat with my subject and they relax because they forget about being photo'd and whether they're hair looks ok etc.<br>

Also I concentrate on my shot, taking good care of exposure and composition because I know it must be right.<br>

Regards film vs digital? Its what works for you. I scan my negs on a flat bed scanner - no enlarger or darkroom needed, but I still sit in front of the computer. On the otherhand, the scanner is capable of superb quality and resolution without spending $$$$$ and if my hard disk crashes, I have the neg for ever.<br>

Thats what makes it work for me.</p>

[ruimoraisdesousa]

<p>Hello everybody everywhere,<br>

Here in Portugal it is getting harder and harder to do Large Format photography. The last time I tried to order some 8x10 inches color transparency film from Kodak, I was told that I would need to order ten boxes (100 sheet), and that would cost me 1500 euros (plus VAT)! My question: how much would I need to charge my client for that reproduction of his painting? <br>

In black and white, the situation doesn't look better. The last 35mm Tri-X I bought (yes, I shoot a lot of formats: 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10), cost me eight (8) euros each!<br>

So I started looking for alternatives and decided to try <a href="../www.fotoimpex.de/">Fotoimpex</a> in Berlin. I ordered some 5x7 inches Adox film and some 8x10 inches Fomapan film. The quality of the service was very good, and I was very pleased with the quality of the material (They also have odd and ULF sizes!). The tonality of the negatives looks very good, with very good shadow detail and fine highlights. I can even say that I found there what I was missing in T-Max.<br>

I was specially very amazed about Fomapan: In the 80's I had tried some and found it to be crap. Now this is really another stuff, and I find the film capable of very good results (If you wish, you can see some photographs in ruimoraisdesousa.blogspot.com, under the post: My hometown seen with a 8x10 inches camera). Fotoimpex also have a lot of other interesting items for black and white film users, and I also like their Adolux ATM 49 developer.<br>

What's more: they send only one pack of film, you don't need to buy 10 boxes. Prices are also very acceptable.<br>

Guess what? Kodak won't see my money very soon again (maybe except for Tri-X and D-76, which I love), and my Gandolfi 8x10 won't be collecting dust.<br>

Give a look at their site. I think you won't regret it!<br>

Now about a digital back for LF: all this $1.000's for a digital back? Are you kidding? I struggle to survive and be able to pay the rent of my studio!... With all this crisis, I am afraid that I will have to shut the door...<br>

Besides: I do LF (and other film-formats) because I LOVE IT!<br>

Please, don't take that away from me!<br>

Have a nice time,<br>

<a href="ruimoraisdesousa.blogspot.com">Rui</a></p>

<div></div>

[robert_amsden]

<p>Digital is an abomination to every to every good photographers that make black & white prints of the highest quality. Can you even think that Saint Ansel or Edward or Brett Weston would even think about using digital if they were living today? </p>

[ruimoraisdesousa]

<p>Sorry, I saw that I didn't make the links correctly, so I try again: <a href="http://www.fotoimpex.de/">Fotoimpex</a><br>

<a href="http://ruimoraisdesousa.blogspot.com/">Rui</a></p><div></div>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>rui, your images are fantastic!</p>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>robert, I don't think that either and the digital is the gadget a toy for the masses and nothing else.</p>

[john_galuszka]

<p>Just a side comment:<br>

"But I can't switch emulsions for a different look, or ..."<br>

Actually, you can if you are shooting film, but scanning it for processing/clean-up/printing. My scanner has different built-in settings for various films. I shoot Fuji Reala, but sometimes I'll tell the scanner it is one of the Kodak films. You can get minor or major changes ... sometimes good, sometimes very bad ... with this trick.</p>

<p> </p>

[ruimoraisdesousa]

<p>Thank you very much Frank.<br>

Yes, I try...<br>

If you wish click on the link below. There are some more.<br>

Hope you enjoy.<br>

<a href="http://ruimoraisdesousa.blogspot.com/">Rui</a></p><div></div>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>The 48mp Betterlight will pretty much equal 4x5 up to 40". Beyond that, I found 4x5 film still wins out.</p>

[jnanian]

<p><em>Digital is an abomination to every to every good photographers that make black & white prints of the highest quality. Can you even think that Saint Ansel or Edward or Brett Weston would even think about using digital if they were living today?</em><br>

robert - <br /> ansel adams would have shot digital, and was very excited about new and emerging technologies</p>

[malcolmj]

<p>For me, shooting 4 x 5 is sort of like a Zen meditation. First you focus, then check the composition, then check the exposure and go back and do it all over again and when everything comes together, release the shutter.</p>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>To j nanian<br>

We all are intrested. Curriosity is the nature of mankind. But it's far from using it! :-) Specialy for artwork. Its got its place in the commercial word.</p>

[jnanian]

<p>i don't know frank ... maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong<br /> we'll never know ;)</p>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>When he made that statement there were no digital cameras! :-) But the laser printing come into the book printing industry and some of his books had been printed by this new technik. Nowadays the offset printing is very rare.<br>

Thats why one must be very careful how to use and when to use statement from others specialy when they are not along with us any longer.</p>

[jnanian]

<p>where's bill and ted? <br /> <br /> if they were here, i am sure<br /> they could help us ...<br>

after all they showed that beethoven <br /> enjoyed and played the synthesizer,<br /> and probably would have used it extensively <br /> it it existed in th e18th and 19th centuries ...<br /> <br /> <br /> and it was ... most excellent</p>

[frank_menesdorfer]

<p>We can discuss this and coming no where. The ethical part of this is the print. Every print I made is differ from one another as I feel different day by day. All of it are a unic piece of handrafted artwork. I never could make the same print from the same negative as printmaking is a happening.<br>

Now the big question is this; which one you rather buy the original Picasso or the poster of the original picasso!</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>Image quality. In B&W it isn't even close.</p>

[andy andrews]

<p>All excellent arguments for LF analog. Consider, too, that there are currently over 200 toxic compounds going into the biosphere from the manufacture of computers, digital equipment and other hig-tech hardware. Film production and development constitute less than one-seventh of this number. Also, when you change film you put in a brand new "sensor". You do not have to put up with a digital back which may have become obsolete six months after it shipped or has lost pixels or has in some way been damaged. Dust and heat are big problems with digital capture and more than one of my friends has returned to film for those reasons. This is especially true of photogs who change lenses in the field. With film, it is simple to blow out the camera interior and inspect it prior to fitting the holder. It is not practical to remove a LF or MF digital back, vacuum, swab or brush after each lens change. And then there is the cost of the large digital back. Government and commercial interests can write-off these stupendous expenditures, but it sure takes the fun out of photography for me to think I'd be paying the price of a luxury car just to avoid using film. According to Pop Photography and Eastman Kodak, fine grain reversal 35mm film is equivalent to 14-15 megapixel capture. Using this standard, a 4x5 chrome yields around 166 megapixels equivalent. Are there any digital backs of this size and, if there are, who can justify their cost?</p>

 

[razzledog]

<p>I think that having to employ a tripod....then shackle the camera to a laptop, losing the ability to shoot fast shutter speeds with moving subjects simply takes the fun out of using a 4x5 camera hand held. I spend most days cleaning dust and crud from sensors of DSLR's and think film is so much more rewarding....like swapping emulsions during a shoot, or controlling development after the fact...the older style procedure demands more of the photographer than simply photoshopping your way out of a scenario after using a digital back. Some guys have forgotten the challenge that a sheet of 4x5 emulsion offers, as well as the gratification it gives when it all comes together. There seems to be an increasing abhorrence against shooting with a sensor for some reason....why is that?<br>

I use a 5D, but only for party shots.......</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=412244">j nanian</a>, while he may have been interested in emerging technology, I think once he compared the quality of digital capture for B&W to 4x5 or 8x10, I honestly think he'd still go back to his view camera. I did.</p>

[jnanian]

<p>dave -</p>

<p>you are probably right. but then again, he might have used<br /> something like clifford ross uses, not a dslr or mf size sensor ... <br /> <br /> <br /> where's the ouija board? :)</p>

<p> </p>