full frame digital or 4x5 photography

[paul_wrobel]

<p>"<em>Even processing your own, you're looking at a $3-5 dollars per sheet (one exposure).</em> "</p>

<p>I must be doing something wrong because it costs me less than $1 dollar per sheet.</p>

<p>The bottom line is if you want to give large format photography a try then you should but don't let costs get you down because the most expensive part will be the camera and lens. Film is cheap (I pay $0.48 per sheet) and not only are chemicals cheap, you don't have to use fresh chemicals for each sheet you process. You could buy some Diafine for under $15 dollars and it will last you well over a year and process hundreds of sheets. The other materials are affordable and can be found for practically nothing on the used market nowadays due to everyone going digital.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>You may also consider a 6x7 SLR like an RZ67 where the portability and convenience would be better than 4x5 and also have the advantage of affordable quality scanners like the Coolscan 9000.</p>

<p>Either way you go trying film you are in for a treat. Even 35mm as Bruce points out.</p>

<p>http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/Photography/Beach/8072306_QeWRb#526048069_KAsR3-X3-LB</p>

<div></div>

[steve_crist]

<p>I shoot with a 1D3 and a 1DS3. Years ago I used to shoot 6x7 and 645 - never 4x5 sheet film however. I have nothing against 4x5 or even medium format for that matter. But to me film today makes no sense as I can get whatever results I need with digital. My 1D3 gets good results up to 20x24 with no problems. I took it to the Grand Canyon earlier this year with a couple 8 gig cards loaded in each slot. This gave me over 800 RAW images. Try packing 800 sheets of 4x5 film for a similar shoot. The 1D3 also handles action like no 4x5 ever will. The 1DS3 will handle larger prints with ease. For me the larger issue is the ease of "getting the shot" vs the format size. 4x5 might work well on static subjects like landscapes or portraits but otherwise digital is much easier and far cheaper. Ask that salesman to grab a 4x5 and you take your 1D3 and both go out on a drizzly day and shoot a soccer game, a few baby portraits, then a night event, and finally a "no-flash" indoor wedding. See who comes back with the goods. Then ask him to re-touch about 100 negatives while you buzz your shots though Photoshop in an hour or so. </p>

[rustys pics]

<p><em>"There are, of course,many advantages to digital such as no wet darkroom, no chemical pollution of the earth".</em><br>

This is an often repeated myth that I must set straight. The production and manufacture of Silicon chips, not to mention their eventual disposal is one of the most toxic and polluting industries on the planet! Most chemical film and print processing is heavily regulated and as clean as it can be made. <br>

But back onto the original post. Sure, 4x5 will give you ultimate image quality, but it's a totally different way of working than using a 35mm or digital SLR. It's more likely you'll have an SLR with you and ready to shoot. I'd say if you want to get something in between the image quality of 4x5 sheet film, and the handiness of an SLR, get a medium format film camera.</p>

 

[sd_woods]

<p>Serious photography is shown in the images, or not as the case may be. If that Mark III is doing the trick for you, stick with it.</p>

[ronald_olsen]

<p>I think that the answers here are very sensible, but I can't help but be curious about what sort of responses people would give if this was posted on the Large Format page instead of one dedicated to a digital camera.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>... when you want to get serius about photography star using 4x5 film cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh that's just silly in so many, many ways.</p>

[macmoss]

<p>If you want to "get serious about photography", of course it has much more to do with developing your knowledge and ability than with what kind of equipment you use!<br /><br />Having said that, I love LF but use digital for the overwhelming majority of my work. Yes, they are completely different worlds, and yes, you can learn a lot by mastering both. I think of LF as the last refuge of film, an opinion many would choose to disagree with, and that's fine.<br /><br />Perhaps I skimmed this thread too quickly, but it's also worth mentioning that, whether digital or film, there is no substitute for increasing the size of the film OR digital sensor. So full frame digital will almost always yield substantially better quality than APS, and medium format digital is yet another leap- if you can afford it. Medium format digital, combined with the latest advances in Photoshop, is an excellent alternative to LF film.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Bottom line: The notion that "serious" photography requires the use of any particular format is nonsense. Again, all you have to do is look at the range of photographers past and present whose work you might acknowledge to be serious... and you'll find that they used and use a wide variety of equipment.</p>

<p>The statement from the salesman is nonsense and/or naive.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>What problem are you trying to solve - DSLR pictures are real.<br>

If you want a wider angle move to a full frame body<br>

If you want full motion go 4x5 (TS lenses are a limited alternative or Fuji GX680 and some Rollei bodies offer a lot more front movement)<br>

If you want to slow down and become very deliberate buy a cheap MF or old film body and prime lens (try goin out with just a single prime on your DSLR this will make you work harder for shots)<br>

I shoot lots of MF and have two systems (one the Fuji GX680 weights about 20 lbs if I take a few lenses). The big difference between film and digital is the time and cost to produce an image. I find that I always take things slower with film and thus often get better results. This helps my digital photography as I can start to use it for landscapes like i use film. I might lug a 5DII and 2-3 lenses around all day without taking a shot. I suggest that you should try film photography (but perhaps start with MF before you jump into LF) but do not sell your DSLR. Think about my first question and decide what in your photography needs work - then work on that. new equipment can help but only when you clearly know what you are getting it for.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>A professional who worked in the days of chrome slide film told me this about his magazine cover sales. He said that photo editors of magazines liked to scan the medium format film on a light table. And were less excited about getting out their loupe to view the slides in 35mm. Kodachrome 35mm (25 and 64 ISO was almost grainless and could be enlarged to great sizes without loss of detail.)</p>

<p>A large medium format transparency in a Hasselblad projector was a breathtaking sight to behold, for sure. The salesman has his prejudices. What fits your budget and what you use it for is the key. Architectural Digest vs Field and Stream or Rolling Stone...The best reason I can think of to shoot large format or medium format film is that it will indeed slow you down so you are more careful and deliberate with each frame you invest in. In that, there is a kernel of value. I do wish you well and smooth sailing. Try larger format and buy a used Bronica and do some low cost personal exploration if you like.. most of us have used a variety of formats and now compromise on digital for reasons well stated above in the thoughtful comments you got. gs</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>I use my 4X5 only when a client absolutely insists. For most of my architectural work, long the absolute domain of the view camera, I now use a medium format camera with a digital back. For everything else (mostly aerial photography) I use a D3x.</p>

<p>A 4X5 is a good learning tool, and I'm glad that I've owned one. But having having done a lot of 4X5 shooting makes me <strong>really</strong> appreciate digital!</p>

 

[dan_south]

<p>Luis,</p>

<p>Your camera is fine. Keep using it and don't listen to anyone who tries to convince you otherwise. The guy in the store is a salesman, and he's probably trying to get you to BUY something. Your best strategy is (a) to keep learning and (b) to keep adding to your Canon system (lenses, flash, etc.).</p>

<p>Large format cameras (4x5, 8x10, etc.) are very specialized. It takes a lot of time and effort to learn to use one properly. They have certain advantages (mostly movements), but I have seen images from Canon DSLRs that rival the quality of a 4x5 print. (And before anyone gets the idea that I'm a "film basher," I own and use two 4x5 cameras in addition to my DSLRs.)</p>

<p>Remember, it's not the camera that makes a good photograph. It's the photographer.</p>

 

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>It's nice to see examples of output from the various media. What is a complete waste of time is comparing output in a web browser format. You have to see the output in a form that suits - I would suggest on paper is best. At the moment, there is no way a 35mm image, digital or otherwise can compare with a 4x5 shot. HOWEVER, how often do you print? There aren't many people who can print 4x5 nowadays. What some people do is to 'digitise' their film output and then work on them in the computers - I do this with medium format. But the scan process makes compromises between dpi and file size - I should imagine that a file size of a 4x5 slide at a reasonable dpi must be absolutely huge and which would mean a pc of considerable cabability. To scan a 4x5 slide at a low dpi would effectively defeat the object of taking 4x5.<br>

One advantage of 4x5 is the ability to use camera movements, which can give advantages in perspective, dof plains and such like, some of which can be spoofed in digital anyway. Another advantage with 4x5 is that the camera can be for life, where a digital camera will be upgraded every few years or so. <br>

If I had the money, I would buy a 4x5 and a darkroom to be able to deal with black and white - but that's more about having a foible than a quest to being a better photographer. The camera doesn't make the photographer, a good photographer can create good images from anything.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>The salesman should have said something like "if you ever want greater image quality or more detail in your large prints give 4x5 film a shot." But to insult all the great photographers who use formats and mediums other than 4x5 film is just plain silly.</p>

[sknowles]

<p><em>I must be doing something wrong because it costs me less than $1 dollar per sheet.</em><br>

Only if you shoot B&W and have a equipment, chemicals and space to process the film, and then don't include your time in the cost. But look at the cost of sheet film and the development at labs, it's not a cheap hobby or profession. And color is just more per sheet.</p>

[lobalobo]

<p>Without attempting to comment on the broader debate, I do want to respond to this by David Stephens: "If you're into birds, wildlife, sports, etc. a 4x5 would be foolish, not serious. For certain applications, like birding, a FF camera can be a disadvantage, due to the focal length shortening ... "</p>

<p>It can't be right that a full frame camera is a disadvantage compared to a smaller sensor "due to the focal length shortening" because the focal length <em>does not </em> shorten; the sensor is just cropped, and if one could easily enough just crop the photo rather than the sensor. Sure, if the cropped-sensor camera has greater resolution than would appear in an image cropped from a FF sensor, then there might be a loss in resolution, but that's a different point (as is difference in the viewfinder).</p>

[iwao_sakurai]

<p>Are you planning to shoot for a living? Commercial? Hobby? Artist? "Quality" aside (which will probably be surpassed by digital in more than a decade or so..) LF and ULF photography is more of a craft. Do you like to take time in building things as an Artisan ? Or are you a quick and easy/convenience as an DTP operator?<br />BTW I make my own paper negatives, costs me close to nothing. Also make my own chemistry, costs me close to nothing. LF camera is cheap, easy to repair (easy to make...). Tons of lens from lots of different makers. Camera movements! If you like new stuff some makers such as Chamonix offers extremely light and rigid designs for a great price.<br />Again very different from a high pace digital production.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Lobalobo,</p>

<p>You are right, ff cameras are at no disadvantage for bird shooting or other telephoto use. There is not a tele advantage now to using a crop camera now pixel numbers are where they are. This thread links to several examples people have posted showing it just is not true.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00R6dP</p>

[dgfassett]

<p>The industries greatest photographers did not haul around 11x14, 8x10, 5x7, or 4x5 cameras as well as the necessary truck load of support equipment only because they wanted more exercise. And why do you think that today's photographers must sell their first child to purchase digital LF digital equipment. The answer then, and the answer today is still, "bigger is better," almost always. It is understandable for a D300 guy or gal to boast about their equipments remarkable resolution and how much it cost. The boast is usually followed by the claim that it is "almost" as good ais film. Everything being equal, which everything never is, bigger is always better. But..... bigger is usually always a great deal more expensive, always more cumbersome, usually more limiting, and most importantly, usually requiring more knowledge and greater professionalism to master. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Dennis, digital is generally better than film in the same format, with the possible exception of some unusual types of shooting. In general, and in IQ terms, a digital system can roughly equal the performance of the next larger format in film. E.g. - cropped sensor DSLR can equal 35mm film, full-frame DSLR can compete with MF film, MF digital backs compete with 4 x 5 film.</p>

<p>One other reason that those folks hauled around those larger systems is that <em>at that time</em> it was necessary if one was to produce high quality images that could stand up to being printed very large. However, you can produce some very large and very high quality prints from full-frame DLSR systems today - 20" x 30" is not at all unusual and it may be possible to go a bit larger with care. With a MF digital system you can essentially print as large as you could with scanned 4x5 film.</p>

<p>But, that said, let's go back to what the OP actually wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I was in the camera store , one of the sales guys toll me , when you want to get serius about photography star using 4x5 film cameras.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is, in plain and simple terms, nonsense. Are we to believe that HCB was not a "serious" photographer? Diane Arbus not a "serious" photographer? What about Ansel Adams when he made photographs from MF and, yes, occasionally from 35mm! (Look it up.) And on and on.</p>

<p>Bigger does have the potential to produce higher image quality, but today smaller produces astonishingly good image quality in the hands of those who know how to use it.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[iwao_sakurai]

<p>The original post is just way to vague. "...to get the real pictures"? ".. to get serius about photography"?<br>

"Very high quality" is a very subjective term nowadays, who sets the standard? Go with the gear that suits your vision or client base. </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>So who is going to write the book?</p>

<p>4x5 and 617 work is still beyond practical digital manipulation, but there are a couple of digital backs that will record the 1Gb plus images. But having a computer with the horsepower to anything with them it is another thing.</p>

[stephen_hipperson]

<p>Oh, another disadvantage with a 4x5 is that you have to focus manually - from what I've seen huge swathes of digital photographers don't - although it is true to say that most 35mm viewfinders are so small it's difficult to see anyway.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>the shot you took with a 35mm camera is always going to be better than the shot you didn't take with a 4x5. i used to shoot hasselblad, but to get the best out of one of the beautiful cameras really requires a slower though out, more deliberate process. now whilst that can be enjoyable, the photography that i like to shoot doesn't lend itself to that type of style. if you think that the 4x5 may be too large to carry to certain destinations, or your photography thrives on spontanuaty, and you wind up leaving it in the car, then the small format camera will get the best pics everytime. Ansel Adams mantra was to use the biggest camera you can carry, but he was predominately a landscape photographer, and sometimes discreetness is better.</p>