Is LF/4x5 viable for long-term documentary project?

[drew bedo]

<p>Steve-Bob: Right . . .I do not mean to be caviler about this. I get from Adam that this project is important and significant to him. He is considering a major commitment ,in both time and money, to a process (Large Format film) which I find creatively satisfying, but can be cumbersome to manage, has a slow turn-around and is expensive on a per image basis. From this I assume that he has commitment to the project and has the resources to bring it forward. I mention that model Nikon because I have a passing knowledge of it from a friend who makes his living in commercial photography. Other DSLR models may also do the job for Adam. I am suggesting that some form of digital solution may better serve the purpose.<br>

<br>

Others here have suggested that the medium or method of image capture is less important than the image itself: That the body of work is the goal not the process. If that concept is considered valid by the OP, than considerations of cost and overall flexibility of the process may rule his decision.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

I use a Chamonix 45N2 professionally, it is no low budget toy and I would prefer it over any other 4x5 at triple the price.

But for long term documentary I would use either my Mamiya 6 or Hasselblad system, much easier in fast changing

situations and overall production costs. I would not use my D810 or D750 however because the digital journey as not

nearly as satisfying to me and the temptation to chimp is very derailing of the rhythm of my vision.

 

Use what speaks to you, not what the photo.net arm chair experts are telling you, it's that simple.

[adam_kingston]

<p>Thanks all for your input, your ideas got me thinking about the best way to approach this. Daniel’s final contribution is in line with my own thoughts having struggling with this for a few weeks. The financial and time commitment people have mentioned have dissuaded me from going the LF route: my feeling is that to complete this project to the standard it deserves I would ideally have already spent a number of years with LF gear and have a well-honed workflow. So I’ve made what I think is a compromise by purchasing a GW670III from a friend, I’ll keep hold of the GSW690III and I’ve also purchased a GX680III with a wide lens and 6x7 mask. I’ll be cropping everything to 4x5 ratio as those dimensions feel most comfortable to my eye, but will use the full 6x9 frame of the GSW for another project I am working on. The heavy, unwieldy GX680 will have sufficient movements for some of the images I have in mind and for the work not requiring movements I have the relatively portable rangefinders. Some people might not agree that those clown cameras are portable but I share David Scott’s enthusiasm for them! I seem to have two very good copies as well, as I understand there’s some variance in lens performance.<br /><br />The Nikons are wonderful cameras but I find with digital it’s too easy to turn to a sort of additional approach. When I’m limited to 8 or 10 frames on a roll I work carefully and I think this approach suits my temperament, as I’m sure LF would if I felt I could make the commitment to it. I might still explore LF again, but there’s too much to lose at the moment. I’m part-funding the project at fairly considerable expense to myself so it’s fair to say that I’m nervous about getting it wrong!<br /><br />So thanks again, it was a great help.<br /><br />Adam</p>

[adam_kingston]

<p>I meant "attritional" approach not "additional".</p>

[john_kasaian4]

<p>If the OP is committed to sheet film for a long term project, buy all your film now (with the same lot numbers) and freeze it until needed.<br>

Why? Not because film is going away anytime soon but because photography emulsions are often tweaked by the manufacturers from time to time. The longer a project takes, here greater the likelihood. So if continuity is important, you can have confidence that you'll be working from same lot of film from beginning to end.<br>

My 2-cents anyway.</p>