Transition from Medium Format to Large Format

[neil_marcello]

 

 

Hi,<br /><br />I am looking to transition from Medium Format to Large Format photography. The work I do will be mostly in my studio. This will include photography of specific objects and dioramas that cover for example, an area of 6x6 feet with a depth of 3 feet.<br /><br />I currently use a Hasselblad 500cm, and have only used a f3.5 100mm planar C lens, A12 backs, and prism view finder. I develop my own film, both color, and black and white. The tripod I use is the Manfrotto 055XPRO3 with 498RC2 Midi Ball head.<br /><br />The images I create are for gallery shows. The largest prints I have made have been 24x24 inches, using 3rd party printing house within my area that uses a Hasselblad Flex scanner, and Epson 11880 printer.<br /><br />I wish to get an idea of the equipment I will need to achieve depth of field greater than my current setup. I looked into a Flexbody, but I have read on Photonet that there are limitations with this and will need to buy additional equipment (lenses, tripod support, etc).<br /><br />So I thought I would transition to Large Format (4x5) entry level. If someone could kindly provide some suggestions to what combination of equipment I will need for the above mentioned work, I would greatly appreciate your time and input.<br /><br />Thank you<br />Neil Marcello<br />

 

 

[Jochen_S]

<p>Sorry maybe I am getting you wrong, but: How are you going to benefit from LF at all? - You'll roughly double your focal length if you go 4x5" with the same FOV, so you'll also <em>loose</em> 2 f-stops of DOF and f64 being engraved on your scale doesn't necessarily mean your lens will shine there - diffraction...<br>

3' of DOF seem within the reach of surely f22 maybe already f16 if you are framing a 6' tall object with MF. <br>

You could change the look of your images by settling for a wider lens in LF - will that work out?</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>The first thing to know is that switching from MF to LF will lose DOF, not gain it. That's inherent in the game of moving up in format size. What you will gain is only the ability to twist the plane of DOF, which is useful in situations where a the subject runs away from the camera at an angle, for instance a view of a lawn where you want the near lawn and far lawn both in focus. However, when you use the tilts of a view camera to achieve this, things above (and below, were there such a thing) the plane of the lawn are out of focus. For instance, someone standing would have focused feet and fuzzy head.</p>

<p>Will this limitation work for you?</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>As others have said, with LF basically you can get everything sharp all over the X/Y plane (in your case the 6x6 feet) by using a camera movement, leaving you with just the depth on the Z plane (the 3 feet) to cover by stopping down. If you're using a 100mm lens on your Hasselblad, 25% longer than standard, do the same with LF - for most LF studio photographers shooting 4x5, the #1 lens choice is a 210. If you are shooting only in the studio, the weight and bulk of a monorail camera is no problem - plenty available secondhand, my favorite is a Sinar Norma. Using a monorail of course allows not only maximisation of DOF but also perspective control, always useful and in many cases essential.</p>

[neil_marcello]

<p>Hi, thanks for responding so promptly.<br>

@ Jochen Schrey, yes, you are right that there will be a loss of two stops. Using f/22 I can achieve depth of field for 3' but I have to be around 6' from the subject. Not all of the subjects benefit from being photographed at 6'. Changing the look with a slightly wider lens may work in this case. <br>

@ M. Darnton, no, the limitation would not work.<br>

@ David Bebbington, I will be shooting only in the studio with the large format. So what you have a suggested so far in conjunction to what Schrey and Darnton have suggested, helps. What make of lens do you suggest? What other equipment or entry level setup do you suggest I look into?<br>

Thank you again.<br>

Neil</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>A Schneider Symmar APO or APO L either new<br>

http://www.linhofstudio.com/products/Analogue-Lens-Schneider/?agree=1<br>

or secondhand<br>

http://www.ffordes.com/product/16100515415081<br>

would be a good choice.<br>

LF lenses seem to have been produced for decades with similar microcontrast, the Symmar XL series for digital photography possibly gets a little closer to the Zeiss/Hasselblad look but the 210 (along with virtually all LF lenses designed in the film era) has been discontinued. The ffordes lens for £299 should really be fine. I personally am familiar with Schneider and Nikkor lenses (the Nikkor W wide-field series is very good) - there are of course Rodenstock and Fujinon LF lenses and others, as well.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Using larger tanks (etc), you have to determine how many shots you desire to develope at a time. From Mod 54 to single sheet in the tray. Trays are best to be without any ridges....and you can get them from Freestyle. It helps to get trays somewhat bigger than the format you are using....for better handling.</p>

<p>If you are near a large city where they rent LF lenses, you might want to see what view you are getting with which lens....and they may allow you to determine that. For instance a 150-180mm may (or may not) give you the look that you are after vs using something close to "normal" 210mm.....and the same goes for portraiture: some folks prefer something longer like 240-250mm, while others insist on 300 or even 360mm.</p>

<p>Overall, lenses (and the look) are acquired taste. The exotics usually will cost more: APO, Zeiss, etc. If you shop around, you'll find quality lenses and in decent shape (used) will go for 250-400 each....sometimes even less if you're lucky. Nikkor, Fujinon, Schneider, Rodenstock are all v. well made optics. Hmmm, make sure they are paired with a decent and more recent shutter (Copal). You can start with a wide/normal/tele lenses (or there abouts) and slowly refine the view that you need.</p>

<p>You'll also need a loupe to check focus on the ground glass....4-6X magnification are usually enough.</p>

<p>Cameras are relatively inexpensive, well unless you decide to get a new one.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_miranda2]

<p>The folks above, all make excellent points, one more thing to consider...LF takes more time to set up, compose, focus and ultimately make the image. It goes with the territory. Equipment can be had relatively inexpensively. Glass on the other hand, still commands a relatively modest investment. A 180mm or 210mm is a good place to start, I've used a 150mm with great success for shooting food layouts. A Cambo 45FS, is what I used for years before I quit doing studio work, a very nice setup if you can locate one (500-600 bucks +/- depending on condition). There's plenty to choose from. Whether you spend a fortune or not is up to you, but I believe it always comes down to glass, get the best that you can get your hands on, from any of the big 4 (Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider). Have fun!</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>You could try using a shorter lens on your current setup 80mm or even 60mm - perspective would change significantly thou.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

Hire a high end DSLR plus high quality prime lens

and have a look at what a smaller format and an all-digital workflow can do for you. You might be

pleasantly surprised.

 

 

Going down in format size rather than up, will buy you more depth of field and/or allow a larger aperture. A larger aperture in turn gives less diffraction and better definition. At f/22 you're definitely into severe diffraction territory, with a theoretical resolution limit that turns the best of lenses into a mediocre one.

[neil_marcello]

<p>All of you have made some very good points for me to consider; very knowledgeable group of professionals I must add.<br>

It's not the end of the world for me with the current setup given some of the suggestions that might enable me to move forward (thoughts on wider lenses and digital workflow from Rodeo Joe included which I will not get into as I think there are enough in other forum posts for me to go through).<br>

Thank you all very much.<br>

Neil</p>

[bob_salomon]

Thomas, if you shoot from the same spot, at the same angle, perspective does not change at all. The field of view

changes but not the perspective. To change the perspective shoot at a different angle.

The shorter lens will increase foreshortening though.

[neil_poulsen8]

<p>I'm trying to understand, as others have asked, what's driving you towards large format? From the size of photographs that you print, are you looking for greater resolution? Or, is it movements that you need?</p>