| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/31/2004 06:35:13 PM · #1 |
I know this is a digital photography site and all but I'm just curious to know if any of you folks do any shooting with a large format camera? I got the opportunity to try one the other day and it sure was fun!
Thanks in advance for indulging my curiosity :-D
Oh! and Happy New Year!!! |
|
|
|
12/31/2004 06:37:21 PM · #2 |
I can only wish. I may forgo the dSLR route and head toward the medium format in the upcoming year.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2004 06:47:17 PM · #3 |
There is still nothing as much fun as shooting large format. I loved shooting 4x5. I'm waiting on getting the gear again until I have enough space to set up my own darkroom.
Clara
|
|
|
|
12/31/2004 07:36:09 PM · #4 |
| Large format film and processing are costy. I used to shoot 4X5 and 8X10, but it got too expensive. High resolution digital is soon going to rival large format film. Top end SLR's already rival medium format film. |
|
|
|
12/31/2004 07:43:33 PM · #5 |
Sometimes I really miss 4x5. It has been at least 3 years since I have used it. I find it to be relaxing and fun to use. It forces you to take your time and make sure you get everything right before you shoot. Something I have forgotten about after digital entered my life and I could view things the second I took them.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2004 08:05:04 PM · #6 |
The end of September I was up at Mono Lake in California, and ran into a Japanese gentleman and his wife who were shooting large format. They had a whole wheel-long trunk worth of gear & supplies! And I thought I hauled a lot of stuff!
Definitely a very different mentality, very deliberate, considered, not the "shoot, shoot, and shoot some more" mentality of us digital shooters.
I will have to say that I think shooting panos in digital is comparable to wha large format shooters go through in deliberate shot planning/execution, and can rival the detail reproduced. For me, this is the path forward. I can't see going back to film, speaking only for myself.
|
|
|
|
12/31/2004 08:13:26 PM · #7 |
Yes, that film thing is quite something! LOL I almost don't know what to do with that stuff anymore.
Kirbic, are you doing any pano-stiching? If so, I would love to hear of your technique. |
|
|
|
12/31/2004 08:59:30 PM · #8 |
That was allI did for 25 years. 8x10 and 4x5, Sinar P camera. I'd go on road trips lasting 3 weeks and come back with a dozen images, each worth saving. It's a whole different mentality, very inwardly-focused. Even with my digital cam, I rarely take more than 5-6 photos per location, each carefully considered.
But it's so damned expensive now.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 12:22:57 AM · #9 |
I used to do a lot of 4x5 studio work. It is very detail oriented, and definitely not for the impatient. With large format, there's no such thing as blasting off a bunch of frames at 8fps and picking the best one. Everything has to be right before you trip the shutter.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 01:14:24 AM · #10 |
Sorry to say this but....
Film photographers will soon be as rare as Thatched roofers.
I still own a Mamiya 645 but I have not used it years simply because of the processing costs and the waiting... |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 02:08:11 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by alionic:
Film photographers will soon be as rare as Thatched roofers. |
Possibly not quite that rare. :-).
Having said that, I last shot film with an SLR about 3 years ago, (OM4ti + Zuiko glass) and about 6 years ago for my old pentax 645 medium format.
I suspect though that you're right.. In the main stream the flim shooters will become fewer, and it'll be relegated to 'art' and enthusiasts.
What about medium format digital folks? Anyone shooting with a full frame digital back on their mayima 6x4 body on here?
Cheers, Chris H.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 02:18:05 AM · #12 |
Happy new year to everybody.
May be my clients are living in last century,becos sometime they insist on large format.recently i shot a car for my client on 4X5.I never used
8X10.I am saving money to purchase one Phaseone back,Which I can use with my 4X5 and 120mm.When you have to control perspective then nothing can beat a bellow camera. |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 01:15:01 PM · #13 |
I looked at digital backs for my 4x5 when they were first coming out. Just couldn't afford $25K for one. I considered them for my RB67, but it never seemed worth the money, at the time.
I don't think fine artists will die out of the medium. There will always be those who realise it's better to take the time and get the shot right in one, without relying on PS to manipulate it right.
I doubt I'll go back to film, though I'll eventually purchase a digital SLR to use with my Nikon lenses. After I retire to Wyoming in a few years, maybe I'll buy a 4x5 back.
I just don't have the need right now. |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 02:21:57 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by alionic:
Sorry to say this but....
Film photographers will soon be as rare as Thatched roofers.
|
All I know is that when I'm finished getting stuff for my d70 I'm buying hasselblad film stuff. There are definitly a good amount of 4x5 and 6x6 users out there. Can't wait till I'm one of em too.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 03:35:30 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by swagman:
There will always be those who realise it's better to take the time and get the shot right in one, without relying on PS to manipulate it right. |
Another grand debate.. :-).
For my part, I really enjoy trying to take photos, I really don't like PS/Gimp work after the fact so I generally stay well away from editing.
If I can't capture 99% of what I thought I wanted in the camera, it's not photography to me any more....
Cheers, Chris H.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 03:47:38 PM · #16 |
Forgive me for asking an obvious question for some of you, but.........
please explain why a medium/large format is "very detail oriented, definitely not for the impatient, a very different mentality, very deliberate" compared to an SLR or dSLR.
Is the film so expensive that you are careull not to take many shots?
Will it incompass so much in the field of view that composition is more challenging?
Why?
I'm wondering what the allure of the larger formats is for some of you; it seems that the only photogs that have them are professionals. Since some of these dSLR's are now into 5 figures ($$$$$), I can't imagine that the cost would hamper the initial gear purchase for a med/lg format setup.
Thanks in advance for the insight. |
|
|
|
01/01/2005 04:08:16 PM · #17 |
It is in fact very expensive to process film from large format cameras. The attraction is that the very large negatives can contain an incredible amount of detail.
For comparison, the 11Mpx Canon 1Ds 35mm DSLR was considered to "approach medium format" in resolution and the 16.7Mpx 1DS II is definitely an equal for medium format film. The new Hasselblad medium format DSLR is 22Mpx.
Large format negatives have several times the area of medium format, so you'd need an incredible number of pixels to capture the detail that can be repoduced in a large format negative. In addition, some large format cameras have provisions for tilting or shifting the lens to make possible perspective correction.
For landscape photography, where speed is not so much a consideration, a large format camera is a great tool.
Message edited by author 2005-01-01 16:10:22.
|
|
|
|
01/01/2005 04:26:02 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by ohmark:
Originally posted by swagman:
There will always be those who realise it's better to take the time and get the shot right in one, without relying on PS to manipulate it right. |
Another grand debate.. :-).
For my part, I really enjoy trying to take photos, I really don't like PS/Gimp work after the fact so I generally stay well away from editing.
If I can't capture 99% of what I thought I wanted in the camera, it's not photography to me any more....
Cheers, Chris H. |
It should be noted that Ansel Adams did a huge amount of post processing on his photos, I kind of still regard him as a photographer. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:24:12 PM · #19 |
Scott
Define 'huge'. Adams was best known, imo, for his ability to visualise, and coordinate exposure with processing to get what he wanted on the negative. Later in his career, I believe, he had someone else do his printing.
Am I wrong, Bear?
I agree it's best to end up with a negative (file) that requires as little manipulation as possible.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:27:47 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
not the "shoot, shoot, and shoot some more" mentality of us digital shooters. |
Speak for yourself :-) |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:29:59 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
It should be noted that Ansel Adams did a huge amount of post processing on his photos, I kind of still regard him as a photographer. |
I bring that point up in all film/digital debates. Not only did AA use a lot of post-processing, but he actually pioneered a lot of it. Dodging, burning, etc etc.
In my lighting class a woman came in who is regarded as THE top retoucher in North America. She spends 90% of her time on film touchups from the world's top photographers.
You'd be kidding yourself to think great film photos aren't heavily edited.
Message edited by author 2005-01-03 14:31:11. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 02:40:41 PM · #22 |
Scott, Swagman;
Adam's "previsualization", an artistic sensibility, only became possible when he invented the "zone system", a procedure for tightly controlling the tonal range of the negative through exposure and development time.
All transmitted-light media (negatives, transparencies, computer screens) make visible a larger range of tonalities than can be reproduced in reflected-light media (usually prints). Even in prints, the range of useful "zones" in the image is variable according to the actual paper used; a glossy paper has a wider tonal range than a matte paper.
Ansel quantified the relationship between processing time and maximum density in the negative. If his desired paper was capable of expressing detail in 7 zones, and his subject, read through a spot meter, required detail over a range of 9 zones, he'd "pull" the negative at a precise time during processing to get "minus 2" processing, compacting the tonal range of the negative to match the paper.
This is possible because when processing B/W film the dark areas (thin in the negative) reach their ultimate desnity very early in the processing. The longer you process, the more the bright areas (thick in the negative) build up density. So we can push and pull negatives to expand or compress the tonal range of the image captured to match the media on which it will be output.
Photoshop is a precise analogue of this procedure; the levels histogram is a graphic depiction of where the tones of your image fall across the spectrum from pure black to pure white. If Ansel were working now, I gaurantee you he'd be working with very large mp digital imagery.
As to "post processing", I had the privilege of printing with him on several occasions, and he definitely manipulated his images in the darkroom, by dodging and burning local areas. He almost always burned in the corners of his images, for one thing; he felt that otherwise the image appeared to lighten as it neared the pure white of the matte boards when mounted. Even his contact prints from 8x10 negatives were manipulated; his contact printer used many small bulbs, and he could turn each of them on and off during the exposure, to regulate problem areas.
The man was a master printmaker; that he did relatively little manipulation in printmaking was die to the fact that he did so much manipulation in processing the film, and I consider this, basically, to be post-processing as well.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-01-03 14:44:56.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 03:36:19 PM · #23 |
Hmmmm. why shoot large format?
35mm (24 X 36mm) = 8.64 sq cm
645 (6 X 4.5cm) = 27.00 sq cm
6 X 6cm (Hasselblad) = 36.00 sq cm (less if you don't make square prints. usually actually 27 sq cm)
4 X 5 (10.6 X 12.72cm) = 134.62 sq cm
5 X 7 (12.72 X 17.78cm) = 225.80 sq cm
8 X 10 (20.32 X 25.40 cm)= 516.13 sq cm
Now, try to equate that to pixels...
ALSO, Edward Weston's philosophy was to previsualize the image so he would have very little manipulation to do. In volume II of his Daybooks, he said:
My way of working-I start with no preconceived idea... discovery excites me to focus... then rediscovery though the lens... final form of presentation seen on ground glass, the finished print previsioned complete in every detail of texture, movement, proportion, before exposure... the shutter's release automatically and finally fixes my conception, allowing no after manipulation... the ultimate end, the print, is but a duplication of all I saw and felt through the camera. |
|
|
|
01/03/2005 03:41:41 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by swagman:
Scott
Define 'huge'. Adams was best known, imo, for his ability to visualise, and coordinate exposure with processing to get what he wanted on the negative. Later in his career, I believe, he had someone else do his printing.
Am I wrong, Bear?
I agree it's best to end up with a negative (file) that requires as little manipulation as possible. |
Ansel's famous "Moonrise" shot is a perfect example of how much work he did when printing in the darkroom. Reportedly, he claimed that it was the most difficult of his negatives to print well. If you ever see a straight print of this neg, you will note that is is very very flat, a far cry from the finished prints you typically see. He used extensive burning, dodging, hot developer and other techniques. He was a master, not only of photography with the camera, but also in manipulating images in the darkroom.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2005 04:08:35 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Sailingduck:
Forgive me for asking an obvious question for some of you, but.........
please explain why a medium/large format is "very detail oriented, definitely not for the impatient, a very different mentality, very deliberate" compared to an SLR or dSLR.
Is the film so expensive that you are careull not to take many shots?
Will it incompass so much in the field of view that composition is more challenging?
Why?
I'm wondering what the allure of the larger formats is for some of you; it seems that the only photogs that have them are professionals. Since some of these dSLR's are now into 5 figures ($$$$$), I can't imagine that the cost would hamper the initial gear purchase for a med/lg format setup.
Thanks in advance for the insight. |
Large format photography is "very detail oriented, definitely not for the impatient, a very different mentality, very deliberate" compared to an SLR or dSLR because it give the photographer control over so many more things. Think about the difference between shooting in Manual mode and shooting in Program mode. It's slower because the photographer has to tell the camera what to do. Now, to that level of control add the ability to independently shift the lens and film planes vertically and horizontally and the ability to tilt and swing both of those planes about the vertical and horizontal axes. This capability adds a tremendous amount of control over the final image with the caveat being that now the photographer has just that much more to consider when shooting. Additionally, the shutter has to be cocked for each shot and the film is loaded one sheet at a time. There is no auto-focus, no auto-exposure, no auto anything. Metering is done with a hand-held meter. Focusing is done under a hood on the ground glass, looking at an upside down and reversed image, often using a loupe to exactly preview the DOF and the positioning of the focal plane.
Why would anyone want to shoot large format? Simply because it slows the photographer down and forces them to consider all of these things rather than just cracking off a bunch of shots and picking the best. The photographer is forced to consider the consequences of everything they do and to pre-visualize the results before exposure.
And yes, the film is expensive. Usually, B&W film is roughly $0.75/shot, transparency film is $2.50/shot. That's BEFORE processing.
To fully realize the benefits of LF, B&W film is usually best processed by hand. This means small batches (~5 sheets) and precise temperature/time control to optimize the contrast range of the resulting negative. Again, this gives the photographer an amazing amount of control, but at the expense of time and effort.
Take a look at Ansel Adam's books "The Camera" , "The Negative" and "The Print" for the nitty grittys.
Personally, I found LF work to be an almost meditative process. In the studio, I would often spend hours tweaking my set before exposing a single sheet. Film processing and printing was similar. Unfortunately, to pursue LF photography as a hobby and to do it the way I enjoy doing it takes too much time and money for me to fit it into my life right now.
|
|
