# MF, LF, film or digital... and do I want to go there at all?



## Iron Flatline (Jun 17, 2008)

Hi all.

I need to kick this around with some photographers, there is no where else to turn other than the Internet.

I want to make a major change in my photography. I am tired of street photography, which I have pursued for years. I will never abandon it, esp. when traveling, but I really go out and shoot people because it is easy for me. I grab one of my digital Rangefinders, and ride public transportation for a few hours. It's fun, and gets me out of the office. I like people and food stands and cities, it's where I spend my life. 

But I'm bored by it.

What next?

Well, I have always admired the very large format prints of certain photographers. I love what Andreas Gursky does (who doesn't?!), Edward Burtynsky (The Ship-breaking, for instance), and especially Hans-Christian Schink. 

So, I want to do _that_. Somehow I am attracted to the mechanical and deliberate process of shooting industrial landscapes. I know I'm not re-inventing the wheel of creativity, but this is a personal journey, I'm not earning a living as a creative artist. 

Ok, so what do I do equipment-wise? I want as much sharpness as possible for large prints, and maximum Depth-of-Field. And I want maximum resolution.  

I have two high-end cameras, but I'm not convinced they're up to the task - the Canon 5D, and the Leica M8. The Canon has a bigger sensor, and the Leica has very sharp lenses. 

I bought a book called Medium and Large Format Photography, but I'm not learning as much from it as I would like. It bills itself as a guide to moving up from 35mm format for better pictures, but it doesn't provide enough help. It's more like a gear-head book (and believe me, I enjoy that kind of equipment pr0n) but I can't really get my head around how each camera works.

Also, and this is the most important part, I am unsure about work-flow. Let's for a moment assume that I can afford anything, do I want to work with digital backs? Or do I want to shoot film and then scan? I have become pretty reliant on the digital process - meaning histograms, and ability to see the shot. Without Polaroid I'm wary of working with film. But I'm not sure if digital can match the high quality of a large(r) negative. I read that most of the photographers I admire shoot film, scan and then print digitally.

...and finally, do I even need to go to a larger format? I own some Canon L lenses, and some Leica R lenses that mount to the EOS. The 1Ds Mk III has a lovely sensor (with LiveView for real easy shot-composition) and that might be good enough for now...

I do seem to have an unhealthy crush on the Linhof  M 679 cc... 

I will be in LA for the summer with nothing to do, so I am going to take some courses. I thought I was going to focus on lighting and studio work, but I think this might be a more interesting direction to take. 

A teacher I took a class with (Architectural Photography with Doug Hill) shoots with a Hasselblad and a P39 back into a laptop with Capture One... I might start there by asking him for lessons.

So - how do I move to a larger format? Is it even worth it? How do I get my feet wet? I am hoping to get a discussion going here, I'm not even sure what to ask yet.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 17, 2008)

Where to begin? It's such a personal thing, especially when it's all about what drives you personally rather than commercially.

Of course you could get an MP or an R6.2, and use film (that comment is only partly tongue-in-cheek).

Let's just suppose that you decide to move up to large format. It looks like you want to use colour, whether exclusively or not. That makes some formats more attractive than others. You also would like to be able to use instant film to check things, learn things. Fuji 4x5 pack film is still in production in both B&W and colour, and the backs are easy to get*.

That suggests 4x5. Nice small cameras.

You mention a Linhof M 679. Some people like the 6x9 size of camera. Personally I prefer the extra versatility that 4x5 offers. There's a good article on 6x9 cameras in an issue of Magnachrom, though I think it downplays the disadvantages a little.

You might like the compact Arca Swiss '6x9' small front standard / 4x5 rear standard combo with a Linhof lens board adapter, so that when you buy your ebony Ebony or maple Chamonix you can switch lenses easily.

Maybe next time you are in New York you should drop round, play with some cameras, try some decent lenses and shoot some film. I probably have the kind of cameras, lenses, roll film backs and other impedimenta that you would want, and I could scan your film on an Imacon 949 or Screen Cezanne to give you a feel for the sort of quality you could achieve. You could do a side-by-side with your Canon/Leica-R combo.

Enough for now. More later no doubt.

Good luck,
Helen

Edit: I decided to remove nitty-gritty reference material to notes.
*The relevant backs are the Fuji PA-45 and Polaroid 550 _only_. They are fairly easy to get, though not cheaply (around $200 now. A $200 cheap second-hand plastic box, for crying out loud. They less than that new from B&H if you can get them). 

The Polaroid 545 series are much cheaper ($1 if they come with a large cup of coffee) because Polaroid doesn't make film for them any more, and both Ilford and Fuji have stated that they will not start to make that kind of 4x5 instant film (sheet film, not pack film). The Fuji 4x5 pack film is suffixed with '45' (eg FP100C45). The Fuji films are also available in the smaller 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 pack format (eg FP100C) that fits the Fuji PA-145 or Polaroid 405 holders. These holders fit 4x5 backs, but produce a smaller image.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 17, 2008)

Oh sure, ask the easy questions!  This is something I've been working through myself (Although there's no way in hades that I could afford to actually do it).  

I was lucky enough to have for a mentor when I was in high school a very dedicated amateur photographer who had everything from a very old 8x10 view camera (brand unknown) to a full compliment of Contax and a really nice 500CM outfit.  I was able to play with all of it (under very close supervision) and really loved working with the 4x5 view camera (my allownace wouldn't stretch to 8x10 sheet film).

I've looked at Hasselblad's H series and wondered (assuming I could afford it - I can't) if I would go that route, and I think I've decided the answer is 'no'.  

Don't get me wrong, I love working with digital, but the results available with big film just can't be beat.  If you're going to go MF or LF, I'd vote to go film!


----------



## Helen B (Jun 17, 2008)

These _'should I buy a Phase One P45+ with a Linhof M679 or an Arca Swiss Orbix with Sinar film holders'_ questions come up so often on TPF that we should ask for this thread to be stickied.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 17, 2008)

I will follow this thread with interest, since part of what Ironflatline wrote, exactly describes the things going on in my head.

I certainly do not want to give up on 35 mm , but I feel the growing urge to at least try MF and/or LF for architectural and landscape photography.
 Digital is certainly out of my financial scope here, but film sounds a good start.


----------



## Steph (Jun 17, 2008)

If I were in your situation and could afford it I would buy a LF camera. I think it is ideal for landscape photography as it allows controls over depth of field and also over perspective (useful for architecture/industrial landscape).

As for workflow, call me old-fashioned, but I would shoot slides and get Cibachrome prints. I think they look beautiful.

For me photography is as much about the process of taking the picture as about the end result and I believe that you have to put much more effort when using a LF camera compared to any other smaller format (film or digital). That's one of the reasons why I would like to have a go at LF photography


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jun 17, 2008)

If you're looking to emulate the work of the photographers' quoted, then 'dive right in at the deep end' would be my advice. Get yourself a quality 10x8 field camera and take the steep learning curve.

On the plus side, ebay offers extremely good value LF kit these days. A quality camera with decent 150mm lens (35mm SLR standard 50mm equivalent) for an angle as close as possible to human visual perception (the photographers quoted are very much realists in the Becher mould), good tripod and all essential accessories.

On the down side, mistakes are expensive! Even if you process your own film (not recommended for colour) you will still be looking at around 12 a shot all told.

10x8 LF represents the absolute pinnacle of photographic accuracy as far as I'm concerned. Well worth the effort and the cost.

Although there's a lot to learn, the basic principles remain the same. The only difference is understanding camera movements and remembering to load your sheets of film the right way round. Far more effort obviously, but the results speak volumes. You can't beat the pleasure you get from a 10"x8" negative, or transparency. It's a completely different league. More effort = much more reward.

I'd suggest asking a few rental studios if they could provide a couple of hours tuition in use with LF film (forget digital for the time being. If you're going LF go for the very best quality. Digital is still a long way off) cameras. Or, ask a local pro with the gear if you can spend a bit of time with them.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 17, 2008)

TheLostPhotographer said:


> A quality camera with decent 150mm lens (35mm SLR standard 50mm equivalent) for an angle as close as possible to human visual perception...



A small point, and possibly irrelevant in the context, but don't you mean a 300 mm for 10-8?

In many ways 10-8 makes sense over 5-4 in practical ways as well as aesthetic. Contact prints are simply breathtaking and decent quality scanning can be done with a high-end consumer scanner like the Microtek M1 or Epson V-700/750. Those will let you do about a 4x enlargement with throwing the quality of 10-8 or 5-4 away.  

Best,
Helen


----------



## droyz2000 (Jun 17, 2008)

One thing to consider, and you may have done this you just might not have posted it, is where you would process you LF negatives. I know that I personally miss the darkroom. I think that when I would process film and print it I could brainstorm so much better than when I sit in front of my computer. If there were one thing that I could afford right now it would be my own darkroom. I am not say that is the answer for you but then it would allow you to take any avenue and actually print your own prints regardless of size negative. I would not go digital though. I would stay film in MF and LF.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 17, 2008)

I don't enjoy tainting my work with my inadequate words, but I'll have a go at explaining why I use large format colour film: It's the best way I know of being transparent, of presenting what I see with the most straightforward clarity, with as little as possible interposed. Hopefully the viewer will be able to connect to the scene in the same way that I did, rather than seeing interpreted brief notes on the scene.

Because of my work work I'm familiar with large format digital and I could use it for my personal work if I wished. It's nice and convenient. But it doesn't really kindle the spark like the simple process of exposing a sheet of film does. It's not a big deal, but that's how it is.

Painful BS, I know. Sorry.

Best,
Helen


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 17, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> I will follow this thread with interest, since part of what Ironflatline wrote, exactly describes the things going on in my head.
> 
> I certainly do not want to give up on 35 mm , but I feel the growing urge to at least try MF and/or LF for architectural and landscape photography.
> Digital is certainly out of my financial scope here, but film sounds a good start.



Exactly my thoughts... I have nothing substantial to add, since I am completely ignorant on this subject, but I will follow it with interest.


----------



## Alpha (Jun 17, 2008)

Maximum resolution clearly spells 4x5 or 8x10. I think 4x5 would probably be the better format for you. It also has the benefit of being able to use digital backs w/ an adapter.

And ever since Kodak stopped manufacturing Portra NC in anything larger than 10-sheet packs, color 8x10 has gotten more expensive.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 17, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Maximum resolution clearly spells 4x5 or 8x10. I think 4x5 would probably be the better format for you. It also has the benefit of being able to use digital backs w/ an adapter.



You don't always need an adapter - a Betterlight back will fit without an adapter if a Polaroid 545 will fit, because it was designed that way. You can also use it on 10-8 with a reducing back. If this is going to be a thread filled with LF information, it might as well be accurate information.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Alpha (Jun 17, 2008)

My information wasn't inaccurate, Helen. But it wasn't all-inclusive, either. Can we play nice?

I was referring to the more common digital backs with large sensors, not scanning backs, though that's certainly an option that merits its own discussion.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 17, 2008)

I'm sorry if you thought that I wasn't playing nice. I honestly thought that writing _'being able to use digital backs w/ an adapter'_ instead of the simpler and perfectly accurate _'being able to use digital backs' _implied that there was a necessity for an adapter. There's also an implication that you can't use a digital back with a 10-8. You can, and people do.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Alpha (Jun 17, 2008)

Ok, so let's run with this.

Perhaps a reducing back on an 8x10 could be a good idea. You could shoot digital, 8x10 film, 4x5 film, polaroid, or scan back. Depending on the camera it can be a bit to lug around.

It does open up some interesting possibilities though.

Consider if you had an 8x10 with a reducing back, a non-scanning digital back, and a MF body.

Now _that_ would be a dream. You could use the 8x10 to shoot 8x10 film, 4x5 film, 4x5 polaroids, or digital (the last two which you could use to proof). And upon returning to the studio, you could slap the back onto a MF body.


----------



## Alpha (Jun 17, 2008)

I haven't used any scan backs but from what I've read they seem a tad impractical in most cases. Don't all the better-light backs require that you shoot tethered?


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 17, 2008)

Thank you all for your deliberate comments. I am learning a lot, this is exactly the kind of conversation I want to be having. I will come back with a number of specific questions...



Helen B said:


> These _'should I buy a Phase One P45+ with a Linhof M679 or an Arca Swiss Orbix with Sinar film holders'_ questions come up so often on TPF that we should ask for this thread to be stickied.


Yes... yes, indeed! Clearly there is a need.


----------



## Battou (Jun 17, 2008)

I have little to ad to this but I do have a suggestion....


If you are really not sure if you want to move to a larger format you could take a look around for a nice box camera and run your self some test shots before jumping into the higherend equipment. Antique stores usually have 4x5 box cameras readilly available and periodically 6x9 dirt cheap. They would prove to be exelent trial cameras with the price and simplisity despite some possible flaws. Also prices on them are so low that shooting off a half dozen shots is not going to depriciate it, so you could always resell it when you have made your desition one way or another.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 17, 2008)

Alpha said:


> ...
> 
> Consider if you had an 8x10 with a reducing back, a non-scanning digital back, and a MF body.
> 
> Now _that_ would be a dream. ...



I have what you describe. It's not a dream. A 10-8 'dorff with a 300 mm lens, a decent tripod and a few film holders is much more desirable in many ways. Cleaner, you know.



> I haven't used any scan backs but from what I've read they seem a tad impractical in most cases. Don't all the better-light backs require that you shoot tethered?



The BetterLight (I'll get it right this time) backs are tethered to a small controller/HDD. It's not a big issue if you are using a tripod, which you are likely to be doing with a scan back. The bigger issue is the scanning of the frame over time. It works for most landscape and architecture, and still-life. The BetterLight offers very high resolution and larger format at a comparatively low price.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Alpha (Jun 17, 2008)

You're right. It does seem rather cumbersome. What can I say, I'd probably buy all three. A Blad or a Rollei 6000 series with a digi back that I could put on a 4x5 if I wanted. I'd buy the 8x10 separately.

Then again I already shoot MF and 4x5, so it's hard for me to be totally objective.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 17, 2008)

Ok, before this thread starts moving too quickly...

What is the difference between a focal-plain shutter, and a leaf shutter? Does my Leica have either? 

A few comments: 

Yes, I want to work in color. 

As far as resolution, the moment that finally blew my mind was seeing an 8x10 inch contact print, and an 8x10 foot large digital print from a scan. I've never seen so much detail. 

But what does "scan" mean in this conversation? Does the printer scan the negative, or the contact print? 

What is a scanning back?

As far as work-flow goes, no, I do not want to develop my own film, nor do I want to do my own prints in a dark room. I want to print digitally. Having said that, I would need to find a good lab as part of my workflow. Someone to develop the film, and create a digital file for me.

I don't mean to be flip about cost. I did not get to where I am by being dismissive of money. However, I am a long way from buying high-end digital backs. My assumption is that I would rent until I know exactly if I want one, and which one. The cost of renting seems reasonable to me, at least around the amount I would spend on film, development costs, and print costs - simply because I would shoot a LOT in order to ramp up the learning curve. Digital is friendly in terms of making a number of bracketed exposures.


----------



## Alpha (Jun 17, 2008)

I'll let Helen take the technical questions.

As for workflow, as she noted, you can get a good scan of a large negative out of a moderately priced scanner. One thing I have noticed with flatbeds, though, is that they tend to cut you off at particular file sizes. That is, I can't scan a 4x5 neg on a flatbed above 2400dpi because the file is too large. That said, drum scanning can get very expensive.

In terms of other workflow considerations, you will spend a lot of money trying to shoot a lot in large format film, but if you have a reliable lab, the costs will level out once you get the hang of it.


----------



## terri (Jun 17, 2008)

Helen B said:


> These _'should I buy a Phase One P45+ with a Linhof M679 or an Arca Swiss Orbix with Sinar film holders'_ questions come up so often on TPF that we should ask for this thread to be stickied.
> 
> Best,
> Helen


Please don't. We're trying to teach people to use the "search" function for just this type of repetitive issue.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jun 17, 2008)

Helen B said:


> A small point, and possibly irrelevant in the context, but don't you mean a 300 mm for 10-8?
> ...
> 
> Best,
> Helen




You're quite right. Very hot here this afternoon! Totally relevant in the context of the OP.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jun 17, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Ok, before this thread starts moving too quickly...
> 
> What is the difference between a focal-plain shutter, and a leaf shutter? Does my Leica have either?
> 
> ...




Most SLR and MF cameras use focal plane shutters (shutter mechanisms within the camera body).

Leaf shutters are sometimes incorporated into the lens mechanism (this is usually the case with LF cameras).

Not an absolute rule, but in this context it should answer your question.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 17, 2008)

Is there an equivalence chart of small-format lenses to MF and LF?

50mm = 150mm (4x5) = 300mm (8x10) ?

What are the common sizes? I know 120 roll film from my Diana of course, and know that different aspect ratios are possible...


----------



## Battou (Jun 17, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Ok, before this thread starts moving too quickly...
> 
> What is the difference between a focal-plain shutter, and a leaf shutter? Does my Leica have either?




focal-plain shutter is a shutter build directly infront of the film/sensor plain and they usually open up and down or side to side , this is the shutter mechinism in your M8, A leaf shutter opperates more like the apriture in a lens (the one I have one in my Argus C3 is like that) The more simple version commonly found on box cameras and disposable p&s cameras is little more than a leaf that moves to allow light to pass usually right behind or infront of the lens.


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jun 17, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Is there an equivalence chart of small-format lenses to MF and LF?
> 
> 50mm = 150mm (4x5) = 300mm (8x10) ?
> 
> What are the common sizes? I know 120 roll film from my Diana of course, and know that different aspect ratios are possible...




There is a simple formula that equates the distance of the lens from the focal plane....

The further the lens from the focal plane the greater the focal length of the lens....


However, particularly with LF cameras the bellows can be extended, or shortened thus changing the distance of lens to focal plane by quite some degree. So, a 'fixed length' lens could be used for a variety of purposes. They really are very flexible.

The formula to calculate lens equivalents is irrelevant to some extent, so pretty pointless using it.

You really need some 'hands practice' to understand how LF can be used. Try and find someone with a camera with front and back movements and just play around. It will all start to make sense pretty quickly.


e2a; This is worth a read:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses-primer/


----------



## Helen B (Jun 17, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Ok, before this thread starts moving too quickly...
> 
> What is the difference between a focal-plain shutter, and a leaf shutter? Does my Leica have either?



I don't think a Leica has a shutter. Shutters are only required for cameras that take pictures. Well, maybe yours has a focal plane shutter. The LF cameras with a focal plane shutter can use 'barrel' lenses easily - lenses with no shutter. The focal plane shutter (which is in the body, immediately in front of the focal plane) controls the exposure time. You can also do it with a lens cap, or hat, as long as it is a long exposure.

Most LF lenses come in a shutter - nowadays likely to be a mechanical Copal or an electronic Rollei or Schneider. This is a leaf shutter, with an iris. It is held open during focusing, then closed before the film holder is inserted and the film holder darkslide is pulled back to reveal the film surface. The lens is usually in two 'cells' - one screws into the front of the shutter, one into the back. The back of the shutter fits into a lens board, which fits into the front 'standard'. I should take some snaps later.

You can also get a leaf shutter that goes just behind the lens, and there are other options.




> But what does "scan" mean in this conversation? Does the printer scan the negative, or the contact print?
> 
> What is a scanning back?


The negative or transparency usually gets scanned in a flatbed or drum scanner. There's a gap in suitable scanner quality. The consumer scanners like the V-700, V-750 and M1 are good value for money, but they don't do LF film justice for greater than about 4x enlargement (ie 4x5 to 16x20 print, 8x10 to 32x40), in my opinion. They can do more, but then the quality may not be better than, say, MF film scanned by a Nikon 9000.

A scanning back is like a little scanner that you slide into the back of a camera. It has a 3-line (red, green and blue) 8000 pixel per line (for example) sensor that is moved across the image plane. This means that there can be problems with anything that moves. It's a way of getting very high resolution, with disadvantages. 

Pause while I take some snaps.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Jus7 A Phas3 (Jun 17, 2008)

Get a hassalblad with a 30mm lens and look through the viewfinder at waist level where everthing is upside down, it will be fun.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 17, 2008)

Jus7 A Phas3 said:


> Get a hassalblad with a 30mm lens and look through the viewfinder at waist level where everthing is upside down, it will be fun.



Upside down? Don't you mean rightside left?

Best,
Helen


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jun 17, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> --I have two high-end cameras, but I'm not convinced they're up to the task - the Canon 5D, and the Leica M8. The Canon has a bigger sensor, and the Leica has very sharp lenses---


 
I have also thought about going to MF digital. Have two nice MF film cameras one is a Hasselblad 500 that will work with Hasselblad&#8217;s smallest digital back. But by specs the 5D is a better camera and defiantly more flexible to use at half the cost.

Most of the Canon 5D reviews I&#8217;ve read say it&#8216;s as good or better that MF negative film, but not better that MF positive/slide film. That could just be marketing propaganda. 

Going to LF film you need to think about the total workflow ever thing requires more time and work that MF or 35mm


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 17, 2008)

I found this...







It's from this article.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 17, 2008)

Nice relative comparison, but it looks a little smaller (10-15%) than actual size on my screen.

Oh and I would also say that it there was a 'thread of the week' competition, this would get my nomination.


----------



## Alpha (Jun 17, 2008)

Jeff Canes said:


> I have also thought about going to MF digital. Have two nice MF film cameras one is a Hasselblad 500 that will work with Hasselblads smallest digital back. But by specs the 5D is a better camera and defiantly more flexible to use at half the cost.
> 
> Most of the Canon 5D reviews Ive read say its as good or better that MF negative film, but not better that MF positive/slide film. That could just be marketing propaganda.
> 
> Going to LF film you need to think about the total workflow ever thing requires more time and work that MF or 35mm



I haven't read any good reviews of the Imacon/Blad digital backs, and none of the people I've spoken with who shoot MF digital like them either. Leaf seems the way to go these days.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 17, 2008)

Ok, it seems my initial research is going to be about figuring out how to use 4x5 film. 

So... to loop back to the beginning: is there 4x5 Polaroid or other "instant" film available to check the shot?

Oh, and... what the heck am I looking at when composing the shot? Is it a Viewfinder? Does it have frame lines? What is Ground Glass? God knows it sounds lovely...

I will now start parsing a lot of your responses... I have been Googling my hands sore... (I know, there's a "blue" joke in there somewhere...)

Right, Italy - France Euro Cup game starts is 40 minutes. Let's hope they draw, then they both drop out.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 17, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Ok, it seems my initial research is going to be about figuring out how to use 4x5 film.
> 
> So... to loop back to the beginning: is there 4x5 Polaroid or other "instant" film available to check the shot?
> 
> ...



Romania to win surely and leave them with nothing to play for regardless.

Ground glass - basically a flat glass plate that's has the surface ground down so that it's opaque. If goes where the film holder does whilst you're composing and gives you a surface on which to view the image and focus against. Very tactile, but prone to show finger prints at a guess...


----------



## Helen B (Jun 17, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I haven't read any good reviews of the Imacon/Blad digital backs, and none of the people I've spoken with who shoot MF digital like them either. Leaf seems the way to go these days.



Phase One backs are very popular here in New York.



Iron Flatline said:


> Ok, it seems my initial research is going to be about figuring out how to use 4x5 film.
> 
> So... to loop back to the beginning: is there 4x5 Polaroid or other "instant" film available to check the shot?



Yes, see the note at the bottom of my first post in the thread.



> Oh, and... what the heck am I looking at when composing the shot? Is it a Viewfinder? Does it have frame lines? What is Ground Glass? God knows it sounds lovely...



As Chris says you usually, but not always, focus and compose on a ground glass, which shows an upside-down image. The glass is usually about the same size as the nominal format of the camera, but it may also have markings for smaller formats, such as when a roll film holder is used. It may have gridlines on it. It may be combined with a fresnel lens to improve the brightness of the image in the corners.

When you slide the film holder in, the ground glass is pushed back and the film ends up in the plane the glass used to be in.

Best,
Helen


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jun 17, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> ... to loop back to the beginning: is there 4x5 Polaroid or other "instant" film available to check the shot?...




Good to see Holland actually playing for the win!

It looks very much as though Polaroid will become a thing of the past in all but name. FujiFilm continue to make quality instant film. I'm sure others will also in future.

However, for landscape work there really isn't much point in instant film for checking shots. Good metering is all you need. Instant film is great for checking studio flash lit shots. There's little point in using instant film with landscapes. The light changes constantly. And, if you're going to be that picky, instant film really isn't up to the job.

I'd still recommend going 10"x8" from scratch. Little point in reaching for anything other than the pinnacle if you're going LF. Digital really doesn't cut the mustard at this level. It's all about recording reality in the greatest detail without consideration for economics. Different matter if you're a pro studio shooter doing commercial stuff, but you're not - you're looking for something of far greater value.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 17, 2008)

Hmmm... I will take this under advisement. I think a lot of this will be a tactile decision, and frankly based on who teaches me what, with what gear.


----------



## Alex_B (Jun 17, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Hmmm... I will take this under advisement. I think a lot of this will be a tactile decision, and frankly based on who teaches me what, with what gear.



I personally would be biased towards LF as well. 

but it is bulky in a way.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 17, 2008)

Iron, at the risk of sounding like an idiot (which isn't much of a risk as it's so easy for me to do) I'd like to suggest that you -if you haven't already- read all 5 of Ansel Adams' books.  If you are going to do this thing you might as well get off to a good start.

Also, even though 8x10 seems to be the way you're headed, you might want to look into a 4x5 with a 120/220 roll back attachment to start.  There are even a couple of Graflexs that are MF scale models.  

http://cgi.ebay.com/Graflex-120-rol...ryZ29979QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Graflex-Century...goryZ710QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The reason behind this is that there is a whole new world out there available through the tilting and shifting of the front lens.  Being able to use MF film would allow you to more readily have your shots developed and learn that much more rapidly.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 17, 2008)

Some articles I'm reading on the Luminous Landscape:

4x5 Film vs. Digital

On the Appeal of LF Cameras for an Innocent dSLR Shooter 

Is Large Format really best?

Counting Ants: Seven days with a digital View Camera


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jun 18, 2008)

Probably worth a mention on this thread is film availability.

I rate my choice of film as much as my choice of camera. Over the years I've learned what to expect from certain films in certain conditions. A quick search on the web reveals that my favourite Kodak, Fujifilm and Ilford films are still available as 10"x8" sheets, but you have to wonder how much longer they will be.

My hope is that even if Kodak and Fuji drop certain LF lines someone else will fill the remaining niché with a very similar alternative. However, that could well cost even more. Although 4x5 seems to be a more popular format today, the whole point of LF is about the ultimate quality and larger is still better. Maybe the demand for 10"x8" will outlast the demand for 4"x5"? Who knows?

Film lasts for years stored in the right conditions. If I was about to invest in a quality LF field camera I would be seriously tempted to invest in a spare fridge and several boxes of NC and VC 160, Velvia and FP4 and HP5. On the other hand, as I've already said; I think the niché market will be there to be filled forever.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 18, 2008)

It's a good point. I did mention the relationship between shooting colour and choice of format in my first reply, and it is quite a important factor. It's one of the reasons I don't shoot whole plate any more!

I'm not all that keen on crystal-ball gazing, but maybe it's worth doing now and then. Please take these musings as no more than musings. I would not expect anybody to ever make colour film of the quality that both Kodak and Fuji produce. To the best of my recollection, Ilford have stated that they have no current plans to make colour film, just as they have stated that they have no plans to make instant film to replace Polaroid sheet film.

So far, Kodak have shown slightly more willingness than Fuji to accommodate special orders of sheet film in large sizes. If Kodak make the film in sheet format (it isn't usually made from the same master rolls as smaller format roll film) there's always a chance that a collective of photographers could put a large enough order together for a non-catalogue size, but it would be a pain. This happened not so long ago for 11x14 colour neg.

Sheet film can be, and is, cut down. If 8x10 was the only size freely available from a manufacturer, then both 4x5 and 5x7 could be made with relative ease. Relative to making 8x10 or 5x7 from 4x5. 

Commercial processing is becoming an issue, even here in New York. I shoot colour neg, and up to date I have had no problems getting film processed commercially. Friends who prefer 8x10 reversal have had issues with labs faced with severely declining volume that have lead to quality problems. It's not a matter of being unavailable, but being less available. You can always do it yourself. The loss of 8x10 instant film has precipitated a faster move to digital than might otherwise have happened among a certain type of studio photographer that would have used reversal.

Best,
Helen


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jun 18, 2008)

Just posting this whilst I remember. A cost saving tip for practicing with a LF camera is to use paper rather than film. Load dark slides with paper, process at home (very easy, especially B&W) and then contact print the paper onto another piece of paper for a positive image. Worth running through a box of 10"x8" Ilford paper just to get the hang of the camera movements, focusing, bellows etc. A fraction of the cost of going straight to film.

There are sites on the web that will tell you what exposure values to use.


----------



## Alpha (Jun 18, 2008)

My learning strategy was using ortho film, which can be loaded, unloaded, and developed under red safelight. I know a lot of labs that hand-process LF film. So long as they dilute the hell out the developer, you can get great pictorial images and it's nearly impossible to over-develop. For me, this helps rule out development workflow problems at an individual lab.


----------



## Alpha (Jun 18, 2008)

Random interjection: Don't drop film off at a lab on monday morning. Sometimes they get lazy and let chemicals sit over the weekend, or don't replenish the developer properly. (at least in my experience)


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 18, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Random interjection: Don't drop film off at a lab on monday morning. Sometimes they get lazy and let chemicals sit over the weekend, or don't replenish the developer properly. (at least in my experience)


 
Ah! Don't order the Chef's fish special on a Monday...


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 18, 2008)

Ok, so I'm checking in with Helen B in NY to actually see and understand various cameras. 

In LA, a former teacher of mine will spend a few days tutoring me in shooting 4x5 digital. He's been shooting 4x5 exclusively for over thirty years, and went all digital early on. I must admit I'm torn between film and digital, but will break down the learning curve by going digital first. I already know that work-flow (RAW conversion, Photoshop for correction) but if/when I buy something it will definitely be able to accommodate a film back as well - so that will be the following step.

But who knows, tbd... I'm still all over the place. In the fantasy world that I'm still currently occupying (in which, btw, every shot is a master piece from Day One) I somehow see myself working with something featuring bellows... then again, that whole Sinar/Rollei/Leaf system seems pretty cool.

...and then again, that Ebony system Helen was talking about gets universally rave reviews...

However, it seems that no matter how cool LF is, MF is a little more stream-lined. There are more backs and film types available... 

...but this all a total assumption. I will keep reading and learning, it's still a few weeks until I actually get closer to the materials, never mind actually use anything.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 18, 2008)

...and to really confuse things, half the market seems to consider 4x5 medium-format, whereas the rest of the market considers it large-format.

Go figure...


----------



## Ben-71 (Jun 19, 2008)

Steph 
....I would buy a LF camera.
I think it is ideal for landscape photography as it allows 
controls over depth of field and also over perspective 
(useful for architecture/industrial landscape).​ 
Mike_E 
....you might want to look into a 4x5 with a 120/220 roll 
back attachment to start.
....The reason behind this is that there is a whole new world out 
there available through the tilting and shifting of the front lens. 
Being able to use MF film would allow you to more readily have 
your shots developed and learn that much more rapidly.​ 
Iron Flatline
....that whole Sinar/Rollei/Leaf system seems pretty cool.​Well, the Mamiya RZ67 Pro has the tilt & shift option 
http://www.mamiya.com/rz67-pro-iid-accessories-tilt-shift-adapter.html​ 
It is a superb pro camera system, which does everything a Hasselblad 
or a Rollie does, and then some, without Hasselblad's or Rollie's 
pompous promotion attitude and inflated prices.​ 
It's also a ~23% larger format. As a square format is rarely used, the 6x6 
is actually about 4.5x6, while the Mamiya has a full 6x7 rotating back.​ 
If I was willing to get back to the MF bulk & weight, that's what I'd have got,
without thinking twice.​


----------



## Helen B (Jun 19, 2008)

Ben,

Would that Mamiya T/S adapter work for anything but close subjects with most lenses, in particular the wide ones? It's a $1500 item, and for $1500 you can get a very good 6x9 view camera. 

Best,
Helen


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 19, 2008)

Helen B said:


> Would that Mamiya T/S adapter work for anything but close subjects with most lenses, in particular the wide ones? It's a $1500 item, and for $1500 you can get a very good 6x9 view camera.


Is your concern that the T/S from Mamiya wouldn't work for landscapes?

Helen, I've been reading up on those Arca Swiss systems... my oh my...


----------



## Helen B (Jun 19, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Is your concern that the T/S from Mamiya wouldn't work for landscapes?
> 
> Helen, I've been reading up on those Arca Swiss systems... my oh my...



Yes, that is my concern. There is a limited range of 'short barrel' lenses that will focus to infinity with the T/S adapter: the 75 mm and the 180 mm. It would be fine if the 75 mm is the widest that you would want to use, of course.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Ben-71 (Jun 20, 2008)

Ben,

Would that Mamiya T/S adapter work for anything but close 
subjects with most lenses, in particular the wide ones? 

Best,
Helen​The Mamiya T/S adapter is intended to work for architecture photography 
as well, which obviously includes WA.
I haven't used it, as for tilt/shift I used a Sinar, but this can be easily verified 
at Mamiya.

It's a $1500 item, and for $1500 you can get a very good 6x9 
view camera.​That's true of course, but then it reduces options, as it lacks the benefits 
of a hand-held, light metering, 'viewfindered', SLR Medium Format camera.
If one wants the MF to double as a fast, convenient, hand-held camera, 
much like any 35mm or dSLR, then a MF view camera is no substitute.

Best,
Ben


----------



## Helen B (Jun 20, 2008)

This is from the Mamiya web page:

_"Accepts RZ Short Barrel lenses for infinity focus: 75mm f/4.5 Short Barrel  and 180mm f/4.5 Short Barrel. Focusing at a maximum distance of 10 feet is  possible with lenses from 180mm or longer."_

That sounds like you can't get infinity focus with any lenses shorter than the 75 mm Short Barrel ($1900 from Adorama). As with the Hasselblad Flexbody, there could also be image circle issues with the standard range of lenses, particularly the wide angle ones, even if you could get infinity focus.

By putting tilt/shift on any reflex-sized body you are restricting the type of wide angle lens that you can use, because the flange focal distance is so great. You have to use retrofocus lenses - possibly strongly retrofocus. This has implications on the image quality, size of the image circle, ease of using tilt* and evenness of illumination. Only the latter is sometimes better with the retrofocus lens, the rest are likely to be worse.

A view camera does not need to use retrofocus wide angle lenses because the front standard is not held at a fixed distance from the image plane.

*Most lenses for view cameras, with the exception of telephoto lenses (true telephoto like the Schneider Apo-Tele-Xenars, not just long focus lenses) are near-symmetrical. The front and rear nodal planes are close to the lens mount, and hence can be close to the axis of rotation when tilting. This is not true for a retrofocus or telephoto lens. That's not to say that you can't use tilt, it's just a little more awkward. As Ben says, there are advantages in using a body like the RB67.

Best,
Helen


----------



## TheLostPhotographer (Jun 20, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Ok, so I'm checking in with Helen B in NY to actually see and understand various cameras...




Remember to report back and let us all know how you got on. If you get a chance to compare the Swiss Arca with anything else like a Wista field camera for example I'd be interested in reading your views.

Personally, and purely based on the photographers mentioned in your OP I wouldn't have to make a decision - I'd go straight for the LF film field camera. Not uncommon to see people shooting on location with an LF monorail, but really they're design for studio and static work. Field cameras are more flexible in this respect, although some of them have more limited movements.

I don't believe that digital can get the results required and there's something very special about a LF negative/transparency, but I fully appreciate my own personal bias towards film. Especially when it comes to fine art photography.

I'll continue to read with interest.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 20, 2008)

I've already told Iron that I can't offer an Arca Swiss - he'll have to go to B&H to feel one of those. It lies between the robustly portable convenience of my folding cameras (Ebony and now a Chamonix) and the amazing versatility of my Sinar P2, so I have passed on an Arca so far. The Arca with the small front standard and 4x5 rear standard is very attractive as a travelling camera, especially as you can get an adaptor board for Linhof boards.

Re limited movements of a field camera. The Ebony RW45E that I have has limited movements, and it suits most of my personal work because it has all the movements I need for that. The Chamonix, on the other hand, is a copy of the Phillips design and so it has a comparatively wide range of movements. Here is a link to Jack Flesher's intro to the Chamonix.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 20, 2008)

Helen was clear about that... and frankly, I don't need a lot of excuses to go to B&H. 

I am so all over the map right now that I'm not sure what direction I'm headed in. There's other forums on which I posted this question, and I'm getting a lot of info there, too.

I need to be realistic with myself. I also need to be honest. This is a hobby, and as such it needs to be fun for me. I need to keep the learning curve at a reasonable angle for me, and that invariably means I want to go toward a system that can do film as well as digital. I don't want to start with film, it's been too long, but I want the option to go there as well.  

On another forum, one photographer spoke very highly of the Sinar Hy6 system for that very reason - easy to switch the backs quickly, and great lenses. But with the Sinar I don't see the ability to work with tilts and to "get my Scheinpflug on..."

But again, I have NO IDEA so far, and am talking out of my theoretical butt. I feel like one of those 16 year old boys talking about 500 hp Italian cars, but they've never even sat in one, never mind taken it across the Alps.


----------



## Monkeyleg (Jun 21, 2008)

As an "old-timer," I find it fascinating to read the posts on this thread. I learned to use film before Polaroid was produced for professional photographers. Back then we just looked at the composition and the lighting of the set or the scene through the ground glass. When Polaroid came out with instant film for large format cameras, it was as though the earth had shifted.

Learning to shoot digital was a bit of a challenge for me, although I had the benefit of having worked extensively in Photoshop for years prior.

Still, as I said, it's fascinating as I said to read posts about transitioning from digital to film.

Transparency film is unforgiving when it comes to exposure, which is why I've almost never shot on location without using Polaroid. Even when bracketing the exposures (shooting three or four sheets at different exposures), the risk of having the shot over or under-exposed was simply too great.

Should you decide to go with film, and are concerned about the film going bad, freeze it. Film will last for years when frozen. A fellow photographer and friend of mine saved a lot of money by buying large quantities of sheet film (4x5 or 8x10) at a discount just before the film's expiration date and then freezing it.

If you decide to go with a view camera, it will take time to learn to adjust to viewing the image upside down. I've heard many art/photography instructors say that viewing an image aids in composition. Of course, those instructors were "art" instructors, and they didn't have to deal with a client on the set or on the location shoot.

Large format cameras can be had at bargain prices if you know where to look. While the field cameras have held their value, studio cameras can be had for a fraction of their original cost. I sold two 8x10 cameras that I paid over $4000 each for $800 each. A studio view camera isn't the ideal for location, as you'll have the rail jabbing you in the neck, but it's something you can become accustomed to.

As to your questions about whether to go with digital or film, there is no digital camera that can come close to the quality of 8x10 film, or even 4x5. I have transparencies that are so crisp that it almost seems you could reach your hand into them and touch the objects in the scene.

One area where digital seems to consistently fall behind compared to film is with very subtle gradients. No matter how hard I've tried, I could not get any digital camera or digital back to reproduce the gradients I created when lighting a product. The clients never noticed, but I did. I suspect that you'll notice the same if you're viewing a sky with subtle gradations in color.

Good luck with your new chosen path.


----------



## Helen B (Jun 22, 2008)

Monkeyleg said:


> As an "old-timer," I find it fascinating to read the posts on this thread. I learned to use film before Polaroid was produced for professional photographers.



That's impressive. I think that it might be worth mentioning that that happened 50 years ago this year: 4x5 Polaroid was discontinued on its 50th Anniversary.

Best,
Helen

Edit: That made me think back to when Polaroid 4x5 pack film was introduced - 1981. I had been using the sheet film for a few years, and thought about getting a pack film back to reduce costs. I kept thinking about it on-and-off until this year - in the last month I have bought two Polaroid pack film backs.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 23, 2008)

Wow, one of the first non-intimidating articles I've read...

Calumet Cadet

I'm just not clear if there's a digital back I could rent to put on the back of this thing...

EDIT: Bummer, it seems to be discontinued.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 23, 2008)

....ok, how does it work?

I set up the camera, and then I compose the shot on the ground glass. Then I remove the Ground Glass. Then I attach the film back or the digital back or polaroid or whatever...  and make the exposure.  Is that roughly how it works?


----------



## Helen B (Jun 23, 2008)

There are a few ways:

The simplest is sliding in a film holder (called a double darkslide in the UK). The ground glass is held in a spring frame that permits the holder to slide in between the camera back and the ground glass. This method works for other holders or digital backs that are thin enough and designed to fit in like a sheet film holder. Typical examples are the BetterLight digital backs, the Polaroid 545 series sheet film holders, Fuji Quickload or Kodak Readyload holders (for normal sheet film in single-sheet packets with light-tight cover), Sinar roll film backs like the Zoom 2 and possibly the Polaroid and Fuji pack film backs - but they are a bit too thick for some camera spring backs. The same holds for Grafmatic 6-shot backs and their rarer Fuji equivalent ('QuickChange')

An alternative is to remove the ground glass via and use the 'Graflok', also known as 'International' clips to hold another back, such as one that is too thick to fit in behind the spring. Because the GG has been removed, there is no limit to the thickness of the back that is attached. The Graflok system requires grooves in the sides of the film holders. Many holders that will slide in under the GG also have Graflok grooves.

There is now one other method in common use: a sliding back like the Phase One Flexadaptor. This replaces the ground glass, frame and Graflok entirely. There is a sliding frame that holds a ground glass and a back - typically a digital back. You focus and compose on the GG, then slide over the digital back.

With a digital back you can use live view on a tethered computer in place of the GG.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 23, 2008)

Are there film backs that fit on the Phase One Flexadaptor?


----------



## deanimator (Jun 23, 2008)

What you need is a beer with Hans-Christian Schink.
He´s a very realistic and modest guy...and just smiles whenever people start talking digital. He has an Arca Swiss...says "It´s good"

I´ll PM you


----------



## Helen B (Jun 23, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Are there film backs that fit on the Phase One Flexadaptor?



As far as I know the Flexadaptor will hold film backs from medium format cameras, when using the correct adaptor - Contax 645, Mamiya 645AF or Hasselblad. A complete Flexadaptor is about $3500 new, or $2500 to $3000 on eBay. Personally I would prefer to use a slide-in RFH (roll film holder) like the Sinar Zoom 2.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 23, 2008)

From a different photo forum... but he is spot on:


David A. Goldfarb said:


> You're probably at the point where it makes sense just to meet up with someone who shoots large format and have them take you through the process.


Yup, I agree... I love the internet, but this kind of learning process can only take me so far... it is time I met someone who actually does this. (Btw, that would be you first, Helen...thank you for the help - in advance!)

On a related note, this must be why there are no online med schools for surgeons...


----------



## deanimator (Jun 23, 2008)

Another advantage of LF...BIG cameras attract the birds too


----------

