Dean Taylor
Newbie
hello--
Please take moment to define different qualities of prints for both medium and large format photography. Said another way: is it true that for b & w prints the larger format will capture more light-bearing image--and, is preferred for that reason (owing solely to larger surface area of negative) than a medium format negative--or, does the MF negative have features particular to that format size (e.g., thinner emulsion) that LF does not?
I am venturing into LF--keh has a couple of basic 4 x5 cameras for around $200: an omega
4X5 OMEGA VIEW 45C LARGE FORMAT VIEW CAMERA BODY http://is.gd/liCTaQ
and a calumet
4X5 CALUMET 540 CHROME LARGE FORMAT VIEW CAMERA BODY http://is.gd/6yc7N6
Which appears to be the better value?
Thank you
Dean Taylor
Please take moment to define different qualities of prints for both medium and large format photography. Said another way: is it true that for b & w prints the larger format will capture more light-bearing image--and, is preferred for that reason (owing solely to larger surface area of negative) than a medium format negative--or, does the MF negative have features particular to that format size (e.g., thinner emulsion) that LF does not?
I am venturing into LF--keh has a couple of basic 4 x5 cameras for around $200: an omega
4X5 OMEGA VIEW 45C LARGE FORMAT VIEW CAMERA BODY http://is.gd/liCTaQ
and a calumet
4X5 CALUMET 540 CHROME LARGE FORMAT VIEW CAMERA BODY http://is.gd/6yc7N6
Which appears to be the better value?
Thank you
Dean Taylor
kzphoto
Well-known
The larger the capture size, the bigger your final output can become. If you like to be methodical and spend awhile planning each shot, shoot LF.
Vics
Mentor
The old-school rule of thumb was that the farther away from the camera the subject is, the bigger the piece of film y.ou need. To capture all the fine detail in that mountain way over there (and to be able to make it hold up in a 16x20 print) you want to go the biggest you can afford.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Film flatness and location are normally significantly inferior with LF, so the benefits you get in sharpnessare considerably less than in direct proportion to the format size, especially at larger apertures (f/8-f/11 or bigger). Tonality is another matter.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Vic, I've never hear it put that way, but it's intuitively sounds correct. Would it not apply for wide-angle vs narrow-angle lenses too?
Roger, is this caused by the same size of grain in both small and large format film?
In other words the higher number of "dots" (for my lack of a better word) available in larger piece of film to record the same subject yields better transition between shades of grey which we perceive as tonality?
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Will,
I think that's as good a way of putting it as any. At least, as far I as understand it. Basically, a 3x enlargement from a well-processed, well-exposed neg should look very, very like a contact print, so that's postcard off 35mm, whole-plate off 6x7 cm, 12x16 inch off 4x5 inch. At these magnifications, sharpness shouldn't be an issue.
Cheers,
R.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Dean: think about how you are going to process 4x5 film. I found shooting LF to be easy, scanning & outputting it delightful, but processing the film to be a PITA.
MaxElmar
Well-known
I've found the hardest bit being keeping everything CLEAN and dust free. "Ready-loads" were the answer to this (at least in 4x5) but they seem to be no more. Roger is very right to mention "tonality." Definitely still shooting medium format for that reason. Everything that makes Tri-X great in 35mm is even better in MF.
john_s
Well-known
For me the main reason to go from MF to LF would be camera movements for perspective and focus control.
f16sunshine
Moderator
Bob Makes an excellent point. The tank/system alone may cost you another $200 or even more (still quite inexpensive).
Worth the effort and price/space if you can get the JOBO system or at least the reel and tank to invert by hand.
I've tried the Yankee tank. It gives uneven results. To empty and fill takes an additional 30sec total which adds development time and eliminates control.
Having the JOBO again has given much more control and even results.
Unfortunately, many of us don't have a darkroom available full time making a daylight system a must have.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Good point, but the Plaubel 69W offers shifts in a 120/220 camera. Now I can't live without this camera.
Cal
healyzh
Well-known
A Paterson 3-reel tank plus a MOD54 film holder make processing 4x5 sheet film a piece of cake! http://www.mod54.com/ I bought a MOD54 last year, and am very pleased with it. I'm seriously considering purchasing one or two more, along with tanks to go with them, as I'm planning to shoot a lot more 4x5 film this year.
Zane
acheyj
Well-known
That is the problem Roger with this obsession with this modern film stuff, the only way forward is to stick with tried and true glass plate. Film will never last its just a passing fad.
ron
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Zane: that looks like an ingenious device. It may get me back to shooting LR again. Thanks for the recommendation.
Steve M.
Mentor
Dean,
neither of the cameras you linked are cameras you're going to want to carry anywhere. Keep that in mind. You'd be better off w/ a Graflex w/ a good lens. The 127 Ektar is very good and affordable. You don't get a lot of movements, but it's real sharp.
Keep in mind that in general, 35mm and medium format lenses are optimized for sharpness, while LF is more about coverage. A Leica neg is going to be very sharp, but you can't get a lot of enlargement out of it.
neither of the cameras you linked are cameras you're going to want to carry anywhere. Keep that in mind. You'd be better off w/ a Graflex w/ a good lens. The 127 Ektar is very good and affordable. You don't get a lot of movements, but it's real sharp.
Keep in mind that in general, 35mm and medium format lenses are optimized for sharpness, while LF is more about coverage. A Leica neg is going to be very sharp, but you can't get a lot of enlargement out of it.
Frontman
Well-known
I like LF, and I use a Graflex Super Grafic, which has a full range of movements, yet is easy to carry and set up. It has a built in rangefinder, so I can be used to take quick shots hand held if needed. The Graflex Grafmatic film back hold six sheets of film, and they keep the film quite flat.
As for processing, I use a Jobo 2500 series tank, with a reel which can hold six 4x5 negatives. I got the tank and reel on eBay for less than $50. Film is not especially cheap, but developing black and white is simple and inexpensive. Color is costly, I have to pay 4000 yen or so to develop 10 sheets of Portra at the lab.
As for processing, I use a Jobo 2500 series tank, with a reel which can hold six 4x5 negatives. I got the tank and reel on eBay for less than $50. Film is not especially cheap, but developing black and white is simple and inexpensive. Color is costly, I have to pay 4000 yen or so to develop 10 sheets of Portra at the lab.
sykotec
Well-known
+1 to this, definitely. I think I can live with 'just one MOD54 holder, and it's nice to have the 6:6 sheet ratio between a Grafmatic and the Mod54 bit.
benlees
Well-known
That thing looks great. I wish I had known about that a couple of years a go. Saying that, the taco method works very well for me. And doing two at a time (one film holder equals similar exposures, for me) is ideal for a slow mover such as myself. The price is a little dear for the MOD but I may order one.
Austerby
Well-known
My MOD54 arrived this morning, so I've not used it in practice. I've used the taco method before but decided something a little more structured would be useful. I only have a 5x4 Harman Titan pinhole which is surprisingly sharp, though not in comparison with a Leica or Hasselblad of course, so for me it's more about tonal range and long exposures with large format than the detail.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Ron,
Absolutely! And these silly little formats! Everyone knows that REAL photographers shoot whole-plate, with half-plate for the financially challenged.
Cheers,
R.