Why shoot 35mm rather than 4x5?

My approach to nature photography has mainly been to document places and the creatures that call those places home. It's frankly too much subject matter to do in 4x5, and wildlife and macro subjects probably wouldn't be practical in large format either.

Although I've never concentrated on going to a place specifically to shoot just the landscape, I have lately found myself increasingly drawn to superlative landscape images, most recently this morning in a blog post by Guy Tal.

What I'm wondering is why do we go to great lengths to make a landscape photo, only to capture it in 35mm format? We want all the resolution we can get out of our 35mm gear, but wouldn't just about any image we could make be better in 4x5? Are we just being lazy? Is it an expense issue? Practicalities of weight and ease of use? What?

John, I'm sure you will receive a variety of points of view on this subject. To a certain extent there is a bit of age, era, or vintage to take into consideration too. Many had started out with the 35mm platforms and slowly progressed in size to medium format and then on to 4x5 or even larger. Yes, there are those that skipped over the smaller stuff and leaped into the larger sizes from the get go. Truthfully, I find there is no easy answers to all of your questions or what point is behind each and every one. To me, shooting large format is a completely different mind set IMO. I still shoot all three platforms and point and shoot digital too. However, landscape shooting for me only comes in one flavor these days, that being 4x5. With having progressed along the way from 35mm, 6x7cm, to 4x5 one basic item required for home processing is pretty much the same, a good scanner. So that cost is across the board no matter what the size being scanned.
Not sure about the lazy part, I think if you're into anything you will either put up with it or not.
Expense can be a really big issue from platform to platform. I can burn one heck of a lot of medium format over just one box of 4x5 these days with processing included.
Weight can be an item to think about, although I find the medium format the heaviest of the group I tote around.
As for the What? question, that is truly subjective. But die hard LF shooters find various reasons to stick with things, even when film manufactures make changes that can be real hurdles at times. The demise of both Kodak and Fuji ready or quick loads is an example. Most just adjust back to the standard loads and move on.
Not sure this was anything in response you were looking for, but here it is.

To the point (no need to get romantic or philosophical here)....too expensive, too heavy to pack for any meaningful distance, lack of real time feedback, resolution increase negligible compared to higher end DSLRs (check out some enlargements from aforementioned cameras sometime).
Did I miss anything?

Other than what John mentioned, which I think are the main reasons (convenience and lack of the digital advantages) there's another question in there....

You could as easily say with regard to 4x5, why not shoot 8x10? You want the most resolution and highest detail and image quality, right?

8x10 is $20 a shot vs $6 for 4x5.

I shoot 4x5 because I enjoy both the process and the results. No other real reason, with digital at the level it currently is.

There also also some advantages - movements, for example. Yes, you can some of it digitally via multiple shots, software and some time but there is something somewhat maliciously enjoyable about watching someone struggle with 10-30 shots so they can put it together digitally while you have moved on to your next image. Of course, payback comes in quickly evolving light There is also the argument for really big prints, but the largest I have ever gone, even for a buyer, is 16x40. Whether I'll ever have need for a 40x50 or bigger is really doubtful.

Film prints have a much different character than digital, one which I have never seen duplicated. That is not a good or bad thing. It is, after all, a different medium.

For us it boils down to necessity. Is a 4x5 necessary? In two circumstances it is: Any image where the camera movements let us achieve things not possible with a 35mm or 120. And if a greater level of detail is required in large reproduction, such as a group shot of hundreds of people that will be enlarged to the point that there just aren't enough pixels or sensors to record fine detail in individual faces. We still use our 4x5 gear for those shots, but that accounts for only about 200 frames a year.

Other than that, the landscape images we turn out with 35 are perfectly sellable in our markets. Most are smaller than 30"x40", but even with images that large we get no complaints.

8x10 is $20 a shot vs $6 for 4x5

Yeah, I realize that Dan, but the same argument applies for 4x5 versus 35mm film. I was just pointing out that the OP seemed to treat 4x5 as the ultimate in image quality. I'd think that might actually be 8x10 or larger (although there are bigger formats, at some point the lenses matter, and I don't know which large format would have the best, or if they are all pretty equal.)

David, I get your point, but I also didn't mention shooting 11x14. I just figure 4x5 is a convenient size to get at the question, and it's a format used by lots of folks relative to 8x10 shooters. I was actually hoping to hear more from 35mm shooters, but I think Hank and John pretty much got at my suspicions, which is that 35mm is good enough.

There's a small (5x7) image in my 2010 Sierra Club Engagement Calendar for the week of July 12 -- "Wildflower meadow at Paradise, Mount Ranier" by Jon Cornforth. When I saw it I said that's gotta be 4x5. It seemed to show even at that small print size. I checked out his website and saw that he shoots 35mm, so I emailed him to express my awe. He responded that the calendar image was in fact shot in 4x5.

Just this morning I was admiring my own handiwork in the form of four 24x36 prints on my wall, made from Nikon D200 captures. Hey, they look "good enough" to me. Would I really appreciate those images more if I'd got them in 4x5?

So there's this conundrum. Even in a small print, you can still see the quality of 4x5. Yet even in a big print, 35mm is "good enough."

I'm just curious how other 35mm landscape shooters think about this in relation to their own work. As for the weight issue, I don't think I buy it. Does a field 4x5 and one lens weigh much more, or require a heavier tripod, than a D700 and a 14-24mm?

John W., as I stated you would see a variety of points of view on these questions. I took each question in the literal sense of 35mm film to 4x5 film usage only.
To answer your last question about the weight perception or factual numbers, you are also correct. I personally do not find a significant weight issue with a Field 4x5 with one lens over any 35mm film camera I've ever had with a good zoom lens attached.
However, as I still use my 6x7 MF camera to this day, I find it much more portable on the tripod then I would ever find my 4x5 camera. Basically stated, if you are like many of us who move or run around with camera attached to the tripod over many vantage points, then 4x5 does not fit that category well at all IMO. It's too easy for the bellows to take a hit or get harpooned by something in the field. Just another thing to think about with your own style of shooting out there.

"What I'm wondering is why do we go to great lengths to make a landscape photo, only to capture it in 35mm format? We want all the resolution we can get out of our 35mm gear, but wouldn't just about any image we could make be better in 4x5? Are we just being lazy? Is it an expense issue? Practicalities of weight and ease of use? What?"

A view camera, regardless of film size, possesses capabilities that are not available in a small camera. The plane of focus can be placed with great precision using swings and tilts of the lensboard, and perspective can be modified using swings and tilts of the camera back. Yes, one could argue that simlar 'image modifications' can be done through the use of tilt/shift lenses, multiple exposures and adroit use of computer software. However, with a view camera, these things can be done with a single exposure on a piece of sheet film (or a digital capture LF system). Therefore, while a view camera user may take more time to make a single exposure, the fixed focal plane camera user would likely spend more time blending exposures and modifying perspective at the computer.

Would the results of either of these workflows be better than the other? I don't know. What is certain is that the results would be different; the final prints would be different. Please note that I am speaking strictly to the perspective and depth of focus of the photograph, rather than to level of detail, grain, or tonality.

An exposure captured on a large format sensor (film or digital capture) certainly contains much more information than can be achieved with the current 35mm systems. However, the realization of this information (detail) in the final print is limited by the ability (or lack of it) of the system (digital or analog) used to create the print. If one's goal is to make huge prints, then the entire system, from camera and lenses, through the printing equipment and processes, must be geared toward that end. By the same token, if one's goals are more modest, through necessity or desire, the same holds true. Although I can only print up to 13" inches wide at home; by using a 4x5, I have the information on my film so that larger prints can be made, if needed.

I started using a 4x5 in the late 70's after shooting strictly 35mm. I found that the percentage of printable negatives I made using 4x5 was greater than that of the 35mm. Why? The answer was simple: The view camera made me slow down and carefully scrutinize every step in the process from visualizing the final print, setting up the camera, exposing, developing the neg, and printing. What I discovered was that this way of doing photography was, and is, a perfect fit for my temperament and my love for the technical.

While a view camera, or other film camera, do not have 'live view', histograms, etc., I submit that by calibrating and using their entire system with care, a photographer can achieve excellent results without these adjuncts. When I look at the ground glass image, there is nothing between me and that image; no readouts, no histogram. I can scrutinize every detail. To me, this is of utmost importance, not only because I need to get it right, but because I enjoy it.

Is there some uncertainty here? Yes. Without 'live view' or a instant preview, I cannot be absolutely certain my exposure has every thing it should, and nothing it shouldn't. I will only know for sure when I see the processed film. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily. By waiting to see my processed film, my emotional attachement to the scene has faded a bit, allowing me to be very objective in my appraisal of the image. If then, upon inspection, the emotion I felt when making the shot is reaffirmed, I have succeeded in my effort.

Is using a 35mm or MF camera, as opposed to large format an act of laziness? No. Again, it comes down to personal preference and specific need. Michael Anderson, Guy Tal, Ian Plant, Marc Adamus, and others (myself included), have produced work with 35mm in locations where using a 4x5 would be nearly impossible, or downright dangerous. Hank uses formats other than LF for landscape work that must meet the needs of his business. Laziness is not part of the equation, in my opinion.

To my mind, the choice of format size, camera type, lenses, etc. boils down to what one wants to show, one's personal or professional preferences and needs, and/or logistical and financial constraints.

This has been a somwhat lengthy exposition of my views, I admit; but in the final analysis it comes down to, 'You gotta' go with what works!' If 35mm works for you, run with it. If you are in doubt, then perhaps it is time to explore other formats. Which ever direction you take, keep in mind that photography should really be nothing other than good fun!

--P

To my mind, the choice of format size, camera type, lenses, etc. boils down to what one wants to show, one's personal or professional preferences and needs, and/or logistical and financial constraints.

This has been a somwhat lengthy exposition of my views, I admit; but in the final analysis it comes down to, 'You gotta' go with what works!' If 35mm works for you, run with it. If you are in doubt, then perhaps it is time to explore other formats. Which ever direction you take, keep in mind that photography should really be nothing other than good fun!

Words to live by! Deep wisdom.

Anyone who hasn't tried a view camera can't imagine what they're missing. But there's nothing that says they can't be an effective photographer without it. And the experience will darn sure complicate their decision making about trade-offs we make for ease of use. I love 4x5, and I regret that it doesn't fit my needs better.

I am with Dan. I shoot 4x5 because I love the process and as a result, I get better results.I have a really nice digital system and I rarely use it. I find it a joy to set up a 4x5, compose on the ground and do everything manually. These same things drive many people nuts and they hate them. In today's world, the results from high end DSLR are outstanding. 4x5 does not gain you the same advantage it used to, unless movements are critical to your shooting.

It comes down to different strokes for different folks.

If it's resolution you want, then you might consider getting into stitching (TSE lenses and/or a pano head makes it easy). You can easily beat the resolution of 4x5 through stitching digital images... there's a reason Jack Dykinga has gone that route. Of course it doesn't work in every situation.

I think Harley and Dan have made the right case for going with 4x5.

Been following this interesting topic and have been wanting to write something, but it would probably be along the lines of a short novel - not too much unlike Preston's.... so I'll just go along with Harley and others. I truly enjoy the end to end process of the large format. It's not about how big I can go - biggest print I've done is 20x25 or so, it's simply the method, the process. I still have plenty of images that go in to the round file for one reason or another, but I have a good 90% keeper rate.

Anyway, as others have mentioned, use the right tool for the job, use what you need to be successful at what you do, whether it's amateur web postings, or client-hired professional work.

On a side note I still get a chuckle out of - and thanks Floris for invoking Dykinga's name. Anyone remember the Mar 2010 Outdoor Photographer Issue? go check it out. Big articles like "Shoot Like Ansel Adams: DSLRs for maximum resolution," or inside cover "Transforming Large Format" the article about Dykinga using digital. Go check it out. The cover image of the mag by Dykinga. Arca Swiss F Field Camera (4x5,) Schneider 110mm Super Symmar lens....

I just think that's too funny.

Lon

There are some good reasons to choose a small format SLR over a large format view camera, even ignoring digital vs. film discussions. Mostly, it comes down to shooting style.

An SLR gives you a spontaneity you just can't get with a view camera. Using an SLR, you can lift the camera to your eye and snap off a shot or three in a matter of seconds. With a view camera, that ain't happenin'.

Then there is the matter of lens selection. A 300mm lens on an SLR is easily usable. Add VR or IS and you can comfortably shoot without a tripod. To get a comparable angle of view with a 4x5 view camera would require a lens with a focal length over 900mm. LF lenses that long are rare birds. 4x5 view cameras with enough bellows to use a lens like that are rarer still.

Combining spontaneity and lens selection we come to zoom lenses. Slap a 28-70mm zoom on an SLR and you can shoot your scene at 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm, and back to 28mm in less than 10 seconds. To perform a similar feat in less than 10 minutes with a view camera you need to work at lightning speed because there are no zoom lenses for LF. If you decide 42.8mm is the optimum focal length for a given scene, you can do that with a zoom lens on an SLR. The LF shooter, using fixed focal length lenses, may have to settle for a suboptimal focal length or zoom with his or her feet. Zooming with your feet isn't always possible or practical. Taking three steps forward might put you 100 feet lower. Or up to your neck in water.

If spontaneity and lens selection are important elements of your shooting style, a small format SLR will meet your needs better than an LF view camera. Other folks who don't need the spontaneity and are comfortable with the range of fixed focal length lenses available for LF may be happier with the view camera.

Viva la difference.

[Sidebar: Why do we call fixed focal length lenses "prime" lenses? I've never understood that.]

I was resistent to digital when it first came out, it was only after i saw good results with digital that i picked up my first DSLR. I initially got into Digital photography becuase i wanted pics of my climbing trips, and i hadnt seen many people lug 4X5 gear up a class 4 or 5 route .
Different strokes for different folks--I admire and greatly respect 4X5 and large format film shooters, it's just not for me. I have no desire to learn a new discipline, which is by nature technical, as Preston pointed out, and i don't really enjoy the technical, just the artistic. Call it lazy--i call it being practical. Quite frankly, (with all my apologies to my 4X5 friends) i see those formats as very much a dying pursuit, and i have no desire to jump onto what i see as an inevitably sinking ship. When i bought my first DSLR, it was 6 MP, now a mere 6 years later its 21 MP. I made crystal clear 20X30 prints from my 6 MP camera. I just printed a 30X50 from my present camera that i gaurantee you has all the detail that a 4x5 shot would have had. I just saw a gallery exhibit recently by a photog friend who i knew was a 4x5 shooter. After i complimented him on the outstanding quality of the prints in the display, he confided with me that most of the large prints had actually been taken with his 8MP DSLR. I couldnt tell the difference. Does anyone really think that DSLRs will be less capable 5 years from now?? How much more capable will film cameras be? To me, the future is crystal clear, and i'm not going to fight it.

Some good thought and points in all the responses I've read here. I've tossed and turned with this very question for a lot of years, having much experience with all three formats.

Hank's point "Anyone who hasn't tried a view camera can't imagine what they're missing." is most insightful. I encourage anyone who loves outdoor photography to at least once get involved with large format 4 by 5 at some time to really get the full experience of outdoor photography. Master it inside out, all its frustration, etc., and you'll be a more seasoned photographer no matter what your main format preference eventually is.

There is no pat answer to the original question. It all depends on preferences and how we define better photography. My choice now is exclusively 35 mm digital, because of speed, sponteneity, and low cost. Still I'll never regret becoming immersed in 4 by 5 when I did.

Hank's point "Anyone who hasn't tried a view camera can't imagine what they're missing." is most insightful. I encourage anyone who loves outdoor photography to at least once get involved with large format 4 by 5 at some time to really get the full experience of outdoor photography. Master it inside out, all its frustration, etc., and you'll be a more seasoned photographer no matter what your main format preference eventually is.

Howz that? Cause it would force me to be more precise/make fewer mistakes/take more time??? I can do all of that without buying a ton of new gear. If anyone can explain to me how shooting medium/large format film will make me a better photographer, I'll be off to ebay promptly...
The only reason ive ever considered shooting 4X5/8X10 is for big prints--and as i said above, eventually that point will be moot. It almost is now with stitched images (i said almost )

Stan, I think you may have just illustrated Hank's point that "Anyone who hasn't tried a view camera can't imagine what they're missing."

Quite frankly, (with all my apologies to my 4X5 friends) i see those formats as very much a dying pursuit, and i have no desire to jump onto what i see as an inevitably sinking ship.

Dying? How so, Stan? It's a dying pursuit only if the fire is dying inside of you. All film formats will be available long after you and I are both gone, so I'm not sure what is dying about it.

I made crystal clear 20X30 prints from my 6 MP camera...I just printed a 30X50 from my present camera that i gaurantee you has all the detail that a 4x5 shot would have had.

Did you let a large format photographer examine those prints? I'm sorry to disagree with you, but you cannot make a "crystal clear" print that large from 6mp; it was only "crystal clear" to you. We all have different standards of acceptable detail and sharpness.

I don't care how you slice it, single frame to single frame, a 21mp D-SLR cannot resolve the same amount of resolution and detail that a single sheet of 4x5 can. Does your sensor provide 20 square inches of resolution?

Quite frankly, (with all my apologies to my 4X5 friends) i see those formats as very much a dying pursuit, and i have no desire to jump onto what i see as an inevitably sinking ship.

Stan, there is a very active, and growing contingent of LF photographers. While there have been some (sadly, I admit) losses in film types, and some lenses that are no longer manufactured, there is a very active market for LF equipment and a resurgence in 'traditional' wet darkroom developing and printing. A visit to APUG, the Large Format forum, and other user groups will confirm this.

I think one reason the 'Why large format?' 'Where's the huge resolution and detail they talk about?' questions arise is images from 4x5 (and larger) posted on the internet. They simply cannot hold all of the detail due to jpeg compression. In this image from Yosemite the individual ice crystals on the grasses are clearly visible on the transparency, but compression and the small image size does not allow them to resolve. Therefore, a judgement of image detail can only be reliably made by looking at a large print.

As Michael says, a 21MP image simply cannot resolve the detail inherent in a 4x5 neg. I also agree with Michael that a very large print from a 6MP file cannot be 'crystal clear'; the information required for such clarity is simply not available.

Stan, no one here is attempting to get you to switch to large format. We are only pointing out the inherent differences between the two formats, and why some of us have chosen it for our photography. As you stated, large format is not for you, and that's OK. That said, it may be worthwhile for you, and anyone else who hasn't tried it, to give it a go at some point.

--P

I'm just curious how other 35mm landscape shooters think about this in relation to their own work. As for the weight issue, I don't think I buy it. Does a field 4x5 and one lens weigh much more, or require a heavier tripod, than a D700 and a 14-24mm?

No. In fact 4X5 lenses are generally much lighter than 35mm zooms and typically comparable to standard 35mm primes.

My black rosewood Tachihara weighs about 3 pounds and a lens like a Fuji 125/5.6 on a technika board weighs maybe 8oz. I use the same tripod as I use with 35mm, a Velbon 630 with an Acratech Ultimate head. I use the same 85mm rectangular filters. What does add weight are the additional components. Spotmeter meter, darkcloth and film holders.

Someone made a point about 8X10 and even greater resolution. You could say the same of any of the ULF formats like 11X14, 8X20 or 20X24. There is a significant increase in color/tonal quality, but to get sufficient DOF, you'll often be stopped down to f45-90, at which point diffraction causes significant problems and exposure times become problematically long. A law of diminishing returns develops. 4X5 is kinda the sweet spot balance for mobile landscape photographers between film availability, weight, resolution, overall image quality. I actually think 5X7 would be a bit better, but its difficult to get film in 5X7 and much more expensive.

Weight issue: I would love for folks here to post their actual kit weights. This is one of the most cited yet often incorrect myths of LF photography.

My backcountry LF kit - the one I backpack with - weighs only 12 pounds. This is a 4x5" field camera, two lenses, light meter, tripod and ballhead, accessories, and film. Heavy? Hardly. For reference, a Canon 5DMKII with the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM weighs about 3.25 pounds.

Michael - your kit might only weigh 12 pounds... but with my kit (~12lbs I think, all inclusive) I can cover 16-400mm, continuously, while you're limited to 2 focal lengths. If you wanted to cover a similar range, you'd be in for a lot more weight I would guess.

Regarding the resolution... you can't compare digital to film except in the final print - the mechanisms of capture are simple too different (film grains vs. pixels). Just from a detail perspective, I can't say I've been blown away by the 20x30in sized 4x5 prints I've seen.. from a texture perspective however, I think they look better than most of the digital prints out there. The texture and clarity of a film print straight out of the box is much more pleasing (more organic) to my eye than digital (especially when there's significant uprezzing). It takes a lot of work to get a digital output to have a similar natural look without the digital smoothness... hardly anyone takes that extra time, and it shows. I spend at least an hour per print trying to get that organic look into my prints.

Preston is right, interest in 4x5 has actually increased over the past few years! I guess more and more people are getting into photography... and then getting interested in exploring LF. It's not going away, it's just going to get more expensive.

Michael E. Gordon wrote:
Weight issue: I would love for folks here to post their actual kit weights.

I'm leaving on a 5 day backpacking trip tomorrow morning. Here is the LF kit I'll be carrying:

Caltar 75/4.5 440g
Schneider 110/5.6 425g
Schneider 150/9 230g
Schneider 210/9 285g
Fuji 300/8.5 250g
Shen Hao PTB ~1360g
-----------------------------------
Subtotal ~2990g (~6.6lbs)

Readyload holder ~300g
80 film packets ~1780g
Pentax spotmeter ~250g
Dark cloth 227g
------------------------------------
Total ~5547g (~12.25lbs)

I added a couple of lenses and a lot more film for this trip so this is more than I usually carry. I didn't include the tripod/head because that is a constant. I'll carry the tripod regardless of what camera I'm carrying. As a spry, young lad with a mere 54 years under my belt, I don't find this load problematic.

When I was shooting 35mm film, I would carry a Nikon F100, 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, 80-400VR, and 200/4 macro lens. The total weight of the body and lenses is over 11 pounds. That doesn't include film and accessories.

As an added bonus, the LF kit packs down a lot smaller than the 35mm kit did. That means I can use a smaller, lighter backpack.

Michael E. Gordon wrote:
This is one of the most cited yet often incorrect myths of LF photography.

Indeed.

Michael - your kit might only weigh 12 pounds... but with my kit (~12lbs I think, all inclusive) I can cover 16-400mm, continuously, while you're limited to 2 focal lengths.

Although you're right, we can then argue lens qualities of LF primes versus DSLR zooms

The view camera is definitely not for every photographer. I think that folks like Jack Dynkinga and Charles Cramer who have switched to DMFB probably used 4X5 because it was expected of them. Today, I think those expectations are no longer there and there are financial motivators to switch to digital. If you make alot of exposures in a year, lab fees add up fast. As Michael mentioned there is a big growth in new large format photographers.

I just printed a 30X50 from my present camera that i gaurantee you has all the detail that a 4x5 shot would have had. I just saw a gallery exhibit recently by a photog friend who i knew was a 4x5 shooter. After i complimented him on the outstanding quality of the prints in the display, he confided with me that most of the large prints had actually been taken with his 8MP DSLR. I couldnt tell the difference.

I would guarantee otherwise. The detail from a 20-something megapixel DSLR isn't even in the same ballpark as a good 4X5 scan and it does show CLEARLY in the print even at sizes as small as 16X20. I just printed a couple 30X40 prints for a customer from 4X5. Some older 20X30 prints from my 8MP DSLR are absolutely blown out of the water for detail and clarity at half the area. The difference is easily noticeable at 6 feet and becomes even more apparent as you move closer. The source scans for those 30X40 prints - ~180 megapixels (and higher res is possible). Floris made an argument that 35mm images could be stitched to catch up to 4X5, but 4X5 scans can be stitched too, so that's really a bit of a straw man argument.

But like Preston and Lon and Harley and many others, I really shoot 4X5 because I enjoy it. I like the view camera. Like Lon, most of my prints are small, around 16X20 is my typical LF print size. I don't see it as a particularly technical instrument. The mechanical parts are very simple. Movements are not set by calculator or computer, but by human eye. It feels very organic in the hand. Alot of work goes into an LF image but its worth it to me.

I never planned to get into large format. It just sorta fell into my lap when I bought a 4X5 camera with 2 Schneider lenses and film holders at a garage sale for $100. But like Hank and others have said, if you haven't shot 4X5, you just wont understand what the fuss is about. It may not work for you, but I think every photographer should try a view camera one time, just as they should try a rangefinder some time. If you've never tried them you won't know what you're been missing it may prove to be the just-right tool for you.

Personally to Stan, I'll be more than happy to let you shoot my 4X5 sometime. I'll even scan the film for you.

There are a couple of places where 4x5 (or LF in general) translates nicely to digital is in general shooting skills. There is a simple reason why: at $5 a shot, just to see the results, you are forced to think about composition, metering and whether the scene is really worth shooting.

Taking the time to study and setup the scene means that you should, at least in theory, get the best shot you are capable of getting. When you go back to digital, some of those habits carry over.

Besides, it is a lot of fun to answer my most common questions:

Is that digital? No, but if I had more dollars than sense (cents) it could be.

Can you still buy film for that? Yep.

Is that a Leica (or Hasselblad and even once, Holga)? No, prefer cameras I can afford.

Why don't you shoot digital? Answer varies a lot, from serious (I am on vacation from shooting digital) to flippant (the government, aliens or latest arrested celeb can track my movements via the camera).

Does that camera shoot in color? When I remember to load color film.

Do you work for National Geographic? Nope, and there is no real danger of that occurring.

There is a simple reason why: at $5 a shot, just to see the results, you are forced to think about composition, metering and whether the scene is really worth shooting.

I think Stan's point is, he doesn't need to pay $5 per shot to get that. If you don't have the self restraint to simulate the experience, you can just buy a 128MB CF card (~6 exposures) and get the same effect, and it's a lot cheaper Don't get me wrong, I think it's a valuable exercise, but you don't need a LF rig to do it.

Yep, you are absolutely right.

The basic problem is actually engraving this into your shooting style. I would like to think I was a very careful, precise shooter before learning to use LF, but I know my photography took a huge step forward after shooting LF for a while. Its having the thought processes so much part of your shooting that it is no longer a thought process. Most people can't afford to have a mistake prone workflow when shooting LF.

That really shouldn't be seen as 35 mm or digital bashing. I am firmly committed to 35 mm based digital capture and that will not change. Unfortunately, after teaching a lot of photography, even to very experienced shooters, I think it is far more difficult to teach yourself the restraint and care needed when there is no real consequence for not doing so.

You're right Dan, it is very hard to learn that restraint. What actually did it for me was my night photography, where I had to commit to a single composition for a period of 2 hours... it had to be perfect, or I'd be wasting a lot of time (and even at minimum wage those 2 hours are more pricey than a sheet of film ) I now take the same amount of care in composing any image.

There's more to it than learning to work carefully. For example, how many people using a tilt/shift lens on an SLR understand what the shift movement does? I bet a lot of them don't.

Ok, OK, UNCLE, folks!
I want to reiterate, im not knocking large format, and i have played with it, would like to play a bit more.
Some folks seem to think im saying my 21 MP = 4X5. I did not say that. What i did say is that i have made prints of comparable size to 4X5 prints, and to my eye, i could not tell the difference. This does not happen with every shot, for whatever reason it only works for certain subjects under certain conditions, and it also depends on me using decent glass, MLU, a remote, a sturdy tripod etc. Everyone knows that the number of pixels doesnt mean squat to an image's clarity. If you blow up a picture of sand however (for example), due to the fractal or repetitive nature of the subject, detail is not lost in a blow up, it's simply reproduced.
I'm still convinced that film will become a relic of the past, and i have yet to hear anything to change my mind. As a musician, I've watched how the digital revolution (which in audio is about 10 years ahead of video) has squashed analog. 15 years ago, tape was still preferred because of its warm qualities, similar to the way tube amps were preferred over solid state for their warm qualities. Digital was used to edit, reproduce (like scanners used for film), but the heart of the industry was still the old way. Then, a funny thing happened: there started to surface digital replicas of those warm-n-fuzzy sounding analog devices. Eventually, no non-biased sound technician could honestly tell the difference between modeled amps and the "real thing". Slowly but surely, digital is sending analog into the history books. I predict the same thing will happen to film. It really doesnt matter if you or I am happy about that.

An interesting thread, with great points from a lot of folks. Here are some of my thoughts...

I have been using a 6x7 MF film camera since 2003. I get the film drum-scanned and can produce prints up to 22"x28" that I am happy with. This process worked well for a long time but in the past couple of years things have started going south for the following reasons.

1) I am unable to purchase film locally. There are no stores in a 25 mile radius of where I live where the film I use is sold. I therefore have to order everything on line. Not the greatest but not too bad.

2) The E6 processing labs that would give me a 1 day turn-around are all gone. Now the earliest I can get my film back is 1 week. This is starting to get annoying.

3) The place where I would go for getting my chromes drum-scanned closed down earlier this year. Now I have to pack up the film and ship it out and then wait for several weeks. This is getting to be too much.

It is becoming increasingly difficult (time, effort and cost wise) to continue working in this fashion. If I want to do a project that involves 20 finished prints, you can imagine how long this is going to take. Now consider a project involving 50 finished prints....

I am not really fond of a particular camera or a particular way of working. I consider myself an image creator and not a camera operator. I want to make photographic prints and my current film/scan based process is starting to affect that goal. The only reason I am still sticking with this approach is because I have not seen a single print so far, made with a digital camera, that meets my quality standard. Perhaps the next generation of DSLRs will be the tipping point for me. Or may be some new MF digital cameras will appear on the market that don't require me to rob a bank in order to pay it off.

In case you missed Guy's post on this subject a while back, it's worth reading.. you may find the conclusion rather surprising.

http://guytal.com/wordpress/2009/12/sujective-observations-on-print-size/

Floris: the take away point for me from Guy's article is this: "...where both formats require significant interpolation, the digital capture gives a sharper appearance despite having somewhat less detail". UNLESS printing VERY large, high resolution 4x5 scans need NO interpolation. MOST large digital prints will require interpolation.

What does it all mean? (oh no, the Double Rainbow guy!): digital and 4x5 film scans are not ideal objects of comparison.

In the end, I think it has little to do with actual prints and how good or bad they look. It has everything to do with how one prefers to work. Even if I produced prints no larger than 4x5", I would still choose the view camera. To be sure, D-SLR is fast and convenient, but an unfulfilling format for me to use.

In the end, I think it has little to do with actual prints and how good or bad they look. It has everything to do with how one prefers to work.

Couldn't agree more. And when it comes to the print, from my experience people don't buy prints for the image quality, they buy them for the emotional resonance, and that's going to be most powerful if you do your work in the medium you enjoy most.

Thanks for the good discussion here!

I will admit I've gone back and forth on this issue myself. In fact my initial impression (which I included in my newsletter some years ago) after having gotten my first DSLR and being more experienced with film at the time was that the two were "not even close". To be truthful, something in me didn't really want them to be close. But, reality has a way of prevailing over prejudice. The turning point for me was when I consciously decided to push the envelope and dedicate serious effort to understanding the differences in processing ad printing from the different formats.

Ultimately, as I responded to John on my blog (see here) the proof for me is in the print, not the pixel count. I was sufficiently impressed with what I was getting to be willing to let go of my preconceptions. I can only suggest that you stop over when in my area to see these prints in person and judge for yourself.

Guy

Great discussions between you folks. I really enjoyed it.

I used to shoot with 35mm film cameras since 1995, mainly to document my country's landscape and natural beauty. Then, I had to switch digital with the coming of the Nikon D3, in hope to continue photography without the problem/fear of film finding, processing, drum-scanning which becomes difficult day after another here in Saudi Arabia. Did I like digital? only on my computer screen but when it comes to print, I still see its look as unreal capture. WHO STOLE THE CONTRAST?

Last year, I decided to go back to film but this time with better system so I get a Pentax 67II with 4 lenses and after I complete the learning curve, and printed my first MF images, it was as if a soul come back to my images, however at the same time one of the only 2 remaining labs closed, the other one immediately doubled the price of processing, plus Fuji stopped selling films here.

Last month, I put my hand on a Sinar F2 system. It took me about 2 weeks to know about 90% of the new medium, after I ordered couple of 4x5 Velvia packets from B&H. To my surprise, learning LF was not that difficult, I depended on the internet forums to get help and find answers to my questions, and it really helped me a lot.

After I used LF and saw its results, I am dedicated to continue my photography using film and 4x5 particularly (my eye now is on the Ebony 45SU) even though I have to order those sheets from the US, & ship them back for processing and scanning. I discovered that LF truly as David Muench describes it: "the last sentence".

Mohsen, I recall when you had transitioned to digital with the excellent Nikon D3. I would say your experience is a bit different, but understandable for the reasons you pointed out for returning to film in general. Your dedication to moving to 4x5 is especially interesting with respect to all around film purchases and end processing. Although, admittedly, I think we are all almost faced with these same shipping practices in overall film usages these days. Welcome to the world of LF.

This, from Mohsen, caught my eye: "Last month, I put my hand on a Sinar F2 system. It took me about 2 weeks to know about 90% of the new medium"

I've been using 4x5 for years, and I still don't have it completely figured out! I'm glad someone has!

--P

Preston,
From what I read about LF in the past I had the impression that large format is very difficult and things such as film loading, focusing, calculating exposure and bellows compensating, depth of field placement, camera movements, Scheimpflug rule, lens mounting, working under a dark cloth to focus an upside-down image...all of these were a mystery to me but honestly when I put the Sinar in front of me in my room, and played with those movements, applying what I read from some books on LF and the net things become straight forward.

Remember, the Sinar F2 is much easier in two areas when compared to other LF camers, 1) estimating the DoF placement (using Asymmetrical tech)
2) finding the optimum aperture through its DoF scale knobs

the big problem with the Sinar is it weight which is ~ 22 kg, and for outdoor this is so difficult. I've tried it and its a great pain in the ass as you say in America.

I am afraid that moving to another brand, I will miss these two feature.

So, I think I should say I know 90% of the "basic" operation of the LF.

A Sinar that weighs 48 lbs! Sheesh! No wonder it's not a field camera! (I think you meant 2.2 Kg...still pretty weighty!)

I was only joking about not having it figured out, Mohsen. I do admit that, even today, I still manage to screw things up on occassion; like forgetting to close the shutter, forgetting to reverse a darkslide and double exposing, etc. Small stuff, but annoying. About the only time I worry about calculations is when I extend the bellows for a close-up. The rest of the time I rely upon visual inspection of the ground glass, and my experience.

Keep at it, and have fun!

--P

Very interesting topic. I would like to give my perspective from a four year 8x10 camera user. Over the years I've shot everything from point & shoot, 35mm, 645, 6x7, digital slr and 4x5. I've always been nuts in pursuing the sharpest and most detailed image and I finally found it in 8x10.

On Ebay I was able to purchase a complete Toyo 810MII field camera outfit with lense for $2,500. Cheap enough to give it a try but not break the bank. Long story short, its heavier than a dslr kit, lack of depth of field is vastly overrated especially if you are familiar with movements, in the last six months Provia 100 film has been very difficult to find, and each exposure is about $15 a shot. I have to setup and wait for the light, and I have become more selective when I press the shutter. But when everything comes together from meticulous planning....an 8x10 chrome is absolutely stunning and makes everything well worth the effort.

Last year in Denali National park I tried an experiment. I shot a 16 multi-row(really right stuff gear) 5Dmark II stitch of the mountain. Then shot a three stitch 8x10 of the same scene. My film was wet scanned by West Coast Imaging at 600MB and I get E6 processing 30 minutes from where I live in Tampa, Florida. When my computer finished putting the scans together, I viewed the 8x10 at 400%, I was clearly able to see ice hanging inside crevasses on a mountain over twenty five miles away with no sharpening applied. Although the the 5DII file was very impressive whenever I blindly present both images to fellow photographers and ask which one they prefer...100% of the time its the 8x10 without fail. An 8x10 chrome printed at 8x10, 11x 14 or larger...there's a visible texture to the print that's hard to define but noticeable. Whenever I photograph with my 8x10 I always leave knowing I that I captured my subject with one of the highest resolving instrument available on the market. There is something about the clarity, contrast, focal length perspective and detail of an 8x10 image that is noticeable and always brings joy to my soul.

The point I'm making is that the process the 8x10 view camera takes me through is not for everyone and every photographer has their own individual standards of sharpness and detail. To date I have not seen a digital print that gives me the look or detail I get from 8x10 film. I'm hoping in the near future digital gives 'me' that at an affordable price(amateur). But until then you owe it to yourself to view a print from a well made 8x10 negative. I think you will be impressed!

I think, that those who want immediacy can go two ways digital or wet-plate. For some people the creative process is "shotgun" If I get enough lead in the air I'm gonna get that bird. For others it's, stalk, set up, aim, recheck all of the conditions, aim again and hit the target ( or bird ). I threw the wet plate comment in there because their negatives are developed in the field in a portable darkroom so their feedback is fairly immediate like digital. Also there is a revival of wet plate photography, so I don't believe LF is going the way of the dinosaur anytime soon. It's all about tools and the creative process, some artists paint with large brushes versus small ones, some even splat thick layers of paint onto a canvas with a palette knife. Each technique results in art but the workflow, and the processes are really much different. The one thing though that does separate photography from painting is the results on an image are extremely similar with minute differences, in painting the type of tools used to create are easily recognized. Your going to have adherents of all and no consensus, but after all isn't that what make's life interesting.

Paul

I might as well through my two cents in. I use to have a 1DsIII and an assortment of great canon L glass. I tried the stitching route, but was not satisfied. I ran into several major limitations.

1) DIFFRACTION when using a 50mm lens to simulate a wide angle with multi-row. You cannot stop down enough to gain the necessary DOF. I found f/18 to be the best compromise, but I was diffraction limited. Even with a matrix of about 15 or 20 shots, I could not approach the resolution of a 4x5 transparency.

2) TIMING multi-row stitching is not practical for anything but constant mid-day lighting. Try using this technique for a morning or evening shot. The light changes too much between shots.

3) COMPOSITION This was the most frustrating part. I need to look through a rectangle to set a precise composition. With stitching, you need to overshoot the photo, then crop to the composition. This was very difficult for me. I hated it.

Ultimately, I found that all of these issues were solved with large format. I can use tilt and swing for DOF issues, I only need to take one shot, and the bonus was viewing the image upside down and backwards on the ground glass. If a composition looks good upside down and backwards, the composition looks even better right side up. If it looks bad upside down and backwards, it looks worse right side up. Viewing the image this way magnifies the goodness or badness of the photo.

I tried 4x5 as an experiment, and LOVED it. I enjoy the hands on approach to working with the camera. I enjoy the simplicity of the gear, and not being limited by technology. I loved it so much that I sold every piece of Canon equipment that I own. All I have is a point and shoot, and my film cameras. I have never looked back.

If I take the time to travel to a beautiful destination, I want to put in that extra effort to produce the highest quality photo possible at a given time. For me, I was right at home with 4x5 -- so much so that I wanted to give 8x10 a try.

Since most of the masters used 8x10, I figured there must be something to it. I've always had tremendous respect for photographers who lug around those cameras, and produce beautiful work with such a simple tool.

I searched around, and found a used (mint condition) Ebony wooden 8x10 camera. These modern cameras are very expensive, and I found a very good deal on one. I replicated my 4x5 lenses in the 8x10 format, and gave it a go.

It took me several months to become familiar with 8x10. The movements are much more exaggerated than 4x5. It is a beast to use, and a beast to hike with. I started with easy to expose scenes, and progressed to more and more difficult shots.

I prefer about an hour to setup the camera, but I have been as fast as 15 minutes from unpacking to shooting. My most difficult shot taken at toroweap this past May. While on the very edge of a multi-thousand foot cliff, I had to reach out over the edge of the cliff to block the sun from flaring the lens -- all while holding a cable release in one hand, and a stopwatch in the other. Somehow I managed to do all 3 things with just two hands.

I am now very confident with my ability to use the 8x10, and view it as my primary camera. It is my first choice for a given shot. However, certain shots will dictate the use of my 4x5 due to speed of setup, and the larger DOF.

Using a LF camera is a very unique experience. I am responsible for every aspect of the photo. Shooting color transparency film on an 8x10 is likely one of the most difficult things under the umbrella of photography. Everything must be planned out, and the conditions must be just right.

When shooting in the morning, I must setup the camera the day before. The ground glass is useless in the pre-dawn darkness -- especially when absolute precision is necessary for movements and focus. I love the process of working with LF. Not only do I feel as though I can walk away from a scene with the highest quality shot possible, I also feel as though I fit into a long running tradition of using these big view cameras.

Now that I am starting to market my work to various galleries (I'll be in a Laguna Beach Gallery soon), I have a very unique product. There are not many people shooting contemporary abstract landscapes on big film, and presenting them with ultra modern flush mount presentation. When I drum scan a 8x10 transparency, have it printed on Fuji Flex, and face mount it to acrylic, the result has tremendous depth -- almost 3D. Imagine the work of Peter Lik, but with far more detail. In my experience, customers definitely notice the difference. They will stand in front of a print, exploring every square inch, and know that something is different about that particular photo. Even if they are unfamiliar with large format, they seem to appreciate the difference.

One final thing -- I also enjoy the unparalleled cropping ability of 8x10. I can shoot a photo, then have it scanned as a 2GB panoramic. I can split an image into 3 pieces and print a triptych. I have never felt so free to escape the bounds of a given aspect ratio.

Sorry for the long winded response, but LF is something I'm very passionate about.

Ben, your passion comes through loud and clear in your post and that's really what it's all about. Whatever it is that gets your juices going and makes you creative and productive is what you should be using. Heck, it's even infectious. I'll expose a couple of sheets in the next few weeks in honor of this post.

Guy

As someone who constantly considers getting into the LF side of things (4X5), this has been most interesting to follow. The technical quality of 8X10 prints is stunning. I have been to the Rodney Lough Galleries in San Fran and Sausalito - really awesome.
However my impression is that it boils down to the irrational and passionate aspects - which is good! DSLRs are certainly adequate as such for landscapes and as a hobby photographer there are not technical reasons to switch. The next gen. of full frame DLSRs will most likely offer up to 25 and more MPix. By far enough for my private 30'' prints.
But of course I understand and acknowledge that operating the view camera is a reason for doing it. The fact that all the wanted technical features of the image (dof, res., perspective) can be done in just one shot is sure very satisfying. But that needs to be experienced, and is something that one only fully embraces with time. That's why I hesitate still... Not such an easy story as DSLR vs. point n shoot.

Personally, I think this difference is every bit as obvious as the difference between a DSLR and point and shoot. I think even more obvious.

Just jump in, the water's fine Dietrich. Come to the dark sLide.

You can find a used 4X5 kit so cheap these days there is no reason to hold back if you want to try it. If you don't like it, sell the kit and be done with it. You'll just be out the cost of film and development. You can use your DSLR as meter to get started.

Someone (don't mean to pick on you Stan) mentioned that you couldn't take LF climbing.

Sissy.

(I've thought of doing this myself)

Not all nature/landscape subjects benefit significantly from greater detail to bother setting up more complex and heavier camera gear. Much has to do with the intended output display or print size. For instance if the output is only to be displayed on a quality XVGA computer monitor, there really isn't much to be gained by capturing most subjects with a high end DSLR much less a LF view camera versus a quality few pixel digital camera. Likewise if output intent has a limited smaller print size. If one dismisses a limitation on output medium then a goal might be for output that approaches the human visual experience. One can easily argue that for subjects as expansive landscapes such is not reached until captured by the largest while smaller format cameras are increasingly less so.

Generally the larger a subject, the more potential there is for detail. Thus landscapes usually have more detail than closeups as viewed with an unaided human eye. In other words someone on the Grand Canyon rim looking out towards the panorama has more potential detail that might be captured than if they look down on the ground at a Indian paintbrush against sandstone. Both could be printed at 32x40 inches on fine color prints but the paintbrush would end up being magnified considerably beyond the normal visual size we see when near such flowers. The aesthetic sense of an audience is usually best served by printing small subjects sized in a way we naturally see them when near. Therefore generally landscapes potentially are better served by capture capable of more detail while smaller closeups subjects generally can be adequately captured with smaller formats. Of course there are many exceptions and that is why I stated generally. So per your question John, not all images will be better if captured in 4x5, even a digital back 4x5 though one my qualify that generally landscapes will be better if so captured.

In my own work almost all my landscapes are 4x5 and my own experience is my view camera work has been more productive and satisfying for many of the reasons voiced by others above than any of my earlier 35mm SLR and 6x7 MF work. Conversely almost of my closeups are captured with the Canon G10 as the resulting detail is large enough for usual print sizes most people expect for such subjects.

http://www.davidsenesac.com/Closeups/digi_closeups.html

Sensor pixels or film area being equal, front standard movements on a view camera have a huge advantage in many situations for capturing sharp detail where subjects are not perpendicular to ones lens position versus fixed lens cameras. Standing on the Grand Canyon rim pointing a view camera lens out to a distant panorama has no advantage except for film area, however standing on a plain of wildflowers receding off into the distance, the view camera movements are gold. Both systems may produce enjoyable modest sized prints but only the view camera is likely to produce a jaw dropping large print due to detail when viewed up close.

Guy,

I'd be honored if you shoot a few frames of 4x5 in the next few weeks after reading that post. I've always admired your work. I still need to stop by your gallery sometime when I'm in your neck of the woods.

The 35mm is very fast and flexible lending itself to many photo opportunities a 4x5 can not. Also with a high res 35mm and a top prime lens shot at its sharpest f/stop and everything done right in precessing, I believe 35mm is really inching up on 4x5 (especially when using techniques like focus bracketing for perfect DOF). I make fine art gallery prints for a living (for a variety of clients) and process LF film and 35mm raw files all day long. I used to think LF had a massive lead in resolution (and it does have a lead) but it is not always so massive these days IMO. I have some shots I have produced and sold that have fooled LF shooters (they thought the shot had to be LF). So the two are not as far apart sometimes as some might believe.

Mark, you are talking 35mm size digital cameras right? If that is the case I'm right there with you. I left large-format cameras for digital in 2005 and have never looked back. I use the Canon TS-E lenses exclusively (except for images beyond 126mm - TS-E 90mm + 1.4x). I can create images that look just as my LF stuff if I crop them to the more square format. I prefer the 35mm elongated format for landscape format (horizontal) but for portrait format (vertical) I like to crop to a 5"x7" format.

I stopped shooting my 4x5 for a couple reason, probably the main one was expense. When I come home from shooting now, I simply download my cards and I have my images, no extra costs. I love my 4x5 camera and shooting with it is an amazing experience. Someday maybe I can afford to use it again. Problem is getting those images into the computer. I guess there are good home scanners now, but I would want expensive, drum scans, so even more cost.