Ultimate Image Quality - A Warning
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มี.ค. 2024
- I hate to say it, but if a photographer wants the ultimate image quality and shoots black and white film, then large format is the only way to go. It's not for everybody, it's only for the brave and the foolish, and once you achieve this quality, it becomes very additive, could take over all your free time and wallet. So I've warned you, large format can change your life, maybe for the better but maybe not, only watch this video if you dare as large format isn't for the week of heart!!
Rob Skeoch is a career photographer, working for five newspapers and wire services before joining the team at Major League Baseball for 17 seasons and the NFL for 14 seasons. Then he was a national manager for the camera group at Sony North America before going back to shooting.
Now he shoots for gallery shows around the world, mostly street work and portraits made with a Rollei twin lens. For 35mm shooting he uses a Nikon F3 and a couple M-mount Leica cameras and shoots mostly Ilford film.
tips for shooting black and white film, HP5 FP4Pan F Ilford Zeiss ZM Distagon Summaron Biogon Leica Leica R6.2 R6.2 R6 Nikon Nikon F3 Nikon F3T Nikon FM3A Pentax Pentax LX Pentax MX Canon Canon F1 Canon New F1Minolta Minolta X-700 Olympus Olympus OM4 Olympus OM3 Olympus OM4T Olympus OM3T Contax Kodak Fiilmprocessing darkroom black and white b&w developing film at home developing black and white filmdeveloping 35mm filmdeveloping roll film loading film developing reels loading 35mm film on reel loading 35mm film loading 35mm into development tank #blackandwhitephotography, #filmphotography, #blackandwhite, #filmprocessing, #film, #bw, #ilfordhp5, #filmisnotdead, #blackandwhitephoto, #filmcamera, #35mmfilm, #leica, #nikon, #darkroom, #darkrooms, #film, #filmcamera, , #leica, #leicasociety, #ilford, #120film, #rolleiflex #rollei, #gitzo #kodak, #kodakfilm35mm #kodaktmax400 #streetphotography,, photo, photography, picture, 135mm lens, 35mm film, black and white, rollei, ilford, portrait, #nikon, #canon, #pentax, #zeiss #distagon #18mm #zeisslens #leicaphotography #leica_world #leicaimages #leicalens, #leica_camera #leicam6 #nikonf3 #nikonfm2 #canon_official #minolta #olympus #Leicam6 #Leicam #hp5 #ilfordhp5 #slr #slrcamera #slrcanon #hasselblad #hasselblad_camera #pentax67 #pentax645 #fuji #rolleiflex #largeformat #viewcamera #ebonycamera #deardorff - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Been down that rabbit hole! I once spent over a year obsessed with a certain image of moonrise over a lake - could only shoot it one day each month, dealt with weather, the shifting angles through the solar year, the exposure problems of such a high contrast etc. When I finally developed my 4x5 film and had the image that had been in my head ever since I first saw that moonrise, it was like a giant burden had lifted. I sold the camera and enlarger after that…
That's a great story.
But didn’t you mean “lunar year”?
lol
"Take it to the lab." "Scan it" No! Be a film photographer. Do it yourself!
You're right, plus it's way for fun.
my grandad died young long before i was born and that basement film lab still smells like cancer. I ain't touching developer chemicles.
That's sad to hear about your grandad. Have a great week!
Great to get your insight, some very wise words there. I jumped down the 10x8 rabbit hole 5 years ago. I currently have three 10x8 cameras, including a Deardorff. The main motivation for me was to make palladium prints directly from film negatives, but I recently came across a De Vere 5108 which was a lot cheaper than they normally go for, so I bought it, and now I have the option of making enlargements if I want to. You're quite right, it is an unhealthy obsession (financially, anyway) but one that I thoroughly enjoy. I do still enjoy taking photos with my Rolleiflex and 35mm gear though.
I guess I'm not as crazy as people think. Glad you're having fun!!
Very interesting discussion. I was first “bitten” in 2009 and have been totally immersed since. I started on 4x5 and was enticed by 8x10. Now I’m completely addicted to 8x10. I have a love-frustration relationship with my camera. 😎
Yeah, so did I. Honestly the Ebony 810 was the finest camera I ever used. Although few people have heard of them!!
I felt the initial obsession, even with 35 mm, when you develop your film, and print yourself... 3 AM, suddenly realised you were printing all night... I do have a 4x5 Chromega enlarger, with 3 Rodenstock lenses.
You might have to give it a go. Try and borrow a 4x5, or go out with a friend who has one, and shoot a couple of frames. Even if it's an old 'pepper' from the fridge that's all twisted up. Just to get a couple negatives to play with.
People would be surprised of how much information you can get out of a 6x7 Ektar frame. Basically grainless prints up to 40 inches wide and still full of details
Yes, I'm sure you're right.
Your presentation in this video is amazing. I love the incredibly unusual balance of nerdy techno-details and the (oh so rare) warm humanity that comes through here.
I take your advice as if you are Moses coming down from the mountain top - carrying you-know-what in your hands.
I’ve studied under guys who use 8x10, 7x17, 12x20. And I’ve attended a Pt-Pd workshop.
You could call your channel “No B.S. Inc.”. I get the sense that you know EXACTLY what you’re talking about.
Thanks, Rob. (From Victoria, BC).
Aha! “Big Camera Workshop” - thanks for the reminder. I bought a ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 from you.
Hey, glad you enjoy it. I hope that ZM lens is still working wonders for you.
I really enjoyed this video, not inclined to get into it really but I love looking at these 100 year old photographs and marvelling at the quality, thanks for your time.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Your channel is my favorite photography channel! I agree with all of your points. I have been doing photography for over 30 years! I have used Rolleiflex, Mamiya TLR’s, Mamiya RB67, Hasselblad and Fuji GW690. I had sold the Mamiya C330S and kept the Rolleiflex. I still use the Rolleiflex, Hasselblad 500CM, Mamiya RB67 and Fuji GW690. It is definitely a rabbit hole! I also have the Tachihara 4x5 and Toyo 45A 4x5. I find that there is not much advantage of 4x5 over 6x7 or 6x9, the aspect ratio and quality are about the same. The only thing I use the 4x5 for is when I need perspective control in shooting still life. I think large format in general is expensive and way too involved for most work. I live in the cold Midwest and my cameras see very little use during the winter months.
Those are good points. We have a season of photography where I live as well, plus darkroom season in the winter.
You are extremely educational. This is a wonderful channel.
Thank you.
RS. Canada
Thanks. Glad you're enjoying it.
Fascinating discussion Rob. I've been down the rabbit hole several times and survived. BTW...I have the exact photo of the old hotel in Bodie hanging in my office. Fascinating place! Cheers!
Bodie is a great place to go. I was there twice over the years.
very happy to have found this channel!
I'm glad that you're enjoying it!!!
That was fascinating. Great information from somebody who really knows what he is talking about after a lifetimes’ experience. Altogether rather rare in this world nowadays. Many, many thanks.
Glad you're enjoying them!!
Incredible well made video!!!!!! The best I have seen in a couple of years. Greatings from the Netherlands.
I'm glad you like it. Have a fun week.
Thank you sir@@stillshootinginblackandwhite
Thank you.
This is the most sincere and wise advise I have ever heard. Thank you.
Glad you're enjoying the videos.
Rob, wonderful discussion! I am now 65 years old and changed from medium format film (Making Plaubel and Mama RB 67) to Fujilm GFX 100s. Also in digital you could go ahead with ever more pixels and greater sensors - but at the end of the day, it is the take which is important. I am now entirely happy with what I have got and try to educate myself to use it to its best.
Keep having fun with it. When it stops being fun, switch it out.
Seeing you with the field cameras brings strong feelings of nostalgia. As a young man in the 70s, with desires to become a professional photographer (didn't happen), I strived to learn Ansel Adams Zones system, finding marginal success. My high school had professional level photography studio and dark room with cameras from 35mm to 4x5 view cameras and Pentax 6x7 SLR. Oh, how I loved the mid and large formats. Taking as spot meter and the 4x5 or 6x7, out in the field, I explored the world of hidef B&W photography. These decades later, I hear thew sirens call of the rabbit hole. Budget and time don't permit. Still thanks for the post.
Hey Scott, glad you enjoyed it. There's still time.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite I have pulled out my Nikon F3 kit. It's not large format but feels good.
I was shooting with the F3 yesterday. Enjoy it, it's a fun camera to use.
I wasted some time and materials on the zone system and worked out exposure late using an incident meter.
I never did get the zone system working for me either.
Great points in your video, Rob. As for shooting 4x5 large format, a few things going for it is availability of related gear like; lenses, cameras, film holders and film processing equipment. I would think film is easier to find where 5x7 film might be more difficult to find. Plus not quite as expensive during the learning curve.
Everyone actually learns to 4x5, although 810 is easier. Year's ago you could get 4x5 instant film which shortened the learning curve a lot.
I use an Ebony for landscapes, along with 35mm, medium format and digital. I remember years ago a digital shooter coming over to me one morning and excitedly telling me he had taken 300 pictures, I had used 2 frames! In fact I never carry more than 4 sheets at any time. Nothing but nothing beats viewing an image on a large format camera screen.
Yes you are so right. Actually 8x10 is easier than 4x5 for that same reason, the ground glass is so much larger. I'm sure you're having a blast with the Ebony camera. They are wonderful.
You don’t need to carry any film for that.
Digital and film are both great, just different, and we have the gift of choosing the one we want to play with.
Unless it is viewing a film transparency that's 8x10.
You'll aways remember your first time, processing an 8x10 tranny and watching it come out of the tube!!
I’m shooting with Deardorff 5x7 and Kodak Ektar lenses. Totally satisfied yet still experiencing mIs-steps during my dance routine.
Just discovered your channel, now subscribed.
There's always more mistakes to make... at least that's what I found.
Interesting perspective. I still enjoy shooting my Ebony 4x5 alongside medium format digital and film. And like you, I, too, am a retired commercial photographer, but I have never thought to stop being a photographer. It is my lifestyle. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Glad you're enjoying them!!
Again a great video from somebody with experiences.
I did a first step in medium format on cheap Rollei clone Seagull A4 and 9x12cm (German 4x5'' alike) on Linhof Technika end of 90s...
but wasn't able to afford a lot in theses days (also time wise) and continued 35mm as done since mid 80s.
But after doing only digital since 2012 -- and I will continue with it --
I (re)started medium format in '22 on Bronica GS-1 and 9x12cm on Toyo 45g in '23.
In '24 I did now two "first" shoots on the Linhof in more "press style" with monopod only.
On top I am in preparation to go beyond 4x5 toward 24x30cm and 30x40cm on a partly self build camera ("half" done) for 2024 or 25
with a Toyo 45g front and already hunted lenses to cover image circle.
Yes, 5x7 would be ideal in terms of size, weight and image quality... and I have also an enlarger for it.
But 5x7 lacks the available (and not expensive) cameras, holders and film material. Despite the fact that I started to use x-ray material anyhow already on 9x12.
What let me choose 9x12cm (4x5) in addition to medium format are the options with camera movement and lenses above all what is offered in medium format despite the shift/tilt options via several available options incl. the native features of the Fuji GX680.
Yeah, those are good points as well. I don't mention costs too much since it's not an issue for some people. I'm not one of those people, but they're out there.
I've done this for fifty years as well. Don't have the same credits... So with respect:
1. Don't bother with a 35mm SLR, the shutter lag is too slow if you shoot people or any action, like a wink -- you're more likely to miss it. The Leica has a leaf shutter, almost zero lag. Much better. (If you've inherited a camera... sure use it.)
2. Two and a quarter 6x6 and 6x7cm I wouldn't use a twin lens reflex, works too slow. Get a Pentax 6x7 or something that you can work more quickly. At this point you're not trying to catch winks, fleeting emotions, action of any kind. Good quality negatives.
3. If you do want rich B&W prints, use a tripod, or practice and get steady.
4. 4x5 and 8x10. These are terrific. I've shot thousands of 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies. Slow working, but you get good with practice. In 1988 I shot 4x5 hand held off a boat on the Yangtze in the Three Gorges Rapids in China . I managed a few good images. 8x10 contact prints are wonderful. Study Edward Weston.
Best is to shoot with the highest quality digital camera you can get and get a top quality inkjet printer that will print B&W. They can do everything I can much faster, and the only thing it can't do better than me in my darkroom is slightly blur an enlargement for 10% of the exposure. This eliminates the grain and surface image texture -- now you're looking at an image, not a piece of paper.
If you're young what you're likely really after is not 'film' so much as slowing down and being more deliberate.
Another thing about B&W film. There are basically two kinds of developers. D76 types which process the entire image equally, and compensating developers, some were called 'Pyro'. Compensating developers will develop an area of the negative until the developer exhausts itself, but continue developing other areas. This gives you a more constrained range of tones that is much easier to print in the darkroom. Bright areas, sky, are usually the densest on a negative. So Pyro will take them to a point and stop, but shadow areas, that are the thinnest on a negative will continue developing bringing up detail in the shadows. Weston never used a light meter, he used Pryo and experience. If you look at B&W images from the 1960s a lot of the skies are blown out white and instead of detail in the shadows it's black. (This is of course an over simplification.)
I would NOT recommend setting up an entire darkroom or spending thousands of dollars to shoot film. It's a lot more work, you'll miss a lot more images from mistakes you won't know about until you process the film. (I use to have a nightmare where I'd go to the photo lab and the film would be so bad I'd start throwing up. Made plenty of mistakes never puked. Back in the day it was a pig in a poke until that film got processed.) Instead form a community, put together a darkroom and share it, inviting in new people as others drop out. If you're in Los Angeles I'd be happy to help.
And a lot of the really highly technical tricks I used to shoot film (I photographed a lot of very old paintings) like flashing the film, or always flashing the paper in the darkroom, you can easily do in Lightroom. And my Nikon D850 has a range of I think 15 stops. Transparency (slide) film had a range of 7 stops. 5 stops under or over was D max Black, or pure white, B&W and color negative film had more range. (Doug Wall $500k a print, saying that Kodak color neg film is better than digital - shows you how little he knows.) Margin of error for color transparency was less than half a stop, but 2/3rds of stop was usually okay for most things. (And it's not just reading the meter, compensating for lens extension, filters, reiprocity failure, etc... it's different depending on light or dark the subject is.) With my Nikon D850 I can underexpose, get a black image and then dial in a reasonable exposure that's a bit flat and grainy, but it's there. Too try this I had to do it on purpose because light meters in good digital cameras are better than Ansel Adams ever was. I'm sure he'd agree. But he'd point out that they lack judgement,. However, as you can preview every shot, that's easy to fix. Hope this helps.
Thanks for contributing. Glad you're enjoying the videos.
I can't edit digitally. My hands are toast after 30+ years of data entry and coding. Can't hold a modern digital or use a mouse. Film works fine with workarounds.
@@Kitsaplorax Tough break, but you've made it an opportunity. I'm not against film, I have so much film information in my head.... It's just that film is a lot more work. I do know that in the past 20 years my toned archival silver prints have gone up in value because they're now rarer. (I made a film/Type 55 Polaroid/ exposure slide rule, with filter factors, lens extension and reciprocity failure. A photo of it would explain everything. If you have any issues with any of this. With 4x5, and especially 8x10 neg/trans, extension calcs were frequent. btw the best lenses I ever owned were Nikons without shutters, used by printing shops. They went digital when these lenses were still new. Absolutely amazing, Bought them on E bay for a couple hundred bucks. Used them shooting art. I'd just turn off the modeling lights, an then pop the flash 4 to 20+ times, sometimes I'd cover the lens while the packs were re charging. )
I started doing Photoshop in 1992 on a Mac IIci, 500mg harddrive. Took half an hour to do anything and then an undo, do it again. First major job took over a month, read 5 books waiting for the thermometers to crawl, but made a great image. I got so frustrated with the computer randomly crashing, I went back into the darkroom where whatever it was I could fix it. Made a motorized tray rocker, put a yellow bug bulb with a #0 MG filter in a black 'snoot' on the ceiling -- this would give a minimal exposure to the paper that if it was white, it would stay white, but any detail... would come out. If I was going to do B&W film again I would of course use compensating developers, but I would do tests to see what the minimum amount of agitation would not cause problems.
I'd also want to expand my darkroom to make larger prints, and have a separate area for wash/tone/wash dry, flatten and mount.. And I'd want to hire assistants to do most of it. I listened to hundreds of audiobooks on cassette and then CDs. Still have many good prints I never tire of.
And if anyone gets a Besseler Enlarger (I had a 45XL...) it's probably not calibrated. Make a neg, or draw concentric circles for the net stage of the enlarger, Put a mirror on the base (paper stage). I think I had concentric circles on that too. Then do whatever you have to to align them. Then make sure the lens is also aligned. A level, even a digital level isn't enough but it'll be close. (I 've still got all my DIY tools to do this . if there's nothing online I can make better instructions. And if anyone in Southern California wants to make a video. I can set up my Besseler .) I also replaced the Color light head with a DIY to get even light across the neg.
Sure sounds like you're having fun out there.
Totally agree. My Mamiya 645 is a treasured possession for B&W. Doing my own processing and printing is totally absorbing. I can’t print larger than A4 with my kit but the clarity and sharpness is staggering when I hit things right. As I approach retirement I’ve started building a large camera and exploring making my own glass plates. Hard work, several failures but it will be worth while.
Fail, learn, repeat. Have fun doing it.
The points made in this video concerning the benefits and pitfalls of moving up in format are well said! And, I agree. However, I started with 4x5, then fairly quickly moved to 8x10 (Deardorff) in the early 80's and, to this day, it remains my favorite format. I have other format cameras to choose from (including digital), but I'll more than likely choose the 8x10. Being a senior who likes to hike out into the wilds and who also loves 8x10, in recent years I added an Intrepid 8x10. This camera is significantly lighter than the Deardorff and with Fuji C lenses it enables me to continue hiking with this format. I still use the Deardorff, but closer to the car! 😉
“Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn’t photogenic.” - Edward Weston
Those Fuji C lenses are great. I owned both the 300mm and the 450mm and toyed with the idea of the 600mm before I sold off the 810.
I owned 3 Hasselblads plus an Arca-Swiss 6x7/9. But the hassle of sheet film holders and heavy tripods pushed me back. I made a lot of hand-held photographs with the Hasselblads which I still treasure. Thanks for the video.
Glad you liked it, for most people MF is the way to go. It is for me.
Uh, oh. I just today bought a 4x5! It's very small starter camera from Chroma, but rabbit holes probably all start small :). At any rate, I've been enjoying your videos, so thank you.
I'm glad you like them. Enjoy that new camera. It will be a lot of fun.
I started about the same time you did. I’m 72. As a kid I talked to Ansel Adams a few times. I understand where you are coming from one hundred percent. There are a number of other photographers I grew to love, maybe emulated. But it was more important to me to be original in whatever you chose to do. Large format take a devotion to an idea that could age a person in that search for perfection and quite the skill,
technically and artistically to become satisfied with yourself.
Film has always drawn me back to medium format as it has you. Large enough for acceptable results and compact enough to be easily accessible
easy enough to use. Then there is digital
That is a whole different world but it makes me wanting a simple manual camera and maybe a Weston light meter.
Have fun out there, it is supposed to be fun isn't it.
As a photographer using both digital and analog, my two cents is that while I do believe film still trumps digital in terms of absolute quality where colour and image aesthetic are concerned, the difference isn't great enough to make or break a good photograph. It's mostly immaterial. As far as I see it, film is only worth it today if you go completely hands on and do your own process and printing work. The experience is special and the final output will be excellent if you learn the ropes.
Yes, you're right.
Even back in the 90s, when digital was in its infancy, hearing the "digital vs. film" arguments never felt very informative or productive a comparison to me. Neither did the ever so repeated claim that content matters more than all else. Digital is a computational art while film is tactile/chemical (among other things). If the end product, an image, were the only goal, there would be no ongoing interest in film. (Certainly that is the still the reality for 'practical' purposes). Yet film persists, thanks to strengths that were so recently regarded as distasteful, fatal weaknesses--it's ability to be 'neither one nor zero", its openness to chance--it's flaws--for lack of a better term. These are liberating qualities to embrace, especially for a young generation whose life is now oppressively intertwined with computers. (And some of us older people never abandoned film.) I expect film is not going away any time in the foreseeable future. 20 years ago I would not have said that with the same certainty.
I think film is here to say. Digital is great and I loved my years working at Sony, but I like film more.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhiteit could be here to stay. I would be more interested if there were 35mm options that were, under $1,500, in functionally sound condition, and we're an interchangeable lens system.
As it stands there are Nikon Fs and Canon Eos, but mostly sticky now, Leica, but too expensive for having not shot film in 20 years. What else is there? 35 year old consumer cameras in various states of disrepair, and no parts still made, or cheap disposable quality licensed kodaks...
I suppose it will live on as a rich man's hobby, but I wonder how much of that is for the art, and how much is for the "exclusivity" of the medium.
I think there are still some nice FM2's around and likely some mint F3's that won't set you back too much.
I enjoyed hearing about your trip down the rabbit hole! First, let me say that I am not a professional; I only do photography for a hobby/fun. However, I know that rabbit hole well! When I was young, I started with 35 mm (had a few cameras, but eventually ended up with the Canon F1n and associated lenses), then picked up a Hasselblad 500 cm, and then bought my first 4x5 (Sinar F+). I must say that the Sinar was a great camera for work in the studio, but no way you want to carry that heavy beast around in the field. I had the opportunity to borrow an 8x10 Deardorff on a number of occasions, so I can sympathize with the strong attraction to the format. I eventually sold the Sinar an purchased a Wista 4x5 field camera - I really liked working with the Wista. Then life happened (Grad school, marriage, kids, etc.), so the cameras ended up in the closed for two decades. Kids left home for school, and the photography bug bit again... sold the old film gear and purchased my first digital (Fujifilm X-E2) and a few lenses... that lead to a second APC-sized sensor body... then I found myself going down the old rabbit hole again... Just purchased my second medium format digital camera. While I do miss film, there was really something magical about working with large format B&W, the convenience of digital wins at this phase in my life. I have my cameras, computer with Capture One and Lightroom, and Canon Pro 2000 printer (yeah, yeah, the rabbit hole). There is just something about making images that draws you in, and the trip down the rabbit hole is a familiar path. Thanks for sharing your story.
Glad you're enjoying them. Having fun is the key as the spending never stops.
If by "quality", you mean definition, yes, may be large format is the answer. But that's all purely technical, if we speak about art, no matter the camera, the format, the only things that count is the photographer and ... AND ... the people who looks at the picture.
That's the great thing about art. There's something for everybody.
Love your videos. And I 100% agree. I have a Sinar F2 4x5 and stopped there. I was considering an 8x10. But everything is 4 times more expensive. I did not take the Sinar out of its bag for the last 6 month and I am considering selling it. Its just too much hassle. I rather take my Mamiya C220. Keep up the great work.
I'm glad you're enjoying them.
While I was in college, I worked at a photo studio where I used a large format vaccume back camera that was built into a wall that separated the room where the subject was located from the room that served as a darkroom and the inside of the camera. I loved the image quality of those 11x14 and larger images. However, 4x5 and 8x10 inches is the largest I shoot for my personal work.
On the other hand, my 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12cm medium format images are not as good as my 4x5 inch and 8x10 inch images, but I am very satisfied with the image quality of my medium format film cameras.
Yes, large format is wonderful in the studio. Tougher in the field. If I just shot studio still life, I would shoot on 8x10. Now I'm happy with the MF!!
Thank you. That was very informative.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Great talk. I became obsessed with the actual cameras and repairing damaged ones, an obsession onto itself. I think I just love the physical item. It's like collecting antiques I suppose. I currently have around fifteen large format cameras and I just love the things and the history they represent. To me they are all little mechanical time machines. Maybe I should be seeing a physiologist and take addiction shots LOL. We all have our own peculiarities I suppose, and why not, life is too short to be normal. There is no normal.
There is no normal, and if there is, then it's likely boring.
Just stumbled upon your channel. Very interesting and funny video. I have been a digital shooter for 12 years, but just jumped into the medium format film world this past year, buying a Yashica MAT 124 6x6 TLR. It's such a fun camera to shoot landscapes with. I love the look of the film results compared to digital. I know what you mean by "the bug" The Yashica already has me wondering about trying 4x5. 😂
Have fun with the Yashica till it's not fun anymore, maximize the experience, then take the next step and rekindle the fun.
I enjoyed your talk. I can relate to going down the rabbit hole...I shoot mostly digital for travel and film for fun. 35mm, medium format and some 4x5 - I have an Ebony - great camera, and a bunch of used lenses. I took a few workshops with Per Volquartz and Steve Simmons who you probably know. I wasn't a professional photographer but since I retired I've had time to take more photos. Film has gotten very expensive in the past few years.
Yeah, Per was a great guy. We did a couple road trips together years ago.
I enjoy 5x7 and 8x10 but I don't contact print. I scan the LF negs and spend days on Lightroom and Photoshop, then print on a big Canon pigment printer. Sometimes I print on clear film to contact print Platinum Palladium. A lot of satisfaction. Nice video. Thanks for sharing!
I'm glad you enjoy it. I'll end up switching to Platinum printing one day. I'm sure my next house will be a downsize and have no darkroom so I'm guessing I'll get some type of UV burner and learn about printing with it. For now I'm enjoying the darkroom but I know I won't have one forever.
@stillshootinginblackandwhite I had a similar experience in university, doing B+W for the first year, dragging a Cambo with a heavy wooden tripod around everywhere. Who said photography wasn't a physical activity? Hehe... Honestly, I don't miss dodging and burning on an enlarger. Give me a Wacom tablet and pen any day. Glad I found your channel. Keep it up!
Yeah, those are good points.
Back in 1992 when I was setting up a digital remote photo sharing system for a high-end photo studio I got to get my hands on a 8x10 print of a real estate shoot that the photographer had done. It was a shoot of the entire side of a building and with the loop I could look at very very intricate details in the photo and one of those details I focused on was the lens of a fluorescent light fixture visible through one of the windows in the building and I was shocked that I could see the individual jeweling or Jewel work of the lens in the light fixture. The amount of detail in that photograph was just staggering!
The first time I pulled an 8x10 transparency out of the developing tube and looked at it, I fell in love.
I enjoyed your presentation immensely, absolutely enlightening! Maybe it will solve my problem. I am trying to solve a photographic assignment issue: I have a dear friend that has some vintage theatrical posters approximately 36 inches high and approximately 24 inches wide. He also has some vintage newspapers. He wants me to photograph them for print reproduction. What and how would you tackle this. I have a Canon R. Any help will be so much appreciated. By the way, you mentioned Rochester; I hung out for years in Dick Casey’s Cameras in Las Vegas, who was from Rochester.
If they plan to use them in a book, then shoot them with the highest rez digital you can use. If you just want them reproduced, then two lights are needed, as on a copy stand. It you want a more artist look to the photos... some posters rolled up in the background or with additional props, then you'll need to figure out what type of look to the lighting, again on digital.
That is very good advice and absolutely true. I started shooting film in 2012 after recovering from a long illness and quickly went up the chain from 35mm to medium format then added 4x5 monorails, 4x5/5x7, 4x10 and 8x10 field cameras. It very quickly gets crazy expensive, and film developing and scanning backlogs become unwieldy. I'm at a point where I don't really need all that quality since I'm not selling prints or making exhibition or gallery work so what is the point for me? I'm getting more than enough quality out of my 45-megapixel Nikon D850 DSLR with a full array of perspective correction lenses, so I don't really need all that large format gear anymore. I may sell off everything except for my Canham 4x10 and 5x7 very soon and I would only keep those two because I really enjoy using them in the field on occasion. Large format can be a very meditative and therapeutic thing to do, but also I tend to shoot the D850 in a very similar way to the large format, using the tilt-shift lenses and a Hoodman loop on the large screen on the back. If only I could turn the scren on my D850 upside down and backwards, I'd be absolutely sold on using it 100% of the time.
Both user experiences are good, they're just different.
nice video, often thought about going large format , love ansel adams work
It’s a very relaxing genre of photography
I shot 4X5 many years ago, when taking a college photography course. I can still remember the quality of these images to this day. 😊
Yes, it's hard to beat that quality. Fun to shoot with as well.
Great video and personal anecdotes! I personally find 4x5 to be the right format for me and my needs, but definitely understand your points on why one would jump to 8x10 over 4x5 especially after seeing those slides and prints! I think for me its mostly preference of 4x5 being comfortable for me to work with all around. I'll be lucky enough this year to pick up an ebony sv45u2, it's great hearing a testament to their quality and performance from an official retailer from when they were in production.
That's for watching the video, of all the gear that I regret selling off, the Ebony SV810 is by far my biggest regret.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Damn, well I hope it can eventually find its way back to you!
lol
I'm in the process of scanning 1000s of medium format film and even some 4x5 film. Using my Canon R8 with 50 macro lens to do it. The 4x5 could be scanned with a flatbed scanner but really the digital scan is good enough. I really think my R8 scans of medium mat exceed the resolution of any of my medium format pics anyway. The 4x5 scan will show more detail than a 16x20 print on the wall (or even up close). I see no reason for anything other than digital these days.
It sounds like you've found a great solution. Keep enjoying it.
Thank you so much, you won yourself a new subscriber ;-)
@19:00 What's healthy for me, is to learn how ”real“ photography works in times of digital cameras and ”vintage filters“ tortured onto smartphone images…
This is why I started collecting _Ica Dresden_ and pre-war _Zeiss Ikon_ cameras - and stick with the medium format (9×12 cm sheets and 120 roll-film). I still need to develop all the skills that are normal for a professional photographer - and the whole learning process is rather long and slow…
I am just not shooting enough to have the results quick enough and need to keep track of all my shots (which film and settings in which camera) to make sure that there will be a learning curve and any progress at all ;-)
Yes, I would have loved to attend one of your _large format_ courses you gave years ago… - and I am looking forward to detecting your content here on TH-cam now ;-)
Glad you liked it. There is so much to learn.... so many mistakes still to make.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite Mistakes? From somebody like you ;-)
Your insights are _very_ encouraging for me, thanks a lot!
Fail, learn, repeat... eventually you run out of mistakes to make... at least that's what I'm hoping for.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite You have a friendly way of teaching and are realistic about the trickiness of this process ;-)
Thanks.
Interesting review. Thanks. I have never used or indeed been tempted to use Large Format cameras. Until now …..
That's why I included the warning.... lol.
I stopped at medium format. Well, I did find a 4x5 Calumet at a charity shop. Never used it, though. You could also do a video on slide film versus negative. My 6x7 slides from the Grand Canyon in Velvia are stunning.
Yes, shooting slides were great. I rented a 6x17 once for a weekend and used it with slide film. It was amazing to see thoughs big images.
Been down a similar road, but the ultimate was a friends family lithography business. He went to R.I.T. in Rochester. I helped with an assignment where he had to make a halftone so went to the shop . The camera was a room and we were inside, lens was on a track and focused by electricity. Two lights at 45 degrees.
Now Richard picks up a 24x30 film and places it over a hole in the room, takes the photo and then he processed it all inside the room.
I still have my Zone 6 and half dozen lenses, but use Leica and nikon, digital and film. 4x5 tri x puts best 35 mm to shame.
That's very interesting. They had huge cameras like that at the newspapers I worked at as well. Part of the press process.
After 50+ years shooting, developing and printing I've settled on Large format 4x5, half plate 5x7 and 4x10 with Kodak Ektars and wollensak Apo Raptars. Mostly x-ray film until I find exactly the scene I want. Then it's Ilford FP4+ to Flextight Precission II scanning and print a beautiful print the exact size I want. Done lots of 8x10 contact printing also. Nice thoughts on large format though thanks.
Glad you found it interesting.
OK, I'm a labor union guy, who 's a Kraken hockey fan who also just bought an 8x10 rear standard for my Sinar Norma. You checked a lot of boxes for me with this one.
First, thanks for distinguishing between a workers' strike and they're being locked out by their employer. Few in the public understand the difference. It's big.
A slippery slope i encountered was already having a 4x5 monorail and facing the fact that 5x7 and 8x10 format changes were available. Too easy to slide down that slope...and here i am at the bottom (i hope!) at 8x10. For all the reasons you cited: contact printing, image quality, etc. It's irresistible!
But, to add to the chorus, I always dig your videos because you combine knowing your stuff with real practicality, and calling it as you see it. All the while your continuing wonder for this world comes through. You target newbies, and have a knowing sense of humor about how we approach film photography. I'm as old or older, yet find you to be photography elder whose unusually generous with all you've learned.
Thanks, glad you're enjoying things.
very nice info. good job and thanks.
Glad you're enjoying the videos!!
Great video! Love your storytelling. Anyway fair warning this is gonna be a wall of text:
Large format got me once, in the past. Won't be making that mistake again. I got introduced to photography properly in undergrad at a point where full frame digital cameras had already started their market dominance with the release of the 5D mark II. With some irony, it was Kenro Izu, frequently pictured next to MASSIVE large format cameras lol. I was bored at the uni library not studying (but you know, girls were there studying) and picked up Light Over Ancient Angkor randomly off a nearby shelf. Really life-changing stuff. But, you know, college kid and all, a 5D mk II or large format camera was beyond my means. My dad had, in a random box, my grandfather's OM-1. I learned on that camera, took it with me to grad school, shot like, 80 rolls in a calendar year, and used it and an OM-2 I also got from my grandfather a bit later. Eventually, I fell down the rabbit hole. First Leica. Then a Japanese TLR. Then a Rolleiflex. Then a Pentax 67 and a Mamiya 7. For me the medium format experience sucked. Could never bring myself to buy a Hasselblad and lenses and a proper 120 scanner, and my other cameras just kept breaking. Even my Pentax went down. So, I bought a Sinar. Amazing camera. Inconvenient as hell. I loved the control. I loved the quality. But getting film was so hard at that time (shame, I picked 4x5 up at the nadir of film's popularity it seems), developing sucked, my living situation meant I had to scan because I had nowhere to set up my enlarger. Ultimately, I went back to 35mm for a while, and was happy with that tbh. I worked out strategies to get the most out of 35mm, I acquired the best lenses I could (modern Zeiss ZF, Leica R, some of the rarer OM lenses), fussed with black and white film stocks and development recipes (I may actually have cried when Fuji discontinued Neopan), and I was happy. But the discontinuation of Neopan really did change my perspective, and I drifted to other hobbies for a long time. Coming back now. Got myself a new digital camera (amazing what kind of output these things give these days) and even got some new batteries for my F3 just in case. But I know better, even though I can now afford the field camera I always wanted, I am not going anywhere near that. No thanks. I value my sanity too much! If there was a really good 120 film scanner I could just buy... I _might_ consider that again. MIGHT.
So you've gone full circuit, nothing wrong with that... and you found a spot you enjoy, which is what counts.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane. I just sent my last studio camera-a 4x5 Toyo - to Camera West to sell. I used that camera with PhaseOne and Better Light scan backs to reproduce art for 25 years. Before that it was a Linhof that served dual purpose field and studio. And before that both 4x5 and 8x10 Arca and Kodak cameras to shoot chromes for contact separations for ads and catalog work. I still have mixed feelings but walking around with a Leica M10 or SL2 sure is easier on my knees and back. BTW: my Berkey Direct Screen (color sep) enlarger got a cold light and became a gift to a college student.
Hey thanks for contributing. I'm sure that student will put the enlarger to good use.
I found that I needed to get a bit more flexibility, vs. 4x5, I got a Pentax 67, and it's a wonderful step up vs. 35 mm, especially on 50 or 100 ISO.
Yes, the 67 is a great format. Every one needs to draw their own line in the sand. ... how large a negative they need, how much they want to carry, printing or scanning, it all becomes part of the cocktail of photography... and of course costs are an issue for many people.
Rob and I worked at the same newspaper back in the 80’s . The paper recently shut down.
Rabbit hole of the next camera, at that time, was solved by the miserable pay cheques.
I would say, use what you have and learn to get everything you can out of t. You wouldn’t believe the quality you can get by just learning how to use what you have.
Wow, I didn't know the paper shut down. I should read the news more. Barry Gray said the Spec is down to one photographer. I think we had 12 in the photo department when I was there.
P.S. I kept the twin Rolleiflex of my father .mainly for street photography...also the Götschmann slide projector - wonderful!
Now you can use it when you like and use the Fuji the rest of the time.
Now you can use it when you like and use the Fuji the rest of the time.
I might have "needed" this warning a few years ago...
But. I started with 35mm in the mid 70s and have just kept on. But photography has always been a hobby, I honestly never wanted to pursue it as a career. That also meant, for me, that I couldn't afford the best cameras--well until the mad rush to digital happened. kind of suddenly I could build a "serious" kit. And I also discovered the fun to be had with soviet medium format cameras.
Then, a few years ago, several things happened that led me to 4x5. The Intrepid 4x5 camera began, the Stearman 4x5 daylight tank became available, the US dollar vs the UK pound was heavily in my favor, and I got a 4x5 enlarger for the cost of picking it up. The rabbit hole still calls me a little but, so far, I am resisting. So far.
4 years on and I am almost ready to add a second film stock. Still very happy with my single Fuji lens and the occasional pinhole lens use.
One of the most appealing things about this hobby, for me, has been that it never feels like I will know it all, that I will continue to learn no matter how long I carry on.
Your channel popping in my recommended feed this morning is one more step in the learning, thanks!
I'm glad that you're enjoying it. There's so many genre's of photography and so much to learn. So many mistakes not yet made, lol.
I had a different experience. Despite having constant and free access to an 8x10 enlarger, I never availed myself of it, preferring to contact print both 8x10 and 4x5, but always enlarged 6xX. Also, there is a big difference between and sheet film vs. roll film, such as picking an emulsion for each exposure as well as each exposure’s development. As for ULF, I have no experience, but I noticed at 8x10, there were amazing optics and varieties, but beyond that people seem to adapt a single lens made for another purpose. Nowadays, a GFX is pretty nice.
Yes, all true. The detail on a contact print can be amazing but as we all know, it's the content that matters most, and sometimes those big cameras are too heavy to haul around.
Awesome!
Thank you
Glad you liked it!
You are right, that Rabbit hole is bottomless. I shoot Wet Plate on 5x7 and film up to 4x5, which I think is the maximum size still affordable for a mere mortal. I do have a larger - 10x12 - camera, but am still reluctant to use it. Instead, I lately acquired a 4x5 Graflex SLR with a couple of MagBags and I am excited to try that one out. The problem with large format SLRs if of course that the shortest focal length you can use is about 190mm...
That sounds like a lot of fun though. Enjoy the ride.
"A man gotta know his limitations" by Clint Eastwood.
Medium format with Pentax SMC lenses and Ektar film was my sound barrier that I could not pass. That was good enough.
I'm sure it's plenty good enough!!
Here's a question. Is it more cost effective to shoot 11x14 or 16x20 vs trying to find and deal with an 8x10 enlarger ?
I think an enlarger is less costly. I wouldn't say cheaper because none of it is really cheap, but you can find a used 8x10 enlarger for $500 which wouldn't buy much 16x20 film.
I almost went down the rabbit hole but stopped at 2.25x2.25 shooting both B&W and Color. I shot 35mm film for the reception and 2.25 for the actual wedding. Loved doing wedding with film and wedding albums. I did a lot of landscapes with my 2.25 too. There is nothing better than large film for quality and details.
If you want great quality from film, the larger the negative is better for sure. Of course you give up things like portability and speed. Sometimes they're important, sometimes not.
I’ve always thought contact prints of large format B&W negatives looked like jewels too.
I recently picked up an Arca-Swiss 4x5 Field Camera with a Horseman 6x9 roll film back. Acquiring images with it is a lot slower than with my Leica M6-TTL and Leica full-frame digital cameras, but it’s fun.
that's the key.... have fun.
I also wanted to up my game. I had a 4x5 Speed Graphic, and although I'd shot a few frames when I first bought it, for various reasons, it gathered dust or the occasional roll film back. For the reasons you've stated so eloquently ... I was sliding down the rabbit hole.... 4x5 scanner, Taco method in Patterson Tank, Stearman Press 45. .. At this point I am not happy, and rather than go further down the hole, I've stopped chasing it soo hard. Film is damn expensive and my developing tank is intermittent ... so ..as they say, if you see your escape ...take it!
Like you, I am concentrating on MF.. I might find that hole again.. .. (obsession sickness) but I am on the wagon.
Same wagon as me. It's a comfortable wagon to be on!!
In the 1980s, I worked in a professional photo laboratory in Oslo, Norway. Our customers were happy to share their techniques and stories with enthusiasts like me. It was a great time, but the introduction of the digital camera and personal printers stole many customers.
Sad but true.
I leaned back in the 60’s that if you were going down the large format rabbit hole it helps to be a chemistry major.
You're likely right. It sure would help.
You didn’t mention ULF (Ultra Large Format), which I shoot. My camera is a 16x20” camera which I built out of Ebony wood. It’s too large for portability so it’s a studio camera. My Toyo 8x10” is my favorite camera for landscape work. Crushes digital!!
Nice to hear that you're shooting ULF. Where is your studio. I love those big negatives.
Started my career on the tail-end of film photography era. Had to shoot the "big" product shoots on a Sinar technical. No love for that process,especially if your living depended on it. Welcomed digital with open arms. Now we just use canon tse lenses for product and architecture.
Yes digital has sure changed the world of photography. The great thing is there's room for everyone and every genre of photography... digital, film, even glass plate if that's what you want.
great arguments for not doing it, but one point, if you shoot MF backs in a LF camera, then you use ONE body/lens/focus accessories for multiple formats, which may be a saving of money, as you don't have to carry around 4,5 or 6 cameras, just to get the negative size you desire, just get a 6x7cm; 6x9 or something like a SINAR vario /zoom back (multi-format 6x4.5-6x12); You also have a T\S lens with EVERY lens, as the standards have movements, also a LARGE focus screen (for those with vision problems), so making focussing and composing a lot easier.
Yeah, that could work too. As long as we're all having fun out there.
Quality...hmmm ... Rodenstock 180 macro, 4x5 Velvia 50... Not bad, I think?
I remember shooting photos of a race car engine with that combination, with Arca Swiss camera.... You could read the manufacturer markings on the heads of Philips screws!
Those German LF lenses were so great. I had a couple when I shot 4x5 but when I switched to 8x10 I went for the less costly models from Japan. The problem with my photos could never be blamed on any of the lenses I used. lol.
Excellent overall view of the pros and cons of large format photography. I would add, however, that thinking that moving to large format will automatically improve the quality of your prints is a big mistake. I've seen prints made by photographers using top quality 8x10 cameras and lenses that pale in comparison to those I've made while shooting with entry level 8MP digital cameras. I have also seen prints made from 35mm negatives that compare favorably with the work done by Ansel Adams. Finally, Ansel and Edward Weston's superb print quality was not simply the result of using large format cameras, it was the result of a complete mastery of the photographic process. And sadly you can't buy that at your local camera store.
It's content that matters, I agree, but sometimes people think they've got amazing quality as well, but really they just haven't seen amazing yet.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite I have not only seen Ansel Adam's prints I actually met him once and I had a friend who worked for Ansel and his wife for years. I also attended showings of Edward Weston's work at a small gallery in Monterey in the early 1970s and so am familiar with his work as well. And while I do not in any way wish to diminish the very high quality of their prints I have also seen prints made from 35 mm negatives that, at least in smaller sizes, come pretty darn close to matching that quality. The real issue here, however, is the idea that simply switching to a larger format will somehow magically transform the "technical" quality of your prints. Some years ago there was an ex CBS talking head who lived on the island where I live in Maine. Someone apparently convinced him that buying an expensive 5x7" camera would allow him to make superior images and so off he went. One year and thousands of dollars later the prints he had created compared unfavorably with images I made when first entering the world of digital with the purchase of a used Olympus 8 MP E300 camera equipped with a cheap kit zoom lens. And although his subject matter and composition were inane what really struck me was the poor tonal quality and grainess of the prints, especially considering the format size. The motto of the story is "Bigger Can Better If Ya Know What Ya Doing" otherwise skip large format cameras because you simply can not buy better quality you have to earn it.
Eventually I'll have made all the mistakes and will finally know what I doing, or at least what not to do!
I think 4x5 is the best solution. Many more lenses than 8x10, especially if you need movements.
Yes, and some of those lenses are so nice, and less costly than anything for a hasselblad would be.
Agreed. I think 4x5 is probably the best compromise. There is a bigger choice of sheet films available in that format than larger sizes, apart from anything else. I also still think the inherent image quality jump from 6x7 or 6x9 to 4x5 is significant enough to warrant the extra effort involved. The enormous power of camera movements also should not be disregarded, as tilt-shift lenses for smaller systems are a very pale imitation.
The great thing is that we have so many options, and each photographer can find his own answers.
Ahh the old days shooting mash potatoes for ice cream, with my 8x10. I'm an old guy and although I rarely lug an 8x10 around, I still enjoy shooting 4x5. I'm sure you would agree, a view camera or a good old Super Graphic makes a young photographer developed a certain amount of craftsmanship that is sorely missed today. Not to mention becoming proficient in the darkroom. I own all the digital stuff as well, (you gotta take care of your customers first), but when they need something special the film comes out.
Enjoy your channel.
Glad you're enjoying it. Keep having fun.
The quality is worth it. I started with 35 mm and was an Army photographer back in the late eighties, early nineties. But I decided to get a Mamiya 645. Now I have been thinking about large format. I was going towards 4x5 but you don’t think it’s a good idea. I would love to do 8x10 but want to get used to the cameras and sheet film and its development before moving up to 8x10 or larger.
Most people start with 4x5 but if cost isn't an issue, then 8x10 is easier to learn on because everything is bigger.
Thank you, Rob. I have a 3x4 Graflex Crown Graphic...using sheet film from China. I'll settle for what I have.
That's the best way. Everyone will draw their own line in the sand and work within that perimeter.
Its a great obsession. Just dont blow your budget.
It dont matter what type of camera you shoot(apart from phones) photography is a what gear can I buy next hobby. One thing since i moved from digital to medium format (mostly) I feel more content with my camera and feel less of a need to try to keep up with the latest greatest expensive digital camera.
I at the moment shooting Fujica gw690/Zeiss 6x6/ and of course Holga.
Nice, keeping it fun. Once I quit working for Sony, I stopped looking at digital gear. Not even sure what the current models are.
It's great to see videos from someone who actually has mastered the craft and walked the walk instead of so many videos that start with "I just got a film camera and here are my first film photos." With any photo gear it's horses for courses so what is being photoed, eg, sports, portraits, landscape, photojournalism is a consideration as is the end use of the image. I would never use my RB 67 for sports, but portraits, wonderful. If images are going on my phone or on line, I don't need 46 mp d850 images or MF. But to digital print 20" or better I want at least a 645. I have reached the same decision on camera's as you have. The RB67 gives me all the quality I need to more than satisfy my clients and my eye. It allows a fairly smooth shooting work flow and plenty of shots to sell. Large format, not so much. So, I shoot both 645 and 67 camera... gives me insurance if one fails without warning til I get messed up negatives, the 645 mamiya is totally portable, but I do use the 67 on location for up to 3 hour walks or shoots. Wearing it cross body with the optech strap keeps it fairly light and readily at hand for street and walk abouts. I was not aware the 4x5 had so little difference, seemed like a substantial jump in negative size. But you also factored in the PIA, pain in the ass, issues. Thanks for sparing me going down the LF rabbit hole. Great to hear an analysis from someone who has done it all and bases his video on it.
Glad you enjoyed it. It's been interesting working on these videos. Keep shooting.
Yes, it's a treat when I see a video by someone who knows what he's talking about. We lost Dan Milnor and the Angry photographer as it seems the photography fad is over. For folks like us, it isn't a fad... 65th anniversary of my first mf camera and darkroom in June. Haven't done a shoot since... yesterday with the RB. I hope to see more of your videos.
Glad you're still out there shooting. I got out yesterday and was hoping to get out today but it's -10 so I might wait until this afternoon.
At my age, so many photos so little time. Yikes. Where are you located? I just put away my long pants til october here in Florida. That's good because my cargo pants conceal my pistol better. I have had 3 confrontations with drug zombies and foiled a camera robbery with 2 huge punks inches from my face til i clicked off the safety on what was then a knife in my pocket. Would love to see you do a video about safety when out shooting. I'm sure you have had some incidents in your career. Unlike my former home in northern CA where it won't rain til November, we get rain here all year round. Storms arrive in minutes and 100 yds on the beach where I shoot, people have been killed by lightning 2 years in a row. Have to be ready to tear down lights quickly.
I'm usually north of Toronto but for the next three weeks I'm in rural Quebec. It snowed today, but no shootings.
It's also possible that the film "rabbit hole" is less fanatical than the digital one - endless software plugins and styles to choose from, not to mention large initial investments of many thousands of dollars in gear to both capture and store your images. The initial investments for large format like a 4x5 is well under $500. It then just begins a marginal cost expense for film, processing and printing. Even a few hundred sheets of film and processing wouldn't approach the "cost to play" of a good digital setup.
Those are good points. Plus it get's you off the computer and out shooting.
I think I need to drag my dad's old 4x5 out and get addicted, I thought I'd be happy with 6x9 but I need more
It's never enough, lol.
I no longer shoot large format ...4x5 & 8x10, but one very important thing you failed to talk about was scanning large format and good large format inkjet prints...THEY"RE FANTASTIC! and my Epson scanner I used to use, was bought nearly 18 years ago and it STILL did a fantastic job. Towards the end I would shoot 4x5 B&W and have it developed as a ...POSTIVE as well. I don't know if the gentleman who owned... DR5 is still in business. The main reason for abandoning large format was it became FAR TOO EXPENSIVE! But I have a friend who still has not only 8x10 but 8x20 as well, and has two sets of cameras... one for here and one he keeps in Scotland where he's originally from.
That's interesting. Great that you've found a solution that works for you.
Images rarely fail due to a lack of "image quality". They fail because they are not emotive. Most people would rather see an interesting 35mm image than a boring 8x10 image.
Yes you're right. Sometimes photographers think a simple headshot is a great photo.. because of all the extra work it was to shoot it. It's still just a headshot.
take a look at some actual Irving Penn platinum prints - then tell me if you feel the same way
They're great photos, and platinum prints are often nicer than silver prints, but they're not great photos just because they were shot on LF. He was a great photographer. I hear there's a giant show of his opening in San Francisco this spring.
I have been an avid NYC photographer for close to sixty years. There is no photographer worth mentioning whose work I have not had the opportunity to enjoy. Content is king.@@user-vr3sq1kq6i
I think most people would agree.
I worked in downtown Seattle. I visited the Curtis Gallery on my lunch hour. I saw platinum prints. Great photographer, terrible documentary photographer. Learned b&w out of books, learned alt process by myself. Dumbest thing I did was to buy a full plate camera and lens, then sell the camera when I was called an idiot by people doing digital negatives from 35mm or camera phone images, since digital negatives were just as good. Looking for another plate wood camera now.
If we had only known at the time.... not to listen to the crowd.
It’s so fascinating
Glad you enjoyed it.
Normally I shoot on a direct paper because nobody can print out my photos
You mean like Ilford's direct to positive?
I had the great good fortune to learn film in 35nn, 120, 620, Hasselblads, Mamiyas (tlr) and 3 1/2 x 3 1/2 view. I had an advantage of working for a manufacturer of automated, industrial film processing equipment and was surrounded by techs and engineers who were willing to teatch me the relevant chemisty and physics. I remember long hours processing my own B&W; film at night and prints during the day. I figured that, with b$W film it took me 90 minutes (mix and temper chemistry, adjust enlarger and make 3 to 4 samples) before your first good 11x14.
As soon as the tech was functional and practical, I went digital. I was probably about 60 by then and didn't need to carry an 8 lb cameral and and 8 lb lighting kit to do a wedding. I'm never going back and though, I teach people to photograph with digital , I make them start uout demonstrating an understanding of light, Aperture, shutter speed and composition
Well digital is the way to go for most people, and that's good, since I'm on the board at Sony, we want people to keep buying the cameras. Fewer will try film ( as you did in the past) and even fewer will enjoy it. I guess I'm one of those that enjoy it.
I am afraid your warning has come about 4 years too late for me... started with 35mm as a kit. Went to digital in college. Then thought I'd shoot some more 35mm... soon realized I wanted more for a project. Jumped to 4x5. Fell in love with the process.... Finances and film options have kept me from going larger.
Sounds like you're having fun, which is what counts.
I’ve been working as a professional photographer and photo finisher since 1987. I’ve been through the full range of cameras and now I shoot full frame digital exclusively. I sell my work as large prints and ship prints all over the USA, Canada and Europe. I have often said if I was going to go back to film I would have an 8x10 camera, an enlarger and I would develop and print my own work. Your video is dead on. It would be a rabbit hole I really don’t want to go down when I can shoot digital and sell my work as large as 60 inches wide and it looks good not as good as a large format image but good.
In a lot of cases digital looks better. It doesn't look the same but that's okay too.
@@stillshootinginblackandwhite I agree film really has its own look.
It's great that we have the options. lol.
I started photography in high school, 1961, as the school photog using their 3x5 and their photo lab. University of Washington I got to use their 5x7 and their lab. Black White is stilL KING but now I use 120 in a role. 2 years ago my kitchen fire destroyed everything except for my collection of Pentax bodies, lenses, and bellows, etc. My beatutiful enlarger melted. But I still have the burning desire, bad.
There's always time to fire it back up, so to speak.
Hahaha- once bit.....I was bit in my first studio job as an assistant to a commercial food photographer in 1978. There I saw my first 8x10 Ektachrome of a still life set up. I was totally seduced not only by 8x10 format but also by studio work. Nothing like it. Still work with a 4x5 Sinar Norma but also with 2-1/4 and 35mil. Depends on the subject and my frame of mind. Used to hang out with Jim Marshal, so I can't get street photography out of my blood. Nice video, very much on the money.
Glad you're enjoying them. I loved Jim's work, never met him though, and got into music photos too late.
"This is the kind of video that could ruin someone's life."
I'M IN!
That's the spirit. Buckle up for the ride.
Someone I knew here in Denmark had his 8x10 negatives drumscanned, and C-prints made in any size.
Yes, some people are going that way. Likely the best way to go for colour work.
I guess if a person had almost unlimited finance, a person could purchase your choices. I'm retired with very limited finances so, I have a Konica Autoflex T3 (slr), Konica Auto A2 (rangefinder) and an old Olympic TLR. How bad is my photos?
The great thing about photography is there's a spot for everyone to enjoy the hobby.
I like 6x7 and 6x8 format . I can use Mamiya RB67 filmholders also on my Horseman fieldcamera with Fujinon lenses . I love the RB back on the Mamiya and Horseman . I have my own darkroom and do the filmdevelopment and printing myself . If you use a good fine grain film on 6x7 and 6x8 you can have very good results . Sometime I think about a Horseman 45 FA to do 4x5 inch . But it is a lot more expensive . And it is useless to shoot on cheap 4x5 inch film because a professional fine grain 6x7 or 6x8 film give better results than a cheap 4x5 inch film ..... So it is for me 6x7 medium format .
Yes, 67 is great. To shoot 4x5, even with a nice camera like the FA , is so much more work for a small increase in size.
great video. Although my photography career has been different. Get an SLR if you wish to experiment. Film is money atm. Hell get a half frame. Just be aware that the scan will be of a 2 image frame. Get a medium format camera if you like a better quality and wish to slow down. 6x7 is great for magazine work as the format fills the page nicely and is great for contemporary work and portraits. Get a 4x5 if you want to have complete control of your image creation. Large Format also allows for more thinking and slows you down considerably. Its also the most expensive of the routes to take. But the method and the visual results are so pleasing to the soul. I went through this whole route of 35mm etc and now mainly shoot 6x7 and 4x5. Documentary on 6x7 and long projects on 4x5
Sounds like you’re having fun
"I wasn't really sure that I wanted to do this video." When I open a video, and that's the first thing I hear, I nearly went bye then. Glad I didn't as this was worth watching. Thanks.
Glad you stuck around.
I make my own traditional black and white prints in a wet darkroom. I shoot 6 x 4.5 medium format. I could go bigger, but since I only enlarge to 12 x 16 there wouldn't be any point. In 6 x 4.5 I have a Mamiya slot system and a compact folder that fits in a pocket. Full disclosure, I am also restoring a 121 year old 8x10 camera, but that is only for the experience, not the bigger negatives.
As long as you're out there and having fun. Enjoy it.
I can agree! Unless one prints very large, large format can be an overkill! I really only use my Toyo 45A 4x5 to shoot still life or landscapes where I want perspective control. My Hasselblad 500 CM can print nicely even at 13x19 even cropped to 6x4.5. People are always talking about larger negatives on you tube, but it all comes down to how large is one going to print. I would love to print 4x5 in the darkroom, but I would need a suitable enlarger and trays etc, my 4x5 gets scanned and then printed from there.
I'm sure that works out great. Lot's of great options for each of us, and no truly right and only way.
Rabit hole is right. But you're right on this and that at some point, a dude has to sort through HOW you're going to experience your hobby, what are the limits... and the greatest of these will be time. If you're shooting portraits or stil life or want to, lighting will fit in here somewhere and that gear is a bit of stuff, too. And that can and will begin to crowd the camera collection. Similarly if you're going to develop and print. Whether its a digital or analog darkroom.... there's a time sink there, too.
Digital will ALWAYS have a place for family and events due to poor lighting conditions and the ability to crank ISO when needed. This leads me to thinking whether that nixes 35mm or not.... but I love my Nikon. Then there's 4X5 and MF, and over the past year I am thinking more and more the MF kind of fills the creative space as "good enough". And I'm currently having enough fun with a Pentax 645N and Mamiya RB67 Pro SD to say.... in most cases, I really think it just might scratch the itch: Big enough gear to force you to think your shots through without breaking your back. Might keep a Chamonix 4X5, but otherwise acknowledging there could be some sense in thinning (or eliminating entirely) all my 4X5. That's certainly pending. Once you move and downsize the house.... you don't necessarily stop thinking of the virtues of lightening up. And when the process of taking gear to a site leaves you thinking how much better a portable wagon would work than a backpack....then maybe it's time to rethink. The story of George Eastman buying a mule to carry his gear.... is a strong warning!
Good to find your TH-cam channel. B&W.... has always been a love for nearly 50 years when I poured my paper route money into a Bolex. I even shot and developed movie film back then. So for me, B&W digital's tendency to convert through the bias filter.... just never really gets it done. Especially when printed where even the texture pales. Digital Monochrome is more my speed, but kind of more than I've wanted to spend. So there's a rub. Meantime, analog demands attention that forces some creativity and physicality that keeps my mind working.
Those are great points. Glad you're enjoying the kit you own.
Hmm maybe I shouldn’t have watched this video! I have a Fuji 6x9 GW690iii and was thinking that someday I’d jump to large format. The Linhof Technical 4x5 cameras appeal to me both from a film standpoint but also for the potential of using it with a digital Hasselblad back (the 50 MP CFV II 50C). So from your point of view it’s best to jump to 5x7, but I think for me owning the digital Hasselblad the 4x5 Linhof might be enough. I am not in a rush to do this - it’s more of a long-term plan. If I was just shooting film on it and not digital the bigger the better makes sense. Whatever large format system I eventually get will ultimately be used with both film and the digital back. Rabbit hole indeed…
The Linhof system is wonderful, and folds up nice and compact, which is great for hiking.
My advice would be: Don't go LF for image quality, you can get it much easier and cheaper with 60+ MP digital cameras (think of Fuji GFX 100)! Yes, less "tactile" process, but image quality is more than enough even for humongous prints. But if you're after all the movements - then LF becomes a choice, even in 4x5! And then there's pinhole photography, and there size *does* matter. Like, it matters a lot. This is what got me to succumb to the LF virus (even though the look of 6x9 pinhole would be prefect for me, getting a camera with all the movements is far outside my budget) …
5x7? Hard to get film in this size, not much choice, and more expensive. Cameras are harder to come by, and are also more expensive. Interesting format, though (it's close to our European A sizes in proportion, being 1:1.4 instead of 1:1.414). Thought about it, but my experience with the quite affordable Intrepid cameras is rather bad.
Dude there's no comparison. Large format prints have a mp eq. of some 1500mp 😅 it's not remotely close in image quality. 35mm film alone can pull 87mp of detail. You need 500mp before you even get to 4x5 eq.
Digital you don't even need more than 2mp. There's literally nothing you're going to do with more than 2mp in the digital world. It's not until you come to print where high mp matters. The reason for high mp in digital is to crop.
If you knew what you were shooting, and knew you weren't going to need to crop, and the image was going straight to online all you need is 2mp or less.
Digital is faster, but higher quality? No. And that's what he's talking about. Higher quality. If you've never been to a gallery to see large prints, maybe it's about time you purchase a ticket.
You'd need to shoot over 10x Hassleblad 100mp images to get close to 8x10 quality.
8x10 film is readily available on Amazon, B&H, China, Japan, and many other online sources. The cost is offset if you're a professional, not a hobbyist.
@@dct124 I was talking about 5x7!
@@dct124 In theory you can have more resolution with LF than with a 100 MP MF sensor - if you have incredibly good LF lenses and high resolution film, and only if you go B&W (since the color clouds of color film are much larger than the silver particles of B&W film). In practice, a 100 MP file can be printed incredibly large and still look tack sharp and detailed (I've seen 100 MP shots at around 3 x 2 meters/yards in a gallery, and they were very impressive even viewed from half a meter/yard distance). If you like to look on your 8x10 prints with a microscope - well, go ahead! And if you mean viewing on screen by "digital" - 4K monitors have around 8 MP, and it does make a huge difference if you view lower res images on one of those …
I'm only comparing 35mm, MF and Large Format films. Large Format beats the other two in most cases. Digital might be better than any of those but I'm only considering film and darkroom work. If I made digital prints instead of darkroom prints, I would shoot digital capture.