Is 4x5 worth the effort

[Alan Klein]

I'm struggling to think of many, if any, occasions I've felt the need to bracket with large format......even shooting E6 film. I think this is because if you've taken the time and effort to set up, carefully compose, focus and do all the other technical stuff, then it's probably a safe assumption that you're going to meter carefully too which usually negates any need to bracket.

During the day, you;re mainly right. But if you're shooting at magic hour, the light changes quickly. It's harder to get the exposure just right and a little more or a little less can make a huge difference in that kind of light.

 

[Dave_P]

During the day, you;re mainly right. But if you're shooting at magic hour, the light changes quickly. It's harder to get the exposure just right and a little more or a little less can make a huge difference in that kind of light.

I more or less ONLY shoot in 'magic hour', the light doesn't really change fast enough to not be able to meter correctly in my experience. If it's changing that fast then you'd not have enough time to bracket with large format anyway. So I think it's better just to meter carefully and re-meter just before the exposure.

The only time when this is really an issue is when you're shooting in fading post-sunset light, well into the realm of reciprocity corrections, and the light drops further mid-exposure requiring further correction on the fly. Of course in these situations bracketing is out of the question since it's usually pitch black by the time you've finished the first shot.

Years ago there was a series of Friday night photography programmes on TV. One featured Ansel Adams. It was pointed out that he always made two exposures. These were identical, and one was kept in reserve. The following week featured an English photographer, whose name I forget. He was using 35mm colour slide film, and made five exposures of every subject. 1stop under, 1/2 stop under, "correct", 1/2 stop over and 1 stop over. When asked why he bracketed he said "Only fools are sure".

Taking two sheets of the same images is or was standard practice for many photographers (back when it was costing Kodak more money to manufacture the film boxes than the film in the box) - typically two sides of the same film holder. I read or heard somewhere (possibly off a mate who did a workshop with him) that David Ward used to shoot two of every Velvia sheet, and A and a B, so that if the exposure was off he could have the second sheet pushed or pulled to correct it. But in reality the first sheet was always fine hence over the course of many years he built up a boxes of undeveloped B sheets which he never had processed.

I have bracketed with 35mm but even then you really should know in which direction you need to bracket in - i.e take a shot then take one with less exposure to hold the highlights, so there's no point taking the +1/2 or +1 shots at all. Obviously if you're Galen Rowell shooting Kodachrome by the bucketload which National Geographic are paying for then these rules don't apply, shoot brackets and then a duplicate of every shot - Galen wrote that shooting duplicates of every image was the cheapest way to obtain dupes, and was insurance for back when every slide had to be sent off to magazines and picture editors who were notorious for not retuning the slides.

If you watch Ben Horne’s YouTube videos you will see that he not only brackets exposure, but he also brackets his (10x8 colour) film. It’s heartening to see an LF photographer so successful that he can afford this.

There's plenty of stuff he does that I don't think is to be imitated, like leaving an Ebony 10x8" out overnight to be blown over and destroyed. I don't follow his stuff closely these days but I used to get the impression he had a decently paid day job, rather than his photography paying for itself (these days more likely that his youtube revenue pays for his photography).

 

[Joanna Carter]

I remember some time ago, in the days of film and darkrooms, a friend of mine produced excellent work from his MF camera. He offered his prints to the camera-maker who proposed to use them in their advertising. However, with their noses pressed against the prints, they could see grain and the whole idea was dropped.

And this is one of the problems that we are likely to face more and more. Modern clients don't necessarily want great big globs of grain. The world has moved on to wanting the kind of immaculately clean images that tell a story, not that intervene with shouts of "Hi! can you see me? I'm grain and I'm beautiful"

Even in the digital world, grain can be added back in if desired and, nowadays, software like DxO FilmPack randomises that grain to make it look even more realistic and natural.

Given that this is an LF group, but that Martin started this topic about MF, please allow me to explore whether MF is indeed enough, at least, for me.

It;s easier to bracket and cheaper with MF.

It's even easier and cheaper to bracket with a high resolution digital camera. In fact, when a digital camera has a dynamic range of 14-15 stops (in colour) there is rarely any need to bracket, simply shift the exposure of a RAW image in post-processing.

Like you, I can't remember bracketing with any format, and definitely not with 5x4, and again that included E6

Now, I do have one LF photo that I had to bracket (https://grandes-images.com/en/Landscape/Pages/Lancashire.html#0) and then combine in post-processing. Taken with Velvia 100 (5 stops range) I couldn't get from the deep shadows to the foam on the weir in less than 9 stops on two sheets of film.

One of the great joys of digital cameras is that they allow you to alter the "development" between shots in just the same way as a sheet film camera.

But that leaves the question of why you prefer MF film over high resolution digital. Is it that oft mentioned, and elusive, look and feel, even though that can be emulated perfectly in post processing?

If you are asking if 5x4 is worth the effort, with a view to dropping down to MF then, nowadays, you really do have to consider whether film is worth the effort. It has to be a question of personal satisfaction with a particular workflow, because the finished result can be identical.

My ultimate camera would be a 10" x 8" digital field camera with movements. For me, the larger size is all about being able to inspect the screen on the back of the camera and control the depth of field in more directions than just front to back.

Of course, that would imply a 460Mpx sensor and a thumpingly powerful computer, and strapping an iPad onto the back just wouldn't cut the mustard.

As it is, I refuse to upgrade from my beautiful 46Mpx Nikon D850 to a mirrorless because I much prefer to see "real life" through the viewfinder, rather than a pixely screen.

it's going to take a lot to prise my Ebony out of my hands. Yes, I can produce stunning, high quality, large (wall sized) prints from digital but, every now and then, I take my Ebony out of its cupboard, stroke it, and contemplate what kind of subject it is worth going through the process to produce.

Of course, your mileage may vary

 

[martin henson]

Seems like the thread has moved to film v digital, yawn

 

[Joanna Carter]

Seems like the thread has moved to film v digital, yawn

So, I restate my question. Given the equality of results, what exactly is it about film that attracts you over digital?

 

[martin henson]

The process, variation and a Creative Process.
There's something special about holding a physical negative, seeing the image for the first time, a print that can never be replicated the same way.
"Soul": Many swear film captures a certain je ne sais quoi, a soulfulness digital just can't replicate.
Shooting on film forces you to slow down, think, and get it right—a refreshing change from spraying and praying digitally.
The film industry has been around for over a century and doesn't rely on technology that'll be obsolete in five years.
Sounds like film's all about the experience and vibe, innit, without it

To clarify, I'm not anti-digital—I'd be lost without it for sharing my work online! I just happen to love working with film, especially pinhole photography. There's something about it that's hard to beat.

 

[Dave_P]

As it is, I refuse to upgrade from my beautiful 46Mpx Nikon D850 to a mirrorless because I much prefer to see "real life" through the viewfinder, rather than a pixely screen.

Entertaining to discover that in the digital realm you're apparently a luddite.

Serious question though; surely you recognise that large format film has something going for it or you wouldn't keep on frequenting this forum? Doesn't make any sense otherwise why you'd keep on banging this drum to a largely indifferent audience. Maybe you recognise that you've lost something intangible by more-or-less ditching large format, and these lengthy posts quoting figures and print sizes, apropos of nothing, are to persuade yourself you've made the right choice maybe?

For example, I haven't owned a DSLR since 2010 and I think it's bonkers to stick to DSLRs for digital work when mirrorless systems are superior in virtually every way, but it would be a bizarre use of my time to keep popping up on SLR-only forums to evangelise about mirrorless.

 

[Joanna Carter]

The process, variation and a Creative Process.

Interesting.

There's something special about holding a physical negative

Yup, I'm not sure a memory card can match that

a print that can never be replicated the same way.

If I want that, all I have to do is delete the finished exported file after printing.

Shooting on film forces you to slow down, think, and get it right

I use the same approach to digital.

a refreshing change from spraying and praying digitally.

Something I have never done. Every shot thought out and planned. Like this shot...

... which took several visits to find the best time and tide and a couple of hours waiting for the right light.

The film industry has been around for over a century and doesn't rely on technology that'll be obsolete in five years.

You mean you haven't seen what Red produce for the film industry?

RED Digital Cinema | Professional Cameras

RED is the leading manufacturer of professional digital cinema cameras. Explore RED

www.red.com

 

[Joanna Carter]

Entertaining to discover that in the digital realm you're apparently a luddite.

I see absolutely no point in ditching a perfectly serviceable SLR, with only a couple of thousand shutter actuations, just because Nikon bring out the "latest and greatest", especially when it doesn't allow to see the real world through the viewfinder.

surely you recognise that large format film has something going for it

I never said it didn't, but, since I don't have the room for a fully fledged darkroom, the only difference for me is having to scan the negative before using the same digital tools to process the image.

and I think it's bonkers to stick to DSLRs for digital work when mirrorless systems are superior in virtually every way

Really? How is one box with a hole in the front that different from any other box with a hole in the front?

By the way, I work in fully manual mode.

 

[AERO]

How is one box with a hole in the front that different from any other box with a hole in the front?

COST?

 

[David M]

I, too was amazed at leaving a camera out overnight, particularly something like an Ebony. It seems he wanted to catch an early stage of sunrise, where it would be impossible to focus. His camera of choice has changed since then and he’s learned to leave only his tripod and take the fully set-up camera away in safety to re-place by the dawn’s earliest light. A little while ago he announced that he was now able to earn his living entirely from his photography and discussed the change in his mentality that this generated.

 

[Joanna Carter]

COST?

Ah yes, I'd forgotten Martin comes from Yorkshire. hence the love for a camera made out of nowt but a cardboard box and a pinhole



My father's family came from West Hartlepool and Knaresborough but I sought therapy

I just happen to love working with film, especially pinhole photography. There's something about it that's hard to beat.

I too would love to work with film but, as I've said, without the space for a darkroom, I work hybrid, which might just as well be digital. And then, there's the cost and availability of the film as opposed to being able to take 250,000 photos on one shutter box for free.

The big difference between you and me Martin, is that I have battled all my life for ultimate sharpness, whereas so many LF photos I see in these fora seem to be beset with diffraction. Maybe it's my engineering background that pushes me towards precision.

Either way, we obviously both enjoy our photography in our own way. My responses here were just meant to add to the discussion over whether MF film was an acceptable alternative to LF and to point out that digital now beats the socks off it. In no way would I ever try to persuade anyone to drop LF film as your addiction to fuzz and chemistry vapours is obviously too far ingrained

And I'm not trying to win any arguments, I just thought it would make a lively but friendly discussion

 

[AERO]

Ah yes, I'd forgotten Martin comes from Yorkshire. hence the love for a camera made out of nowt but a cardboard box and a pinhole

My father's family came from West Hartlepool and Knaresborough but I sought therapy

 

[Helen Summers]

We could be setting a Guinness, UK, European and World record for the length of thread in this forum

In my view LF is worth it. I spend years wasting my time with 35mm completely frustrated at the unacceptable, to me, image quality. It was Ansel Adams' fault. I saw an exhibition of some of his photos in Liverpool back in the 70s, I think it was. When I compared my efforts to his, it was to use a football comparison, The Bash Street Kids team playing Manchester United, other top teams are available to support.

After that I pretty much gave up serious photography until the early 2000s came along bringing digital. Suddenly the price of LF gear crashed as everyone switched to digital and along with being older and slightly richer I could suddenly afford LF and for my photography it changed everything. The cost of each photo was significant even then, so it made me much more thoughtful about each photograph. No more taking lots of shots in the hope something somehow would come out which it rarely did.

As a result of this approach my success rate soared and I achieved many more photos that satisfied my aspirations. I have now moved to digital simply because I find it too onerous to cart a heavy bag of LF gear around now I am over 70. These days I seldom go on planned trips to specific locations with the aim of taking photographs of that location. Nowadays, my photographs are found whilst out walking, so LF isn't practicable for me and I have devolved, some would say downward to digital, where I can get the same high resolution, which is important to me, without killing my back.

Incidentally, someone mentioned AA using a Hasselblad, but that was because he too was finding lugging LF gear too much effort. I guess he would probably have preferred to continue with LF if he could have.

Anyway, I digress a bit. What I am saying, in a slightly long winded way, is that using LF gear has influenced the way I use my digital photographic gear. Apart from from using back button focus because I can't trust my eyes anymore. I use the camera entirely in manual and endeavour to treat making a photo with the same care and thought as though I was using my LF camera. I think if everyone spent a while using LF, even if they didn't stay with it, the standard of photography generally, would improve all around.

Like Joanna, I still get my LF camera out play with it, stroke it etc and dream of taking photos with it, because in my heart LF feels like proper photography in a way that nothing else does.

 

[Alan Clark]

When we talk about the quality of large format and the quality of digital and medium format, we are, I think, in danger of promoting the idea that the purpose of photography is to produce images that are ultra sharp and grain free; images that have "quality". But this isn't the real aim of photography is it?
Take the case of James Ravillious. When he worked for the Beaford Arts Centre in Devon he produced literally thousands of 35mm photographs. Later he switched to large format and medium format for more personal work. These later photographs are very good but his earlier work, depicting rural life in North Devon, done with a leica camera are, in my opinion, absolutely world class - some of the best photographs around. They might not be as sharp or as grain-free as large format, but this doesn't matter. They are full of humanity. And because they are mainly of people, moving around and unposed, they actually couldn't have been taken with a large format camera.

 

[Alan Klein]

One issue with MF vs LF is Velvia 50, my favorite color film. It's no longer made in large format, although I have two boxes stored in the freezer that's growing in value daily, faster than gold.

 

[Alan Klein]

We could be setting a Guinness, UK, European and World record for the length of thread in this forum

In my view LF is worth it. I spend years wasting my time with 35mm completely frustrated at the unacceptable, to me, image quality. It was Ansel Adams' fault. I saw an exhibition of some of his photos in Liverpool back in the 70s, I think it was. When I compared my efforts to his, it was to use a football comparison, The Bash Street Kids team playing Manchester United, other top teams are available to support.

After that I pretty much gave up serious photography until the early 2000s came along bringing digital. Suddenly the price of LF gear crashed as everyone switched to digital and along with being older and slightly richer I could suddenly afford LF and for my photography it changed everything. The cost of each photo was significant even then, so it made me much more thoughtful about each photograph. No more taking lots of shots in the hope something somehow would come out which it rarely did.

As a result of this approach my success rate soared and I achieved many more photos that satisfied my aspirations. I have now moved to digital simply because I find it too onerous to cart a heavy bag of LF gear around now I am over 70. These days I seldom go on planned trips to specific locations with the aim of taking photographs of that location. Nowadays, my photographs are found whilst out walking, so LF isn't practicable for me and I have devolved, some would say downward to digital, where I can get the same high resolution, which is important to me, without killing my back.

Incidentally, someone mentioned AA using a Hasselblad, but that was because he too was finding lugging LF gear too much effort. I guess he would probably have preferred to continue with LF if he could have.

Anyway, I digress a bit. What I am saying, in a slightly long winded way, is that using LF gear has influenced the way I use my digital photographic gear. Apart from from using back button focus because I can't trust my eyes anymore. I use the camera entirely in manual and endeavour to treat making a photo with the same care and thought as though I was using my LF camera. I think if everyone spent a while using LF, even if they didn't stay with it, the standard of photography generally, would improve all around.

Like Joanna, I still get my LF camera out play with it, stroke it etc and dream of taking photos with it, because in my heart LF feels like proper photography in a way that nothing else does.

Clyde Butcher, a large format landscape photographer from Florida, moved on to digital capture because of his age as well. He used LF up to 12x20". It's hard to slog around the alligator-infested Everglades capturing photos with LF. He prints film and digital in prints over 60". Here's an explanation of the equipment he uses, both film and digital. I visited his gallery/darkroom in Venice, Florida a while back to see his darkroom and his work. Pretty amazing.

https://clydebutcher.com/artists/clyde/techniques/cameras

 

[martin henson]

Ah yes, I'd forgotten Martin comes from Yorkshire. hence the love for a camera made out of nowt but a cardboard box and a pinhole

Ey up, lass! Rite, that's it, Jo, tha'll not get owt off me fer Xmas 'less it's a box wi' a hole in it, so tha can get t'practicin' tha' photo skills!

 

[Joanna Carter]

I think, in danger of promoting the idea that the purpose of photography is to produce images that are ultra sharp and grain free; images that have "quality". But this isn't the real aim of photography is it?

I would say it can be, but it all depends on the target audience. Take these two recent shots from Helen…

https://www.digitalmonochromeforum.co.uk/attachments/img_0025_1_dxo-jpg.20978/

https://www.digitalmonochromeforum.co.uk/attachments/_hln0031_1_dxo-jpg.20782/

Is one more "valid" than the other?

his earlier work, depicting rural life in North Devon, done with a leica camera are, in my opinion, absolutely world class - some of the best photographs around

I agree. Some of them are great but don't forget that it wasn't a "straight" Leica. He eschewed the more modern lenses for uncoated, low contrast lenses, because that is the look and feel he wished to convey for that particular project

And, no I would not call them all "world class". But, just like Henri Cartier Bresson, who inspired him and who is much worshipped, especially here in France, they might suit a certain audience, but not everyone.

We went to an exhibition of Bresson's work in Landerneau a couple of years ago and, must say, we were not overly impressed. There were just over 300 prints but, really, only about of a dozen or so (his better known) that we felt were above the rest.

What makes Ravillious' work stand out is not necessarily the image quality, it is the who, what, why, when and where that he recorded. This is what gives them their "humanity".

And, yes, it would be difficult to record these scenes with an LF camera but I have a Mamiya 7II rangefinder 6x7 camera, which is every bit as competent as any Leica and almost as unobtrusive.

Of course, 35mm film cannot record the same level of detail as 120. But there seems to be a "magic" that has helped Leica get very rich over the years and, apart from being able to show off the little red dot, a lot of aspiring photographers have fallen for the marketing in the hope that buying such a camera made people like Bresson and Ravillious famous. It must have been the camera. But, no, it wasn't. As we all know, it is the natural ability and skill of the photographer.

Ey up, lass! Rite, that's it, Jo, tha'll not get owt off me fer Xmas 'less it's a box wi' a hole in it, so tha can get t'practicin' tha' photo skills!

Well, I'll go t't top o'th brew! That'll be reet gradely

 

[HowLarge]

I can see you now , accepting a gift of a finely tailored shirt in a strong and well made box - unwrapping , opening the box , dropping the shirt and caressing the box - it’s prefer you exclaim

I thin ai would probably do the same..