Is 4x5 worth the effort

Alan Clark said:
Well done Marty. Hard luck Martin.. Thanks to you both for sticking your necks out. Nobody else dare... not surprising as there was no discernible difference.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, 'I cheated' ;) in the sense you only have to look at the depth of field.
The MF shot has far greater dof, extending all of the way back to the trees in the background.
The LF on the other hand, stops long short of the trees.
This is all to be expected given the optics.
 
MartyNL said:
In all honesty, 'I cheated' ;) in the sense you only have to look at the depth of field.
The MF shot has far greater dof, extending all of the way back to the trees in the background.
The LF on the other hand, stops long short of the trees.
This is all to be expected given the optics.
Click to expand...
Good for you. I thought someone would pick this up when I said I had used the same lens aperture -f22 - with both formats More depth of field with the medium format lens, as you say.
You win a bottle of beer of your choice. Send the bill to Martin....
 
martin henson said:
My 4x5 cameras have image stabilisation, which is called a tripod :cool:
Click to expand...
Mine has a zoom lens, or at least, I can walk backwards and forwards with it.
MartyNL said:
The MF shot has far greater dof, extending all of the way back to the trees in the background.
The LF on the other hand, stops long short of the trees.
Click to expand...
Now this I find puzzling. Because with a 210mm lens, at f/64, you would have a hyperfocal distance of 5.9m, with everything acceptably sharp from 2.95m to infinity. for the MF shot, you should get a hyperfocal distance of 8.54m and a nearest point of 4.27m.
 
Joanna Carter said:
Mine has a zoom lens, or at least, I can walk backwards and forwards with it.

Now this I find puzzling. Because with a 210mm lens, at f/64, you would have a hyperfocal distance of 5.9m, with everything acceptably sharp from 2.95m to infinity. for the MF shot, you should get a hyperfocal distance of 8.54m and a nearest point of 4.27m.
Click to expand...
But both lenses were at f22, as I said earlier.
 
"Worth it," means different things to different people. I feel à sense of satisfaction and achievement if I make a good print from a 5x4 negative. I can take numerous photographs with my phone and I don't feel any sense of self satisfaction.
 
Alan Clark said:
Why not? I'd had an excellent bowl of porridge for my breakfast, with a large dollop of treacle on it. And I was looking forward to a cup of coffee and a Mars bar. So f22 seemed like the aperture to use....
Click to expand...
That sounds like perfectly logical reasoning to me. Have you thought of publishing a video blog on it? :D
 
Joanna Carter said:
That sounds like perfectly logical reasoning to me. Have you thought of publishing a video blog on it? :D
Click to expand...
I have, but it would mean buying a baseball cap.

To be serious Joanna, I think I wanted the grass around the tree to be sharp, i.e. not blown by the breeze. So I opted for 1/4 second. This would give me f22, i.e. quite a bit of depth of field in front of and behind the tree, so I could assess sharpness and tonality in these areas as well as the tree (which was what I focussed on)
I hope this makes sense. Choice of aperture and exposure time is always a compromise...
 
martin henson said:
I hope you not suggesting that people who shoot medium format rush and put in less effort !!!!
Click to expand...
No not at all Martin, I enjoy shooting medium format, I have the chroma 617 camera using medium format film, but you have to treat this setup like large format shooting. To me the formats are similar and both need care and attension when shooting. Using LF camera's does take a bit longer to setup and get that shot.
 
I've come to this discussion late and many of my feelings have already been voiced.

I'll just say:
- when I had a Mamiya RZ67 kit, my backpack was heavier than my current 5x4 backpack
- movements, movements, movements
- I don't really see using LF as a bother, it's enjoyable.
- I appreciate being able to shoot just one or two images in LF and developing them, without having to wait to finish a roll of 120.
 
Kevin Allan said:
I've come to this discussion late and many of my feelings have already been voiced.

I'll just say:
- when I had a Mamiya RZ67 kit, my backpack was heavier than my current 5x4 backpack
- movements, movements, movements
- I don't really see using LF as a bother, it's enjoyable.
- I appreciate being able to shoot just one or two images in LF and developing them, without having to wait to finish a roll of 120.
Click to expand...

My first LF camera was very heavy, a De Vere Whole plate monorail with Half plate and 5x4 backs, not practical for use in the landscape. I wanted to upgrade from my Mamiya 645 cameras, and one option was a Mamiya RB67.

I quickly realised a Wista and 3 lenses would be lighter, than an RB67 and a similar set of lenses. Later I bought a Super Graphic, and with a 90mm f6.8 Angulon, 203mm Ektar, and a 135mm Symmar S, the combinations is probably lighter than an RB67 and standard lens.

Ian
 
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.
Here we seem to have drifted from what different cameras can do, to discussing what can be done with software. The ironic thing is that once we introduce the capabilities of software, the camera can be discarded entirely. AI will generate any scene you ask.
It’s early days with AI. Who knows what is round the corner? It may still be convenient to use a camera to gather raw material for your personal Skynet to utilise. It might still be expedient to record the faces of the bride and groom from life, for instance.
Incidentally, adjusting the file size to suit the printer is still interpolation. It’s just a matter of choosing which device does it for you.
 
Alan Klein said:
It;s easier to bracket and cheaper with MF.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I always fancied doing contact prints so that is the main reason for me getting into 8x10 recently, have plans on getting some lupex paper.
 
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.
 
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".
 
Dave_P said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

I guess it's learning how to get the best out of a light meter, my first was the non couple Selenium meter of a Zenit E, followed by TTL metering on a Prakticamat ,the Spoywatic F. I was also using a Weston Master V.

In "The Negative" Ansel Adams describe how to use a meter like the Weston with the Zone System, of course a Spometer is much easier.

jhotopf said:
I always fancied doing contact prints so that is the main reason for me getting into 8x10 recently, have plans on getting some lupex paper.
Click to expand...

When I bought my first 10x8 camera that is what I thought, until I held my first 10x8 negative and wanted to enlarge it.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top