Posted by Derek Sedillo on January 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Currently I shoot digital (Canon 10D).
However after seeing the amazing work of many forum members here I have started to wonder about the the *costs* associated with 4x5 photography. I have to with three small children to feed
It seems like costs have an inverse relationship to digital photography. Less expensive to start, more expensive to use, develop and scan.
1. Initial setup - Back and Lens and??? It seems like there are a lot of 4x5s for sale on ebay at reasonable prices (<$500). But many could be junk. I don't really know.
2. Film, development and scanning costs - Velvia 100F 4x5 seems to cost ~ $3 an exposure online, possibly cheaper from film outlets, etc... Development - don't know. Quality Scanning - don't know.
A couple observations - At ~$3 a shot it seems like planning and composing an image becomes much more critical. Proofing would seem to be very important to avoid spending too much on the printing of dogs.
Are these observations of cost even remotely close to reality? Are their other hidden costs that need to be considered?
I don't know if I could develop the patience for it after digital. But the end results may make it worth it even though I am used to instant gratification.
Thanks,
Derek
Posted by Todd Caudle on January 16, 2007 at 5:07 PM
It's so much more than cost. The whole style of LF shooting (and even film vs. digital) so greatly alters the way you do just about everything in photography that these considerations should be analyzed. For instance, when I went from medium-format to LF, (from $1/shot to $4/shot, film and processing), I figured I would shoot a pretty limited amount of film, and just make each shot count. In the field I quickly found that I was more apt to say, hey, if it's good enough for ONE LF shot, it must be good enough for THREE!
Also, digital takes the per-shot equation out of your work, the lenses are faster to work with, and you stand a better chance of affording a simple tele lens. These factors alone have made me much more prolific with digital than I was with film.
I used to shoot 35mm as well, albeit it was film, and after a hike with a friend who was shooting 8x10, I was hooked. The cost of my 4x5 system is just about as much my 35mm system cost me. You can get a brand new field camera(mine is a tachihara) for under $600, add a couple of MC lenses at about $300 each, a quickload holder, box of film, and you can be shooting at less of a cost as your digital setup costs you. The trade off comes in with film and processing as you expected, but not as much as you think. 4x5 film actualy costs less per square inch than 35mm film. And at ~$2.50/sheet, you will take many many fewer pictures, but those that you do take the time and preperation to take, will blow you away. I get my film developed for $1.50/sheet, push and pull at no extra cost. I bought a cheap epson 2450 for scanning for web and to preview each scan in photoshop so I know what to do when i get the drum scan. I get my drum scans at 350mb/$45. These are just a few cost/benefit comparisons, i'm sure other folks have many more. I do believe that 4x5 is the ultimate landscape system. Much lighter and more portable that 8x10, cheaper that a good digital system by far, huge image area, and movements to boot! I bet if you sold your digital system, you could buy a complete 4x5 system and still have money left over.........
Posted by Derek Sedillo on January 16, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Todd,
I was just talking to Dave Showalter about his great new website and excellent images. He mentioned that you helped validate his switch to digital a couple of years ago. He likes to be on the move and shoot wildlife so 35mm digital works better for him. I think the style issue you mentioned plays a big role which I will need to consider. I would guess that the setup/compose time might be a bit much for shots like this: http://www.daveshowalter.com/photo.php?id=143&gallery=alaska
Adam - thanks for the details on cost. The only thing I was a bit surprised by is the cost of the drum scans. $45 an image is pretty steep. But I would guess that you would only drum scan your top images. The detail that I am seeing in images which Jack, Erik and others are achieving is very impressive.
Thanks,
Derek
Posted by Rich Long on January 16, 2007 at 6:51 PM
I think the style issue you mentioned plays a big role which I will need to consider.
FWIW, the following description is from the label for my Sand Dunes shot that's going up this weekend. It gives you a glimpse of the style difference.
As the early spring sun began to light the tops of the highest dunes, I had my 4x5 view camera set up on what I thought was the perfect photographic composition. As usual, I had the cart before the horse.
After exposing two sheets, I finally began to really see the many images that surrounded me. Most of them looked better than the one I had just recorded on film. Sand ripples and dune ridges; soft highlights and shadows; streaks of dark, wet sand.
Envisioning the possibilities of this image, I worked quickly to move 30 yards up the dune, find the best angle, set up the tripod and camera, mount the lens, compose the image, focus under the darkcloth, load the film, take a light reading, set the shutter, and snap the photo. A 5 to 10-minute process, which is a lot faster than I normally operate.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on January 16, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Derek,
I think there is definately room for both digital and LF. As mentioned, LF is much more deliberate. At the stage I'm at, I think I'd be hard pressed to expose a piece of film in 5-10 minutes as Rich describes -- but I'm learning. I have my camera pack set up to carry both my LF and digital gear because I know there will be many times when I need the quickness of using the digital in order to capture a moment that I didn't or couldn't anticipate.
As you know I went through this very question and process last Oct/Nov. I'd be happy to show you the equipment I bought and the prices I paid. I used Ebay, private sellers, retail, and used sites like KEH for most of my LF gear.
Including LF into my repertoire has reinvigorated my interest and knowledge of some aspects of photography that I'd gotten lazy about shooting 35mm, especially digital. It makes you think more, IMO, which is good!
Posted by Tony Bouchard on January 16, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Derek,
I don't see that Jack's and Erik's 4x5 and digital shots look all that different. The 4x5 ones just print bigger.
I research my spots and scout locations in advance and am usually content to shoot a single composition per sunrise. I almost always use a tripod. I spend a lot of time working on a single image in post. LF comes naturally for me. If you like to shoot a lot of images handheld & batch process, you will probably not be too happy trying to shoot an LF camera.
The costs are not too bad to get into LF, but vary depending on how many sheets you expose. I can easily go through $200/mo in film & proc.
Posted by Rick Dunn on January 16, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Derek - the main costs are the camera and lenses of course; then you'll need film holders or a quickload film holder, a focusing loupe, dark cloth, cable release(s), meter (though you can probably get by using your DSLR meter, though I've had mixed success with that approach). If you don't currently have any grad filters, you may need to invest in those. I blend images with digital but rely on the grads for the LF work. If you don't have a sturdy tripod, that's a must as well. And if you're going to do your own scanning, a scanner.
All in all, you could get started with a good camera, a few lenses and the accoutrements for around $1,500, even less if necessary. I purchased just about everything I have on ebay and if you're patient, you can find sweet deals.
Film and processing will end up being around $4-5 per sheet total; again, I occasionally find great deals on ebay for film. The most I've ever shot is around 15 sheets/day during fall colors. And that's with good light at sunrise and sunset. Typically, it's about 1/2 that. I will on occasion bracket or take 2 exposures (one for processing and one for pushing/pulling depending on the outcome of the first); I try to do that only when there's a great scene in front of me.
Style really is - imo - the most important consideration. LF for me is a very deliberate process, which is one reason I like it so much. Every image is an investment - time and money. Quite a bit different from the shotgun approach that digital accommodates without hurting the wallet too much. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but they are very different.
Posted by Scott Bacon on January 16, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Excellent replies so far. In addition to what's been said, I'd recommend borrowing a 4x5 from someone and spend a day shooting with an experienced LFer (there are plenty here). It will give you a better feel for the "style" or "mode" of shooting LF and how different it is from smaller systems. Then you can decide if it is something you might be interested in.
FWIW, I shoot with both 4x5 and DSLR. What I use depends on the situation and what I think I might do with the final image.
Posted by Stan Rose on January 17, 2007 at 12:39 AM
This is great discusion, since ive been pondering the feasibility of taking the 4X5 plunge. But one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the future: im really not up on the latest R&R, but just from the last 5 years or so, seems possible that $10K+ digital systems (16-24 MP) that are comparable (at least to my eye) to 4X5 may be affordable in the near future. But i really don't know--does anyone?
Posted by Derek Sedillo on January 17, 2007 at 12:40 AM
Everyone,
Thanks for the excellent input. These are some really great thoughts on the use of LF cameras. Above and beyond my question of cost. The whole matter of style and personal experiences are greatly appreciated.
Guy, that is a very thought provoking article. Thanks for the reference. Now if I could just convince myself that through eating Habanero peppers I would become a better photographer I could save a lot of $$
I can relate to where you are coming from with the article and can actually imagine myself really thinking through a single composition/exposure more. Thats a challenge which I could only really imagine trying with a LF camera. I can't even imagine attempting it with a digital - I mean waking up early, going out and setting up for a composition, then only taking 1 shot, or maybe 3-4 max. I would just be looking around thinking about all the other possibilties and knowing how much room I have left on my card. But I am sure slowing down and thinking thru my shots more would make me a better photographer.
There is a lot to consider here. Thanks again to all who shared their thoughts on the matter.
- Derek
Posted by Adam Kavalunas on January 17, 2007 at 12:47 AM
I'm no expert, and I'm sure others can correct me if i'm wrong, but I think a 4x5 image is comparable to something like a 150MP camera, if they made one. And IF they made one, it would cost more than your car probably. Anyone out there with concrete numbers? I'm just recalling something i've read somewhere. I'd be interested in knowing this for sure..
Posted by Scott Borger on January 17, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Here's a link to MP equivalents for film. Time for me to get an 8x10
Posted by Kalin Wilson on January 17, 2007 at 1:26 AM
Stan,
Here is an article by Ken Rockwell that I read when I was researching LF and deciding if it was something I wanted to jump into. It made sense to me, especially since I already had an Epson 4870 scanner (although it doesn't compare to a good drum scanner).
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/tachihara.htm
I think it will be a while before a sensor with the detail to rival a 4x5 transparency is affordable by mortal men.
Derek, your point about setting up for a LF shot (and probably waiting for the light) and looking around at other possibilities is why I carry my 35mm digital also. When logistics allows (car-side photography) I carry two tripods so I can shoot digital too. This isn't too practical normally. I have played through scenarios where I get the 4x5 focused and set then set the camera aside to use the tripod with the digital while waiting but I know that's not practical (or smart). So there are trades.
BTW, Ken's site has a lot of info, a fair amount on LF photography.
Of course http://www.largeformatphotography.info is a great resource too.
Posted by Kalin Wilson on January 17, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Guy,
Excellent article. I have recognized the same phenomenom in myself, although my experience with LF is in it's infancy. That was part of the attraction for me, that LF would make me slow down and be more deliberate, and the my photography would improve because of it. Of course I could do the same thing with digital (which I am now doing better at) but I wanted the detail from a big transparency too.
Thanks.
Posted by Stan Rose on January 17, 2007 at 2:24 AM
Kalin: thanks for the suggestions: Rockwell compares medium format to 6MP, so no surprise that film wins! to every argument there's a counter; for example:
http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html
Posted by Kalin Wilson on January 17, 2007 at 4:23 AM
Another interesting article, Stan. From the age of the article it's obvious this is an old debate. When I started thinking about making the move to a larger format, I was actually looking at MF, as Rich Voninski had some gear for sale, and I considered MF the next logical step from 35mm. It was info like this, that digital had already caught and likely passed MF in effective resolution that made me start considering LF seriously and eventually take the plunge.
Thanks for the interchange!
Posted by Rick Dunn on January 17, 2007 at 9:32 AM
Scott Bacon's suggestion is a great one. Also, If you're coming to the shindig, there will almost certainly be several folks there with LF setups that you can checkout.
Guy - excellent article; thanks for linking to it.
I estimate the cost to really get into LF photography to be ~$1.5K-$2K (if you decide not to to develop your own film etc). But I agree with many others out here who talk about LF photography not in terms of cost but in terms of shooting style etc. It is a whole different world. Back in 2001 when I bought my first 4x5 outfit off of EBay. And I didnt know about this forum. My camera showed up well packed via UPS and I honestly didnt even know how to open the damned thing. I remember my first B/W shot ever (Boulder Falls in wintertime). It took me ~30minutes to get the thing kinda setup and I really didnt know what I was doing. Over the next year it got better but I still hated using the thing. I quite often thought about dumping the thing back to Ebay.
I guess it took me about 1.5 years before I started to get to the point where I really preffered to shoot it. I shoot with a Canon 5D, Wisner 4x5 and soon a Gaoersi 6x17. Out of those cameras I shoot with the Wisner more than the others. You also need to consider whether you will be shooting B/W or not. IMHO - if the only advantage you see to shooting LF is being able to make large prints I would get a great DSLR outfit or 6x17.
On the drum scanning just FYI - I offer >350MB drum scans for $45 (and give away the 8th scan free) . At that price compared to WestCoast Imaging prices I am more than half of their cost since they offer similiar services at $99 per scan. Drum scanning is not trivial and is a real pain in the ass to get set up, looking right and takes about an hour to complete a 350MB scan not including setup time, prescans etc. (Did I mention that the tape we use to mount the mylar is $18 per roll?) But drum scans are gorgeous. If you are staying <16x20 you can get away pretty nicely with an epson 4870 or better with full versions of silverfast. They images will lose some sharpness and detail compared to the drum scans but they will be very acceptable.
Basic LF setup:
Camera
2 lenses (I like 110 and 210)
min 10 film holders
quickload/readyload holder (optional)
Loupe
Darkcloth
Decent Cable release
Light meter ( I prefer Zone VI Pentax Digital - but there are many options)
changing tent (to load holders)
filters
Good tripod and head capable of carrying a 4x5
Lensboards
Box of film
(if you decide to do B/W I can give you the list)
Posted by Scott Bacon on January 17, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Derek, Let me know if you're coming to the shindig. I'll bring my Polaroid holder and film. You could set up and take a shot. Not like being in the field, but you'd get the gist...
Just to clarify, I still have my 4x5 camera and love using it (though admittedly not as much anymore). When I do it's because I love the process and the feeling I get from it. I have been doing more "stitched" digital captures recently and to my eye they are much more detailed and clean than 4x5 and take about the same amount of time to set up. Admittedly it's not as much fun though.
I also have to admit that working with 4x5 has taught me a lot about composition and working with my subjects that I was then able to carry over to other systems. Not sure if my digital work would have been as good had it not been for the years of LF work that preceded it... but who knows.
Adam, the reason there are no hard and fast numbers is because there is no agreed-upon standard measure for image quality that can be applied to both mediums. Different people have decided on their own criteria and performed some comparisons but ultimately these numbers tell you nothing about how a viewer will respond to your print.
I guess if I could choose between having the exact same image in a 5D raw file or a drum-scanned 4x5 I will go for the latter, but practical considerations usually dictate that 4x5 is not always an option.
I think I just confused things even more
Guy
Posted by Chris Ebright on January 17, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Derek,
Another option if cost is an issue to get started would be to get an old press camera. That is how I got started, with a Crown Graphic for $200 off ebay that came with a 135mm lens. The quality is not going to be quite as good as some of the newer lenses and the camera lacks all movements besides a little bit of rise, but it at least gives you a cheap taste of the process of large format. (even with that said, i got some keeper shots that i have printed fairly large from the that camera/lens combo) then, if you get comfortable with the idea of shooting 4x5 you can jump to a better, more expesive set up. and the plus side is, after shooting with the press camera, using a more modern field camera with more movements is wonderful! If you are going to the shindig, let me know and I can bring my crown graphic and you can take a look at it.
chris
Derek, I can't add too much to all the incredible info already here. I see this question occasionally on the web, and this will definitely be a thread I'll forward folks to.
Like Scott said Rick said, hopefully you can make to the shindig on the 27th, at least that will give you a chance to see some cameras in person and talk to folks. I know I'm planning on having my gear there. And touching on Chris' comment on a camera like a press camera, I also have one, and it's become more of a decorative piece at home that anything else, so if you are interested in borrowing it for a little while to play with, no problem.
Good luck with figuring ths all out!!
Posted by Derek Sedillo on January 17, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Yes,
I am planning on going to the Shindig, as long as they don't close the roads between Denver & CS due to a new blizzard. But the forecast looks good so far.
Scott, Chris and Brent - I think it would be really cool to check out your LF gear if it isn't too much trouble to bring. I have never even looked thru the lens of a LF camera.
Guy, very interested observations with your new approach using stitching with Canon's 5D FF sensor. Do you use something like a 50 prime to capture the most detail while avoiding lens distortion? I saw another photographer using a similar approach during my Fall Colors trip to the San Juans.
Thanks all. This has turned out to be a very enlightening thread.
Derek, for most of my stitched images I use the 70-200/4. I tried anything from just a couple of frames to over 80 of them (resulting in about 300 megapixels after cropping and adjustments). I find that at 10-15 frames I can match and even surpass the print quality I get from 4x5.
Here's a much reduced version of my 300 megapixel experiment (which I'm not likely to repeat)):
Posted by Derek Sedillo on January 17, 2007 at 3:03 PM
Wow Guy,
With 10 -15 frames you must get a lot of overlap. Is that the intent to achieve maximum detail?
The challenges to this approach I can see would be:
1. Movement from wind - clouds, water, trees, flaura, etc... Have you found that shooting in quick succession helps minimize variation in cloud movement for example?
2. Post Processing alignment where movement has occured. I would image quite a bit of PS healing brush work is required.
Are there other challenges or limitations which you have discovered in using this approach? Have you found photographic techniques which help you compensate for them?
Thanks for the ideas and insight,
Derek
Posted by Grant Collier on January 17, 2007 at 5:22 PM
I pretty much agree with Guy's article. A lot of times I'll see newer photographers with digital cameras who take shots of anything and everything. I think this can be counterproductive, as all the time you spend photographing scenes with little potential can be used searching for a better scene in better light.
Although I now use digital, I'll often spend an entire day out wandering around w/out taking a shot. But when I do find a place that I think has a lot of potential, I like to really work the scene and might take 10-200 shots, which is something I couldn't do with LF. You can force yourself to be more selective and deliberate w/out switching to LF. But it ultimately depends on what you want to do with your photography. If your goal is to make a lot of large prints, 4x5 may well be the best option. For me, my primary goal is publishing photos in books. With the 5D, the images are plenty big at their native size to print in a book at 300-350 dpi. And there's no film grain. When I do want to print big, I'm more than happy with the quality. I've found the quality to be very comparable to medium format.
I do occasionally stitch images. I normally do this when conditions aren't changing rapidly, so I don't have to spend too much time with the healing brush, etc. I usually just do 3 or 4 frames, but I did once go crazy and got a 330 MP image. I find any lens greater than about 50mm will work w/out much distortion.
All this being, I don't want to dissuade anyone form large format. Just learning the craft and being able to take shots in a similar manner to how people photographed 100+ years ago can be a reward in its own right.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on January 18, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Great thoughts Grant!
Ultimately my goal is to become a better landscape and nature photographer. A large part of this goal includes learning to become more deliberate in what I attempt to capture and convey. To do this I want to really look more at the scene for things you describe and allude to (i.e. - composition, lighting, color, perspective, story, etc...).
So either way I will take a lot away from this exchange of ideas. It is very interesting to hear about the carry over from one form to another (LF to Digital).
I also find it extremely interesting to hear a little bit about everyone's own personal journey, style and current uses of these forms of media. I know many here bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table. Many publish books on the subject. I can only imagine what a great book a compilation of these various styles and personal journeys would look like. We could possibly call it 'A Matter of Style.'
Derek, there's obviously pros and cons to each approach. Wind is actually more of a problem with 4x5 since you have to use smaller apertures and can't just bump the ISO sensitivity a notch or two when needed. Movements are definitely an advantage for a view camera.
Alignment and correction are practically non-issues with the new versions to AutoPano Pro and PTAsembler and the likes. The exposures for my 300mp image were taken over several minutes and I did not need to correct anything related to alignment or tone, just process as I would any other image.
Discussion
29 repliesHowever after seeing the amazing work of many forum members here I have started to wonder about the the *costs* associated with 4x5 photography. I have to with three small children to feed
It seems like costs have an inverse relationship to digital photography. Less expensive to start, more expensive to use, develop and scan.
1. Initial setup - Back and Lens and??? It seems like there are a lot of 4x5s for sale on ebay at reasonable prices (<$500). But many could be junk. I don't really know.
2. Film, development and scanning costs - Velvia 100F 4x5 seems to cost ~ $3 an exposure online, possibly cheaper from film outlets, etc... Development - don't know. Quality Scanning - don't know.
A couple observations - At ~$3 a shot it seems like planning and composing an image becomes much more critical. Proofing would seem to be very important to avoid spending too much on the printing of dogs.
Are these observations of cost even remotely close to reality? Are their other hidden costs that need to be considered?
I don't know if I could develop the patience for it after digital. But the end results may make it worth it even though I am used to instant gratification.
Thanks,
Derek
Also, digital takes the per-shot equation out of your work, the lenses are faster to work with, and you stand a better chance of affording a simple tele lens. These factors alone have made me much more prolific with digital than I was with film.
I was just talking to Dave Showalter about his great new website and excellent images. He mentioned that you helped validate his switch to digital a couple of years ago. He likes to be on the move and shoot wildlife so 35mm digital works better for him. I think the style issue you mentioned plays a big role which I will need to consider. I would guess that the setup/compose time might be a bit much for shots like this:
http://www.daveshowalter.com/photo.php?id=143&gallery=alaska
Adam - thanks for the details on cost. The only thing I was a bit surprised by is the cost of the drum scans. $45 an image is pretty steep. But I would guess that you would only drum scan your top images. The detail that I am seeing in images which Jack, Erik and others are achieving is very impressive.
Thanks,
Derek
FWIW, the following description is from the label for my Sand Dunes shot that's going up this weekend. It gives you a glimpse of the style difference.
As the early spring sun began to light the tops of the highest dunes, I had my 4x5 view camera set up on what I thought was the perfect photographic composition. As usual, I had the cart before the horse.
After exposing two sheets, I finally began to really see the many images that surrounded me. Most of them looked better than the one I had just recorded on film. Sand ripples and dune ridges; soft highlights and shadows; streaks of dark, wet sand.
Envisioning the possibilities of this image, I worked quickly to move 30 yards up the dune, find the best angle, set up the tripod and camera, mount the lens, compose the image, focus under the darkcloth, load the film, take a light reading, set the shutter, and snap the photo. A 5 to 10-minute process, which is a lot faster than I normally operate.
I think there is definately room for both digital and LF. As mentioned, LF is much more deliberate. At the stage I'm at, I think I'd be hard pressed to expose a piece of film in 5-10 minutes as Rich describes -- but I'm learning. I have my camera pack set up to carry both my LF and digital gear because I know there will be many times when I need the quickness of using the digital in order to capture a moment that I didn't or couldn't anticipate.
As you know I went through this very question and process last Oct/Nov. I'd be happy to show you the equipment I bought and the prices I paid. I used Ebay, private sellers, retail, and used sites like KEH for most of my LF gear.
Including LF into my repertoire has reinvigorated my interest and knowledge of some aspects of photography that I'd gotten lazy about shooting 35mm, especially digital. It makes you think more, IMO, which is good!
I don't see that Jack's and Erik's 4x5 and digital shots look all that different. The 4x5 ones just print bigger.
I research my spots and scout locations in advance and am usually content to shoot a single composition per sunrise. I almost always use a tripod. I spend a lot of time working on a single image in post. LF comes naturally for me. If you like to shoot a lot of images handheld & batch process, you will probably not be too happy trying to shoot an LF camera.
The costs are not too bad to get into LF, but vary depending on how many sheets you expose. I can easily go through $200/mo in film & proc.
All in all, you could get started with a good camera, a few lenses and the accoutrements for around $1,500, even less if necessary. I purchased just about everything I have on ebay and if you're patient, you can find sweet deals.
Film and processing will end up being around $4-5 per sheet total; again, I occasionally find great deals on ebay for film. The most I've ever shot is around 15 sheets/day during fall colors. And that's with good light at sunrise and sunset. Typically, it's about 1/2 that. I will on occasion bracket or take 2 exposures (one for processing and one for pushing/pulling depending on the outcome of the first); I try to do that only when there's a great scene in front of me.
Style really is - imo - the most important consideration. LF for me is a very deliberate process, which is one reason I like it so much. Every image is an investment - time and money. Quite a bit different from the shotgun approach that digital accommodates without hurting the wallet too much. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but they are very different.
FWIW, I shoot with both 4x5 and DSLR. What I use depends on the situation and what I think I might do with the final image.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0605/gt0605-1.html
Guy
Thanks for the excellent input. These are some really great thoughts on the use of LF cameras. Above and beyond my question of cost. The whole matter of style and personal experiences are greatly appreciated.
Guy, that is a very thought provoking article. Thanks for the reference. Now if I could just convince myself that through eating Habanero peppers I would become a better photographer I could save a lot of $$
I can relate to where you are coming from with the article and can actually imagine myself really thinking through a single composition/exposure more. Thats a challenge which I could only really imagine trying with a LF camera. I can't even imagine attempting it with a digital - I mean waking up early, going out and setting up for a composition, then only taking 1 shot, or maybe 3-4 max. I would just be looking around thinking about all the other possibilties and knowing how much room I have left on my card. But I am sure slowing down and thinking thru my shots more would make me a better photographer.
There is a lot to consider here. Thanks again to all who shared their thoughts on the matter.
- Derek
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
Here is an article by Ken Rockwell that I read when I was researching LF and deciding if it was something I wanted to jump into. It made sense to me, especially since I already had an Epson 4870 scanner (although it doesn't compare to a good drum scanner).
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/tachihara.htm
I think it will be a while before a sensor with the detail to rival a 4x5 transparency is affordable by mortal men.
Derek, your point about setting up for a LF shot (and probably waiting for the light) and looking around at other possibilities is why I carry my 35mm digital also. When logistics allows (car-side photography) I carry two tripods so I can shoot digital too. This isn't too practical normally. I have played through scenarios where I get the 4x5 focused and set then set the camera aside to use the tripod with the digital while waiting but I know that's not practical (or smart). So there are trades.
BTW, Ken's site has a lot of info, a fair amount on LF photography.
Of course http://www.largeformatphotography.info is a great resource too.
Excellent article. I have recognized the same phenomenom in myself, although my experience with LF is in it's infancy. That was part of the attraction for me, that LF would make me slow down and be more deliberate, and the my photography would improve because of it. Of course I could do the same thing with digital (which I am now doing better at) but I wanted the detail from a big transparency too.
Thanks.
http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html
Thanks for the interchange!
Guy - excellent article; thanks for linking to it.
I estimate the cost to really get into LF photography to be ~$1.5K-$2K (if you decide not to to develop your own film etc). But I agree with many others out here who talk about LF photography not in terms of cost but in terms of shooting style etc. It is a whole different world. Back in 2001 when I bought my first 4x5 outfit off of EBay. And I didnt know about this forum. My camera showed up well packed via UPS and I honestly didnt even know how to open the damned thing. I remember my first B/W shot ever (Boulder Falls in wintertime). It took me ~30minutes to get the thing kinda setup and I really didnt know what I was doing. Over the next year it got better but I still hated using the thing. I quite often thought about dumping the thing back to Ebay.
I guess it took me about 1.5 years before I started to get to the point where I really preffered to shoot it. I shoot with a Canon 5D, Wisner 4x5 and soon a Gaoersi 6x17. Out of those cameras I shoot with the Wisner more than the others. You also need to consider whether you will be shooting B/W or not. IMHO - if the only advantage you see to shooting LF is being able to make large prints I would get a great DSLR outfit or 6x17.
On the drum scanning just FYI - I offer >350MB drum scans for $45 (and give away the 8th scan free) . At that price compared to WestCoast Imaging prices I am more than half of their cost since they offer similiar services at $99 per scan. Drum scanning is not trivial and is a real pain in the ass to get set up, looking right and takes about an hour to complete a 350MB scan not including setup time, prescans etc. (Did I mention that the tape we use to mount the mylar is $18 per roll?) But drum scans are gorgeous. If you are staying <16x20 you can get away pretty nicely with an epson 4870 or better with full versions of silverfast. They images will lose some sharpness and detail compared to the drum scans but they will be very acceptable.
Basic LF setup:
Camera
2 lenses (I like 110 and 210)
min 10 film holders
quickload/readyload holder (optional)
Loupe
Darkcloth
Decent Cable release
Light meter ( I prefer Zone VI Pentax Digital - but there are many options)
changing tent (to load holders)
filters
Good tripod and head capable of carrying a 4x5
Lensboards
Box of film
(if you decide to do B/W I can give you the list)
Most of the images at my Mountainscan are LF. I would also strongly recommend checking out the Large Format Info Forum.
Hope that helps.
RichieV
Just to clarify, I still have my 4x5 camera and love using it (though admittedly not as much anymore). When I do it's because I love the process and the feeling I get from it. I have been doing more "stitched" digital captures recently and to my eye they are much more detailed and clean than 4x5 and take about the same amount of time to set up. Admittedly it's not as much fun though.
I also have to admit that working with 4x5 has taught me a lot about composition and working with my subjects that I was then able to carry over to other systems. Not sure if my digital work would have been as good had it not been for the years of LF work that preceded it... but who knows.
Adam, the reason there are no hard and fast numbers is because there is no agreed-upon standard measure for image quality that can be applied to both mediums. Different people have decided on their own criteria and performed some comparisons but ultimately these numbers tell you nothing about how a viewer will respond to your print.
I guess if I could choose between having the exact same image in a 5D raw file or a drum-scanned 4x5 I will go for the latter, but practical considerations usually dictate that 4x5 is not always an option.
I think I just confused things even more
Guy
Another option if cost is an issue to get started would be to get an old press camera. That is how I got started, with a Crown Graphic for $200 off ebay that came with a 135mm lens. The quality is not going to be quite as good as some of the newer lenses and the camera lacks all movements besides a little bit of rise, but it at least gives you a cheap taste of the process of large format. (even with that said, i got some keeper shots that i have printed fairly large from the that camera/lens combo) then, if you get comfortable with the idea of shooting 4x5 you can jump to a better, more expesive set up. and the plus side is, after shooting with the press camera, using a more modern field camera with more movements is wonderful! If you are going to the shindig, let me know and I can bring my crown graphic and you can take a look at it.
chris
Like Scott said Rick said, hopefully you can make to the shindig on the 27th, at least that will give you a chance to see some cameras in person and talk to folks. I know I'm planning on having my gear there. And touching on Chris' comment on a camera like a press camera, I also have one, and it's become more of a decorative piece at home that anything else, so if you are interested in borrowing it for a little while to play with, no problem.
Good luck with figuring ths all out!!
I am planning on going to the Shindig, as long as they don't close the roads between Denver & CS due to a new blizzard.
Scott, Chris and Brent - I think it would be really cool to check out your LF gear if it isn't too much trouble to bring. I have never even looked thru the lens of a LF camera.
Guy, very interested observations with your new approach using stitching with Canon's 5D FF sensor. Do you use something like a 50 prime to capture the most detail while avoiding lens distortion? I saw another photographer using a similar approach during my Fall Colors trip to the San Juans.
Thanks all. This has turned out to be a very enlightening thread.
- Derek
Here's a much reduced version of my 300 megapixel experiment (which I'm not likely to repeat)):
http://scenicwild.com/zoom/wasatch/wasatch.html
Guy
With 10 -15 frames you must get a lot of overlap. Is that the intent to achieve maximum detail?
The challenges to this approach I can see would be:
1. Movement from wind - clouds, water, trees, flaura, etc... Have you found that shooting in quick succession helps minimize variation in cloud movement for example?
2. Post Processing alignment where movement has occured. I would image quite a bit of PS healing brush work is required.
Are there other challenges or limitations which you have discovered in using this approach? Have you found photographic techniques which help you compensate for them?
Thanks for the ideas and insight,
Derek
Although I now use digital, I'll often spend an entire day out wandering around w/out taking a shot. But when I do find a place that I think has a lot of potential, I like to really work the scene and might take 10-200 shots, which is something I couldn't do with LF. You can force yourself to be more selective and deliberate w/out switching to LF. But it ultimately depends on what you want to do with your photography. If your goal is to make a lot of large prints, 4x5 may well be the best option. For me, my primary goal is publishing photos in books. With the 5D, the images are plenty big at their native size to print in a book at 300-350 dpi. And there's no film grain. When I do want to print big, I'm more than happy with the quality. I've found the quality to be very comparable to medium format.
I do occasionally stitch images. I normally do this when conditions aren't changing rapidly, so I don't have to spend too much time with the healing brush, etc. I usually just do 3 or 4 frames, but I did once go crazy and got a 330 MP image. I find any lens greater than about 50mm will work w/out much distortion.
All this being, I don't want to dissuade anyone form large format. Just learning the craft and being able to take shots in a similar manner to how people photographed 100+ years ago can be a reward in its own right.
Ultimately my goal is to become a better landscape and nature photographer. A large part of this goal includes learning to become more deliberate in what I attempt to capture and convey. To do this I want to really look more at the scene for things you describe and allude to (i.e. - composition, lighting, color, perspective, story, etc...).
So either way I will take a lot away from this exchange of ideas. It is very interesting to hear about the carry over from one form to another (LF to Digital).
I also find it extremely interesting to hear a little bit about everyone's own personal journey, style and current uses of these forms of media. I know many here bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table. Many publish books on the subject. I can only imagine what a great book a compilation of these various styles and personal journeys would look like. We could possibly call it 'A Matter of Style.'
Thanks again everyone,
Derek
Alignment and correction are practically non-issues with the new versions to AutoPano Pro and PTAsembler and the likes. The exposures for my 300mp image were taken over several minutes and I did not need to correct anything related to alignment or tone, just process as I would any other image.
Guy