I was told by the clerk at the camera store that the price of 4x5 film was going up because the demand for it is declining. I thought a lack of demand would drive prices down, and I said so, but was told that lowering the price would making the film not worthwhile; that it would not be cost effective. I never was very good at economics.
The argument that image quality, especially when enlarged, is superior with 4x5 is getting weaker. I have seen digital images, enlarged, with incredible detail and sharpness. Still not in league with a 4x5 but even a painting by a master artist begins to fall apart if you peer at it close enough.
I find it a shame that demand for 4x5 is waning. Even Photography Courses offered here are going entirely digital, I am told. I think it is beneficial to learn to excell in the LF format if you are able to go that route. The entire process of making an image from beginning to end has greater meaning because more effort is put into it. You have to learn to anticipate the fleeting light conditions. I was used to roaming around with my SLR and when I saw something I liked I had time to set up and take the shot. With the 4x5 the moment was, more often than not, gone by the time I am was ready. I had some frantic moments when I tried. Planning ahead, and patience are things to be cultivated in photography.
Shooting in the Large Format takes you to the very roots of photography. Ansel Adams was a pioneer in taking beautiful landscapes images and he worked with Large Format. I likely never would be of his calibre but I would like to follow in his footsteps.
I do plan to get a digital slr but I want to master the LF first. And I always want to work with both formats.
What are your thoughts on this? Thank you for your feedback.
I don't use LF, yet anyway. I´m planning to in the near future though. I think, this is probably where the price development is going for film, as more and more go to digital. A shame really as it will probably prevent a lot of people new to photography from ever trying film.
Regards
Posted by Dan Borzynski on March 29, 2006 at 1:16 PM
I have a couple of shots of 4x5 vs the Canon 20D. There is no comparison.
There is a difference in fine details, once you to 11x14 and especially at 16x20. Also, color and tones just seemed to be a lot "richer". Not more saturated, just more to them. I know, that doesn't make much sense, but it is noticeable. I had seen a number of Danny Burk's LF prints and had seen what was possible, but until I saw my own work, I had not appreciated the difference in the prints.
I was under the impression that thes was some increase in 4x5 use in the last couple of years.
This is NOT a knock against digital. I love my 20D and lust after the 1DS Mark II and am planning to sell the 35 mm bodies soon, but 4x5 is simly a difference medium. For landscapes, I have serious doubts that I will ever preferentially shoot digital or 35 mm again. For my macro, tight floral, insects, etc, digital.
Darren is right. Don't worry about 4x5 film availability - it's not going anywhere. It's likely that selection will get smaller and prices *will* go up gradually, same as lab processing prices, but that's a small consideration in view of all that 4x5 has to offer.
LF camera sales are doing very well; Jeff at Badger has a hard time keeping many of the models in stock. Sometimes he sells out before a new shipment even arrives. And I have an ongoing inflow of new LF shooters joining my "Intro to LF" and other workshops; most of the folks who attend my workshops (not just those that are LF-specific) are LF or 617 panoramic shooters. As I've said many times, I have no worries whatever about the future of LF. And finally, don't believe much that a camera store clerk tells you
It's not surprising to me that prices are rising as the larger manufacturers are diverting resources towards digital R&D and manufacturing. I wouldn't worry about the availability of film for a long time though.
As for image quality - a single digital capture from a 35mm or smaller sensor will not come close. The newer medium format backs apparently are pretty close but very few can afford them at this time.
That said, I have seen prints made from stitched digital captures that are undoubtedly the most detailed I have ever seen from any format.
As always it comes to picking the right tool for the right job. Not everything fits one system or the other.
There is a backlash against digital in a number or areas in photography. One is nature photography. Some of the big calendar/poster companies have been burned by the 'quality' of digital files given to them bu photographers and now insist and will only take images shot on tranny film and shot with medium or large format. If you have big trannies you can make some good sales over those who only have digital files - I am getting lots of film sales still from these kinds of clients. My book publisher wants me to shoot digital (saves them money and time) but as soon as a poster company wants my images I know I will be sending them film.
Posted by Josh Anderson on March 29, 2006 at 1:59 PM
How many nature photographers get requests for posters? Aside from a select few, I think the quality of digital photography more than satisfies the needs for most agencies that the majority of us deal with. LF just isn't an option when one travels on foot/backpacking to remote areas to get images that are not just off a major highway or from a parking lot in a NP. Just look through any magazine. Technicals are important, but unique compositions are the real selling point.
"LF just isn't an option when one travels on foot/backpacking to remote areas to get images that are not just off a major highway or from a parking lot in a NP."
I know many LFers that may disagree with you here. I always backpack in or day hike away from the more common areas with my LF equipment. And my LF stuff probably is close or even less than what you carry in, weight wise.
I have to agree with Jim. My LF gear weighs less than the 35mm gear I used to carry. And except for the long telephoto, I can do everything with my LF that I did with my 35mm gear, including Macro. I hike with my LF gear every where now.
Posted by Mark Windom on March 29, 2006 at 3:26 PM
I am encountering the same thing that Darwin is when it comes to marketing. The vast majority of calendar companies I deal with prefer film to digital, many prefer MF and LF and won't even consider 35mm. The decision to go digital is a tempting one for a number of reasons but not at the expense of losing customers. It just seems to make sense to me to shoot film and scan for those who want digital files...that way you've got all your bases covered. Am I missing something here?
"Aside from a select few, I think the quality of digital photography more than satisfies the needs for most agencies that the majority of us deal with."
You are correct in regards to most major publications and agencies. Despite this, there is more to the story for many. Personally, at the end of the day, current digital solutions do not satisfy my needs as someone who is interested in fine art printmaking. There is something to be said about personal standards and their relationship to equipment choices. I recently switched from 6x7 to 4"x5" and the difference is quite remarkable. The view camera is still in many senses, THE tool for precision image making...and not simply because of the size of the film. While I have nothing against digital (in fact I welcome the day that it becomes a true alternative to sheet film), it simply does not provide the results I seek for my personal work. If my only goal was only to shoot stock, or sell to magazine publications, digital would be hard to pass by. I guess all I'm trying to say, is that we need to use the right tools for our personal goals, and for many of us, the view camera is still that tool.
On a side note, I ordered a chrome hardware Tachihara from Midwest Photo Exchange a number of weeks back and it just recently shipped because they had sold out. There must be some demand out there still.
"LF just isn't an option when one travels on foot/backpacking to remote areas to get images that are not just off a major highway or from a parking lot in a NP"
Not so. It all depends on what you're carrying. A 4x5 outfit, with camera of moderate weight and 3-4 light lenses is very light indeed...about the same, or less, than a professional quality 35mm camera with the same number of prime lenses. Even with back problems, I don't hesitate to carry a reduced version of my normal large pack (10 lenses) on a longer hike; in a light backpack, the reduced version weighs only about 15 pounds. The difference in end result is so great that, for many photographers who expect and demand the highest quality, a smaller format isn't worth consideration. If someone doesn't expect to print larger than, say, 8x10, a small format is certainly adequate in resolution, but when the intent is to create larger prints of 16x20 and up, there's really no other option that fits the bill.
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 29, 2006 at 6:50 PM
Living where I do, I sometimes have to hike into places off a road, and in snow deep enough to need snowshoes. When I go to that much effort to get a shot, you can bet it's one I want a good image of. My 4x5 system weighs about the same as my Nikon with heavy pro lenses. As for film availability, I have noticed that smaller, regional stores such as Christian Photo in Des Moines and Rockport Camera in Omaha have raised prices on 4x5 slightly. Since they were already significantly higher than ordering from B&H, I wasn't buying from them anyway. B&H seems to be holding pretty steady on prices, all in all. The way I look at it, how much is a digital system going to cost me to get half the image quality? Think of Canon tilt lenses at a thousand bucks a piece, and an $8,000 body. Or, a $14,000 Hassy back. Film cost just isn't a factor to me.
When I ordered my Shen Hao I thought that Large Format was on the rise in popularity too. But it is easy for me to be persuaded that the popularity is waning. I would have to do a very diligent search to find an LF system for sale at a camera store here. I certainly do not see them on display on the shelves. I am getting reassurances aplenty here that LF is still on demand.
The opinion that the quality of a 4x5 is still superior to digital is also reassuring. But my experience with the LF has introduced a few drawbacks too. For one thing I shoot far less prolifically. During a visit to the Lake O'hare region in Yoho Park, I was shooting alongside a pro photographer who had a digital slr camera, one of those medium format kinds. I had thought that the light was gone for the day when suddenly the mountains began to glow with this fantastic alpine glow. I managed to get one shot and it was very rushed. The pro had many. During the fleeting photogenic light I also had to agonize over which composition I wanted too; I saw several potential shots. There just wasn't time. On th trip to the Lake O'hara region I missed a lot of shots that I would normally have taken with my Canon EOS SLR. For one thing the terrain made it difficult. For example portions of the trail around the lake was on a narrow ledge. I would have been impeding a lot of hikers if I decided to set up my LF there. Another thing that made me think that the popularity of LF is on the wane is that two photographers we met at Lake O'hare both had switched from LF to digital. Maybe I am too easily persuaded in my thinking.
I am highly encouraged by Darwin's comment that Calendar/Poster companies prefer the LF trannies over digital. It is my goal to have an image of mine accepted by them.
As for the price of 4x5 film, I looked at Badger Graphics. When I include the exchange rate, shipping, handling, and taxes, the difference is not that great.
One more note on the weight and portability of the LF system. It doesn't weigh significantly more than a digital slr; in fact I found the Canon D20 quite heavy. Sure, the LF is bigger but carrying around a Large Format impressed a few people.
Thank you all for your thoughts.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Kent Staubus on March 29, 2006 at 7:37 PM
When I shoot 35mm, I can shoot 4 rolls and get 4 images that I really like from the ~140 frames I shot. When I used medium format I shot about 4 rolls (120) and got about 4 images I really liked from the 60 frames I shot. When I shoot LF I might shoot 6 frames a day, and get about 4 images I really like. I've come to the conclusion that it's not how many shots I take, but how many good ones I have at the end of the day that counts.
I whole heartedly agree with you Kent. And the ones I missed are still there waiting for me. Maybe even better than before.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Posted by Robert Helms on March 29, 2006 at 8:35 PM
I agree with Danny completely. To me it seems LF has gained in popularity since I began my journey in it a little over a year ago.I believe it has a lot to do with people becoming for informed of their choices. I never considered LF til I posted a topic on this forum, all the good insight I received allowed me to make an informative decision and one I do not regret at all. I love LF, even though it demands patience and a little planning. It rewards so nicely I will never give it up.
I think I'm the only one for miles it seems that even shoots LF and the majority of people do not even know it exists. I can say this though I have sold 5 images since I started LF. I have another two sales pending once I get the prints made. After showing these people images printed with LF they wouldn't even consider my 35mm images, since the quality is not as good at 16x. These people love sticking their noses to a print. They just never knew one could shoot a larger format and get such great detail from less than a foot away at larger than 8x10,12
It's never about viewing distance to me. It's about getting up close and really getting into the image.I always encourage people to do so and the results are always the same. WOW! The more people view these types of images the more they are going to be searching for richly detailed images to decorate their home or office etc.
As for hiking with LF. I do it all the time and even take along my 35mm equipment as well. If I leave the 35mm at home, which is rare, I feel like I'm carrying next to nothing with just the LF equip.
I also very much agree with Guy about shifting funds. Every camera equipment manufacturer knows that digital is where the money is. The way some people upgrade their bodies and such can only mean high profits for a company. It'a good business sense to continue on this path.
As for film cost I have not seen anything that leads me to get excited about the cost. LF is expensive to some,but cheaper to me cause I do not shoot just to feel good like I did when I shot mostly 35mm. Now I mostly shoot because I feel it is good,I no longer try to make something good that isn't.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on March 29, 2006 at 9:06 PM
The comments about calendar and poster publishers are interesting. I wonder if the backlash is against bad Photoshop work rather than digital files. I see a lot of bad Photoshop work in print these days. For example, I recently picked up a coffee table book of landscape photos. I was disappointed by a lot of the images because of things like hideous white outlines around silhouettes or that "crunchy" over sharpened look. Is it possible that calendar and poster publishers prefer film so that they can do their own PS work?
Cheers,
Posted by Roger Rouch on March 30, 2006 at 12:11 AM
I feel fortunate enough to be able to afford a 4X5 setup as my "second" camera. With two or three lenses it is totally manageable for hiking several miles, though admitedly not as convenient as smaller formats in several respects. I carry my 4X5 when I think my odds of getting a very nice shot are a little higher than some of my more pioneering excursions. I may only shoot 30 or 40 exposures a year using 4X5, but the results are among my more favorite, with a much higher keeper or success ratio. As such I hope to continue to use my 4X5 and any price increases in film will probably not affect this.
It is a little sad that the digital revolution seems to have excluded film for certain special situations. I think that 4X5 shooting is an especially valuable learning tool that forces you to slow down and concentrate.
LF just isn't an option when one travels on foot/backpacking to remote areas to get images that are not just off a major highway or from a parking lot in a NP
I can qualify that it is an option I shoot only one format (4x5) and I've made but few photographs near my car or a road. The tripod holes at the NP overlooks represent but just a micro-fraction of a micro-fraction of the photographic potential in the American landscape.
First thing is - a good image always remains as one, does not matter if it is a 35mm or 8x10. What Kent mentioned is correct. When I shot 35mm I was happy to get one good frame from the 36. I'm shooting 645/67 and happy to get 1 good frame from a 120 roll.
William, I know the temptation of seeing other guy (not our GuyT) firing his Dslr and getting 'at least something'. But frankly when I see prints done from even 6x7 I see the difference. Newer SLRs (5D and such) have reduced the gap in quality. I also hate paying 7 Euro per sheet and then the development. Sorry, am not helping you at all as I'm in the same boat. Worse yet, I'm paying from my own pocket for everything. But hey, it is a hobby and so am fine with it.
William,
I also keep film costs down by buying my film from ebay. Most films auctioned have been refrigerated and the expiration dates are close to the end. I have not found any problems using the close to the end date film. I just purchased 150 sheets of NPS160 film for $89.
This comes out to about .60 a sheet.
Just a thought.
About the 1 or 2 "good ones" on a roll of 36 from a 35mm...why is that the case? And I have fallen in the same boat . If I had 36 4x5 transparencies and only 2 were good I would be very downhearted Is it because we are too quick to shoot while we are more deliberate, methodical, when it comes to firing a 4x5 tranny? I think in my own case it is "shoot first and ask questions later." Why can't we be more deliberate, methodical when it comes to 35mm?
4x5 film is more expense than 35mm, both in the cost of the film and the developing. Nevertheless, I would spend more money on 35mm film. I just buy a lot more . I need to for all those "shoot first ask questions later shots!
And one final thing... it is not too farfetched to one day have a digital slr that would rival a 4x5. If that is so, would you abandon your LF?
Thank you all for the comments. Lots to think about
Will, this quote from Galen Rowell may answer the question:
“(…) A more common situation, one that confronts every 35mm photographer, is to come across a scene that looks as if it would be splendid using a large-format camera, but only so-so on a 35mm slide. This is exactly the kind of situation where differences in approach between large- and small-format photographers matter more than their equipment. A large-format photographer would stop at such a scene, consider it for a while, then spend long minutes setting up his camera until the scene was framed exactly the way he wanted it. A typical amateur with a 35mm would stop, turn towards the scene, make a handheld exposure or two within the first minute, and leave. (…) When I come across a still landscape that moves me, I pretend my Nikon is a bigger camera.”
A 35mm digital SLR will never be able to capture the same amount of detail as 4x5 for the simple reason that lenses are not able to resolve that much information on such a small capture area. I do anticipate better digital solutions to fit into a 4x5 view camera in the future though.
"And one final thing... it is not too farfetched to one day have a digital slr that would rival a 4x5. If that is so, would you abandon your LF?"
No, not if it's an SLR. I'm not at all anti-digital...after all, once the film is processed my workflow is 100% digital. The fact is that I won't give up the control that I have with a view camera. If an untethered, instant-capture, reasonably priced digital back that can be used on a view camera ever becomes available, I'll definitely be interested. The key points of an ideal camera for me remain high resolution, full movement capability, and ground glass focusing. If those three factors remain, I'm not overly concerned about the capture medium as long as it's reliable.
Thank you, Guy. I have certainly spent long minutes setting up and framing the scene to what I want with my 4x5. Perhaps longer than many LF photographers. The time spent and the resulting images are rewarding beyond price.
Dan your reply, regarding controll and the high resolution, full movement capability, and the ground glass focusing as features of an ideal camera is precisely the reasons I decided on a 4x5. Thank you.
There has been and always will be the photographers who prefer and remain devouted to the LF format.
Discussion
25 repliesThe argument that image quality, especially when enlarged, is superior with 4x5 is getting weaker. I have seen digital images, enlarged, with incredible detail and sharpness. Still not in league with a 4x5 but even a painting by a master artist begins to fall apart if you peer at it close enough.
I find it a shame that demand for 4x5 is waning. Even Photography Courses offered here are going entirely digital, I am told. I think it is beneficial to learn to excell in the LF format if you are able to go that route. The entire process of making an image from beginning to end has greater meaning because more effort is put into it. You have to learn to anticipate the fleeting light conditions. I was used to roaming around with my SLR and when I saw something I liked I had time to set up and take the shot. With the 4x5 the moment was, more often than not, gone by the time I am was ready. I had some frantic moments when I tried. Planning ahead, and patience are things to be cultivated in photography.
Shooting in the Large Format takes you to the very roots of photography. Ansel Adams was a pioneer in taking beautiful landscapes images and he worked with Large Format. I likely never would be of his calibre but I would like to follow in his footsteps.
I do plan to get a digital slr but I want to master the LF first. And I always want to work with both formats.
What are your thoughts on this? Thank you for your feedback.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
I don't use LF, yet anyway. I´m planning to in the near future though. I think, this is probably where the price development is going for film, as more and more go to digital. A shame really as it will probably prevent a lot of people new to photography from ever trying film.
Regards
There is a difference in fine details, once you to 11x14 and especially at 16x20. Also, color and tones just seemed to be a lot "richer". Not more saturated, just more to them. I know, that doesn't make much sense, but it is noticeable. I had seen a number of Danny Burk's LF prints and had seen what was possible, but until I saw my own work, I had not appreciated the difference in the prints.
I was under the impression that thes was some increase in 4x5 use in the last couple of years.
This is NOT a knock against digital. I love my 20D and lust after the 1DS Mark II and am planning to sell the 35 mm bodies soon, but 4x5 is simly a difference medium. For landscapes, I have serious doubts that I will ever preferentially shoot digital or 35 mm again. For my macro, tight floral, insects, etc, digital.
LF camera sales are doing very well; Jeff at Badger has a hard time keeping many of the models in stock. Sometimes he sells out before a new shipment even arrives. And I have an ongoing inflow of new LF shooters joining my "Intro to LF" and other workshops; most of the folks who attend my workshops (not just those that are LF-specific) are LF or 617 panoramic shooters. As I've said many times, I have no worries whatever about the future of LF. And finally, don't believe much that a camera store clerk tells you
As for image quality - a single digital capture from a 35mm or smaller sensor will not come close. The newer medium format backs apparently are pretty close but very few can afford them at this time.
That said, I have seen prints made from stitched digital captures that are undoubtedly the most detailed I have ever seen from any format.
As always it comes to picking the right tool for the right job. Not everything fits one system or the other.
Guy
I know many LFers that may disagree with you here. I always backpack in or day hike away from the more common areas with my LF equipment. And my LF stuff probably is close or even less than what you carry in, weight wise.
You are correct in regards to most major publications and agencies. Despite this, there is more to the story for many. Personally, at the end of the day, current digital solutions do not satisfy my needs as someone who is interested in fine art printmaking. There is something to be said about personal standards and their relationship to equipment choices. I recently switched from 6x7 to 4"x5" and the difference is quite remarkable. The view camera is still in many senses, THE tool for precision image making...and not simply because of the size of the film. While I have nothing against digital (in fact I welcome the day that it becomes a true alternative to sheet film), it simply does not provide the results I seek for my personal work. If my only goal was only to shoot stock, or sell to magazine publications, digital would be hard to pass by. I guess all I'm trying to say, is that we need to use the right tools for our personal goals, and for many of us, the view camera is still that tool.
On a side note, I ordered a chrome hardware Tachihara from Midwest Photo Exchange a number of weeks back and it just recently shipped because they had sold out. There must be some demand out there still.
Not so. It all depends on what you're carrying. A 4x5 outfit, with camera of moderate weight and 3-4 light lenses is very light indeed...about the same, or less, than a professional quality 35mm camera with the same number of prime lenses. Even with back problems, I don't hesitate to carry a reduced version of my normal large pack (10 lenses) on a longer hike; in a light backpack, the reduced version weighs only about 15 pounds. The difference in end result is so great that, for many photographers who expect and demand the highest quality, a smaller format isn't worth consideration. If someone doesn't expect to print larger than, say, 8x10, a small format is certainly adequate in resolution, but when the intent is to create larger prints of 16x20 and up, there's really no other option that fits the bill.
Kent in SD
The opinion that the quality of a 4x5 is still superior to digital is also reassuring. But my experience with the LF has introduced a few drawbacks too. For one thing I shoot far less prolifically. During a visit to the Lake O'hare region in Yoho Park, I was shooting alongside a pro photographer who had a digital slr camera, one of those medium format kinds. I had thought that the light was gone for the day when suddenly the mountains began to glow with this fantastic alpine glow. I managed to get one shot and it was very rushed. The pro had many. During the fleeting photogenic light I also had to agonize over which composition I wanted too; I saw several potential shots. There just wasn't time. On th trip to the Lake O'hara region I missed a lot of shots that I would normally have taken with my Canon EOS SLR. For one thing the terrain made it difficult. For example portions of the trail around the lake was on a narrow ledge. I would have been impeding a lot of hikers if I decided to set up my LF there. Another thing that made me think that the popularity of LF is on the wane is that two photographers we met at Lake O'hare both had switched from LF to digital. Maybe I am too easily persuaded in my thinking.
I am highly encouraged by Darwin's comment that Calendar/Poster companies prefer the LF trannies over digital. It is my goal to have an image of mine accepted by them.
As for the price of 4x5 film, I looked at Badger Graphics. When I include the exchange rate, shipping, handling, and taxes, the difference is not that great.
One more note on the weight and portability of the LF system. It doesn't weigh significantly more than a digital slr; in fact I found the Canon D20 quite heavy. Sure, the LF is bigger but carrying around a Large Format impressed a few people.
Thank you all for your thoughts.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Kent in SD
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
I think I'm the only one for miles it seems that even shoots LF and the majority of people do not even know it exists. I can say this though I have sold 5 images since I started LF. I have another two sales pending once I get the prints made. After showing these people images printed with LF they wouldn't even consider my 35mm images, since the quality is not as good at 16x. These people love sticking their noses to a print. They just never knew one could shoot a larger format and get such great detail from less than a foot away at larger than 8x10,12
It's never about viewing distance to me. It's about getting up close and really getting into the image.I always encourage people to do so and the results are always the same. WOW! The more people view these types of images the more they are going to be searching for richly detailed images to decorate their home or office etc.
As for hiking with LF. I do it all the time and even take along my 35mm equipment as well. If I leave the 35mm at home, which is rare, I feel like I'm carrying next to nothing with just the LF equip.
I also very much agree with Guy about shifting funds. Every camera equipment manufacturer knows that digital is where the money is. The way some people upgrade their bodies and such can only mean high profits for a company. It'a good business sense to continue on this path.
As for film cost I have not seen anything that leads me to get excited about the cost. LF is expensive to some,but cheaper to me cause I do not shoot just to feel good like I did when I shot mostly 35mm. Now I mostly shoot because I feel it is good,I no longer try to make something good that isn't.
Cheers,
It is a little sad that the digital revolution seems to have excluded film for certain special situations. I think that 4X5 shooting is an especially valuable learning tool that forces you to slow down and concentrate.
I can qualify that it is an option
William, I know the temptation of seeing other guy (not our GuyT) firing his Dslr and getting 'at least something'. But frankly when I see prints done from even 6x7 I see the difference. Newer SLRs (5D and such) have reduced the gap in quality. I also hate paying 7 Euro per sheet and then the development. Sorry, am not helping you at all as I'm in the same boat. Worse yet, I'm paying from my own pocket for everything. But hey, it is a hobby and so am fine with it.
PS: I have no problems with carrying LF.
I also keep film costs down by buying my film from ebay. Most films auctioned have been refrigerated and the expiration dates are close to the end. I have not found any problems using the close to the end date film. I just purchased 150 sheets of NPS160 film for $89.
This comes out to about .60 a sheet.
Just a thought.
4x5 film is more expense than 35mm, both in the cost of the film and the developing. Nevertheless, I would spend more money on 35mm film. I just buy a lot more
And one final thing... it is not too farfetched to one day have a digital slr that would rival a 4x5. If that is so, would you abandon your LF?
Thank you all for the comments. Lots to think about
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
“(…) A more common situation, one that confronts every 35mm photographer, is to come across a scene that looks as if it would be splendid using a large-format camera, but only so-so on a 35mm slide. This is exactly the kind of situation where differences in approach between large- and small-format photographers matter more than their equipment. A large-format photographer would stop at such a scene, consider it for a while, then spend long minutes setting up his camera until the scene was framed exactly the way he wanted it. A typical amateur with a 35mm would stop, turn towards the scene, make a handheld exposure or two within the first minute, and leave. (…) When I come across a still landscape that moves me, I pretend my Nikon is a bigger camera.”
A 35mm digital SLR will never be able to capture the same amount of detail as 4x5 for the simple reason that lenses are not able to resolve that much information on such a small capture area. I do anticipate better digital solutions to fit into a 4x5 view camera in the future though.
Guy
No, not if it's an SLR. I'm not at all anti-digital...after all, once the film is processed my workflow is 100% digital. The fact is that I won't give up the control that I have with a view camera. If an untethered, instant-capture, reasonably priced digital back that can be used on a view camera ever becomes available, I'll definitely be interested. The key points of an ideal camera for me remain high resolution, full movement capability, and ground glass focusing. If those three factors remain, I'm not overly concerned about the capture medium as long as it's reliable.
Dan your reply, regarding controll and the high resolution, full movement capability, and the ground glass focusing as features of an ideal camera is precisely the reasons I decided on a 4x5. Thank you.
There has been and always will be the photographers who prefer and remain devouted to the LF format.
Thank you all for responding to this thread.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada