4x5 or medium format.

[Derrel]

Me developing a roll of 120 black-and-white film shot in the summer of 2014 at the Oregon coast at the very south end of Lincoln city in a place that used to be known as Taft. In the 1950s or so, several small towns along the Oregon coast were combined into one larger town and the new name of Lincoln City was decided upon. As you might guess, I am looking at the film right after it has come out of the wash, in my kitchen "darkroom". In the summer of 2014 I shot some of the first film I had shot in about 13 years

 

[480sparky]

Still, there's a lot to be said about a negative large enough to serve lunch on......

 

[SoulfulRecover]

If you have the thought of doing 4x5, skip 120. Youll end up there anyway and might as well invest in it now rather than jack around with medium format. I had two RZ67s and loved them to death but once I got my 4x5, I stopped using everything but. If I'm feeling lazy or need to travel light, I'll pack up my FM2 and shoot 35mm.

 

[Derrel]

4x5 it's not that difficult. Plus you have the option to shoot just one or two pictures if you should decide to. 4x5 offers you those wonderful camera movements. And the ability to manipulate subject shape, and to manipulate depth of field.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

4x5 it's not that difficult. Plus you have the option to shoot just one or two pictures if you should decide to. 4x5 offers you those wonderful camera movements. And the ability to manipulate subject shape, and to manipulate depth of field.

Very true!

If you are doing a decent amount of traveling/walking pick up a Speed Graphic or something similar. They will still have movements and will be easier to carry and you can shoot hand held. You can also shoot the dreamy Aero Ektar lenses

 

[Derrel]

It's true the speed graphic is a remarkably easy to use 4 x 5 hand camera.

 

[unpopular]

Graflex RB-series is better for handheld, though no movements on most models.

RB-Series D is a hell of a camera. I used to shoot an RB Series B. Like a ginormous RB67, but leather-clad wood made it pretty lightweight. Nothing more satisfying than a 4x5" SLR with a curtain shutter.

thud-sshhhhhhhhhhlllumfffp

 

[IanG]

It's true the speed graphic is a remarkably easy to use 4 x 5 hand camera.

A Speed Graphic is great with barrel lenses with no shutter and like a Crown Graphic easy to use hand held, I use them both.

However Pacemaker Graphics have poor movements which I find very limiting and frustrating. I much prefer my Super Graphic which has enough movements for all my landscape work and I regularly use it hand held.

Ian

 

[Grandpa Ron]

The 4x5 vs. the 120 format was a lot of tangential issues, besides the bulk of the camera.

• There is the obvious cost per shot for the film.
• Developing a roll of 120 film in my little Yankee tank takes about a pint of developer, stop and fixer.
• Unless I tray develop, my old Yankee 4x5 tank takes 55 oz. (3+ pints) whether I do 1 or 12 negatives.
• A 120 format enlarger is fairly easy to come by.
• Contact printing 4x5 negatives works, but any thing bigger or cropping, requires, a larger, heavier, bulkier and more expensive enlarger.

If you are a serious amateur or pro and you have a permanent film processing set up, all the above might not be an issue. However, if like me, your film work goes in spurts and you set up and tear down in the bathroom or a basement facility. You will probably be mixing a new batch of developer each time you run.

I as a hobbyist, I like to work with both 4x5 and my roll film cameras. My gear is old or used and film volume is small. My time and expense are just the cost of having fun.

Good luck

 

[AlanKlein]

If you have the thought of doing 4x5, skip 120. Youll end up there anyway and might as well invest in it now rather than jack around with medium format. I had two RZ67s and loved them to death but once I got my 4x5, I stopped using everything but. If I'm feeling lazy or need to travel light, I'll pack up my FM2 and shoot 35mm.

That's where I am now having used an RB67 for years. I just got a 4x5 that's half the weight of the RB67. But it's too soon to say I'll throw away my medium format. I never shot a view camera where everything is upside down. That's a big difference from medium format and 35mm. I prefer composing right-side up so I might get a reflex finder for the 4x5. We'll see.

 

[ac12]

If you have the thought of doing 4x5, skip 120. Youll end up there anyway and might as well invest in it now rather than jack around with medium format. I had two RZ67s and loved them to death but once I got my 4x5, I stopped using everything but. If I'm feeling lazy or need to travel light, I'll pack up my FM2 and shoot 35mm.

That's where I am now having used an RB67 for years. I just got a 4x5 that's half the weight of the RB67. But it's too soon to say I'll throw away my medium format. I never shot a view camera where everything is upside down. That's a big difference from medium format and 35mm. I prefer composing right-side up so I might get a reflex finder for the 4x5. We'll see.

I would not drop MF.
MF and LF are two very different worlds.
Even using a 4x5 press camera, the difference is very large.

 

[ac12]

The 4x5 vs. the 120 format was a lot of tangential issues, besides the bulk of the camera.

• There is the obvious cost per shot for the film.
• Developing a roll of 120 film in my little Yankee tank takes about a pint of developer, stop and fixer.
• Unless I tray develop, my old Yankee 4x5 tank takes 55 oz. (3+ pints) whether I do 1 or 12 negatives.
• A 120 format enlarger is fairly easy to come by.
• Contact printing 4x5 negatives works, but any thing bigger or cropping, requires, a larger, heavier, bulkier and more expensive enlarger.

If you are a serious amateur or pro and you have a permanent film processing set up, all the above might not be an issue. However, if like me, your film work goes in spurts and you set up and tear down in the bathroom or a basement facility. You will probably be mixing a new batch of developer each time you run.

I as a hobbyist, I like to work with both 4x5 and my roll film cameras. My gear is old or used and film volume is small. My time and expense are just the cost of having fun.

Good luck

Today things are sadly better.
If you are patient, you can find a nice 4x5 enlarger for cheap or free.
But you are right, they are BIG, BULKY and HEAVY. So difficult to make it a temporary setup.

The best knock-down MF enlarger that I've seen and used is a Durst. Easy to break down and put away between enlarging sessions. I have the M600 (6x6).
The Omega MF enlarger, could have been easy, but the LONG column, the way the head is attached to the column, and the LARGE box makes it difficult to break down and put away. So I would say permanent darkroom or leave it assembled on a movable cart.

I have not tried it, yet, but one option is to develop the sheet film using a print drum. Then you are using much less chemicals, and can develop only a few sheets.

 

[AlanKlein]

I would not drop MF.
MF and LF are two very different worlds.
Even using a 4x5 press camera, the difference is very large.

How do you mean?

 

[ac12]

I would not drop MF.
MF and LF are two very different worlds.
Even using a 4x5 press camera, the difference is very large.

How do you mean?

More in practical use.
For me, MF is quite portable and relatively easy to shoot hand held, 120 roll film is easy to use.

I can grab my MF camera, a roll of film in my pocket, and a meter, and I'm off shooting.
It is easy and fast to take a pic, move to another location/angle and take another pic.​

LF is NOT portable (I shoot a monorail), and it HAS to be shot on a tripod, bulky film holders, etc.

I need the camera, several pre-load film holders (I don't load holders in the field), BIG tripod, focusing cloth, meter, etc.
And if it is more than 50 feet from the car, I need a wheeled cart.
LF tends to be a set up for ONE shot, since it is not easy to move for a different location/angle.
The gear setup is an involved production, compared to MF or 35mm.​

A LF press or field camera (which I want to get) is portable and can be shot handheld, but much slower to shoot compared to MF.

2 shots per holder, and you have to reverse the holder for the 2nd shot. vs. 120 roll film.
The LF press or field camera is an easier to use LF setup, which is why I want to get one.​

So the physical and mental aspect of shooting MF and LF is very different.

 

[IanG]

I shoot MF alongside LF quite regularly, I nearly always us MF hand held except in poor light so it's a quick way to work.

With LF I use a tripod except when they aren't permitted and then I shoot hand held with a Super Graphic (or Crown Graphic). Most field cameras aren't practical for hand holding. I work quite fast with LF regardless of being hand held or on a tripod, it's about familiarity with your equipment, fitting a DDS (film holder) and exposing, turning round etc isn't an issue.

What you will find is LF makes you more discerning in what and how you shoot, that has a knock on effect on smaller format use as well.

The major advantages of LF over most MF cameras is the ability to use movements particularly front tilts and rise/fall and I use these hand held as well as on a tripod (Super Graphic). This was the reason for my switching to LF for my personal work around 1987 from Mamiya 645 cameras, I had contemplated switching to an RB67 system but in terms of bulk etc I preferred my Wista 45DX a choice I've not regretted.

In terms of weight and portability LF isn't an issue, last weekend I was with a group of photographers on Dartmoor (Devon, UK) and had my Wista 3 lenses, 6 DDS, light meter, and a Rolleiflex all in a small regular backpack the type people use to go to a gym. I carry the tripod by hand and the backpack is light and easy. That's walking for at least a couple of hours and shooting.

Ian