MF, LF, film or digital... and do I want to go there at all?

[Alpha]

Ok, so let's run with this.

Perhaps a reducing back on an 8x10 could be a good idea. You could shoot digital, 8x10 film, 4x5 film, polaroid, or scan back. Depending on the camera it can be a bit to lug around.

It does open up some interesting possibilities though.

Consider if you had an 8x10 with a reducing back, a non-scanning digital back, and a MF body.

Now that would be a dream. You could use the 8x10 to shoot 8x10 film, 4x5 film, 4x5 polaroids, or digital (the last two which you could use to proof). And upon returning to the studio, you could slap the back onto a MF body.

 

[Alpha]

I haven't used any scan backs but from what I've read they seem a tad impractical in most cases. Don't all the better-light backs require that you shoot tethered?

 

[Iron Flatline]

Thank you all for your deliberate comments. I am learning a lot, this is exactly the kind of conversation I want to be having. I will come back with a number of specific questions...

These 'should I buy a Phase One P45+ with a Linhof M679 or an Arca Swiss Orbix with Sinar film holders' questions come up so often on TPF that we should ask for this thread to be stickied.

Yes... yes, indeed! Clearly there is a need.

 

[Battou]

I have little to ad to this but I do have a suggestion....


If you are really not sure if you want to move to a larger format you could take a look around for a nice box camera and run your self some test shots before jumping into the higherend equipment. Antique stores usually have 4x5 box cameras readilly available and periodically 6x9 dirt cheap. They would prove to be exelent trial cameras with the price and simplisity despite some possible flaws. Also prices on them are so low that shooting off a half dozen shots is not going to depriciate it, so you could always resell it when you have made your desition one way or another.

 

[Helen B]

...

Consider if you had an 8x10 with a reducing back, a non-scanning digital back, and a MF body.

Now that would be a dream. ...

I have what you describe. It's not a dream. A 10-8 'dorff with a 300 mm lens, a decent tripod and a few film holders is much more desirable in many ways. Cleaner, you know.

I haven't used any scan backs but from what I've read they seem a tad impractical in most cases. Don't all the better-light backs require that you shoot tethered?

The BetterLight (I'll get it right this time) backs are tethered to a small controller/HDD. It's not a big issue if you are using a tripod, which you are likely to be doing with a scan back. The bigger issue is the scanning of the frame over time. It works for most landscape and architecture, and still-life. The BetterLight offers very high resolution and larger format at a comparatively low price.

Best,
Helen

 

[Alpha]

You're right. It does seem rather cumbersome. What can I say, I'd probably buy all three. A Blad or a Rollei 6000 series with a digi back that I could put on a 4x5 if I wanted. I'd buy the 8x10 separately.

Then again I already shoot MF and 4x5, so it's hard for me to be totally objective.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Ok, before this thread starts moving too quickly...

What is the difference between a focal-plain shutter, and a leaf shutter? Does my Leica have either?

A few comments:

Yes, I want to work in color.

As far as resolution, the moment that finally blew my mind was seeing an 8x10 inch contact print, and an 8x10 foot large digital print from a scan. I've never seen so much detail.

But what does "scan" mean in this conversation? Does the printer scan the negative, or the contact print?

What is a scanning back?

As far as work-flow goes, no, I do not want to develop my own film, nor do I want to do my own prints in a dark room. I want to print digitally. Having said that, I would need to find a good lab as part of my workflow. Someone to develop the film, and create a digital file for me.

I don't mean to be flip about cost. I did not get to where I am by being dismissive of money. However, I am a long way from buying high-end digital backs. My assumption is that I would rent until I know exactly if I want one, and which one. The cost of renting seems reasonable to me, at least around the amount I would spend on film, development costs, and print costs - simply because I would shoot a LOT in order to ramp up the learning curve. Digital is friendly in terms of making a number of bracketed exposures.

 

[Alpha]

I'll let Helen take the technical questions.

As for workflow, as she noted, you can get a good scan of a large negative out of a moderately priced scanner. One thing I have noticed with flatbeds, though, is that they tend to cut you off at particular file sizes. That is, I can't scan a 4x5 neg on a flatbed above 2400dpi because the file is too large. That said, drum scanning can get very expensive.

In terms of other workflow considerations, you will spend a lot of money trying to shoot a lot in large format film, but if you have a reliable lab, the costs will level out once you get the hang of it.

 

[terri]

These 'should I buy a Phase One P45+ with a Linhof M679 or an Arca Swiss Orbix with Sinar film holders' questions come up so often on TPF that we should ask for this thread to be stickied.

Best,
Helen

Please don't. We're trying to teach people to use the "search" function for just this type of repetitive issue.

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

A small point, and possibly irrelevant in the context, but don't you mean a 300 mm for 10-8?
...

Best,
Helen

You're quite right. Very hot here this afternoon! Totally relevant in the context of the OP.

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

Ok, before this thread starts moving too quickly...

What is the difference between a focal-plain shutter, and a leaf shutter? Does my Leica have either?

...

Most SLR and MF cameras use focal plane shutters (shutter mechanisms within the camera body).

Leaf shutters are sometimes incorporated into the lens mechanism (this is usually the case with LF cameras).

Not an absolute rule, but in this context it should answer your question.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Is there an equivalence chart of small-format lenses to MF and LF?

50mm = 150mm (4x5) = 300mm (8x10) ?

What are the common sizes? I know 120 roll film from my Diana of course, and know that different aspect ratios are possible...

 

[Battou]

Ok, before this thread starts moving too quickly...

What is the difference between a focal-plain shutter, and a leaf shutter? Does my Leica have either?

focal-plain shutter is a shutter build directly infront of the film/sensor plain and they usually open up and down or side to side , this is the shutter mechinism in your M8, A leaf shutter opperates more like the apriture in a lens (the one I have one in my Argus C3 is like that) The more simple version commonly found on box cameras and disposable p&s cameras is little more than a leaf that moves to allow light to pass usually right behind or infront of the lens.

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

Is there an equivalence chart of small-format lenses to MF and LF?

50mm = 150mm (4x5) = 300mm (8x10) ?

What are the common sizes? I know 120 roll film from my Diana of course, and know that different aspect ratios are possible...

There is a simple formula that equates the distance of the lens from the focal plane....

The further the lens from the focal plane the greater the focal length of the lens....


However, particularly with LF cameras the bellows can be extended, or shortened thus changing the distance of lens to focal plane by quite some degree. So, a 'fixed length' lens could be used for a variety of purposes. They really are very flexible.

The formula to calculate lens equivalents is irrelevant to some extent, so pretty pointless using it.

You really need some 'hands practice' to understand how LF can be used. Try and find someone with a camera with front and back movements and just play around. It will all start to make sense pretty quickly.


e2a; This is worth a read:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses-primer/

 

[Helen B]

Ok, before this thread starts moving too quickly...

What is the difference between a focal-plain shutter, and a leaf shutter? Does my Leica have either?

I don't think a Leica has a shutter. Shutters are only required for cameras that take pictures. Well, maybe yours has a focal plane shutter. The LF cameras with a focal plane shutter can use 'barrel' lenses easily - lenses with no shutter. The focal plane shutter (which is in the body, immediately in front of the focal plane) controls the exposure time. You can also do it with a lens cap, or hat, as long as it is a long exposure.

Most LF lenses come in a shutter - nowadays likely to be a mechanical Copal or an electronic Rollei or Schneider. This is a leaf shutter, with an iris. It is held open during focusing, then closed before the film holder is inserted and the film holder darkslide is pulled back to reveal the film surface. The lens is usually in two 'cells' - one screws into the front of the shutter, one into the back. The back of the shutter fits into a lens board, which fits into the front 'standard'. I should take some snaps later.

You can also get a leaf shutter that goes just behind the lens, and there are other options.

But what does "scan" mean in this conversation? Does the printer scan the negative, or the contact print?

What is a scanning back?

The negative or transparency usually gets scanned in a flatbed or drum scanner. There's a gap in suitable scanner quality. The consumer scanners like the V-700, V-750 and M1 are good value for money, but they don't do LF film justice for greater than about 4x enlargement (ie 4x5 to 16x20 print, 8x10 to 32x40), in my opinion. They can do more, but then the quality may not be better than, say, MF film scanned by a Nikon 9000.

A scanning back is like a little scanner that you slide into the back of a camera. It has a 3-line (red, green and blue) 8000 pixel per line (for example) sensor that is moved across the image plane. This means that there can be problems with anything that moves. It's a way of getting very high resolution, with disadvantages.

Pause while I take some snaps.

Best,
Helen