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

[Helen B]

It's a good point. I did mention the relationship between shooting colour and choice of format in my first reply, and it is quite a important factor. It's one of the reasons I don't shoot whole plate any more!

I'm not all that keen on crystal-ball gazing, but maybe it's worth doing now and then. Please take these musings as no more than musings. I would not expect anybody to ever make colour film of the quality that both Kodak and Fuji produce. To the best of my recollection, Ilford have stated that they have no current plans to make colour film, just as they have stated that they have no plans to make instant film to replace Polaroid sheet film.

So far, Kodak have shown slightly more willingness than Fuji to accommodate special orders of sheet film in large sizes. If Kodak make the film in sheet format (it isn't usually made from the same master rolls as smaller format roll film) there's always a chance that a collective of photographers could put a large enough order together for a non-catalogue size, but it would be a pain. This happened not so long ago for 11x14 colour neg.

Sheet film can be, and is, cut down. If 8x10 was the only size freely available from a manufacturer, then both 4x5 and 5x7 could be made with relative ease. Relative to making 8x10 or 5x7 from 4x5.

Commercial processing is becoming an issue, even here in New York. I shoot colour neg, and up to date I have had no problems getting film processed commercially. Friends who prefer 8x10 reversal have had issues with labs faced with severely declining volume that have lead to quality problems. It's not a matter of being unavailable, but being less available. You can always do it yourself. The loss of 8x10 instant film has precipitated a faster move to digital than might otherwise have happened among a certain type of studio photographer that would have used reversal.

Best,
Helen

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

Just posting this whilst I remember. A cost saving tip for practicing with a LF camera is to use paper rather than film. Load dark slides with paper, process at home (very easy, especially B&W) and then contact print the paper onto another piece of paper for a positive image. Worth running through a box of 10"x8" Ilford paper just to get the hang of the camera movements, focusing, bellows etc. A fraction of the cost of going straight to film.

There are sites on the web that will tell you what exposure values to use.

 

[Alpha]

My learning strategy was using ortho film, which can be loaded, unloaded, and developed under red safelight. I know a lot of labs that hand-process LF film. So long as they dilute the hell out the developer, you can get great pictorial images and it's nearly impossible to over-develop. For me, this helps rule out development workflow problems at an individual lab.

 

[Alpha]

Random interjection: Don't drop film off at a lab on monday morning. Sometimes they get lazy and let chemicals sit over the weekend, or don't replenish the developer properly. (at least in my experience)

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Random interjection: Don't drop film off at a lab on monday morning. Sometimes they get lazy and let chemicals sit over the weekend, or don't replenish the developer properly. (at least in my experience)

Ah! Don't order the Chef's fish special on a Monday...

 

[Iron Flatline]

Ok, so I'm checking in with Helen B in NY to actually see and understand various cameras.

In LA, a former teacher of mine will spend a few days tutoring me in shooting 4x5 digital. He's been shooting 4x5 exclusively for over thirty years, and went all digital early on. I must admit I'm torn between film and digital, but will break down the learning curve by going digital first. I already know that work-flow (RAW conversion, Photoshop for correction) but if/when I buy something it will definitely be able to accommodate a film back as well - so that will be the following step.

But who knows, tbd... I'm still all over the place. In the fantasy world that I'm still currently occupying (in which, btw, every shot is a master piece from Day One) I somehow see myself working with something featuring bellows... then again, that whole Sinar/Rollei/Leaf system seems pretty cool.

...and then again, that Ebony system Helen was talking about gets universally rave reviews...

However, it seems that no matter how cool LF is, MF is a little more stream-lined. There are more backs and film types available...

...but this all a total assumption. I will keep reading and learning, it's still a few weeks until I actually get closer to the materials, never mind actually use anything.

 

[Iron Flatline]

...and to really confuse things, half the market seems to consider 4x5 medium-format, whereas the rest of the market considers it large-format.

Go figure...

 

[Ben-71]

Steph
....I would buy a LF camera.
I think it is ideal for landscape photography as it allows
controls over depth of field and also over perspective
(useful for architecture/industrial landscape).​

Mike_E
....you might want to look into a 4x5 with a 120/220 roll
back attachment to start.
....The reason behind this is that there is a whole new world out
there available through the tilting and shifting of the front lens.
Being able to use MF film would allow you to more readily have
your shots developed and learn that much more rapidly.​

Iron Flatline
....that whole Sinar/Rollei/Leaf system seems pretty cool.​

Well, the Mamiya RZ67 Pro has the tilt & shift option –
http://www.mamiya.com/rz67-pro-iid-accessories-tilt-shift-adapter.html​

It is a superb pro camera system, which does everything a Hasselblad
or a Rollie does, and then some, without Hasselblad's or Rollie's
pompous promotion attitude and inflated prices.​

It's also a ~23% larger format. As a square format is rarely used, the 6x6
is actually about 4.5x6, while the Mamiya has a full 6x7 rotating back.​

If I was willing to get back to the MF bulk & weight, that's what I'd have got,
without thinking twice.​

 

[Helen B]

Ben,

Would that Mamiya T/S adapter work for anything but close subjects with most lenses, in particular the wide ones? It's a $1500 item, and for $1500 you can get a very good 6x9 view camera.

Best,
Helen

 

[Iron Flatline]

Would that Mamiya T/S adapter work for anything but close subjects with most lenses, in particular the wide ones? It's a $1500 item, and for $1500 you can get a very good 6x9 view camera.

Is your concern that the T/S from Mamiya wouldn't work for landscapes?

Helen, I've been reading up on those Arca Swiss systems... my oh my...

 

[Helen B]

Is your concern that the T/S from Mamiya wouldn't work for landscapes?

Helen, I've been reading up on those Arca Swiss systems... my oh my...

Yes, that is my concern. There is a limited range of 'short barrel' lenses that will focus to infinity with the T/S adapter: the 75 mm and the 180 mm. It would be fine if the 75 mm is the widest that you would want to use, of course.

Best,
Helen

 

[Ben-71]

Ben,

Would that Mamiya T/S adapter work for anything but close
subjects with most lenses, in particular the wide ones?

Best,
Helen
​

The Mamiya T/S adapter is intended to work for architecture photography
as well, which obviously includes WA.
I haven't used it, as for tilt/shift I used a Sinar, but this can be easily verified
at Mamiya.

It's a $1500 item, and for $1500 you can get a very good 6x9
view camera.
​

That's true of course, but then it reduces options, as it lacks the benefits
of a hand-held, light metering, 'viewfindered', SLR Medium Format camera.
If one wants the MF to double as a fast, convenient, hand-held camera,
much like any 35mm or dSLR, then a MF view camera is no substitute.

Best,
Ben

 

[Helen B]

This is from the Mamiya web page:

"Accepts RZ Short Barrel lenses for infinity focus: 75mm f/4.5 Short Barrel and 180mm f/4.5 Short Barrel. Focusing at a maximum distance of 10 feet is possible with lenses from 180mm or longer."

That sounds like you can't get infinity focus with any lenses shorter than the 75 mm Short Barrel ($1900 from Adorama). As with the Hasselblad Flexbody, there could also be image circle issues with the standard range of lenses, particularly the wide angle ones, even if you could get infinity focus.

By putting tilt/shift on any reflex-sized body you are restricting the type of wide angle lens that you can use, because the flange focal distance is so great. You have to use retrofocus lenses - possibly strongly retrofocus. This has implications on the image quality, size of the image circle, ease of using tilt* and evenness of illumination. Only the latter is sometimes better with the retrofocus lens, the rest are likely to be worse.

A view camera does not need to use retrofocus wide angle lenses because the front standard is not held at a fixed distance from the image plane.

*Most lenses for view cameras, with the exception of telephoto lenses (true telephoto like the Schneider Apo-Tele-Xenars, not just long focus lenses) are near-symmetrical. The front and rear nodal planes are close to the lens mount, and hence can be close to the axis of rotation when tilting. This is not true for a retrofocus or telephoto lens. That's not to say that you can't use tilt, it's just a little more awkward. As Ben says, there are advantages in using a body like the RB67.

Best,
Helen

 

[TheLostPhotographer]

Ok, so I'm checking in with Helen B in NY to actually see and understand various cameras...

Remember to report back and let us all know how you got on. If you get a chance to compare the Swiss Arca with anything else like a Wista field camera for example I'd be interested in reading your views.

Personally, and purely based on the photographers mentioned in your OP I wouldn't have to make a decision - I'd go straight for the LF film field camera. Not uncommon to see people shooting on location with an LF monorail, but really they're design for studio and static work. Field cameras are more flexible in this respect, although some of them have more limited movements.

I don't believe that digital can get the results required and there's something very special about a LF negative/transparency, but I fully appreciate my own personal bias towards film. Especially when it comes to fine art photography.

I'll continue to read with interest.

 

[Helen B]

I've already told Iron that I can't offer an Arca Swiss - he'll have to go to B&H to feel one of those. It lies between the robustly portable convenience of my folding cameras (Ebony and now a Chamonix) and the amazing versatility of my Sinar P2, so I have passed on an Arca so far. The Arca with the small front standard and 4x5 rear standard is very attractive as a travelling camera, especially as you can get an adaptor board for Linhof boards.

Re limited movements of a field camera. The Ebony RW45E that I have has limited movements, and it suits most of my personal work because it has all the movements I need for that. The Chamonix, on the other hand, is a copy of the Phillips design and so it has a comparatively wide range of movements. Here is a link to Jack Flesher's intro to the Chamonix.

Best,
Helen