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

[Iron Flatline]

Helen was clear about that... and frankly, I don't need a lot of excuses to go to B&H.

I am so all over the map right now that I'm not sure what direction I'm headed in. There's other forums on which I posted this question, and I'm getting a lot of info there, too.

I need to be realistic with myself. I also need to be honest. This is a hobby, and as such it needs to be fun for me. I need to keep the learning curve at a reasonable angle for me, and that invariably means I want to go toward a system that can do film as well as digital. I don't want to start with film, it's been too long, but I want the option to go there as well.

On another forum, one photographer spoke very highly of the Sinar Hy6 system for that very reason - easy to switch the backs quickly, and great lenses. But with the Sinar I don't see the ability to work with tilts and to "get my Scheinpflug on..."

But again, I have NO IDEA so far, and am talking out of my theoretical butt. I feel like one of those 16 year old boys talking about 500 hp Italian cars, but they've never even sat in one, never mind taken it across the Alps.

 

[Monkeyleg]

As an "old-timer," I find it fascinating to read the posts on this thread. I learned to use film before Polaroid was produced for professional photographers. Back then we just looked at the composition and the lighting of the set or the scene through the ground glass. When Polaroid came out with instant film for large format cameras, it was as though the earth had shifted.

Learning to shoot digital was a bit of a challenge for me, although I had the benefit of having worked extensively in Photoshop for years prior.

Still, as I said, it's fascinating as I said to read posts about transitioning from digital to film.

Transparency film is unforgiving when it comes to exposure, which is why I've almost never shot on location without using Polaroid. Even when bracketing the exposures (shooting three or four sheets at different exposures), the risk of having the shot over or under-exposed was simply too great.

Should you decide to go with film, and are concerned about the film going bad, freeze it. Film will last for years when frozen. A fellow photographer and friend of mine saved a lot of money by buying large quantities of sheet film (4x5 or 8x10) at a discount just before the film's expiration date and then freezing it.

If you decide to go with a view camera, it will take time to learn to adjust to viewing the image upside down. I've heard many art/photography instructors say that viewing an image aids in composition. Of course, those instructors were "art" instructors, and they didn't have to deal with a client on the set or on the location shoot.

Large format cameras can be had at bargain prices if you know where to look. While the field cameras have held their value, studio cameras can be had for a fraction of their original cost. I sold two 8x10 cameras that I paid over $4000 each for $800 each. A studio view camera isn't the ideal for location, as you'll have the rail jabbing you in the neck, but it's something you can become accustomed to.

As to your questions about whether to go with digital or film, there is no digital camera that can come close to the quality of 8x10 film, or even 4x5. I have transparencies that are so crisp that it almost seems you could reach your hand into them and touch the objects in the scene.

One area where digital seems to consistently fall behind compared to film is with very subtle gradients. No matter how hard I've tried, I could not get any digital camera or digital back to reproduce the gradients I created when lighting a product. The clients never noticed, but I did. I suspect that you'll notice the same if you're viewing a sky with subtle gradations in color.

Good luck with your new chosen path.

 

[Helen B]

As an "old-timer," I find it fascinating to read the posts on this thread. I learned to use film before Polaroid was produced for professional photographers.

That's impressive. I think that it might be worth mentioning that that happened 50 years ago this year: 4x5 Polaroid was discontinued on its 50th Anniversary.

Best,
Helen

Edit: That made me think back to when Polaroid 4x5 pack film was introduced - 1981. I had been using the sheet film for a few years, and thought about getting a pack film back to reduce costs. I kept thinking about it on-and-off until this year - in the last month I have bought two Polaroid pack film backs.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Wow, one of the first non-intimidating articles I've read...

Calumet Cadet

I'm just not clear if there's a digital back I could rent to put on the back of this thing...

EDIT: Bummer, it seems to be discontinued.

 

[Iron Flatline]

....ok, how does it work?

I set up the camera, and then I compose the shot on the ground glass. Then I remove the Ground Glass. Then I attach the film back or the digital back or polaroid or whatever... and make the exposure. Is that roughly how it works?

 

[Helen B]

There are a few ways:

The simplest is sliding in a film holder (called a double darkslide in the UK). The ground glass is held in a spring frame that permits the holder to slide in between the camera back and the ground glass. This method works for other holders or digital backs that are thin enough and designed to fit in like a sheet film holder. Typical examples are the BetterLight digital backs, the Polaroid 545 series sheet film holders, Fuji Quickload or Kodak Readyload holders (for normal sheet film in single-sheet packets with light-tight cover), Sinar roll film backs like the Zoom 2 and possibly the Polaroid and Fuji pack film backs - but they are a bit too thick for some camera spring backs. The same holds for Grafmatic 6-shot backs and their rarer Fuji equivalent ('QuickChange')

An alternative is to remove the ground glass via and use the 'Graflok', also known as 'International' clips to hold another back, such as one that is too thick to fit in behind the spring. Because the GG has been removed, there is no limit to the thickness of the back that is attached. The Graflok system requires grooves in the sides of the film holders. Many holders that will slide in under the GG also have Graflok grooves.

There is now one other method in common use: a sliding back like the Phase One Flexadaptor. This replaces the ground glass, frame and Graflok entirely. There is a sliding frame that holds a ground glass and a back - typically a digital back. You focus and compose on the GG, then slide over the digital back.

With a digital back you can use live view on a tethered computer in place of the GG.

Best,
Helen

 

[Iron Flatline]

Are there film backs that fit on the Phase One Flexadaptor?

 

[deanimator]

What you need is a beer with Hans-Christian Schink.
He´s a very realistic and modest guy...and just smiles whenever people start talking digital. He has an Arca Swiss...says "It´s good"

I´ll PM you

 

[Helen B]

Are there film backs that fit on the Phase One Flexadaptor?

As far as I know the Flexadaptor will hold film backs from medium format cameras, when using the correct adaptor - Contax 645, Mamiya 645AF or Hasselblad. A complete Flexadaptor is about $3500 new, or $2500 to $3000 on eBay. Personally I would prefer to use a slide-in RFH (roll film holder) like the Sinar Zoom 2.

Best,
Helen

 

[Iron Flatline]

From a different photo forum... but he is spot on:

You're probably at the point where it makes sense just to meet up with someone who shoots large format and have them take you through the process.

Yup, I agree... I love the internet, but this kind of learning process can only take me so far... it is time I met someone who actually does this. (Btw, that would be you first, Helen...thank you for the help - in advance!)

On a related note, this must be why there are no online med schools for surgeons...

 

[deanimator]

Another advantage of LF...BIG cameras attract the birds too