Does working with MF or LF make you feel different?

Nice videos, interesting seeing you "in action", if one can say that about someone shooting with Sinar ;-)

Jörgen Nyberg said:

Nice videos, interesting seeing you "in action", if one can say that about someone shooting with Sinar ;-)

Click to expand...

Jörgen, pressing the shutter release is only the end of the capture process (and the beginning of the post-processing) ;-) .
It's what happens before (and if timing is critial, during) the press of a button that matters. You are correct in the sense that
(in general) shooting a MF camera requires a different type of shooting than a 35mm or smaller format does.

Bart

... and it is even "worse" (more different) with LF!

Thierry

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

You are correct in the sense that
(in general) shooting a MF camera requires a different type of shooting than a 35mm or smaller format does.
Bart

Click to expand...

How you guys working with MF or LF feel different than working with 135 mm cameras…

The above posts were part of the discussion previously initiated here…

This needed an entire sub forum, it is hereunder…

it is obviously different, at least working with a LF view camera.

Settings and composition on a LF camera do first give you much more possibilities:

- perspectives can be corrected, horizontally and vertically.
- focus can be placed selectively in the subject, in a way impossible to reach with a body having fixed film and lens planes and where the focus and depth of filed extends ALWAYS in a parallel direction to the lens and film plane of 135 and MF bodies (almost all): with a view camera on can tilt or swing the sharpness plane in any direction.
- these settings are made such easy and convenient with a large ground-glass.
- light metering and overall control of the image contrast is much more easy, when shooting with film, since it allows a selective 2-point contrast metering, in the film-plane, and of the REFLECTED light: this is the only way to meter the light and be sure that what you see can also be printed.
- moreover, I think that the approach with a LF camera is much more about taking the necessary time for all these settings, being able to control all of it, and shoot only when one is absolutely sure that all the parameters are right and meeting one's own expectations.

Best regards,
Thierry

with LF anything: the scene, the light, etc had to be fine prior to make the shot. That was in the film days. With a DSLR, I personally do correct much more in post.

You' re much more spontanious with a DSLR than LF; I can see this change in my shots even with nonmoving objects, aka architecture.

Sometimes it happend with 4/5' that the nice light was gone, while it took to long time to have all adjustements done, plus the pola.

I disagree with Thierry about:
"these settings are made such easy and convenient with a large ground-glass."

Shooting per example interiors with a 65 mm on 4/5' has been a hazzle - it was really hard to judge the shifted image, due to the lens light fall off and darkening ground glass, even if you took the center filter away. But off course, the composition was better controllable on the pola.

And last but not least: LF means to carry a lot of weight arround!
In the evening of a LFshooting day, I found myself beeing closer to a donkey or a mule, than a photographer, especially if studio flashs had to be carried with.....

So basically, I'm not looking back; still keeping my 3 Sinars - one of them a very nice Sinar Handy, which I used a lot at the end of my film area, due to its lesser weight and faster setup - in the board.

Thierry, do you know why Sinar has been giving up early on the Handy?

hi Michael,

I fully agree with you, even with your disagreement! Of course, nobody is looking back. And of course, interiors with a 65mm is not that easy. But then, it is also the only possibility to have it perfect.
My point is going the way you describe it: more or less spontaneous shooting, with LF you take your time, with 135 and even MF you often shoot, and shoot and .... look for the right one thereafter.

Sinar Handy: you are a very lucky man to still have one. Keep it. When I joined Sinar in 1990, it was in the end stages of production and stopped shipping. The reason was a commercial one, because sales had dropped to a level where it was non-sense to keep it in production. But it's a pity, agreed.

Best regards,
Thierry

Michael Fontana said:

I disagree with Thierry about:
"these settings are made such easy and convenient with a large ground-glass."

Shooting per example interiors with a 65 mm on 4/5' has been a hazzle - it was really hard to judge the shifted image, due to the lens light fall off and darkening ground glass, even if you took the center filter away. But off course, the composition was better controllable on the pola.

And last but not least: LF means to carry a lot of weight arround!
In the evening of a LFshooting day, I found myself beeing closer to a donkey or a mule, than a photographer, especially if studio flashs had to be carried with.....

So basically, I'm not looking back; still keeping my 3 Sinars - one of them a very nice Sinar Handy, which I used a lot at the end of my film area, due to its lesser weight and faster setup - in the board.

Thierry, do you know why Sinar has been giving up early on the Handy?

Click to expand...

Thierry Hagenauer said:

Sinar Handy: you are a very lucky man to still have one. Keep it. When I joined Sinar in 1990, it was in the end stages of production and stopped shipping. The reason was a commercial one, because sales had dropped to a level where it was non-sense to keep it in production. But it's a pity, agreed.
Best regards, Thierry

Click to expand...

I agree on that, Thierry. So you've been quite a good while at Sinar, going through different times ....

Yes, the Handy is a keeper, I even have the (bulleye) top viewer, the handle with the trigger, tac-sharps SA 65, SA 90 and Apo-Symmar 120, all in a near mint shape, so everything that was needed for archi-shots (apart from the filmholders) fitted in a small, lightweighted box.

I think I have been buying it - a good while ago - from Mr. Graf, who previously had been working at Schmid, in Aarau, the earlier Sinar vendor in CH.

I waited quite a while - this would have been my dream - that someone would come out with a 4/5-sensor, to use it with the Handy.
Do you know if someone has been adapting MFbacks to it?

oh yes, quite a long time with the Koch family, now in the Jenoptik group! It's still fun and a wonderful place to work.
I remember Mr. Graf and Schmid in Aarau well.

No, I don't know any Handy user with a digital back on it, but I think there should be some, since it is adaptable. Will let you know, if I come to cross one.

As for the 4x5 sensor: that will probably take a bit longer!

Best regards,
Thierry

Michael Fontana said:

I agree on that, Thierry. So you've been quite a good while at Sinar, going through different times ....

Yes, the Handy is a keeper, I even have the (bulleye) top viewer, the handle with the trigger, tac-sharps SA 65, SA 90 and Apo-Symmar 120, all in a near mint shape, so everything that was needed for archi-shots (apart from the filmholders) fitted in a small, lightweighted box.

I think I have been buying it - a good while ago - from Mr. Graf, who previously had been working at Schmid, in Aarau, the earlier Sinar vendor in CH.

I waited quite a while - this would have been my dream - that someone would come out with a 4/5-sensor, to use it with the Handy.
Do you know if someone has been adapting MFbacks to it?

Click to expand...

Thanks, Thierry!

"Does working with MF or LF make you feel different?"

When compared to 35mm (or smaller formats) the larger viewfinder (or ground glass) and the necessity to work slower, usually results in an increased image quality, essentially at the level of the composition. The increased resolution is a bonus, but won't be visible at small print sizes. The tonal and contrast quality is also higher, in part due to the larger pixels and in part to high quality optics, and that will be visible at all print sizes.

Talking to Nicolas, and rereding that thread again makes me thinking, that I went to DSLR after > 20 years of LF.

So probably because of that, I don't have - with the smaller viewfinder of the DSLR - problems, to get the composition - in my case the perspective - correct, as I know °by experience° where I have to set the tripod.

LF is a good school, to get the basics of what photography is about.

Michael Fontana said:

LF is a good school, to get the basics of what photography is about.

Click to expand...

Funny, I have no clue about LF (and so few about MF…) but my first findings working for the first time with the Sinar Hy6 is that it brings back to the basics… to the fundamental aspects of photography:
you have in hand:
a choice of lens and a film/sensor plane
an aperture for more or less light and DOF
a shutter speed to balance the aperture
a viewfinder to put what you want and only what you want into the frame
some more features (very few compared to modern dslrs)

2 legs to move around and adjust the subject
a brain to use all that

Caution, the 2 laters aren't provided with the camera ! LoL

et voilà, à toi de faire mon gars!

So, having inversed courses, you Michael and I, do come to the same conclusion. Amazing!

Each format of photography colors waht your work carries and delivers.

Point and shoot: snaps although one could do anything.

Large format: well planned commercial, fine art, architectual and landscape photographs although one can use a high speed Ektar and speed Graphic and do fast street photography that is spontanious but really powerful.

35mm and MF that allow un rivalled fluidity like sports cars.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

35mm and MF that allow un rivalled fluidity like sports cars.

Click to expand...

As its name says, I would place MF in between 35 mm and LF

I have never used a LF, but I think there's a real gap between 35 mm and MF (I'm not talking about the number of pixels).

Asher Kelman said:

35mm and MF that allow un rivalled fluidity like sports cars.

Click to expand...

An interesting way of looking at the subject. I like it even though I use all 3 formats and have both sport cars, trucks and regular cars.

At the moment my preference is for medium format digital back and sport cars

in three words: Horses for courses

Nicolas Claris said:

Funny, I have no clue about LF (and so few about MF…) but my first findings working for the first time with the Sinar Hy6 is that it brings back to the basics… to the fundamental aspects of photography:
you have in hand:
a choice of lens and a film/sensor plane
an aperture for more or less light and DOF
a shutter speed to balance the aperture
a viewfinder to put what you want and only what you want into the frame
some more features (very few compared to modern dslrs)
.....
.....et voilà, à toi de faire mon gars!

So, having inversed courses, you Michael and I, do come to the same conclusion. Amazing!

Click to expand...

It's not important which lessons you take, nor which teacher you have, but to get yourself to the right conclusions. It's done while asking the good questions, and experience the responses for them.

One step in the learning curve of a switch 35 mm --> LF is the experience and use of the lenses;
some LF lenses with the same focal lengts migh have different image angles, therefore they can be shiftet differently, etc.

One thing I've found by experimenting with different formats--and I shoot 35mm, MF, and LF up to 11x14" and 7x17"--is that one can learn what each format excels at and use it for that, and then once in a while try to stretch the perceived limits of a given format to see if it's worth the trouble for a different visual result.

Lately I use 35mm almost exclusively for bird photography and low light work, because long lenses and fast lenses are things that 35mm can do better than other formats.

In the studio it's mostly the 8x10" Sinar P (shooting formats from 6x7 cm up to 8x10") for the total control and ease of use that it offers.

I have an ultralight 8x10" Gowland Pocket View for landscapes in the field. Occasionally I get the 11x14" or 7x17" out as well. Eventually I want to experiment more with the 7x17" for full-length portraits.

For travel I like my 4x5" Tech V usually, since it can function as either a view camera or a handheld press camera. Sometimes I use it with rollfilm backs (6x7, 6x9 and 6x17).

The Bronica S2a system I use sometimes for travel, sometimes for studio portraits with strobes for a spontaneous look (as opposed to LF), or occasionally people shots at events. I find I use it less and less, preferring LF for most things, but it does do certain things very well, and with the old Bronicas selling for bargain basement prices these days, it's not worth the trouble of selling.

I've also got a 2x3" Technika, which should be coming back from Marflex soon after having 3 lenses cammed and some routine maintenance. This may come to displace the Bronica for travel photography when it's impractical to shoot 4x5" or larger.

Lately I use a 5x7" Press Graflex SLR and a fast lens a lot for candids with available light, because it focuses so quickly (really!) with it's rack and pinion focusing system and produces a nice big neg for contact prints. Oddly enough, it's perfect for chasing around our toddler--

Michael Fontana said:

One step in the learning curve of a switch 35 mm --> LF is the experience and use of the lenses;

Click to expand...

LoL! my poor English! "course" for me is a nautical expression, if you want to go North, your course is 360°… No school nor teacher there!

But BTW, I do agree with your statement!

Forgive me for being stupid but why does the first post look like it was taken from half way through another thread and if so how the heck am I supposed to read it?

Ben Rubinstein said:

Forgive me for being stupid but why does the first post look like it was taken from half way through another thread and if so how the heck am I supposed to read it?

Click to expand...

Me too! We'll get Nicolas to insert the correct reference to the videos so it makes sense, unless anyone knows which they are, PM to me!

A view camera is a different experience altogether, first of all you use a tripod, and when you activate the cable release you are "blind", there is no motor drive. The image on the ground glass looks "upside down" --and if you use a wide angular almost impossible to see anything -- before shooting you have to: open the shutter, set the aperture to smallest number, --compose, focus while inside a dark cloth and using a magnifier-- insert the a film holder (and remember what number and side it is) insert without upsetting the camera position -if you kick the camera go back to jail-, close the leaf shutter, close the aperture to the exact desired minus compensation for bellows factor, (if you are not compensating for bellows factor you will have a bad trip back form the lab), set the speed and shoot once as a way to check that the leaf shutter is closed since if not the lens will not activate. Cock again, remove dark slide and turn it from white to black so that when inserted you know that film is exposed, shoot, insert dark slide, remove holder and shoot a second plate to send on a different box as a "hold" to the lab in case you have to push or pull development. Open shutter and double check focus and composition.

One of the most complicated things is to load the film frorm the boxes to the holders and from the holder to the boxes in perfect order so that the lab knows which one is to be pulled or pushed. The easiest way is to have a lot of holders and just live the film in them or use Readyloads.

I used to shoot "for pleasure" Velvia 4x5 transparency film and just spent something like 2 plates per outing. I used a Graflex and Fujinon 135mm and made an entire body of work that way. Since exposure time can be as much as you want, afternoon light can be used almost until you can't see anything, and the sound of the leaf shutter of a view camera is a pleasure. So is to stare at a focusing glass of a view camera, specially an 8x10. Looking at transparencies produced with them is also a pleasure.

Do I miss working with a 4x5 instead of a Phase One? not at all. The P 25 is also a pleasure ... and much less complicated...

leonardobarreto.com said:

One of the most complicated things is to load the film frorm the boxes to the holders and from the holder to the boxes in perfect order so that the lab knows which one is to be pulled or pushed.

Click to expand...

I'm sure my lab would deal with it if I gave them exposed film like that, but to avoid errors, I batch the film myself in separate boxes, so that all the film in one box has the same development time. That's just color. B&W I do myself.

Jumping in again, with some questions:

A museum want me to documentate a reconstruction/extension of it, this ending up in a cataloge, about 80 shots, all, including 15 pages in size A-3.

As it will be finished in summer 2010, and the museum is in the old town, surrounded by rather small courtyards, the light conditions don't look very promising.

How big will be the improvement by using a MFback, instead of the 1 Ds-2, in these nasty light conditions? Still I can use my stitch set-up.

Nicolas?

Keep your finger crossed, it's a interesting project, and I'd like to shoot it...

If I may jump ahead of Nicolas, my somewhat different approach. Do you happen to own an 8x10 camera? If so, the client will be absolutely enthralled with the pictures you will deliver!

I'd use 8x10 with the 110mm Super Symmar XL without movements. You will likely get in all the spaces. Any straightening you can do in Photoshop as you have more than excess resolution. I'd rent for the day and test out 150mm super Symmar XL first as that will even allow stitching after shifting the back. film may seem old fashioned, but for just 80 pictures, it may be the most straightforward. A simple horseman focal plane lightmeter will make your set up first class. You cannot, IMHO, do much better. If you are interested in this approach, Jim Galli knows every available lens! However, my suggestions are top of the line modern glass with flare and reflections controlled by the latest multicoatings.

Asher

Good morning, Asher

I'm still having here 3 Sinars (out of 5), and a bunch of lenses ;-)

The 13 x 18 cm - isn't it a 5 x 7 '?? - ...would work with the 120 mm SuperAngulon, but not a lot of shift, if I remind correctly. Vertical movements (shifts) are required with a LF for these shots.

Or the Handy 4/5' with the 65 mm.... and center filter....

Actually, only about 15 shots would require that.... the rest can be done with the 1 Ds-2, as these will be smaller than A-3 in the catalogue.

I think they have a MFback at the museum, so I probably could borrow it...

Hi Michael,

You absolutely (well most probably) don't need shifts! The unque thing is that you have such as huge excess of resolution that you can make all your adjustment and orthogonal corrections afterwards. At such wide angles, the depth of focus is such that no Scheimpflug corrections are needed either.

If you have a 120mm lens, pick a similar size location and do some tests!

Sounds great! Do you have any pictures of that location to share. I promise not to hop on a plane to offer my services for free!

Asher

Thanks Asher

I see what you mean...
your suggestion is the 4th option.

and yes, I can do some tests, that week-end at the location itself.

Sorry, to early to tell more details, show pictures.... not because of your coming here ;-) ,
but the entire thing isn't public yet; I could grab some copies of the plans, but was told not to show 'em....

at the moment, it's concepting the shooting, trying to understand the new building, what they exactly want, etc....

Asher Kelman said:

Hi Michael,

You absolutely (well most probably) don't need shifts! The unque thing is that you have such as huge excess of resolution that you can make all your adjustment and orthogonal corrections afterwards.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Resolution isn't the only issue. The sorts of corrections one can make to square up a building are like using rear movements on a view camera or tilting an enlarging easel--very useful techniques, but they only can correct one plane. It works well if you're shooting a straight building facade with a camera that doesn't have any movements.

If you have square objects at varying distances from the lens, then it's very difficult to get them all to look square at the same time by using PS perspective controls from a single image, so you have to combine images or select and correct different planes separately and keep all the edges clean and everything looking natural. It's much easier just to use front rise when shooting up at such a structure and get it right in the camera.