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

Hi all.

I need to kick this around with some photographers, there is no where else to turn other than the Internet.

I want to make a major change in my photography. I am tired of street photography, which I have pursued for years. I will never abandon it, esp. when traveling, but I really go out and shoot people because it is easy for me. I grab one of my digital Rangefinders, and ride public transportation for a few hours. It's fun, and gets me out of the office. I like people and food stands and cities, it's where I spend my life.

But I'm bored by it.

What next?

Well, I have always admired the very large format prints of certain photographers. I love what Andreas Gursky does (who doesn't?!), Edward Burtynsky (The Ship-breaking, for instance), and especially Hans-Christian Schink.

So, I want to do that. Somehow I am attracted to the mechanical and deliberate process of shooting industrial landscapes. I know I'm not re-inventing the wheel of creativity, but this is a personal journey, I'm not earning a living as a creative artist.

Ok, so what do I do equipment-wise? I want as much sharpness as possible for large prints, and maximum Depth-of-Field. And I want maximum resolution.

I have two high-end cameras, but I'm not convinced they're up to the task - the Canon 5D, and the Leica M8. The Canon has a bigger sensor, and the Leica has very sharp lenses.

I bought a book called Medium and Large Format Photography, but I'm not learning as much from it as I would like. It bills itself as a guide to moving up from 35mm format for better pictures, but it doesn't provide enough help. It's more like a gear-head book (and believe me, I enjoy that kind of equipment pr0n) but I can't really get my head around how each camera works.

Also, and this is the most important part, I am unsure about work-flow. Let's for a moment assume that I can afford anything, do I want to work with digital backs? Or do I want to shoot film and then scan? I have become pretty reliant on the digital process - meaning histograms, and ability to see the shot. Without Polaroid I'm wary of working with film. But I'm not sure if digital can match the high quality of a large(r) negative. I read that most of the photographers I admire shoot film, scan and then print digitally.

...and finally, do I even need to go to a larger format? I own some Canon L lenses, and some Leica R lenses that mount to the EOS. The 1Ds Mk III has a lovely sensor (with LiveView for real easy shot-composition) and that might be good enough for now...

I do seem to have an unhealthy crush on the Linhof M 679 cc...

I will be in LA for the summer with nothing to do, so I am going to take some courses. I thought I was going to focus on lighting and studio work, but I think this might be a more interesting direction to take.

A teacher I took a class with (Architectural Photography with Doug Hill) shoots with a Hasselblad and a P39 back into a laptop with Capture One... I might start there by asking him for lessons.

So - how do I move to a larger format? Is it even worth it? How do I get my feet wet? I am hoping to get a discussion going here, I'm not even sure what to ask yet.

Hi Yaron,

I feel your pain

I would like to make a careful comment on that by saying that perosnally I would closely watch the announcements of SINAR in the near future, this year more than likely.

Apart from that, you did not mention the final result and what you are doing with it. But I assume you are going to print in large format fine art, would that be right?

I was contemplating your dilemma for a long time, and I came to the conclusion that I do not wish to go "back" to analog and rather utilize the upmarket technology available. Then I looked at the suppliers on offer and compared their products, their service and warranty commitments, and of course prices and all that.

Personally I can not see my own future in roll film, developing and scanning. Then again, your milage may vary of course.

All in all, both, analog and digital have thier pros and cons, however, I personally think the pros in digital outweigh the cons, at a price that is of course!

I am certain Doug Hill will give you detailed insights in the workflow and convenience of working with MFDB compared to analog.

If you already own a 1ds MKIII and a lense park, and are insecure whether the step up to MFDB makes sense to you, I would suggest to make similiar shots and compare them with Dougs, this should give you a good idea on the difference in IQ and files. I would like to think that you can judge easier this way whether it is worth for you to make such a considerable investement.

Then again, that is just my very own opinion on the matter.

Hi Yaron

have a look there :http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=92
This is my personnal experience…
I still have the 1Ds Mk3, but for Landscape photography, I wouldn't keep my hands and eyes away from the Sinar!

I too do large prints (Asher has seen some), I can attest that themore resolution gives the better prints…

Hopefully I'll post more at the end of next week in my diary… lalalalalalala

Burtynsky shoots film and prints traditionally by projection. Gursky shoots film and prints digitally.

High-end digital is a very expensive way into this process.

I'd recommend getting a second hand 4x5" camera and learn the basics of large format. Even if you don't stick with it, all your photography skills will improve in every format as a result, because you'll learn to see differently.

Don't obsess about equipment until you try a few things and figure out what you really need. You could start with a Sinar F, F1, or F2 if you like a monorail, or if you prefer a folding wooden camera a Tachihara or Wista or new Chamonix or Shen-Hao will be fine, and these are cameras you won't outgrow. Any Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, or Fujinon 150mm/f:5.6 lens made since 1970 will be good enough to start with.

If you're in LA (or any major city for that matter) and want to experiment with a digital back, you can always rent one for a weekend (usually the one-day rate applies for Friday-Monday). Unless you're shooting catalogues or otherwise using a high-end digital back day in and day out, it makes more sense to rent one as needed.

Figure you've got a year to learn with Polaroid, or if you want to go straight to Fuji pack film (actually, if you've got to get an instant film back, this is what I would do), get a Fuji PA-45 back, and you can shoot Fuji instant film for the foreseeable future. As a proofing medium, many photographers have preferred the Fuji instant films to Polaroid anyway for the past several years.

For film you could shoot Fuji Quickloads or learn to load film in traditional filmholders. It's not hard, and you can do it in a film changing tent.

There are some good introductory articles about largeformat on the main page of lfphoto.info, and then go to the Q&A forum for more depth on specific topics. A good book for starting with LF is Steve Simmons' _Using the View Camera_.

Yaron,

I don't know whether or not David gives tuition. If he does then it would be money well spent. He's a remarkable photographer and setup well. You could rent a camera, buy from Will Thompson here or get one under guidance from Will or David from KEH used for a song.

If you are coming to L.A. then we can get Will to join you in a shoot too. David, however, is a real photographer and his work is technically at a high standard and artistically to be admired.

In L.A. there are a number of very experienced LF photographers one might arrange for private tuition or else someone might just shoot with you. LF photographers are, as a group, very eager to help newcomers.

Film makes one stop and contemplate. I have no doubt that it lowers blood pressure and is equivalent to relaxation therapy! As David says, each shot is more thought out and that will bring your work to a new level.

Asher

Thanks for all of these great responses.

Yes Georg, I want to print large, and I want to print digitally - or at least I don't want to be the one in the dark room. I've never made my own color prints, and I've never worked with such large negatives.

Thanks Nicolas, that's a LOT to read.

Yes David, I would definitely rent digital backs - I think it would be a long time before I buy one.

More later, Italy - France starts in 10 minutes.

Ooops, didn't see your comment Asher. Yup, on my way to LA via NY. I am eager to take lessons from someone, and will drill down on the possibilities. I'll be back to the forum after the game.

Good advice so far and it seems LF film might be the way to go and the people you admire produce wonderful large prints from that format.

On the other hand, you have some good L glass, maybe the 1DS3 and stitching would give you what you need to print very large.

You seem to be coming up against a bit of a conflict in your needs. The larger the format the less DOF you have for a certain FOV. Could I be different and suggest perhaps a Mamiya 7 for your projects? You are used to rangefinders, the lenses are perhaps the sharpest in the MF world and it's a small and easy to carry package that won't come close to breaking the bank.

Another option could be stitching, keeping your 5D and the resolving power of small format primes but gaining huge amounts of resolution, you can outstrip 4X5 if you're willing to put the time into the actual stitching and the processing afterwards.

Hi,
I have switched to MF a while ago and to be honest I never looked back.

I already was not a spray and pray photographer and MF fits my style much more.
Somehow with MF people will give you more time to take the shot, so that helps.

I recently switched from the 645 system to a 6x7 format (RZ67ProII) and the slides/negatives from that camera are amazing, ALOT of detail and incredible definition.
Yesterday I tested my convertor plate to mount the Leaf Aptus on the RZpro and scheduled a small testing session for tomorrow.

I will be looking for something bigger in the future but than mainly film.
It's addicting and trust me, when you have seen the look of MF there is no way back.
The DOF combined with compression of the lenses are simply stunning and gives the pictures an almost 3D like appearance.
The DSLR's now look very flat to me.

It's a shame there is no 6x7 digital back

Bernard Wolf said:

On the other hand, you have some good L glass, maybe the 1DS3 and stitching would give you what you need to print very large.

Click to expand...

...and then Ben wrote:

Ben Rubinstein said:

Another option could be stitching, keeping your 5D and the resolving power of small format primes but gaining huge amounts of resolution, you can outstrip 4X5 if you're willing to put the time into the actual stitching and the processing afterwards.

Click to expand...

But Asher summed up what I hope to experience, and I'm not sure shooting and stitching is what I'm fantasizing about...

Asher Kelman said:

Film makes one stop and contemplate. I have no doubt that it lowers blood pressure and is equivalent to relaxation therapy! As David says, each shot is more thought out and that will bring your work to a new level.

Click to expand...

Ben also said:

Ben Rubinstein said:

You seem to be coming up against a bit of a conflict in your needs. The larger the format the less DOF you have for a certain FOV. Could I be different and suggest perhaps a Mamiya 7 for your projects? You are used to rangefinders, the lenses are perhaps the sharpest in the MF world and it's a small and easy to carry package that won't come close to breaking the bank.

Click to expand...

This warrants careful consideration. Frankly, I want to engineer a caeful entry into the world of MF and LF, and don't want to frustrate myself too quickly.

My current Knowledge Acquisition Plan looks like this:

I'm checking in with a photographer I know from another online community. I will be stopping throuhg NY where she lives, and get to actually see and understand various cameras. Hopefully an Arca Swiss - apparently I should really feel the precise smoothness! She has the 5-4 Sinar P2, Chamonix 45N-1 and Ebony RW45E available along with a fair selection of modern lenses from 55 m to 400 mm. Also, a Polaroid conversion and ancient MPP of course. If we fall really down the rabbit hole there's also a 10-8 Deardorff. I hope to learn a LOT from her, she's a bit of a mentor to us small format shooters, and only makes medium fun of the M8.

In LA, a former teacher of mine (the aforementioned Doug Hill) will spend a few days tutoring me in shooting 4x5 digital. He's been shooting 4x5 for a long time, 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 a later step. I need to look into finding a good lab in Berlin.

But who knows, tbd... I'm still all over the place. I may come away and not like it at all. But right now I feel like I'm really off to a great adventure. 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 my NY friend likes so much 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... Heck, half the market place seems to consider 4x5 MF, and the rest thinks of it as LF.

...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.

Frank Doorhof said:

It's a shame there is no 6x7 digital back

Click to expand...

...yet.

Here's what I do know: In a year I'm going to look at this post and realize that I knew even less than I thought.

Yaron Lenard said:

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... Heck, half the market place seems to consider 4x5 MF, and the rest thinks of it as LF.

Click to expand...

I think nowadays most people think of 4x5" as LF, but most any 4x5" camera can take rollfilm backs that will let you shoot any format from 645 to 6x17cm (6x17 is actually longer than 4x5", so it's an expansion back).

MF camera systems tend to be more "streamlined," because they are generally systems, like 35mm systems, with dedicated lenses and accessories, which means they give you fewer options than LF cameras.

There are no proprietary lens mounts in LF (or at least not too many, and even those, like Sinar's DB mount, you can decide not to use). Most LF cameras can effectively use any lens from the history of photography (or even non-photographic lenses) as long as it covers the format you want to shoot and can be physically mounted to the camera, and you can change formats easily with the same camera, so LF is less "streamlined" as you put it than MF, but has more options. Most cameras have the options of reduction backs for shooting smaller sheet film formats, and some have interchangeable format kits. You can easily make a mask to shoot two panoramas on a sheet of LF film, if that interests you. Older cameras sometimes had sliding masks for shooting panoramas or multiple images on a single sheet.

There are still plenty of films available in large format, so that isn't really a limitation. As you move up in format, grain is less of an issue, so films that you may not care for in smaller formats because they're too grainy (if you don't like grain) may become interesting in large format. If you shoot a format large enough to give you contact prints that you like, you can choose film on the basis of tonality alone.

Thank you David, this is really helpful and informative.

I keep reading, and learning.

Do both film and digital

Hello Yaron,
I made the change from 35mm to MF after 6 years of waiting and planning, and disappointment in the M8's quality, although the lenses are FAB. Anyway, I felt it was time to make the change, and get the quality inherent in MF format. For me in any case, the Hy6 is the ultimate camera, and it made the decision painful for my wallet, but very fulfilling. I am willing to deeply re-invest in glass with a system that is this flexible and perfected as the Hy6.

However, in my view, film is absolutely not dead and never will die for another 10 years or so, until sensors really undergo a vast improvement- and I say this despite the fact that I am getting a Sinar 54LV for my Hy6 this fall.

On a recent shoot in Finland, the weather turned bad, and lighting was therefore bad too. Although the Sinar back is wonderful, I already know that the AGFA Scala film shots I made at 1600 will be absolutely wonderful even before further digital work, whereas any digital back will not get close to that in bad lighting conditions. The film results for the Hy6 are just superb, and in such conditions, you will be glad to get some readily available Ekta or other films and go back to basics. Of course, I am an available light fanatic; if you're working mostly in a studio, then this personal view of mine is very relative.

When the sensors become affordable in full size format, and the noise levels at high ISO's becomes really top-notch without needing overdoses of Noise Ninja, digital backs might mark the end of film. But that is a very, very long way off yet. Anyway, just my two cents worth!
Theo

Thank you, interesting...

a quick question: is it possible to set up a shot and switch to a film back, in effect getting both? I know in landscapes available light changes quickly, but just theoretically... is it possible to switch and grab both mediums?

Like you, I want to work with a system that can handle both - I am comfortable with my digital workflow, but know that film is probably the better medium for the kind of urban landscape work I'm hoping to do.

Hi,
Yes absolutely, that's the beauty of the Hy6 beast!
I had rented a SINAR 75LV and also had the adapter to turn from horizontal and vertical planes. Worked perfectly. When the light changed, I just clicked the back out in one unit with the turning bracket, put the protective cover on, and then clicked the pre-loaded film cassette in place (as a unit with its bracket for the body already attached) and started shooting.

The whole operation took less than 1 minute, no joke.

And the 4.5 film cassette can also be switched between horizontal and vertical as well. (A 6x6 is in the make). I can't imagine what else I could possibly desire with this set up- except more and more lenses of course
Regards,
Theo

FYI: the 6x6 film magazine will allow both formats in one: 6x6 AND 4.5x6

The Hy6 is really the only MF camera allowing both film and MFDB with such a large choice of lenses (over 45 Schneider and Zeiss lenses fitting the Hy6 ---> see the list I've posted in another thread).

Beside this, all these lenses cover the 6x6 format, thus can be used even in the future, should there be larger sensors (this being said without any speculation or hint from my side!).

Best regards,
Thierry

Theodore Diehl said:

Hi,
Yes absolutely, that's the beauty of the Hy6 beast!
I had rented a SINAR 75LV and also had the adapter to turn from horizontal and vertical planes. Worked perfectly. When the light changed, I just clicked the back out in one unit with the turning bracket, put the protective cover on, and then clicked the pre-loaded film cassette in place (as a unit with its bracket for the body already attached) and started shooting.

The whole operation took less than 1 minute, no joke.

And the 4.5 film cassette can also be switched between horizontal and vertical as well. (A 6x6 is in the make). I can't imagine what else I could possibly desire with this set up- except more and more lenses of course
Regards,
Theo

Click to expand...

Thierry Hagenauer said:

FYI: the 6x6 film magazine will allow both formats in one: 6x6 AND 4.5x6

Click to expand...

Hi Thierry, or should I say Hi6 Thierry,

Any indication about the availability date? I won't take it as a promise, just an informed guestimate will do (Photokina?, 2008?).

Bart

Thierry,

May I add another question? How closely matched are the film and digital sensor focus planes?

Of course, with such a bright viewfinder, one can refocus whenever one switches over. Still, as a matter of interest, for a camera on a heavy tripod, would refocus be really needed? This is a trivial question but still interests me with the idea of Swiss precision! LOL

Asher

Hi Bart,

Yes, availability is planed at Photokina (2008!)

Thierry

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Any indication about the availability date? I won't take it as a promise, just an informed guestimate will do (Photokina?, 2008?).

Bart

Click to expand...

Well Asher,

"Swiss precision" is what you have mentioned: of course, the adapter(s) to mount the film magazine(s) is designed and built to match the focus plane.

Best regards,
Thierry

Asher Kelman said:

Thierry,

May I add another question? How closely matched are the film and digital sensor focus planes?

Of course, with such a bright viewfinder, one can refocus whenever one switches over. Still, as a matter of interest, for a camera on a heavy tripod, would refocus be really needed? This is a trivial question but still interests me with the idea of Swiss precision! LOL

Asher

Click to expand...

When in LA if you can arrange, spend some hours with Domenico Foschi. Look at his prints, shoot with him, he's always broke (a true artist in the shoes of Edward Weston) so don't be stingy. He is contagious. Just a thought.

Yaron,

Jim's suggestion is really worthwhile. He's very talented and will share with you lot's of great ideas. This would be a very special opportunity for you. BTW, forget about an expensive LF camera. Just start with something simple! You'll see from Dominico that to be the very best, one needs a good eye and a competent but not such a fancy setup. He uses a Speed Graphic which one find on eBay. Ask Will Thompson on this forum about that. He can trouble shoot for you. Dominico will tell you about the lens or Jim here and there's literally no one actually better informed.

Good luck!

Asher

Thanks for all this.

Yes, I am no shy wilting daisy, so as soon as my feet are on the ground in LA... I will go see how the kids and the wife are, and THEN I will go and see whom I can find in terms of photography.

I am SOOOO excited. I feel like after all these years of driving high-performance cars, I'm finally going to learn how to drive a Steamer.

<insert tongue-in-cheek smiley here>

I've been watching this thread with great interest. I've shot a few rolls of film inthe last couple of weeks and really enjoyed it, but am beginning to think (heavily influenced by Jim Galli here!) that probably a larger format than 35mm would be a better approach to film.

Yaren, I look forward to reading about your experiences (and Asher, you too)

Mike

Mike Shimwell said:

I've been watching this thread with great interest. I've shot a few rolls of film inthe last couple of weeks and really enjoyed it, but am beginning to think (heavily influenced by Jim Galli here!) that probably a larger format than 35mm would be a better approach to film.

Yaren, I look forward to reading about your experiences (and Asher, you too)

Mike

Click to expand...

With the big film formats a phenomenon I will call brute force kicks in. With digital and 35mm film at it's best it is rather like a finely tuned 1200 cc engine with a supercharger screaming to get every drop. Film in an 8X10 is more like a big old lumbering V8. Very low technology but you simply mash the pedal and smile as you sail on by the poor little screamer all the while squandering rediculous amounts of fuel or as it were, film.

One issue to consider regarding cost is the total cost of the investment, not just the cost of the cameras, be it film or digital.

With film you will need a scanner. The finest ones are Imacon/Hasselblad if you want to own it, or a drum scan if you take your film to a pro lab for scanning. Either way the cost is significant.

With digital you only need the camera and back. If you purchase a used back, you may not spend much more than if you purchase an Imacon/Hasselblad scanner.

I personally have both an Imacon Scanner and a P45 Phase one back. While the Phase one is more expensive than the Imacon, both are significant expenses.

Medium and Large format digital is not an inexpensive endeavor, either with film or with digital capture !

In fact one of the least expensive approaches is a Better Light scanning back. These are around 15k, the price of an Imacon/Hasselblad scanner more or less. Less than a MF digital back of comparable resolution. They have issues (slow......) but they're worth considering in regards to cost.

Thanks Alain, very interesting!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/better-light.shtml

http://www.betterlight.com/rest_of_the_picture.html

and of course there is the roundshot:

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

Georg,

Yes, indeed. The way to save money in large format digital is to purchase a 15k scanning back instead of a 30k 39mp digital back...

Of course you'll have to deal with s l o o o o w capture times but what do you expect for 15k ;-) Plus you saved enough to buy a new Prius (give or take 2k) and save on gas money, so you really have no reason to complain ;-)

It used to be that a film leica was considered expensive at 3-4k....

And, this gear won't last you more than a couple years until there's something that blows it out of the water!

But we love it. I'm the first one to jump in and buy it!

Now if Thierry was to offer a rebate for OPF members I might add a Sinar to my kit . . . ;-)

Alain Briot said:

Now if Thierry was to offer a rebate for OPF members I might add a Sinar to my kit . . . ;-)

Click to expand...

Well, that would definitely sway my decision-making process...