James
I would def. try out some film! There are soo many formats and types of film. It is a fun journey.
I shoot a little bit of 645 but the majority of our film work is the 4x5 stuff. The only downside is that it takes FOREVER to process and scan etc. compared to digital.
imaginephotoaz wrote:
It's like Brenizer Method without the Brenizer Method...and way, way cool! Love it.
Ya it is sort of like that
When I stop it down to 5.6 or 8 I lose some of the DOF in a trade off for sharpness. I have a f2.9 lens but @ 2.9 I cannot get anything in focus (well I can but my chances are slim). It is like trying to manually focus a f.3 lens on a 35mm camera.
I'm not sure whether it's the format or your developing, but your HP5 shots look better than any HP5 shots I've seen. I don't really like that particular film stock, but you make it look amazingly good. Both shots are awesome.
maxwell1295 wrote:
I'm not sure whether it's the format or your developing, but your HP5 shots look better than any HP5 shots I've seen. I don't really like that particular film stock, but you make it look amazingly good. Both shots are awesome.
I am not doing much... My developing methods have gotten better and much more exact but I am still using HC-110 and developing normally....
thank you though
As a fellow film shooter, I have to admit the thought of shooting 4x5 for weddings doesn't make much sense (but kudos to you for doing it and doing so successfully). This is not a photographic skill issue I'm bringing up by any means, but nothing in those shots screams you can only get that with 4x5. Shooting Zeiss glass wide open with a Contax 645....well you can pretty much only get that with a Contax (simply because you can actually nail certain shots by doing this within the physical restraints of shooting 645 on a Contax). I guess if you're having to stop down that much for depth just to nail a shot it seems like you're defeating the purpose of 4x5 in the first place? Well, there is the increased resolution that 4x5 brings. But really, even between 645 and 35mm film, the resolution difference really isn't that astonishing. Especially if you post produce in LR4 where you can take a 35mm film frame and reduce any unwanted grain a great deal. Maybe I missed it, but what are you scanning these with? Is there any marketing value to why you're choosing to shoot 4x5?
cineski wrote:
As a fellow film shooter, I have to admit the thought of shooting 4x5 for weddings doesn't make much sense (but kudos to you for doing it and doing so successfully). This is not a photographic skill issue I'm bringing up by any means, but nothing in those shots screams you can only get that with 4x5. Shooting Zeiss glass wide open with a Contax 645....well you can pretty much only get that with a Contax (simply because you can actually nail certain shots by doing this within the physical restraints of shooting 645 on a Contax). I guess if you're having to stop down that much for depth just to nail a shot it seems like you're defeating the purpose of 4x5 in the first place? Well, there is the increased resolution that 4x5 brings. But really, even between 645 and 35mm film, the resolution difference really isn't that astonishing. Especially if you post produce in LR4 where you can take a 35mm film frame and reduce any unwanted grain a great deal. Maybe I missed it, but what are you scanning these with? Is there any marketing value to why you're choosing to shoot 4x5?...Show more →
I shoot 4x5 for mostly personal reasons. We incorporate it into our work as much as we can but we decided to not make it a "centerpiece" of our business because it is hard for people to understand and appreciate most of the time.
Unless you shooting bokeh panoramas it is hard to achieve the kind of look and feel the 4x5 gives. Even my 80 1.9 on my Mamiya does not give the same look... not even close IMO.
To you there might be nothing you couldn't get on another medium or size but for me it is about more than just the "look" of the shot.
First, I shoot it because it makes me see the world differently. It is just me and I could try to beat around the bush all day with "like this" and "like that" comparisons but I would muddy the explanation. The Graflex Camera specifically just fits how I see things.
Second, I can give people a unique experience that has nothing to do with the actual picture I produce. The camera is unique, huge, fun to play with, and makes people go "OMFG" when I let them hold it and look through the ground glass.
The second shot of the people on the beach is a perfect example. They saw me taking pictures with the Graflex and said "cool camera!".... I started talking with them, explained what I did, showed them the camera and literally spend 20 minutes with them on the beach talking about there travels and our travels and life in general. Only after all that did I ask them "hey can I do a family portrait of you guys?" They said yes, I told them to stand over in that area, and I took one picture.
I exchanged info with them and eventually we all went our separate ways.
The picture came out great and we are all friends now on FB. I was able to make a connection with them and give them a picture that is one of a kind.
The only reason all that stuff happened was because I was shooting with the Graflex. Sure I could have taken a shot of them with any camera... even the one on my phone... but it would have never been the same.
Any other camera and they would have just forgotten the picture and moved on... with the Graflex I can be almost certain they will remember it for a long time.
So ya 4x5, 645, 6x7, 6x6, 35mm.... all great but for ME the Graflex lets me make memorable connections with people I otherwise might not be able to.
^^ well said, Doug. Having a "conversation piece" of equipment (even ostentatious ones) can break the ice. Effective at weddings too. I mean, how cool is it to have a camera 60+ years old?
I ought to get one since they were made in Rochester NY, and I could promote it as such.
I totally understand your point and the allure of shooting 4x5. My point was, if you have a logistical need to stop down a good bit to have any resemblance of even 1 keeper, that kinda negates a lot of what makes 4x5 cool (aside from the marketing issue we both touched on). If you were able to nail wide open shots with the 4x5 then that would truly be something unattainable from any other photographic medium save maybe 8x10 and up simply due to the extremely low depth of field. I'm not really trying to argue your point of shooting it, just maybe bring up some thoughts on the process. I think it's totally cool that you're doing this but the concern is the physical limitation of having to stop down that tells me to ask why not just shoot it on 645 where you can realistically get less depth of field because you're TTL viewing and can much more reliably shoot wide open? I'm only bringing this up because of your feeling the need to stop down. With static shots like this, is the limiting factor that causes oof shots the bride swaying while standing or the actual focusing of the image on the
cineski wrote:
I totally understand your point and the allure of shooting 4x5. My point was, if you have a logistical need to stop down a good bit to have any resemblance of even 1 keeper, that kinda negates a lot of what makes 4x5 cool (aside from the marketing issue we both touched on). If you were able to nail wide open shots with the 4x5 then that would truly be something unattainable from any other photographic medium save maybe 8x10 and up simply due to the extremely low depth of field. I'm not really trying to argue your point of shooting it, just maybe bring up some thoughts on the process. I think it's totally cool that you're doing this but the concern is the physical limitation of having to stop down that tells me to ask why not just shoot it on 645 where you can realistically get less depth of field because you're TTL viewing and can much more reliably shoot wide open? I'm only bringing this up because of your feeling the need to stop down. With static shots like this, is the limiting factor that causes oof shots the bride swaying while standing or the actual focusing of the image on the ...Show more →
Traditionally with a field or monorail camera you setup, and focused while tilting, shifting, and swinging to get the necessary DOF for the shot. The Graflex is TTL focusing and has no movements so even the slightest tilt forward or backwards throws the focus. This gets magnified as I move backward with smaller subjects. I have a new brighter ground glass screen in the camera but with the lens stopped down to even 4 or 5.6 things are pretty dark. So it is hard to tell if I have critical focus and I have perfect vision.
So ya eventually I am going to have a custom 4x5 Graflex style camera made by S.K. Grimes but until then I have to make due with the 60+ year old Graflex that Andrew's Grandma made in Rochester
Andrew Welsh wrote:
^^ well said, Doug. Having a "conversation piece" of equipment (even ostentatious ones) can break the ice. Effective at weddings too. I mean, how cool is it to have a camera 60+ years old?
I ought to get one since they were made in Rochester NY, and I could promote it as such.
Andrew Welsh wrote:
^^ well said, Doug. Having a "conversation piece" of equipment (even ostentatious ones) can break the ice. Effective at weddings too. I mean, how cool is it to have a camera 60+ years old?
I ought to get one since they were made in Rochester NY, and I could promote it as such.
Thinking of doing this for the same reason, but I just grew up there....
hardlyboring wrote:
Traditionally with a field or monorail camera you setup, and focused while tilting, shifting, and swinging to get the necessary DOF for the shot. The Graflex is TTL focusing and has no movements so even the slightest tilt forward or backwards throws the focus. This gets magnified as I move backward with smaller subjects. I have a new brighter ground glass screen in the camera but with the lens stopped down to even 4 or 5.6 things are pretty dark. So it is hard to tell if I have critical focus and I have perfect vision.
So ya eventually I am going to have a custom 4x5 Graflex style camera made by S.K. Grimes but until then I have to make due with the 60+ year old Graflex that Andrew's Grandma made in Rochester
I have a Crown which has limited stock movements, however, I shaved the standard to get portrait movement.
I have a Graflex Super D... well actually I have a few of them in both 4x5 and 3 3/4 x 4 1/4. They have no movements. I can tilt the lens by mis-mounting it if i feel like it.
I also have a Crown Graphic that I hardly ever use because I find the rangefinder to be incredibly clunky and small for the size of the camera. Also there is no reliable way to focus with the rangefinder and then line up a shot without moving the point of focus to much.
This is my lovely wife, business partner, mountain climbing partner, skiing partner, and partner in crime playing with my baby
