Hello everyone, it now has been two years since I started thinking about working with large format 4x5” film, and what an exciting, inspiring ride this has been! Working with large format proved to be everything I hoped for and more; after two years, I am fully convinced that this has been the right choice for me and that large format film is the medium that best helps me express myself through my photography.
Between our Workshops and my personal work, my wife and I do travel a lot; however, I was surprised to see that, grouping together all our travels, since I got my first 4x5” camera I had the opportunity to work with large format for a total of about 365 days in the field over two calendar years!
While the learning never stops, after these two years I now feel confident enough about sharing some thoughts about this photographic experience and all it entailed, hoping you’ll find them interesting and useful regardless of any eventual interest you may have in working with film.
Geoff D F wrote:
Great blog. I lack the work ethic and time to get into 4x5 but I think it is great that people are still doing LF film and keeping the art alive.
Hello Geoff, thank you for taking the time to read and comment, much appreciated, and glad you enjoyed the read!
4x5" is indeed a bit more time consuming than other systems, although on the plus side I end up with so much less photographs to examine, cull and post-process that at least I do save some time there Seriously speaking, I love the results so much that I think that's why I don't find it hard to do, but it's certainly a fair bit more complicated than digital.
Just read your blog on using 4x5 camera for field work. Did you consider a camera, wood or metal, that folds up om itself? The cameras you are using with the center column on the bottom have a lot of movements that are great for studio and archetecture but overkill for landscapes.
Norm Shapiro wrote:
Just read your blog on using 4x5 camera for field work. Did you consider a camera, wood or metal, that folds up om itself? The cameras you are using with the center column on the bottom have a lot of movements that are great for studio and archetecture but overkill for landscapes.
Hello Norm,
Thank you for your comment. As written in the article, I did, and decided to move on to rail-based cameras:
THE CAMERA | After experimenting with foldable cameras, lighter and smaller, I decided to give up the weight and bulk advantage and settle for sturdier and more rigid rail-based, geared cameras instead.
As well, I am not sure what "the center column on the bottom" means. My Arca-Swiss M-Two, and my Arca-Swiss F-Line before that, are rail based camera; they feature two standards sliding back and forth on a monorail. There aren't any columns anywhere on my cameras.
As far as movements, a quick look at the M-Two will show you that it has rise/fall and shift on the back standard, and tilt / swing on the front standard, which are exactly the movements you need for field work, not overkill at all.
Lovely photos and blog post. I have also recently been interested in potentially moving to large format for fun after making the jump from 35 to medium format film.
It has been many years since I have used either a folding field camera or a rail based camers and I could not remember the designation “rail based” camera. When I was in school we had various 4x5 cameras to use from Calumet etc to Deardorf. Later when I was on my own I was uing a Nagaoka for field work and a Sinar F (if I remembef correctly) for commercial work.
When out in field the Nagaoka (which I still have) was small enough that I could carry everything on my bike and peddle around the older parts of Honolulu on sundays when the streets were empty. But when doing commercial work that usually included lights, stands, etc the Sinar was the better fit.
Norm Shapiro wrote:
It has been many years since I have used either a folding field camera or a rail based camers and I could not remember the designation “rail based” camera. When I was in school we had various 4x5 cameras to use from Calumet etc to Deardorf. Later when I was on my own I was uing a Nagaoka for field work and a Sinar F (if I remembef correctly) for commercial work.
When out in field the Nagaoka (which I still have) was small enough that I could carry everything on my bike and peddle around the older parts of Honolulu on sundays when the streets were empty. But when doing commercial work that usually included lights, stands, etc the Sinar was the better fit. ...Show more →
Hello Norm,
thank you for sharing. Foldable cameras are more convenient, but for me there is something in the solidity, rigidity and mechanical perfection of a rail based camera with geared movements that makes working with them a joy. I just decided not to give that up to save one pound or two.
Excellent photos. I found it interesting that you spent a lot of time reading up on the old masters. It’s something a photographer should do, but I never took the time even though I own some on the books. I’m hoping to get the 4x5 out again this summer. (Currently shooting a twin lens.) Maybe I’ll do some reading.
Desmolicious wrote:
Excellent stuff. It is a shame that I couldn’t click on the pics to make them bigger.
Thank you so much, happy you enjoyed the work! About the images, I am working on a complete redo of my website, which should fix the issue. Not sure when it'll be ready though I have hopes for it to be online before I'll leave again for our Workshop season in September.
---------------------------------------------
jay w wrote:
Excellent photos. I found it interesting that you spent a lot of time reading up on the old masters. It’s something a photographer should do, but I never took the time even though I own some on the books. I’m hoping to get the 4x5 out again this summer. (Currently shooting a twin lens.) Maybe I’ll do some reading.
Thank you very much Jay, happy you enjoyed the photographs! About the reading, I am keeping doing it, and enjoy it enormously. I find it to be fascinating and extremely educational, not just in photographic terms (there is some truly great work to be found!) but also as far as the ethics of the profession, the motivation and thought process of these people, and so on.
Thank you for your comment. As written in the article, I did, and decided to move on to rail-based cameras:
THE CAMERA | After experimenting with foldable cameras, lighter and smaller, I decided to give up the weight and bulk advantage and settle for sturdier and more rigid rail-based, geared cameras instead.
As well, I am not sure what "the center column on the bottom" means. My Arca-Swiss M-Two, and my Arca-Swiss F-Line before that, are rail based camera; they feature two standards sliding back and forth on a monorail. There aren't any columns anywhere on my cameras.
As far as movements, a quick look at the M-Two will show you that it has rise/fall and shift on the back standard, and tilt / swing on the front standard, which are exactly the movements you need for field work, not overkill at all.
I think what "center column on the bottom" relates to is likely the extension with four poles at the front and back end of the bellow (2x2) on the monorail. This allows to easily grab one or two of these poles to move the bellow in the correct position. Not sure why they could be considered overkill for landscapes - maybe just because the monorail itself cannot be folded and is more bulky to carry around when hiking for example.
retrofocus wrote:
I think what "center column on the bottom" relates to is likely the extension with four poles at the front and back end of the bellow (2x2) on the monorail. This allows to easily grab one or two of these poles to move the bellow in the correct position. Not sure why they could be considered overkill for landscapes - maybe just because the monorail itself cannot be folded and is more bulky to carry around when hiking for example.
I think Norm replied clarifying that, and my understanding is that he was thinking about the monorail, but I am sure he can chime in and further expand if needed.
I fully agree with you on the need for movements in the landscape, they are definitely not overkill (for me and my work, at least). While I appreciate people going for lighter and smaller, to me having more movements (and geared movements), together with the extra rigidity that rail-based cameras offer, make it worth the extra weight and bulk compared to foldable cameras.
Seriously speaking, I love the results so much that I think that's why I don't find it hard to do, but it's certainly a fair bit more complicated than digital.