The main reason I shoot film is the analogue process. I'm very very burnt out on screens, and I spent the formative years of my artistic training making art with pens, pencils, paint, paper, and so on. Film feels much more like working with my hands at art, and I can create an image, start-to-finish, without ever looking at another screen. That, to me, is reason enough to shoot film.
I learn photography on my dads 4X5 Speed Graflex and so I appreciate those photographers in the 1940s who can go to a boxing match and get the knockout shot with such a Camera with maybe ten sheets of film and flash bulbs.
Film is designed for dark room printing , not for Digital conversation, the ultimate truth will be in the prints.. the beauty of the character of the film /lenses used will show most distinctly in the print …remember the goal use to be when using film , was to make a physical darkroom print , that should always be foremost in the mind when composing the image , what will the image look like framed and hanging was always the question that came to mind ?.. a very different mindset compared to today’s, shoot to share online goal .. the physical print for film shooters should be the most important component in the process and the end goal..
I completely agree! Originate on analogue keep it analogue. MY opinion, it is my opinion, experience and aesthetic, but I don’t see the point in digitising ie scanning film, just adding a ( pointless) intermediate stage . Originate digital keep it digital. I still work in analogue, as well as digital, for analogue I use a 5x7 camera and contact print.
For me, the reason I shoot film is primarily because I like analogue prints better than digital ones. When blown up to big art print sizes, I think darkroom prints have a certain smoothness that digital prints lack. Purely a personal preference of course, but I would recommend comparing analogue vs digital prints in stead of scans.
@@urbanimage Yes, but isn't that only for b&w? And Type-C is colour? I just call it "darkroom prints" or "analogue prints". English is not my first language.
@@thedondeluxe6941 Ah, yes, I see. Silver halide photography isn't an analogue process, of course. I guess we will have to get used to 'analogue' being used to mean 'not digital'. Watching an exposed print coming up in the developer never loses its magic though.
_I carried an 8-by-10 to the top of a mountain in Estes Park and never took a picture._ - Harry Callahan ^ Large format film photography is about both commitment and restraint.
I am surprised you didn't opt to partner with one of the analog RUclipsrs in New York - Eduardo Goye in particular, as he's a street shooter and also uses 4x5. I think that would have been really interesting to have somebody who is a subject matter expert, who loves that format and can get the most out of it in terms of resolution, and compare that on the same shots. RUclips channel collaborations are always fun to watch imo, and I often find new channels that way. I was really disappointed this didn't end in a real comparison, but it was still fun to watch.
Hugh, the iPhone camera and lenses, and software are not, in my opinion free. Today a perfectly capable digital phone with one lens can be had for $50 - $150. The iPhone with three lenses and the best software is $1,000 or so. About the same price as a good micro 4/3 body only. So, maybe the lenses are free. However, a micro 4/3 lens say 14-42mm can be had for $200 give or take. Less used.
Hugh, it's not that difficult. More film holders, process the film yourself and buy an Epson flatbed that does 5x4 and start scanning. A used 4990 will do. Practice. Most importantly, stop comparing your 5x4 results to other systems. Invest some time.
The brutal honesty of this episode was a delight ! And IMO this was the best ever advertisement for the Fuji GFX series, bar none. Well done, Hugh ! Slainte !
Digital and film processes and results are so completely different that the main question is not which delivers superior results but which process and result speaks to you. I’ve shot digitally since the very earliest cameras but since starting to shoot film I can scarcely think of digital as real photography. The mechanical cameras, tactile controls, real negatives or polaroids and the process of loading, metering, shooting, developing and scanning those beautiful medium and large format negatives is immensely satisfying. By contrast, the plastic cameras, the sea of buttons and menus, automatic focus and exposure and especially the all virtual process from screen to disk to screen to internet leaves me completely cold. Digital is obviously faster, more convenient and the results are technically excellent but film process and results are rich and organic and beautiful. If you value the experience of photography and have the time to make the deep dive it’s something to experience. BTW developing and scanning your own film eliminates the time, expense, and mediocre results you will likely get from a lab. I often shoot, develop, scan and edit film images in a single day.
Digital is objectively superior for what most people shoot. No car brochure photo is shot on 8x10 anymore, fashion does shoot some large format again but for mood and not for quality advantages. Large format for street shooters is an extremely challenging combination. I shoot a Linhof Technika 4x5 and typically shoot on Kodak Tri-X Professional 320. Scanned at 3,200 DPI it gives me a resolution of 180mp. That is half the story, it appears as sharp as a good 50mp image due to what film is.But it prints better than it looks on a screen. The midtowns and texture are what makes it stand out for me, albeit at a hefty price. It is massively time consuming. My Jobo helps to get development consistency. In my opinion it is very hard to shoot digital day in day out and then make a few large format photos in between. The results will be frustrating. But after investing a few hundred hours good things start to come out. And if you really start to like it, and I do, it leads to the path of ordering an 8x10 field camera to see if the even more unruly beast can be mastered. Large format is deliberate, not spontaneous. But when I pick up my Leica SL with one of the excellent Sigma small prime lenses, I notice my digital photography improves, because I have developed more "focus".
Okay, my opinion. The process of creating an image is why I went back to film. There is a large format look, if you get it right, that is unique and mesmerizing. Portraits can also look amazing but if your mind is on the result, now, you will be frustrated. I cannot afford the prices that the cameras alone cost but home made 3D printed cameras using large format lenses can give you a camera at reduced cost but some caveats. My foremost use is to try to produce a unique 6x12 or 6x17 panoramic image without having to photoshop a series of photos. I don’t like spending time messing with software. I shoot jpg and am done. Film is very similar. Film takes more effort to get it right the first time. Film is like enjoying the scenic route rather than rushing to your destination as fast as you can without getting caught. Thanks.
Film and processing film was before lightroom... dark room manual and chemical techniques of developing film are now sliders in software. Its very ignorant words "I don’t like spending time messing with software. I shoot jpg and am done. Film is very similar. Film takes more effort to get it right the first time." My grandpa loves to shot BW but problably only because Developing Ilford HP5 and Kodak Tri-X were much cheaper faster and simpler than Color Film's. But this is only searching ways to say... im lazy but i didn't want to be named that. So i will call that ART and minimalism. You really don't want spend such amount of time of developing film as Ansel Adams. If you once try... you will be glad that software exhist
A perfect silver print from a silver negative will not be sharp when pixel peeped at 100 percent ( 100 % of what , by the way...?). The viewing distance and enlargement / print size will deliver the impression of sharpness, you cannot compare this process and experience with digital. You're conclusion/questions about lens sharpness looking at a 100% scan is not correct, IMHO. If the grain (and small dust particles) is sharp, the scan is ok. And only then. First print, then analyse. My 2 cents worth.
In addition to which, the gentle, natural softness of a silver print has a beauty in itself. As I sit, I am looking at a small black and white (silvery grey really) long exposure seascape taken (probably on 35mm film) and printed by Richard Featherstone. It’s not sharp. It’s gorgeous!
@@kronkite1530 With film and an optical print There are only 3 photons and 2 bits of physical mater between your eye and the subject. There is a reality to it.
@@kronkite1530 A photon#1 interacts between subject and silver#1 in negative. A photon#2 interacts between silver#1 in negative and silver#2 in print. Photon#3 connects silver#2 in print to observers retina. This happens in parallel many billions of time. Thus there is a simple physical connection through space and time between subject and observer of the photo. With digital it becomes so stirred up twisted and mangled, the physical connection is lost. It isn't real anymore.
@@keysersmoze Got it now. Additionally, with transparency film there is a difference between looking at one as the light comes through (transmissive) and reflected light from a print, obviously but I have never seen a digital screen able to fully replicate the appearance of seeing a slide on a good light box.
It's very interesting hearing from people who grew up with film talk about how much they dislike the darkroom and going back to that process. I have fallen back into the photography passion recently during the cov and started out with a Sony A7c. As I've gone along in the hobby I've steadily gotten more analogue like buying an X100v and then going full 35mm with a Bessa R I lucked in to. I have also started developing and printing my own B&W. I find going analog to be extremely enjoyable overall much more enjoyable than learning freaking Lightroom or Capture One tbh. It might be that I have too much time over the summer and when school starts next week I'll have to give up the time spent in the dark room but I've met a local photographer who shoots Large Format and wants to take me out to give it a whirl before I fall into that rabbit hole so we'll see. Anyways great video!
I am not sure it's "people who grew up with film" as much as "there are shooters and there are lab people," whether it's spending time in a darkroom or staring into a computer for a long time. Just my opinion.
I guess since my family grew up with painting, drawing and sculpture we have an affinity for the tactile . Even if I get that PERFECT photograph from a high megapixel gfx or a dslr, it doesn’t make me smile the way my darkroom print does. Because that experience, working the print over and over by hand, and making it one of a kind, is what it’s all about for me. My darkroom prints are never the same, they are all truly different every single time.
Young man, you are terrific. Love the way you analyze a subject and then don’t insist we share the same attitude, belief, or experience. I’ve loved film in 35 and medium formats. But think that for me remaining in the digital realm is best at this stage of life. Thank you so much for helping me to focus my thoughts on the subject.
You make some valid points. I shoot Digital with my D3, Df and D800, all which can make large prints. But I also shoot with 35mm, medium format and 4x5, they all have their place. I will say 4x5 is definitely a learning curve and the cost of film is not cheap. Of all my cameras, I shoot digital and medium format film.
No matter film format you are shooting, from my experience, if you are shooting B&W film, you will ALWAYS get better (sharper, more dynamic range) pictures if you first make an actual photograph using darkroom and than scan that picture using even a basic $10 scanner from a thrift store than to scan your negative directly. Of course, unless you are using the drum scanner. For which one you are even these days usually required to sell heart and lungs in order to obtain it. Now that being said the GFX 100s is on my bucket list. Meaning I'm considering to sell my heart and lungs...
Kudos for taking up this challenge ... the format is from another era. I was taught the basics of photography by my grandfather who got into photography when he was able to buy a German 35 mm in the 1930's (a Leica 2 I think). It was the size factor that was the deciding point. He did some pioneer work in home-developed color 35mm content (slide film) so he was inclined to stretch the limits of the available tech. But, he had an antipathy to all the hassle associated with the 4x5's popular in his time.
Sometimes I cheat. Using my 120mm lens I find a level camera with a slight lens tilt @ f32 will give me all the DOF I need for scenic type shots when focus is set to the desired distance. The big cheat is using my little Sony RX100 vii set to a matching focal length, strategically positioned on top of the camera for viewing the scene. Sure a million thumbs down for breaking tradition but it has worked well for me. Sure 10,000 hours for full mastery of movements but don’t let that stop you from enjoying the process.. Thank for the video.
Since you have many digital cameras, get a good manual focus digital macro lens and use it to take 3-4 images of your 4-5 and stitch them together. It’s much better than a scanner.
In your historical image review you included Adams' 'Moon and Half Dome' which was taken with a 6x6 Hasselblad. As a happy medium format user, I just wanted to point that out.
I have thought about getting into 4x5. I figure a simple developing tank and dark bag, and Epson scanner 800 something model. Darkroom enlarger didn't seem to make much economic sense. There are printing shops that have large pro printers.
Alfred Stieglitz, the Terminal and the bird photos by Eliot Porter are what keep me from switching from large format. In most cases it’s true you need a huge long reaching lens with autofocus to get the great shots, but when I see Porters work, it just blows everything that came after it out of the water.
Get a Paterson tank and an Epson V850 scanner, scan at 2400dpi, then you'll have comparable images in about 8 hours (negative dry time permitting). You can easily process 4x5 at home. Then it comes down to good editing practices. Contrast and post scan sharpening can have a dramatic impact on your final image.
There was a time when I was sure that a Leica rangefinder was going to be just the right thing for me. After all, 80% of my favorite photographers used Leica's almost exclusively. So, I bought one. I did not like it at all. Around the same time I bought a beaten up Rollieflex twin lens, and I thought I had found the perfect camera with the Rollieflex. Not everything is for everyone and I never could make the Leica fit into my way of shooting film.
But you do need to invest in more film holders! How are you going to "put in the time and effort" if you're constantly running out of film in the field, or have to pause a studio shoot to fill film holders? Idea: Rent the bestest and greatest lens for the 4x5 camera, so you're comparing the best image quality available on that camera to the best image quality derived from the best lens (meaning, the one you already have-there isn't much choice) for the GFX.
Well said! And if I may add one thing which I find missing from today's retro worship: the equipment and techniques people now so revere were cutting edge technology to photographers of the day. We (yes, I was there in the '70s) worked hard to get our mittens on the best we could afford, whether it was cameras, lenses, films, processes, lighting, enlargers, processors or all the rest. And as that kept changing and improving all the time no professional photographer went back to last year's kit or techniques. I can promise you we would have dumped our heavy, complex, fragile, expensive, polluting and often temperamental equipment and techniques in a heartbeat if we'd had the option. Thank goodness for digital!
Your truths have a great deal of value and I am not going to put them down. I do, on occasion, shoot 4X5, a Sinar F2 with a few lenses at my disposal and too many film holders, but my primary photography tools are a full frame modern mirrorless camera with a selection of lenses. For me my 4X5 camera is for something different with photography. It forces me to look at things differently and to create totally different kinds of images. And occasionally it allows me to get an image that my modern 35mm digital camera, with IBIS and image stabilized lenses cannot, just as the 4X5 camera will never do video. My 4X5 is for relaxing with and doing photography at a very leisurely pace, as is forced by the equipment. I have some very definite advantages over your experiments with large format that go beyond the camera gear itself. I have the personal advantage that I am able to process all of my large format film myself, be it B&W or colour (sorry for the British and Canadian spelling of color) C-41 negatives or E-6 transparencies. And I have full access to a camera club darkroom that allows me to print anything from 35mm to 4X5 films in either B&W or colour. The only thing that I do not have ready access to is the ability to scan negatives or transparencies and even here I can do it reasonably easily y renting access to some high quality film scanners when I need for everything up to 4X5. For my normal photography I will not give up on digital equipment and workflow, it is just too good although I am certainly not an expert with the digital tools. And the lens selection for my digital cameras, with a whole selection of zooms, is totally unheard of with large format. But to do some photography in a very relaxed manner and for the rare occasion where my 4X5 is the only real tool for the job I still pull out my 4X5. Several points that you brought up in this video. While describing your photography process with your large format Intrepid camera you forgot to write down the camera settings and exposure information. Your GFX100, as with virtually all digital cameras includes this information, and much more, within the EXIF data but as you Intrepid is devoid of anything electronic you have also record this manually. Also when comparing the sharpness of the lens on the GFX 100 to your 150mm lens on the Intrepid please consider that with large format lenses image circle, or the area that the lens can illuminate, is very important and to some degree supersedes image sharpness. The GFX 100, and especially with smaller formats, can optimize for a small image circle that barely covers the image sensor and can thus optimize for image sharpness. With large format lenses the ability to utilize the camera's movements significantly without running outside the image circle is more important. The large format camera has lost the ability to compete on either workflow or resolution compared to a modern digital camera. It had lost its place as a primary camera system for most photographers even before digital cameras were available. But it was never totally irrelevant because it could, and still can, do some things that are unavailable to other camera systems. You mentioned that the image quality and tonality of a large format image were unsurpassed by 35mm or even medium format systems. But there is really not a replacement for the versatility of large format for architectural photography or anywhere else where the large format' camera's movements come into play. Using a large format camera with all of the settings zeroed is the least flattering way to use such a camera and here there are a great many cameras that easily surpass it, even many point and shoots. But once the movements come into play, either to modify the plane of focus or with things like architecture the large format comes into its own and excels. I enjoyed you series on comparing the Intrepid to your GFX 100. I fully understand that the Intrepid will never be a replacement for a modern digital camera in your, or even my own, daily lives. But, for me, I will continue to occasionally pull out my 4X5 and do something a little different with it just for my own pleasure and relaxation. Thank you for your, always, thoughtful insights on the topic and I will continue to look forward to your thoughts on a variety of topics. Again thank you. Sorry for the long post.
I remember large format when I was at uni, those enlargers bolted to the wall. (I tried to nick one and the spring mechanism almost took my hand off - shhhh dont tell anyone) Its a slow process, but very rewarding when you get it right. Its what a photograph can be.. I was lucky, very lucky, John Blakemore taught me, that guys got Jedi skills - keep at it.. when you get it, and really get it. it will kick back into your 'everyday' photography,. thought, process and intention, reverse engineered in large format will stay with you forever abd become part of your soul. You will never forget what you truly understand.
I wonder: is it the negative size, or is it the silver halide process? I built my first darkroom on top of the counter in the bathroom I shared with my sisters before my voice dropped, and continued to develop my own film and prints in a darkroom through college. The magic was always in the darkroom. This has informed my photography ever since, but ai never shot anything other than 35mm. I think I might need some time with a large format Jedi Master.
You should really try out 4x5 handheld with a Crown Graphic. The rangefinder speeds up the focusing process tremendously. And framing with any of the three available finders on the camera is much faster than only the one method (ground glass). If you want to do street, then Graflex can't be beat. Also look into buying a Grafmatic.
Agreed. I had (in the 1970s) a Crown Graphic that I used with cut film holders and Polaroid holders. I got rid of the very average Optar lens and had a Fujinon-W 135mm lens fitted to a lens board. Today, a Baby Graphic with a roll film holder would be the way to go.
Read Cape Light; and Gregory Heisler’s 50 portraits- I couldn’t even understand some of the concepts they were trying to convey in the context of large format image making. Read about Intrepid and they were local, so I thought to understand I would try , even though I expected to learn through failure. And fail I have. Though my appreciation for those who have succeeded with large format has increased exponentially. Acquiring a mentor to learn from locally has been unsuccessful- the skill sets don’t exist at my local camera club anymore. Still, the knowledge percolates and perhaps I’ll improve over time. I’m going to try that lomograflok digital back for the intrepid, which uses instax wide- it won’t be pure but I think it will be interesting. In the end like the licence plate says… my other camera is a lumix g9.
There are a few large format photographers down in Sussex (I am one of them). One thing you can guarantee, you won't find any of us down the local camera club. My local one is very much a digital only domain.
@@tobiaskeyphotography3867 ah, thanks for the insight- that certainly reflects my local camera club in north london I think. Is there a large format forum you use to network?
I feel you. After starting out with Nikons in 1982 and switching to digital a mere 20 years later large format landed heavily in my lap this year. With 4 lenses and 30 film holders I went on schlepping, developing my film myself and scanning with a Hasselblad Flextight. The result: shooting HP5 in my beloved old F3 ;))
I’ve heard the siren song of large format, but I have so far been able to keep myself tied to the mast. It is not just the expense of it (I would have to get new developer tanks and upgrade my scanner). When I look at people doing it, all I can think is that there is no way my back/knees/eyes can handle that. I may get the GFX 100S at some point, but it is probably too much camera for me right now. I’m content with my Fuji X100V, Mamiya 645 1000s, my oddball collection of old Soviet Cameras, and my drones and 360 cameras. But, I never know where my photography journey is going to take me. I enjoyed the video
I use a Ricoh GR digital camera from 2005 for Street black and white photography, and a 5x4 MPP Micropress with a Schneider 135 mm f4.7 lens for Landscapes. I have an excellent processing lab in Cheltenham UK that will also reload fine into my 2 double film holders. I like the stability of the Press design camera over the field camera design of the Intrepid in windy weather. I use a Pentax 6x7 with a 55mm f4 lens using Tri X film developed in Xtol. I print with a condenser enlarger through a Schneider 100mm lens. I am 78 years old and have been making pictures since I was 13. If I had to choose only one camera now, it would be the Ricoh GR digital camera. Pocketable, a really sharp lens that is capable of producing lovely filmic images. Thanks for your thoughtful video.
Do you consider the use of a GFX 100s with an adapter on the 4x5 camera in order to take multiple shots and stitch them to get a larger field of view? It has it's limitations, but it would be useful for landscapes or long exposure landscapes? I have a GFX 100s and trying to justify spending close to 1400€ on an Intrepid 4x5 + adapter + lens. GAS it is a dangerous thing these days :))
I haven’t. I’d suggest going straight to stitching GFX 100s images taken with GF glass. The questions become: how big do you want to view or, more to the point, print? At what point does pixelation reach its limit? Does film grain exceed it, and does the quality of lenses for large format film cameras make that potential advantage relevant or irrelevant?
@@3BMEP Stitching GFX 100s images taken with GF glass would not work the same way, because of the parallax effect, hence the 4x5 camera in front of it, projecting the image on the GFX sensor. And since the projection is much bigger, there are adaptors that let you mount the camera to act as a digital back and "slide" across the frame to take for example 3 horizontal photos in protrait orientation and then stitching them in post. It would not be for printing or high res work. All that resolution going to waste just to have that magic of bigger projection. Even to the inexperienced eye a 4x5 image looks different than a 35 mm, even if he would not know to explein why. I'm looking to this option because I would take more photos and less expensive than film (and faster development process).
I have never used a medium format digital camera (though subscribe to the excellent Medium Format magazine) but have years of large format with monorail/technical cameras (carrying a Horseman LXC with heavy tripod, holders, lenses etc up hills and in deep snow was a trial!) and Linhof and Gandolfi field cameras, and have dithered in and out over the past few years, wasting lots of money hardly using then selling, trying to scratch an itch I struggled to find time for. Now, in print I might not find an advantage in the film (perhaps don’t in images from a 5DSR and A7R3, except colour) but there is NOTHING like looking at a 4*5 or larger transparency. Every time I go back to my library I grin in happy surprise at the sheer beauty of the images. I have digital photos I like printed (I always print my better pictures) on my walls, but they are not the same. Plus, many of my favourites were done on 6x9 and 6x12cm using holders on my cameras which does make life easier and cheaper with, still, a similar look. Coming back to my digital, again, I don’t know, but I collect prints and have digital and film prints from others including master printers like Tim Rudman , Richard Featherstone and Jean Napier and there is something different about silver halide and platinum palladium prints, I’m sure. But, hassle and cost in view I doubt I will go back. For now I am very happy with my Fuji XT2 and its image quality despite its sensor being so much smaller and will spend any extra money (I wish!) saved having digital negatives made and platinum/palladium prints to get ‘that’ look.
Very good video Hugh. I have shot a lot of film with large format cameras, it can be fun once you get the hang of it. I shot a lot of black and white landscapes and other subjects. One year I shot about 800 sheets of 4x5 black and white film which I processed and scanned myself. Lately, I have been shooting a lot more with a digital camera, I have a Nikon D850, so naturally, I shot some side-by-side comparisons. I used my Nikon with a 60mm macro lens to "scan" my negatives. Like you have found in your own results, pixel to film grain, the pixels look sharper. There is one thing with shooting digital - you don't run out of film. I think Edward Weston said something like “Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn't photogenic.” I think of that quote and I think you were more than 500 yards from the car, it can be a good long walk back to the car to get more film holders. Edward Weston would have been shooting with an 8x10 view camera and a half dozen film holders can be very heavy. That's one of the main drawbacks of shooting large format film. I have to be very choosy about which potential pictures to take, but once I'm out of film and I'm 5 miles from my car, then my shooting day is done. Anyway, I'm more than happy to shoot either film or digital.
Tests like this have been done more scientifically with higher-end cameras (150mpx Phase 1 vs. 8 x 10). You're on the right track by getting high-end scans. I can say from my own experience that the secondary optical system of an enlarger (even a state of the art setup) robs massive amounts of image quality. The results of high-end digital vs high-end film largely came down to depth of field. For planar subjects (or very selective focus) the big film could capture significantly more information. But when significant depth of field is required, the small digital sensor leaps ahead. The reason is that for depth of field, a big film camera needs to stop down to f22 to f64, where diffraction drops the MTF way below what a medium format sensor delivers at its more moderate aperture. Also, signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, and linearity in the best sensors goes well beyond what's available in color film. Black and white films like TMX still have an edge in some of these respects.
Back in the day, the entire kit and workflow was taken into consideration, and photographers would shoot on both medium and large format. Color negative film was inherently grainy and not that high resolution. And it mattered if you developed the film yourself rather than sending it out, in final grain and contrast of the image. A few years back I revisited film, scanning the final negative, and was surprised to learn that digital full frame easily surpassed 2 1/4" film negatives. But 2 1/4 x 3 1/2" scanned roll film could still hang in there and give you the classic film look.
Hugh, a PS… and a plea. I would love to see sooc JPEG’s from the GSX100 using the film simulations, particularly Classic Chrome, Velvia and Provia (and Acros) while you still have it, unless you intend to buy one? This, because I am sure that digital is now higher in resolution and sure the new lens designs are way better than the Apo Symmar (though it was my go to for years and fine for 4*5 film, just didn’t need to be developed to handle modern sensors even if that had been possible back then) but I’d love to see if the colour and ‘look’ of mf JPEG’s could mimic or even replace the transparency films I loved. BTW, re one of your remarks - the Fuji and others can now be mounted to the Cambo Actus and Arca Swiss cameras to get the camera movements when required without the limit of just having a digital back. Or to check the lenses!
If I did go back to film I would have to use a dark room, but no going back. Any more than I would yearn to drive an old 60s car. Mind you, you could use that big lump for street photography, people would be standing in front of it to see what it was lol.
If one desired to shoot film, and process their own negatives and PRINT the negatives themselves, well, I admire anyone who wished to go down that particular artistic path. Shooting film only to have someone else process it and, Jeepers, SCAN it??? Like, why? Just shoot digital if you want a digital image lol. If you want a flat, film-like look with some grain you can do that in post.
Saved a 4x5 enlarger from the dumpster, complete with enlarger lenses and accessoirs....just to learn that it is too tall for my darkroom -or- the ceiling is too low. :-D
I'm glad someone is talking about tonal range, or at least hinting at it as something just as important as dynamic range. But first, I need to discuss the elephant in the room, pun intended. All things being the same, Large, Medium, FF, APS-C all can have the same depth of field, field of view and dynamic range. Of course you can get littler shallower DOF in large format, but for the most part if you wan that f/1.4 full frame "look" you can do so with the formats above and it will look exactly the same...once again, all things being equal. But what about tonal range? This is where I hope you go deeper with 4x5 in your exploration. I think this is "the large/medium format film" look that people are looking for. I might be completely bonkers, but even more than resolution I think the it's the thing that sets these larger formats apart more so than just raw resolution. The funny thing is, we had an amazing thing for 4X5 that was reputed to have the best tonal range and almost no grain, and resolved on the order of 150 LP/mm...and it was "instant" and if you did it right, you got a print AND a negative. Yup, that was the legendary Polaroid Type 55 film. I am in still in awe every time I shoot my dwindling supply and look at the print and then scan it in. It's the only thing that really makes me want to futz with 4x5 anymore. I hope you go into a bigger discussion of tonal range as this series continues. Tonal range (and special films like Lomochrome Purple and Metropolis) are why I still shoot my Bronica ETRSi more than I do my Leica M240...
In the past I purchased photo equipment by "output needs". ie. in the 60s.... some BW 8x10 of static wedding poses... 4x5 crown graphic & flash bulbs..70s still 8x10, some color, some BW but 120 roll film would do the job with a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. 80's, now color and more shots, 35mm would get the job done; again improved film grain at the needed ISO. Modern digital/mirrorless cameras kill it with super simple post processing (no fussing with refrigerated or outdated film, lab delays or mistakes.... more precise color consistency, etc.) (oh, but almost anyone can do it) now I buy equipment because it is FUN. Yes, I shoot some BW & process it and 'scan' it with my Leica SL2 and a macro lens.
To reason #10: I *really* think that the whole process of going 4x5 is to fully adopt an analog process-- and that means getting a development setup (even a dark bag and the SP445 tank) and a flatbed for your own scans. It is far too expensive, finnicky, and inconvenient to outsource those critical parts of the process to the industry of film labs which are a shadow of their former numbers. It really does kill the joy of 4x5. Film is not ever going to be the medium that makes the most sense anymore, which is firmly in the realm of digital. But I think what so many in the analog community feel is that, the rat race of perfection kills the soul of what got many people into photography in the first place. It seems like its really all about the process as a whole, to myself and many film shooters, from hoarding film to framing that contact print. Like someone else said here; If I can produce a final image without ever having looked at a screen, THAT is a modern marvel, ironically. I think it's like deciding to walk 20 blocks instead of taking a cab or the subway. Its slow and exhausting, but a beautiful journey that makes it worth it.
Hello Hug, Like so many I 35mm. 120mm, 5x4 Film and even 10x8 film and you can see why people call it the Art of photography. It is also why digital is so nice to use. Keep well, keep safe and enjoy life.
I fundamentally disagree with Hugh’s basic premise. Comparing IQ is a waste of everyone’s time. Large Format film photography is all about the process and how it forces the photographer into a different relationship with the subject. I am deeply disappointed that Hugh doesn’t get this fundamental point as he rushes forward to get to the bit where he pixel peeps. The fact is that many of the iconic large format film images are what they are not just because of the machine that took them , but because of the slow, futzy process the artist embarks on to capture them. Hugh needs to stop measuring and comparing and just go all-in to embrace the process.
Hmm… my basic premise? I didn’t start from a premise for this particular series, I started from a question: “is large format film photography a set of trade-offs that could be enjoyable or make sense for me?” My premise for the channel is that if I share my passions, curiosity and learnings, it will find an audience.
@@3BMEP “is large format film photography a set of trade-offs that could be enjoyable or make sense for me?” That's such an interesting question. Rationally, digital will always win in this contest, but irrationally, if you only ever compare a good big printed image, that you are proud of, hanging on a wall, and the element of craft that went in to producing it - well, that's really rather nice.
@@urbanimage As I did not know if “digital will always win,” IQ was simply the first and easiest port of call on this journey of mine. But agreed: the final image is the final image, and the tonality of the 4x5 neg is lovely.
@@3BMEP That is not the right question IMO. And the urge to pixel peep is taking you in completely the wrong direction, I would suggest. Would you compare a watercolour painting to an oil painting ? A lithograph to a charcoal sketch? Would you compare a Rothko to a Georgia O'Keefe and judge them on "image quality"? That's where you are going. Large format film photography is about the relationship between the photographer and the subject. In asking yourself if it "could be enjoyable or make sense for me?", I suggest you will get the answer to that question only by going all-in on the process and giving it time. Or, indeed, truly accepting that you aren't going to leave a digital workflow and leave it at that. By starting off from the premise of comparing large format film to your Fuji and switching between images in Lightroom, you are occupying your mind with the wrong set of questions. The great large format film photographers ( past and present ) made their images in collaboration with their subject. Time and interaction is the key here. With a human subject, it even comes down to their own patience, asking them for stillness and to give you their time to get the job done. The images will invariably be completely different to pushing out 50 x raw images on your Fuji in 30 minutes. The experience for both the photographer and the subject will be completely different too. IMO, if you don't commit to the process, you will not find your answers. My advice would be when using the large format film camera, is to put away the Fuji and concentrate on the film image. Either develop film yourself or find a collaborative film developer and printer you can form a relationship with. You often refer to the concept of "shooting with intent". Large format film photography is the ultimate way to commit to this philosophy
@@3BMEP Yes, checking and comparing IQ on screen is impossible to resist, and high end, or even middling, digital will win. But, if viewed at sensible size on screen, or especially if printed out to a good size things more than level out. Is it worth the perverse effort of doing it on film? That really depends on if you enjoy the doing bit.
It blows my mind that Martin Munkácsi did *sports* photography with large format! It'll be a while before I get to large format, but I'm thinking 2025 will be the year.
Having cut my teeth in the film era, I recently borrowed a Hasselblad 503. While I love that camera as a piece of sublime design, it really brought home to me how much cameras have advanced during the digital era. I've been making images on the Fujifilm GFX 50s for the past number of years and, nostalgic romance aside, I could not justify reverting to film from an IQ or cost perspective. BTW, the 32-64 is far from the best lens for the system. The 45-100 is far superior as a lens that covers as similar range of foca lenght. All of that said, I do love Frank Petronio's work on 5x4 - but that is more reflective of the message than the medium.
I can't imagine working with film and not having the darkroom experience. The darkroom is where the wizardry and potion turns into magic or tragedy. A wonderful compromise can be found with a Polaroid 550 film back combined with type 55 positive/negative sheet film.
@@iNerdier I suspect your correct. I haven't touched any of that stuff since 2001ish maybe? And considering my age (old as f#@k), well who knows what's lurking between my ears..... Follow the white rabbit.. Who? :P
Perhaps take a second look at how flat your film is in your holder, and whether a vacuum back might be a worthy investment. Excited to see the next part!
one downside i see with the gfx 50 and 100 systems is when you're editing in the adobe suite. the grain structure in the images often show a very weird repeating pin cushion distorted newton ring looking structure. this is only visible in high iso images or images where the shadows are pushed hard. it does not have anything to do with lenses, sensors or pdaf-array since there is not a single trace of it if you just process the image through Capture One. if you use Capture One tho, you don't get the same sharpness and details as in adobes camera raw conversions, and not the easy workflow you're allready used to ;) i've seen this grain structure problem in alot of images in reviews of the gfx 100 and 50. it's not a camera problem, it's an adobe conversion problem that they never fix =/
@@3BMEP i remember seeing facebook posts about it and the general explanation was that uv-filter caused newton rings. but after removing my uv filters i could still see it. the problem has never appeared on any of my sony cameras, or leica cameras. and it is exclusive to using the adobe camera raw. i can try to fetch an example when i have more time.
Makes you appreciate the Masters even more. I see how LF is so challenging on so many levels and I think Josef Sudek. One arm. Large format. Prague: all season, snow, fog, rain, the third reich, the soviets. Its beyond this world that man's work.
Confession: I'm pretty sure that I was born in the wrong century... You mention names of legendary photographers - and they were, to be sure, absolutely spectacular artists. BUT, film photography was _all there was_ during most of their lifetimes. Film development and darkroom print making were not some type of alchemist's Dark Arts like they have sort of become today. It was commonplace and absolutely everywhere. Personally, I love shooting in 120 format (Mamiya RZ Pro II and C330 Professional) and develop B&W film at home. The problem is that I don't have ready access to a darkroom with equipment capable of handling medium format film. Nearly all of the darkrooms in the area have long since closed. And development labs are pretty expensive, particularly when you move into the 4x5 large format and above. Costs are insane relative to digital photography. Thing is, large format film is capable of truly breathtaking detail and tone and composition size. I've just purchased an old Linhof Kardan Bi monorail system with a couple of Schneider lenses - I'm falling down the rabbit hole with you... ;-) Thanks for a wonderful and very honest video. Enjoy! J
Beware 🙃, a wide angle large format lens will multiply the fuzziness with a factor 100. I would stick with the 150 until you master the process. It is un comparable with a 'fixed' wideangle.
I can't help but stop and think of the approach Ansel had to creating a negative and his way of exposure and development. Everyone wants digital cameras to have a long tonal range. Ansel instead would match the tonal range of the scene to his negative. Although it would of made things much easier he would of just shot everything at N-3. Today if we shoot with digital a softly lit, low contrast scene of say leaves in shade. The modern digital camera may give you a 14 stop range when the subject is much less. So what do we do? Open it in software and reach for the contrast and clarity sliders. This is not same thing Ansel would of done. Actually he would of gave it less tonal range. Do these two approaches accomplish the same result? I would have to say no. In PS we are crunching and stretching the pixels. Ansel would always strive to print on grade two paper to give the most range. Having to jump to a grade 3 or 4 would mean he did not expose and develop properly. Having to jump to a higher grade (more contrast) would take away the subtleties and texture of tones. I have always thought that a day may come when digital cameras would come with an adjustable contrast range in exposure. But because almost no photographers think in these terms it will probably never happen. Also If you look at the B&W work of Bruce Weber you can see the total control he has over tones, and still uses Tri-x to this day.
Great video.. aero ektar lens. Would really give you a lot of joy or yeah the xenktar is amazing too... or cooke or dallmeyer lenses too... I suggest get hold of one.. if by chance you have opportunity to go to new jersey or new york you can check my cameras and lenses .. keep creating these amazing videos .
Whyyyy picking up Ilford films whyyyyyy 😱😱😱😱 Pls try again with a good Kodak and a worthy lens. As you said you cant even find grain, no need to go all the way up to 6x8 films to beat a GFX 100
Compare digital to an 8x10 contact print, from a properly exposed negative, and you will cry. Nothing compares to it, even now. Film is great because when I go into a darkroom and make my own prints, it takes WORK. It takes time, it takes skill, and it is a true physical manipulation of your art supplies. It’s a true tactical experience. Shooting 4x5 and not owning an enlarger and a darkroom to print in, is a shame IMO. That alone is beautiful, and I’ll take it over sitting at a computer, after being at a computer at work all day, anyday. God speed
@Three Blind Men and An Elephant Hugh, I can't believe you were unaware of the work flow of LF film. Use the right tool, and through what methods you desire to produce the end product. Obviously for your desired end result and method of working, this was a bad match from the get go. All methods of recording the visual have their place. So with your typical elegance you dismiss a methodology that is not suited to your style of working. And praise the one that does. You are a thoughtful man, I am not really sure why you wasted your time in an endeavor that you were not suited for. I'm sorry if this appears a rant, I enjoy your content and presentation.
@@3BMEP It's a good flatbed scanner that has a transparency bed big enough to fit a 4x5 negative. Even comes with a 4x5 tray to put the film it (along with 120 and 35mm trays). Gives you a lot of control over your scan working the density of the negative yourself. Even when you scan at 2400 dpi (the scanner is rated at higher but many say it doesn't actually scan past 2400) that's still about 115 megapickles. It's a bit expensive especially when you compare it to the v600 but the v600 doesn't have a transparency unit big enough for 4x5. Still gonna have to pay someone to develop the film for you but that should knock a lot off the price of each shot. Learning to scan is a whole other step that's unique to the modern film process and has a lot of creative input (tbh for that reason there's really no such thing as straight out of camera for digitized film.) Color can sometimes be a bit tricky but seeing you only shoot black and white the epson flatbeds seem like a very logical choice. (sorry for the long reply)
@@3BMEP I doubt very much that you would gain anything by spending more money. For 5x4 or larger, there's little difference between the v850 and v700, and there's little difference between v700 and the even earlier 4990. Good technique and getting to know the individual scanner will play a larger role.
Your assertion that you would have to go all in and have a darkroom or, a sympathetic lab with expertise in print making is on point. The making of the image requires a very deep commitment to a wide range of time intense activities. It’s all very expensive now. We have the digital workflow and aesthetic now, our cameras are essentially robotic tools that manage large swathes of the process and give us time to make more and arguably better images and image making decisions. I love the zen of analogue photography but digital sweeps all before it and gives back time and convenience.
Dear Mr Elephant, Do you feel lucky, punk? I think I'm in the same boat but only shooting 6x7, WHY O WHY O WHY? I'd never take it when conditions are good, only sub par days, then ask myself why the results are poor! That said Portra is tasty :-)
The main reason I shoot film is the analogue process. I'm very very burnt out on screens, and I spent the formative years of my artistic training making art with pens, pencils, paint, paper, and so on. Film feels much more like working with my hands at art, and I can create an image, start-to-finish, without ever looking at another screen. That, to me, is reason enough to shoot film.
I understand.
@@3BMEP I do share you allergy to futzing, though. So I primarily shoot the same black and white film in my Leica M3.
@@jaredgotcher 😉
I learn photography on my dads 4X5 Speed Graflex and so I appreciate those photographers in the 1940s who can go to a boxing match and get the knockout shot with such a Camera with maybe ten sheets of film and flash bulbs.
Film is designed for dark room printing , not for Digital conversation, the ultimate truth will be in the prints.. the beauty of the character of the film /lenses used will show most distinctly in the print …remember the goal use to be when using film , was to make a physical darkroom print , that should always be foremost in the mind when composing the image , what will the image look like framed and hanging was always the question that came to mind ?.. a very different mindset compared to today’s, shoot to share online goal .. the physical print for film shooters should be the most important component in the process and the end goal..
I completely agree! Originate on analogue keep it analogue. MY opinion, it is my opinion, experience and aesthetic, but I don’t see the point in digitising ie scanning film, just adding a ( pointless) intermediate stage .
Originate digital keep it digital. I still work in analogue, as well as digital, for analogue I use a 5x7 camera and contact print.
For me, the reason I shoot film is primarily because I like analogue prints better than digital ones. When blown up to big art print sizes, I think darkroom prints have a certain smoothness that digital prints lack. Purely a personal preference of course, but I would recommend comparing analogue vs digital prints in stead of scans.
When you say 'analogue prints' do you mean silver halide photographic prints?
@@urbanimage Yes, but isn't that only for b&w? And Type-C is colour? I just call it "darkroom prints" or "analogue prints". English is not my first language.
@@thedondeluxe6941 Ah, yes, I see. Silver halide photography isn't an analogue process, of course. I guess we will have to get used to 'analogue' being used to mean 'not digital'. Watching an exposed print coming up in the developer never loses its magic though.
@@urbanimage Agreed :-)
_I carried an 8-by-10 to the top of a mountain in Estes Park and never took a picture._
- Harry Callahan
^
Large format film photography is about both commitment and restraint.
I am surprised you didn't opt to partner with one of the analog RUclipsrs in New York - Eduardo Goye in particular, as he's a street shooter and also uses 4x5. I think that would have been really interesting to have somebody who is a subject matter expert, who loves that format and can get the most out of it in terms of resolution, and compare that on the same shots. RUclips channel collaborations are always fun to watch imo, and I often find new channels that way. I was really disappointed this didn't end in a real comparison, but it was still fun to watch.
Hugh, the iPhone camera and lenses, and software are not, in my opinion free. Today a perfectly capable digital phone with one lens can be had for $50 - $150. The iPhone with three lenses and the best software is $1,000 or so. About the same price as a good micro 4/3 body only. So, maybe the lenses are free. However, a micro 4/3 lens say 14-42mm can be had for $200 give or take. Less used.
Well said
Hugh, it's not that difficult. More film holders, process the film yourself and buy an Epson flatbed that does 5x4 and start scanning. A used 4990 will do. Practice. Most importantly, stop comparing your 5x4 results to other systems. Invest some time.
The brutal honesty of this episode was a delight ! And IMO this was the best ever advertisement for the Fuji GFX series, bar none. Well done, Hugh ! Slainte !
Thanks, Bruce. Honesty always begins with ourselves, yes? 🙏🏻😊🖖🏻
Digital and film processes and results are so completely different that the main question is not which delivers superior results but which process and result speaks to you. I’ve shot digitally since the very earliest cameras but since starting to shoot film I can scarcely think of digital as real photography.
The mechanical cameras, tactile controls, real negatives or polaroids and the process of loading, metering, shooting, developing and scanning those beautiful medium and large format negatives is immensely satisfying. By contrast, the plastic cameras, the sea of buttons and menus, automatic focus and exposure and especially the all virtual process from screen to disk to screen to internet leaves me completely cold.
Digital is obviously faster, more convenient and the results are technically excellent but film process and results are rich and organic and beautiful. If you value the experience of photography and have the time to make the deep dive it’s something to experience. BTW developing and scanning your own film eliminates the time, expense, and mediocre results you will likely get from a lab. I often shoot, develop, scan and edit film images in a single day.
Digital is objectively superior for what most people shoot. No car brochure photo is shot on 8x10 anymore, fashion does shoot some large format again but for mood and not for quality advantages. Large format for street shooters is an extremely challenging combination. I shoot a Linhof Technika 4x5 and typically shoot on Kodak Tri-X Professional 320. Scanned at 3,200 DPI it gives me a resolution of 180mp. That is half the story, it appears as sharp as a good 50mp image due to what film is.But it prints better than it looks on a screen. The midtowns and texture are what makes it stand out for me, albeit at a hefty price. It is massively time consuming. My Jobo helps to get development consistency. In my opinion it is very hard to shoot digital day in day out and then make a few large format photos in between. The results will be frustrating. But after investing a few hundred hours good things start to come out. And if you really start to like it, and I do, it leads to the path of ordering an 8x10 field camera to see if the even more unruly beast can be mastered. Large format is deliberate, not spontaneous. But when I pick up my Leica SL with one of the excellent Sigma small prime lenses, I notice my digital photography improves, because I have developed more "focus".
Thank you for sharing - truly wonderful.
Okay, my opinion. The process of creating an image is why I went back to film. There is a large format look, if you get it right, that is unique and mesmerizing. Portraits can also look amazing but if your mind is on the result, now, you will be frustrated. I cannot afford the prices that the cameras alone cost but home made 3D printed cameras using large format lenses can give you a camera at reduced cost but some caveats. My foremost use is to try to produce a unique 6x12 or 6x17 panoramic image without having to photoshop a series of photos. I don’t like spending time messing with software. I shoot jpg and am done. Film is very similar. Film takes more effort to get it right the first time. Film is like enjoying the scenic route rather than rushing to your destination as fast as you can without getting caught. Thanks.
Film and processing film was before lightroom... dark room manual and chemical techniques of developing film are now sliders in software. Its very ignorant words "I don’t like spending time messing with software. I shoot jpg and am done. Film is very similar. Film takes more effort to get it right the first time." My grandpa loves to shot BW but problably only because Developing Ilford HP5 and Kodak Tri-X were much cheaper faster and simpler than Color Film's. But this is only searching ways to say... im lazy but i didn't want to be named that. So i will call that ART and minimalism. You really don't want spend such amount of time of developing film as Ansel Adams. If you once try... you will be glad that software exhist
A perfect silver print from a silver negative will not be sharp when pixel peeped at 100 percent ( 100 % of what , by the way...?). The viewing distance and enlargement / print size will deliver the impression of sharpness, you cannot compare this process and experience with digital. You're conclusion/questions about lens sharpness looking at a 100% scan is not correct, IMHO. If the grain (and small dust particles) is sharp, the scan is ok. And only then. First print, then analyse. My 2 cents worth.
In addition to which, the gentle, natural softness of a silver print has a beauty in itself. As I sit, I am looking at a small black and white (silvery grey really) long exposure seascape taken (probably on 35mm film) and printed by Richard Featherstone. It’s not sharp. It’s gorgeous!
@@kronkite1530 With film and an optical print There are only 3 photons and 2 bits of physical mater between your eye and the subject. There is a reality to it.
@@keysersmoze Er? I don’t follow… 3 photons for what? Two bits for where? I’m confused over what you mean exactly.
@@kronkite1530 A photon#1 interacts between subject and silver#1 in negative. A photon#2 interacts between silver#1 in negative and silver#2 in print. Photon#3 connects silver#2 in print to observers retina. This happens in parallel many billions of time. Thus there is a simple physical connection through space and time between subject and observer of the photo. With digital it becomes so stirred up twisted and mangled, the physical connection is lost. It isn't real anymore.
@@keysersmoze Got it now. Additionally, with transparency film there is a difference between looking at one as the light comes through (transmissive) and reflected light from a print, obviously but I have never seen a digital screen able to fully replicate the appearance of seeing a slide on a good light box.
It's very interesting hearing from people who grew up with film talk about how much they dislike the darkroom and going back to that process. I have fallen back into the photography passion recently during the cov and started out with a Sony A7c. As I've gone along in the hobby I've steadily gotten more analogue like buying an X100v and then going full 35mm with a Bessa R I lucked in to.
I have also started developing and printing my own B&W. I find going analog to be extremely enjoyable overall much more enjoyable than learning freaking Lightroom or Capture One tbh. It might be that I have too much time over the summer and when school starts next week I'll have to give up the time spent in the dark room but I've met a local photographer who shoots Large Format and wants to take me out to give it a whirl before I fall into that rabbit hole so we'll see. Anyways great video!
I hear you about software complexity!
I am not sure it's "people who grew up with film" as much as "there are shooters and there are lab people," whether it's spending time in a darkroom or staring into a computer for a long time. Just my opinion.
I guess since my family grew up with painting, drawing and sculpture we have an affinity for the tactile . Even if I get that PERFECT photograph from a high megapixel gfx or a dslr, it doesn’t make me smile the way my darkroom print does. Because that experience, working the print over and over by hand, and making it one of a kind, is what it’s all about for me. My darkroom prints are never the same, they are all truly different every single time.
Young man, you are terrific. Love the way you analyze a subject and then don’t insist we share the same attitude, belief, or experience. I’ve loved film in 35 and medium formats. But think that for me remaining in the digital realm is best at this stage of life. Thank you so much for helping me to focus my thoughts on the subject.
🙏🏻😊🖖🏻
You know it's going to be a good episode when Hugh leads in with "Dirty Harry" Callahan.
You make some valid points. I shoot Digital with my D3, Df and D800, all which can make large prints. But I also shoot with 35mm, medium format and 4x5, they all have their place. I will say 4x5 is definitely a learning curve and the cost of film is not cheap. Of all my cameras, I shoot digital and medium format film.
No matter film format you are shooting, from my experience, if you are shooting B&W film, you will ALWAYS get better (sharper, more dynamic range) pictures if you first make an actual photograph using darkroom and than scan that picture using even a basic $10 scanner from a thrift store than to scan your negative directly. Of course, unless you are using the drum scanner. For which one you are even these days usually required to sell heart and lungs in order to obtain it.
Now that being said the GFX 100s is on my bucket list. Meaning I'm considering to sell my heart and lungs...
LOL!!!
Better consider throwing in an arm and a leg with that if you want a _lense_ on your camera...
@@JohnFisk-OHS-78 Yeah I know, and there go all my organs and limbs down the drain... 🤣
Kudos for taking up this challenge ... the format is from another era. I was taught the basics of photography by my grandfather who got into photography when he was able to buy a German 35 mm in the 1930's (a Leica 2 I think). It was the size factor that was the deciding point. He did some pioneer work in home-developed color 35mm content (slide film) so he was inclined to stretch the limits of the available tech. But, he had an antipathy to all the hassle associated with the 4x5's popular in his time.
I appreciate you sharing his preference for the no “futz” zone, Ed!
Sometimes I cheat. Using my 120mm lens I find a level camera with a slight lens tilt @ f32 will give me all the DOF I need for scenic type shots when focus is set to the desired distance. The big cheat is using my little Sony RX100 vii set to a matching focal length, strategically positioned on top of the camera for viewing the scene. Sure a million thumbs down for breaking tradition but it has worked well for me. Sure 10,000 hours for full mastery of movements but don’t let that stop you from enjoying the process.. Thank for the video.
Since you have many digital cameras, get a good manual focus digital macro lens and use it to take 3-4 images of your 4-5 and stitch them together. It’s much better than a scanner.
In your historical image review you included Adams' 'Moon and Half Dome' which was taken with a 6x6 Hasselblad. As a happy medium format user, I just wanted to point that out.
I have thought about getting into 4x5. I figure a simple developing tank and dark bag, and Epson scanner 800 something model. Darkroom enlarger didn't seem to make much economic sense. There are printing shops that have large pro printers.
Alfred Stieglitz, the Terminal and the bird photos by Eliot Porter are what keep me from switching from large format. In most cases it’s true you need a huge long reaching lens with autofocus to get the great shots, but when I see Porters work, it just blows everything that came after it out of the water.
I am no further down the road than you are, but I bought the Stearman 4x5 developing tank, and I am sure it is the way to go. Easy to load.
Any more in this series coming???
Get a Paterson tank and an Epson V850 scanner, scan at 2400dpi, then you'll have comparable images in about 8 hours (negative dry time permitting). You can easily process 4x5 at home. Then it comes down to good editing practices. Contrast and post scan sharpening can have a dramatic impact on your final image.
There was a time when I was sure that a Leica rangefinder was going to be just the right thing for me. After all, 80% of my favorite photographers used Leica's almost exclusively. So, I bought one. I did not like it at all. Around the same time I bought a beaten up Rollieflex twin lens, and I thought I had found the perfect camera with the Rollieflex. Not everything is for everyone and I never could make the Leica fit into my way of shooting film.
But you do need to invest in more film holders! How are you going to "put in the time and effort" if you're constantly running out of film in the field, or have to pause a studio shoot to fill film holders?
Idea: Rent the bestest and greatest lens for the 4x5 camera, so you're comparing the best image quality available on that camera to the best image quality derived from the best lens (meaning, the one you already have-there isn't much choice) for the GFX.
Well said! And if I may add one thing which I find missing from today's retro worship: the equipment and techniques people now so revere were cutting edge technology to photographers of the day. We (yes, I was there in the '70s) worked hard to get our mittens on the best we could afford, whether it was cameras, lenses, films, processes, lighting, enlargers, processors or all the rest. And as that kept changing and improving all the time no professional photographer went back to last year's kit or techniques. I can promise you we would have dumped our heavy, complex, fragile, expensive, polluting and often temperamental equipment and techniques in a heartbeat if we'd had the option. Thank goodness for digital!
🖖👊🙂
Your truths have a great deal of value and I am not going to put them down. I do, on occasion, shoot 4X5, a Sinar F2 with a few lenses at my disposal and too many film holders, but my primary photography tools are a full frame modern mirrorless camera with a selection of lenses.
For me my 4X5 camera is for something different with photography. It forces me to look at things differently and to create totally different kinds of images. And occasionally it allows me to get an image that my modern 35mm digital camera, with IBIS and image stabilized lenses cannot, just as the 4X5 camera will never do video. My 4X5 is for relaxing with and doing photography at a very leisurely pace, as is forced by the equipment.
I have some very definite advantages over your experiments with large format that go beyond the camera gear itself. I have the personal advantage that I am able to process all of my large format film myself, be it B&W or colour (sorry for the British and Canadian spelling of color) C-41 negatives or E-6 transparencies. And I have full access to a camera club darkroom that allows me to print anything from 35mm to 4X5 films in either B&W or colour. The only thing that I do not have ready access to is the ability to scan negatives or transparencies and even here I can do it reasonably easily y renting access to some high quality film scanners when I need for everything up to 4X5.
For my normal photography I will not give up on digital equipment and workflow, it is just too good although I am certainly not an expert with the digital tools. And the lens selection for my digital cameras, with a whole selection of zooms, is totally unheard of with large format. But to do some photography in a very relaxed manner and for the rare occasion where my 4X5 is the only real tool for the job I still pull out my 4X5.
Several points that you brought up in this video. While describing your photography process with your large format Intrepid camera you forgot to write down the camera settings and exposure information. Your GFX100, as with virtually all digital cameras includes this information, and much more, within the EXIF data but as you Intrepid is devoid of anything electronic you have also record this manually.
Also when comparing the sharpness of the lens on the GFX 100 to your 150mm lens on the Intrepid please consider that with large format lenses image circle, or the area that the lens can illuminate, is very important and to some degree supersedes image sharpness. The GFX 100, and especially with smaller formats, can optimize for a small image circle that barely covers the image sensor and can thus optimize for image sharpness. With large format lenses the ability to utilize the camera's movements significantly without running outside the image circle is more important.
The large format camera has lost the ability to compete on either workflow or resolution compared to a modern digital camera. It had lost its place as a primary camera system for most photographers even before digital cameras were available. But it was never totally irrelevant because it could, and still can, do some things that are unavailable to other camera systems. You mentioned that the image quality and tonality of a large format image were unsurpassed by 35mm or even medium format systems. But there is really not a replacement for the versatility of large format for architectural photography or anywhere else where the large format' camera's movements come into play. Using a large format camera with all of the settings zeroed is the least flattering way to use such a camera and here there are a great many cameras that easily surpass it, even many point and shoots. But once the movements come into play, either to modify the plane of focus or with things like architecture the large format comes into its own and excels.
I enjoyed you series on comparing the Intrepid to your GFX 100. I fully understand that the Intrepid will never be a replacement for a modern digital camera in your, or even my own, daily lives. But, for me, I will continue to occasionally pull out my 4X5 and do something a little different with it just for my own pleasure and relaxation. Thank you for your, always, thoughtful insights on the topic and I will continue to look forward to your thoughts on a variety of topics. Again thank you. Sorry for the long post.
I remember large format when I was at uni, those enlargers bolted to the wall. (I tried to nick one and the spring mechanism almost took my hand off - shhhh dont tell anyone) Its a slow process, but very rewarding when you get it right. Its what a photograph can be.. I was lucky, very lucky, John Blakemore taught me, that guys got Jedi skills - keep at it.. when you get it, and really get it. it will kick back into your 'everyday' photography,. thought, process and intention, reverse engineered in large format will stay with you forever abd become part of your soul. You will never forget what you truly understand.
I wonder: is it the negative size, or is it the silver halide process? I built my first darkroom on top of the counter in the bathroom I shared with my sisters before my voice dropped, and continued to develop my own film and prints in a darkroom through college. The magic was always in the darkroom. This has informed my photography ever since, but ai never shot anything other than 35mm. I think I might need some time with a large format Jedi Master.
@@3BMEP Get yourself a second had Pentax 6x7 and a few lenses. surprisingly affordable and you'll never go back
@@StewartMarsden Sound advice.
You should really try out 4x5 handheld with a Crown Graphic. The rangefinder speeds up the focusing process tremendously. And framing with any of the three available finders on the camera is much faster than only the one method (ground glass). If you want to do street, then Graflex can't be beat. Also look into buying a Grafmatic.
Agreed. I had (in the 1970s) a Crown Graphic that I used with cut film holders and Polaroid holders. I got rid of the very average Optar lens and had a Fujinon-W 135mm lens fitted to a lens board. Today, a Baby Graphic with a roll film holder would be the way to go.
Thanks for making good content. Did you try GFX with Crown Graflex 4x5?
Read Cape Light; and Gregory Heisler’s 50 portraits- I couldn’t even understand some of the concepts they were trying to convey in the context of large format image making. Read about Intrepid and they were local, so I thought to understand I would try , even though I expected to learn through failure. And fail I have. Though my appreciation for those who have succeeded with large format has increased exponentially. Acquiring a mentor to learn from locally has been unsuccessful- the skill sets don’t exist at my local camera club anymore. Still, the knowledge percolates and perhaps I’ll improve over time. I’m going to try that lomograflok digital back for the intrepid, which uses instax wide- it won’t be pure but I think it will be interesting. In the end like the licence plate says… my other camera is a lumix g9.
There are a few large format photographers down in Sussex (I am one of them). One thing you can guarantee, you won't find any of us down the local camera club. My local one is very much a digital only domain.
@@tobiaskeyphotography3867 ah, thanks for the insight- that certainly reflects my local camera club in north london I think. Is there a large format forum you use to network?
I feel you. After starting out with Nikons in 1982 and switching to digital a mere 20 years later large format landed heavily in my lap this year. With 4 lenses and 30 film holders I went on schlepping, developing my film myself and scanning with a Hasselblad Flextight. The result: shooting HP5 in my beloved old F3 ;))
😉🖖🏻
I’ve heard the siren song of large format, but I have so far been able to keep myself tied to the mast. It is not just the expense of it (I would have to get new developer tanks and upgrade my scanner). When I look at people doing it, all I can think is that there is no way my back/knees/eyes can handle that. I may get the GFX 100S at some point, but it is probably too much camera for me right now. I’m content with my Fuji X100V, Mamiya 645 1000s, my oddball collection of old Soviet Cameras, and my drones and 360 cameras. But, I never know where my photography journey is going to take me. I enjoyed the video
I use a Ricoh GR digital camera from 2005 for Street black and white photography, and a 5x4 MPP Micropress with a Schneider 135 mm f4.7 lens for Landscapes.
I have an excellent processing lab in Cheltenham UK that will also reload fine into my 2 double film holders.
I like the stability of the Press design camera over the field camera design of the Intrepid in windy weather.
I use a Pentax 6x7 with a 55mm f4 lens using Tri X film developed in Xtol.
I print with a condenser enlarger through a Schneider 100mm lens.
I am 78 years old and have been making pictures since I was 13.
If I had to choose only one camera now, it would be the Ricoh GR digital camera.
Pocketable, a really sharp lens that is capable of producing lovely filmic images.
Thanks for your thoughtful video.
It depends on what scanner you used，if you used Hasselbad x5， PhaseOne IQ150 ， you might have different results。
Do you consider the use of a GFX 100s with an adapter on the 4x5 camera in order to take multiple shots and stitch them to get a larger field of view? It has it's limitations, but it would be useful for landscapes or long exposure landscapes? I have a GFX 100s and trying to justify spending close to 1400€ on an Intrepid 4x5 + adapter + lens. GAS it is a dangerous thing these days :))
I haven’t. I’d suggest going straight to stitching GFX 100s images taken with GF glass. The questions become: how big do you want to view or, more to the point, print? At what point does pixelation reach its limit? Does film grain exceed it, and does the quality of lenses for large format film cameras make that potential advantage relevant or irrelevant?
@@3BMEP Stitching GFX 100s images taken with GF glass would not work the same way, because of the parallax effect, hence the 4x5 camera in front of it, projecting the image on the GFX sensor. And since the projection is much bigger, there are adaptors that let you mount the camera to act as a digital back and "slide" across the frame to take for example 3 horizontal photos in protrait orientation and then stitching them in post. It would not be for printing or high res work. All that resolution going to waste just to have that magic of bigger projection. Even to the inexperienced eye a 4x5 image looks different than a 35 mm, even if he would not know to explein why. I'm looking to this option because I would take more photos and less expensive than film (and faster development process).
Ansel Adams and all those famous photographers of years gone by would have shot with digital but film and 4x5 was all they had.
I have never used a medium format digital camera (though subscribe to the excellent Medium Format magazine) but have years of large format with monorail/technical cameras (carrying a Horseman LXC with heavy tripod, holders, lenses etc up hills and in deep snow was a trial!) and Linhof and Gandolfi field cameras, and have dithered in and out over the past few years, wasting lots of money hardly using then selling, trying to scratch an itch I struggled to find time for.
Now, in print I might not find an advantage in the film (perhaps don’t in images from a 5DSR and A7R3, except colour) but there is NOTHING like looking at a 4*5 or larger transparency. Every time I go back to my library I grin in happy surprise at the sheer beauty of the images. I have digital photos I like printed (I always print my better pictures) on my walls, but they are not the same. Plus, many of my favourites were done on 6x9 and 6x12cm using holders on my cameras which does make life easier and cheaper with, still, a similar look.
Coming back to my digital, again, I don’t know, but I collect prints and have digital and film prints from others including master printers like Tim Rudman , Richard Featherstone and Jean Napier and there is something different about silver halide and platinum palladium prints, I’m sure. But, hassle and cost in view I doubt I will go back. For now I am very happy with my Fuji XT2 and its image quality despite its sensor being so much smaller and will spend any extra money (I wish!) saved having digital negatives made and platinum/palladium prints to get ‘that’ look.
Fantastic feedback, thank you for sharing!
I have the 100S and 2 8x10s, an Intrepid field camera and a Calumet C-1 studio 8x10. Two different worlds and results.
Very good video Hugh. I have shot a lot of film with large format cameras, it can be fun once you get the hang of it. I shot a lot of black and white landscapes and other subjects. One year I shot about 800 sheets of 4x5 black and white film which I processed and scanned myself.
Lately, I have been shooting a lot more with a digital camera, I have a Nikon D850, so naturally, I shot some side-by-side comparisons. I used my Nikon with a 60mm macro lens to "scan" my negatives. Like you have found in your own results, pixel to film grain, the pixels look sharper.
There is one thing with shooting digital - you don't run out of film. I think Edward Weston said something like “Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn't photogenic.” I think of that quote and I think you were more than 500 yards from the car, it can be a good long walk back to the car to get more film holders. Edward Weston would have been shooting with an 8x10 view camera and a half dozen film holders can be very heavy.
That's one of the main drawbacks of shooting large format film. I have to be very choosy about which potential pictures to take, but once I'm out of film and I'm 5 miles from my car, then my shooting day is done. Anyway, I'm more than happy to shoot either film or digital.
Tests like this have been done more scientifically with higher-end cameras (150mpx Phase 1 vs. 8 x 10).
You're on the right track by getting high-end scans. I can say from my own experience that the secondary optical system of an enlarger (even a state of the art setup) robs massive amounts of image quality.
The results of high-end digital vs high-end film largely came down to depth of field. For planar subjects (or very selective focus) the big film could capture significantly more information. But when significant depth of field is required, the small digital sensor leaps ahead. The reason is that for depth of field, a big film camera needs to stop down to f22 to f64, where diffraction drops the MTF way below what a medium format sensor delivers at its more moderate aperture.
Also, signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, and linearity in the best sensors goes well beyond what's available in color film. Black and white films like TMX still have an edge in some of these respects.
Back in the day, the entire kit and workflow was taken into consideration, and photographers would shoot on both medium and large format. Color negative film was inherently grainy and not that high resolution. And it mattered if you developed the film yourself rather than sending it out, in final grain and contrast of the image. A few years back I revisited film, scanning the final negative, and was surprised to learn that digital full frame easily surpassed 2 1/4" film negatives. But 2 1/4 x 3 1/2" scanned roll film could still hang in there and give you the classic film look.
Thanks for sharing - very helpful!
Hugh, a PS… and a plea. I would love to see sooc JPEG’s from the GSX100 using the film simulations, particularly Classic Chrome, Velvia and Provia (and Acros) while you still have it, unless you intend to buy one?
This, because I am sure that digital is now higher in resolution and sure the new lens designs are way better than the Apo Symmar (though it was my go to for years and fine for 4*5 film, just didn’t need to be developed to handle modern sensors even if that had been possible back then) but I’d love to see if the colour and ‘look’ of mf JPEG’s could mimic or even replace the transparency films I loved.
BTW, re one of your remarks - the Fuji and others can now be mounted to the Cambo Actus and Arca Swiss cameras to get the camera movements when required without the limit of just having a digital back. Or to check the lenses!
Great insights! Will have to see what timing will permit…
If I did go back to film I would have to use a dark room, but no going back. Any more than I would yearn to drive an old 60s car. Mind you, you could use that big lump for street photography, people would be standing in front of it to see what it was lol.
If one desired to shoot film, and process their own negatives and PRINT the negatives themselves, well, I admire anyone who wished to go down that particular artistic path. Shooting film only to have someone else process it and, Jeepers, SCAN it??? Like, why? Just shoot digital if you want a digital image lol. If you want a flat, film-like look with some grain you can do that in post.
Saved a 4x5 enlarger from the dumpster, complete with enlarger lenses and accessoirs....just to learn that it is too tall for my darkroom -or- the ceiling is too low. :-D
I'm glad someone is talking about tonal range, or at least hinting at it as something just as important as dynamic range.
But first, I need to discuss the elephant in the room, pun intended. All things being the same, Large, Medium, FF, APS-C all can have the same depth of field, field of view and dynamic range. Of course you can get littler shallower DOF in large format, but for the most part if you wan that f/1.4 full frame "look" you can do so with the formats above and it will look exactly the same...once again, all things being equal.
But what about tonal range? This is where I hope you go deeper with 4x5 in your exploration. I think this is "the large/medium format film" look that people are looking for. I might be completely bonkers, but even more than resolution I think the it's the thing that sets these larger formats apart more so than just raw resolution.
The funny thing is, we had an amazing thing for 4X5 that was reputed to have the best tonal range and almost no grain, and resolved on the order of 150 LP/mm...and it was "instant" and if you did it right, you got a print AND a negative. Yup, that was the legendary Polaroid Type 55 film. I am in still in awe every time I shoot my dwindling supply and look at the print and then scan it in. It's the only thing that really makes me want to futz with 4x5 anymore. I hope you go into a bigger discussion of tonal range as this series continues. Tonal range (and special films like Lomochrome Purple and Metropolis) are why I still shoot my Bronica ETRSi more than I do my Leica M240...
In the past I purchased photo equipment by "output needs". ie. in the 60s.... some BW 8x10 of static wedding poses... 4x5 crown graphic & flash bulbs..70s still 8x10, some color, some BW but 120 roll film would do the job with a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad. 80's, now color and more shots, 35mm would get the job done; again improved film grain at the needed ISO. Modern digital/mirrorless cameras kill it with super simple post processing (no fussing with refrigerated or outdated film, lab delays or mistakes.... more precise color consistency, etc.) (oh, but almost anyone can do it) now I buy equipment because it is FUN. Yes, I shoot some BW & process it and 'scan' it with my Leica SL2 and a macro lens.
To reason #10: I *really* think that the whole process of going 4x5 is to fully adopt an analog process-- and that means getting a development setup (even a dark bag and the SP445 tank) and a flatbed for your own scans. It is far too expensive, finnicky, and inconvenient to outsource those critical parts of the process to the industry of film labs which are a shadow of their former numbers. It really does kill the joy of 4x5.
Film is not ever going to be the medium that makes the most sense anymore, which is firmly in the realm of digital. But I think what so many in the analog community feel is that, the rat race of perfection kills the soul of what got many people into photography in the first place. It seems like its really all about the process as a whole, to myself and many film shooters, from hoarding film to framing that contact print.
Like someone else said here; If I can produce a final image without ever having looked at a screen, THAT is a modern marvel, ironically.
I think it's like deciding to walk 20 blocks instead of taking a cab or the subway. Its slow and exhausting, but a beautiful journey that makes it worth it.
Hello Hug, Like so many I 35mm. 120mm, 5x4 Film and even 10x8 film and you can see why people call it the Art of photography. It is also why digital is so nice to use. Keep well, keep safe and enjoy life.
For ultimate test, scan the 4x5's yourself with the GFX 100.
We have a 1.8 TB drum scan now. Hold that thought. 😎
really hope you meant GB and not TB. otherwise this is seriously disturbing.
I fundamentally disagree with Hugh’s basic premise. Comparing IQ is a waste of everyone’s time. Large Format film photography is all about the process and how it forces the photographer into a different relationship with the subject. I am deeply disappointed that Hugh doesn’t get this fundamental point as he rushes forward to get to the bit where he pixel peeps. The fact is that many of the iconic large format film images are what they are not just because of the machine that took them , but because of the slow, futzy process the artist embarks on to capture them. Hugh needs to stop measuring and comparing and just go all-in to embrace the process.
Hmm… my basic premise? I didn’t start from a premise for this particular series, I started from a question: “is large format film photography a set of trade-offs that could be enjoyable or make sense for me?” My premise for the channel is that if I share my passions, curiosity and learnings, it will find an audience.
@@3BMEP “is large format film photography a set of trade-offs that could be enjoyable or make sense for me?” That's such an interesting question. Rationally, digital will always win in this contest, but irrationally, if you only ever compare a good big printed image, that you are proud of, hanging on a wall, and the element of craft that went in to producing it - well, that's really rather nice.
@@urbanimage As I did not know if “digital will always win,” IQ was simply the first and easiest port of call on this journey of mine. But agreed: the final image is the final image, and the tonality of the 4x5 neg is lovely.
@@3BMEP That is not the right question IMO. And the urge to pixel peep is taking you in completely the wrong direction, I would suggest. Would you compare a watercolour painting to an oil painting ? A lithograph to a charcoal sketch? Would you compare a Rothko to a Georgia O'Keefe and judge them on "image quality"? That's where you are going.
Large format film photography is about the relationship between the photographer and the subject. In asking yourself if it "could be enjoyable or make sense for me?", I suggest you will get the answer to that question only by going all-in on the process and giving it time. Or, indeed, truly accepting that you aren't going to leave a digital workflow and leave it at that. By starting off from the premise of comparing large format film to your Fuji and switching between images in Lightroom, you are occupying your mind with the wrong set of questions.
The great large format film photographers ( past and present ) made their images in collaboration with their subject. Time and interaction is the key here. With a human subject, it even comes down to their own patience, asking them for stillness and to give you their time to get the job done. The images will invariably be completely different to pushing out 50 x raw images on your Fuji in 30 minutes. The experience for both the photographer and the subject will be completely different too.
IMO, if you don't commit to the process, you will not find your answers. My advice would be when using the large format film camera, is to put away the Fuji and concentrate on the film image. Either develop film yourself or find a collaborative film developer and printer you can form a relationship with.
You often refer to the concept of "shooting with intent". Large format film photography is the ultimate way to commit to this philosophy
@@3BMEP
Yes, checking and comparing IQ on screen is impossible to resist, and high end, or even middling, digital will win. But, if viewed at sensible size on screen, or especially if printed out to a good size things more than level out. Is it worth the perverse effort of doing it on film? That really depends on if you enjoy the doing bit.
Why don’t you use gfx100 multishot to scan film?
I could!
It blows my mind that Martin Munkácsi did *sports* photography with large format! It'll be a while before I get to large format, but I'm thinking 2025 will be the year.
Having cut my teeth in the film era, I recently borrowed a Hasselblad 503. While I love that camera as a piece of sublime design, it really brought home to me how much cameras have advanced during the digital era. I've been making images on the Fujifilm GFX 50s for the past number of years and, nostalgic romance aside, I could not justify reverting to film from an IQ or cost perspective. BTW, the 32-64 is far from the best lens for the system. The 45-100 is far superior as a lens that covers as similar range of foca lenght. All of that said, I do love Frank Petronio's work on 5x4 - but that is more reflective of the message than the medium.
Agreed: 45-100 is fabulous. Big, but fabulous. 😊
Maybe there are better large format cameras than the Intrepid?
Of course!
I can't imagine working with film and not having the darkroom experience. The darkroom is where the wizardry and potion turns into magic or tragedy. A wonderful compromise can be found with a Polaroid 550 film back combined with type 55 positive/negative sheet film.
I think I agree with you: “in for a penny, in for a pound.”
That’s a back for pack film, not sheets. You’re thinking of a 545 holder, plus type 55 hasn’t been made by Polaroid since 2008…
@@iNerdier I suspect your correct. I haven't touched any of that stuff since 2001ish maybe? And considering my age (old as f#@k), well who knows what's lurking between my ears..... Follow the white rabbit.. Who? :P
Perhaps take a second look at how flat your film is in your holder, and whether a vacuum back might be a worthy investment. Excited to see the next part!
I used a 4 x 5 for years which is why I use a Hasselblad now.
NO, the right dirty_harry quote, is : "was that 5 shots or 6??" as in LF it is hard to remember which holder has what, and if it is "used" or 'NEW'.
one downside i see with the gfx 50 and 100 systems is when you're editing in the adobe suite.
the grain structure in the images often show a very weird repeating pin cushion distorted newton ring looking structure.
this is only visible in high iso images or images where the shadows are pushed hard.
it does not have anything to do with lenses, sensors or pdaf-array since there is not a single trace of it if you just process the image through Capture One.
if you use Capture One tho, you don't get the same sharpness and details as in adobes camera raw conversions, and not the easy workflow you're allready used to ;)
i've seen this grain structure problem in alot of images in reviews of the gfx 100 and 50. it's not a camera problem, it's an adobe conversion problem that they never fix =/
Wow. Guys, has anyone else seen what @hRs1337 has mentioned here?
@@3BMEP i remember seeing facebook posts about it and the general explanation was that uv-filter caused newton rings. but after removing my uv filters i could still see it.
the problem has never appeared on any of my sony cameras, or leica cameras. and it is exclusive to using the adobe camera raw.
i can try to fetch an example when i have more time.
have a sinar 4x5 and an blad x1dII...still will always love the results of the 4x5 better, but that's just how my mind works. pick your poison
Excellent once again. Now, what is my truth!🧐 Thanks Hugh!
You're playing with us Hugh. That last line was very unfair. Hahahah. But, you're right. :)
😉
Makes you appreciate the Masters even more. I see how LF is so challenging on so many levels and I think Josef Sudek. One arm. Large format. Prague: all season, snow, fog, rain, the third reich, the soviets. Its beyond this world that man's work.
Yes!
Confession: I'm pretty sure that I was born in the wrong century...
You mention names of legendary photographers - and they were, to be sure, absolutely spectacular artists. BUT, film photography was _all there was_ during most of their lifetimes. Film development and darkroom print making were not some type of alchemist's Dark Arts like they have sort of become today. It was commonplace and absolutely everywhere.
Personally, I love shooting in 120 format (Mamiya RZ Pro II and C330 Professional) and develop B&W film at home. The problem is that I don't have ready access to a darkroom with equipment capable of handling medium format film. Nearly all of the darkrooms in the area have long since closed. And development labs are pretty expensive, particularly when you move into the 4x5 large format and above. Costs are insane relative to digital photography.
Thing is, large format film is capable of truly breathtaking detail and tone and composition size. I've just purchased an old Linhof Kardan Bi monorail system with a couple of Schneider lenses - I'm falling down the rabbit hole with you... ;-)
Thanks for a wonderful and very honest video.
Enjoy!
J
I understand. Enjoy the journey!
Digital is the way to go.
U get more productive.
Get more work done, less tiring and less expensive.
Beware 🙃, a wide angle large format lens will multiply the fuzziness with a factor 100. I would stick with the 150 until you master the process. It is un comparable with a 'fixed' wideangle.
Thanks for the insight!
I can't help but stop and think of the approach Ansel had to creating a negative and his way of exposure and development. Everyone wants digital cameras to have a long tonal range. Ansel instead would match the tonal range of the scene to his negative. Although it would of made things much easier he would of just shot everything at N-3.
Today if we shoot with digital a softly lit, low contrast scene of say leaves in shade.
The modern digital camera may give you a 14 stop range when the subject is much less. So what do we do? Open it in software and reach for the contrast and clarity sliders. This is not same thing Ansel would of done. Actually he would of gave it less tonal range. Do these two approaches accomplish the same result? I would have to say no. In PS we are crunching and stretching the pixels.
Ansel would always strive to print on grade two paper to give the most range. Having to jump to a grade 3 or 4 would mean he did not expose and develop properly. Having to jump to a higher grade (more contrast) would take away the subtleties and texture of tones.
I have always thought that a day may come when digital cameras would come with an adjustable contrast range in exposure. But because almost no photographers think in these terms it will probably never happen. Also If you look at the B&W work of Bruce Weber you can see the total control he has over tones, and still uses Tri-x to this day.
真是放屁，亞當斯對負片動的手腳之多，才不是只調整顯影曝光，而是負片形成後再次對負片剪薄加厚都有。
Expose the shadows, develop for the high lights! Use the Zone System for calibrating your workflow. Those were the rules for negative films.
@@ropeyarn Yup, that's the simple version
Great video.. aero ektar lens. Would really give you a lot of joy or yeah the xenktar is amazing too... or cooke or dallmeyer lenses too... I suggest get hold of one.. if by chance you have opportunity to go to new jersey or new york you can check my cameras and lenses .. keep creating these amazing videos .
Whyyyy picking up Ilford films whyyyyyy 😱😱😱😱 Pls try again with a good Kodak and a worthy lens.
As you said you cant even find grain, no need to go all the way up to 6x8 films to beat a GFX 100
Did he troll just a little at the end with his iPhone 🤔
I have never set up my 4x5 without at least 10 people asking me about it. Digital none.
Compare digital to an 8x10 contact print, from a properly exposed negative, and you will cry. Nothing compares to it, even now.
Film is great because when I go into a darkroom and make my own prints, it takes WORK. It takes time, it takes skill, and it is a true physical manipulation of your art supplies. It’s a true tactical experience. Shooting 4x5 and not owning an enlarger and a darkroom to print in, is a shame IMO.
That alone is beautiful, and I’ll take it over sitting at a computer, after being at a computer at work all day, anyday.
God speed
I believe you are right. 😊🖖🏻
That was so enoyable - thanks Hugh ! If anyone wanted an illustration of Bloom's taxonomy, look no further :-)
@Three Blind Men and An Elephant
Hugh, I can't believe you were unaware of the work flow of LF film.
Use the right tool, and through what methods you desire to produce the end product. Obviously for your desired end result and method of working, this was a bad match from the get go. All methods of recording the visual have their place.
So with your typical elegance you dismiss a methodology that is not suited to your style of working. And praise the one that does. You are a thoughtful man, I am not really sure why you wasted your time in an endeavor that you were not suited for. I'm sorry if this appears a rant,
I enjoy your content and presentation.
Just get an Epson v850 and don't deal with finding the right person to scan your negatives for you.
Tell me more about that, Kevin?
@@3BMEP It's a good flatbed scanner that has a transparency bed big enough to fit a 4x5 negative. Even comes with a 4x5 tray to put the film it (along with 120 and 35mm trays). Gives you a lot of control over your scan working the density of the negative yourself. Even when you scan at 2400 dpi (the scanner is rated at higher but many say it doesn't actually scan past 2400) that's still about 115 megapickles. It's a bit expensive especially when you compare it to the v600 but the v600 doesn't have a transparency unit big enough for 4x5. Still gonna have to pay someone to develop the film for you but that should knock a lot off the price of each shot. Learning to scan is a whole other step that's unique to the modern film process and has a lot of creative input (tbh for that reason there's really no such thing as straight out of camera for digitized film.) Color can sometimes be a bit tricky but seeing you only shoot black and white the epson flatbeds seem like a very logical choice. (sorry for the long reply)
@@3BMEP I doubt very much that you would gain anything by spending more money. For 5x4 or larger, there's little difference between the v850 and v700, and there's little difference between v700 and the even earlier 4990. Good technique and getting to know the individual scanner will play a larger role.
brilliant..thank you
😊🖖🏻
Your assertion that you would have to go all in and have a darkroom or, a sympathetic lab with expertise in print making is on point. The making of the image requires a very deep commitment to a wide range of time intense activities. It’s all very expensive now. We have the digital workflow and aesthetic now, our cameras are essentially robotic tools that manage large swathes of the process and give us time to make more and arguably better images and image making decisions. I love the zen of analogue photography but digital sweeps all before it and gives back time and convenience.
Futzing, Schlepping, Waiting!
Dear Mr Elephant, Do you feel lucky, punk?
I think I'm in the same boat but only shooting 6x7, WHY O WHY O WHY?
I'd never take it when conditions are good, only sub par days, then ask myself why the results are poor!
That said Portra is tasty :-)
you are obviously one of many don't get it..! Go back to polishing those gems...
This video is a great addition to the stupidly endless ‘Film vs Digital’ debate. Thank you.
Soon our souls gonna be digital.. just saying:)
Yep. Every time we use chatGPT or TikTok we feed the beast!
👍🏾🙏🏾