Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Falling out of Love with 4x5 Photography and a Word of Warning to New Film Photographers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2024
- In this video I discuss my disillusionment with 4x5 film photography and offer some tips to those new film photographers out there. If you enjoy this sort of content, please make sure to like and subscribe and feel free to check out my photos on Instagram / civilward
If you have any questions, feel free to drop them in the comments below. Thanks for watching!
00:00 - Intro
02:34 - My Problem
05:55 - The Math
07:40 - Who 4x5 is For
09:56 - Conclusion
You didn't mention main reason for shooting 4x5 which is camera movements. You don't mention tilt, shift, swing, rise and fall. These are the benefits of 4x5. Also to be able to develop each frame individually rather than on a roll means you can use the zone system fully ie develop for the highlight of each frame. These are huge advantages which you didn't mention. Of course if you don't want that level of creative control 120 makes more sense.
Your facts (apparently surprising to you) that LF photography is more complicated and more expensive than MF are correct. If you would have limited your comments to simply making new film photographers aware of this, I wouldn't have an issue. But your leap to telling people they should avoid LF smacks of arrogance. It's like telling people they should stick with a sedan and avoid sports cars because the latter require more care and fuel is more expensive. People may find that shooting LF (or driving a sports car) provides pleasure that out weighs the extra trouble and expense involved. FWIW, I have 135, 120 and 4x5 cameras. My go to is one of my 120s, but I will select the right camera for the right subject or maybe just for the mood I'm in.
Thank you for watching and for your comment. It was not my intention to come across as arrogant in the slightest and if it did come across like that, then I apologize. If you watch any of my other videos you'll see that I'm a big believer in shooting what's right for your and for your budget. The point that I was trying to make is that there is a natural progression in film photography and I wanted people to take pause and really look at what they are getting for the price and time they put into it.
@@HamiltonWard Thank you for your thoughtful and kind reply. Ironically I had intended to edit my comment by adding the phrase "I know it wasn't your intention but..." Somehow I got distracted and never amended the comment. In any case, I look forward to future vlogs from you. R/Jim
Agreed, way too many younger people went into film from digital, 35mm then to 6x6 or 6x7. Then to 4/5 or bigger. If your composing shots that take your own breath away regularly then start selling enlargements over 16 x 20 than yes medium format is right for you. 4x5 is a wonderful format but you really need to be equipped for that. Usually a home darkroom min, home studio also with lighting. It’s not an everyday camera. However if you find yourself entering galleries and someone says hey I want that in a 4 foot poster…. And you took that on 35mm plus x….. lol nope
A 4 by 5 can be great fun on a Rainey day in your studio with friends and 50 sheets of cheep ortho 400 speed. With fresh dektol in the darkroom of course. They everyone can develop their own under the red light😀
I really don't get the whole "natural" lineup from 35mm -> 120 -> 4x5. I've skipped 120 for a really good reason: I don't just want "more details". I've learned to get my film right in 35mm and then I opted directly for LF. Yes it is an on and off thing and I don't always want to lug it around. But on some vacations I lock me into only that option and it works for me for years.
Most 35 and 120 works "the same" no shift, no tilt and no need for a tripod. There is a huge step in accepting that LF Photography is really about wanting to use a tripod. If you are willing to make a tripod mandatory and you want to learn tilt and shift, it suddenly makes a lot more sense to use LF instead of 120/35mm. But you need patience in the process.
The thing about the film price.... my advice would be to just grab a 6x7/6x9 filmback and you are ready to go/learn and grow for the fraction of a price. With 6 exposures you can easily learn a lot more and the only thing that will change afterwards is the size. Until then you got all the knobs and small details on your camera right. You don't need to learn to focus on the work and on the groundglass on the most expansive film out there with a perfect handle and scan.
So I kinda lied up there in skipping 120 film, i skipped dedicated 120 cameras ;-)
Give yourself the time and run at least 20 or more 120 rolls through a 6x9/4x5 back, that really helps and gives a lot of confidence.
The Intrepid is a cheap and nice camera, but I would not recommend it to a beginner. You have so many things that can go slightly wrong and it is not nearly as forgiving as people hope. (Again, I don't think it is a good way to learn with the most expansive film and the cheapest camera....)
Thank you so much for this in depth comment! Great advice on the 6x7/6x9. I think it's just a natural progression that a lot of photographers go through, or at least the ones that I've known and I wanted to make sure that at least I shared my opinion on it for new photographers out there. It'll be a different experience for everyone though and at the end of the day it's what works for you and for the art that you're making.
Ponder what were your image goals for 4x5 sheet film?
IMO, too many image makers today get involved with sheet film view cameras with the fantasy that large sheet of film on it's own will result in a superior image, this is absolutely not true. What has made this step a bit more luring is the idea-belief the low cost intrepid light weight field foldable cameras coupled with low cost view camera lenses are an easy gateway into sheet film image making.. only to discover the true cost being film and related processing and print making process cost.
Majority of those new to this sheet film view camera stuff treat a view camera as a larger version of their digital or 35mm/120 roll film cameras carrying forth their image making ways, habits and gear preferences with them. What often happens, they discover the image making ways, habits and methods that worked good for their digital or 35mm/120 roll film image making does not translate directly to this sheet film view camera stuff..
Few image makers new to the world of view camera realize the prime advantages of using a view camera is:
~Ability to apply camera movements.
~Extremely large choice of optics, limited the ability of any given view camera to support the demands of the lens.
~Image quality is exceptional for traditional black & white image making as film grain can be made invisible in the print and the orally tonality of a B&W print properly done with optical enlargement, traditional wet darkroom in FB silver gelatin paper remains special in many ways.
Color images on sheet film today is moot due to the cost of materials, processing and the realities of how extremely limiting the non-digital print making process is today.
Then comes image making methods, view camera images are best when the image goal is known then the camera outfit is applied to create that image goal in mind. Digital, 35mm/120 roll film cameras do best with "decisive moment" or impulsive images on the fly. This is mostly opposite from the images best suited for a view camera.. Problem here, majority of image makers today that grew up on digital or roll film lack the discipline (think "run & gun" thousands of images via digital camera), formal art education, deep understanding of the fundamental photographic process and photo-chemical based materials. It's pretty much experiment with "gear" with the possibility of producing an expressive image.
As for what is possible with sheet film color via a view camera. Link below are sample images produced by Kodak in the 1990's when film was it and folks that made sheet film images were properly qualified. Keep in mind these are sample images as there were MANY working photographers back then that produced FAR better work than what these Kodak samples are.
It would be extremely surprising and remarkable to discover any working photographer today that still practice the ways-methods that resulted in these images as the resources and all related to produce them are long gone.
www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?172666-1990-s-Kodak-Marketing-Material-E6-Image-Examples
very true
May I have a different opinion on your cost breakdown? What if you develop it yourself? You can also scan with a DSLR. You immediately halved the cost. Also there is the option to shoot black and white. One sheet costs $1-2, developing yourself almost free (few cents for the chemistry maybe) and scan with DSLR. You can also contact print or enlarge it for a few bucks. So compared to your $18/sheet I can shoot for $3 maybe. Color would be a bit more, maybe $8-9 if you DIY it.
I did not get your chemistry calculation either, 4 sheets of 4x5 is equivalent to 1 roll of 120, so either way you have to use the same thing, sure you get ~3x times less shots for the same amount of chemistry but I don't think it's that significant...
What kind of chemistry are you using for 4x5? I haven't found one that lasts long at all.
@@HamiltonWard My main developer is XTOL. It's overall good quality developer for most films but its shelf life is outstanding. Once I used a 10 years old stock solution without issues. I store them in airtight bottles and usually re-use 10x with slight increase of dev times.
@@HamiltonWard If you don't like to store / re-use I can also mention my 2nd choice developer: Rodinal. The stock solution in bottle keeps forever. The working solution from a 500ml bottle can develop 100 rolls or 400 sheets and it costs ~$15. That is ~4 cents per sheet.
@@HamiltonWard I also checked the DYI color option: the 12 rolls or 48 sheets capacity chemistry costs ~$50, so basically $1 / sheet.
As far as the cost of film/processing being a big shock, it's not like it's a secret that can only be revealed after buying a large format camera. Every aspect of the cost - whether you do the developing/printing yourself or send it out - is easy to find out with 20 minutes of on-line research. ;)
Large format photography is not plug and play. It is a harsh decipline that quite a large percentage Y.T film photographers, seem unwilling or unable to master. You are honest enough to say that it is not for you and that is good.
It's hard to master unless you're willing to burn through a lot of money. I think that's why people are so turned away by it. My favorite images have come from a 4x5 though.
@@HamiltonWard It is certainly not cheap, but compared to digital is not expensive, provided that you do your homework, and take the shots that could really count. Unlike the ' machine gun digital, or even the 35mm with 36 exposures. My hit rate with 35 mm is probably two photographs per roll. I won't even go into digital.
Well, LF is not for everyone. For me, I love the time, skill and patience required to successfully navigate the involved process that shooting LF entails, the risk of stuffing it up, the joy of capturing something wonderful - and sometimes unexpected. With LF you are in control of absolutely everything and that's special in itself. The gear is beautiful and is completely unlike most forms of photography. Certainly there is a cost per shot we're not used to with our digital gear, but for me (and many of my buddies), it's completely worth it.
Open a LF camera in a public place and you'll have a queue of wide-eyed people asking questions. I love the look of wonder on their faces when they go under and have a peek at the ground glass.
So, if you have no attention span and no interest in taking your time (and spending a few dollars along the way) and are happy with shooting with your phone only, then LF is probably not for you. If you want something completely immersive and rewarding when you get it all together - check it ou! Cheers from Australia - Dave
LF has a far more complicated workflow, requires far more thought and planning and is more expensive IF you don't process yourself. The rewards of LF is greater than anything else including final print quality. LF isn't for everyone especially if you're not into investing your time/effort. If you want to shoot straight out the bag and be on your way within a few minutes then LF isn't for you. Regards cost - dev and scan your film then its very cheap overall when you factor in that you won't shoot many sheets per subject. With LF it's the journey as well as the destination. If you have lots of money use a lab. If you don't have much but want the LF end result dev at home (I do in kitchen).
100%. Nothing is as beautiful as a well shot, developed and printed large format image. And the process: the time outdoors or in the studio, in the darkroom, trying new techniques, Rodinal stand development, dry plates, contact prints, enlarging, etc. is probably the most enjoyable and rewarding experience in all of photography. Certainly a budget Twin Lens Reflex wouldn’t put me off of large format photography and I’ve never considered anything that you do for the love of it a hassle, but to each his own.
Digital far surpasses film. It's better, cheaper and easier!
You can send it to me. I love 4x5. I develop my own film and use my digital camera and light box to copy for salt printing. It does take a more deliberate mindset.
It's up to the individual. Anyone who wants to experience 4x5 should go ahead and do so. Nowt to do with anyone else - including you.
Lots of good points. Most of us dont have unlimited budgets .
I share this opinion of 4x5 and I'm just starting out. It requires a deliberate thought process and some tolerance for making mistakes that have some non zero dollar amount implications. Sure is fun though.
Ive fallen out of love with LF recently . I bought a leica m3 and Im just having so much fun again , Your right , if you have a very specific shot that you can pre plan then LF is great . If I was stuck with one camera for life then it would probably be my 500 cm
That's what it's all about, having fun with photography. If you're not having fun and just getting frustrated with the process or cost, then it's time to switch to something that brings that joy back. Glad you've found your joy!
I started my love of photography at the age of 16 when I got my first 35mm camera. Now at 62 years old, I was wanting to move over to Large Format, but a back injury put a stop to that dream. Now my heart is just is not into photography as it once was.
Mr. Ward, your advice is sound. Thank You for your posting.
Ward--by watching your video and reading many of the comments, I find valid points everywhere; except you being impudent, I don't agree with that. Now, IMHO, certain shots either require LF or are better achieved with LF. Certain shots are better done with smaller format cameras. Of course, it all depends on your objective, shooting style, and bank account. One format is not universally better than another. For example, I wouldn't recommend using LF to cover a war, but it's been done. Conversely, I would recommend LF for certain tabletop work, but small format cameras have been used successfully there, too. Each format, of course, influences your vision or your creative vision. For example, for years I shot with both a Leica M3 and Nikon F2 (besides shooting with a a Hass 500cm, Mamiya C3, and various LF cameras, as a commercial photog and a street guy). My better shots came from the Nikon because my way of "seeing" is better supported by an SLR. On the other hand, the Leica allowed me to shoot unobtrusively in crowds. It is similar with the choice between LF and other formats, and of course, whether you are "driven" to seek one particular format over another. My advice is to just keep shooting with whatever format (or formats) fits you best and learn to deal with its limitations, financial or otherwise.
I really appreciate your thoughtful comments adding to the dialogue that's taking shape here, thank you for that. I think you said it best - "My advice is to just keep shooting with whatever format (or formats) fits you best and learn to deal with its limitations, financial or otherwise."
Any time, bro.
Shooting with small cameras is not worth it anymore. Nowadays many freak out when seeing a camera. But they surely will be impressed by large format cameras!
Great points. Your description of the allure from 35mm to 4x5 was spot on!
As someone who moved up from 35 through 645 and eventually to 5x7, I’m can say I agree with part of your comment on costX but all you showed was color.
I shout doubles so a shot cost me $4 to shoot 4x5 and $6 to shoot 5x7. Process at home so no real cost there.
What I got is you shot 4x5 in college, in a studio. Great place to start. I shoot in the field and find I think much more about the shot. Easier to come home with 1-2 hood shots then a roll ful or shots I rushed through.
Personally I was turned off in less than a minute it followed the whole video so I could leave a comment. Next time, make it a Pro and Con. You are putting out a video to help and not discourage your fellow shooters.
I started on 5x7 wirh a 120 year old camera and x-ray film. Now Jane several 4x5 and my 5x7 (which was made 2 years ago) and can only see shooting MF in my 6x17.
Thank you for the comment. I think you're absolutely right about the Pro and Con situation. This is probably one of my most controversial videos and I plan on making an update to it at some point in the near future. Appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me.
To keep cost under control, I shoot B&W and develop myself. You really want to do the latter regardless as full control lf film density is the combination of exposure and development regime.
To scan, I use a Panasonic S1R and a Canon EF 100mm true macro lens. This is good for ~200MP of deep pixels. It picks up everything on the negative and is really on par with true drum scans.
medium format is the right balance. LF is not for everyone
The question raised seem more about cost. Yes film is Expensive more so as it gets Bigger. At some point and I took many! Years you will wish to try LF film. Even if you dismiss it afterwards 👍
Color large format cost is getting really prohibitive for sure. Black and white is still viable though. Ilford FP4+ is about $2.50 a sheet and if you process it yourself it's about $.50 in chemistry. The scans from an Epson V850 are more than enough for printing to 30x40 inches, but of course printing in a traditional darkroom always yields superior results to any digital print.
I started photography with medium format cameras. I used medium format for about 15 years before I bought my first 35mm camera and before I bought my first 4x5 inch large format camera.
Today, I use my 4x5 inch when I need high image quality and/or front and rear camera movements.
How do you feel about the lomograflok? I was never interested in LF until i saw i could shoot instant film with it.
Most people I know shoot black and white film with there 4x5 `s. Cost for one sheet of Fomapan100 (in Europe) is roughly 45 Cents. One 120-roll of FP4 or HP5 costs about 11 to 12 Euro. If one is shooting 6x6 the cost per frame would be 1 Euro/Dollar.......Chemistry for black and white film is still affordable (the more if you mix it with raw chem by yourself)...So, I guess you got my point : shooting 4x5 does not have to be over expensive
Well, you did not mention at all the difference between the LF and other formats, like the 120, specifically the movements. Nothing can be compared to the LF when movements is required. The closest example will be architecture shoots. To do them correct you need the movements of the lens plane regarding the film. And here only LF is the tool. Also - if you need to play creatively with the focus areas when you shoot the subject - here is LF is the tool again... So I think for some reason that you consider LF as a larger size negative that gives more sharper image at the end. This is correct to the point. The bigger advance if you use the LF camera for a creative task where other formats cannot be used.
All great points, thank you for sharing.
Yes it's more expensive per shot, no surprise there. But developing yourself is quite affordable and not that difficult - makes no sense to outsource. SP-445 tank $100, cost of chemicals for 4 sheets is ~$1 depending on process. Film is highly variable - something like Fomapan is $1.50 per sheet, or ~$1.75 per sheet with chemicals. Lab scanning is super expensive regardless of format, so investing in something like an Epson V600 or digital camera scanning setup for $200-350 makes sense if you shoot film regardless. V600 "real" resolution is something like 1500dpi, which for 4x5 gives you a pretty legit 45megapixel image.
Let's say you only ever shot 100 sheets of 4x5 and then called it quits, at $1.75 per sheet (chemicals included), add $100+$350 for a SP-445 and scanning setup, that's $6.25 per sheet developed and scanned, yes, expensive, but when 4 sheets = 1 35mm/36exp roll of film in terms of area it's not that crazy and right in line with 35mm per area of film. Of course the more you shoot, the cheaper the fixed costs of tank and scanning setup become, and if you quit you can sell those items and make a good chunk of that money back. Of course that's all B&W, but even in color it's still quite a bit cheaper than the numbers you gave. If you already have a scanning setup that can handle or easily adapt to 4x5, the cost is more like $2.75/sheet for B&W and ~$7.75/sheet for Portra.
Film photography will allways add on your budget, however, you must ask yourself what is photography for you, can be as simple as an expensive hobby or end up being a specialty niche business, in any case try not to think on film photography in terms of expenses but outcomes for you, in any ways, hobby or business, there is allways an ROI. You INVEST in equipment, processing, printing. If you do (a good) business, is very likely you will get a good return of the investment in terms of money, but as a hobbyist also you can get great outcomes specially in the emotional space. LF gets you in a very lowfi slowmo workflow, but definitely rewarding. If you are not willing to INVEST, then go and look elsewere, there's a big spectrum where you can enjoy photography at almost no cost.
How about a 120 back on a 4x5 camera, like a Horseman 8EXP/120 ?
What a thoughful speech, thank you. I’m totally ok with my RB 6x7 and its magic glass. 4x5 is too much to carry around
It's a lot cheaper if you do developing and scanning yourself, but that's more work. I dont mind developing B&W for any film but color is a pain since there's more steps, less flexability, and it needs climate controlled warm baths (unlike B&W which can be done at room temp). DSLR scanning is the only way to cheaply scan 4x5 since good basic scanners usually only go up to medium format. DSLR scanning is great and can be easier than flatbed scanning, but it requires a lot of DIY tinkering with stands, lightboxes, and computer apps.
What keeps me interested im 4x5 are the more portable cameras like graflex rangefinders and SLRs and the DIY aspect of it. The lomographic on a 4x5 rangefinder makes shooting abolutely fun. If you have a graflex crown graphic or speed graphic you can replace the bulb that allows you to focus in low light with a laser diode, so you can focus quickly and precisely. It does raise some eybrows when people notice the laser dot on them.
If you like building and DIY camera projects, large format is fun as you can make you're own cameras and have a lot of options with printing and developing. There's compact 3d printed bodies you can make, wooden afghan boxes that combine the darkroom with the camera body, and old polaroid land cameras and other vintage camera bodies that can be adapted for large format. Contact printing allows for more accessible darkroom printing at home since you dont need a bellows system. If you do cyanotypes, you only need some watercolor paper, a mixture of two cheap chemicals, and the sun or a uv light to make prints from negatives.
Basically large format is great if you like mixing DIY construction and chemistry with you're photography, but if all you want to do is focus on photography and taking great images, you're probabaly better off with a digital camera.
What’s more complex for color development than the temperature controlled baths? I mean, yeah, that can be a pain. I have a sous vide for that, works great. But besides that C41 development is much easier as it’s a normalised process. b&w has different development times for different types of films and brands.
Bed scanners like Epson Perfection V800 can scan 4 X 5" film, color and b & w. Sunlight is the free source of UV light. Digital cameras do not necessarily take 'great images', you got to remember the menu. Film his a different character, some people can't see that and fail at film photography.
I shoot with paper negatives which are really cheap, and Arista Ortho Litho (which is cheaper than dirt).
Typo alert: “devloped”.
Thanks for this, I’ve been contemplating moving up and coming to the same conclusion: I don’t have enough specific images I want to make to spend $20 each shot to get the best possible quality
No matter how many times I re-watch something, there is always something that I'll miss. Glad the video helped! And that really is what it comes down to for me, is this image worth the extra money and time.
I was ready to click on "buy now" on a 4x5 ,but after watching this, my love is greater for my Bronicas.
Glad I could help out!
You may need both! I have a few ETRSi cameras, a Rollei and tons of other wonderful film gear. I always love using my LF, even if my wife refuses to lug it around for me... 😉
People don't read old books so much, so many would not know, as William Mortensen said in the 1930s: he called quarter-plate and four by five "medium format".
I retired in 2021 with an awesome Shen Hao 4x5 kit and five lenses I'd saved and stored for retirement. I am equally disappointed by the costs as Hamilton describes them. I had a wet darkroom when I was younger and don't need to go there again. I love setting up and fiddling with the camera.
I shoot them all, with 4x5 I shoot in BW and develop at home then take my Fuji 80mm macro lens and X-Pro3 and digi scan in raw, shooting 4x5 is a bit more TEDIOUS, but absolutely the most rewarding!
Like I said, some of my favorite photos have come from a 4x5 but since there are a lot of new photographers out there getting into film, I wanted to sound a little warning about it. It's an entirely different beast.
@@HamiltonWard Agreed. 👍🏼👍🏼
Yeaaaaahhhhhh buuuuttt....tilts and swings!
You make a solid case! I have a cheap Ansco Viking camera with a 105mm Agnar 4.5 f that makes really nice 6x9 cm images on 120 film. 8 shots per roll. I've been very surprised with the quality of the images.
I am 56 and grew up shooting 35mm on Nikon. The nonsense around " the film look" etc is just that. Give me my R5 or R7 any day over that. I use Darktable with FilmicRGB or even Sigmoid and I get a " film look" that is better in every way. But I am thinking about 4x5 on 120 backs for landscape... As the sensor or film gets bigger, the perceived DOF gets shallower. So although you get more detail, keeping things in focus becomes a bigger problem. To my mind, that is where 4x5 comes in. I dont really need the size, 6x7 or 6x8 will be more than fine. But those movements on the 4x5 cameras make things possible that otherwise just cannot be. Scanning? With a macro on my R7 I will scan that 6x6 to over 120mpx better than any real scanner. But the cost per shot is a serous consideration. Development has to be done at home for me because where I live, there is no other option. And if you have a 4x5 then of course, you can always take a 4x5 shot. Thanks for this contribution. Lots to think about.
Bro - I appreciate the warning but those 4x5 portraits you took.. If you planned for those, you needed more planning..
replace the film with a sheet of luminous plotter film. expose and take to a dark place take a digital photo of the glowing film. its lower resolution that “real” film but still captures the 4x5 or 120 look. similar to dry plate exposure times and needs UV. no developing or chemicals are needed & it also saves money. it’s quite a unique look. I use an old 9x12 box plate camera with the film that’s 123 years old :)
I really want to try LF but at the moment I barely have time to use my 35mm and 120 cameras.
Your points on cost are valid, especially for your target audience of new film photographers. I feel you also do a disservice to new film photographers regarding large format by focusing purely on a single aspect of large format photography, that being “image quality.”
As a few people in the comments have said, an LF camera’s movements are especially unique to the format. To be able to selectively control the plane of focus, the composition from a fixed point, even adjust perspective, these are things inherent in the design of a LF camera, and difficult, expensive, or even impossible to replicate with medium format systems.
You also do not mention the printing power large format offers over smaller formats. The tonality and resolution difference between 4x5 and 120 6x7 is staggering, especially in a darkroom. These differences are best appreciated when the work is printed; not so much from a desktop or a smartphone.
I still think what you are saying as far as diminishing value of cost to image resolution is true, but you’re selling large format short by reducing its value to just pixel peeping.
on option is to develop in-house, still expensive but it will cut a lot. Also the scanning, with the proper flatbed like the n V850 one can get very high quality, but I agree it's expensive. Some people scans with the v600 but require some shenanigans: ua-cam.com/video/lXBsAW8e_dU/v-deo.html
Great video! Lots of valid points. I have been shooting 4x5 since 2021. Honestly, I live in the Midwest and the climate is colder, I find with setting up and fiddling in the cold can be a drawback. Also, I have probably only used it for a couple years and have not used it this year. I find that using my Hasselblad 500 CM and RB67 is enough for most landscape shots. 4x5 advantage is really with the tilt and shift, unless one is making large prints and needs the movements, medium format is large enough. When I first purchased my 4x5 I realized I needed a special tank, a scanner that can handle the negatives and I realized that loading film is tedious, dust can be a greater problem and lenses are not cheap.
If one is to get into large format in the first place, then they already should know the expenses involved before diving in. Not to mention, they wouldn't buy a Intrepid. The use of scheimpflug movements itself is worth the cost.
I develop and scan myself. My go to 4*5 film is Fomapan 100
I must strongly disagree. Don't warn people off entering 4x5 photography and don't tell then to quit.
IMO we should telling them hone their skills composing on a view camera as much as possible, while also learning to shoot with purpose, intent and vision. That requires they also learn to plan. Before you bemoan my recommending new photographers break the bank shooting 4x5 I'll say that's nonsense. Just like I do, they can shoot on their view cameras with a medium format back, the options are many. Myself I have a universal toyo-view sliding graphic back, and 6x9 and 6x7 backs, as well as an instax 4x5 back for test exposures should I be uncertain or want to test before taking a 4x5 shot. When shooting I have options. When I that my planning has put me in position to capture something truly stunning I can pop in a 4x5 cut film holder and take a shot.
No matter what, the average medium format can't match a view camera for composing images. Medium format film can't magically grow in size, or compare to a 4x5 negative, but a 4x5 can shoot 120 roll film thanks to many, many, different medium format roll film backs while also providing a full range of tilt, shift, rise and fall.
And finally, in two years time the cost of scanning 4x5 negatives and positives is going to plummet. New medium format GFX models with pixel shift rival drum scanners already. Photographers who are buying these cameras are discovering the market for negative scanning in order to offset the costs of buying such cameras. Even a sony A7RII using a copy stand rig and shift and stitch can deliver impressive scans of 4x5 negatives (and medium format).
Oh and yes, I have traditional medium format cameras, and am at present making several point and shoot panoramic cameras in order to broaden my shooting options.
Colour 120 is about NZ$25-45/roll 😱
I have to disagree with a lot or what your saying. Every Photo I take I have in mind and enlargement bigger than 8x10. Now I am old and when and Sure don't like carrying a big load when I go out to shoot. I am lucky though I can get and get around. I just load up my walker with a digital full frame a tripod and the 4x5 and just a few film holders. I might compose and shoot dozens of digital images. and just a couple of 4x5.s or a full roll of 120. when I get home most of those digital images I will review and delete. I am able to develop and print the 4x5.s and the 120. It's Not all that expensive. even on my pension. If Ansel Adams had a digital camera Each and every one of this film shots would have been successful.
Why drag people down with the triplex crap camera? Throughout history film has always been expensive. Oil paint and canvas are expensive, etching on copper plates and printing on suitable papers is expensive. Looking at your photos you need to adapt your vision to be an artist.
Brother, I think you just saved me $1000 (or at least delayed my growing, irrational, addiction for greater resolution)
For the love of god if you're getting into photography please dont start with large format, you'll ruin it for yourself, start with 35mm.
Nah, start with medium format.
Do it yourself!! Much cheaper !!
In all honesty, having a better camera will increase the joy of going out with a 4x5. The less of a struggle it it to set up, the more you can concentrate on making images.
Promo_SM 😃
I just got 200 sheets of fomapan 100 for 175 lol. Develop and print myself, just gonna scan my prints to cut out the middle man