Why use 4x5 and what do you recommend

While own a Sinar, my favorite 4x5 camera is the Arca Swiss F-line. The
controls are very well laid out, everything is *very* smooth, and the
camera is rigid. It is also very quick to set up, and, due to the
telescoping rail, it can be packed up quite compactly. (You put the
standards on one of the telescoping elements. Then, you slide that element
off of the rail.) I've compared it to a TK 45s, Canham 4x5 DLC, Wisner TF,
Ebony (can't remember the model), wista, philips, and Lotus. The only
advantage that the Canham, TK , Wisner, ebony, philips and Lotus have is
that they can be folded down into a smaller package. I preferred the Arca
in every other area. Plus, the camera is much less 'fiddlely' than the TK,
DLC or Lotus. I must admit that I'm not a huge fan of wooden view cameras
(Yes, I own a few). They just aren't that rigid or precise to use. By far
the best, in my opinion of course, is the Ebony. The construction quality
is significantly higher than any of the other wooden cameras. If you plan
on doing multi-day back packing, and cost is no object, I'd seriously look
at the top of the line ebony. If you're not going on multi-day hikes, I'd
go for the Arca F (standard model). If I had the money to switch systems,
I trade all of my Sinar stuff for the Arca.

Regards,
Peter De Smidt

I'd encourage you to post in rec.photo.equipment.large-format as well.
Many of the regulars from days past seem to be posting less, but I
still see posts from them, so I know that they're reading the group
still. Rec.photo.equipment.large-format is also a very helpful group
of folks.

I hope you're going to post a review of the Sentinel after you have
some hands on time... I really want to know about it.

An awful lot is going to depend on what falls into your category of
'nature photography'. If you mean 'photos of birds taken with very
long lenses' movements are not going to help much. If you're talking
nature photography in the 'grand landscape' sense, they're going to
be useful. If you're talking about nature photography in the
'intimate landscape' sense, I think they're just about indispensible.

There are basically two reasons for using movements:

1. Manipulation of the plane of focus
2. Deliberate introduction of distortion in the image.

A good example of (1) is when you are making a landscape, and you
would like to use the widest f-stop possible. Using front tilt, you
can contrive to have the plane of focus pass along the surface of
the ground, rather than having the plane of focus be orthogonal to the
lens axis. This is a tremendous advantage, if only because it allows
wider f-stops (and thus faster shutter speeds). Remember that with a
larger negative you will have *less* depth of field, and that below
about f/32 you will be losing sharpness to diffraction (I'm discussing
4x5, here). If you can't use movements to manipulate the focus plane
and allow using a wider aperture, you're forced to just stop down to
f/32 or so, and end up with a long exposure. Long exposures mean
either waiting for the wind to die down, or getting lucky with a
momentary lull.

A good example of (2) is where you'd like to correct converging lines,
or perhaps you'd like to emphasize the foreground. By tilting the
*film plane* you can do this. For architectural photography, it's a
must. Although it's often over-used, when used with some subtlety it
can be a tremendously effective tool.

Larger film size is the primary advantage. Although many folks move
to large format for the sharpness, I find that the most appealing
advantage of the large negative is the absolute lack of grain and the
wonderful, luscious tonal smoothness. Images that are dependent on
texture work very well with the large negative to provide nearly
infinite detail.

You get some advantage from the fact that you can tailor film
processing to a specific image. To be honest, I think more is made of
this than is really warranted.

There are other advantages that are less obvious. Remember that
you'll probably be composing on a ground glass. The image will be
inverted (but in a matter of hours you will no longer notice). Except
in special circumstances, you're likely to be working off a tripod.
The entire process tends to be more deliberate. Some people find this
rewarding. Others find it frustrating beyond words.

One of the things that I value the most is that the process is so
much more forgiving with the larger negative. After a number of years
working strictly in 4x5, I once again started using a 35mm hand
camera. I went through months of absolute agony refining my technique
to permit decent prints from the pathetically small 35mm negatives.
During those months, quite a handful of head sized dents were put in
my darkroom walls. With a 35mm negative, if there is a single error,
you are just absolute toast. Underexposed? It will show in the
print. Overexposed? More grain. Focus a bit off? It will surely
show. In comparison, you can, honestly, get away with murder with the
4x5 negative. You have to start making serious mistakes before it's
not possible to repair the damage in the darkroom.

Generally speaking, the gear is more reliable. There are no automatic
diaphrams to stop being automatic. There are no high-speed,
electronically driven and timed, titanium leaf focal plane shutters.
If the shutter in one lens stops working, the odds are good that your
other lenses are fine. There is no motorized film advance to jam, or
run out of batteries. Compared to a modern, technowonder 35mm
autofocus SLR a 4x5 camera is simplicity incarnate. If something
breaks, the odds are actually fairly good that you'll be able to fix
it enough to limp along using only things you can buy at a convenience
store.

If you schlep your gear, it can get damn heavy. You need to lug
around a tripod. It's slower. You can't carry nearly as much film.
Film costs and processing costs are higher. If you're buying new,
large format gear can seem breathtakingly expensive, especially to
people who are used to consumer level 35mm prices. It is perfectly
possible to spend $5000 on a light tight tube which will rigidly hold
a piece of film at one end and a lens at the other (aka a 'camera').

If you're accustomed to using really long focal lengths with 35mm
or medium format, you'll find that really long lenses are very
unwieldy in 4x5. Using a 450mm lens is eminently doable. Even
longer, true telephoto lenses are doable. But you're not going to
go out in the field and use a lens that's the equivalent of, say, a
500mm lens in 35mm unless you are really, really serious about it.

Likewise, if you're addicted to zooms, you're in trouble.

A large format camera set up on a tripod is, to a very good first
order approximation, a sail. Blowdowns are not unheard of. Having
exposures spoiled by wind movement (of either the camera or the
subject) is not at all uncommon.

You'll need to either use readyloads/quickloads/polaroid or else
load film holders. If there's a task which is more boring than
developing film, loading film holders is it.

I use a Linhof Technikardan 45s, and love it. I've used a Wisner
Technical Field, and loved it. My reviews of both can be found on
my web site at:
#
and
#

There are many, many excellent camera choices. The Canham field
cameras and the Canham DLC line are beautiful, wonderful cameras.
A Linhof Techika is a thing of beauty and a joy forever. Arca Swiss
make extraordinarily well thought out, well made cameras. Smaller,
less expensive alternatives (with less bellows draw) are the Wista,
the Tachihara, and all of their kith and kin. I've read about the
Walker cameras, which sound very nice (although I've never seen one).
Used cameras abound, with vintages ranging from the early 1900's to
the present. A view camera need not be fancy to be capable of making
good photographs. There are even kits, from which you can assemble
your own wooden camera. Although the 35mm crowd will no doubt recoil
in horror at the thought, wood is an excellent material for making
large format cameras, and there are more wooden view camera variants
than you could shake a stick at in your lifetime.

So much depends on what you're going to photograph that it's nearly
pointless to discuss cameras without discussing subject matter as
well.

There are other things you'll need besides a camera and lenses. A
decent spot meter is, I think, indispensible. Again, a review of the
Pentax digital spot and the newer, fancier Sekonic L-508 are on
my web page. Likewise tripods, etc.

There's a rather appalling list of minor stuff that you'll accumulate
that will eventually fill all the spare volume in your house: film
holders, dark cloths, little screwdrivers, spanners for lens retaining
rings, etc.

The big four of the current manufacturers are: Schneider, Rodenstock,
Nikkor, and Fuji. All produce good products. I own both
Rodenstock and Nikkor lenses, and I've owned Schneider lenses in the
past. All are excellent. People whose opinions I respect own Fuji
lenses and claim they are outstanding.

Good used lenses are plentiful and cheaper. Chris Perez has an
excellent web site which offers a lot of information, but I'm afraid I
don't have the url handy. I'm sure you can find it by searching for
his posts on rec.photo.equipment.large-format on DejaNews.

Tuan Luoung does us all a tremendous service by hosting the
definitive large format web page at

#
If you're even vaguely interested in large format, Tuan's page is
the very first place you should visit. Many, many of the questions
you will have have been collected there, along with the answers.
In addition, he has an extensive list of links to other large format
photographers. Virtually all of them will be perfectly happy to help
you with any questions.

One of the nicest things about large format photography is that, by
and large, the world of large format seems to be populated by
people who are genuinely happy to help you get started or help
you solve problems.

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that now that you have a 4x5
enlarger, you've also got the capability to enlarge some new
medium format sizes that you didn't before - 6x12 panorama is
very popular. There are several very
...
read more »

cut...

LF has better print quality than smaller formats. But the biggest
difference is the style of taking pictures: having a big image on ground
glass (inverted!) to carefully study and compose. Typically one takes
more time per photograph.
(However, a practiced LF photographer can take a picture quite quickly,
when necessary). The effort and weight is a disincentive to take
photographs one is unlikely to print. The deciding factor should be
whether this style appeals to you. You can do alot with one lens and an
inexpensive camera (new or used). Once you have experience, and if you
decide you like LF photography, you can get a different camera and more
lenses.

My favorite focal length is 180 mm. If I were using one lens, I would
choose either 180 or a moderate wide such as 110 or 120 mm, but to have
good coverage, the 110 or 120 mm focal lengths are more expensive.

In nature photography I use camera movements such as a front rise or a
front tilt for focus in a subtantial fraction (I'd guess 1/2) of my
photographs.

--Michael

i am rather new to LF. i bought a used 4x5 camera. i bought mine
_because_of_ the larger negative.

depending on what you like to shoot in nature, the movements can be very
helpful. consider a waterfall, tree, or mountain. you might want to frame
the subject without a lot of foreground. with other formats, you almost
always have to tilt the camera upwards but the rise movement of the LF
camera solves this. on the otherhand, if you want to include the foreground,
you might want it to be in focus. the tilt movements can bring everything in
focus from very close to very far away (since the lenses on LF are long,
they have even more limited depth of field than 35mm.)

basically, the movements of the camera allow you to compose images that just
aren't do-able with other types of cameras.

two other "advantages" the longer setup times require you to carefully
consider your photos, and the upside down image can help you with
composition. the first of these was another contributing factor to my switch
to LF. since getting married and starting a 1 hour commute to work, i have
very little time for photography. with 35mm i shoot so many photos that i
just did not have time to do anything with them. with LF, i might make one
image on an outing, and i can find time to process one print a lot easier
than 5 or 10.

best wishes
bob

Posted and mailed !


Jump ion the water is fine !! LF has never been better. All of
the improvements made in film to make formats such as 35mm and APS
work eventually translate to better sheet films as well. TMX, TMY and
HSI are my normal films though Arista gets the nod from time to time.

That's the very best part ! You can use KRST to locally tone
the neg and change contrast and printing characteristics in very small
areas. Also retouching is a lot easier.

Really depends on what you are shooting. For landscapes a
little front or back tilt can work wonders.

You mean like being able to shoot just one frame ? Or just
developing one single frame ? And applying the Zone System to each and
every image individually ? Being able to shoot from locations that you
might not be able to shoot from with a single plane camera. (Shift)
Being able to manipulate the image on the GG to achieve an in-camera
image that maximizes the amount of film used. Adjust things such as
rise which is the most used function on my 4X5.

Today, since Calumet got bought out, I would look at the
Wisner. Online at # . Go for the Technical.

As far as lenses, well that really depends on what you want to
shoot. I use the 150 APO Symmar as a normal lens, the 240 G-Claron is
my short tele and macro lens, a used but wonderful 90/f8 Ilex Accugon
that I picked up for a song, and a 355 Ilex that I have hardly used.
It's not very sharp IMO but probably worth the $80 I paid for it !

One lens I would seriously consider would be the Nikon "W"
180/f 5.6. They are really the sleepers in large format as their lens
design is supposedly corrected for close up work as well as work at
infinity like the G-Clarons but have a viewing aperture of f/5.6. That
can make quite a difference when working in a dim environment !

Of course if you want to "test the waters" before plunging
into a 5,K debt, consider looking at a press camera such as the Speed
Graphic. That was my first LF camera and I still use it with the 150
APO Symmar which is synced to the rangefinder. I now have a LF point
and shoot as I have attached a bracket with a 120 J set to f/16- f/22
with TMY rated at EI 800 or EI 1600.

BTW, did I mention that +2 development and grain free 30X40's
are possible with that nice big neg ?

Regards,

John S. Douglas Spectrum Photographic Inc
Photographer #
Darkroom processes, formulas, facts and information.
Weddings,portraits,commercial and stock photography