Does anyone on here use Large Format anymore?

[snberk103]

Dear Mantat

Dear Mantat

If you really want to have some seat of the pants fun with medium format, and want to not spend a fortune.... go to a couple of camera swap meets. I have a number of old (1940s or 1950s) Agfa cameras (different models) that take 120 film ( the 'official' designation for medium format). The cameras cost between $15 and $50 dollars each. To focus you have to estimate the distance by eye, and then set the lense. To get the proper exposure you need to either estimate (its not hard to do after a little practice) or get a light meter (old ones go for $25 to $75 - nothing fancy is needed). Film advance is not automatic, nor does it stop automatically - you have to watch for frame numbers in a window in the back of the camera.

What you *do* get is a finer appreciation of "making a photograph". This is photography you get your hands all over. You need to think your way through each step. You need to know what you are doing with each step - or, you need learn it as you go - hands on. Its wonderful. And the cameras can be very cheap. Agfa made some good lenses in its day. Others did too. Take a chance and have some fun. One thing to watch out for is some cameras of that era too '620' film. This film was close to, but not quite the same, as 120 film. A 620 film camera can be adapted to take 120 film, but its easier to get a 120 camera too begin with. Use either colour negative film, or TCN400 by Kodak or XP2 by Ilford (if they are still made). The last two are BW films that are processed by colour 1 hour machines. Easy, and they are very forgiving films. Work best at 200 ISO and on contrasty days.

Have fun, eh!

Seth

This might belongs to another thread but since there are so many people with medium/large format, I think I should ask...

I want to get into BW photography and I was thinking about getting a medium format camera. I dont want to invest too much since I already have a FF SLR and a crap load of lens to go with it. So I just want a medium format that I could carry with me when I feel more 'artistic' or to do landscape. So it has to be portable and as small as possible while still getting good shots.

it is either that or I get a 35mm range finder.

Thanks!

 

[Paulinbham]

For years I backpacked in miles with my 4x5 Linhof, but as I get older and knees ache more, I find myself appreciating digital 35 more and more. I don't miss the processing chemicals - developer, bleach, fixer. I know more than a few photographers that have developed serious chemical sensitivities from working in darkrooms for many years.

With magazine work 35 digital is fine for me. Maybe all I really miss is being younger and being able to carry a 75 lb pack?

For students it depends on the type of photography you are going to pursue in your career. I believe the instant feedback from digital is important in the learning process. Your composition, your exposures can be worked to perfection easier with digital and at a very, very low cost once the initial investment is made.

Maybe the more images you can create early on, the better photographer you will become.

 

[goodrich62]

This guy still does and does it very well.

http://www.theloughroad.com/

I meet him when he was still doing some art fairs in the early 90's. His work is truly remarkable.
I have a few of his prints from then, can't afford them now.
Most of his shots are with an Arca Swiss 8X10. I'm hoping to get into one of his work shops maybe in 09.
I'm looking at getting a midium format next year lage is a little to pricey for me.
Rich

 

[seenew]

Dear Mantat

If you really want to have some seat of the pants fun with medium format, and want to not spend a fortune.... go to a couple of camera swap meets. I have a number of old (1940s or 1950s) Agfa cameras (different models) that take 120 film ( the 'official' designation for medium format). The cameras cost between $15 and $50 dollars each. To focus you have to estimate the distance by eye, and then set the lense. To get the proper exposure you need to either estimate (its not hard to do after a little practice) or get a light meter (old ones go for $25 to $75 - nothing fancy is needed). Film advance is not automatic, nor does it stop automatically - you have to watch for frame numbers in a window in the back of the camera.

What you *do* get is a finer appreciation of "making a photograph". This is photography you get your hands all over. You need to think your way through each step. You need to know what you are doing with each step - or, you need learn it as you go - hands on. Its wonderful. And the cameras can be very cheap. Agfa made some good lenses in its day. Others did too. Take a chance and have some fun. One thing to watch out for is some cameras of that era too '620' film. This film was close to, but not quite the same, as 120 film. A 620 film camera can be adapted to take 120 film, but its easier to get a 120 camera too begin with. Use either colour negative film, or TCN400 by Kodak or XP2 by Ilford (if they are still made). The last two are BW films that are processed by colour 1 hour machines. Easy, and they are very forgiving films. Work best at 200 ISO and on contrasty days.

Have fun, eh!

Seth

sounds like a glorified Holga.
Which is glorified enough on its own, ha.

 

[shecky]

i use a Seagul TLR for medium format - after going thru a few ebay'd yashicas i decided to get a new piece of equipment. while not top of the line (its an asian knockoff of a rolliecord i think)the images it takes are very good and i have had no issues with it. its a cheap way to get into medium format.

i also have a few modified Holga's, a DIY pinhole camera, and i am going to be getting a Diana in a few weeks.

 

[Mantat]

Thanks for all the links. That is a lot of food for thought... I think I will have to go to a used store and play with them a bit to see which one appeal to me the most.

 

[FrankieTDouglas]

I spent the last three months shooting 4x5 film with a view camera. About to put up an exhibit next week with 24 prints from that experience. It's interesting. Not a big fan of the work flow or the need to be so deliberate with every action, not to mention the degree of separation between yourself and the subject you are photographing. But it was a good series and something definitely to build upon. I don't like working in the darkroom though, so all of my prints were from scanning in and using an inkjet.

I will say that using a view camera demands attention. No matter what you say, people listen to you and will do whatever you ask when you have to put a clothe over your head to take their picture.

 

[RealGem]

The beauty of digital is that it can be used with medium and large format. No need to revert back to film.

I had a Toyo 5x4 up until 2003 but used Bronicas with a digital back for interiors until last year. I just hire them now if I'm shooting for billboards, as most everything else is doable on my Canon DSLRs.

Recently someone asked me why photos a hundred years old could be superior to the ones of today.

So I gave a mini lecture on large glass plates, and the negative/ film plane size being the larger the better.

It's funny how most people think the more mega pixels the better. But if the lens and chip are teeny they'll still get an inferior image.

 

[§HAMU§]

i don't shoot large format, but i shoot medium format film. i use a yashica-12 tlr camera. i love it. i mostly shoot b/w film b/c i can develop it myself.

i prefer to use my yashica over my rebel xt. i enjoy taking the time compose the shot and write down all the settings in my moleskine. it's also fun and rewarding to develop the film myself. since i shoot photography as a hobby instead of a job, i can take the time to work with film and enjoy it more.

i would really like to get into large format stuff, but i already have so much to learn with photography in general.

 

[Sdashiki]

The beauty of digital is that it can be used with medium and large format. No need to revert back to film.

I had a Toyo 5x4 up until 2003 but used Bronicas with a digital back for interiors until last year. I just hire them now if I'm shooting for billboards, as most everything else is doable on my Canon DSLRs.

Recently someone asked me why photos a hundred years old could be superior to the ones of today.

So I gave a mini lecture on large glass plates, and the negative/ film plane size being the larger the better.

It's funny how most people think the more mega pixels the better. But if the lens and chip are teeny they'll still get an inferior image.

How can you mention a DIGITAL BACK with a straight face? They have a VERY specific market, and cost more than anything mentioned in this thread so far.

Debunking the megapixel myth is always part 1 of any photo class I teach.