Invest in Med. or Large Format for Portraits?
Mel Brown
> My objective is to improve my portrait photography images, so that I can
> produce "stunning" portraits. I realize much of image quality rests on
> my shoulders, in terms of lighting, exposure, development, printing and
> so on, but I have an equipment question for the groups.
>
> For $1,000 should I invest in:
>
> - one lens of ~140/150/180mm in medium format for my RB67
> - a 4x5 camera, 270/300 lens, lens board, and film holders
>
> The dilemma for me is I have an RB which I dearly love, but I have no
> 4x5 gear. I would like to expand my RB system, but I think 4x5 will
> give me the image quality I am after.
I think it would helpful to ask a little more info of you. What size prints
do you make? What do you find lacking in the prints you currently make with
the RB?
Mel Brown
kro...@mich.com
produce "stunning" portraits. I realize much of image quality rests on
my shoulders, in terms of lighting, exposure, development, printing and
so on, but I have an equipment question for the groups.
For $1,000 should I invest in:
- one lens of ~140/150/180mm in medium format for my RB67
- a 4x5 camera, 270/300 lens, lens board, and film holders
The dilemma for me is I have an RB which I dearly love, but I have no
4x5 gear. I would like to expand my RB system, but I think 4x5 will
give me the image quality I am after.
What do you all recommend? This is a subjective question, so your
subjective comments will be appreciated.
Regards,
B.J. Kroppe
kro...@mich.com
I don't prefer the perspective my 90mm lens gives when used for
portraiture. It gets me too close to my subject (my family, including 3
yr old son who doesn't like to sit still when dad's big camera is inches
away from his face).
Also, I like the smooth transition between tones and values you get from
large format, much like the improvement in tonality gained when going
from 35mm film format to medium format.
What I believe is lacking in my prints is the perspective of a
"portrait" lens, such as 140/150/180 in 6x7. I've done many shots at
100mm with my 35mm gear and I really like the results. I can interact
with the subject, also, which helps to build the moment.
So if I am going to invest in a portrait lens, I figure it will cost me
$800-$1000 for an RB lens (140 Macro, 150 Soft Focus or 180 C). I would
really like to know if I can get a good 4x5 camera with 300mm lens for
that price that would meet or beat the image quality of the RB with
portrait lens combination.
Regards,
B.J. Kroppe
Mel Brown wrote:
>
> kro...@mich.com wrote:
>
> > My objective is to improve my portrait photography images, so that I can
> > produce "stunning" portraits. I realize much of image quality rests on
> > my shoulders, in terms of lighting, exposure, development, printing and
> > so on, but I have an equipment question for the groups.
> >
> > For $1,000 should I invest in:
> >
> > - one lens of ~140/150/180mm in medium format for my RB67
> > - a 4x5 camera, 270/300 lens, lens board, and film holders
> >
> > The dilemma for me is I have an RB which I dearly love, but I have no
> > 4x5 gear. I would like to expand my RB system, but I think 4x5 will
> > give me the image quality I am after.
>
Vickiedogs
YOU ALREADY HAVE AN RB67 YOU WOULD BE BETER SERVED TO PUT YOUR MONEY IN
EXPANDING THAT PEICE OF EQUIPMENT. 6X7 CAN BE ALMOST AS RETOUCHABLE AS YOU CAN
GET NOW-A-DAYS.
Mel Brown
> I am thinking of 11x14 prints.
>
> I don't prefer the perspective my 90mm lens gives when used for
> portraiture. It gets me too close to my subject (my family, including 3
> yr old son who doesn't like to sit still when dad's big camera is inches
> away from his face).
I agree that a longer lens is in order.
> Also, I like the smooth transition between tones and values you get from
> large format, much like the improvement in tonality gained when going
> from 35mm film format to medium format.
In this group, I recently asked whether anyone has done side-by-side comparative
tests of 6x4.5 vs. 6x7. Like me, many who have contributed to the thread shoot
multiple formats, but so far, nobody has made an objective test. The concensus of
guesses is that we should be able to see some differences at 16x20, maybe even at
11x14. This suggests that, going up from 6x7 to 4x5, you might expect to see some
differences at 20x24 or so, almost certainly no difference at all in 11x14
prints.
Other considerations are that you give up the convenience of "live" images on the
ground glass. After the film holder is in place, recomposing a 4x5 is a major
pain. You also give up the convenience of roll film, and you'll need a darkroom
or a changing bag in which to load film holders. And, comparing a 180 lens for
the RB to a 300 for a 4x5, you will lose depth of field for any given aperture,
so focusing becomes more critical and you'll need more light to be able to use a
smaller aperture.
The cost of a basic monorail and 300mm lens should be $800-$1000, about the same
as a portrait lens for your RB. But then, compare film cost. From B&H, NPS 120 is
$2.35, and 50 sheets of the same film in 4x5 is $70. So the per-shot cost goes
from $0.24 to $1.40, almost 6 times more. Add at least the same proportion of
increase in processing costs.
Mostly because of your print sizes, I don't see a compelling reason to make the
switch. On the other hand, no major reason not to try a 4x5 if you have the itch.
If it doesn't work out, you can always sell it and get your money back out of it.
Regards,
Mel Brown
L. J. Powell
> I am thinking of 11x14 prints.
>
> I don't prefer the perspective my 90mm lens gives when used for
> portraiture. It gets me too close to my subject (my family, including 3
> yr old son who doesn't like to sit still when dad's big camera is inches
> away from his face).
>
> Also, I like the smooth transition between tones and values you get from
> large format, much like the improvement in tonality gained when going
> from 35mm film format to medium format.
>
I think the issue goes beyond the technical factors. Large format is an entirely
different way of working. The results can be stunning - look at the work of Jock
Sturges or Eric Boutillier-Brown. But remember that these guys have lots of
practice (hmm?), have models who are comfortable with big cameras, and both the
photographers and the models have the time to make the venture successful.
On the other hand, a smaller format (rf or 35mm - probably not a big difference)
can be used more quickly. This means that it is possible for the session with
the model to move at a faster pace - more exposures translates into a higher
percentage of good images (yes, it is a matter of percentages). If you are
contemplating portrait work with a 3 year old as the subject I think you have to
factor in their attention span (microscopic) and the fact that they never stop
moving.
So, I think I would come down on the side of the new lens for the RB.
That's the problem with adult toys like cameras - you can never get enough and
they are very expensive.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Louie J. Powell, APSA
Glenville, NY USA
"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Tim Shoppa
>
> My objective is to improve my portrait photography images, so that I can
> produce "stunning" portraits. I realize much of image quality rests on
> my shoulders, in terms of lighting, exposure, development, printing and
> so on, but I have an equipment question for the groups.
>
> For $1,000 should I invest in:
>
> - one lens of ~140/150/180mm in medium format for my RB67
> - a 4x5 camera, 270/300 lens, lens board, and film holders
>
> The dilemma for me is I have an RB which I dearly love, but I have no
> 4x5 gear. I would like to expand my RB system, but I think 4x5 will
> give me the image quality I am after.
You don't say what sort of lighting equipment you already have,
but I think that most cost-effective way to spend money for
portraiture would be to put it into the lighting. Going to
large format will make your pictures sharper, and getting a longer
lens may get you a different perspective, but a much larger
factor than either of these (IMHO) is lighting.
Tim.
Geo
>My objective is to improve my portrait photography images, so that I can
>produce "stunning" portraits. I realize much of image quality rests on
>my shoulders, in terms of lighting, exposure, development, printing and
>so on, but I have an equipment question for the groups.
>
>For $1,000 should I invest in:
>
>- one lens of ~140/150/180mm in medium format for my RB67
>- a 4x5 camera, 270/300 lens, lens board, and film holders
>
>The dilemma for me is I have an RB which I dearly love, but I have no
>4x5 gear. I would like to expand my RB system, but I think 4x5 will
>give me the image quality I am after.
>
The difference between 35mm & 6x7 is huge. Between 6x7 & 4x5 it's
negligible. The versatility & speed of an SLR more than compensates. Have
you tried TMax or Delta 100?
-George Struk - Natural Light Black & White Photography
http://www.accesshub.net/naturalight
--
PLEASE REMOVE XYZ TO E-MAIL REPLY
Why do we have to resort to this?
Eugene A. Pallat
> My objective is to improve my portrait photography images, so that I can
> produce "stunning" portraits. I realize much of image quality rests on
> my shoulders, in terms of lighting, exposure, development, printing and
> so on, but I have an equipment question for the groups.
>
> For $1,000 should I invest in:
>
> - one lens of ~140/150/180mm in medium format for my RB67
> - a 4x5 camera, 270/300 lens, lens board, and film holders
>
> The dilemma for me is I have an RB which I dearly love, but I have no
> 4x5 gear. I would like to expand my RB system, but I think 4x5 will
> give me the image quality I am after.
Why do you thimk it's necessary to change formats just to take portraits?
The RB is an excellent camera and much easier to use than a view camera.
You're also famililiar with using it. View cameras are much slower to use.
As for image quality, that's up to you. I've made high quality 40x50s from
a 6x6. I've no prejudice for one format over another since I shoot 35,
6x6, 4x5, and occasionally 8x10.
FInal recomendation? A 180 for your RB.
snip
Remove the '-glop-' for sending email to me.
Gene eapa...@orion-glop-data.com
Orion Data Systems
Solicitations to me must be pre-approved in writing
by me after soliciitor pays $1,000 US per incident.
Solicitations sent to me are proof you accept this
notice and will send a certified check forthwith.
Bob Wheeler
don't think it would be fair to snip here, so I
have marked off my additional comments with
*******
Mel Brown wrote:
>
> kro...@mich.com wrote:
>
> > I am thinking of 11x14 prints.
> >
> > I don't prefer the perspective my 90mm lens gives when used for
> > portraiture. It gets me too close to my subject (my family, including 3
> > yr old son who doesn't like to sit still when dad's big camera is inches
> > away from his face).
>
> I agree that a longer lens is in order.
>
> > Also, I like the smooth transition between tones and values you get from
> > large format, much like the improvement in tonality gained when going
> > from 35mm film format to medium format.
>
> In this group, I recently asked whether anyone has done side-by-side comparative
> tests of 6x4.5 vs. 6x7. Like me, many who have contributed to the thread shoot
> multiple formats, but so far, nobody has made an objective test. The concensus of
> guesses is that we should be able to see some differences at 16x20, maybe even at
> 11x14. This suggests that, going up from 6x7 to 4x5, you might expect to see some
> differences at 20x24 or so, almost certainly no difference at all in 11x14
> prints.
***********
My tests indicates that a resolution difference is
apparent at 16x20 between 6x7 and 4x5. However,
even at 8x10, I find a difference in gradation --
not everyone agrees with this since it is very
subjective.
*****
>
> Other considerations are that you give up the convenience of "live" images on the
> ground glass. After the film holder is in place, recomposing a 4x5 is a major
> pain. You also give up the convenience of roll film, and you'll need a darkroom
> or a changing bag in which to load film holders. And, comparing a 180 lens for
> the RB to a 300 for a 4x5, you will lose depth of field for any given aperture,
> so focusing becomes more critical and you'll need more light to be able to use a
> smaller aperture.
>
***********
(1) ?? Just pull out the film holder to see the
ground glass image, what is so hard about that?
(2) The well illuminated medium format view is
easier to use, but I wouldn't agree that this is a
major problem, nor would I agree that other things
are more of a fuss for 4x5.
(3) You can shoot roll film in a 4x5.
(4) DOF changes if you fix the aperture but you
shouldn't. All parameters double when you go to
4x5 including f-stop. The two formats will have
identical DOF, but you will need to double the
f-stop for 4x5 and it will need more light or a
longer exposure to compensate.
*****
> The cost of a basic monorail and 300mm lens should be $800-$1000, about the same
> as a portrait lens for your RB. But then, compare film cost. From B&H, NPS 120 is
> $2.35, and 50 sheets of the same film in 4x5 is $70. So the per-shot cost goes
> from $0.24 to $1.40, almost 6 times more. Add at least the same proportion of
> increase in processing costs.
**********
Only if you can find a used camera and lens at a
bargain price. A new 4x5 is at least $1000, and a
new 300mm is at least $1500. Check B&H. Calumet
has a cheapie camera which might be OK for
learning, but this doesn't help with the lens
price. You can probably find a used lens for about
$1000.
****
>
> Mostly because of your print sizes, I don't see a compelling reason to make the
> switch. On the other hand, no major reason not to try a 4x5 if you have the itch.
> If it doesn't work out, you can always sell it and get your money back out of it.
>
**************
I agree, you would be better off not switching.
There is a fairly steep learning curve for large
format, and no matter how you try, the costs mount
up. Your flexibility is severely limited: action
shots are out, and most importantly you will not
be able to capture "those illusive smiles" because
it takes too long to change slides. The only
reason you might choose to switch is to achieve
the goal you stated "smooth transition between
tones." Not everyone can see or appreciate this
transition, which is over and above the resolution
effects, but if you want it then you must go to
large format.
*****
> Regards,
>
> Mel Brown
--
Bob Wheeler --- (Reply to: bwhe...@echip.com)
ECHIP, Inc.
Ron Hopkins-Lutz
}I am thinking of 11x14 prints.
}
}I don't prefer the perspective my 90mm lens gives when used for
}portraiture. It gets me too close to my subject (my family, including 3
}yr old son who doesn't like to sit still when dad's big camera is inches
}away from his face).
[Snipped as I have no real comment beyond this.]
Perspective is a matter of working distance, not focal length. So find a
working distance that gives you the perspective that you want. Then choose the
lens that will actually focus at that distance (don't be surprised if some
don't) and gives you the size image you want. With a moving child I think
you'll find the depth of field, speed of operation, and familarity of your RB
will probably dictate a lens for that unit being a better investment.
BTW, I'd avoid a soft focus lens. You can always soften a sharp lens, bnut
sharpening up a soft focus lens is a lot harder. Besides, you may end up
wanting to use the focal length for other things, and then you won't have to
go buy a second sharper lense. ;-)
=====
Ron Hopkins-Lutz
"We're put here on earth to help others. I'm not sure what the others are put here for." -- W. H. Auden
(Remove "fake" from my address to reply. Sorry for the bother but I was getting over 200 mailings a day in my Inbox and only 2 on average weren't spam.)
James T210
portraits I would definately go with the RB lens versus a 4x5 setup. The 4x5
takes way to long to set up for good portrait work. You can get great images
using the RB and the negative size is sufficient for 11x14 prints (heck, I have
some great prints up to 24x30).
I would get a good lens for your RB instead of purchasing a 4x5.
James Pratt
Richard S. Lindzen
>In article <36564A57...@mich.com>, kro...@mich.com wrote:
>
>>For $1,000 should I invest in:
>>
>>- one lens of ~140/150/180mm in medium format for my RB67
>>- a 4x5 camera, 270/300 lens, lens board, and film holders
>>
>>The dilemma for me is I have an RB which I dearly love, but I have no
>>4x5 gear. I would like to expand my RB system, but I think 4x5 will
>>give me the image quality I am after.
>>
You've been getting good advice mostly, though I find that 4x5 does
give noticeably better quality than medium format. On the other hand,
I can't imagine using a view camera to photograph a 3 year old. A 3
year old cooperative enough for that would be worrisome.
However, as concerns economics, I went with an Omega 45F and a 12inch
Commercial Ektar, and it came to much less than $1000. The cost of
film and processing is much higher though. To be sure, I already had
a suitable tripod, and lighting system. I agree that the last item is
probably at least as important as the camera.
Mel Brown
> Mel Brown wrote:
> >
> > kro...@mich.com wrote:
> >
> > > Also, I like the smooth transition between tones and values you get from
> > > large format, much like the improvement in tonality gained when going
> > > from 35mm film format to medium format.
> >
> > In this group, I recently asked whether anyone has done side-by-side comparative
> > tests of 6x4.5 vs. 6x7. Like me, many who have contributed to the thread shoot
> > multiple formats, but so far, nobody has made an objective test. The concensus of
> > guesses is that we should be able to see some differences at 16x20, maybe even at
> > 11x14. This suggests that, going up from 6x7 to 4x5, you might expect to see some
> > differences at 20x24 or so, almost certainly no difference at all in 11x14
> > prints.
>
> ***********
> My tests indicates that a resolution difference is
> apparent at 16x20 between 6x7 and 4x5.
Okay, I'm listening Exactly how did you conduct your tests?. Massive details, please.
> However,
> even at 8x10, I find a difference in gradation --
> not everyone agrees with this since it is very
> subjective.
> *****
Now Bob, just what is this "gradation" you find? Above, you said that it is subjective,
but to me, that means it's not objective. I would be happy to learn from you regarding
this subject (object?), but every time the question comes up here, it boils down to
"grain," a quality that is easy to measure objectively. Could you please elaborate by
supplying your technique for evaluating gradation?
> > Other considerations are that you give up the convenience of "live" images on the
> > ground glass. After the film holder is in place, recomposing a 4x5 is a major
> > pain. You also give up the convenience of roll film, and you'll need a darkroom
> > or a changing bag in which to load film holders. And, comparing a 180 lens for
> > the RB to a 300 for a 4x5, you will lose depth of field for any given aperture,
> > so focusing becomes more critical and you'll need more light to be able to use a
> > smaller aperture.
> >
> ***********
> (1) ?? Just pull out the film holder to see the
> ground glass image, what is so hard about that?
I think you overlooked my use of the word "live" above. How could I have said it so
that it would have been more clear to you?
> (2) The well illuminated medium format view is
> easier to use, but I wouldn't agree that this is a
> major problem,
Bob, exactly with whom would you not agree? If you insist on putting words in my mouth,
I have to warn you that I spit up!
> nor would I agree that other things are more of a fuss for 4x5.
You can disagree all you like, but starting with 4x5 sheets or pack, everything is more
of a fuss.
> (3) You can shoot roll film in a 4x5.
If you're gonna shoot roll film and don't need perspective/focus control, why use a
4x5?
> (4) DOF changes if you fix the aperture but you
> shouldn't.
What ever did you just say there?
> All parameters double when you go to
> 4x5 including f-stop.
What ever did you just say there?
> The two formats will have
> identical DOF, but you will need to double the
> f-stop for 4x5 and it will need more light or a
> longer exposure to compensate.
What ever did you just say there?
And uhh, isn't it pretty much what I said?
> *****
>
> > The cost of a basic monorail and 300mm lens should be $800-$1000, about the same
> > as a portrait lens for your RB. But then, compare film cost. From B&H, NPS 120 is
> > $2.35, and 50 sheets of the same film in 4x5 is $70. So the per-shot cost goes
> > from $0.24 to $1.40, almost 6 times more. Add at least the same proportion of
> > increase in processing costs.
>
> **********
> Only if you can find a used camera and lens at a
> bargain price. A new 4x5 is at least $1000, and a
> new 300mm is at least $1500. Check B&H. Calumet
> has a cheapie camera which might be OK for
> learning, but this doesn't help with the lens
> price. You can probably find a used lens for about
> $1000.
I sort of thought it was obvious that I was talking about used stuff. Mea minima
culpa!.Still, I like your prices: I have a LF rig I would like to sell you!
> ****
> > Mostly because of your print sizes, I don't see a compelling reason to make the
> > switch. On the other hand, no major reason not to try a 4x5 if you have the itch.
> > If it doesn't work out, you can always sell it and get your money back out of it.
> >
>
> **************
> I agree, you would be better off not switching.
> There is a fairly steep learning curve for large
> format,
I could not disagree more about the learning curve. I do agree that most stupid LF
texts approach swings, shifts, tilts, rises and falls as if they were separate,
unrelated entities. I say those authors should be severely caned for publishing such
techno-rot. The simplicity is that all those movements are merely tools for controlling
focus and perspective of three planes: those of the film, the lens, and the subject.
Sure, it cannot be learned in an hour, but properly taught, a day is enough.
> and no matter how you try, the costs mount
> up. Your flexibility is severely limited: action
> shots are out, and most importantly you will not
> be able to capture "those illusive smiles" because
Elusive?
> it takes too long to change slides. The only
> reason you might choose to switch is to achieve
> the goal you stated "smooth transition between
> tones." Not everyone can see or appreciate this
> transition, which is over and above the resolution
> effects, but if you want it then you must go to
> large format.
Arggghhh! There it is again! The "smooth transition" thing. I say it's no more than
magnification of grain.
Ok, Bob, I'm gonna put you on the spot. If this nebulous "smooth transition" factor
exists, it follows that it can be measured, right? Exactly how? How can we, in our
cameras and darkrooms, replicate what you say? You say that "Not everyone can see or
appreciate this transition, which is over and above the resolution effects..."
So just who can see this "transition"? I admit that I cannot. Maybe you could stage an
objective test, using both photographers and non-photographers as judges, to determine
the profile of those who are able to see this phenomenon.
Mel Brown
Colin Povey
For my money, I agree 100% with this assenment. Start with the
portrait lens on RB, and look for an inexpensive 210 lens for a speed
graphic. They are inexpensive.
I have not seen it mentioned here, but what's wrong with doing
both? For portraits a Crown or Speed Graphic works fine, just go out
and buy a nice 180 or 210mm lens for it, and aside from film holders,
you are in business.
This way, use on MF for the bulk of your work, and on the
occasions you believe warrants it, pull out the LF gear.
joe
http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil
Large Format Images From Southern Ontario
kro...@mich.com wrote:
>My objective is to improve my portrait photography images, so that I can
>produce "stunning" portraits. I realize much of image quality rests on
>my shoulders, in terms of lighting, exposure, development, printing and
>so on, but I have an equipment question for the groups.
>
>For $1,000 should I invest in:
>
>- one lens of ~140/150/180mm in medium format for my RB67
>- a 4x5 camera, 270/300 lens, lens board, and film holders
>
>The dilemma for me is I have an RB which I dearly love, but I have no
>4x5 gear. I would like to expand my RB system, but I think 4x5 will
>give me the image quality I am after.
>
AL52818
to do this,
with the stunning results that we all crave,
is with LIGHTING. If the RB is as good as
my Bronica GS-1, and I am certain that it is,
your portraits taken with a 150mm. lens,
( or whatever Mamiya's equivalent RB lens
is ) can be truly stunning. As far as sharpness
goes, a difference between the RB and a
4x5 may be able to be seen in 20x24 and up,
but only if you have the 2 side by side to
compare. But, who wants a tack sharp
portrait ? I don't. Don't we go to great lenghts to soften our portraits ( I
do, anyway ).
Suggestion: Set up a multiple studio light
set up with main, fill ( or a reflector ), hair
light ( snooted if possible ), back light, and
background light. Then, try Tiffen's Warm
Soft FX 3 and shoot at around f 22 or 32.
The filter blends light so nicely.
Set up the main to cast a nice shadow across
the opposite side of the face, and fill the shadow with your fill. I like a 1
1/2 stop
difference, myself. If you have a polaroid
back, you can see your results immediately.
If you're anything like me, the fly in the
ointment is going to be getting someone to
sit for you ! Good Luck.
FX 3 filter
Dirk J. Bakker
Mel Brown wrote:
> Bob Wheeler wrote:
>
> > Mel Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > kro...@mich.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also, I like the smooth transition between tones and values you get from
> > > > large format, much like the improvement in tonality gained when going
> > > > from 35mm film format to medium format.
> > >
> > > In this group, I recently asked whether anyone has done side-by-side comparative
> > > tests of 6x4.5 vs. 6x7. Like me, many who have contributed to the thread shoot
> > > multiple formats, but so far, nobody has made an objective test. The concensus of
> > > guesses is that we should be able to see some differences at 16x20, maybe even at
> > > 11x14. This suggests that, going up from 6x7 to 4x5, you might expect to see some
> > > differences at 20x24 or so, almost certainly no difference at all in 11x14
> > > prints.
> >
> > ***********
> > My tests indicates that a resolution difference is
> > apparent at 16x20 between 6x7 and 4x5.
>
> Okay, I'm listening Exactly how did you conduct your tests?. Massive details, please.
While not speaking for other than myself, let me suggest this approach, Mel. I hope that
all of you would agree that contact sheets of ANY format are the best in terms of tonal
gradation, which seems to be the bone of contention here. In other words, the less
enlargement is made of the original, the more is retained (i.e. not lost) in enlarging.
Admittedly, a good printer can produce "miracles" but you've got to have it in the negative
in the first place. Large format has that in proportion, all else being equal, which
realistically can hardly ever be guaranteed. Therefore, you need to enlarge 4x from 4x5 to
get 16x20 (with no cropping, of course) and you need to enlarge about 6.5x from 6x7cm to
get the same 16x20. Is the difference enough? I think so. You're that much further removed
from the "contact" ideal. With good printing, perhaps not noticeable by some but still
there.
> > However,
> > even at 8x10, I find a difference in gradation --
> > not everyone agrees with this since it is very
> > subjective.
> > *****
>
> Now Bob, just what is this "gradation" you find? Above, you said that it is subjective,
> but to me, that means it's not objective. I would be happy to learn from you regarding
> this subject (object?), but every time the question comes up here, it boils down to
> "grain," a quality that is easy to measure objectively. Could you please elaborate by
> supplying your technique for evaluating gradation?
>
Mel, grain is but one factor contributing to tonal gradation. Other issues which affect
are:a. as mentioned earlier degree of enlargement, but also:
b. film development,
c. resulting contrast of image, and,
d. inherent contrast of printing materials used,
e. type of enlarger's light,
f. chemistry used,
g. image toning, and even
h. display conditions. I'm sure someone can think of others.
> > > Other considerations are that you give up the convenience of "live" images on the
> > > ground glass. After the film holder is in place, recomposing a 4x5 is a major
> > > pain. You also give up the convenience of roll film, and you'll need a darkroom
> > > or a changing bag in which to load film holders. And, comparing a 180 lens for
> > > the RB to a 300 for a 4x5, you will lose depth of field for any given aperture,
> > > so focusing becomes more critical and you'll need more light to be able to use a
> > > smaller aperture.
> > >
> > ***********
True, but not unsurmountable. There is no substitute for planning, and being prepared.
> > (1) ?? Just pull out the film holder to see the
> > ground glass image, what is so hard about that?
>
> I think you overlooked my use of the word "live" above. How could I have said it so
> that it would have been more clear to you?
Provided you don't frame too tightly, you can use reference points in the background to
stay with the "live" image in your head. I think we're a bit too spoiled by the modern
conveniences of SLRs and even rangefinders.
> > (2) The well illuminated medium format view is
> > easier to use, but I wouldn't agree that this is a
> > major problem,
>
> Bob, exactly with whom would you not agree? If you insist on putting words in my mouth,
> I have to warn you that I spit up!
>
> > nor would I agree that other things are more of a fuss for 4x5.
>
> You can disagree all you like, but starting with 4x5 sheets or pack, everything is more
> of a fuss.
>
> > (3) You can shoot roll film in a 4x5.
>
> If you're gonna shoot roll film and don't need perspective/focus control, why use a
> 4x5?
>
How about:
a. because you already have very excellent lenses for it,
b. because it allows for lens interchangeability (not all MF, special purpose cameras do),
c. because it beats buying a new outfit with all of the necessary lenses, etc.,
d. because the subjects intended lend themselves for it.
Mel, I just recently bought a Horseman 6x12 back for my Sinar 4x5. I got it for a fraction
of any other alternative for panoramics, short of cropping the 4x5 sheets, which in the
long run would add up. I love the pictures, did I make a mistake? I certainly don't think
so.
> > (4) DOF changes if you fix the aperture but you
> > shouldn't.
>
> What ever did you just say there?
Okay what I get is this: DOF is different for the two formats in that one requires more
magnification than the other. So I read it as agreeing with what you said.
>
>
> > All parameters double when you go to
> > 4x5 including f-stop.
>
> What ever did you just say there?
Again, he's sort of agreeing that as you said earlier:
>>"And, comparing a 180 lens for
> > the RB to a 300 for a 4x5, you will lose depth of field for any given aperture,
> > so focusing becomes more critical and you'll need more light to be able to use a
> > smaller aperture."
Based on the imprecise comparisons, I would simply say that there is a needed increase in
exposure, as Mel said.
>
>
> > The two formats will have
> > identical DOF, but you will need to double the
> > f-stop for 4x5 and it will need more light or a
> > longer exposure to compensate.
Bob, the only way the DOF can be identical is provided there is NO difference in
magnification between the two formats, which is possible, if you want to include more
background in a portrait in the larger format, but unlikely. Once you frame the subject the
same the magnification increases by necessity and therefore DOF is less for the larger
format.
> What ever did you just say there?
>
> And uhh, isn't it pretty much what I said?
Now, Mel, if you don't understand, how can it possibly be "pretty much what I said?"
> > *****
> >
> > > The cost of a basic monorail and 300mm lens should be $800-$1000, about the same
> > > as a portrait lens for your RB. But then, compare film cost. From B&H, NPS 120 is
> > > $2.35, and 50 sheets of the same film in 4x5 is $70. So the per-shot cost goes
> > > from $0.24 to $1.40, almost 6 times more. Add at least the same proportion of
> > > increase in processing costs.
> >
> > **********
> > Only if you can find a used camera and lens at a
> > bargain price. A new 4x5 is at least $1000, and a
> > new 300mm is at least $1500. Check B&H. Calumet
> > has a cheapie camera which might be OK for
> > learning, but this doesn't help with the lens
> > price. You can probably find a used lens for about
> > $1000.
>
> I sort of thought it was obvious that I was talking about used stuff. Mea minima
> culpa!.Still, I like your prices: I have a LF rig I would like to sell you!
>
> > ****
> > > Mostly because of your print sizes, I don't see a compelling reason to make the
> > > switch. On the other hand, no major reason not to try a 4x5 if you have the itch.
> > > If it doesn't work out, you can always sell it and get your money back out of it.
> > >
> >
> > **************
> > I agree, you would be better off not switching.
> > There is a fairly steep learning curve for large
> > format,
>
The main point in using the larger formats, provided you're open to it, is that it imposes
a different discipline. The ease of re-formatting among other issues, in say 35mm and to a
lesser extent in MF, contributes to a mind-set which is not conducive to the best
visualization. How often have you heard that in order to get the exposure use print film,
which "can always be adjusted for by the lab"? Are you getting the best on film? NO!
Expedient YES! Very subjective, indeed. Perhaps the justification is in the time allowed,
that is subjective at best. Another one is bracketing. Try that non-sense with 8x10 and see
how many you can afford to waste. What I'm getting at is that there is no substitute for
good technique and judgment in using the tools for the task at hand.
> I could not disagree more about the learning curve. I do agree that most stupid LF
> texts approach swings, shifts, tilts, rises and falls as if they were separate,
> unrelated entities. I say those authors should be severely caned for publishing such
> techno-rot. The simplicity is that all those movements are merely tools for controlling
> focus and perspective of three planes: those of the film, the lens, and the subject.
> Sure, it cannot be learned in an hour, but properly taught, a day is enough.
A day? You actually learned the proper use of a view camera in a day? Awesome. I would
suggest having learned it already, you underestimate just how you accomplished it. Most
people do.
> > and no matter how you try, the costs mount
> > up. Your flexibility is severely limited: action
> > shots are out, and most importantly you will not
> > be able to capture "those illusive smiles" because
>
> Elusive?
>
> > it takes too long to change slides. The only
> > reason you might choose to switch is to achieve
> > the goal you stated "smooth transition between
> > tones." Not everyone can see or appreciate this
> > transition, which is over and above the resolution
> > effects, but if you want it then you must go to
> > large format.
>
> Arggghhh! There it is again! The "smooth transition" thing. I say it's no more than
> magnification of grain.
>
> Ok, Bob, I'm gonna put you on the spot. If this nebulous "smooth transition" factor
> exists, it follows that it can be measured, right? Exactly how? How can we, in our
> cameras and darkrooms, replicate what you say? You say that "Not everyone can see or
> appreciate this transition, which is over and above the resolution effects..."
Mel, perhaps just as there is "color-blindness", there is "tone-blindness". Surely, you can
see it between 35mm and 4x5? No? Hmmmmm......
> So just who can see this "transition"? I admit that I cannot. Maybe you could stage an
> objective test, using both photographers and non-photographers as judges, to determine
> the profile of those who are able to see this phenomenon.
>
> Mel Brown
Or better yet, that of those who can't?
;o)
Dirk Bakker
kro...@mich.com
comments (from both the large format and medium format groups) have
convinced me that a portrait lens (180mm) for my RB67 is the way to go,
based on the fact that I already have some RB gear, and I have no 4x5
gear. The other argument was that the marginal quality improvement may
or may not be worth the marginal effort increase to go to 4x5. Also,
with non-static subjects (like young kids) 4x5 would may not be the
appropriate approach.
My thanks to all.
Regards,
B.J. Kroppe
a_g...@hotmail.com
> What I believe is lacking in my prints is the perspective of a
> "portrait" lens, such as 140/150/180 in 6x7.
...
> So if I am going to invest in a portrait lens, I figure it will cost me
> $800-$1000 for an RB lens (140 Macro, 150 Soft Focus or 180 C).
I'd stay away from the 180. I've heard too many horror stories, although it's
probably the closest to what you're used to with a 100mm lens on your 35mm.
> I would
> really like to know if I can get a good 4x5 camera with 300mm lens for
> that price that would meet or beat the image quality of the RB with
> portrait lens combination.
I take it you already have a 4x5 enlarger? You probably won't see the
difference between 6x7 and 4x5 in an 11x14 print. That's kind of like
expecting to see a difference in a 4x6 35mm print and a 4x5 6x7 print. For
what the 150SF does, it's tough to beat. It's THE lens for soft focus
effects, with the possible exception of the newest 180SF lens for the RZ.
Another factor is how spontaneous your portrait sessions are. Unless you're
using something like a 4x5 reflex camera, you're going to be guessing a lot on
the actual composition of your photos.
> Regards,
On the other hand, a 4x5 has other uses, as well. Best luck in your decision.
- Arved
--
Arved Grass Photography * Orange Park, FL * http://photo.onlineexpress.net
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Msherck
Personally, I think that you made the right approach. For an 11x14 image, I
think it'd take a pretty picky viewer to detect a noticable difference between
4"x5" and 6x7, and unless your head's on backwards the local 'photo expert'
probably isn't the person you're making the prints for, anyway. Good luck!
Mike
Bruce McLaughlin
will really be beneficial given the considerable increase in per shot
cost and the relatively cumbersome camera system presented by 4X5. You
would want at least a 300 MM lens for 4X5 and at portrait distances, you
will find the depth of field so shallow that it is very difficult, if
not impossible to keep active sitters, such as children, in focus, much
less in the frame.
6X7 is used by some of the foremost portrait photographers of the
day. One of the many whose work I admire is Bill Macintosh. He uses an
RZ or RB and his quality is suburb. I strongly recommend you get a lens
of suitable length for your RB and really give it a good trial before
deciding on a 4X5 system.
SPECTRUM
|>:My objective is to improve my portrait photography images, so that I can
|>:produce "stunning" portraits. I realize much of image quality rests on
|>:my shoulders, in terms of lighting, exposure, development, printing and
|>:so on, but I have an equipment question for the groups.
|>:
|>:For $1,000 should I invest in:
|>:
|>:- one lens of ~140/150/180mm in medium format for my RB67
|>:- a 4x5 camera, 270/300 lens, lens board, and film holders
|>:
|>:The dilemma for me is I have an RB which I dearly love, but I have no
|>:4x5 gear. I would like to expand my RB system, but I think 4x5 will
|>:give me the image quality I am after.
|>:
|>:What do you all recommend? This is a subjective question, so your
|>:subjective comments will be appreciated.
|>:
|>:Regards,
|>:
|>:B.J. Kroppe
Personally I love my 140/Macro on my RB 67 ProSD.
Only posed portraits with a lot of light get shot on my Zone
VI or Graflex and then it's usually a "scenic" portrait in
that I'm using either a 150/APO-Symmar or 240/G-Claron which
aren't really long for the 4X5. I think a 355 would be a
good 4X5 portrait lens but I doubt if I would bother as most
of my subjects move far to much for LF camera usage.
Regards,
John S. Douglas
S P E C T R U M P H O T O G R A P H I C I N C .
http://www.spectrumphoto.com
Drew W Saunders
>What I believe is lacking in my prints is the perspective of a
>100mm with my 35mm gear and I really like the results. I can interact
>with the subject, also, which helps to build the moment.
>
>really like to know if I can get a good 4x5 camera with 300mm lens for
>that price that would meet or beat the image quality of the RB with
>portrait lens combination.
Rent the 180, see if you like it.
Then take a class in 4x5 where they let you borrow a camera and at
least a 210mm lens as part of your class fee. See if you like that.
Save up the money to get both the 180 and a cheap 4x5 setup. I'm
afraid my recommendation will get you to liking both.
----------------------
Drew W.Saunders
Stanford Network Consulting
mailto:Drew.S...@Stanford.EDU
http://www.stanford.edu/~dru
(650) 723-1282
Bill Kenner
<d...@NOSPAMleland.stanford.edu> wrote:
> In article <36565534...@mich.com> , kro...@mich.com writes:
> >What I believe is lacking in my prints is the perspective of a
> >"portrait" lens, such as 140/150/180 in 6x7. I've done many shots at
> >100mm with my 35mm gear and I really like the results. I can interact
> >with the subject, also, which helps to build the moment.
> >
> >So if I am going to invest in a portrait lens, I figure it will cost me
> >$800-$1000 for an RB lens (140 Macro, 150 Soft Focus or 180 C). I would
> >really like to know if I can get a good 4x5 camera with 300mm lens for
> >that price that would meet or beat the image quality of the RB with
> >portrait lens combination.
If you have an RB body, I bet that you can get a 180mm lens much cheaper
than $800-1000 that you projected. You might consider a non-C 180 for
portraits, since sharpness is not critical. I use a 140mm C macro lens for
table top work and for portraits I use a Tiffin #1 soft filter (I don't
remember their lettering system).
I think that there is a bubble on RB prices. Dealers usually buy at half
the selling value. I took a 180mm RB lens to a show and the best price I
was offered was $200.00. But, the same dealers wanted $700 for their 180
non C lenses. So it seemed that the current market value would be in the
400 range. I felt that I confirmed that with my own experience. I had
posted it on rec.photo.marketplace for $650 and dropped the price gradually
to $395 before I sold it.
Bill Kenner
Nashville, TN
jchow
Bill Kenner wrote:
>
> I think that there is a bubble on RB prices. Dealers usually buy at half
> the selling value. I took a 180mm RB lens to a show and the best price I
> was offered was $200.00. But, the same dealers wanted $700 for their 180
> non C lenses. So it seemed that the current market value would be in the
> 400 range. I felt that I confirmed that with my own experience. I had
> posted it on rec.photo.marketplace for $650 and dropped the price gradually
> to $395 before I sold it.
Bill, you're absolutely right. Mamiya USA, which also imports Toyo LF
cameras,
marks everything up about 100%. You can buy the same Mamiya/Toyo goods
in Tokyo for
nearly half the price at the cheap chain stores like Yodobashi,
Sakuraya, or Bic.
They don't do any international mailorder, so the only way to get that
price is to
fly to Japan or have someone you know who's going to Japan to buy it for
you. I have a column on photo.net under 'where to buy a camera/buying a
camera in Japan' if anyone is interested. BTW, I don't give price
quotes; I only listed the prices on goods that I've considered buying or
have bought at one time or another.
--Jim