landscape camera questions
Cutter21
What constitutes large or medium format?
Why do landscape photographers use the types of cameras they typically use
instead of using a 35mm camera?
Are there modern landscape cameras being produced/sold these days?
To begin shooting beautiful landscape photos, what would be a good starter
camera?
Is it difficult to get b&w film for these cameras?
thanks
Keith Clark
larger negatives) format is image quality.
No 35mm image can even begin to compare with a professionally done landscape
shot on medium or large format.
There's also the issue of perspective control. You can do a lot more with a
view camera than you can with a tilt/shift lens. For less money.
Keith
Bill Welch
> wrote in message news:379f1486@News...
> What kind of camera is the norm for photographers shooting landscapes?
35mm, medium format, large format. 35mm is favored by the more athletic
photographers who go hiking and camping for days because of its lighter
weight. These are handy for photography in remote areas.
> What constitutes large or medium format?
Medium format cameras have a larger negative than 35mm cameras, typically
6x6cm, 6x7cm or 6x4.5cm. They operate similarly to a 35mm camera except
they are heavier and bulkier and lack many or all of the automatic features
of a 35mm such as autofocus, automatic exposure settings, and automatic film
advance. They do produce a sharper image because of the larger negative
size compared to 35mm and larger prints can be made that retain sharpness.
Large format camera are those monstrosities with bellows that you may
associate with photography of the 1800s. You have to slide one frame of
film in the camera, take a picture, then slide another frame in the camera.
These have the largest negatives and therefore make the sharpest prints.
It's almost impossible to do a hand-held shot with these cameras, you're
pretty well limited to using them on a tripod.
> Why do landscape photographers use the types of cameras they typically use
> instead of using a 35mm camera?
Each photographer has his own style and chooses a camera to match that
style. You'd really have to ask each one. Some do choose a 35mm camera.
> Are there modern landscape cameras being produced/sold these days?
I haven't seen any camera that is advertised as being specifically a
landscape camera.
> To begin shooting beautiful landscape photos, what would be a good starter
> camera?
A Nikon N90s, for example, works quite nicely. Many photographers say the
Nikon N70 is the minimum camera in the Nikon line for a serious amateur.
Choice of film, choice of lenses, and composition are quite important. We
all wish that simply purchasing a particular camera will enable us to
instantly take beautiful photographs, but it is unfortunatly not that
simple. Medium format and large format cameras are quite expensive and the
camera bodies alone usually cost in the thousands of dollars unless you buy
used equipment. There are plenty of photographs in National Geographic that
were taken with a 35mm camera.
> Is it difficult to get b&w film for these cameras?
Not 35mm. I don't know about medium format and large format.
> thanks
>
>
You're welcome.
Bill Welch
ann
>
>What kind of camera is the norm for photographers shooting landscapes?
>instead of using a 35mm camera?
>camera?
>
>
Hi,
I used to have the same questions some 8 months back when I began photo. From
what I know, medium and large format cameras have a larger negative and that
equate to larger prints and sharper smaller prints. Medium formats are of
variety from 6x4.5 to 6x17 cm. Modern large formats vary from 4in x 5in in to
excess of 20in x 24in. I began with 35mm, 5 months later went to medium, and
3 months later I got a large format. Bottom line, you can choose what ever
camera you want. If you would like a lot of detail and enlarge your photos
beyond 16x20 you should use a large format. It might not be a good idea to
start with Large Format because of film costs. B&W films are available in
plenty for Large, Medium, Petite formats.
Best Regard
Ann,
---
Rich Satterlee
in line answers to your questions. For additional details on large
format cameras, please visit the sister newsgroup
rec.photo.equipment.large-format.
Cutter21 (cch...@yahoo.com) wrote:
: What kind of camera is the norm for photographers shooting landscapes?
large format. Usually a "field camera". Although monorail and press
cameras are often used.
: What constitutes large or medium format?
Typically (nowadays) medium format is roll film 6cm wide with a variety
of formats starting usually at 6X4.5 cm and going to 6X17 cm. Large
format usually starts at 4X5 inches and goes up to 5X7, 8x10, 11X14
inches. There are other sizes (like banquet cameras) but pretty rare.
Most large format use sheet film although there are roll film holders
available.
: Why do landscape photographers use the types of cameras they typically use
: instead of using a 35mm camera?
The size of the negative, perspective control, and localized focus. Most
large format cameras have some sort of "movement". From just simple tilt
in the press cameras to tilt, swing, shift, rise/fall in both lens standard
for monorails and some subset of all of these for "field" or flatbed
cameras. In other words, the "lens" standard and the "film" standard
can be adjusted so they are not parallel to each other as in a 35mm
camera. Now you others, don't go telling me about a 35mm PC shift lens,
thank you, we are talking generalities here.
Using these controls allows one to correct for perspection
inconsistancies. A typical case. If shooting up on a large stand of
trees, the trees seem to come together. This is called rectilinear
distortion. You can correct for this using tilts on the camera.
With the lens standard non-parallel to each other, you can also adjust
the shape of the depth of field in scenes. If you try to get a
landscape with sharp detail in both the forground and background with
a 35mm camera, you might not have a small enough iris in order to do so.
With a non-parallel lens/film standard combination, you make a "cone"
of acceptable sharpness, allowing for detail in the foreground and
background.
: Are there modern landscape cameras being produced/sold these days?
yep, a whole bunch of them as a matter of fact. Going to the large
format group will tell you about them. New ones (sans lens) can be had
for about $500.00 up (and up and up and up). Used ones go for even less.
: To begin shooting beautiful landscape photos, what would be a good starter
: camera?
First start off with a couple of books. There is also "View Camera" magazine.
Or a class in a local Jr. college might help. I personally like my
Tachihara 4x5 as a starter camera for landscapes. I have a monorail camera
(got it first) and was tramping around the seashore on the San Mateo coast
of California a few years ago, carrying the monorail in it's rigid box
and stuff. Total must have been around 40lbs or so. All of a sudden
I sank up to my ankles in mud. Told myself right then and there that I
needed a lighter camera.......
: Is it difficult to get b&w film for these cameras?
Absolutely not! There are quite a number of emulsions available from
most of the big film producers. You can even get Polaroid that produces
both a print and a b&w negative at the same time!
: thanks
Hope this helps,
Cheers,
Rich S.
Bill Rea
: What kind of camera is the norm for photographers shooting landscapes?
I don't think there is a "norm" - all sizes are used.
: What constitutes large or medium format?
Medium format uses roll film about 6cm wide. Large format starts at
4 x 5 inches and goes up from there.
: Why do landscape photographers use the types of cameras they typically use
: instead of using a 35mm camera?
They do use 35mm, but there are reasons for going to a larger size.
Landscapes aren't going to run away, fly away, or squeel the tires
and drive away from you, so you can
get there, set up, and take your picture when the light it right. No
need to be fast. Often I say to myself I see a photograph here, then
when at home I figure when's the best time and go back and the
picture is still there. I always carry 35mm, so if I need to do
something quickly, I can.
The image quality is better. Even though good 35mm
lenses are sharper that MF lenses, and MF lenses are sharper than
LF lenses, the large image size more than compensates. LF cameras by
their very nature make you slow down and really think about what
you're doing. You have to be deliberate and careful, there are
more ways to make mistakes with LF than you can shake a stick
at!
But for me, the bottom line is that for landscapes sold through a
stock agency, my 4x5s sell. I've yet to sell a 35mm landscape.
: Are there modern landscape cameras being produced/sold these days?
If you mean medium/large format then yes, but unless you're filthy rich
don't even think about it.
The camera is just the start, there's a lot of other stuff you need,
particularly in large format.
: To begin shooting beautiful landscape photos, what would be a good starter
: camera?
Well you could start with a good 35mm camera. But you really don't want to,
I'd recommend buying second hand. I got a Linhof Technica III, monster
Gitzo tripod, focusing loupe, 10 film holders, filter folder, and focusing
cloth for around 60% of the cost of a top of the line Canon 35mm body.
I would suggest you go for a Technica IV, the III is a bit limited
in movements.
But you have to ask yourself - is this really me? LF photographers
are rare in this part of the world. I allow myself a minimum of
20 minutes to take a photograph. In these days of speed, haste,
pace, and rush, most people don't seem to be able to slow down
enough to work a LF camera properly. The occasional pro I've
met in the field look at me like I really ought to be locked
up.
You should rent before you buy. You don't want to plunk down big
sums of money only to find you hate working with LF. You might find
MF to be the right balance between larger image and ease of use.
: Is it difficult to get b&w film for these cameras?
: thanks
A good range is available, not as wide as 35mm, but no problems
getting film.
--
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail b dot rea at its dot canterbury dot ac dot nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'
PBurian
>There's also the issue of perspective control. You can do a lot more with a
>view camera than you can with a tilt/shift lens. For less money.
>
>Keith
Sure, but how many people on this board want to buy a view camera?
Not me.
Peter Burian
Nicholas O. Lindan
> > Keith wrote
> > > Someone wrote:
> > > What camera for landscapes.
> > View camera
> Sure, but how many people on this board want to buy a view camera?
Well, can't answer that.
Can answer how many don't: One.
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> >
> >There's also the issue of perspective control. You can do a lot more with a
> >view camera than you can with a tilt/shift lens. For less money.
> >
> >Keith
>
>
Hi Peter,
Me, for one. I already own a couple and am always in the market for a
better mousetrap. Afterall, this group is SUPPOSED to be format
exclusive. You'd never know it with all the Nikon vs. Canon pissing
contests that go on here, but some nature photographers actually prefer
a big piece of film over things like image stabilization, autofocus and
programmed auto-exposure. Since the original poster was asking
specifically about cameras for landscape photography, I think the
recommendation for a large format camera was entirely appropriate.
Afterall, I haven't met a landscape yet that would benefit more from
predictive autofocus than from a big piece of film and the ability to
use camera movements. All formats have their place, and 35mm is
certainly THE format for a great many (most) applications, but for the
static landscape, it's still hard to beat large format.
Kerry
--
Kerry L. Thalmann Large Format Images of Nature
A Few of My Images Online at: http://www.thalmann.com/
Gary Richards
beats the larger foramts. Many foks think that for a landscape image to work it
has to be large. I do not believe type of thinking. Small intimate landscape
images can be just as interesting as a large print. Landscape photography does not
mean large format photography, unless of course, you want really big images. Once
again, it all comes down to what your main goal of the image is going to be.
GQR
PBurian
>What is wrong with suggesting something other than a 35mm solution to a
>question
>that never precluded any format?
>
Nothing wrong at all as long as we understand that the discussion is not too
practical for amateur photogs who do not plan to buy large format.
Peter Burian
PBurian
I am not suggesting that 35mm is ideal for landscape photography, for
professionals. Or even for the odd sale to calendars.
I'm just wondering how practical the advice is to someone who is first starting
to wonder what lens to use for landscapes.
Still, I will say that the view camera is ideal for landscapes. But what % of
people here will ever buy one?
Nikon vs. Canon: Yeah, that discussion has little real merit. Right now I'm
testing a new Maxum camera with the Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8ED and their
17-35mm Aspherical. Superb optics.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>images can be just as interesting as a large print. >>>
Yeah, I guess we never did discuss the diff between the panoramic grand
landscape and the intimate landscape - small details of a scene vs. the
overview.
For the latter, one often needs long lenses, not perspective control. And for
that need, 35mm is more practical in terms of size and price.
Peter Burian
Kerry L. Thalmann
> I am not suggesting that 35mm is ideal for landscape photography, for
> professionals. Or even for the odd sale to calendars.
>
> I'm just wondering how practical the advice is to someone who is first starting
> to wonder what lens to use for landscapes.
Hi Peter,
The original poster asked specifically:
"What constitutes large or medium format? Why do landscape
photographers use the types of cameras they typically use instead of
using a 35mm camera?"
So, obviously the original poster is at least considering large format
(or at the very least would like to know why NOT to consider it).
> Still, I will say that the view camera is ideal for landscapes. But what % of
> people here will ever buy one?
Probably very few (but them hom many will buy a 400mm f2.8 IS lens?).
Point is, the original poster asked specifically about large format (and
medium format) for landscapes. I'm not claiming it's the "popular
choice", just trying to help the original poster make an informed
decision.
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> You are correct in stating that if larger images are your main goal then nothing
> beats the larger foramts. Many foks think that for a landscape image to work it
> has to be large. I do not believe type of thinking. Small intimate landscape
> images can be just as interesting as a large print. Landscape photography does not
> mean large format photography, unless of course, you want really big images. Once
> again, it all comes down to what your main goal of the image is going to be.
> GQR
Hi Gary,
You make some very valid points. I wholeheartedly agree with your last
sentence. No format is "the best" for all photographers or all
situations (guess that's why we have everything from APS - 12x20 - and
beyond). Without knowing exactly what the original posters intentions
are, it's impossible to give a specific recommendation. Still he/she
asked specifically about the advantages of large format (and medium
format) for shooting landscapes. He/she also asked specifically about
black and white film for these cameras. In black and white, large
format has the added advantage of controlling the development of each
individual exposure (Zone System) and also has advantages for many of
the non-silver alternative printing processes. I also like to shoot
what Eliot Porter called "intimate landscapes". For me, 4x5 is the
"ideal" format for such work. Even in modestly sized prints (8x10 -
11x14), you can capture more of the minute details present in such
scenes. I've also seen exquisite 5x7 platinum prints (contact printed
from 5x7 negatives) that were truly little gems. Still, as you say,
large format is not for everyone or everything - just works well for me
and what I like to shoot.
Kerry L. Thalmann
> Yeah, I guess we never did discuss the diff between the panoramic grand
> landscape and the intimate landscape - small details of a scene vs. the
> overview.
>
> For the latter, one often needs long lenses, not perspective control. And for
> that need, 35mm is more practical in terms of size and price.
Hi Peter,
I shoot both types of landscapes, and prefer 4x5 in both situations
(but, that's just my opinion). I think we need to define "intimate
landscape" a little better so we are all talking about the same thing.
I associate the term with the work of Eliot Porter (I'm not sure if he
was the first to coin the term, but I have often seen it associated with
his work). In this case, it is definitely NOT macro (for which 35mm has
a huge advantage in the field). I have also heard the term "portraits
of the earth", and I often use the term "intermediate landscapes". For
me, these types of landscapes fall somwhere between the macro and the
"grand landscape". In my own work, I usually consider them to be
photographs that select some specific feature of a landscape and isolate
it from it's surroundings. That typically means no sky (as in the
"grand landscape"), or other elements that draw the viewers eye away
from the intended subject.
Still, I am confused by your last statement. FOR MY USE (your mileage
may vary), I consider large format the ideal format for such style of
shooting. My favorite lenses for this type of subject are the 210mm and
300mm (about 65 - 85mm in the 35mm format). This gives a very natural,
comfortable perspective (similar focal lengths are commonly used for
portraits - the traditional "head shots"). If I can't get close enough
to the subject, I do have longer lenses, but I prefer to get close and
work with the 210 or 300. Being close to the subject is often what
draws me into the details of the scene and excites my creative juices in
the first place. The large format allows me capture those details with
greater clarity than the smaller formats. I believe Eliot Porter also
used a 4x5 for such work, and the current master is Christopher Burkett
who works in the 8x10 format (if you haven't yet seen it, I HIGHLY
recommend his new book "Intimations of Paradise"). I don't wish to
start another "who uses what" thread, just trying to point out that the
"traditional" formats for "imtimate landscapes" (as described above) are
the large formats. Doesn't mean they are for everyone, I just don't
think they should automatically be excluded (especially given the
original poster's question).
Kerry L. Thalmann
Hi Peter,
Given that the original poster specifically asked about large format
cameras for landscape photography, I think it's entirely appropriate to
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the format for this
particualr application.
As far as amatuer photographers, why shouldn't they consider a large
format camera for this application. There are a ton of older used
cameras out there that are great for someone who wants to give large
format a try. There are even some great buys in new equipment. It's
possible to get a new camera, lens, a few film holders and a darkcloth
for under a $1000. My first large format camera was a 40 year old Speed
Graphic. I paid $200 for the camera, lens and a couple film holders. I
used it for about a year, decided I liked the format enough to upgrade,
and sold the Speed to another "beginner" for the same $200 (try that
with a modern 35mm AF SLR). I was an amatuer when I started shooting in
large format, but I've had several photos published that were made with
that $200 Speed Graphic outfit (and even have a couple 20x24s at a local
galley and a couple images featured on my web page).
Large format definately isn't for everyone, but I don't think people
should automatically dismiss it just because they are amatuers. As Gary
Richards mentioned, there is no one ideal format for all photographers
or subjects. To limit yourself to 35mm without even considering the
other formats is to place an unnecessary and arbitrary limit on your
photographic potential.
Dan Smith, Photographer
Kerry L. Thalmann <K.Tha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:37A3E1...@worldnet.att.net...
> PBurian wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >There's also the issue of perspective control. You can do a lot more
with a
> > >view camera than you can with a tilt/shift lens. For less money.
> > >
> > >Keith
> >
> > Sure, but how many people on this board want to buy a view camera?
> >
> > Not me.
But, if you really want to do your landscape right, nothing beats the
larger chrome or negative for quality and the LF cameras for control. The
highest quality helps make images that look even better. 35mm has its place
and is fine, but put your slides on a light table next to LF chromes and
watch the reaction of the viewer.
dan smith
DWA652
shooting 35mm for close-ups (N90 or F4 with 200mm f4 macro), medium format for
most general landscapes (Fuji GX-680, occasionally Pentax 6x7), and large
format 4x5 for fairly wide angle landscapes (Calumet Woodfield with Nikkor 90
f4.5 or Caltar 210 f5.6).
I confess I cheat with the large format, since I use a reflex viewer and Fuji
Quickloaders. Without them, the Fuji GX-680 spoils me too much to shoot the
4x5!).
True confessions!
God Bless,
Don Allen
http://www.DonAllen.net
http://members.xoom.com/donallenfoto
Photos + a large set of photo links including my PHOTO BOOK LIST - NOW WITH
BOOK REVIEWS!!!!
Liz Leyden
(PBurian) wrote:
>
> >
> >What is wrong with suggesting something other than a 35mm solution to a
> >question
> >that never precluded any format?
> >
>
> Nothing wrong at all as long as we understand that the discussion is not
> too practical for amateur photogs who do not plan to buy large format.
Likewise the discussion on megabucks lenses.
:) or :(, depending on one's POV.
It doesn't hurt us 'poor amateurs' to find out about what pros and the
wealthier amateurs use and why, and if we don't want our noses rubbed in it,
we can always use the 'delete' button.
Liz
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ lizl...@argonet.co.uk
Cutter21
>Why do landscape photographers use the types of cameras they typically use
>instead of using a 35mm camera?
being what I consider a camera of choice by landscape photographers. All one
has to do is look at photo books to see that nearly all great photographers
have used a larger format to capture their best works.
I know that 35 mm "can" be used for outdoor shots. Some may even be great
with a 35mm camera and it's lenses. But I want to acquire a camera that has
a very good, proven record, that will help me make great landscape
photographs, like the great photographers work (think of A. Adams work).
It is a simple question of, What are the NAMES AND MODELS of some of the
most used landscape cameras? Many people have responded to this post to
include only a format size. I would like to know camera names and models. I
do not personally wish to "weed out" one company from another company
through trial and error. I will take the word of camera experts and their
experiences with the cameras.
I have learned quite a lot from the responses so far actually, I didn't know
that there would be controversy included. I suppose that people who shoot
mainly 35mm don't like to hear that their's is not as good as someone elses.
Let the records speak for themselves and let the ego's swell as they may.
I am looking for a format larger than 35mm to shoot landscapes and I need
help with that.
Thanks to all who have contributed to help me.
Michael Mutmansky
You are possibly going through the same types of deliberations I went through
about a year ago when I decided I wanted to "go large". Maybe this will help
you.
Without a doubt, the most common format in large format is 4"x5". This format
has the most film available and all camera lines are made around this format.
Some camera lineas also make 8x10, 11x14, and others, but you will find these
few and far between. Lenses and other used equipment is quite plentiful in the
4x5 format.
I consider 4x5 to be the smallest "large format" format. I make the distinction
at the availability of rollfilm, which in not available larger than the 120-220
format of the 6x6 (cm) and other similar formats. There is a 2x3" format out
there, but film is not readily available, and it is effectively a medium format,
anyway.
Despite Peter's comment to the contrary, I beileve there is a great deal that
people can learn from an infusion of large format discussion every once and a
while, but this may really be better served by r.p.e.lf.
As far as equipent goes, I don't get the impression that there is one line of
camera that covers the market. While one camera could probably cover the
majority of the market, using these cameras is so based on personal taste, that
there is great disagreement on this body, or that body, etc...
Some common manufacturers are Wista, Winser, Zone VI, Tachihara, Toyo, Linhof.
I personally use a camera by Canham, which has a pretty good following among
landscape photographers. In fact, I heard that it is the best selling large
format camera in America right now... (don't know about the validity of that).
Some of those listyed are wooden field cameras, some are metal field, and some
are not quite either. I consider the Canham a field camera, but it doesn't have
the traditional focusing rails, and is really more like a monorail than a field
camera. Since it collapses into a small package, I think it fits the field
category. Likewise for the Linhof, and one model of the Toyo.
Popular Photography did a writeup of sub- $2000 cameras last fall that is worth
a trip to the library for. It discusses many cameras, many not mentiond here,
and also the steps to putting together a beginner large format system.
Good luck,
---Michael
PBurian
never been a secret.
So why are they not selling like hotcakes?
Peter Burian
Norm
Now, that qualifies as a ------- (fill in the appropriate word) statement.
Could it possibly be that there aren't as many dedicated Landscape
photographers as there are Disneyland or aunt Matilda photographers?
PBurian
photographers
have used a larger format to capture their best works.>>>
Sure. And most great wildlife photogs today use 600mm f/4 or 500mm f/4 lenses.
(Check the credits in the books of photos of the annual BBC Wildlife photo
competition.)
But are we all professional wildlife or landscape photography specialists? Do
we NEED that equipment to make excellent images? Can we afford the
weight/size/cost?
Does Galen Rowell use large format for his excellent landscapes? Can we not
make good wildlife images with a 400mm f/5.6 and a 1.4x converter?
Yes, certain equipment is ideal for those who specialize in a field. But how
practical is it for 99% of photo enthusiasts?
This entire discussion is interesting, of course, but how about another topic?
"How can I make excellent landscape images with 35mm equipment?"
Tim Fitzharris has a book out on this topic.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>worth a trip to the library for. It discusses many cameras, many not mentiond
>here, and also the steps to putting together a beginner large format system.
>>>>>>
Yes, that article is worth seeking out. It really provides an excellent
overview as well as the pros and cons.
What % of readers will actually go out and buy such a system is questionable
but the educational value should not be under estimated.
Peter Burian
S. Boyd
be rough with your equipment stick with the metal cameras. If you think you
will want to do a lot of contact printing you might consider an 8 X 10
format, however enlargers, and other accessories are extremely expensive. 4
X 5 is usually the format of choice. In metal the Toyo field is very
popular, in wood models you can choose between Zone IV, Wisner, Wista,
Tachihara, and others. As to lenses, probably the most popular sizes in the
4 X 5 format are between 120mm, and 210mm. Each photographer has his
personal choice. Probably my most used lens is my 210mm, with 120mm next.
There are many used field cameras available, check Shutterbug, however you
don't need to be bound by "field" cameras. There are many "studio" cameras
that perform well in the field. Check Calumet Photo for some economical
models.
Hope this helps,
Stu
Jaan Peets
>
> Kerry:
>
> I am not suggesting that 35mm is ideal for landscape photography, for
> professionals. Or even for the odd sale to calendars.
>
> I'm just wondering how practical the advice is to someone who is first starting
> to wonder what lens to use for landscapes.
>
> people here will ever buy one?
>
I regret the years of shooting that I did of landscapes with 35 mm, only
to see medium format stuff on display at an art show...Also, even with
all the image degradation in magazine printing, you can usually pick out
35 mm vs medium format vs large format in our favourite publications. is
it my imagination, or is there an increasing preseance of larger than 35
mm format stuff in Outdoor Photographer, etc.? Even Art Wolfe is
drifting into medium format for landscapes.
I really should have investigated early on as to all the options - if
you are absolutely keen on landscapes, and want largish prints, I feel
strongly that one should invest in at least a medium format system. This
need not be mega bucks. A twin lens Mamiya system (used) with normal and
wide lenses should be had for under $1,000, and will give great
results.
If you don't like it, you can sell it without a major financial
catastrophe.
Jaan
Michael Mutmansky
Jaan Peets wrote:
<snip>
> A twin lens Mamiya system (used) with normal and
> wide lenses should be had for under $1,000, and will give great
> results.
> If you don't like it, you can sell it without a major financial
> catastrophe.
>
> Jaan
Another possibility for a good medium format system is the Pentax 6x7. There is
loads of used equipment out there, and it operates much like a 35mm camera, so a
person used to 35mm can get in and get going quickly.
However, the reason that I wanted to get into larger format equipment was to _slow
down_ my image making process. The Pentax only slowed me down enough for a couple of
spot meter readings (i.e. it was a bit too much like a 35mm camera.). I wanted to
become more contemplative in my image making, so I felt a 4x5 was the only way to go.
---Michael
Jaan Peets
versatility. But moving to 4X5 was very instructive for precisely the
reasons you mention. You do a *lot* more analysis and self-critique
*before* the shot is taken. It definitely helps. I was just suggesting
that people do not have to jump from 35 mm to 4X5 in order to see a
quantum leap improvement in image quality for landscapes.
Jaan
Michael Mutmansky
Jaan Peets wrote:
<snip>
>
> Understood. I too have the Pentax system, and love it for low cost and
> versatility. But moving to 4X5 was very instructive for precisely the
> reasons you mention. You do a *lot* more analysis and self-critique
> *before* the shot is taken. It definitely helps. I was just suggesting
> that people do not have to jump from 35 mm to 4X5 in order to see a
> quantum leap improvement in image quality for landscapes.
>
> Jaan
Absolutely. going to 4x5 in one step is a _big_ jump from 35mm. If you don't have access
to a darkroom, and/or can't take a class, it will be a hard move. You can read all you
want, but book knowledge on large format doesn't translate into ability to use the camera
in the field. Having someone show you the way is quite useful...
One nice thing about landscape photography is that there is generally time to spend
fumbling with the equipment. Just make sure you are there 20 minutes early for the best
light!
In fact, I was remiss in my first post that I didn't mention 120 film backs for the 4x5
camera. In fact, this is a method to get all the functionality of the 4x5 without dealing
with the sheet film hassles. Several companies make cameras with movements like a 4x5 but
are designed specifically around the 120 fim format. If it were my money, I'd go all the
way up to 4x5 and then use a 120 back. This allows the user more film format choices...
---Michael
Liz Leyden
>
> I am the originator of this thread, with it's basic questions, including:
> Why do landscape photographers use the types of cameras they typically
> use instead of using a 35mm camera?
> You can see that in the original post, I have indeed precluded 35mm from
> one has to do is look at photo books to see that nearly all great
> photographers have used a larger format to capture their best works.
Maybe so, but see Yuan Li's "The Expressionist Landscape" for beautiful
landscapes taken on 35mm.
Canon, for what it's worth. (Tee hee.)
Liz
A Pentax/Sigma user
Kerry L. Thalmann
> You can see that in the original post, I have indeed precluded 35mm from
> being what I consider a camera of choice by landscape photographers. All one
> has to do is look at photo books to see that nearly all great photographers
> have used a larger format to capture their best works.
> I know that 35 mm "can" be used for outdoor shots. Some may even be great
> with a 35mm camera and it's lenses. But I want to acquire a camera that has
> a very good, proven record, that will help me make great landscape
> photographs, like the great photographers work (think of A. Adams work).
> It is a simple question of, What are the NAMES AND MODELS of some of the
> most used landscape cameras? Many people have responded to this post to
> include only a format size. I would like to know camera names and models. I
> do not personally wish to "weed out" one company from another company
> through trial and error. I will take the word of camera experts and their
> experiences with the cameras.
Hi,
Problem is there are just too many choices. There are literally 100s of
models to choose from on the new and used markets. Everything from $200
Graphics to multi-thousand dollar monorails. Without knowing your needs
or your budget, it is impossible to narrow it down to one class of
camera, let alone a specific model. Still, I'll give you some pointers
and make a couple general recommendations. This will, hopefully, help
you to start narrowing down the choices.
I wouldn't fret the camera choice too much. Basically, all large format
cameras are a compromise between lightweight and compactness (important
if you plan to carry it very far) vs. versatility and rigidity. There
are several models at each end, and many more that lie somewhere in
between. Since you probably won't know prior to purchase, which
features and trade-offs work best for you, your first view camera
probably won't be your last (or you might get lucky the first time and
never feel the urge to switch).
It doesn't really matter much. Unlike 35mm, lenses from any
manufacturer will work on cameras of any brand. Since there is no
dedicated lens mount on the bodies (just a lensboard that is easily
swapped), you won't likely see endless the Brand C vs. Brand N wars that
are typical in the smaller formats. So, you are free to choose lenses
from any manufacture (currently, the big four are - in no specific
order: Fuji, Nikon, Schneider and Rodenstock) and mount them on any
camera you choose. Plus, there are a number of older lenses from
manufacturers that no longer make large format lenses. The older Kodak
Ektars (Commercial Ektars, Ektars and Wide Field Ektars) are highly
regarded, test well and can be real bargains. In any event, the
majority of your investment will eventually be in lenses. Buy the best
you can afford, and then if you change cameras in the future you can
keep the same lenses (at worst case, you may have to buy a few new
lensboards to match your new camera).
Here's some great resources to help narrow down your search:
The best general large format resource online is:
http://HTTP.CS.Berkeley.EDU/~qtluong/photography/lf/
A very thorough web site dedicated to Graphics (Speed, Crown, Super,
etc.), that also contains some good information on older lenses is at:
B&H has a great online catalog (also available in a printed version)
with specs and prices for a great variety of new large format cameras,
lenses and accessories at:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/photo/large/navigation.html
Also check out the newgroup rec.photo.equipment.large-format and do some
dejanews searches on that group as well.
There are a lot of other resources out there from various manufacturers
(Wisner Cameras, Scheider lenses, etc.), dealeras that specialize in
large format gear (the F-Stops Here, Badger Graphic Sales, etc.) and
users. Since the popular press largely ignores large photography (they
hardly ever feature any articles on large format equipment even though
a very large percentage of the photographs they publish - especially
cover shots - are made with large format gear), your best bet to get the
information you need to make an informed decision is the internet.
As far as specific cameras go, for landscape photography (not knowing
your specific preferences), there's a lot to choose from. In new
lightweight wood fields, the Tachihara is an affordable (about $550)
entry level model. Wista wooden models are similar in features, a
little better made, but more expensive (about $800 - depending on
model). As long as you only work with lenses in the moderately wide to
slightly long range, you may never outgrow these models. Their light
weight is especially welcome if you plan to backpack with your large
format gear. Models with more features and longer bellows are available
from Zone VI, Canham, Lotus and Wisner (several models with various
combinations of weight and features). These are in the $1500 - $2500
price range new, and of course heavier and bulkier. In metal field
cameras, Wista, Toyo, Horesman and Linhof all make cameras of similar
design (drop bead that folds up into a compact, self-contained package
for transport). The Hoserman is the smallest and lightest, but has the
most limitations. The Linhof is the heaviest and most versatile, but
also the most expensive (about $5000 new). Wista and Toyo have models
starting at about $1500. Very versatile metal cameras are available
from Canham (DLC45), Linhof (Techhikardan) and Arca Swiss (F-Line).
These are in the $2000 - $3000 range. The Canham is the lightest of
these three, and folds up the smallest. It's not as small or light as
the lightest wood fields, but a lot more versatile. The Linhof
Technikardan is a unique collapsible mono-rail design. It is
(realtively) heavy and expensive compared to other field cameras, but it
is very well made and quite versatile. The Arca Swiss is a complete
system monorail that is available in a nearly infinite number of
configurations from 2x3 - 8x10. It can be configured as a fairly light
camera for hiking, or a full featured monorail for studio use.
Those are just a few of the choices in new cameras. There are also a
ton of used cameras. The older wooden models (Korona, Kodak, Burke &
James, Agfa, etc.) tend to be heavier and bulkier than the more modern
counterparts. Still, they can be very affordable, and if you find one
in decent shape, it wouldn't be a bad choice for a first large format
camera. Many people swear by the Graphics as a good entry level large
format camera. They are very plentiful and still quite affordable.
They lack the extensive movements of a full-featured camera, but are
still a good starting point. My first large format camera was a Speed
Graphic (although I'd recommend a Crown for landscape use, it's a little
smaller and lighter). The reasons I "upgraded" to something more
versatile was the lack of back movements and the necessitity to flop the
camera over on it's side for verticals (most other large format cameras
allow you to switch from horizontal to vertical by rotating the back -
or removing it, turning it 90 degrees and re-installing it). The last
Graphic press camera was the Super Graphic. It has a rotating back and
better front movements, but still lacks back movements. Used Linhoh
Technikas are of similar design, but add limited back movements. They
are very well built metal cameras, and if you can find one in decent
shape at a decent price, a Tech III or better yet, Tech IV can make a
pretty decent field camera.
That's just a brief summary of what's available, new and used. I'm sure
I've left out many brands and models. Once you've done a little
research and narrowed it down to a handfull of models, I suggest you
post an inquiry to rec.photo.equipment.large-format. The people there
can probably help you narrow your choice further. Best thing to do is
get something, no matter how limited and start shooting with it. You'll
learn the basics of handling sheet film and using a view camera. Then,
if you find your camera too limiting for your style of photography, you
can sell it, buy something else, but keep your lenses (film holders,
tripod, lightmeter, etc.). Chances are you won't loose much money if
you bought new, or if you bought used and were a prudent shopper, you
will likely break even or maybe even get a small return on your
investment.
PBurian
improved, more lenses avaialable, etc.
Problem is: not many perspective control lenses in medium format.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>photographers as there are Disneyland or aunt Matilda photographers?>>>
Yes. And most photo enthusiasts would not qualify as "dedicated landscape
photographers". Most shoot a broad range of subject matter.
Peter Burian
KevinONeil
>Yes, medium format is becoming more and more common as the cameras are
improved, more lenses avaialable, etc.
>
>Problem is: not many perspective control lenses in medium format.
That is why a good number of large format photographers also carry a rollfilm
back for their cameras. That allows you to use rollfilm (120/220), have all of
the tilt/shift controls of a large format camera, and not spend an outrageous
amount for a Fuji 680 or Hasselblad Flex-body.
Kevin...@AOL.Com
Nature Images and Articles on Techniques at:
http://members.aol.com/kevinoneil
Kerry L. Thalmann
Hi Peter,
By every indication I've seen over the last decade, large format sales
are on the rise and appear to be at an all time high. Granted, the
number of units sold is infitessimal compared to 35mm, but this
ceartainly seems to be the golden age of large format photography.
There are a huge number of brands and models to choose from in all price
ranges and styles, and new models are being announced with surprising
frequency. There is strong competition among the manufacturers, and
competition drives innovation. As a result, affordable, lighweight,
full featured cameras are now available that were pure fantasy even five
years ago. In terms of equipment choices, it's a great time to be a
large format user.
Why is this happening? I think there are several factors. Number one
probably being a strong US ecomomy where a large percentage of the
population has the disposable income (or at least the pre-approved
credit) to indulge themselves. I also think there is a bit of backlash
against the technology that is becoming prevelant in all aspects of our
daily lives. Some people just like to slow down and do things the old
fashioned way. This may not be practical in most aspects of our daily
grind (trading in the car for a horse, the computer for a manual
typwriter, or even a quill and ink well), but in what is, to most people
a liesure pursuit, like landscape photography, there is often a great
deal of satisfaction in slowing down and doing things the way they used
to be done. There is also the quality issue. Although most commercial
musicians record their music using hi-tech electronic key boards, there
is still a segment of the population that ejoys playing, or listening to
a grand piano. For some, the tactile experience of using such a
traditional instrument outweighs the cost and limitations. Same with a
view camera. Not everyone craves automation and computer control in
every aspect of their lives. For many people, just the act of handling
a fine mahogany field camera makes them feel a connection with the past
masters.
So, for some people, it's a romantic thing, for others, it actually has
practical and commercial advantages. It's not for everyone, to be sure,
but for some it is the ultimate photographic experience. Others simply
think a view camera is a big, bulky, heavy, expensive, old fashioned,
slow to use, pain in the posterior with no practical application. To
each his own.
Sean Cox
>
> I shoot both types of landscapes, and prefer 4x5 in both situations
> (but, that's just my opinion). I think we need to define "intimate
> landscape" a little better so we are all talking about the same thing.
> I associate the term with the work of Eliot Porter (I'm not sure if he
> was the first to coin the term, but I have often seen it associated with
> his work). In this case, it is definitely NOT macro (for which 35mm has
> a huge advantage in the field).
Umm, I think I'm missing something here--I always thought that LF
had the big advantage in macro work. All my LF lenses are macro (with
enough
bellows) way, way past 1:1 (remembering to compensate for bellows
extension).
As I last perused 35mm lenses (Nikon is what I use), only a subset of
lenses
were macro, and 1:1 at *best*. Sure, whatever you're shooting better
not move
much (or at all :-) but I don't understand how you give 35mm the benefit
for
landscape (which here in New England doesn't move much, YMMV :)
> [snipped discussion of "intimate landscape"]
Wondering what I missed here....
--Sean
sc...@interport.net
Greenwich, CT
Sean Cox
>
> I am the originator of this thread, with it's basic questions, including:
> >Why do landscape photographers use the types of cameras they typically use
> >instead of using a 35mm camera?
>
>
> It is a simple question of, What are the NAMES AND MODELS of some of the
> most used landscape cameras? Many people have responded to this post to
> include only a format size. I would like to know camera names and models. I
> do not personally wish to "weed out" one company from another company
> through trial and error. I will take the word of camera experts and their
> experiences with the cameras.
> that there would be controversy included. I suppose that people who shoot
> mainly 35mm don't like to hear that their's is not as good as someone elses.
> Let the records speak for themselves and let the ego's swell as they may.
> I am looking for a format larger than 35mm to shoot landscapes and I need
> help with that.
> Thanks to all who have contributed to help me.
I use 4x5 for my landscapes (well, seascapes around here) and I work
with
a Bender camera (www.benderphoto.com) which is made as a kit to be
assembled by
the purchaser. It costs $249 and a few hours of your time--mine took
about 3 weeks
to build @ 1-2 hours per night (time that would have otherwise been
spent in front
of the TV). The camera is a monorail, but since it's wood (cherry) it
is very light,
my tripod (Bogen) is *way* heavier than the camera plus lenses, plus
polaroid holder,
etc. Having hiked a few miles through Paris with it on my back, my only
issue about
weight concerns how expensive those carbon-fiber tripods are :-)
My primary lens (Nikon 210) was bought used at B&H for ~$400, I got a
Pentax spotmeter for ~200, and film holders at ~16/each (B&H again).
All in, I
had spent under $1,000 to start taking LF photos (compare just a
medium-level body
in 35mm, or *any* MF setup). It surely takes much more preparation and
awareness
to use LF (always close the shutter between focusing and removing the
darkslide :-)
but it gives you a lot more to work with. It's pretty nice to be able
to use rise/fall
to get those stupid cars out of the frame :-)
--Sean
sc...@interport.net
Greenwich, CT
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> "Kerry L. Thalmann" wrote:
>
> > In this case, it is definitely NOT macro (for which 35mm has
> > a huge advantage in the field).
>
> Umm, I think I'm missing something here--I always thought that LF
> had the big advantage in macro work. All my LF lenses are macro (with
> enough
> bellows) way, way past 1:1 (remembering to compensate for bellows
> extension).
> As I last perused 35mm lenses (Nikon is what I use), only a subset of
> lenses
> were macro, and 1:1 at *best*. Sure, whatever you're shooting better
> not move
> much (or at all :-) but I don't understand how you give 35mm the benefit
> for
> landscape (which here in New England doesn't move much, YMMV :)
>
> > [snipped discussion of "intimate landscape"]
>
> Wondering what I missed here....
Hi Sean,
I've tried shooting large format macro on the field, and it just didn't
work for me. True, any large format lens can be used at 1:1 with enough
bellows extension, but I have just not found it practical under field
conditions. I do shoot "close-ups", but not true macro (1:1 or larger).
I see several problems. First is subject size. Most subjects I would
like to shoot in macro are relatively small (flowers, insects, etc.),
say about 1" in length/diameter. Even at 1:1, you end up with a small
1" square object surrounded by 19 square inches of "background". The
same 1" subject nicely fills out a 35mm frame. Afterall, if you're only
using 1 square inch of film, why not just start with the smaller size
film to begin with?
To get to the larger magnifications required to actually fill the 4x5
film with the subject, you need VERY long bellows extension (at least 2
- 3 feet even for short focal lengths). The light fall-off (bellows
factor) is huge at such long extension, requiring several stops of
exposure compensation. This leads to exposures in the several second to
couple minute range (don't forget to compensate for reciprocity
failure). Depth of field is practically non-existant (and since the
subject usually isn't two dimensional, camera movements don't solve the
problem). I'm not talking foreground - background depth of field (you
probably want the background out of focus anyway), just enough to get
the subject completely in focus. Then there's subject movement. The
SLIGHTEST breeze during that several second exposure and you just wasted
$4.00.
Of course, this is different in the controlled conditions of a studio.
Where you have no wind, relatively stable objects, powerful studio
strobes, etc. That, and the ability to control perspective, is why
large format cameras are still used (often with digital backs these
days) for product photography in the studio.
Finally, WRT to 35mm macro equipment. In addition to dedicated macro
lenses, there are also other options for using "regular" lenses for
macro. These include extension tubes, close-up diopters, and reversing
rings (great for magnifications greater than 1:1). These are fairly
inexpensive accessories that offer a variety of solutions for shooting
from life size to several times life size (20x or more, try that with a
view camera) Also, with an in-camera, through-the-lens light meter,
there is no need to go through the exposure compensation calculations,
the camera does it automatically. Much more convenient.
I know of nobody specializing in macro field work that uses large format
for such work (there may be somebodey, but I'm not familar with their
work). In fact, several of the well known large format landscape
masters (David Muench, Pat O'Hara. etc.) put down their view cameras and
pick up a 35mm when shooting macro.
In theory, 4x5 may be a good choice for macro work, in practice, I have
found otherwise (for shooting in the field). Your mileage, of course,
may vary.
Bill Rea
: OK. Large format view cameras are great for landscapes. I agree. And this has
: never been a secret.
:
: So why are they not selling like hotcakes?
Isn't obvious? If you compare the convenience of a modern 35mm camera
against any LF camera and most people never give anything other than
35mm a second thought. You have to use a camera. Most people are
frightened by the thought of having to apply the Scheimpflug (sp?)
rule to focus and get the depth of field required. Standing under
a focusing cloth with a loupe pressed up against the ground glass,
fiddling knobs, pushing, pulling, and so on, just isn't everyone's
idea of fun. And try to carry the stuff! On the weekend I was slogging
through deep snow up in Ryton valley with my LF gear on my back.
Breathing hard, sweat running down my face. Then I stop and freeze.
All this for a single picture, I thought to myself, I must be a little
crazy.
LF photography doesn't suit very many people. If people ask me if they
should get into LF photography, I urge them to really think it over,
rent some gear and try it. For most people 35mm is hard to beat.
--
Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail b dot rea at its dot canterbury dot ac dot nz </ New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax 64-3-364-2332 /) Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator (/'
Gary Richards
landscape is a good idea. Peter, do you want to start it off by highlighting
something from Tim's book? BTW, if I remember right, he now uses a medium format
for shooting many of his landscapes. It all comes down to what one wants out of
the final image. For most of my shooting, 35mm fits the bill. I rarely make huge
enlargements and the smaller format is ideal for intimate images. I think one
advantage for smaller landscape images comes with the wide variety of lens
available for 35mm. I love to tinker with impressionistic images and some of the
soft focus lens work very well. I do not think one could shoot these types of
shots as easily with the larger formats. One needs to use what format is needed to
get the image you want in the final image. I enjoy 35mm but certainly would not
hesitate to use larger formats when the need is there for me.
GQR
PBurian wrote:
> >All one has to do is look at photo books to see that nearly all great
> photographers
> have used a larger format to capture their best works.>>>
>
PBurian
>landscape is a good idea.>>>
The advantage of a larger image size is obvious in medium and large format. But
otherwise, 35mm is fine for landscape photography as Tim Fitzharris describes
in his book on this topic.
Problem is that 35mm shooters rarely tend to take the same care that larger
format shooters do. 35mm lends itself to quick, hand-held shooting.
Solution: Force yourself to use a tripod 100% of the time. Not just for
sharpness but also for critically accurate composition and point of focus.
What other tips do people have for maximizing the value of 35mm for landscapes?
Peter Burian
Kerry L. Thalmann
> The advantage of a larger image size is obvious in medium and large format.
Sorry to play devil's advocate, but if the advantage is that obviuos,
then why not just shoot in medium format or large format. (Note: I'm
not saying MF or LF are for everybody or everything, but, if you say,
the advantage is obvious for this application, why not select the best
tool for the job?)
> But
> otherwise, 35mm is fine for landscape photography as Tim Fitzharris describes
> in his book on this topic.
>
> Problem is that 35mm shooters rarely tend to take the same care that larger
> format shooters do.
Sloppy technique is sloppy technique, regardless of format. Unless
you're willing to practice good technique, moving up to a large format
will not make you a better photographer.
> 35mm lends itself to quick, hand-held shooting.
Which is, of course, one of the major advantages of the 35mm format. It
is also one of the big reasons that 35mm is the "right" format for so
many (most) applications.
> Solution: Force yourself to use a tripod 100% of the time. Not just for
> sharpness but also for critically accurate composition and point of focus.
Good advice, but not just any tripod, A GOOD SOLID (which translates
into, heavy, expensive, or often both) TRIPOD. In many ways, shooting
in 35mm puts more demands on a tripod than shooting large format. I
know that goes against conventional thinking (accepted wisdom being the
bigger the camera, the bigger the tripod). Just about every large
format camera made these days allows you to position the camera back in
either horizontal or vertical orientation while still keeping the load
directly centered over the apex of the tripod. In other words, the
center of mass is balanced and pushing straight down, not flopped off to
one side for verticals. Also, a lightweight field camera and compact
lens can actually weight less than a 35mm autofocus camera and zoom
lens. Longer lenses are commonly used in the smaller formats, and
greater magnification ratios are required for equal sized final prints.
What this means is that camera shake will be more highly magnified, so
it's damping is even more critical in the smaller formats. About the
only case where LF puts greater demand on the tripod is under windy
conditions. In that case, the large surface area of the camera bellows
has a strong resemblence to a box kite.
Sorry, I got a little side tracked there. My main point is that despite
the demands a 35mm system puts on a tripod, I often see people pearch a
35mm SLR atop the most flimsy, rickety tripods imaginable. The
justification often being, "it's only 35mm". If you want to shoot 35mm
landscapes and get the best results possible, spend the money on a GOOD
tripod and a GOOD head, and USE IT. Cutting corners on a tripod
purchase is false economy. There is little point in spending thousands
of dollars on a top of the line 35mm SLR and top notch state-of-the-art
glass only to compromise the performance of the system by placing it on
top of a $29.95 tripod. Look at what the 35mm pros use. Most use big,
sturdy tripods with expensive ball heads. Not because they like
spending the money and lugging around the weight, but because they know
the quality of their work depends more on a rock solid camera support
than on what brand of camera and lenses they use.
A rock solid method of attaching your camera to the tripod is also a
must. Something that prevents the camera/lens from twisting is
especially important when shooting verticals. Pardon the product plug,
but no matter what tripod and head you get, I HIGHLY recommend an Arca
Swiss style quick release with adapter plates from Really Right Stuff
(RRS). They sell an Arca style quick release that can be adapted to
other brand tripod heads. People reluctant to spend more than 50 bucks
for a tripod/head will scoff at the idea of spending $40 - $60 for an
adapter plate, but it will do more to improve the sharpness of their
photos than spending a thousand dollars (or more) on the latest Super
APO ED glass. RRS makes a huge variety of custom plates matched
specifically to vaious cameras and lenses. Visit their web site, get
their catalog, buy their products. They are well made and worth the
money.
> What other tips do people have for maximizing the value of 35mm for landscapes?
Slow down and compose carefully. When starting with a small piece of
film, there is little margin for cropping when enlarging to the final
print size. Fill the frame with the subject and check your corners for
light areas or distracting elements that will draw the viewers eye out
of the frame.
If there is a visible horizon in the frame, make sure it is level
(otherwise, you will have to crop the image unecessarily when
printing). A bubble level works best. A gridded viewing screen is the
next best choice for getting things properly aligned.
Know your lenses and shoot at their sharpest apertures when conditions
allow. Very few lenses are sharpest wide open, and none that I know of
are sharpest fully stopped down (due to diffraction). I've seen a lot
of people shooting 35mm landscapes at f22 for no other reason than they
think maximum depth of field == maximum sharpness. It does not. All
modern 35mm lenses will be severly diffraction limited at f22. Shooting
at f22 when not necessary will kill your image sharpness. Unless you
need the added depth of field, shoot at your lenses sharpest aperture
(probably somewhere in the f5.6 - f11 range for most 35mm lenses).
Lock up your mirror and let any vibrations settle before releasing the
shutter. We're talking static landscapes here, not action photography
or wildlife. There is no need to observe the scene through the lens at
the moment of exposure. That mountain ain't going anywhere (St. Helens
excepted). It's in the exact same spot it was when you composed your
photo. Lock up the mirror, wait for things to settle and then fire the
shutter with a cable release on one of those nifty electronic remote
releases.
Use the finest grain film you can get. Velvia has been the standard for
years and now Fuji has the even finer grained Provia F. Hint, most
folks shooting MF and LF landscapes also shoot with Velvia. To me, the
thing that often limits enlargement size is visible grain in the final
print. The sharpest lenses, best technique, and steadiest support in
the world can't overcome the physical limitations inherent in the film's
grain structure. Note: I'm not saying fined grain films are the bee's
knees for all subjects or all situations. They are not. I'm just
saying if your goal is sharp prints, it doesn't make sense to handicap
yourself by using a film that doesn't have the finest grain possible.
Keep your lens and filter surfaces as clean as possible. Haze on lens
or filter surfaces can effect both sharpness and contrast (reduced local
contrast reduces perceived sharpness). Don't put cheap filters on your
expensive lenses and don't use filters if you don't need them. It's OK
to carry your camera around with a UV or skylight filter on the front of
the lens to protect it from damage, but unless there is some reason to
leave it on, remove it when shooting. Most filters are NOT multicoated,
and even if they are, you just added two more air:glass interfaces to
your optical path. Even if the filter is perfect in all other respects,
you just reduced your contast for no reason.
Sounds like a lot of work. It is, but most things worthwhile are. Not
to keep preaching the large format sermon (we've already established,
and agreed, it's not for everybody or everything), but if you're going
to go to all this trouble and expense, why not get the maximum return
for your efforts and at least consider a LF (or MF) system for static
landscapes. Again, not saying it's for everybody, but if your going to
lug a heavy tripod around and shoot in a slow contemplative method, it's
at least worthy of consideration.
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> PBurian (pbu...@aol.com) wrote:
> : OK. Large format view cameras are great for landscapes. I agree. And this has
> : never been a secret.
> :
> : So why are they not selling like hotcakes?
>
> Isn't obvious? If you compare the convenience of a modern 35mm camera
> against any LF camera and most people never give anything other than
> 35mm a second thought. You have to use a camera. Most people are
> frightened by the thought of having to apply the Scheimpflug (sp?)
> rule to focus and get the depth of field required. Standing under
> a focusing cloth with a loupe pressed up against the ground glass,
> fiddling knobs, pushing, pulling, and so on, just isn't everyone's
> idea of fun. And try to carry the stuff! On the weekend I was slogging
> through deep snow up in Ryton valley with my LF gear on my back.
> Breathing hard, sweat running down my face. Then I stop and freeze.
> All this for a single picture, I thought to myself, I must be a little
> crazy.
Bill,
You raise some very valid points, and I am in total aggreement.
Shooting LF in the field is hard work. But so is getting up a couple
hours before sunrise and staying out past sunset to capture the best
light (regardless of format). Back when I used to shoot LF on my
"vacations" from my fulltime job, my wife used to comment that I was the
only person she knew who neede to get back to work to recover from my
"vacation". Still, for me, I believe the reward is proportional to the
effort. I think a lot of people are intimidated by the learning curve
involved in moving up to large format (probably because the lack of
coverage in the popular media). It's not brain surgery. I am
completely self-taught (as are most other LF shooters I've met. If you
understand the basics of good photography (compsition, exposure, etc.)
moving up to large format is really just about learning the mechanical
processes of handling sheet film and using a view camera. You don't
have to get into advanced optical theory or anything, just pick up a
book on the subject to cover the basics and play around with the
camera. The effects of the movements are easily visible right there on
the ground glass, so even if you don't understand the theory, you can
observe the results. The real hard part of LF photography is the
physical effort, as you mention. Unless you're willing to haul heavy
loads up mountain trails, sweat like a pig and freeze your patoot off,
better to stick with something easier (like staying home in a
comfortable bed and watching the Nature Channel).
> LF photography doesn't suit very many people. If people ask me if they
> should get into LF photography, I urge them to really think it over,
> rent some gear and try it. For most people 35mm is hard to beat.
Good advice. Or, buy something cheap to start with, give it a try and
sell it for what you paid for it if it doesn't work out. Or better yet,
buy something really expensive, and then sell it to me for pennies on
the dollar when it doesn't work out ;^).
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> > but if the advantage is that obviuos,
> >then why not just shoot in medium format or large format. (Note: I'm
> >not saying MF or LF are for everybody or everything, but, if you say,
> >the advantage is obvious for this application, why not select the best
> >tool for the job?)>>>
>
Hi Peter,
So you've bought completely into the popular myth that large format has
to be expensive. It doesn't have to be. As I mentioned in a previous
post, my first large format camera outfit (body, lens, film holders)
cost me a grand total of $200. As I also mentioned, I sold it a year
later, also for $200. With many high end 35mm bodies costing over $1000
and lenses costing even more, it would be very easy to spend a LOT more
on 35mm gear than a basic LF system. I think it's pretty universal
across all formats that you can spend as little or much as your heart
desires.
BTW, 20x24 prints from that $200 camera and lens still knock the socks
off anything shot on 35mm (and I easily notice the differences in
smaller 8x10 and 11x14 prints as well). Even with the most expensive
modern auto-everything cameras and Super-Duper APO ED pdq xyz ei-ei-o
lenses, you're still starting with a tiny 1" x 1 1/2" piece of film.
The REAL reason not to use large format is that it is heavy and
cumbersome. It doesn't have to be expensive.
Robert Monaghan
Actually, I think there are lots more perspective control lenses in
medium format than in 35mm, depending on how you define "medium format".
For example, those 6x9 minipress and miniview cameras by Horseman (VH/69..)
Linhof, the older graphics/graflexes, and on and on all had some/lots of
perspective controls. See my medium format camera library pages for links
at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/cameras.html
The new Hasselblad flex and arc bodies are also pretty extreme 6x6 system
cameras optimized for PC use, with either regular hassy lenses or the roddies
(Rodenstocks). In this case, the camera body is optimized for PC/shifting..
I also have a page on shift lenses for PC on medium format, including
homebrew notes on rolling your own, at my medium format pages at:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronshift.html
You will find links there to a number of PC lenses, including some Dr.
Zoerk and Horseman View camera converter mounts for doing tilt/shifts on
medium format systems, including most of the popular brands sold today.
With these mounts, you can do dozens or hundreds of lenses in a shift or
tilt/shift mounting on medium format, provided they have coverage etc....
Some medium format shift lenses are _cheaper_ than 35mm equivalents, such
as the three (3!) shift lenses for the Kiev-88/60 series cameras from Arsenal
There are also some schneider shift lenses in various mounts (Bronica etc.)
at the other end of the pricing spectrum.
By contrast, the number of tilt/shift lenses on 35mm is _very_ limited,
and the number of shift lenses isn't that large, typically one or two per
major OEM mfger on the average, maybe what, a dozen all told?
In short, there are lots of tilt/shift and shift lens options available
in medium format, which helps make MF an excellent choice in landscape work
IMHO. (and I have both commercial (nikkor) and homebrew 35mm shift
lenses, as well as 4x5 and various medium format homebrew shift lenses
too ;-)
regards bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 rmon...@post.cis.smu.edu *
* Bronica 6x6 medium format: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html site *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html megasite*
Robert Monaghan
a) closeup focusing aid (esp. if you have bad eyesight)
b) the right screen for the job (bright? grid lines? center spot? grnd
glass?...)
c) right viewfinder (e.g., 100% coverage if needed)
d) eye-cup for viewfinder (less stray light)
e) non-vignetting lens hood, especially shaped for prime lens and format
(2:3 aspect preferred, compendium hood or ??); this is one reason for
prime lenses, but there are lots of other reasons (see related points at
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/primes.html)
f) warming filter if needed (tiffen 812 or 81a/b/ef??) etc.
g) incident light meter etc.
actually, there are lots of other gadgets, many of which you will find
listed at my photo gadgets pages at:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/gadgets.html
Howard Slavitt
years treating my 35 mm like a large format camera (always used a tripod,
took time setting up shots, even had a Canon tilt-shift lens), then I bought
a used Horseman VH (6 x 9 cm) technical field camera for $800. I've
purchased all modern, multicoated German optics (Schneider/Rodenstock) for
about $600 average per lens (some used, some new). The Horseman "baby"
large format system, weighs less than many 35 mm systems. With a 1228 Gitzo
carbon fiber tripod, 4 lenses, a roll film back, and accessories, I figure
I'm at about 18-20 lbs + 7 lbs for my Lowe Pro backback for a total of 25-27
lbs.
I haven't regretted it for a second. The difference in quality is
astounding.
Kerry L. Thalmann wrote:
> PBurian wrote:
> >
> > > but if the advantage is that obviuos,
> > >then why not just shoot in medium format or large format. (Note: I'm
> > >not saying MF or LF are for everybody or everything, but, if you say,
> > >the advantage is obvious for this application, why not select the best
> > >tool for the job?)>>>
> >
> > Does "tight budget" ring a bell to anyone here?
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> So you've bought completely into the popular myth that large format has
> to be expensive. It doesn't have to be. As I mentioned in a previous
> post, my first large format camera outfit (body, lens, film holders)
> cost me a grand total of $200. As I also mentioned, I sold it a year
> later, also for $200. With many high end 35mm bodies costing over $1000
> and lenses costing even more, it would be very easy to spend a LOT more
> on 35mm gear than a basic LF system. I think it's pretty universal
> across all formats that you can spend as little or much as your heart
> desires.
>
> BTW, 20x24 prints from that $200 camera and lens still knock the socks
> off anything shot on 35mm (and I easily notice the differences in
> smaller 8x10 and 11x14 prints as well). Even with the most expensive
> modern auto-everything cameras and Super-Duper APO ED pdq xyz ei-ei-o
> lenses, you're still starting with a tiny 1" x 1 1/2" piece of film.
>
> The REAL reason not to use large format is that it is heavy and
> cumbersome. It doesn't have to be expensive.
>
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> Large format doesn't have to be that heavy or that expensive. I spent 3
> years treating my 35 mm like a large format camera (always used a tripod,
> took time setting up shots, even had a Canon tilt-shift lens), then I bought
> a used Horseman VH (6 x 9 cm) technical field camera for $800. I've
> purchased all modern, multicoated German optics (Schneider/Rodenstock) for
> about $600 average per lens (some used, some new). The Horseman "baby"
> large format system, weighs less than many 35 mm systems. With a 1228 Gitzo
> carbon fiber tripod, 4 lenses, a roll film back, and accessories, I figure
> I'm at about 18-20 lbs + 7 lbs for my Lowe Pro backback for a total of 25-27
> lbs.
>
> I haven't regretted it for a second. The difference in quality is
> astounding.
Hi Howard,
You're preaching to the choir here. I couldn't agree more. I have a
friend who also shoots with a (modified) Horseman. I'm considering one
myself for times when 4x5 is overkill. Although for me, a rollfilm back
for the 4x5 would be a more practical solution (still, those Horseman
cameras are little gems).
I'm always trying to find ways to lighten my load. On my last
backpacking trip, my total pack weight, including a complete 4x5 system
with four lenses and 50 sheets of film, complete camping gear (tent,
sleeping bag, stove, etc.), food, clothes, a 1 lb. hard cover book and
full water bottles weighed a total of 44 lbs (the pack empty is pushing
7 lbs.). That's quite a reduction from the 65 - 70 lbs. I used to
carry. I didn't weight the camera gear separately but would estimate
the total weight of the 4x5 outfit including tripod and film to be in
the 12 - 14 lb. range. Hardly back breaking. The most expensive piece
of gear I carried was the Gitzo 1227 tripod (but I'd use it for
backpacking regardless of format). So, like you say, neither heavy or
all that expensive (and that's for a 4x5 system).
PBurian
>then why not just shoot in medium format or large format. (Note: I'm
>not saying MF or LF are for everybody or everything, but, if you say,
>the advantage is obvious for this application, why not select the best
>tool for the job?)>>>
Does "tight budget" ring a bell to anyone here?
Peter Burian
PBurian
>So you've bought completely into the popular myth that large format has
>to be expensive. >>>
Not at all, Kerry. Just that I have so much money invested in 35mm (and still
need more) that I cannot afford to also buy another system.
If I were a landscape specialist, that would be different.
I suspect photo enthusiasts are in the same boat. More likely to be saving up
for a 20-35mm or a 300mm+ lens than another system.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>You're preaching to the choir here.>>>
Kerry: No, he's singing to the choir or preaching to the converted.
<G>
Peter
Kerry L. Thalmann
> Not at all, Kerry. Just that I have so much money invested in 35mm (and still
> need more) that I cannot afford to also buy another system.
Hi Peter,
I have the opposite problem. A 35mm system, especially suited for the
things I'd be interested in shooting, but are problematic in LF (macro
and wildlife) would be outrageously expensive (for a really top notch
system - a single super telephoto lens alone could easily cost as much
as my entire 4x5 system).
> If I were a landscape specialist, that would be different.
Well, that's what this thread (and the one that spawned it) is about -
the ideal landscape camera - not the ideal general purpose camera.
> I suspect photo enthusiasts are in the same boat. More likely to be saving up
> for a 20-35mm or a 300mm+ lens than another system.
Depends on what they want to photograph. The two lenses you just
mentioned are VERY expensive, and I question if either would provide the
most bang for the buck specifically for landscape photography. Since
you are dealing with static subjects, a couple wide angle prime lenses
would be cheaper than a 20 - 35 zoom (of equal quality) and probably
weigh less too. For the long lenses, they are most often used for
wildlife/birds or sports, etc., not necessarily landscapes. If someone
does fancy a long lens for landscapes (where the subject is not moving),
a 300 f4 or f4.5, plus maybe a 1.4x teleconverter would be a more
economical choice than the fast f2.8 super tele. Still, if the goal (as
the name of this thread implies) is better landscape photography, I
can't help but wonder if a few hundred dollars spent on a Crown Graphic
(or even $1000 on a new LF camera/lens) wouldn't make a more dramatic
improvement in their LANDSCAPE photography.
Obviously we are coming at this issue from opposite points of view. We
all have our own preferences and goals. The one thing everyone
participating in this thread seems to agree on, however, is that there
is no "right" format for all users or uses. You've done an admirable
job representing the 35mm format, I've tried to be a worthy advocate for
the pro-LF camp and we've gotten some good responses from MF enthusiasts
as well. This just reinforces the fact that all formats have their
pluses and minuses, and they all have their places in the grand scheme
of things. Even though people tend to be passionate about such issues,
the tone has remained very civil and positive (unlike many of the never
ending "my brand is better than your brand" threads that often seem to
dominate this "techinque" newsgroup). I think I've just about beaten
the pro-LF stance to death, but hopefully the original poster's
questions were answered (or at least he was pointed in the right
direction for more information), and maybe anyone else following this
thread learned a little more about the "other" formats and how to
maximize image quality regardless of what format they are shooting.
Norm
When discussing the relative costs of landscape photography, don't you have
to take into account enlargers, cost of film, processing etc? I would think
that in order to really maximize the advantage of MF ot LF you'd have do do
a lot of this yourself, or have a good pro lab (expensive). With 35mm these
costs are less for comparable control.
Don't construe this in any way that I think 35mm landscapes can compete with
MF or LF.
Norm
Kerry L. Thalmann
Hi Norm,
You raise a valid point. One I thought would pop up sooner or later,
but I purposely avoided initiating ;^).
Yep, it is the cost of consumables, much more than the cost of equipment
that makes LF more expensive. As I previously mentioned, you can pretty
much spend as much or little as you wish on a system, no matter what the
format. The cost of consumables, however, on a per shot basis,
definately goes up as you move up in formats.
I did a comparison a few years back on the cost per square inch of
emulsion for film and processing of the various formats. I don't have
the numbers in front of me, but 35mm and LF were almost exactly the
same. MF was the lowest (something like 2/3 - 3/4 the cost per square
inch of the other two formats). The key to keeping the costs of
consumables down as you move up in format is, obviously, to consume
less. The slow, methodical process of using a view camera is somewhat
self-limiting in this respect. The lack of motorized film advance and
automatic exposure bracketing, coupled with the knowledge that every
shot is costing you $3 - $4 each (for E-6 film and processing) also
limits the number of shots/day. With the high cost of consumables, LF
is definitely NOT the format for learning the basics of proper exposure
(learn that first on the smaller formats).
As far as using a pro lab, I love mine. With a commercial account, my
rates are exactly 1/2 what they charge over-the-counter customers, and
they pick up and deliver to my front door five days a week AT NO EXTRA
CHARGE. And they do top notch work.
Also, I do not have a home darkroom these days (the kids have to have a
place to sleep). But, I have easy access to a really nice rental
darkroom that is set up to handle every thing from 35mm - 8x10 formats
for black & white, Type R and Type C printing. They charge the same
rates regardless of what format you are using. I don't do much printing
these days, but this is where I go when I do.
The original poster specifically asked about black & white. In that
case, I think it's both better and more economical to process your own
film. All you need is a few trays and some chemicals and a small dark
place to use them (bathroom). As for printing, add a piece of glass and
some paper and you're all set for contact printing (especially in the
8x10, or larger formats). Or, process your own and print them at the
rental darkroom.
I realize that not everybody has such easy access to all of these
options, I just wanted to point out that there are options for those not
looking to build a fully equipped home darkroom. I mostly shoot for
stock sales, so I do very little printing. If my main source of income
was fine art print sales, then I'd have to revisit the issue of a
dedicated home darkroom (in which case I could probably justify the cost
based on the return - or I'd just continue to use the rental darkroom).
With the high cost of consumables, LF does wonders for your pre-exposure
editing techniques. It really forces you to slow down and think about
each shot, before you trip the shutter. For some people, this is good.
For others it will either drive them to go broke or go nuts (or both).
Dan Smith, Photographer
> > PBurian (pbu...@aol.com) wrote:
> > : OK. Large format view cameras are great for landscapes. I agree. And
this has
> > : never been a secret.
> > :
> > : So why are they not selling like hotcakes?
With Wisner, Canham, Lotus, Sinar, Linhof, Zone VI, Toyo, Tachihara,
Phillips,Horseman,Walker, Calumet, Cambo, Arca Swiss and a number of others
making and selling new cameras and a scores of brands of used, older, and
discontinued ones on the market,
They are!
Dan Smith
Bill Rea
:
: When discussing the relative costs of landscape photography, don't you have
: to take into account enlargers, cost of film, processing etc? I would think
: that in order to really maximize the advantage of MF ot LF you'd have do do
: a lot of this yourself, or have a good pro lab (expensive). With 35mm these
: costs are less for comparable control.
In my experience it is less expensive to do LF than 35mm. I am currently
only shooting colour transparency. A sheet of 4x5 plus developing is
about $NZ10. That sounds like a lot of money, but it's so easy to
shoot rolls of 35mm film. At $NZ1.10 per 35mm slide I can shoot a
sheet of 4x5 for every 9 35mm slides. When doing wildlife its possible to
shoot a whole roll of film in the time it takes me to put up my
Gitzo tripod. Ok, that's not landscape, but by the time I do several
bracketed shots with the 35mm and possibly try a couple of different
filters plus an in-camera duplicate, not to mention the times I take
35mm and not a 4x5, I'm past my 9 to 1 ratio and LF
ends up cheaper because I thought about it a lot more before comitting
my image to film.
John Abbott
my head and I want to know more about LF. I sold my 35mm gear and darkroom almost 25
years ago to buy a motorcycle. I came back to light-gathering this year with another
35mm, albiet an AF. I didn't think, when I bought the new gear, about how I had
changed. Then candids and action interested me, now our new sleeping baby's hands
and feet, rust patterns on scrap iron, and little mushrooms hold me. Static, detailed
images. I was ready to build a darkroom, but something bothered me about the little
neg and all the efforts to overcome its limits. A digital darkroom faces the same
problems. MF eqt was too expensive for slr eqt and not ttl for an old Rolli or
Yashica I could afford. Then there is the 'system problem' of buying into a brand
and its mounts.
I had always looked at LF as studio portrait work or as a Matthew Brady or quirky
Ansel Adams stuff. Too stodgy or profound to deal with. This discussion has really
dropped the scales from my eyes. No 'system' to buy into. Possible to buy in
relatively cheaply. Decades of used cameras and lenses out there. Simple
mechanics. Contact prints of an interesting size and use a lab for enlargements. A
slow down, breathe, and meditate on the scene mentality. Certainly not an either/or
with 35mm. Still need to p&s, crawl on my belly for the newt of the week shot, and
catch the kid in action.
Question: How about focusing with old eyes? Do you use a loupe on the ground
glass? Here is one place I love the AF.
Keep the discussion going.
John Abbott
PBurian
Yes, we are.
Most photo enthusiasts I know, are not landscape specialists and are unlikely
to sell 35mm gear and use the money to buy large format.
I shoot stock and usually people and places. Sometimes that includes
landscapes, but not often enough to warrant taking a loan to buy large format
gear.
Sure, I should buy a set of SNAP-ON (TM) tools because they are the right tools
for a lot of things. But I cannot afford them - I already have the tools I need
for repairing stuff around here. Are they the best? Ideal?
No, but I have already paid for them and I get by.
Peter Burian
PBurian
that the light is gone by the time you get a few frames. So, you don't use as
much film.
Peter Burian
Norm
darkroom (or as Kerry says access to one). Outfitting a darkroom to do MF or
LF costs more than the 35mm darkroom. That 35mm users shoot more because its
cheap, isn't really a factor in the cost comparison. That's a comparison of
discipline, or lack of it. IMO.
Kerry L. Thalmann
>
> Most photo enthusiasts I know, are not landscape specialists and are unlikely
> to sell 35mm gear and use the money to buy large format.
Hi Peter,
I did not mean to imply that anybody sell anything they find useful.
It's not necessarily an either/or proposition. It is possible to have
both. If you're not a landscape specialist, keep the 35mm system for
the 95% of the time when it's the right tool for the job, and get a $200
Speed Graphic with an old Kodak Ektar lens for the 5% of the times when
you'd like to shoot static landscapes that could benefit from the larger
peice of film and/or camera movements.
BTW, most of the photographers I know ARE landscape specialists. The
group consists of 35mm, MF and LF shooters (some even shoot in more
than one format, depending on the situation). Still, the majority of
the photographers I know personally shoot in LF. That's not surprising,
we tend to gravitate to people with similar interests. I'm a LF
landscape shooter, so I tend to hang out with other LF landscape
shooters.
> I shoot stock and usually people and places. Sometimes that includes
> landscapes, but not often enough to warrant taking a loan to buy large format
> gear.
If you're happy with the results using your current equipment, I
wouldn't recommend buying a new system, even if you are rolling in
money. Still, since this thread, and the one that proceeded it, are
specifically about landscape photography (not general purpose
photography), I thought it was appropriate to discuss the alternatives
to 35mm.
> Sure, I should buy a set of SNAP-ON (TM) tools because they are the right tools
> for a lot of things. But I cannot afford them - I already have the tools I need
> for repairing stuff around here. Are they the best? Ideal?
>
> No, but I have already paid for them and I get by.
Well, the original question was not "what's good enough" or is the
"ideal system necessary". The original question asked specifically
about MF and LF for landscape photography, and the title of this
off-shoot asks if 35mm is "The Ideal Landscape Camera????". If the
question would have been, "is large format quality necessary for all
users", or "what's the most versatile format for general purpose
photography", I think the discussion would have evolved much
differently. Still, it's been fun. I always enjoy hearing your point
of views and respect your opinions.
Gary Richards
your mind only. He detested cameras in the field as they detracted from the
moment at hand. Just think of all the money we could save by not shooting with
35mm, MF or LF. And all those images would be stored in one compact space.
Maybe ole Ed had a valid point. And then again maybe he did not. Anyway, I do
believe his statement about not being able to study the darkness if you flood it
with light.
GQR
Alan Hogg
> What kind of camera is the norm for photographers shooting landscapes?
> What constitutes large or medium format?
> Why do landscape photographers use the types of cameras they typically use
> instead of using a 35mm camera?
> Are there modern landscape cameras being produced/sold these days?
> To begin shooting beautiful landscape photos, what would be a good starter
> camera?
> Is it difficult to get b&w film for these cameras?
> thanks
I would like to put in a a plug for medium format rangefinders for
landscapes. I use a Mamiya 7 with 50, 65 & 150 lenses backpacking in the
South Island mountains of New Zealand.
Mamiya 6 used is another, more cost effective option.
These camera are reasonably lightweight and can be used on lightweight
tripods, unlike the Pentax 67.
There are difficulties with graduated neutral density filters however.
Just a suggestion.
Keith Wiebe
but he does have his political and religious views in a different path than
me! He wants to control the population of the Indians. He did make one
interesting comment about Park Rangers not supposed to kill animals but
only humans ( I'm afraid a lot of people are starting to believe this as
it's ok to kill babies and other humans but totally against everything to
endanger any animals). He also made some comment about midwesterners
finding God and then cussing to their wifes about getting a light meter
because of the blinding arch.
Keith Wiebe
Gary Richards <grc...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<37A90504...@earthlink.net>...
Rich Satterlee
: On 03 Aug 1999 13:11:41 GMT, pbu...@aol.com (PBurian) wrote:
---------------------<good stuff snipped>-----------------------------------
: Learn to wait for it. A shot can be ordinary or dramatic depending on when you
: fire the shutter. With landscape, that may mean sunrise, a cloud, a snow fall
: etc. If it is windy, wait for things to stop moving.
As part of my LF landscape pack, I often include a folding camp stool. I
have added straps to the day pack that I use just for this purpose. It's
lightweight, and setting it up and plunking my rather ponderous posterior
on it, gives me a chance to see, think, and decide, what I want to
accomplish. Composition, lighting, and timing are thought out ahead of
time. Timing, as mentioned, is much easier to accomplish for me when
I'm sitting down rather than standing around. This works for me BTW,
for any format camera used...... Sometimes, in the timing, it's also
waiting (for me) for other folks to walk out of the frame. This, in itself,
can take a half hour or more.
Kerry, in another thread, mentioned the weight of LF gear. Well, there's
always got to be one. Here's mine:
I was over in Bodi Ca. last year and ran across a fellow there with an
11X14 Deardorf (flat bed "field" camera). It made my little 4X5 look
like a pup. I asked him what his traveling weight was. 85 lbs. with
an extra filmholder...... My gear felt lighter immediately.
Cheers,
Rich S.
Rich Satterlee
: I'll add:
: a) closeup focusing aid (esp. if you have bad eyesight)
----------------< good stuff snipped >---------------------------------
: regards bobm
: --
: * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 rmon...@post.cis.smu.edu *
: * Bronica 6x6 medium format: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html site *
: * Medium Format Cameras: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html megasite*
Hi-
I posted this on another part of the newsgroup today. This could be a better
thread to post this little tidbit on. In part I mentioned:
As part of my LF landscape pack, I often include a folding camp stool. I
have added straps to the day pack that I use just for this purpose. It's
lightweight, and setting it up and plunking my rather ponderous posterior
on it, gives me a chance to see, think, and decide, what I want to
accomplish. Composition, lighting, and timing are thought out ahead of
time. Timing, as mentioned, is much easier to accomplish for me when
I'm sitting down rather than standing around. This works for me BTW,
for any format camera used...... Sometimes, in the timing, it's also
waiting (for me) for other folks to walk out of the frame. This, in itself,
can take a half hour or more.
Cheers,
Rich S.
MBig528025
>: etc. If it is windy, wait for things to stop moving.
Well instructed. May I add a resounding "Duh!" to those words of wisdom.
MrBiG
"It's just too creepy"
Ron Ginsberg
my left side but controllable when not straining or standing for long
periods without moving much. Even before this I had planned to acquire
one of the camp stools with canvas back as well as the "Ausie" type
rimmed hat. I have set up with a 500 mm zoom with the hat shading me and
the viewfinder with the lens and body balanced neatly on a tripod. I sat
quite a time on a floodgate grate top as eventually water fowl and some
acquatic mammals came into view. Little motion was required to frame and
snap and a blind was not required. The creatures were not accustomed to
close human contact and as long as I stayed seated and relatively still
thay were not spooked.
Add the hat with your camp stool. It'll provide comfort and for those
with metering via the viewfinder, it could help keep exposure on when
your eye is not pressed to it keeping out strong extraneous light via
the eye portal.
Either Dave or Janet
> Sometimes, in the timing, it's also
> waiting (for me) for other folks to walk out of the frame. This, in itself,
> can take a half hour or more.
The one thing that annoys me most is people walking into the frame :)
It's always *just* when the lighting's become perfect, or when the
wind has died down or whatever. I'm sure we all have our stories... I
know I have a few!
One of my favourite shots has some people craftily recomposed
(decomposed?) behind a fern. You don't notice them until you look for
them but it still bugs me that they were there. Unfortunately I only
had that one chance when everything (except that) was right so I just
made the slight movement to hide the people as best I could, and shot.
Still, I'm sure that patience is something all landscape/scenic
photographers need to stop going crazy. Trying to shoot at 1/30 on
top of a windy hill today certainly tried mine; between the gusty wind
blowing everything around and the small, fast-moving clouds screwing
up the light every 30 seconds I was starting to consider giving up on
my depth of field for a faster shutter speed (by the way, that wind
was pretty cold!). I persevered and got my shot in the end when the
wind and the light were both acceptable. I just hope I didn't screw
up my metering ;) Or my best-guess hyperfocal, or....
This was after almost dropping the RB67 by *thinking* it was properly
secured to the tripod when I picked it up... I'm glad I didn't swing
it onto my shoulder as I normally do! Moral: always check...
(actually a "my greatest stuffups" thread might be quite interesting,
any takers?).
> Kerry, in another thread, mentioned the weight of LF gear. Well, there's
> always got to be one. Here's mine:
<snip>
Yikes... and I have enough trouble lugging around my RB67 on its
tripod. Without any other baggage. Needless to say I could use a
little more exercise :)
- Dave
David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec)
pooky@ http://www.
caverock. People are idiots who excel.net/
net.nz deserve to be mocked" ~pooky/
- Dogbert
Rich Satterlee
: About a year ago I suffered a stroke which left me with some tremors on
-----------------------<good stuff snipped>------------------------------
: Add the hat with your camp stool. It'll provide comfort and for those
: with metering via the viewfinder, it could help keep exposure on when
: your eye is not pressed to it keeping out strong extraneous light via
: the eye portal.
Yep, having a hat can be nice. However, I have tended to use a baseball
cap, usually turned around, most of the time. The problem that I have
is that I shoot LF, so the head is under the darkcloth. Second, with
my tired old Nikon F's and Nicormats, the shade from the brim hids the
light entrance to the light meter and I can't see the silly thing. Oh,
well. BTW, the use of a darkcloth (or a shirt or some other such thing
to shade the light of the viewfinder) works very nicely on TLR MFs as
well.
The hat also makes a nice lens shade also.
Cheers,
Rich S.
: Rich Satterlee wrote: