Do you long to transition from MFD to LF?

[cunim]

Speaking for myself, the answer is "yes". I love the cameras, the lenses, and the process. Sadly, the type of photos I take couldn't be done with just LF. It takes a lot of futzing about to get the lights and positioning right for the sorts of object portraits I do - so I need a lot of chimping. Yes, I know the old guys did it but they were smarter than I am. Anyway, could I make it work? Go big or go home?

I am way too old to carry LF gear anywhere so outdoors is, well, out. However, in studio, I could set up the shot with my IQ4, then swap in an 8 x 10 studio camera and transfer the settings and movements. Movements are so much easier to do on big film. With that preparation I can take the LF shot with some expectation it will turn out. I could be the last person on earth doing product-type work with LF. Cool.

This is a dream right now, primarily because I no longer have even the smallest bits of a dark room. But things happen so maybe.

Your thoughts about going back to big?

 

[vieri]

Using your IQ as a sort of "enhanced digital polaroid" sounds like a great idea, and I am sure it'll make using 8x10 for your final image much easier.

Personally, I do landscape, and I am not looking forward to carrying 8x10 equipment in the field and developing / scanning (or printing) it. However, since I can't seem to sever my love for film and my film roots, I just found and got an Hasselblad 903W and a 503CW with a 80mm and a 180mm - both in amazing shape - to use here in Tuscany (and perhaps in Italy at large), where I can drive to shoot, since I don't want to fly with 2 systems (my IQ5 / Alpa plus the Hasselblad) as well as I don't want to worry about film going through security. I also found an Epson V850 Pro scanner, which will have to do for now.

As you, I decided to use my IQ4 Achromatic and the Hasselblad side-by-side, to assess the relative strength and weaknesses, and decide what to use for which project accordingly.

Incidentally, I also got 10 rolls each of Ilford Pan F 50 and Ilford Delta 100 to start me off - it was a few years since I bought film and I just couldn't believe how expensive it has become. Shooting film today almost makes Phase One look inexpensive

Digital is amazing and I love my IQ4 and Alpa setup, but the appeal of film is always there for me.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Godfrey]

I did LF with 8x10 and 11x14 cameras forty years ago.

I had a whim to go with Polaroid 8x10 integral film for a while, but resisted going that way again. I would never use it enough to be worth the equipment cost...
I'll be content with my Hasselblad 500CM and 907x, flipping the digital back between them, or just running with the A12 or A16 on the 500CM.

G

 

[Paul Spinnler]

A little bit of HP 4x5 landscape photography never hurt anyone!

 

[darr]

I still shoot 4x5 and 6x17/6x6 B&W films occasionally.

My 4x5 Ebony RSW travel pack weighs less than my current digital technical kit.
Below is an image made of the kit for the LFF Forum when we were comparing weights:

My digital tech kit consists of ALPA STC, three lenses, CFV II 50c, and accessories.
I do not know what the MF kit weighs, but it is heavier when I pick it up.

A small 4x5 like an Ebony RSW might help soothe the desire.
Like you, I, too, love the whole process.

My largest camera was a 5x7 Wisner, which was too large for me to carry out in the landscape.
I did use Polaroid 8x10 film, but that was under an enlarger to make Polaroid transfers on watercolor paper decades ago.

I think about getting an old 8x10 Deardorff just for studio stills, but then I think, Nah, it will become a nicknack of sorts.

 

[rdeloe]

I scratched that itch a few years ago. I had a full nearly professional darkroom in my basement in the late 1990s into early 2000s. Wet side, dry side, drymount press -- the whole deal. It turned into a place of sadness and loss because I became unable to use it for personal reasons, and it turned into a storeroom. I ripped it out around 2010, with enormous regret.

Feeling nostalgic a few years, I got back into 4x5 at a smaller scale. I bought a complete 4x5 field outfit based on a Wisner 45VX. Instead of processing the sheets in open trays like I used to, I used some of the excellent new tanks that had been developed and then scanned. It didn't take me long to find that the magic was gone. Scanning film -- even using wet scanning techniques -- was a pain in the butt, and did not produce results I thought were worth the effort.

And then I found the Toyo VX23D and realized that what I really wanted was a view camera, which I didn't think was possible with digital. When I found it that it was possible, that was the end of film.

 

[cunim]

Thanks to all for the comments. @darr, that's a sweet kit. I used an ebony 8x10 for one day and still remember how lovely it was.

As I said, it's a dream. The dark room was the killer and for me, like for @rdeloe, it just became a PITA. But those big transparencies and the results that a drum scanner can give you..... If I could (I can't) hire an assistant to do the real work, I'd be shooting LF today.

 

[AlanS]

The scanning killed it for me too! I still have a Linhof monorail but I don't (and won't) use it again (probably ). Would love a digital view camera myself but it's too expensive for me to get a practical (live view) set up so I will stick to my present gear.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Scanning with a digital back and a proper setup can exceed the quality you get via drum scanners. The 105 on a stable repro strand and will produce incredible scans.

 

[anyone]

Do it! It sounds like a very good idea. I figure you are after the photographic experience, satisfaction, and aesthetic appearance shooting film. The details on the way (scanning setup) can be figured out.

Even though I shoot primarily digital, I always enjoy taking out my large format cameras. The Toyo Field 4x5" is built like a tank and will last forever. The Chamonix C45F-2 is a beautiful lightweight wooden field canera. The Cambo Wide and WDS cameras are very nice choices if shift is the primary movement I need. And lastly, the Tachihara 8x10" I got last year is still waiting for its first shot!

Is it a transition? Not in my case. Both MFD and large format are very nice to use.

 

[rdeloe]

What setup are you using for scanning negatives and chromes with digital cameras Paul?

I poured a lot of energy in to creating a wet mounting setup that produced high resolution (2,667 ppi) files for 4x5 negatives. I used an AP-S sensor and flat stitched twelve overlapping images, which was cumbersome but got the job done. Scanning was the easy part. The exceptionally tedious part was cleaning up. No amount of blowing and dusting cleaned off every bit of dust and lint, and even wet scanning reduced but did not eliminate the need for hours of spotting in Photoshop. It was not worth the hassle.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Kaiser RSD and Alpa Macro kit ... but without motor. The negatives you put on a light table. The key is a stable repro stand and the right optic - the 105 FL is the best. You need a strong repro stand so it can hold the back and camera array in a super stable position.

 

[deardorff8x10]

That's my nickname . I haven't used mine for a while. The film holders are really heavy!

I think about getting an old 8x10 Deardorff just for studio stills, but then I think, Nah, it will become a nicknack of sorts.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Adammork]

Yes I feelt the longing!

Just started to use a Linhof Technikardan S45 with a full set of Linhof Schneiders - best thing I have done in years I bought the camera together with my old assistant and fellow architectural photographer.

I shot thousands of 4x5 each year when it was my main camera system 15-20 years ago - Arca Swiss Monolit and Misura back then - at that time it was slides, in readyloads, now it’s Portra in holders - I miss the readyloads, but not the slides, I wish that I had started to use Portra back then, but the look I strived for, was different then.

I‘m truly amazed about the beauty of a colour negative - the highlights are nothing less than spectacular!

Is the MFD sharper, yes! Is MFD faster/easier, very! greater dynamic range, not as Portra. And least, I find it so inspiring to use the Technikardan.

Regarding scanning, in the old days I used an Imacon 848 - now we started with my Alpa and the Schneider 120 marcro or the Schneider 72mm and the results was ok.

Just for fun we tried the Fuji 100II with the Fuji 110T/S, the result was more than ok and surpassing the Imacon with a fair margin and also better and more stable results than we achieved with my Alpa system. The two Fuji T/S is really something special….

We are using a big studio stand as repro stand and a scanning kit from Negative Supply and can scan way faster than with an Imacon.

We are very happy!

 

[Paul Spinnler]

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Yes I feelt the longing!

Just started to use a Linhof Technikardan S45 with a full set of Linhof Schneiders - best thing I have done in years I bought the camera together with my old assistant and fellow architectural photographer.

I shot thousands of 4x5 each year when it was my main camera system 15-20 years ago - Arca Swiss Monolit and Misura back then - at that time it was slides, in readyloads, now it’s Portra in holders - I miss the readyloads, but not the slides, I wish that I had started to use Portra back then, but the look I strived for, was different then.

I‘m truly amazed about the beauty of a colour negative - the highlights are nothing less than spectacular!

Is the MFD sharper, yes! Is MFD faster/easier, very! greater dynamic range, not as Portra. And least, I find it so inspiring to use the Technikardan.

Regarding scanning, in the old days I used an Imacon 848 - now we started with my Alpa and the Schneider 120 marcro or the Schneider 72mm and the results was ok.

Just for fun we tried the Fuji 100II with the Fuji 110T/S, the result was more than ok and surpassing the Imacon with a fair margin and also better and more stable results than we achieved with my Alpa system. The two Fuji T/S is really something special….

We are using a big studio stand as repro stand and a scanning kit from Negative Supply and can scan way faster than with an Imacon.

We are very happy!

I haven't tried the 120 Macro or the 72 – but the 105 HR is incredibly sharp. What I found important, though, is to make sure the whole setup is incredibly stable and that you can align the system perfectly.

I use a laser align system where I reflect the beam by holding a dark infrared filter in front of the 105. I get very sharp results via laser alignment.

 

[Adammork]

Yes, the room for error is slim - we are shooting at f.8 since diffraction is visible at f.11 so the depth of field is so thin that you are not in doubt if you are out of alignment

Is it a commercial laser align system you are using, if so, could you please tell which.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

DT LaserAlign System | DT Heritage

heritage-digitaltransitions.com

Works like a charm. You should reflect the laser via a dark infrared filter with the same thread size you can hold before the lens (without screwing it in is ok); check corners in live view and done. This system sits above the negative holder. it is broad enough so you can put it over the negative supply MF kit if you primarily shoot 6x7/6x9, for example. On sheet stuff its not a problem as long as you squeeze the sheet between glass on top of the light source in a good holder system.

 

[Pieter 12]

The Versalab Parallel might do the trick, although it is meant for enlarger alignment. https://versalab.com/PARALLEL.html

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Linhofstudio also sells a mirror based system if I remmeber correctly – so there's also an alternative "analog" approach whereby you look into the mirror via live view.

But laser works very well. I use a geared Arca Swiss cube to align the red dot – which is fun!