The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Do you long to transition from MFD to LF?

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Every time I get the LF film itch, I just spray some dust on my sensor, shoot at f/16, and spend four hours cleaning up the final image.

:LOL:

Matt (who loved his Pentax 67, but never took a single decent 4x5 or 8x10 image in his life)
 

cunim

Well-known member
Every time I get the LF film itch, I just spray some dust on my sensor, shoot at f/16, and spend four hours cleaning up the final image.
I think the secret with LF is to lie convincingly. When you make garbage shots like this, just say "Yep, I meant to do that". Everyone assumes that, if you are strong enough to carry that stuff around, they better not contradict you.
Sinar, Grandagon 200

200nofilter.jpg
 
Last edited:

vieri

Well-known member
Nice one! The Chamonix is a fine camera, I have one too. My film/ developer choice: Delta100+ DD-X. Also nice is the Rollei RPX25 + DD-X, but the very thin base of the film make it tricky to handle.
Hey thanks! To get me started, I ordered some Delta 100, some FP4+ and some Ados CHS 100 II, and as developers I got FX-39 II, Rodinal (just to try some standing dev with it) and chemicals to mix D23, plus I got some 510 Pyro in the house. I will do some testing with all combinations of film & dev in various light conditions and see if I can standardise things a bit in the ISO 100 range (ideally, one film, one or two developers). I will then so a little test with 400 ISO films as well, just to have the option.

I overlooked DD-X, for whatever reason I thought it would not work well with low ISO, T-emulsions - I will get a bottle and add it to my little test, thank you for the recommendation!

Rollei RPX 25 was on my radar, I'd love to have a lower than 100 ISO option, but 1. the store I use was out of it and 2. the thinness of the base did worry me a bit. I might get a box later on when it's back in stock and see what I can do with it. Thanks again!

Best regards,

Vieri
 

daz7

Active member
What i miss the most is ability to shoot at f32 or even f64 practically with no penalty on sharpness, and amazing highlights on film.
With digital it is really difficult to get as much depth of the field and highlights get overblown easily.
 

Pieter 12

Well-known member
What i miss the most is ability to shoot at f32 or even f64 practically with no penalty on sharpness, and amazing highlights on film.
With digital it is really difficult to get as much depth of the field and highlights get overblown easily.
Sort of. Because of the longer focal length equivalents in LF film, shooting at 11 or 16 with current MF sensors should give similar sharpness and depth of field, especially if you use the sensor's native ISO (well, at least for CCD). I usually expose digital as if it were reversal film, exposing for the highlights. Post processing can usually bring enough detail out of the shadows.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I did some 4x5 and 8x10 larger-format photography. The results can be very satisfying. However, it was just too slow and bulky for the way I work. For me MF gave what I needed in terms of quality plus the flexibility to do different kinds of photography. The other thing I liked about MF was the choice of formats. I used 6x6 and 6x12 mostly, but there was a lot to choose from in all kind of camera styles: view cameras, SLRs, TLRs, rangefinders, viewfinders.
 

Paul Spinnler

Well-known member
The one thing about 8x10 that struck me was that you really, really, really, focus on what you want to shoot. The all-in cost of a developed 8x10 sheet is 50 bucks or more so imagine doing anything where each try or mistake costs you 50 bucks.

That very difficult to mimic psychologically.

Also: each shot was more or less a keeper.

So for photographic reduction it is amazing. Just the amount of time spent on framing!! Searching for the spot to setup, etc.! Scouting!
 
Top