|
hello, and welcome to the long overdue medium and large format megathread part 2! The original thread was almost as out of date as the cameras being used in it, and an insurmountable amount of information was in it, so I figured it's about time we start anew and get some of the links in the OP working again. But first:  This is a picture of your spine. I urge you to reconsider before going on. Your spine is probably going to hate you in a few months, but maybe you'll get some good pictures out of it. With that being said, allow me to introduce the titular formats, and what separates them from every day, run-of-the-mill 35mm:  Or, in more plain terms:  35mm on left, 120 in the middle (shot 6x6, it would appear), and 4x5 on right So what does bigness actually do for a film plane? Nearly all dSLRs and even some compacts today are what's known as "full frame", or, in other words the same size as 35mm film. While this mostly pertains to sharpness and resolution, it also has an effect on the depth of field. For example, 5.6 at 35mm may be enough for you to get a person's entire face in focus up close, but f/5.6 on 120 and 4x5 would be shallower and shallower because the lenses themselves are bigger. So, while an f-stop on a 35mm 1.8 may be wide enough for you to focus, it would be approaching nothingness on a medium format camera, and would be unusable on a 4x5 lens. Here's a handy-dandy DoF calculator for precisely such problems, however: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html And generally, it's not THAT big of a difference, but if all you've shot is 35mm, it's certainly something to consider. TL;DR version: in plain terms, more area is devoted to recording the same image. the most immediate gain in shooting 120 and 4x5 is higher resolution, thus meaning sharper images and bigger prints. it also means huge, massive, unwieldy cameras and very shallow, distinctive DOF. this only gets more extreme if you shoot larger formats. And, for more bad news, depending on your camera, you should only expect to get about 10-14 shots per 120 roll. Unless you're shooting the harder to find 220, which is twice as many (also, more cameras take 120) On my 6x7, I get 10 shots, on a 6x6, which is more typical of medium format, you would get 12, and so on and so forth. And for 4x5 (and 8x10, if you REALLY want to crush your feeble spine), I hope you have a shitload of these things laying around:  Two shots per holder, one on each side. And you'll definitely gently caress it up the first time you go out. I would bet on it. So, what's all this trouble for, actually, anyways? 4x5:  Cherisse by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  Ben Fong by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  Malene by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  the view by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr Another thing worth mentioning about 4x5 is that the f-stops can go ABOVE the paltry f/22 you may be used to. On up to 32, 48, 64, and even an absurd f/90. This allows for extremely long exposures, much longer and more detailed than cameras of other formats could do. And needless to say, the detail would be extraordinary. The long exposure here is over a minute long, if I recall, shot at f/64. As far as medium format goes:  ---_1246 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_0011 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  blue lips by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_0284 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr While I shoot 6x7, 6x6 is what's considered "standard" for a medium format, in my estimation. Now, while you might think that because these cameras are bigger, they must necessarily be more expensive, right? Well, not necessarily. If you absolutely MUST shoot 120, there are some stupidly cheap options, such as the Holga and the Diana. While these are absurdly cheap, and usually made entirely out of plastic, it doesn't mean they can't take a good picture. See here and all the assorted hipster accoutrements you could ever want on a camera! But, if you're as broke as a joke and still are dying for a 120 camera made with a bit metal, a Yashica TLR is probably your best bet:  They shoot 6x6, are compact, neat, and easy to load, and generally can be counted on to have two extremely sharp lenses, usually non-interchangeable. While the price range is quite broad, you can expect to take one home for about $120 bucks, possibly even less, but be sure to do your homework on all the different kinds out there There are many other cheap-ish cameras out there that will be spectacularly sharp and take some excellent pictures in the MF arena. Some other names to scout for deals would be Rolleiflex, Mamiya C330 or C220 There's also the Lomography-branded Belair, which is a 6x12 (!!!) MF camera with folding bellows which comes in at a decidedly overpriced $250-$300 range, given that it's partially plastic AFAIK. For my MF dollar though, nothing will top the Pentax 6x7:  DAT GRIP This is what I shoot MF on, pretty much exclusively, and the best thing about it is that there are deals to be had on it, you can pick one up for $300 or less if you're savvy, probably in the upper $400s otherwise. And, if you're afraid of looking into a ground glass on 6x6 cameras and the like, this one basically shoots exactly like a gigantic 35mm! "What about cheap 4x5's?" you might ponder. To that question I think I would chortle pretty hardily because "cheap" and "4x5" don't belong in the same sentence. Nobody buys a 4x5 camera because 35mm is breaking the bank. The holders are expensive. The film is expensive. The loupes are expensive. The cases are expensive. The glass is expensive. The bodies are expensive. The cheapest way in would probably be a Crown Graphic (yes, the old press cameras):  You can snatch one up for $100-$300, and, while it may actually be lighter than the Pentax 6x7, it's certainly not a camera you should imagine as convenient. I would strongly, strongly recommend for anyone shooting 4x5 to do it with a tripod. It's entirely possible to hand-hold a Crown Graphic and other cameras, and yes, people used to do it all the time, but trust me, you don't wanna go out shooting expensive rear end 4x5-film all day only to find out that you had the horizon slightly skewed in every picture All my 4x5 was shot on a Sinar F:  which can also be had (body only) for about $300-$400. The one I shoot with belongs to my school, who also provided me with the holder, lens, tripod, case, loupe, and shutter release for it. That being said, all the pain and anguish of shooting 4x5 and above will DEFINITELY make you a better photographer. If you want to be more consistent, and take less pictures overall but produce more keepers, try shooting a bit of film, and definitely look to medium and large formats. Nothing makes you learn quicker then, after a long day of shooting 4x5 out and about, after carefully loading many holders in the darkroom or changing bag of your choice, loving up every single picture because of some stupid bullshit. Seriously, just go out and shoot with some big rear end cameras. This could be you:  SCANNING Scanning, especially large format, is a whole huge pain in the butt because there is a tonal range that exists in film that is extremely difficult to reproduce/balance digitally. In general, it's good to scan in both AdobeRGB and sRGB formats, Adobe for printing/your personal usage and sRGB for web: https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167 Although a fuller write-up on scanning is probably necessary because seriously, it can be annoying. dorkasaurus_rex fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Feb 19, 2015 |
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
Reserved.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
https://vimeo.com/39578584 http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/20...-december-19th/ speaking of large format, look at this dude with "THE WORLD'S BIGGEST CAMERA" shooting loving wet plates that cost $500 a shot. and he uses it to take black and white pix of trees and can barely manage to salvage 1/4th of the pictures he takes. Just a reminder that sometimes (extremely rarely) camera size is not inherently better. The best part is the video is actually way better than any of the pictures it's about.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Then why not use Vuescan? Anything's better than FlexColor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2998HT1ZhU seriously, has anyone ever watched this video to completion? it's mind numbing
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 02:14
|
|
|
Welp, I bit the bullet and got a new back for my (school's) Sinar F. Gonna shoot like 22 frames this weekend, my back already hates me. I will be bringing my Pentax 6x7 + 3 lenses, a 5DMK2 with two lenses, and the Sinar F with 3 lenses. May god have mercy on my soul.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
hcenvirons posted:I got a Fuji GW690II off of ebay and I'm looking forward to taking it out this weekend. I haven't ever used a rangefinder, though and this viewfinder is kind of weird. It shows the image in this sort of hazy blue color with a yellowish dot in the middle. The goal is to adjust the focus so the dot's image overlaps with the scene itself right? Just wanna pop in and echo what others have said, that's like trying to learn how to play video games on a Lynx. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a great camera through and through, and you could have gone weirder (Just thank god you you didn't pick something with bellows), the construction is solid, and the style of shooting is roughly similar to a 35mm, but 6x9 is a weird starting point to have as a frame of reference.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
hcenvirons posted:Yeah, I was pretty amazed by its size. This isn't my only camera so I'll end up using this for more planned outings since I already have a 35mm film camera and a t3i with a decent amount of lenses. Thanks for the tips, though! I'm looking forward to forcing myself into a much more methodical and type of photography. They're okay, but in terms of accuracy and the many different ways you can use an actual meter (studio light, flash, incident, spot) they're better. I even use one with my 5DMK2 when I go out shooting digital simply because I find my hand-held meter more accurate. Beecam is fine if you have recently lost or irreparably damaged your dedicated meter, but given that you're relatively new, don't make this any harder on you than it has to be and get a drat meter, man. You can get used Sekonic L358's for like $150 now, and those things take a beating.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
Cherisse by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr Large format can be disgustingly beautiful sometimes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Great shot! How was it lit, the light looks great! Just an overhead fluorescent and the ambient light from a neon sign. It *is* possible to shoot LF with available light. Also, the restaurant is Ba Xuyen, a Banh Mi spot. Thanks y'all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
Just got a few rolls from the 6x7 back from the lab: ---_2075 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_2065 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr Thoughts? dorkasaurus_rex fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Guys, this is a bag-able 4x5 camera As I stated in the OP, if you want to get into 4x5 for the convenience, you're doing it wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:By all means give me advice as I need it! I really liked the framing between the trees and the lines leading up from the steps. I still have a lot to learn about posing and directing the people I shoot as I don't know the first thing about doing it (which probably shows) and a lot of times I end up just saying "stare at the lens" and hope I like the expression I am getting. This was also while wandering with my girlfriend so it was pretty spontaneous. Please feel free to tear it down and rip it to poo poo, as I respect the hell out of your work and can't get better without some input. She's cute, and the setting is nice, but she's just sitting there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
New 4x5s! These colors are a bit weird and they're a still a bit dusty but there you have it. Antman by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  A local Georgia couple by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  Yeong by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  Texas Plates by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:your color balance is pretty off on all of these I know. I'm very bad at scanning, but I'm by far the worst at color correction. I don't think I have the eye for it yet. What would you change?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
Here's another poorly scanned/color corrected shot from me: Lee by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Back in action with the old 6x7: ---_0039 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
6x7 supremacy.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
 ---_0229 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_0213 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_0202 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr I'm back in black (shooting P67 again)
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
OjaiYoda posted:I leave tomorrow for a week long tour with my friends band to the pacific northwest. I plan on shooting all of my film, and probably a couple of my girlfriends film too. muhahaha.... That's not nearly enough film.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
It's been a while, but I just graduated photomanschool and now I'll be on here a bunch more. New pictures:  ---_0400 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_0218 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_0206 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_0395 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
The lighting situation in this place all but guaranteed hosed up tones, but here's a new shot anyways: blue lips by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Is this what shooting LF is like guys? Someone please let me know tia. The OP has been updated.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Casu Marzu posted:So, after flipping through a lot of pages in this thread, I'm about to drop some cash on a Pentax 67. Any tips for someone that hasn't shot MF before? It's a pretty simple camera, ultimately. Try and make every single picture count, don't just take "test" rolls, and try and cover whatever you're shooting from every angle you can conceive of it looking good form. GobiasIndustries posted:I'd love to start shooting medium or large format film, but I live in an apartment with zero options for home development. My next big purchase I was thinking would be a Pentax 6x7, would I be able to get the film developed anywhere locally (I live in Denver, not sure if major places still work with anything other than 35mm) or is this something I'd need to ship out someplace until I can work on developing my own film rolls? There is the Denver Digital Imaging Center ( http://www.theslideprinter.com/ ) AKA The Slideprinter on Alameda east a block or two from the Cherokee intersection. They do E-6 with dip and dunk and can handle anything up to 8x10. Phone number 303 698 2962. For other work there is Reed Photo (888 North Federal Blvd, check http://www.reedphoto.com/) and they do C-41 up to 120, E-6 and B&W up to 8x10. Call and check, 303-573-8084 / 800-999-8084. Denver Pro Photo (http://www.denverprophoto.com/products.html), on Cherokee just north of Alameda. Their web site says they process up to 4x5 in C-41, b&w, and E-6. I don't think that is true any longer and that C-41 is only for 35mm and 120, but nothing larger. So I lugged my massive Sinar F to Israel with all the equipment, accessories, film etc. required to shoot it, and I open my camera case to see this:  Anyone know where to buy a rear glass plate in Tel Aviv? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
Some new stuff from NYFW from me.    Some other stuff on my tumblr
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Love backlit portraits like the last one. Is that portra? Portra 400, yes sir.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
How to know frozen film is ready to shoot: At the moment you take it out, take an ice cube out of your fridge as well. Put the ice cube in a plate or a cup or something. When the ice has thawed completely, your film is good to go!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
 ---_2022 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_1987 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_1994 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_2000 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_1999 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr i guess i've been taking pictures again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:What are you scanning with dorkasaurus? Whatever my lab has... I'll ask next time I go.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
The Clit Avoider posted:Film cameras at festivals are great. I've walked quite a number of SLRs, and a Mamiya 6 past security in Germany by just saying "Oh it's film", when they say "no professional cameras" and I've not got a press pass.  From the photo pit at Harpa, at Iceland Airwaves 2013. This dude is trying to take a picture of Omar Souleyman performing on stage.\ Click for big.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
None of y'all ever heard of any way to get a digital back onto a Pentax 6x7, right? I got a backup body now and I was wondering if maybe I should try to get one on there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
If you use the button on the face of the camera to bring the mirror back down without a battery inside, will the pictures you took still come out? Asking for a Pentax 6x7 btw
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:That frame will be toast but the rest of the roll should be fine. Ugh that's bad news. Luckily I had my Contax T3 in my pocket. drat repair place took the battery out without telling me, all they fixed was the film advance lever
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Starting a project documenting all the weird characters that hang around Times Square trying to fleece money from tourists. Keep at it, but just a heads up, this has been done.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Figured, link? http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/costumed-characters-love-article-1.1533745 Also, the International Center of Photography is right near by, so tons of kids from there incorporate it into the year long projects in some way usually. It's tough to make new images of Times Square, but I like your direction.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Just chiming in to say that if you're willing to plunk down $700 for a brand new MF system, $700 will take you very far in terms of buying a Pentax 6x7. You'll even have some left over for film and accessories if you're smart.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
I haven't stopped taking pictures for some reason. ---_0378 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_0480 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_0838 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_0078 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  ---_0840 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr    ---_0101 by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  It wouldn't let me do the "share" thing to three of those. not really sure what I'm doing with my life but here are some pictures
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Yo Dork, how come you never come visit anymore. My bees miss you. Yo hit me up on Gchat, we'll set up a shoot this week. I seriously thought they were all dead from Sandy still. MrBlandAverage posted:How much direction are you giving your portrait subjects? Most of the time I'm just telling them to keep their eyes open while I shoot, but I'm getting more comfortable with direction/styling as I do it more and more, and realize the models are all pretty comfortable about it (as long as the pictures are good) Geektox posted:Just FYI they can't be shared because they're marked as naughty bits on flickr for some reason. My account was restricted for nudity for a while (dongs) so I guess I uploaded it during that time??? loving Flickr.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:gently caress you guys, I did some LF portraiture the other day. This is beautiful stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Still taking pictures of the people who hang around Times Square in costumes for money. I'd like to see the subjects somewhat more isolated from their backgrounds. There's a lot of distracting stuff going on in some of them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:Hmm you mean a shallower depth of field, or trying to shoot them with less stuff behind them? Both, honestly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2014 05:02
|
|