Camera movements was one of the most appealing things to me when deciding to make the switch to large format. It gives me options without needing to focus stack like I had to do constantly with my digital shots. Keep up the great work.
Thanks Don! As someone that's worked with focus stacking for a few projects, it's almost as much work as hauling around the big view camera. Although movements may not get the hyper-sharpness and deep DoF that focus stacking can, the imperfections of that single 2D plane give the photograph a realness that I enjoy.
@@MatMarrash I like being able to use front tilt when focusing on something that is on a single plane rather than having to focus stack. I also think that the single plane of focus makes the images feel more real as we would see the subject.
I love the fact you understand the backlash of circle of confusion. I get into "converastations" with my students all the time about understanding depth of field. in Day 1 of the Cinematography course I teach I have them learning the math for Hyperfocal Distance , Depth of Field and Field of view!
Thanks for the video! Interesting subject, there is a lot to know about these topics individually, and they are very enriching, and usable in photographic art. About possible criticisms and empty debates that you are subject to when mentioning some controversial topics, I believe that the maxim that says: "A finger points to the Moon, the wise man studies the Moon. The fool criticizes the finger."
Hello Matt, I really enjoy watching your video episodes. I would like to comment about depth of field. Back in the day, LOL, when was I shooting with my Hasselblad an Nikon F3, for portraits and product photography, the CF lens and Nikor lens had a "depth of field scale" that was a fabulous tool. Myself and other commercial photographer's would bracket the depth of field using the scale on the camera lens. I was told this approach to conceptualizing and bracketing depth of field was called " selective focus". The old Crown Graphics 4x5 camera lens came with a depth of field index card that gave you a reference of depth of field relative to f-stop and specific lens. I hope this post is useful and brings attention to bracketing shots for "selective focus" in a scene.
Nice! You picked the print that I ordered :o) Today has been a good day. I drove home yesterday (980 miles) to visit the kids and grandkids. I found lenses for my 8x10 (300mm and 450mm) and a wide angle 4x5 lens (75mm). I bought them before I bought the camera. I found a ridiculous amount of Pt/Pd (quick glance through the box says that I have at least 75ml of each) that I bought 5 or 6 years ago. It was cheaper then (understatement). I hope it's still good. I had all but stopped making photographs 3 years ago. I just got burnt out. I tried gallery shows and I let it dominate my life. I wish I had room for my enlarger back in NM but I don't... Thanks again for rekindling what I thought was lost.
Hey Michael, yes indeed it's the same photo, but I think you may like the print I just finished washing even more! Also nice score with the Pt/Pd chemicals, that's like finding a banker's box of gold! I know a few photographers that have done the traveling art fair circuit. It seems like a very big grind, especially with the prevalence of social media trends and rising finishing costs.
@@MatMarrash Art fairs and the occasional gallery show (small gallery show) about did me in lol My favorite story from those days - I noticed that a woman that I knew had spent a lot of time looking at one of the other photographs in the show. I walked up to her and asked her what she liked about the photo. She looked at me a little confused and said something like- oh... I don't really like the photo but the frame is gorgeous. I laughed at first but then realized the she was serious. She followed up with - I often buy artwork just for the frame. I take the artwork out, throw it way, and put what I want into the frame. I was really, really glad that she didn't buy anything of mine. I had always used the relatively cheap 1" black frames to hang prints. No wonder she never bought anything lol Another time I got a call from a friend about an Australian couple that wanted to buy one of my larger prints. They wanted to take it that day and the show ran for another few weeks. For some reason I had to be there before they could take it. Maybe they just wanted to meet me... I don't recall. I drove 45 minutes to get there. They were a really nice couple. I asked why they chose the photo that they did. It was of 3 geese in flight about 3' above a pond. Early morning so the wings were a little blurred but the head on the lead goose was sharp (enough). It's hard to pan a 600 f4 lens when your freezing your butt off. Literally... I was sitting on frozen ground. So why did they buy it. There were on the last leg of a one month holiday. Their ritual was to buy something that was "goose related" on every trip. The woman said something to the effect of "this is our last stop and we hadn't found anything yet so we thought, might as well get this". Lol... ah well... there's only room for one Ansel Adams. Speaking of Ansel Adams, I had just come home from a trip to Maine. I spent a week in a John Paul Caponigro printing workshop, got to meet his dad, Paul Caponigro, got to see them do a talk together at a gallery in Portland, got to see some original platinum palladium prints from Ansel Adams, John Sexton, and three other well known artists of the day (can't remember the names at this moment), of course seeing Paul's Galaxy Apple print at the talk was outstanding... and then I spent a week roaming around the Friendship, Me area. Apologies... I'm blathering again... photography was such a huge part of my non-work life... More to the point of this video... Camera movements is something that I was just starting to use... Lot's to relearn.
Great video and explanation!!! I also am a painter in addition to a photographer, I love to go to a Museum and getting REAL close to see brush technique, but ultimately the are two things about viewing a photo or painting ... the proper viewing distance to see it all come together and the super close viewing that REALLY is not how to view art!!!
Wow Brian that's awesome that you're a painter too! I've always been an art appreciator and got started young by taking classes at the local museum. Couldn't draw to save my life but loved roaming the halls and taking in all the wonderful art!
I just installed a lens onto a lens board for my 4x5 from a 70mm Kodak camera circa 1908. Looking at the ground glass it does cover the entire glass 👍🏻. I can’t wait to shoot it to tomorrow. I will shoot film and paper negatives just to see how it does.
For some reason I missed this one when it came out. I am one of the old timers around the film world now a days. Working on your results, what does the customer want, we would use that to come up with all the necessary things to make it happen. First was color B&W, that would give us the basic image. Then if B&W how much contrast and grain. If Color, how much pastel or not. Then would be the set and the focus. Usually I would shoot for the face and ears. Depth of field was the base. From that you would pick camera and lens. Aperture, now the big A. You would pick your film, lighting, camera and lens to get what the customer wanted to be seen. The film ASA would be a big part of the shoot. We old timers had to know a lot to come up with an image - just as you are doing with your wonderful work. It is a big mix to come up with a sort of an answer which you won't see for a while after clicking the shutter.
Very good exposition of the relationship of depth of field to image enlargement. Not sure how many folks got it, but if you don't try.... Missing: how change in aperture optically effects the circle of confusion, thus depth of field. Trying to explain these principles to the average photographer is, in my experience, an act of watching eyes glaze over. I settled for answering the "how" questions and skipped the "whys".
I want to understand this so badly! My eyes are bright, but still this seems mysterious. I've studied hard for over 20 years and used most cameras in existence. I've made prints from both negatives I've processed myself from time blended, focus stacked digital files. I've noticed sweet spots for lenses are different when you change sensor size. I need this ah hah moment
This is my first contact with these considerations so there's a lot there for me to ponder.But that video was amazing. Thank you so much for youteachings and the passion you put into it.
one other limitation to dof is the bellows extension, as you hit the bellows extension factor limit, this can limit the aperture you have to choose from, for a given extension the amount of light is more, so either a longer time (with reciprocity in this as well, movement due to camera shake, wabbly tripod, etc), or wider aperture or a combination, to get the exposure right; which is the primary consideration, and the dof has to take a back seat.
good video Mat, and for info's sake, the thing you were describing with print/camera size is called the "diffraction limit of resolution", I have a book on MF/LF by Rodger Hicks & Frances Schultz; and they discribe this phenominon by {paraphrasing here} saying that a 6-12 X enlargement is the max resolving power of a lens at 35 mm; ( ie what in digital we would call unusable iso, the "grain" or digital noise is soo distracting, the picture itself starts to get lost); but by 4x5" it gets to 4-8X enlargement BUT this is for 16x20" print, there are other factors, but this is another one, the physical limitations of the format itself, ie the more you enlarge to hit a set size, the more the grain/diffraction are visible, so it is always a compromise, what you get for one, loose for the others( like price/quality and weight).
Relative to resolving power: I've got a 105 mm Agnar triplet lens (off a 6x9 cm folder that was otherwise trashed when I got it) mounted for my Speed Graphic and Graphic View 4x5 cameras -- and it's *incredibly* sharp at f/16 (though it only covers the corners when stopped down that far and focused at hyperfocal distance of about 12 feet). That's probably because it was optimized for film less than half the size of the 4x5 negative -- an 8x10 print from a 6x9cm negative is a bit more than 3x magnification, vs. 2x for 4x5 -- and as your chart pointed out, acceptable CoC is smaller on smaller film.
I love photography! No matter the size, format or film/digital. When I shoot with my 4X5 I get a lot of negative comments. So all I tell them is I don't have a phone built into my camera, can I borrow your camera to make a phone call?
Thanks Mat! Adding this brief intro to the (often-avoided) concept of circle of confusion makes a lot more sense of the whole concept. Explaining more actually clarifies things. Hmm, who'd have thunk it?
Thanks David, I very much agree! Circle of Confusion and being able to visualize the light hitting your film through that circle helps the whole idea of what's in/out of focus.
I'm a fan of f/64 on my 4x5, especially for architecture work. But I have started using the limited movements on my Crown Graphic to help get that slice of sharp focus in shooting some of these railroad stuff that I've been working with! Also a Question: Double Fixing with Pyrocat-HD developer. I've been working with TF-4 but wondering how to long to use a hardening fixer as a second fix?
Thanks Alex and good question about double fixing with Pyrocat HD. Another side effect of the stain from catechol is the tanning action on the film. With most modern emulsions, no additional hardeners are needed during washing steps. If you're running specialty films like aerial and x-ray film, this may help prevent some processing marks but may not do much once the film is dried. If doing this after TF-4, you might not need more than 2 minutes of a hardening fix.
Hi Mat, thanks for this wonderful video - great like always!!! Could you please give a short explanation of how to use the front tilt? I tried it to gain a larger DOF - the photo was totally crap1 Thanks Bernd
Hey Bernd thanks for the comment! Typically, to gain a deeper DoF for a landscape shot, I'll focus my intended subject in the background, then tilt the front/lens standard forward until the front area I want comes into focus. Then I'll bounce back and forth between focus and tilt until I have the depth of field I want; most times you'll still need to use a higher f-number than "wide open" on your lens.
I think you need a smaller f/stop on your video camera, some of your hair is not in focus. I'm loving LFF and, although I don't have a view camera, I'm seriously thinking of getting one. I've thought about the Graflex but I think I'm leaning towards a Toyo 45A: a bit more expensive but not as much as the Zone VI I was drooling over. Keep up the great work!
To get all the hair in focus, you may start to see all the dust on my camera's sensor! ;) My best tip on the Toyo is get a new one/used with a new bellows. In all my years in camera retail I've never once seen a used Toyo without pinholes.
Toyo 45A is a great camera. Also Wista cameras are similarly priced but have more gearing and are a bit heavier. Toyos also have a different lens board than most 4x5 cameras -- better in some respect than the more standard Linhof type but annoyingly different. My recommendation is to buy from a Japanese dealer on ebay and get as good quality as you can afford. I didn't have any pinhole issues with my used Toyo.
my experience is that everybody gets right up to a print. they get as close as possible which is part of why we need guards at museums to stop people from touching the art with their noses
They sure do! In my experience prints 8x10" and smaller tend to get the nose treatment more than larger ones. I was almost kicked out of a Karsh exhibit for doing the very same thing.
In my day job as an application engineer for a high-speed camera manufacturer, I am constantly shooting images which are analysed at the pixel level where diffraction is critical as is MTF. It's extremely hard for me to move back to a 4x5 lens and use it past f/22, knowing it's diffraction limited. Conversely I get extremely frustrated in my job when people view a tilt/shift lens as an excessive expensive piece of specialist equipment, and I'm wishing I could tilt my sensor too.. ironically, despite the two totally different ends of the photographic spectrum, high-speed imaging and large format have one thing in common...always hunting for as much light as possible...
This is a really great question! I recently searched for some MTF charts (nerdy, I know) to see what range my 8x10 lenses resolved. Turns out some of the older ones were coming in at 10-15 lp/mm. This is not even close to 35mm, and what might be needed would be a super modern (aka expensive) Schneider APO Symmar or Fine Art XXL lens to get both good coverage and resolution.
I don't understand all this worry about DoF - it is nearly infinite on my 4x5 pinhole camera … 😁 Hey, don't complain about the lack of resolution due to the refraction of the pinhole! Physics is sooooo rude. 😉 I already knew what you've talked about, but the way you did it was really fun. And it looks as if you're evolving your style here, and I'm looking forward to more of that! 👍
You talked about the "lf look" maybe it would be interesting to touch on straight photography vs pictorialism?? Considering this debate started with big cameras, and you and your friends are known for playing around with interesting lenses. Idk I'll be interested in hearing your comments on both in a video tho!
Evan thanks for the comment, this is an interesting idea! Early on in LF I was particularly drawn to the F64 club, but as time goes on, I'm enjoying the work of pictorialsists.
It seems that Diffraction is much more of an issue in the Digital World. Is that due to how Sensor works comparing to Film? Or is it due to the Large Format Sizes? I‘ve found very little regarding Diffraction in Analog Photography over the years.
I think a lot of it has to do with the imaging/sensor size but also to what photographer expectations are of the medium. I don't know a lot of film shooters that "pixel peep" 200% crops of their film shots, many of them are out enjoying the art.
It really is! The biggest advantage besides costs and weight are the abundance of roll films that can be easily adapted in interesting sizes on the 4x5.
I think 5x7 could have been the sweet spot if there were more cameras and film support for it. Almost double the area of 4x5 and lots of overlap with 4x5 equipment.
