The thread on Alec Soth by Michelle got me to look into view cameras a bit more. So, do any of you use large format view cameras? The techniques are old and reliable, tried and very effective in ways that quick shoot photogs might miss. This takes time for composure, thought of image well thought and more. Large format offers difficulty in many ways but tremendous potential for printing and reproduction in fine style. Use a view camera for nature, advertising photog, any kind of way? I would like to know. Thanks. TomDart.

I would love to try one, but alas I have not.

Thank you for submitting a real photography thread. I used a view 4X5 view camera (really a Crown Graphic press camera, but it had swings and tilts), very briefly, a long time ago. Tremendious quality! ASA50 a f/64. But at the end of the day lugging the thing around, maybe have 10 exposures. Need really expensive equipment to process. And, when just learning, maybe one good shot. If lucky. Ansel Adams was God! Sorry, just not my style. [And I'm slow compared to most of you!]

I still have (but rarely have the time to use it) a wooden 4x5 field camera. If I didn't have a job, I would be out all the time...maybe I could make that my job....hmmm. View cameras are very difficult to use well, but are completely worth it when that one or two good shots come out as planned. I have shot boxes and boxes of film, but only have a dozen or so "keepers". Ansel adams supposedly only got about a dozen good shots a year...yeah right. His worst are probably better than my best. View cameras are a lifestyle, and require a lot of time and patience. I still highly recommend trying it out, as it really makes one think about composition...no quick delete and reshoot like digital.

Apparently, there is discipline in the view camera, inherent without a "quick fix" from the composer's view. Alas, such discipline is waning and I agee, even not having used one but knowing an elderly man who did...this is a style unto itself. Still, amazing images from ages past and some from the "view camera composers" of today. This is facinating to me. TomDart.

Dear nplus, our post crossed in time...this image is super and just the stuff I have thought about. Thanks a bunch for posting this. Others should benefit from the image and the method it displays. TomDart. PS. the subtle tones differences are impressive from tree to tree and down the tracks.

Message edited on: 03/23/2005 21:38

Even the negatives are fun to look at. Now, If only I could get a digital back for less than the price of a sports car.....

nplus, I didn't even check prices on the view camera sites I checked last night...knowing better than to even think about it. The digital back did make me curious as to the quality offered there. The Polaroid preview is one thing, whether landscape or "a classic black telephone classroom object" with slow speed and controlled lighting...but the digital back, is this able to do the stuff? Is the "system" including lens and swings and bellows the secret more than film? Can digital render a nice replication of the film capture? I don't really know what I am speaking of but am still fascinated. Please give your impressions. BTW, what is an expected price for a digital back? Thanks for this info. So refreshing, indeed! Refreshing, indeed! Tom.

basicly, digital backs for view cameras are made for studio shooting. They are like a small high resolution flatbed scanner for your camera. So exposure times are not the fastest. Some scan the area in one pass (like a copier or flatbed) and some make 3 seperate exposures one for red, green and blue. The quality is very very good. Supposedly some 4x5 backs can capture more image data than a piece of 8x10 film. This also makes for a VERY large file size...150megs and up. Digital backs range in price from about $6,000 - $30,000 US. Most pros will lease them. The best way to go is to shoot film, then get a high quality drum scan.

nplus's example is fantastic! Nothing (today) beats a large negative!

A digital back is simply a different method of capturing the image data, i.e a substitute for a film back, generally speaking the larger the film/digital back ( assuming exposure etc is correct ) the better quality image you will have to work with in the darkroom/computer. The important factor is to save all the image data in a big fat raw file or whatever format is used in these backs to save uncompressed image data. The view camera movements and their resultant effect on the image will be the same whatever medium is used for image capture, having used view cameras in the past I can confirm that you do take extra time in composing and setting up the shot, the cameras with the necessary dark slides, extra lens, tripod etc. were a bulky item so every shot had to count, no blasting 30 or 40 shots off of the subject to get one right, using negative film the rule of thumb was to calculate the exposure, shoot and take another shot with the exposure doubled as an insurance. When discussing Mr Adams work something that is often overlooked is that his work was based around a combination of exposure calculation and corresponding negative processing adjustment.

I still have to play around with my medium format camera for the first time (Mamiya C330). Still trying to figure out WHAT to shoot with it :P

Those C330's were nice!

A recent auction of an old friends business offered two of the Mamiyas and some Bronicas. I didn't bid, not knowing what I was bidding on.