Large Format Is Still Completely Unrivaled: Canon 5DSR Versus 4x5 Large Format Film - Part 1

[@Sondercreative]

The best APS-C camera you can buy - geni.us/Bestapsc - B&H link - bhpho.to/2MRzkzD I get my music here - share.epidemicsound.com/wwJ7v

[@jamaristetson1238]

you probably dont give a shit but does anybody know of a tool to log back into an Instagram account? I stupidly forgot the login password. I love any help you can give me!

[@danieljack9214]

@Jamari Stetson Instablaster ;)

[@jamaristetson1238]

@Daniel Jack Thanks for your reply. I got to the site thru google and Im trying it out now. Takes quite some time so I will get back to you later when my account password hopefully is recovered.

[@jamaristetson1238]

@Daniel Jack it did the trick and I now got access to my account again. Im so happy! Thanks so much you saved my account!

[@danieljack9214]

@Jamari Stetson You are welcome xD

[@BriteFrog]

Yet another reason I am a "hybrid" shooter. I shoot digital full-frame, but also medium-format film and 8x10 large format. Film is far from dead :)

[@maurolopesmarziano]

hybrid is very nice too ...

[@BenelliMr]

I hate you :) :) sorry, don't take it personal, but I would love to shoot 8x10 format. The biggest I ever went is 4*5. Then I sold it. What a mistake. You are so right. Already 4*5 format for outside means a backpack of 25 kg. Once you found the right spot, taking off the backpack, unpacking, getting the huge and heavy tripod set up, camera mounted, black cloth over your head, seeing pictures upside down, putting in a film plate, shooting one photo (in those days, as a student I could not afford more tan 3 to 4 photos a day). packing all the material took me about 20 to 30 minutes. But still today (40 years later) I remember every single shot. The digital generation will never get access to this joy , unfortunately. Should I get back to large format????

[@davidrichards6718]

@@BenelliMr get back into it. I am in the process at the moment, got the kit together, weighs in at about 7 kg plus tripod(haven't put it on the scales, but very manageable) just need to free up some time, well lots of time.

[@EbonyPope]

I just googled what approximately the megapixel equivalent for a 4x5 inch film is. 298.7 million pixels! And it's a whopping 1,200 million pixels for 8x10 inch film. That's crazy!

[@andythephotog]

I’m a retired military photographer, and did my training on 5x4 MPP & Linhof cameras. Miss the amazing quality that they produced (especially with the Schneider lens) but don’t miss carrying them about! I do miss that quality though

[@XJarhead360]

You can still buy a decent 4X5 LF camera at KEH

[@jacovanlith5082]

Better buying a new Linhof Technika. @@XJarhead360

[@michaelktori5178]

But we had to carry a lot of heavy gear about back then.

[@charlesellenberger8067]

Nice to see a young photographer expand his understanding and appreciation for the beautiful tools we older artists once used everyday in our careers. It was great to see him get it right off the bat. Hopefully he'll pick up a 4x5 film system for when he's in the mood to create some thing truly special.

[@RandyPollock]

Thanks for doing this video, it shows the power that 4x5 still has and the imagery of film still cannot be replicated or touched by digital... I don't want to live without either digital or analog we live in time that we can experience both and I'm thankful for that...

[@noel8290]

Man that makes me want to pull out of the closet all my 4x5 gear and rent a field camera just to make me feel that film darkroom sentiments from back in the day may be one of these days...thanks for posting this

[@realitytunnel]

Been looking at 4x5 recently, in my mind, ideal companion to a modern digital camera - for very different purposes. Not so much for DOF but the overall aesthetic, which is vastly different. I think the biggest attraction is a return to a process I loved, and very very different to digital process.

[@robvanvalkenburg522]

Been shooting medium and large format for a while now. Just got my hands ona Durst Laborator 1200 so I can make analogue prints from my 4x5 negs. Happy days...

[@robbe4711]

You also have to consider the imperfection of the chemical film process that also adds more depth to the image. Imperfectness is more pleasing for the human eyes. The same goes with music.

[@danielleswain2729]

Old school photographer who loves the look of film and large format but hated the darkroom the time delay the cost and dreamed all my life for what I have now, digital and photoshop. With a few tools and some skill I can replicate any film stock any lense any format. Am I "cheating"? This is not a test. This is the wonderful world of photography. As long as I don't use your pictures without permission, I think I am okay. I still have my film cameras but for the most they sit on the shelf for decoration.

[@theportraitist4888]

I used to actually love my darkroom. And there're moments I miss it today. But would I ever go back? Not a chance!

[@AlexanderHernandez-sb7lq]

My favorite part of photography, is the darkroom

[@stevek8829]

The is no darkroom needed for modern film photography, only a changing bag. The images are only captured on film. They are then scanned and processed digitally. You don't hear much about anyone missing enlargers or tape cropping their film.

[@johnbode5528]

To be ridiculously pedantic, DOF is a function of physical aperture diameter, not focal length. Longer focal lengths have a larger aperture for any given f-number - f/8 on a 135mm is a physically larger aperture than f/8 on a 50mm, which is why the former gives you a shallower DOF. And now you have me lusting for LF gear again. I’ve never shot anything bigger than 35mm and always wanted to play with larger formats, but I could never justify the expense.

[@AtlantaTerry]

I have been working with large format cameras since I was in high school in 1963 so you don't need to convince me. Let's talk about the image colors in your large format photographs... they look unsaturated and have a blue cast. Why? Is this due to the scans? Did you use E6 film or color negative or out of date Polaroid color film? Scans from large format E6 really should be accurate because the person doing the scans has the original to compare their results to. But when scanning a 4x5" color negative, the technician has nothing except their life experience to judge the results with. If you used old Polaroid film, you are doing this whole project a disservice and you might want to redo it with fresh E6 film. Thank you. Terry Thomas... the photographer Atlanta, Georgia USA

[@killer120070507]

Seems like its a color negative film with poor inversion

[@PeacePham1991]

I think that's how he edited the photos and he was focusing more on the depth of field effect of larger sensor aspect

[@paulappleby2729]

Very refreshing ,entertaining and insightful content, the images from the large format are so organic and dream like, incredible. I hope for more insights into your world of large format photography. 👍

[@jpdj2715]

After all this exciting news for the young generations, now look at Richard Avedon's 1995 fashion shots that he did for Versace. Shot at 8"x10" (think of a single shot sheet of film in a camera that would have a sensor the size of almost the area of an A4 sheet of paper, or Letter). The process is slow. You cannot work with models that are "self or model directed". Imagine the studio is set up and prepared for correct lighting by assistants and potentially tested with a shot on Polaroid film. Now the models come in for a shot, their pose is rehearsed and directed, the facial expression is directed or influenced and at the right time, Richard Avedon releases the shutter (fires a shot). Aside from all the costs involved in hourly rates, real estate and depreciation of kit, and the models having stood in an uncomfortable pose for some time, if that shot turned out to be bad later on, just the loss of the one shot (sheet of film and its processing) would have been more than $10. Today, "photographers" direct nothing, fire 3,000 shots per day, and pick one nice shot out. Who cares, just pixels lost and a bit of camera wear. Next imagine that all the high profile professional photography, at least the studio work, before Avedon, going back to the start of photography, was done like that. And farther back there were more complications. What the old slow process teaches you is to look and see differently and to pre-envision your photographs. The moment you can do that, firing at the right moment becomes easier and even journalistic recording of things that happen becomes easier.

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Can't say that is a bad thing though. There are so many talented photographers delivering high quality shots everyday, and getting the technical details right isn't enough anymore.

[@arunashamal]

I disagree completely.... You are comparing instagram/ youtube photographers to a master of photography. The process is still the same when it comes to haute couture fashion. You are comparing Versace to a some dude's shopify site. They might not shoot on film, but studio workflow, models, makeup, props, posing, directing... it is till the same process.

[@BenelliMr]

similar with Karl Lagerfeld shooting his gods and goddesses, sorry, reverse, ladies first

[@KuronoXD]

The Large Format images look like the editing many photographers try to emulate in LR/PS and are aesthetically superior, as long as you don't pixel peep.

[@Sondercreative]

I properly love the results from these cameras. I think with a sharper lens and if we scanned larger files even pixel peeping would result in significantly better results for the 4x5.

[@nobodynowhere5213]

Its mostly about a scanner, the flatbeds are absolute shit.. as you are repro photographing your film with a plastic low grade lens. Film is especially superior for printing, as with a proper scanner you can get as large files as you wish. I have printed mural size prints from just 35mm film, without any scaling. With digital, you always need to scale for printing.. and that will result in mush, that you try to compensate with sharpening. Sadly, the only proper scanners currently are old drum scanners. Large & clumsy machines... but literally the only way to get proper scans from film, especially from LF film. But when you actually print 600/720dpi files, you can finally see what inkjet is capable of.

[@EatsTooMuchJam]

This is an interesting video and you make some good points, but there are also a few things to keep in mind (sorry if you mentioned some of them in the video and I missed it)... 1) An 8" f/2.9 lens that covers 4x5 isn't exactly a common thing. 4x5 lenses which are so fast are pretty uncommon. Most are generally more in the f/4 - f/5.6 range. That does look like a beautiful lens, though, and one may find its way into my ebay cart sometime soon. :) 2) While it's totally true that the above lens is capable of producing shallower DOF than any currently-available option for FF or reasonably-priced digital MF (I see people in the comments theorizing about potential options with Phase One blah blah, but let's face it - most of us aren't buying a Phase One any time soon so it's better to focus on the capabilities of cameras that we can actually buy!), it may not be an extremely useful distinction. With an 85mm f/1.2 lens on FF, I can get eyes that are in sharp focus while the ears and tip of the nose are both already partially blurred. I haven't tried (yet) with the same lens on my GFX 100, but at the same FOV, I would expect the nose and ears to be even more blurred. Blur is subjective, but at some point, it becomes both infeasible to get a model to hold still enough to get sharp focus. This is where practical considerations become an issue. Your model mentioned it was difficult to hold still enough. With digital, I can fire a burst and have a better chance of getting one where the model is at the exact right distance for razor-sharp eye focus. 3) Also, in practical terms, shooting digital means fewer hours spent cloning dust spots out of my scans. 4) In at least one, maybe more of your side-by-side shots, the Canon was framed wider than the 4x5. This is going to lead to deeper DOF. The Canon would still have lost, of course, but the difference would be less pronounced if it were a little closer to the model. 5) Glad to hear someone actually getting it RIGHT that sensor size does not change the DOF of a lens! Those discussions drive me crazy sometimes! Hope you don't mind my minor nitpicking! I liked the video overall and it's always fun to see tests of things taken to the extreme!

[@EatsTooMuchJam]

Oh yeah, and after reading the other comments, I'm sorry that you've run afoul of the people on youtube who seem to be very angry that someone spent a bunch of time making a video to put online for them to watch for free and want to punish them for it. :-/

[@vikhyatmudrit3811]

I looked at phase one's official website. They have an image gallery there. None of the images look as interesting as what you see on Kodak's instagram page. None.

[@Indy_at_the_beach]

Kodak Retinar is a projector lens.

[@VonBromPhoto]

> An 8" f/2.9 lens that covers 4x5 isn't exactly a common thing. It's probably a lens designed for aerial photography, I'd guess in the 1930s or 1940s (WW2). The trick would be finding a shutter to put it on, unless the MPP has a focal plane shutter. EDIT: I just read below its a Dallmeyer Pentac f2.9 which (from another site) is a WW2 British aerial reconnaissance lens. It can be mounted into a Compound No 5 shutter which is a huge beast itself.

[@neilbarnes3557]

@@VonBromPhoto Though on the MPP Micropress you don't need to; that camera has a rolling blind focal plane shutter. It's a great camera; two shutter triggers, three framing methods, and the seventy year old 127mm lens it came with still makes lovely images. I'm impressed that you can get a No 5 shutter on to the lens plate.

[@nathandd8541]

An incredible and extremely rare video In my opinion, although digital controls almost the entire photography industry But it is still miles away from the film The magic seen in analog images can never be simulated digitally No sensor can replicate the dream images produced in the Large Format film Thank you for this great video

[@mariustoma5656]

Aaaaaa, I’ve been saying those things for years now, thanks for putting it up there bro, I love LF and I believe is still one of the best format in photography until you try 8x10 and you’re life will forever changed. Cheers

[@CertainExposures]

Now I can link this video the next time someone on the street asks me why I bother with a massive 4x5 camera! Nice comparison here. I was not expecting to see a LF video from you.

[@naedolor]

I mostly shoot LF. The resolution and detail I get with the aperture f/8 and above are mind blowing and nothing comes close to the look of LF. I can get a resolution of 200 megapixels and even more from a normal flatbed film scanner. Very expensive and prohibited though.

[@RobTrek]

Love this video. Thanks for sharing. I've been looking at large formats like 6x9 or 120 film. Never considered the 4x5 until now.

[@Sondercreative]

It’s lots and lots of fun :-)

[@BenelliMr]

if you want to go large, go large. Don't stop half way.

[@Sondercreative]

BenelliMr working on an 8x10 video. Coming soon :).

[@RobTrek]

@@Sondercreative 8x10! Very ambitious. Looking forward to it.

[@lonniepaulson7031]

I miss my 4x5" cameras. I agree with you.

[@ZachThom9]

It wasnt touched upon in this video but the biggest draw for me towards LF is that the bellows allows for rise/fall and tilting to create images that are not possible in any other way.

[@Butterfly07949]

A few years ago I was given a camera for my birthday and was then asked by a friend of mine who was having his autobiography published wanted me to do the photography for the book cover, I told the art director that I only had a film camera and not a digital one and when I told him what camera I had he said forget digital as I can scan the transparencies to a much better resolution. I absolutely love the shallow depth of field the 100mm f2.4 carl zeiss lens produced with the Bronica S2A

[@Camaro-it8ht]

The best I can do on (affordable) digital MF is to setup a Metabones speed booster, and an Isco Cinelux 105mm 1.6 projector lens. The Fuji MF sensor is 44x33mm. With a x0.71 speed booster gets the FOV of 62x46.5mm. That's larger than film 645 which is actually 56x41.5mm (and 6x6 actually is 56x56mm). With this setup the 105mm 1.6 is equivalent to a 58.9mm f0.897 on FF sensor (Nikon 58mm 0.95?). Now get a 4x5 camera and attach to the back a slider and the above setup as a digital back. It won't get you to 100x125mm of 4x5, but sliding the "digital back" and taking just 2 frames will be equivalent to a 93x62mm FOV. Of course the person in front will have to stay still until the 2 frames are taken, but that's still faster than shooting 4x5 film. With some nice editing you can get BW tonality similar with a large format camera (given you are using the GFX 100s and not 50s/r) 105mm x 0.71 x 0.79 = 58.9mm f1.6 x 0.71 x 0.79 = f0.897 What do you think?

[@jmitzenmacher5]

There's a great video on youtube called "Large Format Video Camera (8x10)" where they use a DOF adaptor to achieve the "look" of a large-format camera, but recorded digitally. It might be a good compromise between quality and convenience if your DOF adaptor is good enough.

[@whirlpoodle2823]

Can't believe you snuck in the "oh and by the way we also took a few polaroids" right at the end. I love shooting Fuji FP-100C film, and the 4x5 instant stock is now so rare and expensive that I was kind of blown away. Great images, always appreciate the extra vote of confidence for large format film!

[@Sondercreative]

The instant film is stunning. We shot a few of them mostly to test the exposures and composition.

[@elise3455]

I think we may finally be able to produce photos similar to this with digital cameras! Just saw someone review the Fuji GFX 50s / Hasselblad 907x with the TTArtisan 50mm f/0.95. It's a full-frame lens that pretty much covers the medium format image circle with some vignetting. The apparent depth of field with that combo is crazy (40mm f/0.75 equivalent). Would be cool to see a comparison between that and large format!

[@vers1fier]

And so Large Format will remain the undisputed KING!

[@eddewhurst7662]

Looking at the full length shot , the angle of view is quite different, if you had used an 85mm f1.2 lens on the canon, you would have got a much closer look than using the lens you did.

[@NeverLeaveIt]

Totally agree Ed. Not to mention adding a matching analogue tone curve to the digital image - post process, to get the same look.

[@Sondercreative]

The aspect ratio is different however the angle of view is very similar. The main difference you're seeing is that the LF camera was shot from a higher angle than the 5DSR was. An 85mm f1.2 would have been drastically different in terms of angle of view thereby negating any point of doing this comparison.

[@DenisJust]

yes, the 4x5 image has is more 'zoomed in', which affects DoF. Should compare that large format with smth like 85mm 1.2-1.4.

[@Sondercreative]

​@@DenisJust But it's not more zoomed-in lol. an 85mm on FF would have been far too long for this comparison.

[@DenisJust]

Sonder Creative yeah, you’re right))

[@MrPhilbautista]

The depth of field may be shallow but a lot of the look also came from how soft the lens was and there was even a slight greenish tint to it. I've got a Tokina 28-105/2.8 which is pretty soft and can render images similar to that large format camera/lens combo, without the greenish tint. I'm not dissing large format photography, cos that depth of field is just freakin awesome, but that lens (180/2.8) really wasn't anything to crow about.

[@Sondercreative]

The green tint came from the grass lol. The canon had it too but it was white balanced differently. You’ll notice other images don’t have a green tint and in the canon image the greens are very muted and lacking due to the difference in WB. Also even if it were a sharper lens the depth of field would have similarly shallow. We’re talking f0.7 equivalent vs f1.4 that’s a big difference. Thanks for watching though man.

[@floatingrabbit3556]

I think bokeh enthusiasts need to understand that depth of field is in relation to the feild of view a lens has with a particular sensor. Not the other way around.

[@KutWrite]

One can see the Canon's lens is wider for its format than is the 4x5, which is slightly tele. The 4x5 also has tilts & swings, which allow you to control the plane in which focus is achieved. If you'd have tilted the back a bit forward, it would've rendered her whole face in focus. The Benro FGP28C you listed above is "no longer available" at B&H.

[@sdgreen1960]

That's really interesting. I'd love to see a landscape oriented test to see the difference there. Then you'd be looking for perfect sharpness & extended DoF. I wonder if, in 30 years time, digital will have advanced to the point of equivalence between the two? Perhaps LF sensors..

[@Sondercreative]

I’ll see if I can make some time to do a landscape comparison. Thank you very much for watching man, much appreciated.

[@dasp125]

Landscape large format will enable you to correct distortion, produce DOF like you get with focus stacking, enlarge the background and much more directly in camera using the tilts, shift, swing, rise and fall movements of the front and rear standards, plus the dynamic range of colour negative and black and white film is insane. Ektar 100 and Velvia 50 are my favourites. It is a joy to work with, apart from when it’s windy ;)

[@Sondercreative]

dasp125 tilt and shift features are my favourites by a long shot. They’re so useful for architecture and landscape shooting. Thanks for watching man.

[@jpdj2715]

The 180mm on 4"x5" is more or less a standard lens - if we scale that up to comparable to 85 for FF, then we get to 300mm. Then scale up to 8"x10" and a portrait lens will be 600mm. Take that for DoF ... or try to get a face sharp from the tip of the nose to where the model's ear canal is.

[@arjuna207]

distance to subject was the same? seems you were closer to her with the 50 to get the same frame fill

[@ganzonomy]

Shooting digital only works for me when I need rapid fire photography and wireless ability with my laptop... But I don't really get an emotional attachment to the work... Quality comes from quantity and hope for the best. On the other hand, shooting even my 110 film camera gives me joy. Film is one shot, and that's it. As I go to my medium format cameras, especially my Kodak medalists, I'm reminded just how meticulous I have to be to get a shot that's sharp, pleasing, and tells a story or catches a moment. I get 24 shots to 110 but only 8 in 6x9. I have to make them count, and slow myself down to get those counted moments. One day, I'll get to 4x5. I have a grill format comparison coming soon on my channel... It should be up in a few hours.

[@zarmindrow5831]

I once knew a girl that could be considered "large format". And she was indeed completely unrivaled in the dark room.

[@aequationum]

lol

[@SilntObsvr]

Ah, megapixels. When I was new in large format film (2003), I had a 1998 vintage scanner and with that, I could get 100 megapixels from a 4x5 negative. Now, I have a modern scanner (Epson V850Pro), and I can get that pixel count from a 6x9 cm roll film negative. By my count, I should be able to pull 4800*4800*4*5 = about 460 megapixels out of 4x5 (in practice, a little less, because the scanner's film carrier masks some -- more loss than the rebates due to the film holder edge rails). In practice, I don't bother to scan BIG negatives at maximum resolution -- I simply don't have any use for files that run 27 GB uncompressed (16 bits per channel for three channels at 450 megapixels). On the other hand, I *do* have a use for negatives that are only at 2x enlargement on 8x10 prints.

[@joe2snj]

This why I process my digital RAW files with VSCO desktop presets, I love the technology/convenience of digital but often I much prefer the look of various films.

[@peoplez129]

My 85mm 1.8 Full frame produces comparable bokeh. Closer focus distances will also do that; 85mm 1.8 at closest focusing distance will melt the background away where it's unrecognizable, virtually indistinguishable from this. On top of that you can add macro filters to regular lenses, even if just lite macro filters. A +2 diopter is a good start. That will create even smoother background blur and thinner depth of field, while still allowing you to focus on larger objects. You just lose infinite focus, which obviously isn't needed anyways unless you're shooting landscape or the night sky. At first, diopters can seem like just a cheap macro capability, but if you leverage them right, you can get some unique shots and lens characteristics, especially when used on an already good lens.

[@Sondercreative]

Different angle of view. You’d just pick a longer. Focal length on LF if you’re comparing against an 85mm

[@mjl1958]

If you had used tilt with the last, colour photo, you could have had both of Lucy's eyes in focus with the background still blurred to oblivion.

[@derecwilsom4546]

can i ask why you are referring to the aperture as different across different formats for the same lens? At 6:03 you mention that f3.6 is about the f0.9 on full frame. The aperture is the relationship between the focal length and the size of the opening that the aperture blades create. f1.7 means that the opening is 1/1.7 the focal length of the lens, so the opening is large in relationship to the focal length, an aperture of F 1/22 is very small, on an 80mm lens F2 is f1/2 which is half of 80 so your aperture is 40mm across. This relationship does not change when you put the lens on a different size sensor or film size. "crop factor" does not apply to aperture. I apologise if somebody has already pointed this out. Really liked the video, always love when people champion large format.

[@Sondercreative]

F5.6 on 8x10 will give the same exposure as f5.6 on a smartphone (depending on Tstop). That doesn’t change across formats. The depth of field that a lens produces on different formats can change because of two factors, size of the entrance pupil in the lens and distance to subject. A larger sensor requires you to shoot with a longer focal length if you’re trying to match the field of view. A longer focal length lens requires a larger entrance pupils which will produce a shallower depth of field. For example, a 180mm f2.9 on 4x5 will produce a similar look in terms of field of view and depth of field as a (hypothetical) 50mm f0.7 (ish) on a full frame camera. We use equivalent terms as a way to describe that in a simple manner. Obviously a f2.9 will not produce the same exposure as an f0.7 regardless of focal length and format size. Hope that helps :-).

[@CraigandJane1]

It shows people what the words,”the look”, actually mean. Took me ages to figure out what that meant.

[@gohumberto]

I revisited film this year (I used to process my own Ilford film and print on Ilford paper). I have to say that nostalgia isn't what it used to be. I actually find my Canon full-frame DSLR gives results indistinguishable from film. I won't be shooting film again. Having said that, it's ALL about what you enjoy. I don't enjoy film. If you do, then That's great.

[@Sondercreative]

Stick to what you enjoy right, I can co-sign that :)

[@1maico1]

At 3.29 you say 'angle of view'. You mean field of view, the part of the image circle you are utilizing. The angle of view is the property of the lens.

[@Sondercreative]

Oh come on.

[@maurolopesmarziano]

for me 4x5 with my lens is pure love , impossible to compare to digitals ( realy sucks )

[@r1273m]

I grew up in the early 1960's with MPP Micro-Press and MPP Micro-Technical cameras. They were great at the time, I was young and strong and able to carry the camera, lenses and a dirty great tripod plus DDS's and roll-film backs. Today I only use digital and have no desire to return to film, rose tinted hindsight! The cost of sheet film even back in those days was incredible, I hate to think what it must be today, plus the cost of processing. Interesting video though.

[@elise3455]

Damn... Are we ever gonna be able to get photos like that on portable digital cameras? :O

[@Xingqiwu387]

The lens on the 4x5 looks like it was built in the 1930s! Hardly exemplary of what modern LF lenses are capable of. But excellent comparison and presentation!

[@ReinoldFZ]

I thought that I would not see a meaningful difference but... the large format photographs look timeless.

[@johnrflinn]

Love my Mamiya Press Super 23 with the 6x9 back and the 100mm F2.8 lens.

[@tronkel1]

Yes, an awesome treatment of this subject. It's got me thinking about getting organised with LF. It will be relatively expensive I daresay. I already use film as well as digital and am running out of space here in which to store stuff. I have 12 film cameras as well as the same number of digital ones. Can you imagine the organisational effort of keeping up with all the necessary accessories too? I think my wife is gonna have to move out of the flat - LOL!

[@1maico1]

I used to shoot with a 5x4" Linhof with Schneider lenses and sheet film. The 150mm 5.6 could be considered the standard lens in terms of FOV but unlike the lens in the video it was multi-coated and used modern glass formulations and had no spherical aberrations giving that dream effect.

[@BenelliMr]

you're right: the beautiful dream effects are more due to spherical aberrations, and other optical imperfections that are not corrected. One day I bought a plastic lens: plastic tube, one single plastic lens. It created great artistic effects. After a few photos, I was tired of the effects (like with filters) and I sold the lens.

[@1717jbs]

great vid! thanks

[@jebeq2007]

The Brenizer Method can accomplish the nice shallow depth of field on a full frame camera. I would say it may even have a blurrier background if it is what you are trying to accomplish.

[@Sondercreative]

Potentially yes but it's still not quite the same.

[@jebeq2007]

@@Sondercreative You should do a video comparing the Brenizer Method to the Large format 4X5 it would be very interesting to see the results.

[@Sondercreative]

@@jebeq2007 ill give it a shot :)

[@natekong3596]

People choose digital camera mostly for convenience purposes. With film photography, the process doesn't stop at shooting. How you develop the film and how you scan the negative hugely (and costly) impact the quality of the final image. Most people don't have time and resource to go through all of that.

[@Sondercreative]

I agree. :-)

[@dasp125]

If you bought a phase one digital medium format camera or similar with lenses it would cost you a fortune. Buy a 4x5 camera and lenses from eBay for a lot less and you have money for years of film and chemical stock; the amount of time people spend sat in front of a computer editing digital files is not much different really just not as fun as seeing an image suddenly appear on a piece of paper through a chemical reaction is second to none. It is also amazing how many photographers don’t know how to take a decent photo without the help of all the technology inside modern cameras. Just shows anyone can be a photographer nowadays with a digital camera.

[@natekong3596]

@@dasp125 Many modern film photographers also edit their photos before printing though. They scan the negative into a digital file and do post-processing just like you do to files from digital cameras before sending out to print.

[@mkshffr4936]

Very informative video. It would be really interesting to see some shots stopped down a bit. I think that it might give you an in between depth of field that would still give the good separation but add a bit of sharpness. Were you shooting wide open?

[@bublt4me]

All I'm hearing is that the large format look is thin DoF, since the way things are rendered and blurred are directly related to the lens design.

[@biochem95]

What brand film did you use? Is that portra?

[@Machster10]

Excellent video. Informative and to the point. Great comparison images. Thanks for sharing.

[@Sondercreative]

Thank you very much for watching :-)

[@thisis5123]

Oh wow I really like your videos. However I feel the sigma lens is notorious to me for producing flat images. No doubt more large formats naturally possess micro contrast because they aren’t made to extract unrealistic levels of detail at the sacrifice of tonal range and color depth. There are a handful of lenses for 35mm format that do truly possess this 3D look. I’ve been shooting large format film and developing my own for a while now for this exact reason. I feel my canon 600f4l is II is one of these lenses along with the EF85/50 1.2L. For Nikon it would be their super teles as well along with 105 f2DC, 180mm 2.8, also the Zeiss Distagons ( 35f2 and 85 1.4 primarily ). Fuji would be the 40 1.2 voitlander ( don’t own/ haven’t used as many of their lenses )primarily a Canon guy for speed stuff, large format for anything else. Also, don’t be fooled into not making proper use of your camera gear, I love 35mm film too, I will often walk with my 70-200 2.8 instead of 16-35 because I will dedicate half a roll to shooting a whole scene I’d normally be shooting at 24mm and instead zoom into 135 and capture overlapping frames panorama style both horizontally and vertically, thankfully my EOS1V HS does 10 FPS so I can blow through a whole scene quite quickly if there is fast enough shutter speed. The end result is I’ve come away with the biggest I’ve ever done with this method is something like 5- 9 inch equivalent pieces of film. Not to mention the depth of field is the same-ish or bigger as if I had 4x5 view camera with me.

[@Herobox-ju4zd]

I've shot both film and digital and love both, and digital does sharpness way better than film, but what digital lacks is how sharpness rolls off into bokeh. If you would take a picture at F1.8 of a flat surface, road, wall or whatever you'll see, in digital, a very sharp horizontal or vertical surface about 5% of the total picture, around that 2x 5% fuzziness on both sides and then the bokeh. With film you'll never get this; what's in focus is in focus enough (but not as sharp as digital) but you'll get none of these "bands" of sharpness in your photo's. It's all buttery smooth. So I like both for different reasons.

[@ShahAlam-ti2sq]

Fun fact: Large format camera lasts longer than digital cameras. Although it's analog and low tech, but it can hold up to 1000 megapixels!

[@erinaltstadt4234]

thank you

[@EveKitty08]

One thing that strikes me is that Lucy's expression changes somewhat between the formats. I think the slowness of 4x5 impacts the photographs in a positive way. Lucy had more time to relax in front of the 4x5 camera, unlike the 5DSR.

[@Sondercreative]

That’s an interesting point and maybe you’re right. I didn’t even think of that. Thank you for watching and for the comment :-).

[@ShaneBaker]

Hmmmmm. I'd characterise the large format film as different, rather than better. It's a matter of taste and aesthetic, rather than an absolute (which to be fair, I think you said). In at least one image, I preferred the Canon image. (Did I say that????????!!!!!! :-) ) A more realistic comparison would be the film images versus images from a Phase One monster - IMHO. Interesting nonetheless. Thanks.

[@billymckee01]

Glad someone else thinks the same - on both which images are better and Phase One IQ4 150MP and say 5x4 Fuji.

[@vikhyatmudrit3811]

You just don't get it. This is not about the details. I have always advocated the use of film but in the recent times I have been thinking about considering high quality digital. Not anymore. Film colors are unbeatable .they're just so pleasant. It is not even that they are MORE pleasant. No. The digital image is dead for me. I can't care less. Now I know why all old & wise filmmakers shoot on celluloid. It's a completely different thing. I mean all images on the instagram page of kodak look interesting wheras,even though I love sony, their alpha page is meh. No disrespect to anyone here but if you believe in God he must've made our eyes photochemical for a reason. Everything you're gonna shoot , you'll eventually see through your eyes. So if you don't believe in photochemistry , why be a photographer at all. I don't see why ANYONE would shoot digital. That electronic technology is meant for surveillence cameras and other petty applications. Bdw that digital image has the same set of colors as a three year old iphone. Same greens and yellows. Unmistakably dead. What a pity!

[@ShaneBaker]

Vikhyat Mudrit . In short, a matter of taste. To each, their own.

[@EugeniaLoli]

The film pictures were way nicer, yes. However, don't underestimate computational photography. In the next 5 years you'll see this kind of look perfectly emulated.

[@Sondercreative]

That could be the case. Would be awesome if cameras could do computational photography like smartphones internally.

[@andreika6681]

anything can be perfectly emulated in photoshop by a skilled retoucher today, people believe first of all into that they want to believe, "50 million of analog film grains are better than 50 millions of 14 bits pixels of a digital MF" is scientifically ridiculous, eye have ~10-12 millions on cone cells for color perception and ~100M for b/w, we already have digital cams saturating eye+brain capacities. 200ppm - max lab defined resolution of your vision, for A2 print 594mm x 841mm you'll need 100Mpix cam to reach it, whaterver you use, analog or digital, at 100Mpix it will be the same result.

[@EugeniaLoli]

@@andreika6681 And yet I can tell the difference. Every time.

[@andreika6681]

@@EugeniaLoli sure, ppl say they can always tell the diff b/w vinyl & 24 bits pcm... untill you add all the good noise to digital...

[@dylanhill1640]

I love my 4x5 ! Film lives.

[@WhenWillILearn]

I’ve worked with 300+mp .fff files before and your computer will not thank you 😂 large format is beautiful.

[@BenelliMr]

for the latest PCs: not a problem. You just need to have a well processed software that uses all cores. Mac is great too, but you have to be a millionaire (30.000 plus is expensive for me). For the price difference you can buy many lenses and also a Large format camera.

[@miniondave6314]

I have a Graflex 4x5. I love it. Unfortunately, I don't take it out as often as I used to. They are big cameras.

[@stevek8829]

They're easy to carry. The rest of it is the work.

[@miniondave6314]

@@stevek8829 I always shot it on a tripod so I could set up the shot with the ground glass back. I have the Kalart range finder on it and I adjusted it to the lens a couple years ago but I don't think it is completely on the money. Being able to shoot it hand held would be great.

[@quite1enough]

who's that hero who was able to focus pin-sharp on her eyes in 4x5 at f/2.8 ?

[@jonstynes6365]

I'd be interested to see the comparison between the 5dsr and the Hasselblad 907x.

[@Sondercreative]

The Hasselblad wins in almost all categories. The gap isn’t huge but it’s clear. Having said that, the 5DSR can produce better detail depending on the lenses. Full frame has the lens advantage but we’re talking Otus series so pricey stuff.

[@jonstynes6365]

Sonder Creative thank you, I have the 5ds now, but looking to get the 907x for studio work, just wanted to see a few more reviews, so thank you for your videos

[@KiinaSu]

As someone shooting a tiny mft sensor mostly, I have to admit that large format photo looks awesome. But then again the cost is something else. I shoot on 35mm Film from time to time and I will probably buy a medium format camera at one point but I can't see myself shooting 4x5 or 8x10 anytime soon. Sure I really wanna try it and going through a few packs of film seems like a possibility if I find anyone who wants to lend me his camera, but really shooting it even on a semi regular basis? Damn, that's a hard pill to swallow. I'm actually kinda shocked to see so many people saying they shoot large format in the comments. Maybe this video just brought them all together but I've never seen a single person shooting it outside of videos.

[@cloudsilver1]

Love large format. What aperture setting you used for the large format photos?

[@winniduesseldorf]

I am dreaming of 2 sensors 1. For Hasselblad a r55mm to 55mm, which is 6x6 in real 2- a sensor fully covering 4x5 and 13x18 inch. But I think, such a sensor has the same price as a private jet

[@jensruckert4763]

Nice Video. I use digital quite a lot when it comes to shooting events and on travels. But still my favourite way of shooting is using film with standard and preferably medium format cameras as I don't want to carry around the 4x5... I have to rethink... although I really love my Mamiyas and Rolleiflex... as well as my old 6x9 camera from the 1930s. The large prints are so much different from digital and also I prefer the work in the darkroom/ laboratory to editing in LR... great comparison to give an idea of the differences which none is better or worse per se.

[@jpdj2715]

Now turn the depth of field thing around (DoF). These "long" focal length lenses have shallow DoF, so if we need deep DoF we need to stop down our aperture to tiny openings - think in the f/90 to f/256 range. This blocks so much light that we always get long exposure times (with film generally being 100 ISO). Or we need very high power studio strobes.

[@theportraitist4888]

...and then it's 1985 all over again. ;-)

[@jpdj2715]

@@theportraitist4888- :) well, young man, I was thinking 1975. On the serious side, look at my other comment pointing to Avedon. He continued - likely until his passing - the old school way. I once was at a two day big shoot with art direction, stylists, truckloads of high fashion and a minivan load of models. There were a couple other photographers. My process with a digital camera is still old school. Primes. Photographer directed posing. All shots pre-envisioned. Assistants told me they wanted to study and learn my workflow/process. Answer: start with film, especially large format.

[@theportraitist4888]

@@jpdj2715 Good morning JP. You may have a few years on me, but I doubt it would be as many as you are thinking. I still have my Burke & James 4x5 sitting on the far side of my desk (though closed and likely dusty). Alas, I can't speak to 1975, but I think things were pretty much the same in '85. And since then, my own shop has been in east midtown, which was the original old-school photo district. Avedon was a few blocks south (and worked with my partner, 12 time Clio winner Ben Colarossi), Scavullo was one block west (and I was over there a fair amount), and Horst was a few blocks further on Lexington ave, I think (though pre-dated me). My old school CV established, I'll just say I get what you are saying. And while my heart may agree, I 'm not sure my brain does. I'm sure someone circa 1890 said you need to be a painter before you learn to make pictures with a studio camera. Understanding of evolution of process is helpful, sure. But not necessary.

[@jpdj2715]

@@theportraitist4888- appreciate your detailed feedback! Let's forget age. The underlying point I did not elaborate on here is how "vision" develops in human brain and development. We generally don't see in a photographic way but interpret blobs or shapes, their contours and properties. Perspective and size relations are difficult or else we could create photographic drawings in kindergarten already. This also applies to speed of objects - depending where in the world it lives, a child cannot assess speeds in traffic before it is 10 years old. The exception to some extent are people who are functionally blind to one eye. They need photographic precision visual analysis to do the things two-eyeds do using e.g. the speed and angle of change between eyes. The old process is slow and because of that very conscious. In 1890, before mr. Land and Polaroid, feedback would come much later - therefore the learning process to develop photographic vision in your brain may have been slower than e.g. in the 80s when Polaroid was available. There is a scientific insight that I generally call "the 10,000 rule". It indicates how many times we need to practice before we become predictable. I clearly remember the conscious realization in the studio when for the first time I had seen the photograph in my head before I took it. The mindless spray and prray of many people today IMO doesn't take them through the 10,000 at all. Digital could really speed this process up more than the old process, but it needs to be done in a way where conscious evaluation is part of the process.

[@theportraitist4888]

@@jpdj2715 I completely agree with most if not all of what you said. And I've rarely done the spray and pray technique myself. But I actually come from a painting background. BTW, wasn't it Malcolm Gladwell that came up with the 10,000 hour rule? Okay, your's is the 10,000 times rule, perhaps a little bit less daunting.

[@EbonyPope]

I just googled what approximately the megapixel equivalent for a 4x5 inch film is. 298.7 million pixels! And it's a whopping 1,200 million pixels for 8x10 inch film. That's crazy!

[@Sondercreative]

Drum scanning can potentially produce even larger files :).

[@EbonyPope]

@@Sondercreative Really? How much is it with drum scanning approximately? I can only say it again: Absolutely crazy. I just started to shoot some 35mm film with a Pentax SF7 which I got from my dad once. I gonna try a Kodak Color Plus and a Fujifilm C200. Which film would you recommend for color film and which one for black and white pictures? Thanks for this impressive comparison by the way. It gave me motivation to shoot film again. Subscribed.

[@Sondercreative]

@@EbonyPope it depends on the lab you choose but I know it can cost quite a bit per scan. I don’t think I’m qualified to make any recommendations but I do love the looks of Portra and Ektar from Kodak. Portra does wonderful things to skin tones.

[@andyvan5692]

also one question, as you are comparing depth of field between these options, with the LF camera, one is assuming all movements are zeroed out?, as this (esp. the front standard) controls the depth of field irrespective of apature selected aka selective focus affect, or the sceimflug principle.

[@Sondercreative]

You're right :). However, we didn't want to cover too many points in this video.

[@djharmonix]

The large format camera definetely blew away the DSLR + Sigma combo. Perhaps, it wasn't the best comparaison. I think the Canon 85L would have shown a more similar style to the large format DOF.

[@Sondercreative]

The 85mm has a different field of view so wouldn’t make for a reasonable comparison. You’d need a longer focal length on the large format camera to match then.

[@thesceptic1018]

Quite right: 8x10 contact printed are another step up

[@burgulize]

The imperfection of film is more appealing - producing an image which is more like a painting and nice to look at, which wins every time. But, that said - investing in a good vintage lens can produce magic even on mft digital sensors (the likes of Tair 11\ Helios ). Film is amazing though :)

[@pfiltz]

Film Slider thing? NitWit ?

[@Sondercreative]

With such appalling grammar; a nitwit indeed.

[@jpdj2715]

Very nice video. The noise you referenced in one LF shot IMO was not noise but grain (referencing the grains of silver in the emulsion of the film.) If we call "noise" an artifact then grain is not - grains are like the pixels (better: photo sites or photovoltaic cells) in a sensor.

[@Sondercreative]

You’re right and I agree :-).

[@AlanCainsPhotographer]

Very interesting to see this video. Would love to see more further examples, thanks

[@Sondercreative]

Check out Adams work his links are in the description.

[@bthemedia]

Great video for comparing LF film photography and some instant 4x5 - always great to see! Just minor issues with the comparison. ;)

[@Sondercreative]

Thank you man really appreciate it. I know it's not perfect by any means but it was just a fun comparison that I thought people might have been interested to see :).

[@brunomartelli8163]

Can you tell something about the instant film that has been used ?

[@adamfrench6385]

The Polaroid is Type 54, around 2002 expiry

[@christiankirkenes5922]

Hey guys, great video. Interesting comparison. I get similar results using medium format lenses on my full-frame camera, I worked out with some of my medium format lenses the equivalent focal length is f0.8

[@Sondercreative]

Thank you for watching. Sorry just to clarify are you sure you’re getting those results with medium format lenses on a full frame camera? Which lenses on which cameras please?

[@CornishMotorcycleDiaries]

A more appropriate challenge would have been a true portrait lens as the 50mm is an all-round jack-of-all-trades lens, perhaps even something like the Nikon 105mm f2 DC. Still, thanks for a thought-provoking review.

[@Sondercreative]

I agree, unfortunately, we only had a small selection of large format lenses and they were similar in focal length to 50mm (ish) on full-frame. I'll see if I can do some more comparisons later.

[@califmike2003]

I agree the 4x5 image destroys the digital camera, night and day difference, that 4x5 shot has mood and film magic.

[@jessevielleux7889]

What lens was used on the LF camera?

[@Brooklyncameraclub]

Dallmeyer Pentec 10" f/2.9 lens. Its a great lens, also branded under the name Air Ministry. It was made mostly for Aerial photography. Its design is a Voigtlander Heliar variant, 5 elements 3 groups. its one of my favorite pictorial lenses.

[@46ace]

Outstanding comparison...

[@severedsixteen]

Hi, this is great, what exactly is the lens you're using on the LF. 178mm f2.9 but thats the brand and shutter combination? thank you

[@jac6350]

8 x10 is another world !

[@thomasryan5764]

What about something like a hasselblad

[@alexcarrillo4143]

BRAVO at least someone is using their camera Wisely, Nice camera a Vintage Micro Press camera and great Tripod. Where did you get some Polaroid? Would like to see more videos with the large format.

[@keithmcfarland3819]

Oh man, if you have the opportunity, I highly recommend trying an 8×10 sometime. If you think 4×5 is sick, prepare yourself. The DOF for portrait shots can be millimeters. Focusing accurately with the naked eye is nearly impossible. (Use a 10× magnifying loupe on the ground glass, instead.) You alluded briefly to the costs and yes, per-shot costs can be discouraging. My costs range from as little as $3 to as much as $20 (PER SHOT, mind you), depending on my film choice. You learn to become very selective. But the results are quite literally untouchable by anything other than another 8×10 or larger film camera. I absolutely love my Fuji GFX50R and it offers many (MANY) advantages over the 8×10. Image quality is not necessarily one of them.

[@Sondercreative]

Filming part two this week to this video :-).

[@alfredv9902]

Nothing beats 8x10 for portraiture. Yousuf Karsh (most famous in potraiture) built his careeer on it. His huge prints I saw were amazing detail, because magnification was so little for an 8x10 negative to give a 50 inch print (only 5x). With a dslr (full frame), that would be 40x, and there is a limit to optics.

[@climber950]

Have you tried the lensbaby system? It gives practically the same looks in camera. Obviously all of these looks can be accomplished in the computer, but I think the idea is doing it “in camera” neat video and unique comparison.

[@Sondercreative]

Hey thanks for watching. We’ve actually reviewed a bunch of Lensbaby stuff. It’s great but not anything like this as that’s more to do with intentional lens flaws as opposed to having proper shallow depth of fields. Regardless Lensbaby have lots of fun and awesome lenses :-). Thanks for watching.

[@piotrkiszka3499]

Nice comparison! I agree, large format is in the other league. However, there are easy ways to come close - like brenizer method (in terms of shallow DOF or "the magic", as some would say), or color grading (to get the "magic" film colours). I think the whole "magic" in large format is in the process of making the photograph.