Large format photography has meticulous steps to follow. Dom calls it 'The Dance'. | ABC Australia

[@mehsmehmeh]

Beautiful story telling which demonstrates the work necessary to take a great photograph.

[@motorvelo]

You can do the same amount of work and take a poor photograph.

[@gabedamien]

I have always been tempted to try large format. There is something very deliberate about it which is appealing.

[@cyrilhamel8289]

Thanks for sharing this experience 😊

[@aaronoverstreet1436]

Ooh, I wish to step into large format photography one day. Can Don speak to his post production workflow and costs? Does he develop film and print himself, work with a lab, or use scans to digitally produce his final work? Sounds like a lotto dream for me!

[@motorvelo]

Depth of field is a formula that takes into account the diagonal dimension of the film, and the focal length of the lens. The bigger the film the more you need to stop down to get a decent depth of field. The lenses are designed to mitigate the defraction. Also f64 on a 210mm lens is an aperture of approx 3.5mm. About the same as f16 on a 50mm lens.

[@CalumetVideo]

Large format is good when you want to make large prints of architecture and portraits, it’s also great for product photography with all of the tilts and swings. I got into large format and thinking I would be using the equipment a lot, I find that I probably use my 4x5 a few times a year and a box of film lasts a while. Each shot is planned and deliberate, it’s more about quality over quantity.

[@Bob-g1i]

What was the film stock on the lady with the hat at 3:35? HP5 or Tmax 400?

[@mrgnktevetias]

Thank you for this nugget. People believe this medium is dead, but it couldn't be further from the truth. This camera takes so much time to take a picture, but it provides the highest quality even compared to any current day digital cameras.

[@petermcginty3636]

Thanks for the video. Interesting content, but a very slow process for me.

[@romanmanfredi6160]

Hi. Can you tell me the brand/name of your dark cloth/hood please? I've not seen one that small before. Thanks!

[@ritchiesedeyn5330]

The fresnel sits in front of the groundglass it is not the same thing. Fresnel is a Lenstype for equally dispersing light onto the groundglass which is needed to focus. The darkcloth needs the black on the inside. Now you have red cast onto your focussing screen. You are shooting 4x5. The endresult you show is a square, why? Luckily the frames picture is not square

[@motorvelo]

Two immediate comments. There is a ground glass screen and fresnel screen. Usually separate things. Then you are using the cloth the wrong way around. It should be the black to the inside to give the darkest result with no reflections on the focusing screen and the red on the out side, traditionally so the photographer could be seen.

[@ChrisThe1]

I really don't get why large format uses these tiny apertures. Sure, depth of field, but the diffraction will kill any detail in the image.

[@dakman1082]

Larger formats have less depth of field, therefore needing smaller apertures relative to 35mm. It's a topic that can get pretty technical to understand in depth.

[@dantasma]

@ f32 diffraction is a non issue for large format due to the size of the negative, a 20"x24" print diffraction is negligible compared to say and enlargement from a 35mm negative.

[@MykeBatez]

Diffraction sets in differently based on the size of the medium you're exposing, so in the case of large-format film, diffraction will begin to affect image sharpness at a *much* smaller aperture than it would on a full-frame camera, etc.

[@edhannam1127]

The effect of diffraction is dependent on the actual physical size of the aperture that the light is passing through. F stop for f stop, the aperture on a large format lens is physically larger than that of one used in 35mm photography, so you are not comparing like for like. Therefore on a large format lens the physical size of the aperture at say, f45, is similar to maybe f8 on a 35mm format camera (and depending on the sensor size), which is the maximum recommended f stop to avoid diffraction.

[@jiml989]

The depth of field on a 4x5 camera at f/32 is roughly equivalent to f/8 on a 35mm camera, which is generally considered the "sweet spot" for 35mm lenses. Remember Ansel Adam's f64 group? They chose f/64 to underscore their belief, at the time, of having the sharpest and most detailed images. They were mostly shooting with 8x10 cameras. f/64 on an 8x10 camera is also approximately equivalent to a depth of field f/8 on a 35 mm camera. Before someone brings it up, the aperture size does admit the same amount of light, regardless of the camera. So f/32 is 2 stops slower than f/8 in all cases.

[@KCYT2010]

I'm sure to the uninformed this will be interesting but unfortunately the photographer failed to use the view camera's greatest strength. The ability to control focus and depth of field by tilting the film and lens planes. Had he employed the Scheimpflug principle and tilted the lens and/or film planes he could have shot at a larger aperture and avoided the diffraction that is inherent in F/32. The resulting image would be much sharper and selective focus could have emphasized the subject. Drawing your eye into the image. Then there's the method of exposing the film he neglected to employ but that's another entire discussion.

[@consumeobama5770]

meh diffraction isn't that big of a deal with 4x5 or bigger because the circle of confusion is still very small compared to the whole negative. That's why people like Ansel Adams would shoot a lot at f64. Look up group F/64