Should I retry LF?

[mrtoml]

I have a nice large format kit (Shen Hao 4x5, lots of holders, a nice Rodenstock lens etc.), but I have not used it for a long time. The reason being that I used to scan my negatives and print digitally. I have since completely given up digital and now use mostly medium format (a Mamiya 7, Fuji 645 and some 35mm). I enlarge up to 12x16 and don't envisage ever going much bigger (maybe the odd 16x20). However, I appreciate the value of having camera movements. I also have a lot of 4x5 negatives from my days in Connemara which I cannot currently print - which is a shame.

My question then is twofold:

1. At 12x16 would I notice a big improvement over the Mamiya 7 with its legendary lenses if I went up to 4x5? I have never printed a 4x5 negative conventionally and I don't think the digital versions are a proper comparison.

2. I am worried about the enlarger. I have a 6x7 version (LPL7700) and my darkroom has a low ceiling (about 6 1/2 feet). The LPL almost touches the ceiling (it's on a bench). Is there a 4x5 enlarger that would comfortably fit into this space that would do 12x16?

If the answer is no to both these questions then it may be worth passing the kit on to someone who can make better use of it.

Cheers.

[Ole]

The difference is not so much in sharpness as in tonality. Prints from LF negs have a very different smoother tonality, even if they might even be less sharp than prints the same size from a 6x7 negative.

I don't know about your question #2 - I had a Rajah 4x5" enlarger which was smaller than many MF enlargers, but currently use a big floor-standing ceiling-scraping Durst L138S.

[Stan160]

Try an older enlarger. I have a (I think) 1940s Wasp 5"x4" enlarger. Very basic, not even a filter drawer, but very compact. I've not yet printed from 5"x4" on it, only 6x9cm, but I don't think there would be a problem in the sort of space you have - my darkroom is in a loft extension and has even less head room than yours, although my enlargers are on a low cupboard.

Ian

[Jarvman]

Mark, I think the enlarger is the biggest problem really. I had to have my darkroom remodelled to fit one, you can see it over at the darkroom thread. The enlarger head doesn't need much elevation above the paper to do a 12x16 but the column that raises the head all the way up won't fit in the space your 6x7 enlarger sts in. As for the quality of the enlargements over 6x7, I can notice a difference between my 6x6 prints and one made from a 4x5 negative, the first ever one I printed the other day. At that size I don't think it's phenomenally different to go through the effort of putting in a new enlarger and rejigging your darkroom though. I had a yearning for huge prints before and thought I'd be doing them regularly but I haven't printed anything above 12x16 yet. I couldn't see myself using a 4x5 much in the past but I really enjoy using the Chamonix now, especially the attention it gets me. It's made me less conciouss about photographing in public strangely! Like you said, the biggest benefits are having something with movements and being able to individually process your negs, something im just beginning to touch on now.

[mrtoml]

Thanks for all your replies. Maybe I will keep my eyes peeled for a used 4x5 enlarger that will fit. I didn't know that such beasts existed.

Jarvman, that darkroom you've set up looks great. I take your point about getting noticed. When I was doing landscape photography with the Shen-Hao in Ireland, people (usually tourists) would stop by the side of the road in the middle of nowhere and take pictures of me under the dark cloth with their digital cameras - probably thinking 'what's this madman doing, can't he afford a proper camera'.

[TheFlyingCamera]

I have a beseler 45MCxx (I forget exactly which model), but it fits just fine on a mid-thigh level table (some IKEA IVAR shelves) with room to take the head all the way to the top, and my ceiling in my basement darkroom is a bit over 6 feet- 6'3" at the most. The downside of course is that I stoop more than I'd like to focus, but it works. I do have the color dichroic head on the enlarger, which takes a good six to eight inches off the top of the enlarger, so I can get the head higher. That said, I can make 16x20 prints with 4x5 negs using this configuration. I don't know how common Beseler enlargers are in the UK, but they're practically giving used ones away here they're so plentiful.

[jovo]

You don't have to stand to use your enlarger. Try putting it on a stand low enough that you can comfortably sit down to operate it. That may aid whatever you end up with in being usable. Also, avoid XL girders....they are the extra long parts that make certain enlargers too tall to use.

[John Kasaian]

Well...you could always move to 8x10 and make contact prints

[bill spears]

Having worked in medium format for around 15 yrs I'd always yearned to move into large format. About a year ago my wish came true when I got myself a Sinar 5x4. I was really excited at the thought of discovering everything I'd read about the leap in image quality etc. Now, many hundreds of sheets of film later I'm still undecided about the improvements in sharpness AND tone etc (up to an image size of about 16x20 that is)
Comparing my best prints from a 6x7 neg against my best ones from 5x4, I'm struggling to see any difference. The biggest handicap with large format that I encounter is not being able to react quick enough in situations of rapidly changing light, and I mean light thats literally changing by the second ! I know for sure that I've missed some really great images which wouldn't have happened had I being using rollfilm. Then there's the issues with portability, cost of film, and, something I'm really struggling with lately - even development. I do appreciate the advantages of being able to process normal, plus and minus development times separately though. As for camera movements, I must admit to not being very competent in this area and find that I can often get by without. (the 65mm lens I use doesn't really allow this anyway)
All this reminds me of the saying - 'be careful what you wish for' and I've often thought about selling to invest more in my med format (RB67) system.
However, theres something about the medatitive approach to using this camera that keeps me fascinated with it, and, I guess I'm still learning ! All the stress that this format gives me just makes me even more determined to master it !! Another thing which I'm really impressed with is the look of a contact print and I think if I ever did sell, it would be to move up to a 12 x10 or something and do away with projection alltogether.

Regarding enlargers you might want to look into those that have a drop down base board in order to get bigger prints. Expensive though, I guess.
You could also consider wall mounting the enlarger and constructing a table with drop down shelves or something.


Dont know if this answers any of your questions but just thought sharing some of my own adventures might help.
Bill

[Trevor Crone]

Mark, with careful and thoughtful processing (of film and printing) you can certainly achieve the quality from medium format as you can from 4x5. However the ability to have control over image management at the taking stage is a big plus IMO. Certainly one of the reasons why I sold my Pentax 6x7 for a view camera. I found fixed lens systems very frustrating for what I wanted to photograph, but that of course is a personal thing. The ability to process individual sheets of film to suit ones taste/need is another big plus.

The fact that you can produce contact prints, which I feel have a beauty all of their own is another reason why I chose 4x5 and more recently 8x10. But this like so many choices in life is again a very personal thing.

Whatever decision you finally make may it suit your vision.

Trevor.