Large format photography has meticulous steps to follow. Dom calls it 'The Dance'. | ABC Australia
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 05. 2024
- Film photographer Dominique Pierre-Nina, from Jamberoo on the south coast of New South Wales, finds autumn light ideal for shooting in large format.
But this traditonal form of film photography requires patience and dedication in following a number of steps to achieve the perfect image.
Dom says hiding from the light inside his dark cloth hood along country roads is the best bit.
📽 Video produced by Sarah Moss.
Subscribe 🔔 ab.co/ABCAus-subscribe
___________________________________________
Web: abc.net.au/
Facebook: / abc
Twitter: / abcaustralia
Instagram: / abcaustralia
___________________________________________
Please note: On most of our videos, the captions/subtitles are auto-generated by CZcams.
This is an official Australian Broadcasting Corporation CZcams channel. Contributions may be removed if they violate ABC's Online Conditions of Use www.abc.net.au/conditions.htm (Section 3). - Zábava
I have always been tempted to try large format. There is something very deliberate about it which is appealing.
Thanks for sharing this experience 😊
Beautiful story telling which demonstrates the work necessary to take a great photograph.
You can do the same amount of work and take a poor photograph.
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!
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.
Thanks for the video. Interesting content, but a very slow process for me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.