The Camera

The photographs displayed on this website have been taken using a Wista DX large format (5”x 4”) technical field camera shown above. This camera is made from seasoned Rosewood with leather bellows and brass fittings and is of a very simple design comprising a box section which houses the viewing screen and allows the camera to be folded up; a bellows section, and the lens assembly which is attached to the focusing rack.

To add to the simplicity of this camera, it is completely mechanical meaning that all exposure calculations, focusing and lens adjustments have to be done manually.

Being wood, this camera is significantly lighter than its metal equivalents, but even so, the large film size and the substantial optics that are required to image such a huge area, contributes to a system that it is too heavy and bulky to be hand-held. Furthermore, the individual sheets of film have to be loaded into light-tight dark-slides which have to be manually inserted into the back of the camera prior to each exposure. This elaborate and time consuming mechanism obviously precludes use in applications where speed or spontaneity are important and dictates a more contemplative and considered approach to photography. In the modern age, this type of camera appears somewhat anachronistic, but despite the lack of automation, in the field of landscape photography, there are sound technical reasons for persisting with a camera of this type.

Historically, it was the irrefragable rule that you shot onto the largest format of film that was practical in any given situation. In the studio or photographing landscapes/architecture, you had to have a good reason to use anything other than a large format camera. The advantages over smaller format cameras are numerous and profound: the large negative (mostly 5x4” although sometimes 5x7” or even 10x8”) offers grain free enlargements, rich and subtle tonal gradation, pin sharp fine detail and the option of processing each sheet of film separately in order to maximise the extraction of detail from individual exposure compensations.

Having film loaded as sheets into dark-slides rather than a roll film magazine also enables the photographer to shoot onto a variety of different types of film in very quick succession allowing an extensive degree of experimentation. Although it is more than likely that the photographer knows exactly what type of film/filter combination is required to achieve the desired effect, sometimes it is extremely advantageous to ‘bank’ alternatives (for e.g. different black and white film types in addition to colour transparency and/or negative film) for possible future applications.

Perhaps most important of all, a large format camera permits a range of mechanical adjustments. Altering the angle of the lens panel in relation to the film plane allows various optical effects and corrections to be achieved. By employing specific camera movements such as front/rear rise or fall, swing and tilt, perspective can be controlled with more precision than is possible with any other type of camera (with the exception of studio monorail systems of course). In addition, greater flexibility is allowed with regard to the amount of the subject that falls into focus. This can be controlled to the extent that everything is in focus from the camera to infinity or conversely, only a small part of the scene can be rendered in focus even when the lens is stopped down to its optimum aperture.

Even with all of the recent developments in the field of digital photography, fundamentally, these principles still apply, although of course the old format hierarchy has disappeared to be replaced by pixel dimensions. If the digital system being employed can take advantage of camera movements and can deliver a file size that enables the print to be output at the optimum resolution without resorting to interpolation, then there is not necessarily any advantage in originating onto film. The latest 40 MP CCD sensors that Kodak manufacture for example, will compare with 5x4 inch film up to reproductions of around 24x20 inches and, tethered to the appropriate camera, will offer comparable advantages over consumer level 6MP cameras as 5x4 inch film does over 35mm film.

The Lenses 

Although axiomatic, it is often overlooked that the quality of any image, whether falling onto film or a CCD/CMOS array, is, in the most part, dictated by the quality of the lens. Paradoxically, with large format photography, the choice of lens is often even more critical than in smaller formats since some fine-grained films in this size are capable of capturing so much information, it is the lens itself that can be the limiting factor in the amount of detail that is recorded. By contrast (assuming that a lens of comparable quality is employed), smaller formats and digital systems are limited by the resolution of the recording medium and not the lens. Furthermore, with large format photography, it is very important that the lens projects an image circle (known as the covering power of the lens) large enough to exploit the use of the camera’s movements. A lens with insufficient covering power to handle the camera movements being deployed will result in an inferior image that manifests itself at best in a loss of sharpness into the corners of the frame and at worst, vignetting.

Of course there are lots of other factors to consider when evaluating the quality of a lens: sharpness, contrast, resolving power, spectral transmission etc. Photomechanical engineers represent the ability of a lens to accurately project the object to the image as the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF), which is the normalised spatial frequency response of a film or an optical system. Every lens has a theoretical limit to its performance, but in practical terms, there will be a narrow range of apertures that deliver the optimum performance in terms of resolution. MTF curves that manufacturers publish for their lenses can be difficult to interpret and it is often of greater benefit to test lenses in the field. If such empirical observations seem a little unscientific, at least the photographer is safe in the knowledge that the best has been extracted out of the lens when used in conjunction with their preferred materials/methodology.

Although the large format lenses are typically capable of higher quality over a broader range of apertures than smaller format lenses, the maxim of never using a lens wide open – that is, selecting the largest apertures – still holds true. No lens is perfect – even the most expensive models - and any aberration that maybe inherent within the design, will manifest itself to a greater extent with large apertures.

If it is widely known that, at large apertures, the quality of the image is aberration limited, then it is probably less well known that a degrading effect can also take place at small apertures. Photographers wanting to maximise depth of field, routinely stop a lens down as far as it will go (with large format lenses as far as f64 or f128). This brings into play an effect known as ‘diffraction’ where light is bent (in an uncontrolled fashion) when the beam passes near a boundary – in this case the edge of an aperture. This effect is determined by the law of physics and can never be completely eradicated. At some point this will cause a softening of the image and since the effect is more pronounced at small apertures, optimum sharpness is therefore achieved by selecting mid-range apertures and controlling depth of field through the use of camera movements.

Since there are no zoom lenses in large format photography, focal length can only be adjusted by swapping prime lenses which are mounted within their own shutters (usually Copal/Compur #0 and #1) and panels. This ensures that the optics are maximised for performance at a single focal length rather than a compromise scenario necessary with multi-focal length lenses (although some earlier lenses were adaptable to create two focal lengths).

All of the photographs on display on this site have been taken using one of four Schneider Kreuznach lenses: a 65mm Super Angulon; a 90mm Super Angulon; a 150mm Apo Symmar and a 210mm Apo Symmar. Schneider Kreuznach are one of the oldest manufacturers of large format lenses and certainly one most highly regarded names in the field of optical engineering. Rodenstock, Nikon and Fuji all produce a range of large format lenses that are regarded as being capable of comparable quality.

Camera Filters

Filtration is an integral aspect of conventional black and white photography and one that demonstrates perhaps the biggest difference in approach between the techniques of analogue and digital photography. Although a black and white print can be produced from a colour negative in the darkroom (using specially developed panchromatic printing paper), or more usually now, from a digital file, the traditional way of producing a high quality monochrome print is to use black and white film and to employ varying types of filtration at the point of exposure. All of the photographs produced by Sharpfoto have been produced in the traditional fashion, with the emphasis on creating a high quality black and white negative that has been crafted through the camera.

Of course, many photographers now, and certainly all of those involved with digital imagery, produce monochrome work from colour files that have subsequently been converted into a greyscale in Photoshop (or similar photo-editing software). These systems (along with colour film of course) don’t require filtration in the same way as a black and white film and rely on a degree of post-photographic editing in order to achieve the required tonal separation. A colour file that has been converted to a greyscale by the camera (or via Photoshop) with no additional work will often appear very flat, and lacking in contrast.

Although basic adjustments with levels and curves can make massive improvements to such images, the real work is achieved through the channel mixer which allows complete control over the tonal values of specific colours relative to each other. This technique is not only capable of replicating the effect of filtration in black and white photography; it is, in the right hands, capable of much more.

This approach to black and white photography is also advantageous in the practical sense in that it allows the photographer to shoot using a single stock of colour film (or a digital camera) that requires little or no filtration at the camera stage (obviating the need to buy and carry around expensive glass filters), but also offers the potential for a great deal more image manipulation as an RGB file in Photoshop. Colour film has the further advantage of being easier to scan since the dyes that comprise the image are more easily penetrated than silver crystals and this is a distinct advantage when using scanners with a limited dynamic range.

When photographing with traditional black and white film however, the approach is, by necessity, completely different. The very nature of these films and their photo-chemical reaction to different wavelengths of light means that it is nearly always necessary to filter the light entering the lens.

It is important to note that when filtration is referred to in this context, it does not encompass types such as polarisers, neutral density and graduated types etc. These filters are of course indispensable, but are used in applications over and above the role of filters that determine the spectral combination of light that reaches the film.

Since any filtration has to be in place when the shutter is fired, the photographer has to have identified which filter is appropriate and worked out the corresponding increase in exposure time before the picture is taken. Once a black and white negative has been created, there is very little than can be done (apart from basic contrast correction) to improve the image.

Film - or more precisely the light receptive silver halide grains embedded within the emulsion - is inherently sensitive to the blue end of the spectrum down into the ultra-violet region. Spectral sensitivity in fact only extends to about 525nm (nanometres) whereas the human eye’s spectral response peaks at around 555nm (green region). Early films with this limited sensitivity were known as Orthochromatic and often gave an unrealistic monochromatic representation of the colours contained within the subject.  

To compensate for this, modern films have their spectral sensitivity extended into the red (or near infrared in some cases) by the addition of dyes that act as colour sensitizers. These films are known as Panchromatic (or Super Panchromatic in the case of films that can record in the near infrared) and are capable of giving a more accurate tonal response from a given set of colour values, although their relative over sensitivity to blue persists. This over sensitivity to blue can have serious implications when photographing landscapes and some degree of filtration is usually necessary.

The amount of filtration applied depends upon whether the effect required is purely corrective or is necessary to exploit a particular creative style. With standard panchromatic black and white films, yellow and orange filters are probably the most widely employed types since they have the effect of absorbing blue (darkening blue skies and increasing the contrast between clouds) whilst in practical terms, rendering the tone of other colours more or less unchanged. Dark yellow filters are useful for enhancing detail in expanses of sand or snow and for increasing contrast in dense areas of foliage.

Red and dark red will absorb all blue (producing dramatic skies) and will increase the subject contrast by strongly enhancing shadows. The downside is that green is absorbed too and this will have the effect of darkening foliage – an almost universally unwelcome consequence. Green and yellow green filters are useful with subjects where there is a lot of foliage (especially in springtime) because tonal separations can be accomplished between subtle shades of green and yellow/green.

Super panchromatic films will demonstrate similar effects with yellow, orange and green filters, but significantly different effects with red filters and infrared cut off filters. Filters that cut off wavelengths above 695nm are in practical terms opaque. Exposure calculations therefore have to be arrived at through experience since camera meters are calibrated for daylight and will not give an accurate reading for infrared radiation. It is possible use a conventional meter and try to establish an exposure index that gives a rough correlation between a daylight reading and the extra exposure that an infrared exposure will require, but even then, some compensation will need to be made for early evening, bright sunshine/overcast conditions etc., where the amount of prevalent infra-red radiation will differ dramatically. Care has to be taken when choosing filters with this type of film since the effects can sometimes be very dramatic and not always appropriate for many types of subject matter.

It stands to reason that the same consideration must be shown to the choice of filters as to the lenses. An inferior filter placed in front of an expensive lens will obviously compromise the performance of the optics. Only ultra slim, multicoated Heliopan filters are fitted to the Schneider lenses that have created the photographs on this website. These filters are made in Germany to the highest standard and are constructed exclusively from glass manufactured by Schott (Zeiss), the world’s finest optical glass supplier. The glass is dyed in the mass and then hard coated on both sides for optimum light transmission before being fitted to anodised brass rings. Heliopan filters are the only filters available that are made with unstressed glass, which ensures that the glass remains optically flat at all times.

The Film

All of the photographs displayed on this website have been taken using a range of relatively slow, fine-grained black and white films that have been filtered through the lens. If the output is intended purely for monochrome work, then black and white film offers notable advantages over colour film or a typical digital system.

Most significantly perhaps, monochromatic emulsions have a greater dynamic range than colour; approx ~ 4 to 6 stops greater than transparency film, ~2 stops greater than colour negative film and ~2 stops greater than a typical digital system. This allows photography over a wide range of difficult lighting conditions whilst ensuring that detail is preserved in the deepest shadows without ‘burning out’ the highlights. Although it is standard practise to employ graduated filters to compress the tonal range of the subject, this measure is only really effective in balancing the luminosity of large areas of sky in relation to the foreground and cannot be used with any degree of precision.

Black and white film emulsions are very tolerant of incorrect exposure calculations. Ilford’s FP4 plus for example (a widely employed type by Sharpfoto) is extremely forgiving with both over and under exposure. 

Colour negative film can accommodate a fair amount of over exposure (though not nearly as much as FP4) but not much underexposure, whilst transparency film is notoriously unforgiving of overexposure suffering from burnt out highlights with as little as a stop over- exposure.

An underexposed black and white negative can be recovered by increasing the development time to compensate for the lack of exposure (push processing), whilst an overexposed negative can be salvaged by reduced development (pull processing). Although far from ideal, this at least ensures that a printable negative is yielded, although obviously the extent of the over or underexposure dictates the quality of the resulting negative as does the type of film affected and the type of developer employed.

Some films are far more receptive to this type of treatment than others. FP4 for example is practically bullet proof in this respect and when used in conjunction with a versatile developer (such as Ilford ID11 or Kodak D76) can yield perfectly presentable results from massive exposure inaccuracies. Some of the older, silver rich, single layer film emulsions used by Sharpfoto (such as Efke/Adox 25, 50 & 100 and Classic Pan 200) are capable of wonderfully subtle tonality with a superb greyscale, but are not as forgiving with overexposure as the newer, multilayer film types.

Black and white films are also available in a much wider range of speeds than colour film and consequently can offer more options in situations where there is little ambient light or finer grain where there is sufficient illumination. Colour negative films have a speed typically in the range of 100-1600 asa. Of course transparency films like Fujichrome Velvia are extremely fine grained (50 asa), but the excessive contrast displayed by these emulsions often limits their use in many pictorial applications where the light cannot be controlled. This excessive contrast is also a characteristic of extremely slow, fine grained monochrome films – such as Efke/Adox 25 and the old Agfapan 25 - but the advantage of black and white film is that you can compensate for this limitation at the development stage by selecting highly concentrated, single shot developers, such as Agfa’s Rodinal or Tetenal’s Neofin Blue. If used well diluted with extended processing time, these developers are capable of yielding extremely rich negatives with a long tonal range.

In terms of physical durability, black and white film is the best medium in which to invest your image. It consists of nothing more than grains of pure silver on a polyester (or sometimes tri-acetate) base and, if properly stored, will last a lifetime. Who can say how long proprietary digital files will remain readable, uncorrupted or even compatible with rapidly evolving computer systems?

Large Format Film in the World of Digital.

Too much is made of the supposed conflict between digital and analogue photography. They are, after all, two different means of achieving the same end and both have strengths and weaknesses although the perceived limitations of conventional film often appears far more pronounced because its primary weaknesses are more significantly displayed in applications where digital excels. It would be wrong to dismiss film completely simply because it can no longer compete in the consumer or commercial sector. The larger film formats still have many followers with practitioners of fine art and there is still a comprehensive range of films available that offer the landscape photographer many creative options. Of course the digital photographer can match most of these creative effects in Photoshop, but large format film is capable of such fine quality, only the latest and most expensive digital systems can compete. In this scenario, it simply distils down to preference.

It is outside the remit of this website to argue in depth for or against the merits of one technology in relation to the other and it is usually meaningless to compare the two technologies in general, unspecific terms. However, that being said, it is important to offer some explanation as to why large format black and white film is the preferred choice of Sharpfoto.

One of the main problems facing conventional film is that it cannot easily be judged within the parameters of the digital workflow. Very often, the quality disparities demonstrated between the smaller film formats and digital cameras have been derived from the simplest empirical observations. Any demonstrable quality differential between digital files can often owe more to the limitations of the scanning device than to the film itself. It is therefore only relevant to compare the quality of actual end prints that have been derived from the appropriate sequence of technologies. In the case of film, this would mean a print that has been produced via an analogue enlarging system with the employment of the correct materials, filtration and processing techniques compared to a digital file downloaded to a computer (or direct to a desktop printer) and printed digitally.

Of course, most photographers now want to take advantage of Photoshop whether they are originating via film or via silicon. Although this demonstrates a certain degree of ambivalence, it is understandable given that Photoshop as an editing tool is not only infinitely more powerful than any darkroom technique, its prevalence and versatility has led to a redundancy of darkroom skills to the extent that few photographers now have the training, experience or inclination to produce a conventional photographic print. Therefore film, in terms of the quality it is capable of achieving, is inevitably compromised by being incorporated into the digital workflow.

Having said that, it is beyond question that digital photography has significant advantages over analogue technology to the extent that 35mm film and most of the smaller roll film formats are effectively obsolete. Any application where cost, speed, convenience and flexibility are the primary considerations (including most commercial and consumer requirements), digital has to be the preferred choice.

However, where landscape work is concerned, many of these advantages are of little or no significance and are, in any event, of secondary importance to the quality of the final reproduction. All of the photographs displayed on this site have taken a great deal of time and effort to create. Very often, a four-hour drive can be followed by a long walk weighed down with heavy bags and a tripod, and three hours standing on a bleak hillside in the pouring rain just to get a single picture. The fact that the film may cost £2 a sheet and requires particular care with development doesn’t really amount to much in the overall scheme of things. It’s true that 5x4 cameras are bulky and heavy, but there are no short cuts and no compromises in large format photography. There are no batteries to fail, no circuitry to get wet and no problems with torrential rain, searing heat or sub zero temperatures. If quality and dependability is the ultimate consideration, then a large format camera loaded with black and white film is a very difficult combination to beat.

Digital files and printing.

If we were to distil an image down to purely mathematical terms, it is generally agreed that, typically, the eye cannot resolve more than 300 dpi (dots per inch). This figure is derived from mathematical calculations relating to visual acuity. The human eye can resolve alternating black and white lines down to frequencies as small as one minute of an arc (=0.000291 radians). This figure, when applied to a typical viewing distance relevant to the size of the reproduction and to the focal length of the human optical system determines the smallest detail that can be resolved with perfect eyesight.

In very simple terms, to output a 15 x 12 inch print at 300dpi would require a digital file (15x300) x (12x300) = 16.2 million pixels (megapixels).  A digital file originating from a camera system with a native (optical) resolution less than this will rely on interpolation where the image editing software (or camera’s software in some cases) uses various computer algorithms to generate data to plug the gaps. The greater the interpolation, the less satisfactory the end result. Although Photoshop provides a very effective way of doing this, it can never be a substitute for data derived from a large format film scan or information projected onto a CCD/CMOS array.

Exponents of digital photography often claim that 6-8 megapixel cameras are capable of producing prints up to A3 in size. In a sense this is true but, as outlined above, there will be insufficient pixels generated by the cameras CCD/CMOS sensor to enable the print to be output at the optimum 300dpi. It is irrelevant what print resolution is selected through the printer driver since discernable detail can only originate from the digital file that created the image in the first place. If the file size is left constant and the image scaled up to A3, the output resolution will be dictated by the amount of available pixels which will have to be stretched to fill the print dimensions. Alternatively, the pixel dimension can be increased by instructing the editing software to interpolate the data which it achieves by inserting the requisite amount of information based upon the value of adjacent pixels.

Either way, the resulting photograph will appear inferior to that of a comparable photograph derived from a large format scan or from a digital system that has an optical resolution able to satisfy the output requirements. The confusion often arises because a heavily interpolated image can still appear sharp on the printed photograph (easily achieved through the Unsharp Mask filter in Photoshop) even though the detail resolved will be rather poor.

Unless there is a direct comparison from a higher resolution file to hand, it won’t be obvious exactly how much information is missing or how inferior the image actually is.

This scenario almost never arises with large format photography. A finely grained 5x4 inch negative can be scanned at 4000 dpi before the grain can be perceived and therefore all of the information extracted from the negative will be detail captured from the subject during the exposure. Assuming the image area to be scanned is slightly smaller at 4.5x3.5 inches, this will yield a file size of 252 million pixels. Enlargements up to 30 or 40 inches wide are comfortably within the capabilities of large format film.

Of course a scan – even from a high-end device – is a second-generation image as opposed to the first generation raw file downloaded to a computer. These systems, to their credit, are now practically noiseless and are practically free of unwanted artefacts and colour fringing. Furthermore, they have no structure analogous with film grain. If the raw file is downloaded (i.e. free from camera processing or compression) it is likely to demonstrate excellent pixel clarity and can easily compete with large format film if the size of the reproduction does not extend beyond the capabilities of the digital system being employed. In fact digital scanning backs (for e.g. the Betterlight range) offer quality that exceeds the capabilities of 5x4 inch film, however, the great irony is that these systems are effectively impractical instruments out in the field. It’s true that they are used by some photographers for landscape work, but being tethered systems, they are reliant upon a laptop and an external battery pack and since this technology works by building the image one line at a time, the resulting exposures can vary from 4 – 2000 seconds depending on available light and the specified quality parameters. Even with the sturdiest of tripods, it’s difficult to imagine how such a camera would cope on windswept Welsh hillside.

As things stand at the moment, the true successors to large format photography are the single capture digital camera backs that have their own power supply and processor/disk capacity within the magazine. The latest Leaf Aptus range, Phase One P30 and P45 models and Sinar emotion series etc., can now offer the quality, flexibility and practicality to seriously challenge 5x4 inch sheet film. Before very long, these systems will be cheaper, will process data faster and will have batteries that last longer.

However, all being said, the only worthy consideration concerns the picture that is presented to the consumer. Whilst most would concede that conventional large format photography is a complicated, expensive and labour intensive craft, practitioners of this format know that once the right negative has been produced, there is no better way of achieving a print that exhibits profound beauty and clarity of detail to a size that is quite simply beyond the reach of all other techniques.

The Sharpfoto ethic

Although not perhaps providing the quickest and most convenient route, all of these choices have been driven by the desire to maximise quality at every stage of the photographic process - from the moment the light enters the lens, through careful and precise development of the film to the effort and consideration applied at the print making stage.

Having full control over all of these parameters ensures that the benefits of carefully applied experience and technique at one stage are not negated by relying on a third party and their ability to interpret precise instructions accurately at another.

Everybody will probably have their own views regarding image integrity and how important it is to them. The historical importance of these ancient monuments is such that the Sharpfoto ethic is to apply as little post photographic editing as is possible. Aside from basic retouching and tonal correction, all of these photographs have been created from a single negative that has been exposed in the camera at a single point in time. The photons of light that have exposed the film after travelling through the lens have, nanoseconds before, bounced off the very subject being photographed.