>>4308869
Large format film is your answer, especially if you plan on ahooting architecture.

>>4308869
Show us a city photo you took and we will be able to determine your best options in relation to your desired results.

You do take photos, right?

File: DSC_0001_low.jpg (728 KB, 1600x1059)

728 KB JPG

>>4308873
Of course. The ones I’ll be posting are from a crop sensor camera

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 12.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	796
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:26 14:25:36
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4308872

This, but if you can't "swing" an LF camera a decent tilt-shift lens will work too.

File: DSC_4728_1.jpg (674 KB, 1600x1059)

674 KB JPG

>>4308876

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 10.3 (Windows)
Photographer	AJM
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	788
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	33 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2020:09:28 19:14:12
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	22.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_6976.jpg (857 KB, 1059x1600)

857 KB JPG

>>4308878

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Bridge 2020 (Windows)
Photographer	AJM
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2023:04:29 20:22:54
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	19.00 mm
Image Width	3264
Image Height	4928
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_4264.jpg (411 KB, 795x1200)

411 KB JPG

>>4308879

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 10.3 (Windows)
Photographer	AJM
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	776
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2020:08:06 17:50:06
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_1934.jpg (424 KB, 2000x1333)

424 KB JPG

>>4308881
I have a 12-24 wide angle but often times the perspective distortion makes me not like how the photos turn out

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 10.3 (Windows)
Photographer	AJM
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	776
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	18 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2018:07:14 16:08:57
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	12.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_4544.jpg (639 KB, 1066x1600)

639 KB JPG

>>4308884
Like this one, after trying ACR geometry correction the top end of the image is blurred

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 9.3.1 (Windows)
Photographer	AJM
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	778
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	18 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:11 14:37:51
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	12.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_3276.jpg (713 KB, 1600x1059)

713 KB JPG

>>4308885

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 10.3 (Windows)
Photographer	AJM
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	788
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	22 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2019:12:01 12:09:20
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	15.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_5535.jpg (630 KB, 1600x1059)

630 KB JPG

>>4308887

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7000
Camera Software	Adobe Bridge 2020 (Windows)
Photographer	AJM
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2022:03:06 12:02:06
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	19.00 mm
Image Width	4928
Image Height	3264
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4308877
>>4308872
I figured the answer would be film. I’ve been using the same d7000 for 10 years, I was going to upgrade to FF but it seems like I better keep saving my money for LF? I only do this as a hobby, nobody cares about photos like these except me and maybe property or development owners who want to showcase their new works

>>4308893
A good large format camera is not necessarily expensive. If you have like 3 grand in total to buy a modern-ish FF and a good lens you have more than enough for an unbelievable 4x5 set up and possibly a couple hundred sheets of b&w film. Tmax100 4x5 is like 2-4 dollars per sheet, foma100 is like 1.25. Color sheets are more like 7 dollars per sheet, expensive, yes.

You want to use inexpensive b&w at first because there is a fairly steep learning curve to using a view camera, but you will be able to get phenomenal results once you figure everything out.

The other option is to either rent a tilt/shift lens+FF camera to see if it's enough, or get a view camera and a mounting back for your digital camera. It is sort of the best of both worlds, but the focal lengths available will be somewhat limiting for architectural work.
Rodenstock digaron lenses are insanely good, very expensive, and are designed for use with MF digital backs. They have very wide angle lenses you could use. 23 and 35 are the widest. They will not cover 4x5, but will have plenty of coverage for a FF sensor.

>>4308963
Thanks for the good advice. I was originally looking at the D810 for a FF which is around $700 right now, but getting a 4x5 maybe the answer to the gap, I can stick with my crop camera for everyday shooting and reserve the 4x5 for the architecture and possibly landscape.

Doing a quick search I see 4x5s range from $400 for the Intrepid to over $1k for others.
Do you have a recommendation in what to research or should I just look up 4x5 and architecture?

When it comes to development, I don’t have my own darkroom or dev equipment, I’m looking at $60 for a 25 pack plus $8 to develop BW each sheet ($200 a pack). Pretty steep

>>4308893
The answer isn't actually film. Perspective correction lenses exist for both EF and F mount, and Nikon is supposedly coming out with a mirrorless-only PC lens soon.

There are even PC lenses for 35mm cameras from the 70s and some chinkshit ones made today but they kind of suck and work best on APS-C because of the variable vignetting

You can totally do this on film, but it's not necessary and sheet film is retarded if you're not ready to do all of your processing at home. You also need a dedicated dark area just to dust off and load your sheets.

File: s-l1600 (6).jpg (251 KB, 1188x1600)

251 KB JPG

>>4308978
Dev stuff is cheap, and it is easy. A 4 reel patterson tank will do 6 sheets with a mod54 4x5 holder. B&H sells the combo for $86. Changing bag is 30ish, chems are like 60ish for probably 100 sheets, and misc stuff is another 50ish, maybe. You can use an 8 reel patterson if you need to 12 sheets. Home dev can bring your costs down to less than a couple dollars per 6 sheets. Everything except the chems is interchangeable with color dev. Just different chemistry.

If you don't mind weight and a little bit of extra cost I would suggest a sinar p1 or p2. It's an incredible monorail camera with fully geared movements, and the system is fully modular with many accessories. Any other monorail camera will be more than enough for architectural.

Field cameras with very wide angle lenses can be tricky because of how close the lens is to the film plane, so you need to be sure to account of that if you're choosing a field camera. Usually can't just swap out a wide angle bellows like on a monorail.

>>4308990
You only need a darkroom or extra large changing bag for 8x10. You can easily manage 4x5 with a small changing bag.

>>4309000
And if you’re willing to live with less than perfect negatives, you can economize and reuse chems even more. Just save the first use for stuff you really care about. Depends on how poorfag were willing to go here lol

>>4309060
so I’m looking at $1500+ up front costs for a camera, lens, darkroom dev kit,chemicals, and sheet film. That’s a big pill. I shoot pretty often digital but I’ve only shot film (35mm) 2-3 times a year.
Id have to go all in and make this the main focus of my hobby

File: HP5-BW_N70_JUNE2023.jpg (421 KB, 1600x1066)

421 KB JPG

>>4308889
I forgot about this one. Shot with ilford HP5. One of the few images that to me feels like one of those old time architecture shots

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Plustek
Camera Model	OpticFilm 8100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3089
Image Height	2059
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2024:04:30 16:16:20
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1066

Upgrade to a D7200 for max dynamic range and most minimal change to shooting setup

File: lenslist.jpg (134 KB, 1851x435)

134 KB JPG

>>4309076
That’s a fair point, right now I have a mix of crop and full lenses. I do like the 55-300 and will miss it if I move to FF

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	AJ
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4309062
Sinar kit for like 600 with a 90mm lens that includes a few sheet film holders.

200ish or less for all developing stuff

85 for a 50 pack of foma100.

Just gotta hunt on ebay. You can get really good deals on sinar kits.

>>4309062
https://www.ebay.com/itm/375364284290

The 90mm super angulon

https://www.ebay.com/itm/204713663447

>>4309095
>this lens is rated as POOR with fungus and a broken shutter lock

>this camera is near mint except for all the damaged parts

I won’t be getting these but it gives me an idie of what to look for. Are there any big problems I should avoid with a 4x5 camera?

>>4309101
Lol woops. Sorry, I just hastily found those 2. The main thing is that the bellows are light tight. Make sure the film holder/ground glass is there also.

With sinar it isn't too big of a deal because the bellows are easily interchangeable, but if you get a field camera it can be a big chore to replace them.

>>4309109
Bellows can be replaced. Been many years since I did but I recall suitable replacement bellows to glue in a wooden 4x5 field camera was (at the time) around $70 from chinkexpress.

So as im doing research im seeing three types of cameras: press, field, and monorail, with the last being the heaviest and least portable but more affordable. Realistically if I’m trying to do architecture or open space photos I’d want either a field or press camera right?

>>4308869
Solar/ND filter.
Heavy sturdy tripod with a weighted bag.
Motorized head for panoramas.
Shoot -6, -3, -, +3, +6 exposure bracket raws.
Use f11 or tighter.
Diffraction is a meme, don't worry about it.
Long exposure.

Pan (via the robotic head, not your hand) to get the shots you want.

Shouldn't take more than 15 minutes to properly photograph a scene. Might take longer to process.
You can use whatever camera you own but you'll need the tripod and other parts.
It's not your camera that's limiting.

>>4309279
Most field or press cameras should have enough movements (front rise is the one you mainly need) to bring your verticals parallel if you're shooting a building from ground level.

Although ultrawides (75mm and shorter lenses) can be tricky on these, a lens between 90 and 120 should be wide enough for most of your needs and will work on one of these.

Your cheapest version of one of these will probably be an old crown or speed graphic from ebay.

As for the lenses, because you will shoot at f16 or narrower apartures quite a lot of the time, I wouldn't get too hungup on the exact precision of shutter timings (I'm counting a few seconds on bulb mode more often than not) because black and white film is generally fairly forgiving of small exposure errors.

>>4309281
Something like this then? Should I look for one without a lens already so I can save the cost on the right focal length?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/226118180079?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=v1nK49EVQwa&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=kTZzj1llSQ6&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

>>4309281
>>4309307
Pretty sure tilting the back standard is used for perspective control, so make sure your camera has that.

Front tilt/shift is used to control the focal plane.

>>4309307
That one looks decent. The lens is approximately eqivalent to 35mm focal length on 35mm film camera.

You will also need at least one film holder, something like this https://www.ebay.com/itm/375319703495?itmmeta=01HWTXKG3FYEQRW21S3SXC9W36&hash=item5762cc2fc7:g:kdsAAOSwwPtl-Qk-&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA4AbebqRdUnRjMFDFtwHSClZGob8pGN%2FZJ59f7nG3ZviRxT8vuMtAi2edjxOdbhGyQoTjH21XmrQqhfHPP%2Fx1y6zyLGQ1WnnoxKzjDN%2Fk7lHpv7uohLHgjnriQBASiZoOPpx9PgA1UW8KebAWa%2BXBhUReeuunme2%2BkcE4CJ7rP6FUNaUUThB2sMZBueFdI2ChD1WOT8J8PJCvjbCovQoec2VA9NPTtVkWbRnasArMIFIMJ6L4tHghjImlxX74aZZesBaYFobrpLpFLhIGRqr0J%2Ftuq9WybjCb2cZ5ZpnhE1JB%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR-qBzt3mYw

File: chicam.jpg (408 KB, 2059x1179)

408 KB JPG

>>4309380
Thanks for the reminder about the film holder, I’m also looking locally here, do any of these look promising?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	AJ
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4309453
The cambo monorails look nice, especially the ones with the wider angle lenses. If they'll let you fiddle around with the camera some you should do that so you can see how they feel.

What's your routine for photographing architecture? You can pack a monorail+tripod, but it will take a few minutes longer to set up and breakdown, and it will be a little heavier.

I would not recommend the graflex even if they are the cheapest. They don't have the full range of movements that a field camera or monorail has. It will most likely be limiting for architectural work.

>>4309457
The press cameras would be be no good for me but the pro is that it’s portable and I could adapt it to uses outside of strictly architecture

My current routine is that, I take my dslr and a tripod, remote shutter and ND filters depending on how light it is.

For this I will need a new tripod and head to support the weight, my locations will be parking-dependent so I’m not carrying this 6 blocks, and a lot of stability and patience

>>4309463
Field cameras, not press cameras. They both fold up, but field cameras have a lot more movement to them. Those crown graphics don't even have any back tilt/swing.

Thats a pretty good price for the deardorf and shen hao field cameras, but I know its probably out of your budget. Actually they are all pretty well priced, and you could probably sell them on ebay for how much you pay or even a little more if you decide a monorail is too cumbersome or whatever.

>I want to take sharp pics of cities
>buy an LF film camera
Any modern digital camera with a tripod and any decent wide angle will do, say a Sigma Art 24mm, or, if you can afford it, a decent tilt shift lens.
Shoot at base ISO and with pixel shift if possible, the rest is sharpening and coloring with dubious taste.

>>4309719
What makes an actually TS lens better than software geometry correction these days?

>>4309775
It actually changes what is in the frame according to natures laws instead of stretching and cropping the image to produce an unnatural, overcooked looking clusterfuck according to ken rockwell's eyes

I've seen software perspective correction and it always looks like uncanny shit unless it's a 1000x600 postage stamp, then it just looks uncanny

You develop an eye for it after using highly distorted mirrorless lenses because they essentially do the same thing. Too much distortion correction might not affect the MTF chart but you can tell some things are being stretched and squished.

File: shift.jpg (67 KB, 709x729)

67 KB JPG

What about a shift lens?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Image search
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4309775
You don't lose any resolution by using a tilt-shift lens, while if you use software correction the part of the image that gets enlarged will be at a comparatively low resolution, and the fact that the image is stretched and resampled might cause artifacts.
Of course, the cost of a tilt-shift lens is in the diminishing returns realm, but it's an improvement.
>>4309782
If you don't have the money for a good TS lens it's not worth buying a lens specific for just one thing, better get a newer camera and short prime.

>>4309796
A half decent canon/nikon TS lens is a lot cheaper than shooting large format unless you intend to take barely any pictures.

Actually it might be cheaper period depending on the LF gear you buy. Some of those view cameras get pricey just for rigidity, standard locks, and good overall condition.

>>4309805
>a half decent TS lens
Your setup is already half decent, if you're going to invest money in it you might as well wait until you have enough money for a significant upgrade.
There also are cheaper and much more versatile options, like getting a better digital camera with a better lens, which you could use to improve any picture you might take and not just architecture with a tripod.
>shooting large format
That's definitely not worth it outside of a very few niches at very high levels and with very high budgets and I wouldn't suggest anyone on /p/ buy one, I meant NEW camera as in camera released in the last few years, a modern one.

>>4308893
>I figured the answer would be film. I’ve been using the same d7000 for 10 years, I was going to upgrade to FF but it seems like I better keep saving my money for LF?
Most likely not. You're getting knee jerk answers here.

LF potentially beats high resolution FF (45mp or higher) on two points.
- Resolution and max print size.
- Movements.

As for resolution: high resolution FF can make excellent 36" prints and good 60" prints, and that's before AI scaling algorithms. Do you need to print to larger sizes/higher quality than that? If not, then LF is not going to be better. In fact it can potentially be worse due to:
- Lack of film flatness.
- Poor lens IQ.
- Errors during development.
- Limited scanning capability.
And to that last point: high rez FF is going to beat 4x5 scanned on a flatbed. If your budget is flatbed, LF is not going to benefit you.

As for movements: you can't beat 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras for movements. But you can get close. Canon EF, for example, has native T/S lenses and 3rd party T/S lenses, and RF adds T/S adapters for MF lenses. On top of that PS has tools which are excellent at correcting perspective distortion. This digs into your resolution a bit, but unless you're printing huge it won't matter.

tl;dr - you will almost certainly be more productive with FF and T/S lenses or adapters + PS tools than you will with 4x5. And while 4x5 has an edge at the very limits of performance, you have to ask yourself if you will ever exploit and see it.

Now if you just want to play with/experience film, that's a different question. 4x5 is fun.

>>4308876
No amount of lens sharpness will help with atmospheric haze. Some filters may help but otherwise you can only kinda compensate with dehaze.

Actually that’s fine, I like the haze

>>4309062
More than that, because irl when I sell images, no one wants a fucking print, they want a high res image file, and that shit has to be perfect. So if you’re going to fuck around with film to make pretty art prints that’s great but if you’re going to sell your images to architects and cities you’re wasting your time, because they are only interested in the file. For them you get at least a 45 megapixel body stick a tilt shift lens on it and then get very good in Photoshop because most of your work is going to be in the computer, producing a professional image. Never mind the camera, you can pick up a used Nik, Cannon or Sony that will do the capture just fine. what you’re going to need most is a proper display & calibration for color work, which is a few thousand.

The lens is more important in your case. Get a quality wide lens. Such as the RF15-35, RF 14-35 or any brand equivalent with any camera that's not too old and you're good to go

>>4308869
i think id rather shoot ff + stitch photos than go through the hassle of 4x5
you should try that first op

>>4308869
Large format + black and white film achieved this level of sharpness.

So many lenses these days are plenty sharp though. Just use a tripod, look up which f stop resolves the sharpest for your lens (consider focus depth as well depending on your composition) and do that.

>>4310690
This thread is still up? I wanted to clarify:
>high resolution FF can make excellent 36" prints and good 60" prints, and that's before AI scaling algorithms.
This is to say that at 36" you're not going to see a sharpness/resolution difference between high resolution FF and 4x5 film properly scanned. At 60" you will see a difference side by side, but FF will still be sharp/acceptable.

File: 4a21413a.jpg (1.69 MB, 2400x3024)

1.69 MB JPG

>>4313768
>>4313709
Thank you anons. Seems like the short answer is LF, or the long solution is to find really good glass for FF.

I know these are considered sterile clinical looking photos but I've always loved how much detaily you can see in these photos, even down the names in the glass windows.

Shorpy says this is an 8x10 inch dry plate glass negative, so i guess that explains the clarity

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sinar
Camera Model	54H
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Photographer	Shorpy.com
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	8148
Image Height	10263
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	980 dpi
Vertical Resolution	980 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2010:09:07 23:13:14
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2400
Image Height	3024

File: SHORPY-4a11677a.jpg (1.39 MB, 2100x2606)

1.39 MB JPG

>>4314442
the shutter on that one doesnt seem to be too long, only the moving feet are blurred, but this one is much longer

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sinar
Camera Model	54H
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.3 (Windows)
Photographer	Shorpy.com
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:01:24 12:52:38
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2100
Image Height	2606

File: crossedroses.jpg (2.42 MB, 1473x2222)

2.42 MB JPG

>>4314444
checked & blessed quads

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4314442
I love old shots like this, but I would argue that's not as sharp/detailed as modern high rez FF. (It's 8x10 but so many factors are at play, particularly limitations on lenses at the time, and limitations on the film emulsions). I once went through the 4x5 WWII photos at Shorpy and they are amazing for the history, and technically very good, but high rez FF out performs them on the technical quality. (Again: lenses, emulsions, 1940s. By then 8x10 was better than today's high rez FF.)

But, admittedly movements are a non-issue with LF. It's doable on FF but you've got to put the pieces together.

>>4314535
Tonality still isn't as good on digital sensors.

>>4314535
Do you have a link to any gallery with photos like this from FF cameras

File: 52713230317_1390af74e6_k.jpg (587 KB, 1463x2048)

587 KB JPG

You should try a Laowa 15mm Shift lens. Works on your camera, cheaper than a full Tilt/Shift, and they're built so solid that I bet a second-hand one would still be fine.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4314537
Yes it is. In fact, you have to jump to LF with modern emulsions to distinguish as many tones/colors as modern FF. Not to be confused with palette or "look". Films can have very unique looks. But tonality is the ability to distinguish separate tones/colors, and the best FF sensors are incredible in this respect.

>>4314539
No because they didn't have digital cameras back then.

>>4314575
>as modern FF
...as modern FF digital.

>>4314575
That's what i meant, and what I'm talking about. 4x5 and up, especially when contact printed.

>>4314575
>but high rez FF out performs them on the technical quality

Thats what Im asking, for photos like that taken with modern FF digital cameras so I can see the quality/detail. images like this >>4314547
for example

>>4314582
You need to buy an 8x10 or larger contact print and look at it in person if you truly want to understand the difference.

I bet you could find a nice piece to hang on the wall for pretty cheap on ebay.

>>4314580
>That's what i meant, and what I'm talking about. 4x5 and up, especially when contact printed.
That can be a valid argument for going that direction. I would say that you can learn to post process your digital files to look like old time B&W and Kodachrome. (Kodachrome would actually be harder.) But in the case of B&W, an easy path to getting that look is to simply do what they did. Use an emulsion close to what they had (if available, LF film choices are getting thin). Develop like they did. Print like they did. At the very least that would be a lot of fun and you should end up with a very similar result.

>>4314582
>Thats what Im asking, for photos like that taken with modern FF digital cameras so I can see the quality/detail. images like this >>4314547
>for example
Sorry, I shouldn't have been so curt. I would search Flickr. Search on the T/S lenses you're interested in, B&W. Also search on descriptive phrases like "B&W city architecture FF digital." You're bound to run into a style that's close enough at least to compare.

When I went through the WWII 4x5's many were portraits and I was comparing to my own shots on a 5Ds. And, again, those 4x5's are gorgeous, and Kodachrome's palette can be difficult to emulate. They represent an era. So artistically I'm not comparing anything I've done to them. But technically, resolution/sharpness/tonality, 5Ds RAWs edges them out. That surprised me at the time, but makes sense given the time period. A 4x5 can certainly edge out even an A7R V today. You have to print very large to see it, but it can.

If I seem like I'm pushing digital it's only because the cost/workflow advantages are so huge. And it's not like the early 2000's when LF would blow a 6mp DSLR out of the water. If you know what you're getting into with LF in terms of cost and time, and want to experience it, want to try and make photographs the way they did, then go LF.