Large Format Film -- Give me the basics?

I want to start shooting large format film once I finish school and can afford to do so. So far, I believe that I want to use Portra and its 11x14 sheets. As I understand, a 900mm lens will give me the same field of view as my 85mm does with a full frame camera.

But how do I know which lenses will work with which camera bodies? For example, the 900mm lens at the page below is listed as having a 140mm mount.
And does it matter which body I get?
And is it even possible to get new bodies anymore?
... Is it a bad idea to get 11x14 for any reason other than the cost of the film?

I found this list of lenses. Are there more? http://www.galerie-photo.com/apo-process-nikkors-en.html

Note: I'm not doing this for the 'cool' factor of using super big film. I'm doing it because I want to make prints that are about 72" x 48".

If 8x10 can give me 600 true ppi at that size, then I'll probably use 8x10 instead. Is 8x10 sufficient for that goal? (I'm not implying that even 11x14 is sufficient, but that's the max size of Portra).

I have no current hands on experience with large format field cameras let alone someone who uses an 11 x 14. There are fair number of folks though who use 8 x 10 and even more who have 4 x 5. I believe you'll find more of a support group for the latter as well as available equipment. You should be able to get very nice output from 8 x 10 for your 72" x 48" prints.

How do you intend print these large negatives? Several of my friends just make 8 x 10 contact prints but most of them scan the large negs and then output them on large format inkjet printers.

sapearl wrote in post #18979111
How do you intend print these large negatives? Several of my friends just make 8 x 10 contact prints but most of them scan the large negs and then output them on large format inkjet printers.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …0in&N=375297077​4&mode=edu

I'm thinking I'd buy a printer like this, but I'm listening for suggestions.

icor1031 wrote in post #18979112
https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …0in&N=375297077​4&mode=edu

I'm thinking I'd buy a printer like this, but I'm listening for suggestions.

That printer would certainly do it.

IMO and based on what I've seen my friends do I feel the 11 x 14 is overkill. A number of them do great work with just a 4 x 5. Yes it will give you a larger neg and more "information" to play with but I'm not really sure if you'll actually see the difference. That will probably only happen if you stick your nose in the print, which is not the way to appreciate art.

Do you plan on shooting architecture, landscapes, still life? Regardless of what you buy it will be slow to operate and carry relative to a dSLR. Of course I'm sure you're aware of that

sapearl wrote in post #18979114
That printer would certainly do it.

IMO and based on what I've seen my friends do I feel the 11 x 14 is overkill. A number of them do great work with just a 4 x 5. Yes it will give you a larger neg and more "information" to play with but I'm not really sure if you'll actually see the difference. That will probably only happen if you stick your nose in the print, which is not the way to appreciate art.

Do you plan on shooting architecture, landscapes, still life? Regardless of what you buy it will be slow to operate and carry relative to a dSLR. Of course I'm sure you're aware of that

Yes sir. Because it's cheaper I'd be happy to go smaller, so I hope you're correct about not needing 11x14.

Actually, I want to shoot models. I think I want to do a mix of 50s dresses and either nude or topless; haven't decided how revealing. Once I finish school, I should have a very good career and be able to afford to hire perfect models.

... I also need to figure out which scanner to use for 8x10. I haven't yet been able to find that.

Check out Herb:

https://ascherman.net/​about/

He's been doing 8 x 10 work for at least 40 years, lots of models, nude, various. What is your schooling focused on?

Check out large format stuff on this forum:

https://www.photrio.co​m/forum/

If you're new to large format you may want to start with 4x5. There's a long and expensive learning curve, even more so if you're not experienced in film photography.

There's a lot of 4x5 gear available on ebay. Most people starting out lean toward a press camera like a Speed or Crown Graphic, which are usually sold with a a lens/shutter. Field and view cameras usually are sold without lens, meaning you need to find an appropriate lens with a lens board that will fit the camera. There usually are a few 8x10's listed, without lenses. 11x14 is rare.

I may have missed it, but I don't think you said how you'll develop or scan the negatives. A whole other set of issues.

sapearl wrote in post #18979120
Check out Herb:

https://ascherman.net/​about/

He's been doing 8 x 10 work for at least 40 years, lots of models, nude, various. What is your schooling focused on?

Thanks for the link.

Triple major: Psy, Phil, and CS. But only the CS degree matters; I'm planning to do software development.

tomj wrote in post #18979126
Check out large format stuff on this forum:

https://www.photrio.co​m/forum/

If you're new to large format you may want to start with 4x5. There's a long and expensive learning curve, even more so if you're not experienced in film photography.

There's a lot of 4x5 gear available on ebay. Most people starting out lean toward a press camera like a Speed or Crown Graphic, which are usually sold with a a lens/shutter. Field and view cameras usually are sold without lens, meaning you need to find an appropriate lens with a lens board that will fit the camera. There usually are a few 8x10's listed, without lenses. 11x14 is rare.

I may have missed it, but I don't think you said how you'll develop or scan the negatives. A whole other set of issues.

Bad news. I spent the last few hours looking for a scanner, and there aren't any -- not that are any good. Comparing drum to flatbed is depressing, and no one makes drum scanners. I believe that the flextight was good and made recently, but it's no longer available. So although 8x10 film is far better than even a 150MP medium format digital camera, there's no good way to turn it into a digital file for printing. Links below to data, if curious.

There are still some companies that can scan 8x10s, but they charge about $120 per image. There's no way I'm going to do that.

https://www.onlandscap​e.co.uk …12/big-camera-comparison/
http://static.timparki​n.co.uk …p/cameratest-2/800px.html
https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …ing-your-film-with-a-dslr

Maybe stitch together multiple shots of the negative or positive film using a DSLR or mirrorless camera with a macro lens, I know some people do that for medium format film.

Canonuser123 wrote in post #18979190
Maybe stitch together multiple shots of the negative or positive film using a DSLR or mirrorless camera with a macro lens, I know some people do that for medium format film.

The DSLR scan in the link above was with a 1:1 macro lens. Even at 1:1, scanning an 8x10 would require more than 100 shots and would produce more than 3,000MP of resolution and require more than 3gB, yet in quality it would still be far worse than a drum scan. Maybe if we add pixel shift, but then it's over 100 images and it's 24gB.

If you want to make 72" x 48" prints from large files it seems that your ultimate goal to produce super hi-rez full body portraits. I confess that I've never seen prints that size at the resolution you want but is that such a superior improvement that you will actually notice the difference?

As I recall, 4x5 was the largest size commonly enlarged, and I enlarged it myself. Eight by ten and larger were more often used as contact prints. Eight by ten was the standard size for publication, so a contact print was already ideal. Eleven by 14 was a reasonable exhibition size, so it went straight into a mat.

There are problems that grow with size, such as the ability to keep the negative flat and clean. Keeping the film clean is tough from the moment you're trying to load the film holder to the moment you expose the paper. You will definitely need a black changing room--no changing bag to load those film holders. And the film is going to cost a pretty penny per shot. So will processing.

OTOH, handling, processing, and price of 4x5 is still pretty handy, especially for black and white. Scheimpflug is your new good friend in 4x5, at best Scheimpflug is a freinemy at larger formats.

The cost and effort just skyrockets with those larger sizes. People do it, but I think those people are more interest in the challenge of scaling the mountain than enjoying the view from the top.

Now I'm feeling nostalgic for my Horseman L-frame camera.

icor1031 wrote in post #18979195
The DSLR scan in the link above was with a 1:1 macro lens. Even at 1:1, scanning an 8x10 would require more than 100 shots and would produce more than 3,000MP of resolution and require more than 3gB, yet in quality it would still be far worse than a drum scan. Maybe if we add pixel shift, but then it's over 100 images and it's 24gB.

Using a full frame camera with a 1:1 macro will cover 864 square mm and an 8x10 film is like 51,613 square mm, actual film exposed area is probably a little bit less so it is about 60 shots to cover a full image, you can cut it down more if you don’t use a 1:1 macro. A used drum scanner would be less work or a decent commercial grade flat bed scanner could be used.

Used Howtek scanners are Available on EBAY.

Apart from film cost size and weight of camera + cost of camera and filmholders are definitely issues in the field. Processing cost and difficulty in getting homogen development is and issue in the darkroom. Enlargers for formats bigger than 4x5" are huge and expensive but contacts printing is fairly fast. As far as I know the biggest negsize you can comfortably scan on flatbeds is 8x10"

icor1031 wrote in post #18979105
I'm doing it because I want to make prints that are about 72" x 48".
If 8x10 can give me 600 true ppi at that size, then I'll probably use 8x10 instead. Is 8x10 sufficient for that goal?

sapearl wrote in post #18979223
If you want to make 72" x 48" prints from large files it seems that your ultimate goal to produce super hi-rez full body portraits. I confess that I've never seen prints that size at the resolution you want but is that such a superior improvement that you will actually notice the difference?

This is what I was wondering, too.

I think the OP is severely overestimating how many pixels he needs. I regularly print at 40" and sometimes at 48", and 100 ppi native pixels is plenty. No human's eyes can see better than 300 ppi no matter how close they are from the print, and the vast majority of people won't be able to see any more detail at 130 ppi than they will at 300 ppi, even when scrutinizing the print from just ten or twelve inches away.

I think this is the result of someone thinking too much about something without enough real life experience to give practical sense to those thoughts.

A more practical approach would be to make a few big prints with the gear that one already has, to see what the limits really are.

If someone shot a model with a 5D4 and then shot the same model at the same place with a 150 or 200 MP medium or large format camera, and both images were printed at 72" by 48", I honestly think that the OP would not be able to tell which image was taken with which camera, even if scrutinizing at extremely close range.

.