Large format from a full-frame digital camera? Yes, it can be done

David Hayden

Alex Baker is a portrait and lifestyle driven photographer based in Valencia, Spain. She works on a range of projects from commercial to fine art and has had work featured in publications such as The Daily Mail, Conde Nast Traveller and El Mundo, and has exhibited work across Europe

Large format from a full-frame digital camera? Yes, it can be done

My interest in photography began in the 1960’s But I had three problems. No dark room, very little skill at the time, and even less money (I was a paper boy). I would look at photo magazines, and marvel at what was possible. Especially the images I saw that were made on large format cameras.

“Someday” I thought. Someday I will have the right gear, the dark room and the budget to really get the right stuff. I knew I could acquire the requisite skills, if I just had the stuff.

Along came excellent 35mm cameras

As time progressed, so did my career and budget, so I fully embraced the 35mm format. Primarily, I shot with Minolta SRT 101 and Pentax K1000. My images were getting better, and I moved from B/W that I would develop in a small tank to the color films I would get developed at a lab. My love for photography was pretty well satisfied in the 35mm world.

Digital photography opened some doors

Still using crop and full-frame sensors I had become very familiar with the 35mm aspect ratio. I was even foolish enough to believe that, with enough pixels and the ability to print large images, large format did not bring a lot to the table.

I was wrong of course. The more I would study large format images and with the benefit of study groups, mentors fellow photographers, I soon became aware of the technical and qualitative differences.

For example, on a full frame 35mm digital camera a 50mm lens is considered “normal.” Normal in the sense of having the perspective of the unaided eye. On a larger format camera like my 4 x 5 Graflex Speed Graphic, a normal lens would be considered roughly 150mm.

Longer focal lengths reduce the depth of field. When shooting the same image with a 50mm lens and a 150mm lens, the latter will have a shallower depth of field. That dramatically changes the feel an look of an image.

I discovered I can attach my digital cameras to my 4×5 camera

I discovered through an internet search that Fotodiox makes adapters that allow photographers to attach some full frame digital cameras to large format cameras that have a Graflok back. I actually knew about them for a while but just recently purchased a mirrorless camera for which Fotodiox makes an adapter.

The process requires:

  1. mounting the camera to the to the adapter,
  2. mounting the adapter to the Graflok Mount on the large format camera,
  3. moving the camera to pre-defined positions on the adapter to take full advantage of the image circle,
  4. stitching the images together using Photoshop or other software,
  5. completing final edits.

In my case, I added a couple of extra steps because of my workflow. I shoot with a 60+MP digital camera, and I always shoot in Raw format. Hence, the sheer size of the source images makes things very time-consuming. Therefore:

  1. I load my images into CaptureOne (my preferred Raw editor) and edit images for consistency, remove dust, etc.
  2. Export them as 2-5 MP .jpg files.
  3. Use Photoshop to create the composite.
  4. Save as .psd files (about 40MB-150MB ea.)
  5. Perform the final edits of .psd files in CaptureOne
  6. If all goes well, then I know it’s worth taking the time to create very high-res, very large .psd files using the raw images.
Large format from a full-frame digital camera? Yes, it can be done
6 images used for composite
Large format from a full-frame digital camera? Yes, it can be done
The Photoshop composite (note the banding caused by vignetting of individual images)
Large format from a full-frame digital camera? Yes, it can be done
After final export, cropping and editing.

Some final notes

In my case, my camera did not have a Graflok back but I was able to buy parts on Ebay. For the most part they worked great except as I move the digital camera around it tends to lose a little focus. To compensate, I refocus every image.

For some cameras that have large grips, a “Stretch” adapter is needed and actually moves the camera farther back from the focal plane. In my case that camera is about 50mm behind the actual film plane. Usually that would mean focusing at infinity would be impossible.

Fortunately, I was able to move the lens far enough back and lock it into place to achieve infinite focus. The net effect is also an increase in focal length. The focal length of the lens on my Graflex is 127mm so I estimate my net effective focal length is around 177+/-.

For this image, the sky was bright enough that I lowered the exposure 1 stop for the sky shots.

This process is not fast, and that is a good thing. It slows me down, and I spend more time on the composition and details.

Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

DIPY Icon

About David Hayden

David Hayden is a Commercial Photographer based in Colorado, USA. You can see his work on his website, or follow him on Facebook. This article was also published here and shared with permission.

We love it when our readers get in touch with us to share their stories. This article was contributed to DIYP by a member of our community. If you would like to contribute an article, please contact us here.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 responses to “Large format from a full-frame digital camera? Yes, it can be done”

  1. Dave Avatar
    Dave

    Would have been nice to have a comparison (and explanation of any differences) with just shooting a panorama with the normal camera and a ~177mm lens to cover the same FoV.

    1. David Hayden Avatar
      David Hayden

      Dave,
      I’ve done a number of stitched panorama shots from this location, some at similar field of view, roughly speaking. The digital images are typically more sharp, more contrasty than what I get out of the Graflex. The old lenses certainly don’t have the quality or coatings of the newer digital lenses. Also, there was much more lens flare using the Graflex.

      The final imaging, at least prior to editing, is different because, using the Graflex is basically what I would do with a 177mm T/S lens, if I had one, and that greatly reduces the curavature introduced by Panning, thus allowing more of the scene into the final image. BUT, when I do stitch using the digital at this location, I don’t do two rows top and bottom. That might be worth trying,

      The experience is a little more rewarding. It takes more time, more planning, more care and that offers a different kind of reward.

  2. Tom Freda Avatar
    Tom Freda

    There’s an easier way and it doesn’t require an adapter or a large format camera. Just do a multi-row panorama with a Nodal Ninja (or cheaper equivalent) panorama tripod head, and then stitch the files.

    You’d also be using the digital camera’s lens (which is optimized for digital cameras) instead of the large format camera’s lens (which is optimized for large format film) – and you wouldn’t be limited by its restricted image circle or fall-off.

    1. David Hayden Avatar
      David Hayden

      Thanks Tom,
      I don’t disagree at all. My goal is to go a little retro in the look and feel of the final images. Modern lenses are so sharp and well made sometimes images seem a little edgy and less appeaing . . . depending of course on the subject and the intent for the finished picture.

      When I really want the quality offered by digital lenses in panorama shots, I typically reach for a T/S.

      1. Tom Freda Avatar
        Tom Freda

        Yes, I use my Nikkor PC-E 24mm as well, but didn’t mention it for the obvious reason: that it’s a far greater investment than a panorama head or even a second hand 8×10 field camera.

        But I’ll go further and say that for the distant image you show, just a digital camera and a tripod would work. Possibly even handheld. With the subject that far away, any distortion caused by moving the camera would not be noticeable.

        Interesting article, nevertheless.