PDA

View Full Version : From Ebony RW45 to 8x10?



Steve Williams_812
20-Apr-2004, 18:39
I have made several right turns in photography in the past 20 years. After many years of 4x5 use, about 10 with a Zone VI camera, I made a rash decision (something I am good at) and sold lock, stock , and barrel of 4x5 gear and got an old 8x10 Deardorff.

In short, a disaster. I purchased a tired old camera, leaking bellows, non-functioning knobs, just a bad camera after a pristine Zone VI camera. Same with the lenses---going from modern lenses with good shutters to less than perfect lenses, one in a Packard shutter..... After a few short months I found myself cursing the camera and just wanting the 4x5 back. So I dump it all and purchase a new Ebony RW45, three mint condition lenses, new holders, new meter, blah, blah, blah....

That was about a year ago. Have made several hundred negatives with it and there is nothing wrong with them. About two months ago I started going through the 8x10 contact sheets I had made and was just astounded (again) at how much elegant life there is in those images. I had been so angry with the beater camera that I had never really allowed myself to really look at the 100 or so negatives I had made.

To keep this short, I find myself again wanting to produce those contact images that I just cannot produce in 4x5. Obviously I have to ask myself if I am just not doing the same thing all over....

So here is my question for you seasoned 8x10 users, perhaps you can detect the crap in my thinking.

1. I believe there is a genuine formal difference in the quality of the 8x10 contact that cannot be replicated with a 4x5 camera. This is something independent of the picture content.

2. There is a fundamental and drastic difference between working in 4x5 and 8x10. The ritual and process has different demands and affects the final image as a result of that ritual---reflective, meditative, comtemplative, etc...

3. I suspect my displeasure with the camera was not the format as much as frustration with a disfunctional tool.... had I purchased something of similar quality to the Zone VI, had I bought a Deardorff that did not leak, that I could actually raise the lens and not have it slip because the locking knob would not tighten, I believe I would still be shooting 8x10.

4. I can accept life without enlarging the 8x10. (I have an 8x10 enlarger, I use it to make 20x24 contact sheets from 35mm negs)

5. I will be 50 this July, I'm not too old to start lugging an 8x10 around am I?

I am looking at two cameras----an excellent condition Deardorff or Zone VI. A Wisner would be OK. Would love an Ebony but that is just not going to happen. I could sell my truck I suppose....

And while I have 3 lenses for the 4x5 I generally use one. I think I could shoot for a long time with just a 240.

Any theraputic or psychological help would be appreciated before I tell my wife I am going to make some changes again...

steve

Frank Petronio
20-Apr-2004, 19:11
I've been "going digital" for practical work, and have been tempted to go to 8x10 contact prints as a counterpoint. I understand the frustration of using funky cameras – but I'd be cautious about a wooden 8x10 anyway - after all, you are much more likely to bang it because it is bigger and heavier. I've seen some good deals on older 8x10 monorails – some of them, like the Sinar Norma, the Toyo G, the older Arcas, the simplier Linhofs – aren't that heavy but are far sturdier and more precise than an old Deardorff... But I have nightmares from assisting old time pros who were still using Dorfs in their studios in the early 1980s - the wobble, the shake, the horror.

Guess I'd look at 240 repro lenses too.

Then there is also ULF - 7x17s, etc... if you're stuck with contact printing, might as well go large ....mmmmmm

Bruce E. Rathbun
20-Apr-2004, 19:15
Steve, Been there myself. I went from using a beat-up old 8x10 Deardorff that I restored to a brand new Wisner 5x7. I had used the 8x10 for over 10 years and was just plain burned out dealing with the camera. So I plunged ahead and bought a new camera. That's when my tale of woes started. About a year after using the 5x7 I like you took a look at the 8x10 contact prints. I had thought that the 8x10 format was the problem. It turns out that the Deardorff was the source of my pain. So I went ahead and purchased a brand new Wisner 8x10. What a difference a new camera can make. The Wisner was like a new experience.....one that I would not soon forget.

After I had been using the Wisner 8x10 I decided that I HAD to have a 7x17 conversion back for the 5x7. Seemed logical at the time. I thought that I would enjoy the format. And the back would justify keeping the 5x7. I ordered the 7x17 back.....big mistake. Once again I decided that if 8x10 was good.....11x14 must be better. So one month after I had my 7x17 back I sold the entire 5x7/7x17 Wisner. I bought a slightly used Wisner 11x14 complete with holders and a case. I also sold my Hasselbald and bought...you guessed it, an 8x20 conversion back for my 8x10. The larger format bug had bitten hard.

So why the history lesson you ask? We all experience the format confusion. I looked very serious at a 16x20 over the 11x14. Thankfully I decided that the 16x20 was not pratical at the time. So now I have the 8x10, the 8x20 back, and the 11x14. I have sold my enlarger and moved on to nothing but contact printing. So here is my opinion.

Points 1 and 2. Right on the money. Big difference for me between a 4x5 negative and an 8x10 negative. I will also add that there are not as many with this opinion in the community. I enjoy the contact printing processes. At one point in time I did toy around with the idea of a Zone VI 8x10 enlarger. No longer will I think about that one. Again in my opinion the contact print has a look, feel and quality that is impossible to compare to an enlarged print. Again this is all my opinion. There is no positive proof on this statement.

Point 3. Again you are right on the money. I feel that some cameras are better off to restore and display. Nothing beats history like a hundred plus year old camera on a wooden tripod for a conversation piece.

Point 4. The voice of maturity. The 8x10 contact print is still the age old standard. I for one have moved on to Azo as my standard print. This is why I levitate to a large negative. The Azo print is one that makes the most sense when contact printing. Much easier to work with over traditional enlarging paper.

Point 5. 50 years young is never too old to lug around a camera. Just make sure that you choose the right camera. There are many lighter 8x10 models out there. Given your choice I would go with the Zone VI 8x10. Lighter and esier to use over a Deardorff. I say plunge into the 8x10.

Hope this helps.

-Bruce

tim atherton
20-Apr-2004, 19:25
Unless you are someone who uses a lot of extreme movements - long lenses, close-ups of lichen or whatever, an awful lot of the encumberance and frustration of an 8x10 can be lessened by a lighter camera. They do tend to be more modern, ergo more expensive - Canham metal, Phillips, Gandolfi variant, Wehman (definately a good cheaper option), ultralight Gowland (but with it's own set of frustrations).

Otherwise, going for function over form (having also gone the wobbly frustrating Deardorff route), I would chose a nice condition Kodak Master 8x10 if I were doing it again - even if you needed to order new bellows. If I didn't have a Phillips, that would probably be my choice.

Using some of the lighter cameras mentioned, you can also use a lighter tripod and head. The biggest weight is then the holders.

And either a 240 G-Claron or a 250 Fuji 6.7 would be a good addition.

Just a few thoughts.

Henry Suryo
20-Apr-2004, 20:23
I have to say that 8x10 is my favorite format, having tried 4x5, 5x7, 11x14, and 12x20. The contact print is beautiful to behold and the equipment is quite manageable in the field. A good compromise when I look at the overall picture. Pun not intended although I do find the 8x10 ground glass very easy to look at, you can check the overall composition, focus, corners, all at once without much scanning around. I don't know if I just got lucky with the Deardorffs but I have always found mine (I've had a few) quite rigid with very smooth movements and positive locking action. They are very well designed and made, beautiful classic, and simple and pure joy to use IMHO. I'm sure there are other cameras that are as well made or even better, I've just gotten accustomed to the way my Deardorff handles and can focus more on the picture when I'm photographing. Good luck.

Francis Abad
21-Apr-2004, 01:13
Go for it! Get a new 8x10! Sell everything else and focus on this format! Buy some AZO Grade 2 and 3, Pyrocat HD and Efke PL100. If this does not inspire you to compose better while having fun I do not know what will. This is my own set up and my photos and prints are superior to anything else I have done before (i.e. Leica negs, Hassie negs, 8x10 negs enlarged onto Seagull):

Frank Petronio
21-Apr-2004, 04:01
Sorry to slam Deardorffs so badly - I'm sure a well taken care of or restored 'Dorf is a thing a beauty (and still tight and accurate), but the ones used everyday for forty years in a commerical studio are to be avoided! I suspect that many of the ones on eBay are of the latter variety.

John O'Connell
21-Apr-2004, 05:12
1. The only difference between 4x5 and 8x10 is the size of the groundglass, as we all know, but many people report being able to compose better on the larger groundglass. That said, I think a dedicated 4x5 user could probably train herself to get the same results as on 8x10.

2. The process seems very much the same to me while working with the camera. Making much of a transcendental difference between the formats seems a bit over the top -- they're both view camera formats with a 4:5 ratio.

4. Well, if you already have an 8x10 enlarger, it seems it'd be crazy not to be using 5x7 or 8x10. That's enough excuse for me!

Deals are out there on the studio monorails right now -- they're cheaper than the old field cameras. Working out of your car with one of those is a good compromise, and it'll force you not to re-sell your 4x5, which would be silly since you've already bought back into the format once.

I personally wouldn't buy into 8x10 again. I'd have gotten into 11x14 had I known what I know now. But you've been there and want to go back, so...

Ben Calwell
21-Apr-2004, 06:16
A few years back, I got the 8x10 bug. Bought a used Orbit 8x10 that seems to weigh about the same as a 1948 Buick and an old Carl Meyer 300mm howitzer that seems to weigh about the same. Both are in my attic unused. Dealing with that much weight just absolutely kills any desire to go out and photograph. I'm waist deep into middle age, and the heavy gear inspired more couch time than photo time. Perhaps I need a lighter 8x10 (maybe the Canham, but can't afford it), because I do love the look of contact prints. Now, I'm using a 5x7 for contact prints, and I'm happy with that.

Steve Williams_812
21-Apr-2004, 06:33
Thanks for all the feedback.

Several ideas have been reinforced---

1. The camera does matter. I used to think the camera was just a tool and that I would adapt to anything that came along. For me the truth is that I embrace certain cameras and reject others. I can judge this by output. I had a complete OM-2s system with many lenses, perfect condition, no photographs. Bought a Leica M6 with three lenses and have been shooting 2 or more rolls of TX a week faithfully for years. Had an old Crown Graphic, didn't make many pictures. Got a Zone VI camera and have been shootings hundreds of negatives a year and continuing with the Ebony. I am certain now as Bruce Rathbun expressed so well that it is not the format that's the problem, but the junker camera I was trying to use. Just as I no longer buy junker cars because they piss me off, I guess I should apply that wisdom to camera's too....

2. There is some magic to the 8x10 contact print. John O' Connell's response tripped me up a bit---not dfference between 4x5 and 8x10 other than size. At some level I know that is true. Only after some thought did I realize that size does matter, and it impacts process and ritual, if only because of the demands of gravity. When I was shooting commercially I would have stood by the no difference idea. Shooting personally, taking time, doing what I want and what interests me, I see that a jeweler's hammer and a roofers hammer have more differences than size---they do different jobs and they are not interchangeable

3. I'll wait and get the right camera this time.

Anyone interested in an Ebony RW45?

thanks,

steve

Brian Ellis
21-Apr-2004, 07:08
You're making me feel pretty good. I was quite bothered by the fact that I owned a very nice Deardorff, decided 8x10 was just too heavy to go anywhere and sold the Deardorff plus all lenses, holders, AZO paper, BTZS tubes, etc., used the money to buy a 4x5 Ebony SVTe, liked the Ebony but missed the 8x10 contact prints, so I just bought another Deardorff, two lenses, etc. In other words, I'm now buying back everything I sold a year or two ago, which made me feel like an idiot until reading your story and others posted here. If I'm an idiot at least I have company.

I like 8x10 better than 4x5 but I'm older than you and carrying it any distance just isn't in the cards. If 8x10 was the only format I planned on using I probably would have sprung for a newer, more expensive, lighter 8x10 camera but I don't want to give up the flexiblity of 4x5 and the relative ease of getting it around. So I plan to use the 4x5 on trips, hikes, etc. and hopefully find enough things close to the car at home to justify the 8x10. I came very close to buying a Wehman but I was worried about resale value, not many people have heard of it and with my history in 8x10 resale value was important to me.

I don't think there's a huge difference in how I work with the two formats. I do find it easier to compose on the 8x10 ground glass and it's more exciting to see that big image on the ground glass. What always surprises me is how tiny 4x5 seems after using the 8x10 for a while, I feel like I've gone from a great big camera to a Minox.

Bill_1856
21-Apr-2004, 07:29
Gawd, you 8x10 people've got guts!

clay harmon
21-Apr-2004, 07:32
Buy a Phillips 8x10. It weighs about the same as most camera maker's 5x7's and is very rigid. The next lightest would be the lightweight Canham 8x10, which is also a winner. The thing about all of the 8x10 and larger cameras that make them so appealing, IMO, is that when you compose, you actually have a sense of how big each object on the ground glass will appear in the final print, since it IS the same size. Looking through a viewfinder or squinting at a 4x5 ground glass image just does not give me the same sense of the composition and visual impact of the final image, no matter how hard I try to pre-visualize. The problem is that you normally don't decide on image size until you get the negative in the enlarger. You don't have that decision to make with ULF cameras. It is what it is. Sometimes fewer options can free you to concentrate on the important things in your images.

Brian Ellis
21-Apr-2004, 08:20
I considered a Phillips despite the higher cost but when I asked Mr. Phillips about delivery dates he said he wasn't taking any new orders this year and wouldn't be taking any until he fulfilled his existing orders. I thought that was admirable honesty but it's a bummer to not have any idea when you'll be able to even place an order for a camera much less actually receive it. All I could picture was the camera showing up on my children's doorstep a couple years after my funeral and them trying to figure out what it was and why Dad wanted it.

CXC
21-Apr-2004, 10:16
In terms of 8x10 cameras, I would like to recommend the Wehman, which I have and really appreciate. It is quite bullet-proof, easy to use, and reasonably priced.

Regarding prints, IMHO the line of demarcation is between 8x10 and 11x14. If I have an image I am pleased with, I print it at 11x14 or larger, be it an enlargement or a contact. Actually that's not quite true, square MF images I print at 11x11. Anyways an 8x10 just doesn't quite satisfy me. Thus if you intend to contact print, I would advise you to consider an 11x14 camera. Or at least think about the different sizes, and convince yourself that 8x10 as a final product is adequate for you.

Personally 8x10 seems to be evolving into an "in-betweener" size for me. If I am going to enlarge, I shoot 4x5 or 5x7, and if I am not going to enlarge, I would rather use something bigger than 8x10. If I had it to do over, I would have got an 11x14 camera instead of the 8x10. I wish Wehman made one...

Oh, and I am 52 and take my 8x10 in a backpack on my bicycle around town. I keep the kit under 20 pounds, and my back doesn't object too loudly. The heaviest and bulkiest item is of course the tripod, that is the trickiest piece to decide on IMHO.

Ralph Barker
21-Apr-2004, 10:48
Just to add a little more confusion to the mix, here are my 2 cents. I'd suggest keeping the 4x5, but add a reasonably-priced 8x10 (after considering whether you could deal with the added weight, size, and expense of an 11x14).

I use a metal 4x5 field camera, a Toyo 45AX, which I find very convenient for most purposes, even though it is far less elegant than your Ebony. My choice for 8x10 was a double (not triple) extension Tachihara. It's solid, but relatively inexpensive. I like the Phillips, but couldn't deal with the wait time. Some of the other brands were enticing, too, but just more $$ than I wanted to spend. I made my own 4x5 reducing back for the 8x10 Tachihara, using a Toyo 8x10-to-4x5 adapter, so I can use the Toyo 4x5 backs I already have. I also adapted the Tachihara to use the 110mm lens boards from the Toyo, so I can mix and match as needed. In particular, this approach allows me to use much longer 8x10 lenses with the 4x5 adapter back. The bummer is that the added effective extension associated with the adapter back precludes use of my favorite 110mm Super Symmar on the 4x5-adapted Tachihara.


http://www.rbarkerphoto.com/misc/Photo-gear/ReducingBack04-550c.jpg

tim atherton
21-Apr-2004, 11:12
"The next lightest would be the lightweight Canham 8x10, which is also a winner. "

Actually, the Gandolfi and possibly the Wehman, followed by the Canham

Michael Mutmansky
21-Apr-2004, 11:40
Steve,

I have to disagree with several people here, in that I think it is a serious mistake to choose a camera based on how quickly you can get it. That implies that a factor unrelated to the photographic process is going to determine other factors that are VERY important in the photographic process.

I decided to try 8x10 about 5 years ago, and purchased an inexpensive Korona style camera to try out the format. It became apparent to me immediately that I needed to get an 8x10, because the size of the ground glass was so much more to my likeing, and much more human-scaled.

So, I did a bunch of research, and ordered a Phillips. He said the delivery would be in about 1.5 years. I decided to wait, and in the meantime, I kept my eyes on Ebay and other outlets for used gear. In about 4 months, I found one for sale and purchased it. When the time came for my camera to be delivered, Dick asked whether I still wanted it, and I told him I had found a used one, so he could pass the camera on to the next person in line.

I'm glad I did decide to wait for the right camera to come along, because I don't think there is another 8x10 field camera out there that has the combination of low weight, high rigidity, and overall intellegent design that the Phillips cameras have.

Since you're nearby, you are welcome to come over and try out my Phillips and see if you think it is worth waiting for. If you decide to do it, you can always purchase an inexpensive camera to hold you over until it comes, if you can't get your hands on a used Phillips.

---Michael

Brian Ellis
21-Apr-2004, 16:40
"I have to disagree with several people here in that I think it is a serious mistake to choose a camera based solely on how quickly you can get it."

I too think that would be a serious mistake but I haven't seen anyone suggesting that how quickly you can receive a camera should be the sole basis for deciding which camera to buy. If Richard Phillips had been able to tell me as he told you that I would have to wait a year and a half for a camera I might (emphasis on "might") have been tempted to wait. But that isn't the current situation with Phillips, he doesn't tell you how long you will have to wait for a camera, he doesn't even tell you how long it will be before he starts accepting orders for a camera. So it isn't a situation like yours where you could order the camera and know you'd have it by a more or less certain time. I'm not saying that in criticism of him, I think his complete honesty is admirable as I said before. However, my interest is in making photographs with a camera suitable for the purpose. Phillips is one such camera but it certainly isn't the only one.

e
21-Apr-2004, 17:16
Sounds like you will do well with a lightweight 8x10. You have an enlarger too so why not? You are 50 years old so you don't want a long wait or a heavy camera. I'm 48 and this just is not an option for me as well, unless it's a 6 month wait or so. The other way to do this might be this. You could get a Phillips 8x16 or anyone elses 7x17 or 5x12(Wisner/Canham/Lotus or... Ebony....take out a 2nd mortgage), (all at under 10lbs) and use the negative whole, or cropped so you have more options. Or get an 11x14 as it is, in my minds eye, way nicer than 8x10 hanging on the wall. I bought a Wisner 12x20 which is great but this is a big camera at 20lbs, but what a view. The 7x17 seems more intimate and gem like. Probably the best option is the 8x10 though. Good luck!

Bill_1856
21-Apr-2004, 17:54
8x10 prints don't seem very big -- any more.

Steve Williams_812
22-Apr-2004, 17:28
After much input both here and via email, I made the decision to go ahead and purchase the Zone VI 8x10. Price and previous experience with a similar vintage Zone VI camera broke the logjam of consideration.

I did look at the Canham, Wisner, and considered a Phillips. Just too much money.... I want to save the difference and put it into a good lens or two.

Michael---thanks much for the offer to come and look at your camera. I would like to come visit even though I opted for something other than the Phillips. I have a good friend and fine photographer, Stephen Dirado, and he swears by his Phillips. But he carries his camera many miles on his shoulder and the Deardorff became too heavy for him---hence the Phillips. My work seems to happen within walking distance of the truck.

And to everyone else, your input was helpful---it helped me make the decision to return to the big camera. I'm sure I will be looking for further help as I go.

steve

austin granger
13-May-2004, 14:53
I'm afraid I'm a little behind in jumping in on this thread (just saw it) but steve, I wanted to let you know that ebony is coming out with an rw810 sometime very soon. I'm not sure of the price yet, but it should be more affordable (of course, affordable being relative here) than their current 8x10 offerings.

In any case, I almost could have written your message myself it was such a familiar story. It all started when I saw a show of Edward Weston contact prints that were so luminous and "alive" that for days afterwards, when I closed my eyes I could see a sort of afterimage (shell, kelp, rocks...) floating there. They were transcendent. After this experience, I immediatedly sold all my gear (medium format) and bought an old Calumet C-1 (the great green monster). Man, I cursed this camera up and down Point Reyes National Seashore for close to a year before surrendering in frustration and pain.(both mental and physical) Sold the beast and bought a new Toyo 4x5 setup, which I've used untill recently. Although fairly happy with the Toyo, I too, am increasingly haunted by the contact prints I had made with the old c-1, as well as the by work of Weston, among others. There is a difference. Really. Anyway, I am now selling the Toyo as well as my motorcycle (we must sacrifice, no?) in order to purchase a new 8x10 and make another go at it.

Wanting a lightweight wooden camera, I had it narrowed down to the Canham (I'm not much for mahogany and brass) when on a whim I e-mailed Ebony and asked if they had ever considered producing an rw810. They told me yes, one was forthcomming, so I'm waiting to check it out before I make the final plunge. Badger has it listed on their site as coming in June, but no price available yet.

Good luck. Sorry to be so long winded.