Considering Large Format

[n80d200]

My name is George and I've been into photography for about 20 years but it has all been 35mm/digital SLR. I used to process my own B&W film at home but did not do my own printing. I used a high res scanner for the negs and printed via inkjet. I've been doing digital now for about 9 years shooting little or no film during that time.

Have always been curious about and interested in large format but always thought it was cost prohibitive.

The other day I was surfing the KEH.com web site and for some reason took a look at what they had to offer in large format. I was kind of shocked to see how inexpensive some of the cameras were. Lenses still seem pretty pricey but manageable. I know I'd have to get lens boards, film holders etc but things still look way less expensive than they did 10 years ago.

So, I'm considering taking the plunge. I will be asking for advice here in the forums. My goal is to initially start as cheap as I can. I will be shooting mostly landscape but I'm not interested, at this point, in highly polished, razor sharp Ansel Adams type stuff. I kind of gravitate to the grainy, vignetted, lens flared artsy sort of stuff so high end, high dollar equipment probably won't be critical at first. I prefer wide angle.

Would appreciate any at all advice on decent but affordable cameras and lenses. Seems like a field camera would be best but not sure it matters in the short run.

Thanks,

George

[jbenedict]

The biggest expense is the materials. Unless there is a large format lab in your community, you will have to do it yourself. A scanner which will do 35mm and medium format probably won't accommodate 4x5+.
and you would have to send it out. Mail order processing, scanning and printing is available.

B&W 4x5 film costs $20 to $50 for 25 sheets. You can do color in negative and positive but the price is going through the roof. Negative film is $35-$50 for 10 sheets. Positive film is about $80 for 20 sheets (no 10 sheet boxes) so $40 for 10 sheets.

If you process it yourself, you will need a tank or some trays. If you have a room that can be light tight for the time you will be processing, trays are cheap and lots of people prefer them. If you don't have a light tight room, you will need a daylight tank of some kind and a changing bag to load it. Patterson has a daylight tank and reel many really like and it is not wildly expensive.

On the camera side, you will need the camera and a lens, five or six holders, a tripod, some sort of light meter, a cable release and a changing bag/light tight room to load the film into the holders. There are always things you might want like filters for the lens (a yellow one to start with and next a red one and then go nuts from there.)

If field camera is your style, maybe a Speed/Crown Graphic with the 135mm standard lens (almost like a 35mm wide angle on 35mm) would work. There are also lots of 4x5 monorail cameras out there for all sorts of prices. There is a glut of 4x5 monorails out there as well as 210mm lenses and very, very low prices. A 210 is kind of like about a 50/55mm on 35mm. Most monorails and the Speed/Crown will take a 90mm wide angle- about a 28mm wide angle on 35mm. The 210 and 90 are sometimes considered the 'recommended' basic lenses for 4x5. In order to get a lot of view camera movements, you may need to get a bag bellows. You may always see cameras in magazines with the bellows tied up in knots but having a large amount of movements is kind of overrated IMHO. You don't need nearly as much as you think you do.

Hope this helps. I love it but you are opening yourself to a whole new way to suck up your money. The camera and lens are just the beginning. I love LF and have done it for quite awhile but it can proceed to be a money pit. Did I say the materials are expensive and are only getting more so? I think there will always be some sort of LF photography but the selection of materials will get smaller and the costs will get higher.

Jeff

[Brian C. Miller]

Welcome, George!

So, I'm considering taking the plunge. I will be asking for advice here in the forums. My goal is to initially start as cheap as I can. I will be shooting mostly landscape but I'm not interested, at this point, in highly polished, razor sharp Ansel Adams type stuff. I kind of gravitate to the grainy, vignetted, lens flared artsy sort of stuff so high end, high dollar equipment probably won't be critical at first. I prefer wide angle.

Cheap can be done easily.
Razor sharp stuff is kind of the default setting for large format.
Grainy is not something that comes easily to LF. You can get that in the print, though, with various techniques.
Vignetted, can do! This just means using a lens that's the wrong format, i.e., it's circle of illumination is good for medium format, but not large format.
Lens flared, quite possible.

I recommend that you start off with a pinhole camera. The only real cost will be a film holder and the time constructing the camera. Or you can just use an oatmeal or paint can, and those don't use holders. There are also lots of pre-made cameras, but it's easy to do yourself. We have a pinhole images thread, so take a look through that.

There is also the world of soft-focus lenses. These lenses, such as Fujinon SF 250, Kodak Portrait, Rodenstock Imagon, are designed for soft-focus images. Others, such as the Petzval design, are used outside their original design range. One of our members, Reinhold Schable, manufactures a Wollaston lens design for a pittance.

[n80d200]

Thanks guys. Excellent replies. A couple of thoughts on your replies:

I would do processing myself. I'd done it for years with 35mm so that won't be a step learning curve. I have a high res flatbed on which I can scan 4x5 negs. I would go with the daylight tank. Have chemical prices gone up?

Had not thought about filters. I have a full range of 35mm screw on types but they will be useless I suppose for LF.

KEH has a number of Speed/Crown Graphic bodies. Would have to research that. Would really like to have access to full range of movements and ground glass viewing....not sure if they offer that. As mentioned, there do seem to be tons of monorail bodies out there to choose from, cheap.

As for LF being a money pit. I get that for sure and this will initially have to be an exercise in economy because my digital SLR expenses will still be there too. But, for me that can be part of the fun.....making images I like on a low budget.

I think I didn't phrase the grainy gritty image idea very well. Think of Sally Mann:

http://sallymann.com/selected-works/family-pictures.

I'm sure she uses high end equipment but for a lot of what she does things like razor sharpness, corner sharpness, light fall off, etc and not high priority issues in the lens, which could translate into getting what I want with cheaper lenses. I might be way off base. I've used vasoline on filters, etc to mimic that sort of effect with 35mm.

Thanks again for the replies. You have been very helpful.

George

[Brian C. Miller]

You should read up on how Sally Mann created her images. (Google search: link) She used a damaged lens and also the wet plate collodion process. Also, depending on the lens, your filters for 35mm can work just fine for LF. Some of the lenses have 55mm threads, and some are smaller than that.

You should investigate using x-ray film, which is cheap and has a different spectral sensitivity, and also paper negatives.

[Regular Rod]

My name is George and I've been into photography for about 20 years but it has all been 35mm/digital SLR. I used to process my own B&W film at home but did not do my own printing. I used a high res scanner for the negs and printed via inkjet. I've been doing digital now for about 9 years shooting little or no film during that time.

Have always been curious about and interested in large format but always thought it was cost prohibitive.

The other day I was surfing the KEH.com web site and for some reason took a look at what they had to offer in large format. I was kind of shocked to see how inexpensive some of the cameras were. Lenses still seem pretty pricey but manageable. I know I'd have to get lens boards, film holders etc but things still look way less expensive than they did 10 years ago.

So, I'm considering taking the plunge. I will be asking for advice here in the forums. My goal is to initially start as cheap as I can. I will be shooting mostly landscape but I'm not interested, at this point, in highly polished, razor sharp Ansel Adams type stuff. I kind of gravitate to the grainy, vignetted, lens flared artsy sort of stuff so high end, high dollar equipment probably won't be critical at first. I prefer wide angle.

Would appreciate any at all advice on decent but affordable cameras and lenses. Seems like a field camera would be best but not sure it matters in the short run.

Thanks,

George

Hi George welcome to Large Format. Can you wait a little while? If you can then this will be a fine way to wean yourself onto 4x5... http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ght=Travelwide


RR

[n80d200]

Brian, yes, she used older and sometimes damaged lenses. I think I read she even used bodies with small holes in the bellows, etc. She has a series on wet plate collodion but much of her work was done on regular film as well. She did a lot of experimenting with the printing and toning processes too. Anyway, I wouldn't be trying to duplicate her techniques, just using her as an example of what can be done with low end stuff as opposed to Adams, Clyde Butcher, etc.

I did not even know that LF lenses had threads on the end. My filters are 77mm, decent quality and I have a wide range of adapter rings so that might work. Thanks for the info.

[Jerry Bodine]

George, it's often recommended on this forum that newcomers to LF have a long look at the LF Home Page tab at the top of every forum page. It's loaded with excellent info.

[n80d200]

George, it's often recommended on this forum that newcomers to LF have a long look at the LF Home Page tab at the top of every forum page. It's loaded with excellent info.

Thanks Jerry. Will do. Had already scanned it a little. I also have Adam's The Camera and will dig that up and re-read the section on LF.

[jbenedict]

I would do processing myself. I'd done it for years with 35mm so that won't be a step learning curve. I have a high res flatbed on which I can scan 4x5 negs. I would go with the daylight tank. Have chemical prices gone up?

The wide variety of chemicals has shrunk some and the prices for some have gone up. If you like things like D-76 and HC-110, it is still available. There are many photographic formulas which can be made from bulk chemicals yourself and are not available as prepared products. The formulations are available in many places and most photographic suppliers have the major ingredients readily available. Photographer's Formulary has both the raw chemicals and many of the formulas packaged ready to go or in some cases, in kits of chemicals. Artcraft Chemicals sells a wide variety of bulk chemicals. One of the chemicals used in many developing formulas is borax. It is available in the grocery store as "20 Mule Team" (the kind Ronnie Reagan used to sell n TV) in five and ten pound boxes for reasonable prices. Don't get the scented kind. It is not the same. Coffee Crystals can be used to make developers which have interesting characteristics. Lithographic film is pretty cheap and can be processed with pith developers to make line images or with softer developers such as Selectol Soft to create continuous tone images. It is orthochromatic and can be processed under red light so you can watch the film develop until you get the image you want. Obviously, you would need to do it in trays and would need the red lightbulb but it can be a source of cheap thrills.