Looking for a film that can be shot at low asa ( 1 or 2 )

[Nodda Duma]

No, you need a plate holder. You can scrounge ebay for an older one (they seem to be scarce lately) or buy a new one from Chamonix. I've been sending mine to Blue Moon in Portland, but do intend to begin doing my own at some point as it's getting expensive. Looks like tray develop using a red safe light is the best way, but hopefully someone can give you specifics. I'd like to see someone do a how-to video from start to finish and post it somewhere.

I'll mention that I've restored a c.1925 5x7 field camera, and there are plenty of plate holders around for that. I intend to shoot a couple more tomorrow.


Kent in SD

Kent,

If you're starting to think seriously about developing at home, you should check out Stearman Press' SP-445 developing tank. The SP-445 is a great product for developing 4x5 sheet film at your kitchen sink (or wherever you would develop a roll of 35mm film). Early on, I reached out to him about making plate holders so that my plates could be developed in his tank, and he was more than happy to oblige. He's been selling them for a few months now.

I recommend it for use with my plates and in fact I use it exclusively now for developing my 4x5, 9x12, and 1/4 plate sized plates. It's a bit of a pricey initial investment (about $150 for the tank and plate holders) but if you shoot 4x5 a lot then you can guess it will pay for itself pretty quick...both in savings having to ship plates out as well as the fact it only uses 16oz of developer.

-Jason

[Two23]

Kent,

If you're starting to think seriously about developing at home, you should check out Stearman Press' SP-445 developing tank. The SP-445 is a great product for developing 4x5 sheet film at your kitchen sink (or wherever you would develop a roll of 35mm film). Early on, I reached out to him about making plate holders so that my plates could be developed in his tank, and he was more than happy to oblige. He's been selling them for a few months now.

I recommend it for use with my plates and in fact I use it exclusively now for developing my 4x5, 9x12, and 1/4 plate sized plates. It's a bit of a pricey initial investment (about $150 for the tank and plate holders) but if you shoot 4x5 a lot then you can guess it will pay for itself pretty quick...both in savings having to ship plates out as well as the fact it only uses 16oz of developer.

-Jason

I've been thinking about it, but the counters are that I keep hearing how fragile the emulsion is and am concerned the tank would damage them. Second thing is using a tray I can watch development and stop it when it's where it looks good using safe light? I have zero experience developing anything. What are the pros & cons of the tank vs. tray? I shoot more plates than sheet film now, and have just added 5x7 plates & sheets to the mix.


Kent in SD

[Luis-F-S]

ND filters, lots and lots of ND filters.

[Doremus Scudder]

I seriously doubt that the film speed (or plate speed) has a lot to do with this artist's results. Maybe the OP could name him and post a link so we could see some of his/her work? Then we could offer more informed advice.

Unless there's a lot of subject movement that is being used to make time-exposure blur, I don't even see the need for long exposures for still lifes. Shooting long exposures (and I do my fair share of them) is usually simply needed for the level of illumination present, not an indispensable part of the creative process. I've done still lifes set up on a tabletop with natural light from a distant window that took most of the day... And that with fast film (ISO 320-400).

Sure, dry plates have a unique spectral response and reciprocity characteristics that may lend themselves to a particular rendering that the artist likes. A lot of that can be done with panchromatic film and the appropriate filtration (including ND filters to push the film into reciprocity failure if that's the look the OP is after). I see no reason why the OP can't just shoot whatever film he has at hand and filter accordingly for starters.

ISO 2, per se, doesn't make a really different final result. The character of dry plates may, and if that's what the OP finds he is looking for, then he'll have to deal with ISO 2...

Best,

Doremus

[Two23]

ISO 2, per se, doesn't make a really different final result. The character of dry plates may, and if that's what the OP finds he is looking for, then he'll have to deal with ISO 2...

I agree. I'm after the glass plate look, speed is irrelevant.


Kent in SD

[Jim Noel]

What exactly do you mean by "glass plate look"?
I have seen, and made, images from glass plates which are soft, and more which are tack sharp. A contributing factor which you don't seem to be considering is whether the emulsion is orthochromatic, or panchromatic. Ortho was more prevalent during the time glass plates were most used, but there were panchromatic plates, particularly the last few years of plate popularity. I have experience with both and just like with film, I choose the emulsion most appropriate to the image.

[Nodda Duma]

I've been thinking about it, but the counters are that I keep hearing how fragile the emulsion is and am concerned the tank would damage them. Second thing is using a tray I can watch development and stop it when it's where it looks good using safe light? I have zero experience developing anything. What are the pros & cons of the tank vs. tray? I shoot more plates than sheet film now, and have just added 5x7 plates & sheets to the mix.


Kent in SD

I can only speak from my own experience. I’ve been developing all my 4x5 plates in the tank since February. That was somewhere around batch 5 or 6. I also started adding hardener to the emulsion with batch 20 so while it’s more fragile than film, it’s much better than the first batches (which I never had a problem working with anyhow).....to the point where if I have to strip the emulsion off it’s a real pain in the butt. Regardless, the plates are easy to get in and out of the tank without touching the emulsion. Again that’s just my experience. I’d say get familiar with using it by developing some film first, then try it with plates.

5x7 you’re still SOL, though.

-Jason

[Two23]

What exactly do you mean by "glass plate look"?
I have seen, and made, images from glass plates which are soft, and more which are tack sharp. A contributing factor which you don't seem to be considering is whether the emulsion is orthochromatic, or panchromatic. Ortho was more prevalent during the time glass plates were most used, but there were panchromatic plates, particularly the last few years of plate popularity. I have experience with both and just like with film, I choose the emulsion most appropriate to the image.

Specifically what I mean is the sensitivity to blue & UV light. There are also more "articfacts/inclusions" (imperfections) than what I see with film. I only shoot the plates with lenses made ~1855 or ~1915, which adds to the vintage look. I probably wouldn't be interested in panchromatic plates as that would be too modern for my taste.


Kent in SD

[Two23]

5x7 you’re still SOL, though.

At this point I'll take a guess and say I'm shooting 40% 4x5 sheets (FP4, some HP5,) 30% 4x5 plates, 25% 5x7 plates, & 5% 5x7 sheets. I just now have my spiffy Gundlach Korona 5x7 up and running with a couple of nice ~8 in. Voigtlander Petzvals (1847, 1865) and a really cool Edward Woods pillbox (c.1854). I had those out today and shot some more plates. I'm thinking of heading back out with just the little Chamonix 4x5 and some plates, and a couple of Petzvals (1.45 & 1858.) It's dark & dreary and the big waterfall is running nicely.

I'll post some recent shots maybe today, maybe in a day or two. "The Threshers."


Kent in SD

[6x6TLL]

LEE Filter: 100 x 100mm Big Stopper 3.0 (10 stop) Neutral Density Filter
Runs around $130.00. Quality is excellent. When I got the filter, I shot two 4x5 negatives, one without the filter and the other one with the filter in front of the lens. Enlarged both negatives to 8x10s using a glass negative carrier, and you couldn't tell the difference. Since I contact print my LF and ULF negatives, have no qualms about using the filter. Now if I were making 20x24 enlargements, would certainly determine if the image was degraded by the filter.

I recently read an online review/test of many different ND filters, including Lee, Schneider, Tiffen, Cokin and others. What I took away was that many of the more extreme ND filters have a very definite color cast to them, it's not subtle at all. Maybe not as much of an issue for B&W, but definitely try before you buy for color work IMHO.