I have several years of serious photo hobbitry behind me, including 35mm and MF. I have decent darkroom skills, but my recent reading the Adams trilogy, The C amera, The Negative, and The Print have me yearning for more.
I use MF frequently with the camera back vertical and then shift the image on the enlarger baseboard to avoid convergences and so forth. I am a sharpness fre ak (I use TechPan in 6x7!).
I have way too much camera gear as it is. 35mm with 4 lenses, MF with 3 lenses, and a darkroom with a 6x7 enlarger.
Still, I think I must try LF.
Here is the question
Assuming I am not going to mortgage the house, or pedal all my other gear (an id ea I have seriously contemplated), how can I get into LF without wasting too muc h money (which I definitely did getting into serious 35mm)?
I have thought about a Wisner Traditional-S in 4x5 with a single lens (maybe a 1 35/5.6 or 150/5.6). I have thought about a Calumet Cadet (they sell the trades for only $299) and a cheapo Caltar II lens. I have thought about a Canham DLC. I am pretty sure I will want a long lens eventually (perhaps 300mm). I am not so sure about a really wide lens (anything wider than 28mm in 35mm format is und esirable to me). I think I will stick with LF for the long term, but I will sho ot the format relatively infrequently (perhaps 12 or 18 serious attempts per yea r). To me LF means B&W photography.
Of course, I realize that a 4x5 enlarger and suitable lens must be on the horizo n, and that that may well be the most expensive end of this venture.
I love to shoot my town, Fort Worth, Texas including vistas, buildings, and arch itectural details. I will shoot some portraits, and some landscape and wild flo wers as well. Maybe some table-top stuff, but not much.
So, I want to put my toe in the water, knowing I may end up swimming at the deep end. What approach do you recommend?
Thanks, in advance, for your thoughts.
Bookmarks