Hello from London

[MattKHardy]

Hi Matt,

are you shooting a smaller imaging area than 5 x 4 inch on your Sinar?

Perhaps I'm wondering why you would need to draw pencil lines to compose. Perhaps you are referring to gridding your ground glass, like a mathematics jotter or for horizon markings.

I tend to use spirit levels and a blank unmarked ground glass. I prefer the minimalist groundglass to concentrate on visualising. Whichever way you choose at least it's in pencil - not biro.

Kind regards,

RJ

Hi RJ,

Isn't the viewable image projected onto the ground glass bigger then 4"x5"? I thought I could mark out the borders of the film area to get a better idea of the composition?

Cheers
Matthew

[RJ-]

Hi Matthew,

What size of viewable image are you measuring on your ground glass?

If you measure the area of your ground glass, you can work out if you have a larger 10 x 8 inch or a 7 x 5 inch reducing back than a 5 x 4 inch Sinar back. Most 5 x 4 inch Sinar cameras come with a standard 5 x 4 inch film back.

Steve Simmons' View Camera book might be helpful to get started:

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-sear...simmons-steve/


Kind regards,
RJ

[MattKHardy]

Hi Matthew,

What size of viewable image are you measuring on your ground glass?

If you measure the area of your ground glass, you can work out if you have a larger 10 x 8 inch or a 7 x 5 inch reducing back than a 5 x 4 inch Sinar back. Most 5 x 4 inch Sinar cameras come with a standard 5 x 4 inch film back.

Steve Simmons' View Camera book might be helpful to get started:

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-sear...simmons-steve/


Kind regards,
RJ

OK, finally got chance to look more closely at the rear standard. Got it now, the image on the glass is 4x5.

Picked up a v700 scanner yesterday so I shall scan my test shots...

[MattKHardy]

Finally! After sorting a whole bunch of issues, I got two shots of our back garden...

[RJ-]

No light leaks, no bellow holes, no flare, no development issues, reasonably perpendicular perspective with or without front shift - yes it does looks like a suburban English back garden alright.

Great start to LF

RJ

[MattKHardy]

No light leaks, no bellow holes, no flare, no development issues, reasonably perpendicular perspective with or without front shift - yes it does looks like a suburban English back garden alright.

Great start to LF

RJ

Hi RJ,

Many thanks for your input. They were shot with Fomapan 100. I had a lot of issues with underexposure and grain so I started shooting at half-box-speed.

Please can you take a look at this raw scan?



Does the exposure/development look correct?

100% crop from top left (no sharpening, no noise reduction)



I assume the grainy look is film grain? When noise reduction is applied (Topaz) the grain remains, and only a little digital noise is removed. Do scanners produce much digital noise, or is that dependant on the negative/exposure?

[Colin Robertson]

Hi Matt.
When composing, beware that the ground glass will show the entire 5x4 area, but the actual areas of exposed is a fraction smaller- the film holder has to cover the edges if the sheet. It can be well worth leaving a tiny bit of 'wiggle room' at the edges of the frame when composing- no problem with the amount of film you have available in 5x4.
Yes, the ground glass can be dim, and on very wide lenses, with both greater depth of field and depth of focus, and small maximum apertures, placing critical focus can be tricky. Get used to the relatively bright (seriously) and easy to focus 150 before you go wider. In passing, 58mm is very wide on 5x4; something like 18-19mm on 35mm. Exact equivalence is hard as the diagonal angle of view differs between formats. What are you using in small format as a comparison?
With Fomapan 100 I think most of us use it at EI 50. Nice film, but handle it carefully when it's wet.

[MattKHardy]

Hi Matt.
When composing, beware that the ground glass will show the entire 5x4 area, but the actual areas of exposed is a fraction smaller- the film holder has to cover the edges if the sheet. It can be well worth leaving a tiny bit of 'wiggle room' at the edges of the frame when composing- no problem with the amount of film you have available in 5x4.
Yes, the ground glass can be dim, and on very wide lenses, with both greater depth of field and depth of focus, and small maximum apertures, placing critical focus can be tricky. Get used to the relatively bright (seriously) and easy to focus 150 before you go wider. In passing, 58mm is very wide on 5x4; something like 18-19mm on 35mm. Exact equivalence is hard as the diagonal angle of view differs between formats. What are you using in small format as a comparison?
With Fomapan 100 I think most of us use it at EI 50. Nice film, but handle it carefully when it's wet.

Hi Colin,

I normally use full-frame D700 with 18mm for landscapes. I want to move to LF for landscapes (after a bit of practice).

I scratched nearly all of my first 15 negatives (first in the Paterson Orbital until it was modified, then trying to dig them out of the tray). Figured out how to remove them without scratching now

[RJ-]

Hi Matt,

Fomapan is a very soft emulsion - structurally and tonally - and fairly grainy for an ISO100 film. Perhaps you can try loading a sheet at a time until you develop a layering technique to glide the film sheets over one another.

I'm no fan of the Orbital, preferring open tray development in this instance.

The scan looks alright (my monitor hasn't been calibrated for weeks). Minor loss of shadow detail in the hedgerow (bottom left) although that might be the shade area.

The expression of grain on Fomapan depends on your exposure technique and developer/agitation/duration cycle. Already, the Orbital will enhance agitation, thereby increasing grain. A fine grain developer (like Microphen) makes up a little.

Overall, the film is quite shockingly grainy - compared to ISO 100 film like Fuji Acros - even an ISO 400 film like Rollei IR400 Infrared film, which has a more durable polyester base and is much sharper (thinner base and grain structure).


RJ

[MattKHardy]

Hi Matt,

Fomapan is a very soft emulsion - structurally and tonally - and fairly grainy for an ISO100 film. Perhaps you can try loading a sheet at a time until you develop a layering technique to glide the film sheets over one another.

I'm no fan of the Orbital, preferring open tray development in this instance.

The scan looks alright (my monitor hasn't been calibrated for weeks). Minor loss of shadow detail in the hedgerow (bottom left) although that might be the shade area.

The expression of grain on Fomapan depends on your exposure technique and developer/agitation/duration cycle. Already, the Orbital will enhance agitation, thereby increasing grain. A fine grain developer (like Microphen) makes up a little.

Overall, the film is quite shockingly grainy - compared to ISO 100 film like Fuji Acros - even an ISO 400 film like Rollei IR400 Infrared film, which has a more durable polyester base and is much sharper (thinner base and grain structure).


RJ

Hi RJ,

I think after using up my first box of Fomapan 100 I will try some 400 speed film. T-max is too expensive, so would HP5 have better grain characteristics than Fomapan?

Thanks
Matthew