Rendering quality when shooting 120 on 4x5 camera

[Peakbagger]

Entry level question - I'm considering getting a 120 roll film back for my Graflex Graphic View II. I know of grain and resolution loss, but in terms of the rendering quality - DOF, etc. do i lose anything from shooting with 120 instead of 4x5 sheet? That is, will I get that "large format look" on 120?

Thanks!

[vinny]

No. You'll gain the use of movements over a medium format slr. I guess it depends on what you mean by large format look. Clarity, tonality, lots of detail? Then no. Why not just shoot sheet film?

[Drew Wiley]

Depends on a lot of things. I sometimes get into situations where I try to make a chihuahua have the attitude of a rottweiler. Getting critical focus on that smaller film area is a more finicky business, and not all roll film backs are precise, nor the film plane itself on many camera. You also have to be certain the roll film back will not tug the film plane out of focus due to excessive weight or thickness. But if you take the time to check all these variable for precision, you can save money on film and attain greater portability for those situations you don't need big enlargements. And at the same time, you still have the option of shooting full sized 4x5 when necessary. My brother sometimes shot 6x9 on his 4x5 Technika, which is obviously a very precise camera, but almost never got sharp shots that way. But I seem to get extremely sharp ones using my Horseman roll film back on both my Ebony and Sinar cameras using modern films like
Ektar and ACROS; but I've done a total protocol on both systems, including measuring the flatness and exact depth of the film plane using machinist's precision
tools. But logistically, I just returned from backpacking in Wyoming for two weeks, and that's quite a load of food and gear at my age when you account for a
full view camera system too. The extra weight of a changing tent and actual 4x5 film would have been negligible, so that wasn't my motive. Bulk was, but an even bigger priority was lens selection. I wanted long lenses to home in on the crags. A 450 would have been approriate on full 4x5 using my Sinar, but with
my little Ebony I get less extension, and a 300M gives me the same perspective on 6x9. I also wanted that slightly more rectangular crop for many of these
scenes, so in this particular instance I mainly shot 6x9 instead of sheet film. In the darkroom I'd much rather be enlargin stiffer sheet film every time, but with
a little more fuss I'll still get some excellent prints. I've got a neg in the enlarger right now, and maybe I'll get a break this weekend to print it. Maybe not.

[RichSBV]

You lose half the picture! :p

You're not thinking about this the right way...

A camera is just a box to hold in the dark. Doesn't matter what size it is!

Now in 4x5, a "normal" lens would roughly be a 150mm. The 120 would roughly be 90mm. So if you use a 120 back on a 4x5 camera, you'd also need to use a 90mm for the normal focal length. Then you're just using a large 120 camera. If you put the 150mm on it with the 120 back, you're using a 4x5 camera but cropping out the picture at the 120 film size.

There's nothing wrong with either way which is why 120 backs were popular. But try using a 120 film wide lens like a 65mm on the GVII. It gets a little tight...

[Drew Wiley]

He's talking about 120 film size, Rich, not hypothetical lens focal length, which he didn't even mention. But yeah, it's trickier to do this kind of thing with shorter
focal length unless the view camera is specifically made for them. One currently popular application involves 6x12 roll film backs for panoramic work. If you're
just going to crop 4x5 in half anyway, this makes a lot of sense. Personally, I'd rather be shooting 8x10 than any of the above; but there are those times.....

[ic-racer]

Good idea to use a rollfilm back to get used to the camera before going to 4x5" film. But, as the others have indicated, your images will be similar or perhaps identical to those taken with a medium format camera. If you are going to stick with rollfilm, make sure the camera's zero detents are aligned correctly (you can use a laser/pointer). Imagine how poor the horizon focus would be on a Hasselblad if one held the lens on with duct tape and tried to 'eyeball' the alignment.

[Peakbagger]

Good idea to use a rollfilm back to get used to the camera before going to 4x5" film. But, as the others have indicated, your images will be similar or perhaps identical to those taken with a medium format camera. If you are going to stick with rollfilm, make sure the camera's zero detents are aligned correctly (you can use a laser/pointer). Imagine how poor the horizon focus would be on a Hasselblad if one held the lens on with duct tape and tried to 'eyeball' the alignment.

Thanks everyone! This was really helpful. My primary reason for considering roll film was from a cost and ease of use standpoint while I learn the ins and outs of my camera. Well, I'm guessing it would be easier...I'd have more exposures without having to change media right? Developing by 3rd party lab is cheaper too. I think the local lab is charging 4.50 per 4x5 sheet vs 6.00 for one roll of MF. Youch! My darkroom will come in time, but until then...it's the shop!

I was mostly curious about the much shallower DOF of LF vs MF and how it compares form one format to the other. I suspected I'd crop by using a smaller film size. I didn't consider at all how tricky it would be for focus though. Or is that just for shorter focal lengths?

Anyways I've been plastering the Intertubes with all my newbie dumb questions and learning along the way from you more experienced types :-).

[Peakbagger]

But logistically, I just returned from backpacking in Wyoming for two weeks, and that's quite a load of food and gear at my age when you account for a
full view camera system too.

Drew, that's my ultimate goal - to take a LF cam out into the mountains and shoot. Would be difficult will this monorail but if the LF process works for me, I'd switch to something more portable. I paid $55 for the GVII with no lens or back. I couldn't resist that deal, otherwise I would have gotten a field camera.

I even have fantasies of doing collodion out there. heh. But that's getting ahead of myself by a lot. Do you have a gallery or anything? Would love to see your work.

[Vaughn]

...I was mostly curious about the much shallower DOF of LF vs MF and how it compares form one format to the other. I suspected I'd crop by using a smaller film size. I didn't consider at all how tricky it would be for focus though. Or is that just for shorter focal lengths?...

To keep it simple, DoF is controlled by three factors 1) focal length of the lens (longer the lens, the less DoF), 2) Aperture (larger the aperture, the smaller the DoF), and 3) camera-to-subject distance (closer to the subject, the less DoF). Format does not really enter into it if one is enlarging the different formats to the same degree (or contact printing). LF was the rep of having shallow DoF only because one tends to (but not always) use longer lenses than MF and 35mm.

[IanG]

If you're shooting 120 with a 5x4 camera and want results that are close to 5x4 sheet film quality you need to use the slowest 120 film you can, in my case that used to be Agfa APX25, these days it would be Pan F.

Although I rarely use it these days I used to always carry a 120 6x9 roll film back when out backpacking, I stopped about the time APX 25 was discontinued and I began to run out of it.

Ian

[Doremus Scudder]

6x9 is a great format. I used a 6x9 back on my first 4x5, a Graphic View II, when I was first learning 4x5 (more than 30 years ago now... time flies). I still exhibit some of the prints from those negatives.

The advantages to the smaller format: more portable, roll film is cheaper to develop commercially, and you don't need a darkroom/changing bag to load filmholders. Plus, you get a tad bit more depth-of-field for equivalent focal lengths (i.e., "normal" on both formats), roll film is easy to daylight develop in a tank, whereas sheet film usually takes a bit more trouble.

Areas where the formats are equal: cropping a 4x5 negative to roughly 6x9 gets you the exact same quality (assuming everything else is the same). Many shoot sheet film and then do a lot of cropping, but are quick to pick on a smaller roll film format... go figure. If you frame carefully, you can get quite a bit of negative area to work with.

The advantages of 4x5 sheet film: larger film gets you finer grain and better resolution for the same film (if you use all of it), sheet film allows individual development (e.g., Zone System) so you can tailor each negative for optimum printing, camera movements are a little easier to control, since the film is a bit bigger, you can use faster film and stop down more and still get relatively fine grain due to the larger film size.

FWIW, since I made the switch to sheet film, my roll film backs have been sitting in the drawer collecting dust.

Best,

Doremus

[koraks]

I find that roll film is in particular a cheap way to shoot color while retaining movements. On my Sinar F, I have gotten very usable results with tmax 100 and color negative film that are comparable in terms of sharpness to the frames I get from my mamiya 645. My flatbed scanner is in both cases the limiting factor, but still, plenty of resolution for 8x10" prints, which is the format I do most of my printing on.

But mostly I just shoot sheet film in the sinar; that's what it's for! Developing at home is pretty easy even without a dark room, using a changing bag and a mod54 film holder. I would invest in some development stuff rather sooner than later as you're bound to go that route at some point anyway.

[Donald Qualls]

Drew, that's my ultimate goal - to take a LF cam out into the mountains and shoot.

Film choices are rather limited (one commercial offering at Freestyle, last I checked) but there are 9x12 cm "plate cameras" from the 1920s to 1930s era that give 85-90% of a 4x5 negative in a package not much bigger than a 4x5 film box. The smallest to carry is the Patent Etui, aka Kawee Camera, hardly bigger (folded) than a 4x5 film holder; its film holders aren't much thicker than a Grafmatic septum. Hard to find film holders for it, though, and because they're actually made to hold glass plates, you have to either ensure it has, or separately find film sheaths that hold a film sheet where the plate would have gone -- an all of this at collector prices. Get one with a good lens, though, and the one model that had front shift as well as front rise, and it'll do almost everything you want to do while peakbagging -- in a backpack space not much bigger than a 6x9 folder of similar age. Of course, if you're doing things that need monorail type movements, then you need to find a way to carry the GVII, or spring the money for a good tailboard field camera (similar movements, but folds up much tighter than a monorail) -- but little in the way of distant-vista landscapes requires large or complex movements; the rise and shift of a press camera (which is essentially what the plate cameras were) will do what you need, aside from changing lenses (most of the plate cameras had one and only one).


If you're shooting 120 with a 5x4 camera and want results that are close to 5x4 sheet film quality you need to use the slowest 120 film you can, in my case that used to be Agfa APX25, these days it would be Pan F.

Although I rarely use it these days I used to always carry a 120 6x9 roll film back when out backpacking, I stopped about the time APX 25 was discontinued and I began to run out of it.

Ian

If you don't mind dealing with special low-contrast developers (the simplest of which is made from instant coffee, laundry soda, (http://silent1.home.netcom.com/Photography/Dilutions%20and%20Times.html#Caffenol_LC) and optionally vitamin C powder (http://silent1.home.netcom.com/Photography/Dilutions%20and%20Times.html#Caffenol_LC_plus_C)), Adox CMS20 will give every bit of resolution you might have gotten out of APX25, and easily beats Ilford Pan F; it's essentially similar to Tech Pan but without the extended red sensitivity. If you have high enough scan resolution or a tall enough enlarger column, you can get more from a 6x9 negative in CMS20 than you would from, say, Foma 100 or even Acros in 4x5. In my opinion, it's not hard to develop, either; my first use give me perfectly processed negatives using data previously established for similar emulsions sold as microfilm.

[AtlantaTerry]

Thanks everyone! This was really helpful. My primary reason for considering roll film was from a cost and ease of use standpoint while I learn the ins and outs of my camera. Well, I'm guessing it would be easier...I'd have more exposures without having to change media right? Developing by 3rd party lab is cheaper too. I think the local lab is charging 4.50 per 4x5 sheet vs 6.00 for one roll of MF. Youch! My darkroom will come in time, but until then...it's the shop!

I was mostly curious about the much shallower DOF of LF vs MF and how it compares form one format to the other. I suspected I'd crop by using a smaller film size. I didn't consider at all how tricky it would be for focus though. Or is that just for shorter focal lengths?

Anyways I've been plastering the Intertubes with all my newbie dumb questions and learning along the way from you more experienced types :-).

I think you are going about this all wrong. If you want to shoot roll film then use a roll film camera. If you really want to learn how to use a 4x5" view camera, then use 4x5" film. Otherwise, you are only learning to use your view camera with a roll film back. If you use a roll film back you will not get used to sheet film holders as well as viewing, composing, framing and shooting full 4x5" negatives.

In other words, just get out there and burn up some 4x5" film.

IMHO one of the things about using a view camera is not creating quantities of images but THINKING about what you are doing and only exposing a few sheets - an entirely different thought process.

›

About depth of field. A given focal lenth lens will create a given amount of depth of field. It does not care what film is sitting behind it. All your film does is capture some of the light coming out of the back of the lens.

If you have (for example) a 135mm lens on the front of a view camera, you could use 4x5" film or roll film or 35mm film. Every photograph would have exactly the same amount of depth of field in the image on the film. The only difference would be how much image area you would end up with. Naturally, the larger the film, the more image area.

You could lay the chip of 35mm film on top of the 4x5" film and the images would be identical - depth of field and all. But, as I said, the 4x5" film would simply include more of the scene.

›

So get some inexpensive sheet film and get out there.

[Peakbagger]

Not quite ready to go out and shoot yet. I still need a lens! I just ordered one graflex sheet film holder. I'll hold off on the 120 back at the moment. I do want the full "4x5 experience". I suppose that includes self developing!
Thanks for the advices everyone.

[joselsgil]

Peakbagger,

Where are you located?

[Peakbagger]

Peakbagger,

Where are you located?
I'm in PDX! Or actually across the river in Clark County, WA.

[AtlantaTerry]

I'm in PDX! Or actually across the river in Clark County, WA.

It bothers me a bit when people use local abbreviations or postal codes. How is a photographer in Thailand or Brazil or Germany supposed to know where in the hell "PDX" is located?

[Peakbagger]

It bothers me a bit when people use local abbreviations or postal codes. How is a photographer in Thailand or Brazil or Germany supposed to know where in the hell "PDX" is located?

AtlantaTerry, you are right - not everyone thinks in terms of airport codes, and even then it doesn't really tell you the city. If someone typed "I'm from GRU" there's no way I'd be able to tell that it was in San Paulo, Brazil. I'd have to google it. Too much trouble! I've updated my location in my profile :-).

[BrianShaw]

https://www.google.com/#q=PDX

:o

With fond regards from LAX :p

[jbenedict]

Lens/film/camera choice in this situation points the direction you might want to go.

If you are considering using only 120 film, remember that a 90 is approximately "normal" view on a 6x6/6x7/6x9. The Graphic View does not deal well with a 90 if you are not using a recessed lens board and, even with the recessed board, it is not ideal. (I've owned a GV)

A 135/150/180 is considered 'normal' on a 4x5. There are arguments amongst users as to which one is actually the 'best' normal but the GV will work fine with these focal lenses and about out to a 240mm and longer with a telephoto construction lens (It needs a bellows draw shorter than its focal length.) If you are going to use one of these lenses on a 6x6/7/9, they will be about portrait length. How would that fit into what you are wanting to do?

It would be easy to backpack with many exposures of 120 film. 5 rolls equals 50 exposures of 6x7 and 40 exposures of 6x9. However, a view camera is used quite differently than other cameras and I'm not sure that I would need more than 10 shots for an afternoon view camera work. Yes, it is possible to 'bracket' exposures with an abundance of 120 exposures but, to me, that kind of misses the point of the more deliberative approach of the view camera. One of the objectives is to get it right the first time. 10 exposures of 4x5 fits in 5 holders- not too bulky. 4x5 in color comes in 10 sheet boxes. Just enough to fill your holders. B&W comes in 25 sheet boxes so that is 24 exposures or 12 holders. Fill six holders with film before you go and shoot all morning. Use a changing bag and refill them at lunch. A common practice. Grafmatics hold six sheets at a time and would less bulky than holders.

In this situation, I would get a 135 or 150 lens and shoot 4x5. When I had my GV, my first lens was a 127 Ektar. Only a little bit of movement possible (The 127 was considered a "normal" lens on a 3.25x4.25 Speed Graphic) but the Ektar was sharp and does a good with close-up work. If you still wanted to have the roll back, it would be like having a second lens.

That's what I think. Doing the view camera dance is something very different from using an SLR. There is a procedure which must be followed that is just not there with a SLR camera. You speak of 'depth of field' A view camera with a modern lens which covers 4x5 well and is used properly can put the depth of field pretty much any where you want it to be. Same with most of the other perspective dimensions. I learned quickly with my GV and a 127 Ektar what I could do and I figured out the limitations of the 127 Ektar and worked around them and eventual got a 205/4.5 Velostigmat which was a dynamite lens at a low cost. And coverage to 5x7 so I could use what movements I had. Unless you want to do wide angle work, the GV will have all of the movements you need until you actually figure out how to use the camera. These days, when I go stomping out into the wilderness, I take a Crown Graphic with a 135 Caltar, a Tilt-all tripod, two Grafmatics, and some basic goodies- dark cloth, a couple of filters, meter, two cable releases. And my lunch.

It's fun to learn.

[Peakbagger]

Thanks jbenedict. Fun to learn indeed! I am in fact lurking on ebay for a 135mm, probably settling on the "standard" optar 4.7 unless I can find something better in the price range that my wife will allow :). I've also considered the 90mm. Just typing in '90mm' 'optar' on flickr brings up many photos produced by that lens which I really like - some that really stood out for me were shot on a 6x12 roll back even. I am getting ahead of myself though. I tend to shoot close, so probably a normal lens suits me better. I'll do what you did and figure out what I can do with the 135 and then go from there.

I did not know about the "Grafmatic" I will probably grab that for my next holder purchase. So much to learn!

[Peakbagger]

https://www.google.com/#q=PDX

:o

With fond regards from LAX :p

Ha! So naughty! :p

[jbenedict]

Thanks jbenedict. Fun to learn indeed! I am in fact lurking on ebay for a 135mm, probably settling on the "standard" optar 4.7 unless I can find something better in the price range that my wife will allow :)

The 135/4.7 Optar has a similar problem as the 127 Ektar I had- coverage is just a little more than straight on 4x5. It was designed to be used on a press camera where straight on 4x5 coverage is all that is necessary.

Here is the page at KEH.com for large format lenses:

https://www.keh.com/search/list?n=151&page=2

The Caltars, Symmars, Geronars and Sironars, either 135 or 150- would do well for you and are priced from $200-$400. A lens at KEH that is listed as BGN (Bargain) is usually in very good shape and there is a good return policy.

[Donald Qualls]

Not quite ready to go out and shoot yet. I still need a lens! I just ordered one graflex sheet film holder. I'll hold off on the 120 back at the moment. I do want the full "4x5 experience". I suppose that includes self developing!
Thanks for the advices everyone.

Ut oh.

Better Google around for the difference between a "Graflex" back or film holder, and a "Graphic" back. All modern 4x5 cameras have a Graphic back; the Graflex back went out of production before 1930 (I might have that date wrong, but it was a long time ago).

Just to make things confusing, the Graflex brand was put on Graphic type film holders for decades...

Edit: Relative to lenses, you might save some money (and give up almost no quality, and only a bit more coverage relative to the Optar) getting a 135 mm (aka 13.5 cm) Tessar in an older Compur shutter. I've got two of these; one in a shutter with no works other than aperture (it was dead/missing parts when I got it) that I use on my Speed Graphic with the focal plane shutter, and one in a 1920s vintage dial-set Compur (on an Ica Ideal 9x12 cm plate camera, but I may find a way to use its bayonet mount on my Graphic View). It's hard to find a modern lens any better for general use than an 85 year old Tessar (aside from lack of coatings on one that old), and they can often be had on eBay as part of an otherwise ratty plate camera at a bargain price (more so if you're capable of doing your own clean and lube work).

If you're interested in macro, you can also do good work with the 105 mm lenses commonly found on 6x9 cm roll film cameras; again, get one with a ratty bellows and the leather falling off, bent standard, or otherwise "non-shooter" and you might spend next to nothing; mount the lens in a board and be amazed what it'll do (and how much less it costs than a similar focal length made for large format). Your GVII will easily shoot bigger than 1:1 with a 105 mm lens, and focused that close, that lens will cover 4x5 with room for considerable movements (I have one I use on my Speed and GV that covers, with no margin, at 12 feet focus and f/16 or smaller, and is sharp enough to read a license plate a block away in the negative even when set hyperfocal).

[Peter Gomena]

If your camera has an "international" Graflex-style back, do yourself a favor an buy a modern roll film back to fit it. The old graflex roll film backs usually are pretty beat, and the 6x9 version doesn't produce the best film flatness. Find a Horseman 6x9 back for 4x5 and you'll be happier.

[Peakbagger]

Ut oh.

Better Google around for the difference between a "Graflex" back or film holder, and a "Graphic" back. All modern 4x5 cameras have a Graphic back; the Graflex back went out of production before 1930 (I might have that date wrong, but it was a long time ago).

Just to make things confusing, the Graflex brand was put on Graphic type film holders for decades...



No worries Donald, I received it and it fits just fine. You're right though, all this "Graphic", "Graflex", "Graflok" can turn your head around pretty fast!




If you're interested in macro, you can also do good work with the 105 mm lenses commonly found on 6x9 cm roll film cameras; again, get one with a ratty bellows and the leather falling off, bent standard, or otherwise "non-shooter" and you might spend next to nothing; mount the lens in a board and be amazed what it'll do (and how much less it costs than a similar focal length made for large format). .

Thanks for the lens advice. It just so happens I am interested in macro work - not sure what to look for though - do you mean a camera like this? http://ebay.to/1wliNoX

[Donald Qualls]

Thanks for the lens advice. It just so happens I am interested in macro work - not sure what to look for though - do you mean a camera like this? http://ebay.to/1wliNoX

Yes, that category. You can find less nice looking ones for as little as $10 plus shipping, in my experience (though it's been several years since I bought one). The Tessar (4 elements, 3 groups, aka Skopar, and several other names from other manufacturers) and Heliar (5 elements, 3 groups, also multiple other names including Ektar) formula lenses are very good, and most of them will be either f/6.3 or f/4.5 on cameras like that -- which gives a nice bright ground glass for focusing and composing, though they won't come close to covering 4x5 at infinity that wide. Even a triplet (Anastigmat, Triotar, Radionar, etc.) can do a good job for macro work, as can an enlarging lens in that focal length range (some would claim the enlarging lenses are better for macro than those intended for scene photography, though I'm not sure you'll be able to tell the difference in prints smaller than a picture window).

[joselsgil]

I'm in PDX! Or actually across the river in Clark County, WA.

I am familiar with the name Clark County in WA. My niece and her husband just purchased a home in that area.

As for lenses in the 135mm range. I purchased a Carl Zeiss Tessar f4.5 or 3.5, don't have the lens in front of me. I purchased the lens for less than $60 and it can do some nice close-up work.

[Drew Wiley]

I dunno. I'm just starting to print the black and white prints from this last mtn trip of 6x9's. My feeling is that I would have really preferred to have done it with
full 4x5 instead, but if I had, I probably would have missed out on any number of the best shots, cause the weather, clouds, etc were awfully fickle. At least this
gave me perspective and tilt movements for the general scenes, and as long as I don't print these any larger than 16x20, they still retain most of the feel of large format prints, though I can certainly spot the difference in certain areas. For one thing, it is much easier to do acute focus on the larger 4x5 screen. It was a logistical decision related more to bulk than weight per se, and in this case, a correct estimate of what weather situations were most likely to do. But I've been experimenting along these lines a bit anyway, since two full weeks lugging gear over the high passes is a little different at 65 than it was at 45. If Quickloads were still around it would have been a different story. This was not the most practical trip for a changing tent either. But I am certainly glad I bought Horseman
holders. They seem very precise and reliable. I didn't take very many color shots, and had a separate holder for Ektar; but those were done in less tempestuous
weather situations, so I had more time to fuss with the focus and get it dead on, so these particular ones will hold up well in 20x24 prints.