Newbie 5x7 woes

[moltogordo]

Not new to 4x5 but 5x7 just isn't the same beast. I'm working at solving the problems, but let me enlighten you as to what I'm having trouble with. I have lots of work to do. Suggestions welcome.

1) Size and weight. I have a Burke&James Grover monorail. It's heavy, and it's straining my tripod. I'm old and weaker than in days of yore. And thus I'm limited to about 20 yards from my car. I should have done this as a young man. But you know all this.

2) Film problems. I like 4x5 Shanghai, so I tried a box of 5x7. Don't. It is NOT sized 5x7 and does not fit the American sized holders. The negative below is placed over top of a sheet of 5x7 Arista Grade 2 printing paper. The Arista (and some Ilford Ilfobrom I have at home) fit the holder perfectly. So I'll be experimenting with paper negatives until a box of 5x7 HP5 arrives. I've tried taping and other stuff with varying degrees of success, but I don't have much left so I'll let it ride. Avoid Shanghai in 5x7 unless you have the smaller Asian or multiple filmholders, which apparently this film is sized for. Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't know what I'm talking about. (There are 3 sizes of 5x7 holders. Didn't know that until a friend enlightened me.)


http://www.pbase.com/moltogordo/image/160783891.jpg

3) light leak or some kind of lens aberration, or perhaps a coverage problem. I haven't tracked down yet. Notice the area in the lower left of each photo, an area of lower contrast. And there is some flare on the upper right of the 2nd photo. Maybe it's the film sizing . . . that flare is not on the van picture but the tree is bent because of the poor fit of the film. Sorry for the crappy shots but I was just trying stuff out and not trying to take great pictures.


http://www.pbase.com/moltogordo/image/160783904.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/moltogordo/image/160783913.jpg


I'm developing the second batch tonight, and I'll post the results in this thread. I had about half the sheets fall out of the holder into the camera because of the sizing problem. The others seemed to stay in after being taped a little . . . . all of the paper negatives were fine.

I thought it would be similar to 4x5 but it's not. Different territory. By the way, for the record I'm using a 210mm Schneider Symmar convertible to 370mm lens.

[mdarnton]

The first thing you need to do is put a bare lightbulb inside, and look around the outside for holes in the bellows. My B&J bellows looks fine, but has tiny holes in many of the corners. Get some tape, and tape them up. Gaffer tape, bookbinding tape, liquid electrical tape, something like that (there are threads here to read about that, so don't just follow what I'm saying---read what others have already said and done.)

If it doesn't measure 5x7 it isn't 5x7 film. Five by seven doesn't mean four by six or something like that. They sent you the wrong thing. There are other similar sizes, but they're measured in cm.

[moltogordo]

The first thing you need to do is put a bare lightbulb inside, and look around the outside for holes in the bellows. My B&J bellows looks fine, but has tiny holes in many of the corners. Get some tape, and tape them up. Gaffer tape, bookbinding tape, liquid electrical tape, something like that (there are threads here to read about that, so don't just follow what I'm saying---read what others have already said and done.)

If it doesn't measure 5x7 it isn't 5x7 film. Five by seven doesn't mean four by six or something like that. They sent you the wrong thing. There are other similar sizes, but they're measured in cm.

I've done the flashlight thing but I'll try a bare bulb. I'm actually suspecting the film holding housing at the upper left corner.

I realize what you are saying about the film, but the box is marked 5x7 and it was advertised as 5x7. As I've only got 4 sheets left there's little point in worrying about Shanghai because I won't be buying any more. I've made them aware of this via Ebay messaging. I've got some 5x7 Ilford HP5 on the way. Until it comes I'll work with paper negs.

Thanks very much for your comments. :) Appreciate them.

[mdarnton]

The trick in finding leaks is to bob and weave. They are often more like little tunnels through a couple of layers of bellows, and you won't see them unless you're looking straight through the tunnel. When I move around mine, it's like a fireworks display. :-)

[Paul Metcalf]

5x7 is the same as 4x5, and 8x10, and 16x20, etc. when you're using the right stuff made for the right camera. Yeah, the cameras get bigger as the size goes up, but I don't think you fell off of a turnip truck recently so this should have been obvious. Throw that shangai crap in the trash and get some real 5x7 negatives and test your bellows. Another (and my preferred method) is to take the camera outside in really bright afternoon light, remove the rear back (film holder) and with a lens and lensboard attached and the lens closed, stick your face under the dark cloth wrapped completely around your head and wait several minutes for your eyes to adjust to the darkness. You'll see any light leaks then, including those around the front lensboard/lens as well as bellows. Fix/address as necessary. And start thinking which 8x10 or 11x14 camera you might want to get in the future.

BTW, while I have a 5x7 Conley, my preferred 5x7 is a Wista 8x10 with a 5x7 reducing back. I'd get a 4x5 back for it as well if folks didn't think that they needed to cost thousands of dollars.

[moltogordo]

You guys have hit most of the nails on the head.

I checked the bellows thoroughly. More thoroughly than I've ever done before. I put in FOUR LED flashpanels into the bellows, and closed the back up. Searched for over 15 minutes in the darkroom. They are fine. But there was a small leak showing in the lensboard, upper right. I sanded and repatched. Seems to be fine. We'll see.

Paul, I think that your statement "right stuff for the right camera" is a propos. This is my first time working with a relic. My other large format cameras are all fairly recent: 2 Linhofs, Sinar, Toyo . . . . even my B&J orbit is really just a recent Calumet. Using the Grover reminds me of driving a three-on-the-tree Ford Falcon without synchromesh. Not without its charms, but shall we say, basic. Yeah . . . I really had one of those! :D

I really do need a heavier tripod with this beast. That's also a given. As you say, same thing as 4x5 so everything has to be scaled up one notch.

I taped the last of the Shanghai film into the holders this time (I have no other film in this size right now) and I've taken some shots with both film and on some Ilfobrom 5x7 stipple, grade 2.

I'm about to develop the film. I'll post soon. Am not out of the woods yet but feeling more confident.

Thanks for your help and stay tuned.

[winterclock]

Having used a fair amount of Shanghai I found this somewhat surprising, so I went to check my own negatives. The Shanghai film is slightly narrower and longer than the HP5, but not so much as to not fit my Lisco holders, it does fall out of my 13x18 holders but so does the 5x7 HP5. At the same time I have to trim paper slightly to fit the 5x7 holders which is why I got the 13x18s. 5x7 film will measure about 1/16" smaller than actual 5x7".

[moltogordo]

Having used a fair amount of Shanghai I found this somewhat surprising, so I went to check my own negatives. The Shanghai film is slightly narrower and longer than the HP5, but not so much as to not fit my Lisco holders, it does fall out of my 13x18 holders but so does the 5x7 HP5. At the same time I have to trim paper slightly to fit the 5x7 holders which is why I got the 13x18s. 5x7 film will measure about 1/16" smaller than actual 5x7".

James - check out the first shot I posted in this thread, where the Shanghai negative is placed over a 5x7" sheet of enlarging paper. That's more than "slightly".

We're talking a quality control issue here . . . . a bunch of undersized film was packed into boxes marked 5"x7". I have Lisco holders, too. They fall out. Inside the camera. After the slide is removed. I have to TAPE them down.

I had a box of Shanghai 5x7 I bought about 5 years ago for a pinhole camera experiment. The negatives WILL fit into the holders. There is simply an unacceptable size difference. That's quality control - some moron in the factory put a bunch of cut film into 5x7 boxes.

Sadly, I really like Shanghai film . . . . I use it lots in 4x5 and I buy it because it's good film, not cheap film. But I won't ever trust their 5x7 again. I'm not so rich I can take a chance on $45 a box that doesn't fit.

[winterclock]

I can certainly commiserate with your problem, much as I like the Shanghai film, the price difference is not so great that I would not switch to HP5 given the same circumstances. You might want to check out the vendor list for the Ilford ULF run, some may have extra boxes of Delta 100 another excellent film that I find similar to the Shanghai.

[moltogordo]

My Burke&James "Grover" monorail:

http://www.pbase.com/moltogordo/image/160795730.jpg



Okay . . . looks like, from these photos below, the light leak repair I did has done the trick. I removed the front lensboard, did a little sanding and fitting, and voila, that area of low contrast is gone. Pretty sure that there are no bellows leaks, as I checked thoroughly.

For these two photos, I used the Shanghai film, but I taped it into the holder so it wouldn't move. Have no other at present so didn't have a choice. Developed it as usual for me in HC110 at 1:63 for 15 minutes or so at 68. Winterclock, thanks for the heads up about the ULF run. Didn't know about it.

I was worried that the lens might have had an aberration, but I've used this lens (210mm Schneider Symmar f5.6 convertible) on my 4x5 with fine results and was hoping the lens was okay. I will not bother to mount the Rodenstock 210mm now, but the final lens that will be put on this camera permanently (an 8 1/2" Kodak Commercial Ektar) will be tested thoroughly once it comes back from Carol Miller. This outfit also deserves a sturdier tripod. The Husky I'm using is okay, but better suited to a smaller camera.

Now it's just practice and experience. I appreciate all the help, but will warn all of you, I'm starting to get hooked on this big stuff, big time!! Paul, I'm already looking at 8x10! The disease progresses.

http://www.pbase.com/moltogordo/image/160797824.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/moltogordo/image/160797825.jpg

[Jim Noel]

I know I will be castigated for this, but you happened to purchase probably the heaviest and most clumsy 5x7 ever built. You have a good lens, and apparently good holders. I believe you would be better ff to look for a better camera rather than another tripod. A regular flat bed Agfa/Ansco is identical above the rail to the Grover, but lighter and much more practical to use. There seems to be an unending supply of better cameras at decent prices, especially when weight is a factor. I suggest taking advantage of one of them.

[moltogordo]

No, Jim, you will not be castigated at all. As a matter of fact, I couldn't agree with you more. I bought this camera only because it was $75, and it gave me an entry point. Right now, I'm going to start saving for an 8x10, with a 5x7 back as well. Maybe a Cambo, maybe a Toyo Field?? I'm open to suggestions.

As I said, I gained entry. And frankly, I think if I can handle this beast, I can handle anything!!! :D:D The project became more fun as it went along! So any idea is welcome!

[moltogordo]

I still have to look for a better tripod though, Jim. I have a Toyo GX now, and that will be my dedicated tabletop camera. It is a beast, and nothing I have now will be really solid enough for what I want to do with it. Just so you know that I'm not going to waste a heavy, top end tripod on the Grover. Maybe an old Sanford or something . . . . ;)

[Liquid Artist]

I'm kinda wondering if you happen to have gotten some 13x18 film holders instead of 5x7.
The reason being, I believe that 5x7 paper is a little larger than 5x7 film and won't fit in a film holder without trimming.

However I have been wrong before, and may be wrong again.

[moltogordo]

I'm kinda wondering if you happen to have gotten some 13x18 film holders instead of 5x7.
The reason being, I believe that 5x7 paper is a little larger than 5x7 film and won't fit in a film holder without trimming.

However I have been wrong before, and may be wrong again.

I have 11 filmholders now, and they're all 5x7. Please check out my first picture in this thread. That's a 5x7 piece of Ilfobrom. Look at the negative overlaying that paper. It isn't even close.The 5x7 paper from Ilford fit in. I could trim about 1mm from the long edge and they would slide in easy, but that isn't worth the trouble. This is also 20 year old stock - it's about 1mm UNDER 5x7 on each side. That's why they fit, albeit snugly, I suppose. My new Arista film would need a touch of a trim, but I can get it in anyway.

The MEASURED dimensions of this film I have is 16.3cm x 12.8cm . . . . that's even a far cry from 13x18. I have ONE 13x18 film holder which I keep in a closet and don't use, and the film is 2 cm shorter than that holder interior, although the 12.8 will fit loosely. No, my filmholders are all 5x7. 3 of them are Kodak holders - they didn't make metric sizes, and they're the same as my Fidelity Elites. Sorry. :)

I believe the film I have is made for multiple cut 13x18 holders, those jobs that you load 6 or 8 into. As I said in a previous post, some moron in the factory simply put the wrong size film in (probably) an entire batch of 5x7 boxes.

[mdm]

I have used Shanghai 100 in the past in my 5x7 holders and they fit. The delta 100 I just measured seems about 125 mm wide.

[Rayt]

I use Shanghai 100 in 5x7 purchased on ebay on Fidelity holders with no problems.

[moltogordo]

I wish I had your luck, guys. Here's what I got:

Length:

http://www.pbase.com/moltogordo/image/160804192.jpg


Width:

http://www.pbase.com/moltogordo/image/160804194.jpg


Picture of the film in the holder (Yes, it IS a 5x7 holder, as are all of my others - you can clearly see it does not fit. This is a quality control issue.) I've solved the issue by taping the film into the holder with a bit of Scotch tape, removed before developing. I'll simply not be buying this film in 5x7 again, because I can't trust it. Yes, the box is marked 5x7 and the seller gave me a 75% refund after seeing the photographs. I've used 4x5 without issue.

http://www.pbase.com/moltogordo/image/160804195.jpg

[jb7]

That's Half Plate size- 6 ½" x 4 ¾", or 12 x 16.5cm. I could use some of that, I've got the right holders...

[Jim Galli]

That's Half Plate size- 6 ½" x 4 ¾", or 12 x 16.5cm. I could use some of that, I've got the right holders...

My first thought also. And I think if you find some half plate holders the outside dims is physically correct for the 5X7 camera. So you could use up your film that way.

But . . was it a Shanghai goof. IOW the next box you get may very well be correct 5X7 film, after you spend money on half plate holders.

[moltogordo]

Quote Originally Posted by jb7 View Post
That's Half Plate size- 6 ½" x 4 ¾", or 12 x 16.5cm. I could use some of that, I've got the right holders...


My first thought also. And I think if you find some half plate holders the outside dims is physically correct for the 5X7 camera. So you could use up your film that way.

But . . was it a Shanghai goof. IOW the next box you get may very well be correct 5X7 film, after you spend money on half plate holders.



Yay!!! Thanks guys! I'll scout around and try to get a couple of half-plate holders in case something like this ever happens again.


As I say, I'm new to 5x7 but not to LF . . . . I had no idea there was such variance in size within the "5x7 universe". I'm prepared for all kinds of things in 4x5 that are irregular because I've been there for a while. Not so 5x7. Lots of great information given to help me in this thread! Thanks for helping me along on my learning curve. Never heard of half-plate before. Now I'll find out more!! :D

I frankly do like Shanghai film - it's especially excellent in Pyrocat HD - if I'd known about this stuff before, there'd not be this problem. Best to be prepared, because quality control issues do arise from time to time.

[moltogordo]

Quote Originally Posted by jb7 View Post
That's Half Plate size- 6 ½" x 4 ¾", or 12 x 16.5cm. I could use some of that, I've got the right holders...


My first thought also. And I think if you find some half plate holders the outside dims is physically correct for the 5X7 camera. So you could use up your film that way.

But . . was it a Shanghai goof. IOW the next box you get may very well be correct 5X7 film, after you spend money on half plate holders.



Yay!!! Thanks guys! I'll scout around and try to get a couple of half-plate holders in case something like this ever happens again.


As I say, I'm new to 5x7 but not to LF . . . . I had no idea there was such variance in size within the "5x7 universe". I'm prepared for all kinds of things in 4x5 that are irregular because I've been there for a while. Not so 5x7. Lots of great information given to help me in this thread! Thanks for helping me along on my learning curve. Never heard of half-plate before. Now I'll find out more!! :D

I frankly do like Shanghai film - it's especially excellent in Pyrocat HD - if I'd known about this stuff before, there'd not be this problem. Best to be prepared, because quality control issues do arise from time to time.

[Paul Metcalf]

You'll need to mark on your ground glass the smaller footprint of the half plate size so you don't accidentally crop out something you want. Sounds like you might have a solution though, perfect!