One more question while I'm here - why Large Format? [Archive]

6x6TLL

19-Sep-2018, 04:41

Thanks for the replies guys (are there any women here in the LF forum?)

As I said, I've been interested in and curious about LF for a long time, wanted to try it out but never got that far. Now that I'm on the cusp of actually putting my money on the table, I want to check with myself why exactly I want to use LF, what I hope to get out of it, what's the attraction. To be honest, I'm still not sure, but hearing other people's reasons and rationales sometimes help one become clear of one's own.

I do know that there are some landscape pics I've done where I really wish I had movements to get more DOF, and I'm really intrigued by the portraiture possibilities and application as well, using the limited DOF and movements to lead the viewers attention, hide and reveal different parts of the composition. But I'm not sure that's enough of a reason (for me anyway) to spend a bunch of money. Especially when I already have a bunch of quality gear, and never enough time to really use it to it's fullest.

The other thing that appeals is the methodical and slow way one is forced to work (hand held Graphlex aside, although I expect even there a tripod would improve the results noticeably), although I'm wondering if I actually have the time to dedicate to it.

I'm one of the odd people who tend to go against the stream, and in many cases prefer quality to convenience, despite the majority of the world heading the other way, where convenience always trumps over everything else. Which leads me to think that LF might be a really good fit for me. But I'll never know until I try.

Thanks.

Tin Can

19-Sep-2018, 04:46

A few women post, who knows how many just read.

Questions about where are the women may be destructive.

Next time you join a male-dominated forum try a female name and see what happens.

Randi Moe

6x6TLL

19-Sep-2018, 04:53

That's a shame if true, and says more about the men online than anything else... :eek:

Can anyone link to a photographer or two, some examples (modern/contemporary) of shots that would not have been possible or wouldn't have had the same impact if they hadn't been made on LF?

I'm still trying to get a handle on what the advantages offer, maybe seeing some images would help make that clearer.

Leszek Vogt

19-Sep-2018, 05:02

Just a couple of things. What format will allow you to have a 5x7, 4x5, 6x17, or even DSLR attached - all in one camera ? I could attach 35mm film rig too, but that would be right down silly, tho someone has done it.

OK, PhotoShop or not (not everyone uses that software)....what MF or DSLR allows you to use a myriad of lenses that are out there, I mean going back to mid 19th century ? Just having a lens is one thing, but to be able to come up with an interesting and quirky image (using it) is way more meaningful.

Les

Dan Fromm

19-Sep-2018, 05:28

OP, I don't really belong here. The largest format I shoot is 6x12.

I started out with 35 mm still, to shoot live fish in aquaria. I eventually went on to shoot flowers and insects and such in the field. This is somewhat problematic with 35 mm still. One can get as good detail as possible in the subject by filling the frame with it, at the cost of losing its setting. Or one can place the subject in its setting, at the cost of losing good detail. Can't win.

So I moved up to 2.25 x 3.25 (2x3 for short, 6x9 in metric) to be able to get as much detail as I'd been getting with 35 mm plus more of the setting. As I've already mentioned, this is much more difficult than using a 35 mm SLR. As I haven't mentioned explicitly, I wasted a lot more shots with 2x3 than with 35 mm.

So why move up in format? Because larger format gives a larger negative. Opinions differ on this, but film can't be enlarged more than around 10x. 8x10 is 35 mm's limit. Larger prints need a larger negative. And there you are.

Peter Lewin

19-Sep-2018, 05:31

The other thing that appeals is the methodical and slow way one is forced to work (hand held Graphlex aside, although I expect even there a tripod would improve the results noticeably), although I'm wondering if I actually have the time to dedicate to it. .
Your underlying question gets asked and turned into threads periodically. The "quality" argument goes both ways, i.e. some argue that the large negatives and individual control cannot be matched by any other approach. The counter argument is that with ever-improving sensors, tilt lenses, and PhotoShop, one can now make images of equal quality in the digital domain. Without taking a personal side in this debate (I have one, but it is no more valuable than all the others), I would throw in that PhotoShop does add a degree of creative flexibility that does not exist in the LF/darkroom world.

But the part of the argument that seems to be agreed to by most, including myself, is that one chooses to do LF work precisely because one enjoys the method. The thought-process, choice of subjects that lend themselves to LF imagery, and the detailed actions required in the process is not just a by-product, it is a large part of the rationale for choosing the process. I attend a monthly get-together of photographers using all mediums, although digital now outweighs film considerably. I have come to recognize that I cannot "justify" my love for LF in terms of somehow "better" imagery, I stick with it because I enjoy the process much more than any other. I include in this the simple tactile enjoyment I get from holding large negatives in my hands, which you will recognize again as a "process" argument rather than a "quality" one.

6x6TLL

19-Sep-2018, 06:13

Hi Peter,

thank you for your reply. It's a great point, that it isn't necessarily the quality, but rather the process by which one arrives at the final image that is the draw with LF.

I tend to look at digital vs analog in a similar way -

1. one can spend a lot of time pre-exposure planning the shot, setting up a tripod, framing the composition, checking/adjusting the lighting, etc, and finally making the exposure at the critical moment. One or two shots are usually all that's needed.

or...

2. one can fire off rapid fire at something that looks interesting, or one feels inspired, and then spend the same amount of time sorting through hundreds or thousands of images, fixing things like composition, lighting, exposure in post, to arrive at the final image.

I wonder if the total time spent is pretty close in practice.

Obviously, and especially for professionals, there's nothing precluding using approach 1 while working with a digital camera. It's just that the different technologies tend to encourage different approaches, and people end up working quite differently.

I know that in the days of film, many pro's would also fire off rolls and rolls of film to get the one perfect shot. I still feel personally that I'd rather prep the shot as much as possible ahead of time, and capture one or two exposures of exactly what I've envisioned, rather than taking hundreds "just in case" or to find the "perfect" one. Maybe that's why I don't work for Magnum or National Geographic, lol.

An example I'm always reminded of is taking pictures of my son at an amusement park years ago with my FM3a (a rare instance of me not shooting MF), standing beside another proud dad waiting for his daughter to come out of the same ride at the same point, shooting digital. Both our kids came out of a tunnel on the ride at about the same time. I fired off one, two, possibly three frames at most, waiting for the critical point where the composition was perfect and my son was looking forward. I had already pre-focused and calculated exposure. At the same time I heard a machine-gun like barrage from my neighbor, he must have taken about 30-40 pictures as she rolled out of the tunnel. Most of my work was done ahead of time, and I allowed myself a few options to make sure I captured a good expression. Most of his work lay ahead in sorting, choosing, and photoshopping whichever he ended up with as his keeper(s).

Personally, I prefer the first approach. Photographically, I'm lazy, like a lot of people, and don't tend to plan my shoots to well, instead wandering around aimlessly waiting for inspiration to hit or something interesting to happen to photograph. Probably not the best way to approach LF, although once that part is determined, the rest of the process does appeal to me. Maybe I should work more on defining my vision and what I'd like to convey....

Two23

19-Sep-2018, 07:00

I shoot 4x5 and now also 5x7 for entirely different reasons. My cameras allow me to use just about any lens from any period. I have six lenses made between 1845 and 1860. I use these to photo Civil War re-enactors and whenever I want a more ethereal look to my photos. I also have about half a doze or so lenses made 1900-1925 and use those to make photos with a classic turn of century look. Finally, I do have three modern lenses (1990s) but generally only use those when I need flash sync. I've begun shooting dry plates, which I love the result from. I'm also planning a move into wet plate next spring. My 4x5 and 5x7 allow me much more flexibility than any film camera. I enjoy owning and using historical lenses and cameras. My three cameras are: 1905 Century Camera Co. folding 4x5, 1925 Gundlach Korona 5x7 (& 4x5 back) field camera, and a 2009 Chamonix 045n 4x5. I love these cameras!

Kent in SD

Jim Jones

19-Sep-2018, 07:49

I enjoyed the versatility of large format cameras. Modest view cameras have movements for all their lenses that are only available on expensive lenses for smaller cameras. Almost any view camera can be used with a great variety of lenses. Large film is needed for the contact printing required for some printing processes. Image quality can be great, although even Ansel Adams's 8x10 negatives sometimes don't look so good when enlarged to mural sizes. Some large format cameras, new and old, are elegant. On the other hand, Monday evening I took 160 digital images at a junior high football game. Today I'll cull those down to less than a hundred, burn them to CDs, and donate them to the school and a few individuals. This might take an hour or two, and cost me less than one sheet of large format film. Also, in that prevailing light, I would not have tried even one sheet of film. Every photographer has to decide for themselves what formats and type of cameras best suit their particular circumstances.

jnantz

19-Sep-2018, 08:15

hi OP

i shoot LF because i like to hand coat my paper &c
and while i can and have shot hand coated paper or glass or plastic or metal
in a 35mm or MF camera and i don't mind jewel prints and bigger-small-prints
... ( yes i scan and enlarge them so there really is no advantage to LF sometimes )
regarding can stuff that is done with a LF camera be done with a smaller format?
yeah it probably can. lensbaby+lomo make lenses like some of the older vintage LF lenses
and its not hard to put something besides film ( see my previous comment ) in a smaller camera
and use that.
at this point a lot of reason to do LF is to say you are doing LF .. and because its kind of fun.

good luck!
john

Liquid Artist

19-Sep-2018, 08:49

6x6,
I started shooting bigger and bigger cameras because I am getting older and my eyes are getting weaker, and a bigger camera is easier to focus.
Plus I prefer lifting heavy cameras over pumping iron.

I jumped right in, including built a small darkroom, and haven't looked back.
However I do strongly recommended meeting up with another shooter ( if possible ) and trying a camera along with ask them for any advice.
If they have multi formats I would try them all.

Oren Grad

19-Sep-2018, 09:58

I do it for the contact prints.

Thalmees

19-Sep-2018, 10:15

...
1. Individual development of each negative for better/finer control (doesn't PhotoShop make up for that, unless you're contact printing?)
...!
Unfortunately, Not.
Because no decision can be made with Photoshop.
Photoshop can provide unlimited brilliant choices, but No decisions taken. Remember, every thing in the digital process is in para-reality if not outside reality, and every/any step can be UnDone or ReDone(undo/redo) at any time, at no cost whatsoever and at no time. That by definition are choices, Not decisions.
That's only part of what's actually the difference. The next is more important.
The "Visual Experience" of the photographer when managing single film, is pure Optical, Light and Optochemical effect. It mixes and react with human memory/emotions very well, interact and develop with time, like any "Visual Experience" of any classic or hand made Art. Please continue reading.
Furthermore, the "Latent Image", which is the Artistic Imagination Substrate in all classic Arts, is inevitably compared with possibilities/limitations of the craft/medium and with reality, every time a single film is developed and printed. Film "Latent Image", with time and experience(memory/practice), will be the equivalent of Artistic "Latent Image". It's well related to(it is), "Previsualization/Visualization" in the Art Of Photography.
Then, the "Methods/Process". Again, different worlds, actually. From before exposure, until having a dry print, the photographer is involved wholly, emotionally, mentally, visually and physically. That makes true artistically recallable memory. Sort of augmentation to the true "Visual Experience".
All of that is not attainable in digital photography or in any modern digitally based activity. Digital photography is an Art of its own character. It's also a professional money maker tool.
.

...
Can anyone link to a photographer or two, some examples (modern/contemporary) of shots that would not have been possible or wouldn't have had the same impact if they hadn't been made on LF?
...

It's impossible. You have to see real print with your real eyes in the reality, to reach a good conclusion for your self.
On computer LCD, the best work from Ansel Adams will looks like any other good B&W photo from 12MP digital camera.
.

...
It's a great point, that it isn't necessarily the quality, but rather the process by which one arrives at the final image that is the draw with LF.
I tend to look at digital vs analog in a similar way -
...

...
It's just that the different technologies tend to encourage different approaches, and people end up working quite differently.
I know that in the days of film, many pro's would also fire off rolls and rolls of film to get the one perfect shot.
...

For professionals(earning their money) and manufacturers, yes, it's just different tools.
For artists, it's different worlds.
No "Latent Image" of any kind in any digital activity, which means No "Imagination".
No "Hand Craft" in any digital activity, which means No true consistent "Visual Experience".
That does not dispossess digital from being art, at all. Digital can make the best Digital Arts.
If you are concerned with the job done, like professionals, happy to you, Go Digital.
If you are concerned with the Digital Arts, like many, happy to you, Go Digital.
If you are concerned with making Art, like the art made since hundreds of years, go classic, Do Film.
.

...
1. one can spend a lot of time pre-exposure planning the shot, setting up a tripod, framing the composition, checking/adjusting the lighting, etc, and finally making the exposure at the critical moment. One or two shots are usually all that's needed.
or...
2. one can fire off rapid fire at something that looks interesting, or one feels inspired, and then spend the same amount of time sorting through hundreds or thousands of images, fixing things like composition, lighting, exposure in post, to arrive at the final image.

I wonder if the total time spent is pretty close in practice.

...

It's the contents and experience within that time that matters, not just the quantitative measure of time.
Please read above comments.
.
Please review thread: Wondering why I still shoot film. Post#117:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?134192-Wondering-why-I-still-shoot-film/page3

https://i.postimg.cc/TwqRmwHp/IMG_2523.jpg (https://postimg.cc/JD0VC18L)

Pere Casals

19-Sep-2018, 11:42

I'm curious - why go with LF?

1. Individual development of each negative for better/finer control (doesn't PhotoShop make up for that, unless you're contact printing?)

The tonal curve is easier adjusted in photoshop, but a really skilled optical printer usually obtains a level of excellence that's really hard to beat. I can easily design an sculpture with Blender software and printing it 3D, but Michelangello made the Pietà with a hammer.

For me it's difficult to explain it, but being directly in touch with that medium allows to see things form another point of view. Digital offers more powerful tools to correct things and to manipulate the image, but a true artist may not require that. A soprano like Anna Netrebko does not use Auto-Tune gear, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Tune, pop artists use it and then their singing has no defects, but Anna's throughput plays in another division.

2. Movements for perspective control. Necessary in architectural shots, helpful in landscapes, any use elsewhere?

Movements are amazing for portraiture, you inclinate the plane of focus to obtain depth and to remark the features you want.

and am really curious about getting into LF, but am not sure what more it will offer.
I was wondering why people choose to go with LF. What's the advantage or appeal? No right or wrong answers, just wondering out loud.

First it will offer is drawbaks and complications. Slower, way more weight, investment requirements, higher cost and manpower per shot. And metering LF is an adventure...

Why do you shot 6x6 and not 35mm? 35mm is more agile, cheap and you shot more frames !!!

... but I guess you have better images in the 12 shots of a 120 roll than in the 36 shots of a 135 cartridge.

With LF it may happen the same to you. You perhaps will make 1/4 or 1/10 of the shots you make with MF, but perhaps (or not) you probably will obtain a better result.

With LF you may obtain total image quality (+200mpix worth), you obtain integrated camera movements for creative usage, you obtain the look from longer lenses for same scene (defocus roll-off, beyond DOF) and you can mount a legion of vintage lenses having a rebel personality.

Still today LF is the top notch in many ways, you may want it or not. But remember, if you make the mistake to look through a 8x10 ground glass you may not find the way back, it can be addictive.

Eric Woodbury

19-Sep-2018, 12:32

You'll find you make different kinds of photographs with LF. And the pace is different.

Enjoy.

6x6TLL

19-Sep-2018, 14:31

Wow, a lot of great responses here, thank you all.

Liquid - great point and one I'm noticing already in MF and even the 4x5 I tried out, even with glasses it's getting harder to see and focus (and I'm not that old!).

Oren - is there such a thing as 4x5 contact prints? The prevailing wisdom so far seems to indicate 4x5 is a good place to start, before eventually moving up to 8x10.

Thalmees - I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "decision vs choice", both imply the same thing in my head. I do understand and largely agree as far as the craft and human aspect goes compared to digital. I'm already shooting film, and will continue to. The issue at hand is whether to buy a LF rig and work more in that format, or simply continue with MF as I have been for a very long time now.

Pere - I shoot MF because I was never satisfied with the tiny 35mm negatives, or the tonality, resolution, etc. I'd rather have 12 frames to really concentrate on making count than 24-36 that were less critical and received less attention and care. Plus I much prefer composing in the wasit level finder on the ground glass, the whole image is right there in front of you to see. Also, it's easier imho to keep contact and rapport with a living subject, when shooting portraits, I can talk and keep up a banter while still shooting. The size & weight difference between the gear (35mm & MF) was negligible until I got a bunch of Rollei gear, which is much heavier than the Bronica was.

Eric - I think you may be right, which is what I notice with MF, and even when shooting 35mm film, I approach it differently than I would if I were shooting digital.

Thanks again.

Oren Grad

19-Sep-2018, 14:39

Oren - is there such a thing as 4x5 contact prints?

Of course there is. My favorite format is 6.5x8.5, but I'll gladly take 'em in any size for which I can get sheet film and feel up to lugging the camera on a given day, from 2.25x3.25 up to 12x20.

Dan Fromm

19-Sep-2018, 16:03

More on small contact prints. The first camera I used, when I was probably around seven years old, was a bakelite Brownie Hawkeye. It shot 620 film, made 2.25" x 2.25" (in metric, 6x6) negatives. The lab we used for processing returned contact prints.

ic-racer

19-Sep-2018, 16:13

I'm curious - why go with LF?

1. Individual development of each negative for better/finer control (doesn't PhotoShop make up for that, unless you're contact printing?)
No, I process ten or five at a time, usually all the same because I print on multigrade paper.

2. Movements for perspective control. Necessary in architectural shots, helpful in landscapes, any use elsewhere?
Somewhat, but I can use 6x9 for that also. Problem is 6x9 does not hold flat.

3. Large negative. Great for contact printing (I sold my darkroom, including a really nice DeVere 504 with color head).
No, I don't contact print, I use the big negatives for big enlargements.

Tin Can

19-Sep-2018, 16:18

angusparker

19-Sep-2018, 18:05

Age 7 I was doing Minox film contacts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minox). Father would not allow me an enlarger. Foolishness he said. Now I collect enlargers.

The real trick here, is this forum, has a place for every format and type of image maker.

In the right category/thread. Read our rulebook.

I may be forced by aging eyes into only contact printing. So my film will get bigger. Eureka! ULF in studio...

There is no single path to walk.

Wise words. See if you can borrow some equipment. Also think about your output pathway whether it be scanning to inkjet, analog printing with enlarge, analog contact printing, or creating digital negatives on acetate. What process, whether it be silver, cyanotype, platinum etc.

Almost always a good idea to start small as in a 4x5 view camera, a few holders, and one normal i.e. 150mm f5.6 modern lens in order to master the techniques and then consider alternative directions such as panoramic, 8x10 or ULF.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Liquid Artist

19-Sep-2018, 19:10

6x6,
If you are in British Columbia (preferably Kelowna) let me know and I will take you around for a day and let you try my 3 main cameras.
A 4x5 Linhof press camera.
5x7 Burke & James
And an 8x10 Kodak 2D

Corran

19-Sep-2018, 19:13

Oren - is there such a thing as 4x5 contact prints? The prevailing wisdom so far seems to indicate 4x5 is a good place to start, before eventually moving up to 8x10.

I contact print 4x5, and mat it to 8x10. Looks great. The small image is nice to handhold. They make great assemblages - I have some small places in my house that I can stack 3 of these prints on top of each other to make a series (I have done this for 3 images of the same place, for instance). I am learning that dense, busy images do not work, which in hindsight is a bit obvious. Better images have simpler composition and larger elements to stand out in the small size.

I also contact print 8x10 and 8x20. 8x20 contact images are really something - at the art festival I did last weekend, the couple I brought really made an impact. Probably could've sold this print 4 times (http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/820print-8817s.jpg) but only had one matted and framed. Need to make more, clearly - and I have a couple other negatives ready to print.

Anyway - I have some 13x19 prints from 6x9 negatives and they are just about as good as a 4x5 enlargement. Larger enlargements, I prefer 4x5, and am working on my 8x10 enlarger and a way to develop up to 40x50 inch prints. Soon. Well maybe next year, we'll see how the next couple festivals go. The arguments for LF are long and varied. Most could get the same images or close to it with a $400 DSLR but you know, personal choice. Just get a cheap Crown Graphic or whatever and give it a whirl. What's to lose.

Peter Lewin

19-Sep-2018, 19:44

I shoot MF because I was never satisfied with the tiny 35mm negatives, or the tonality, resolution, etc. I'd rather have 12 frames to really concentrate on making count than 24-36 that were less critical and received less attention and care.
6x6TLL: a few observations based on various posts in this thread.

I agree with your comparison between 35mm and MF. Like you, I find the tonality and resolution significantly improved in MF. However, in my experience, the difference between 6x6 and 4x5 is much less obvious. I print my good images on 11x14 FB paper (usually with a bunch of iterations to get burning, dodging, and contrast where I want them). At that size, I see little difference between my MF and LF work; I'm tempted to say none, because I'm happy enough with the prints made from MF negatives to not feel any compulsion to do careful side-by-side analysis. I carefully specified maximum print size; I am aware that at larger magnifications I'm probably wrong.

Another post mentioned that the kinds of images you make with LF are different from smaller formats, certainly 35mm. Again, keeping my answer specific to my own experience and "eye," I have noticed that regardless of format, I tend to take "LF" images. There is a bit of chicken-and-egg here, I don't know if my love of LF has made me more aware of static architecture, landscape, and interiors, or whether I always had the interest and concluded that LF worked well with those subjects. I still shoot 35mm, but only when the subject requires it (I was a serious bicycle racer for many years, and while I would photograph races I wasn't in myself, it would never have made sense to use either MF or LF). My MF use is almost always simply a "travel choice," it is easier to pack and carry one MF camera with one lens and no tripod, versus my LF backpack with multiple lenses, holders, meters, tripod, etc. But the subjects I choose are almost always the same ones I would photograph with my LF camera if I had it with me. So you have to think about the kind of images that attract you.

Lastly, following your own questions and posts, I suggest you have answered your own quality of camera question. I would say that if money were no object, you could but together an Arca-Swiss packable option, with the folding rail, that would probably meet any need you could come up with; a Linhof Technicardan would do the same thing at similar cost, and both offer a tactile precision-engineered feel that can't be bettered. But ... given your questions about why use LF when you already have MF, I think you should gain enough experience with a lower-cost LF camera and one lens, to decide whether the format appeals to you. If it does, then you can jump to the highest quality camera you can afford.

John Kasaian

19-Sep-2018, 20:39

It is both mentally and physically demanding figuring out how and finally getting all your camera stuff where it needs to be.
Focusing on a ground glass is dang near mystical...or magical. The bigger the gg the more fantastic it gets. A 12x20 gg can give me vertigo.
Mixing large amounts of chemicals fulfills some ancient urge recalling alchemy, witchcraft, and 1950's mad scientist "B" movies
Watching a contact print come to life in a tray of developer is like watching creation.
Besides it's a heck of a lot of fun!
Contact printing is about as hands on as it gets---minimal equipment----it's as if contact prints have some unique energy.
Besides it's a heck of a lot of fun! Oh wait, I already said that.:o

DG 3313

19-Sep-2018, 20:46

Working in large format is bucket list stuff.......you don't know until....you know!

Andrew O'Neill

19-Sep-2018, 20:47

Large negatives for contact printing in alternative processes.

Jody_S

19-Sep-2018, 20:58

It's performance art. If I just want a picture of something, I use my phone like everybody else.

6x6TLL

20-Sep-2018, 01:02

It's performance art. If I just want a picture of something, I use my phone like everybody else.

Lol!

Pere Casals

20-Sep-2018, 01:18

Pere - I shoot MF because I was never satisfied with the tiny 35mm negatives, or the tonality, resolution, etc.

In theory 35mm MF and LF have the same tonality for the same film (and development). We may use different films in 35mm than in MF, because grain size of the film. I always like the TX grain with MF but only sometimes with 35mm.

I also consider MF being a very powerful size, you made a good choice. A good MF shot delivers more image quality than the eye can discern in most practical situations, grain is delicate and nice or not seen. Nice out of focus roll-off nature, Convenient and portable. It was a very Pro choice.

Today it's still the workhorse of top notch wedding photographers... that's amazing in these digital days.

LF offers you a new set of aesthetical tools, IMHO the motivation to make the step to LF should come from those resources, because you have to enlarge a lot to see the better image quality from LF vs MF.

I'm a newcomer to LF and still exploring those aesthetical resources, this is not something I could get explained in short.
But I still realized that LF has an impressive aesthetical heritage that's for the future. Perhaps one day this will be rediscovered by a mainstream of photographers.

IanBarber

20-Sep-2018, 01:34

I contact print 4x5, and mat it to 8x10. Looks great. The small image is nice to handhold. They make great assemblages - I have some small places in my house that I can stack 3 of these prints on top of each other to make a series (I have done this for 3 images of the same place, for instance). I am learning that dense, busy images do not work, which in hindsight is a bit obvious. Better images have simpler composition and larger elements to stand out in the small size.

I would like to see some examples if you have them. This is something which interests me

campy

20-Sep-2018, 05:28

I am doing it because I can do foolish things at times. I don't have the talent or the patience but I came across a great deal on a Calumet C1 8x10 camera, a Dagor 10 3/4 inch lens and 4 near new film holders for $300 and I said WTF I'll try it. I just found a used tripod to hold the weight and hope to try my first one this weekend. I intend to do contact prints.

Pere Casals

20-Sep-2018, 07:05

Calumet C1 8x10 camera

Yousuf Karsh "settled on the Calumet C-1 8×10 for the vast majority of his work". http://www.anatomyfilms.com/yousuf-karsh-portrait-royalty/

This is well known, but's nice to remember it.

Mamu

20-Sep-2018, 07:25

I was bitten by the shutterbug in '89 when I watched my first paper pinhole neg image form in the developer tray. Personal pleasure is the primary reason my top two weapons of choice are an 8x10 pinhole and a Crown Graphic Special 4x5. Procreation can be achieved in the test tube but many still prefer using the traditional method when possible. All formats serve a purpose, even if as a toy format for children. Traditionally, medium and larger formats offered the excess quality one need to make internegatives or color separations for printing without any easily detected loss of quality. A 6x6 transparency can be enlarged to 4x5 internegative to produce gorgeous 40x60's. Minimizing everything until you have just enough image quality to make the predetermined maximum print size from a camera rendered jpeg seems to be the driving concern these days. You can print awesome 13x19's from a high quality micro 4:3 camera with a good capture / editing. A 4x5 neg gives you the option of doing anything with it, even enlarged negs for contact prints. The average person born after 1970 who hasn't been exposed to pro or advanced ameratuer photography, is probably unaware of medium and larger formats. When you expect an 11x14 print to show grain and then see a 16x20 from 4x5, it's quite impressive (as are ture silver gelatin prints even if produced by lightjet). After thirty years, I don't want to go out and get as much practice capturing images as possible. Occasionally, I go out to shoot and never pull out the camera. I prefer to be in the darkroom with 4 negs rather than at my computer with 400. The 4x5 view camera is the classic tool for learning. I you acquire the understanding and skills to use one, you won't find two many cameras that you can't operate in manual mode once you find the controls. At the end of the day, for me it's about working in and keeping alive the tradition of 20th century fine art black and white photography and doing whatever I can for younger folks who are interested in doing the same. Traditional photography requires not only a financial investment, but investing time and effort. To me, that adds value.

Corran

20-Sep-2018, 07:58

I would like to see some examples if you have them. This is something which interests me

Here's a single image in the 8x10 mat, with a black "frame" added in Photoshop. I frame them with full borders from the film (they are contact printed onto 5x7 paper):

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/print-7321ssmf.jpg

I have a friend who owns a frame shop cut them to my exact dimensions, 10 or 20 at a time.

I would take a pic of one of my triptych assemblages but everything is packed up for art festivals so they aren't hanging at the moment.

6x6TLL

20-Sep-2018, 08:27

Beautiful, Bryan (Corran),

thanks for sharing. It looks great, quite striking.

Corran

20-Sep-2018, 08:52

Thanks! Folks love the black outline, especially when I explain why it's there. So don't think you can't contact print these (kinda) small negs. I also contact print 6x17 negatives!

DrTang

20-Sep-2018, 09:09

Because the cameras are big and heavy, the process complicated, the cost very high and all of that make you feel superior to those who use dinky formats.

HELLS YEAH..... after shooting 11x14... I scoff at all you 'pudie format (4x5 & 5x7) users'.....MAN UP!!!

IanBarber

20-Sep-2018, 12:26

Here's a single image in the 8x10 mat, with a black "frame" added in Photoshop. I frame them with full borders from the film (they are contact printed onto 5x7 paper):

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/print-7321ssmf.jpg

I have a friend who owns a frame shop cut them to my exact dimensions, 10 or 20 at a time.

I would take a pic of one of my triptych assemblages but everything is packed up for art festivals so they aren't hanging at the moment.

Very nice. Thats the sort of presentation I am looking for. Do you happen to know the dimensions he cuts them to

Corran

20-Sep-2018, 12:28

This is the template I send to her. I don't weight the mat because I use these for both horizontal and vertical and it hasn't much been an issue.

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/mat81045.jpg

It's great to work with a frame shop who knows you and what you need. She's used to working with these templates and includes the template in with the cut mats in bags so I can easily find what I'm looking for, which is great when I'm matting 40 prints in a week...

IanBarber

20-Sep-2018, 12:34

Thanks, are you making a custom black border or just letting the outer edges of the 7x5 go to black when exposing under the enlarger

Corran

20-Sep-2018, 12:37

Nope it's just the paper, film, and then glass in an 8x10 contact printer. There's no reason I can think of to mask off just the film. Well, I suppose if you were dry mounting and so want a white border on the paper, maybe that would be good, but with the overmat it doesn't much matter.

IanBarber

20-Sep-2018, 12:39

You mention an 8x10 contact printer. Would 2 sheets of 3mm glass do or do you think a proper contact printer helps to get a sharper image

Corran

20-Sep-2018, 12:51

The contact printer has a thick sheet of glass - probably 1/4" or so. Not sure how two glass sheets would work. I've also used thinner acrylic sheets with weights on it (1/2" metal bars that I use in my scanner for weights on ANR acrylic).

Mark Sawyer

20-Sep-2018, 13:09

"One more question while I'm here - why Large Format?"

For the best reason of all... because I want to.

Jim Galli

20-Sep-2018, 13:44

Late to the party, but oh well, if it were not for serious soft focus lenses, I would not bother with large format film cameras.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Verito/7_inch/38Coupe7Verito_01s.jpg

The dreamy soft focus interpretations that are only possible with the brute force of gigantic real estate; (ie. 5X7, 6.5X8.5, 8X10 film) and ancient soft focus portrait and pictorial leneses, are to me the final hold out.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Verito/7_inch/38Coupe7Verito_02.jpg

These images to me at least (and in my world, I'm the only vote that counts) are a breath of fresh air in a sea of stupid-sharp-all-the-sameness. I'm weary of perfect pictures. Give me a piece of film with the dirt and grit and nose hairs left over from me cutting it to the size I needed for the camera.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Verito/7_inch/38Coupe7Verito_03.jpg

On a summer evening at 6000 feet elevation where I live, if I'm alone, the potatoes go in the oven for 2 hours of baking, and I get in the survivor Ford and go looking for some kind of a back drop. Almost anything will do.

In this case, the 7" (178mm, Virginia) Verito is a bit undersized for the 5X7 film, which is why it gets to swirling out on the far edges. Yumm. Even better.

I have a hundred ancient lenses with a hundred different personalities, and honestly, that's the only reason I keep taking pictures.

Of course the Nikon D200 is handy for when I horse trade on ebay :~'))

goamules

20-Sep-2018, 18:03

Nice points made Jim.

cowanw

20-Sep-2018, 18:31

Yousuf Karsh "settled on the Calumet C-1 8×10 for the vast majority of his work". http://www.anatomyfilms.com/yousuf-karsh-portrait-royalty/

This is well known, but's nice to remember it.

Although the Calumet C-1 8×10 was first made in 1956, by which time Karsh's most reproduced photographs were done.

Pere Casals

21-Sep-2018, 00:22

Although the Calumet C-1 8×10 was first made in 1956, by which time Karsh's most reproduced photographs were done.

anyway since 1956 to 1990 the C-1 was the Camera One, following Air Force One, Marine One, Army One and Coast Guard One

I guess he karshed all those US presidents with the C-1.

He karshed Churchill with firewood gear, this is one of the most reproduced photographs ever as it apeared in bank notes. So firewood gear is also excellent to make exceptional photographs !

182662

Another YK highly reproduced shot was Queen Elizabeth II, in mail stamps, IIRC this was a hassy with Kodachrome.

but I fully agree that the most interesting work from YK comes from firewood gear, because by then YK was breaking some aesthetic rules of the time

anyway the C-1 was the Camera One for 3 decades and a half.

cowanw

21-Sep-2018, 08:43

Karsh’s other favourite cameras: the Graphic View and the Rolleiflex. The Graphic View camera was used for trips outside the studio because it is small and lightweight, while offering the same swing and tilt control as the Calumet. The Graphic View however, produced negatives of only one-quarter the size of what could be done with the bigger Calumet, although the Calumet was also used with a 4x5 reducer. The Rolleiflex camera dates from the 1950s and because of its compact size it was used for overseas travel.

Tin Can

21-Sep-2018, 09:15

Karsh also had a very attractive white painted C1.

More history here. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/calumet/calumetc8x10.html

cowanw

21-Sep-2018, 09:21

Have a view of Getty's images
https://www.gettyimages.ca/photos/yousuf-karsh?mediatype=photography&page=2&phrase=yousuf%20karsh&sort=mostpopular&family=editorial
for a look at Karsh's 4x5 twin lens reflex and the Graphic view with some of the sitters.

Tin Can

21-Sep-2018, 09:30

cowanw

21-Sep-2018, 09:58

Cool, only seven 8x10 Gowlandflex were made apparently.

Tin Can

21-Sep-2018, 10:12

Cool, only seven 8x10 Gowlandflex were made apparently.

My mistake, I have a 4X5 which I think was in the first pic group.

Drew Wiley

21-Sep-2018, 10:21

I've seen a 5x7 Gowlandflex. Apparently he accepted custom requests.

David Lobato

21-Sep-2018, 10:49

Look up Laura Gilpin. She was a large format photographer in New Mexico. She inspires me in my large format photography.

Randy

21-Sep-2018, 11:52

I haven't read every response, so I'll just throw this out to the OP - if you are the slightest bit curious, just give it a try:

An old, usable 4X5 camera - $200 or much less.
An old, usable 150mm(ish) lens in shutter - $100 or less.
A few 4X5 film holders - $3 each (give or take).
4X5 film - $1 a sheet.

4X5 negs make wonderful little contact prints - I like to display mine on little black wooden easels.

Anyway, if it's not for you, sell it all for pretty much what you paid.

aaronnate

21-Sep-2018, 11:54

It gets me hot chicks.

Hey Baby check this bellows extension.

Mamu

23-Sep-2018, 08:11

You mention an 8x10 contact printer. Would 2 sheets of 3mm glass do or do you think a proper contact printer helps to get a sharper image

I use a diy contact printer and light. I attached a sheet of normal 8x10 framing glass to foam core and then put a larger sheet on top with a tape hing. I use a couple of clamps to keep everything flat and tight. Make sure the only thing between the sheets of glass are the paper and neg. Works great for silver gelatin but you would want a box with two large sheets of glass and a couple of UV tubes for serious alt process stuff.

Here is one of my 4x5 contacts. I do a fully manual scan and then set the white and black points and sharpen. I hit a few dustspots and this neg has issuse but this is one of my a diy contact printer print:

182725

6x6TLL

25-Sep-2018, 08:45

Thanks Randy,

could you be more specific as to gear? I.e. what camera/lens can I get for that price? I have an offer for a few free film holders, and know where to buy film. About the only other thing I don't have is a dark cloth and a darkroom (sold mine last winter when I moved, unfortunately, maybe I should have brought it along...)

Thanks!

I haven't read every response, so I'll just throw this out to the OP - if you are the slightest bit curious, just give it a try:

An old, usable 4X5 camera - $200 or much less.
An old, usable 150mm(ish) lens in shutter - $100 or less.
A few 4X5 film holders - $3 each (give or take).
4X5 film - $1 a sheet.

4X5 negs make wonderful little contact prints - I like to display mine on little black wooden easels.

Anyway, if it's not for you, sell it all for pretty much what you paid.

6x6TLL

25-Sep-2018, 08:48

I appreciate all the comments, it's given me a lot to consider. One thing I do agree with is that it would be good to try it out, or spend some time with someone who's using it to get a feel for the workflow. I'm so used to a handheld camera (even when I do have a tripod along), it's difficult to see how working with LF would be in practice.

That said, I'm now based in the Los Angeles area when not in Europe doing projects. Are there any LF photographers around who wouldn't mind me tagging along or hanging out, or going out to shoot (I'll bring along my MF gear)?

Randy

25-Sep-2018, 09:57

Lenses - Looking on ebay, there are many decent modern lenses from Japan sellers - just looking at the 150mm lenses there are some just under / over $100 plus about $25 shipping. I have purchased several from Japan sellers at very reasonable prices in excellent condition and fast chipping.

Camera - best bet may be a monorail 4X5 - they seem to be the least expensive. There is a Calumet 4X5 CC400 listed BIN for $43 + shipping.
Just have to insure the bellows is light-tight and the camera functions and is not missing any parts.

4X5 film - Arista EDU ISO 100

Dark cloth - black material from the fabric store or an old black T-shirt or dark colored towel.

Darkroom - I use a bathroom which I make light-tight with some tape and black felt - I process film with my trays in the bathtub. Been doing it this way for the past 15 years.

An old, usable 4X5 camera - $200 or much less.
An old, usable 150mm(ish) lens in shutter - $100 or less.
A few 4X5 film holders - $3 each (give or take).
4X5 film - $1 a sheet.

Thanks Randy,

could you be more specific as to gear? I.e. what camera/lens can I get for that price? I have an offer for a few free film holders, and know where to buy film. About the only other thing I don't have is a dark cloth and a darkroom (sold mine last winter when I moved, unfortunately, maybe I should have brought it along...)

Thanks!

Corran

25-Sep-2018, 14:18

Working with students, the fastest way for them to dump 4x5 and never look back is to hand them a 20lb monorail case.

If you are taking your camera anywhere, do yourself a favor and get a beater Crown Graphic for $200 or less. Just saw one that looked like absolute garbage but had good bellows and a working lens at an antique store for $150. Would've bought it just to find it a good home except I know the dumb camera collectors and well-heeled amateurs want cream puffs, not users, so I'd have been sitting on it for a while.

Jim Jones

25-Sep-2018, 18:07

Lenses. . . Camera - best bet may be a monorail 4X5 - they seem to be the least expensive. There is a Calumet 4X5 CC400 listed BIN for $43 + shipping.
Just have to insure the bellows is light-tight and the camera functions and is not missing any parts. . . .

I believe that one just sold. The description said not fully functional. The last thing a new LF photographer should struggle with is a camera that has problems.

David Lobato

25-Sep-2018, 18:52

A few years ago in Baltimore, MD, I found an Omega View 45D with a 150mm Rodenstock Sironar N lens for $165. I like using it and the monorail design is easy to use but a little difficult to transport.

Jody_S

25-Sep-2018, 19:04

I.e. what camera/lens can I get for that price?

Thanks!

Burke & James folding 4x5 cameras routinely go for under $100 on the big auction site, sometimes with a perfectly usable lens. They're small and light enough to backpack with, and have every camera movement you could ever want. But they don't lock down precisely aligned like other cameras that sell for 8-12 times the price, and they're ugly until you strip the grey paint off and lacquer them

Leszek Vogt

25-Sep-2018, 21:49

Here is one at KEH, listed as EX shape https://www.keh.com/shop/4x5-b-j-orbit-wide-angle-1.html?rrec=true

Than I saw Graphic View on KEH, also in EX shape but for 80 bucks more.

But the best deal (sort of seems) Graphic w/ 3 lenses is on CL near you in Holly: https://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/pho/d/large-format-camera-with/6689756860.html

Les

Bernice Loui

25-Sep-2018, 21:55

Majority of Monorail 4x5 cameras do not weight 20 pounds. Possible the entire outfit with lenses, film holders, accessories and tripod will weight 20 pounds or more, camera alone mostly no.

For anyone beginning the view camera journey, camera, lens, film holders, loupe, light meter, tripod and related must be as problem free as possible, reliable as possible and apparent in it's operation as possible.

While many current view camera folks favor folding or field cameras, they are more difficult to use (fact folks, have owned and used MANY of them). Due to this demand, their market prices tend to be higher than a good monorail camera.

Suggestions would be:

*4x5 Sinar F from KEH camera (or similar), they currently have a few in the just just up to and just over $200 range. They come with a warranty-right to return and KEH has a reasonably good reputation for customer service and quality of used items. Sinar Monorail is easy to use, reliable, low cost, not too heavy (6to7 pounds). Easy and plentiful accessories-lens boards. The Sinar system is completely modular and expandable (light leaky bellows or different bellows needed can be changed in seconds with plenty of spares available. Rail and bellows can be expended to as much as any image maker would ever need), essentially the camera system can grow with you on the journey of using a view camera. Anyone beginning to use a view camera does not need camera problems and a easier to use camera has a LOT of advantages.

https://www.keh.com/shop/sinar-4x5-f1-view-camera-body-224064.html

https://www.keh.com/shop/sinar-4x5-f-view-camera-body-224061.html
*One with the bad bellows is the bargain. Bellows are easy to replace, low cost and plentiful.

*One modern lens in the 150mm to 210mm range with a f5.6 full aperture in a known good-reliable Copal shutter. Lens-shutter problems for anyone starting to use a view camera can easily grow to beyond frustrating with a lot of time-effort-film being wasted.

*Known good condition film holders that DO NOT HAVE LIGHT LEAKS. This is where cheap used films holders can cause enormous grief, waste of time-resources and much frustration.

*Good Spot or incident light meter that is proven-certified accurate reliable. The bias fave is Minolta Spor F.

*GOOD tripod stable enough for a 4x5. Stability does not mean weight the tripod can support, it means stable and not flimsy that is easy to use. Ball heads with a view camera is not a good idea at all.

*Dark cloth. Nothing fancy just functional. For outdoor image making, one side white other side black has an advantage of being cooler in the sun with the white side facing the sun.

*Loupe to focus with, does not need to be that fancy, about 4x to no more than 8x.

*Good cable release for the lens.

*Durable fitted case for all the above. Case should be white or light color exterior. Black camera cases which appears to be the common fashion can cook the contents to well-done with ease on a hot sunny day. Pelican makes cases with wheels in colors such as yellow, orange or beige. Wheeled cases are worth while as they ease transport. Those who favor field or similar folding cameras might recommend a back pack or similar.
For those who do hiking with their view camera, the field camera or folding camera with related light weight support bits applies greatly.

*Boxes of low cost B&W film to start.

*Means to process B&W film.

*Means to contact print or scan processed film.

The related film photographic skills and technical aspects apply in much the same way.

Bernice

Corran

26-Sep-2018, 05:12

Notice I said monorail case Bernice. The big bulky Toyo case weighed like 10-15lbs by itself! The camera is over 12lbs. You're right though I was somewhat inaccurate. With a big enough tripod the setup was closer to 40lbs. Again, if working in the field, this absolutely kills any enthusiasm for LF. I know, because I schlepped my Toyo for a while before getting a Crown.

Tin Can

26-Sep-2018, 05:57

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?3932-Calumet-Cadet&p=23555&viewfull=1#post23555

I had one, but sold it here.

I still have the very lightweight case.

Corran

26-Sep-2018, 06:04

I don't know what the Toyo is made out of but I think it must be thick sheets of plywood. I use it as a storage trunk. The Toyo sits on my shelf - I still use it occasionally, for architecture, where it shines with the precision movements and bag bellows for my 72 or 90mm lenses. I actually shot some LF architectural images with it on one of my jobs, to supplement the digital work.

Bernice Loui

26-Sep-2018, 08:22

5x7 Sinar Norma with Pelican 1635 case. This is the largest FAA approved carry on case with wheels. The Pelican 1635 weights about 8.5 pounds empty, has wheels and collapsing pull handle. Inside this case:
182803

*5x7 Sinar Norma with Bag and standard bellows., Sinar shutter.

*115mm Grandagon, 165mm Angulon, 240mm Xenar, 450mm APO artar all in barrel except the 115mm Grandagon.

*Minolta Spot Meter F and spare battery.

*Six 5x7 or 13x18cm film holders.

*Horseman focusing loupe.

*Darkness cloth.

*Series nine B&W filter set with Sinar swinging filter holder.

*Sinar shutter cable release and long standard cable release for the 115mm grandagon.

*Small tape measure.

All up the case weights about 25 pounds. The modified Dutch Hill surveyors tripod with Sinar pan-tilt head is another 6-8 pounds or so. This tripod can be stacked on the Pelican case and wheeled along. There is a huge difference between carrying 20+ pounds of camera gear -vs- rolling on a cart 20+ pounds of camera gear.

As for folding and field cameras, this is the previously owned or used list:

4x5 Linhof Master Technica.

5x7 Linhof Technica V.

4x5 Horseman FA.

4x5 Speed and Crown Graphic.

4x5 Canham DLC (really liked this one).

5x7 Wisner Field.

8x10 Dorf.

8x10 Toyo 810M modified with a Sinar front standard to allow using Sinar shutter and Sinar lens boards (really liked this one).

All up weight of a field or folder camera (lenses, film holders, light meter, dark cloth and ..) is not that much less than a light weight monorail like a Sinar Norma or Sinar F.

Yet each and every time after some time of using or owning a field or folder, I'm back to a monorail due to the camera limitations of a field-folder camera. Then again, it is directly related to the images made.

Add, one Arca Swiss 6x9 sort of view camera system. This is light weight, lower weight than a Hasselblad system.

Bernice

Corran

26-Sep-2018, 08:31

That's certainly your prerogative. My Chamonix, a couple lenses, Grafmatics, loupe, lightweight jacket for a darkcloth, AND my small CF tripod strapped to the pack weighs in at about 10-12 pounds. You can't roll a case on the Appalachian Trail. I am well aware that I am a more mobile LF photographer than most here. Long slow burns up a mountain ridge are regularly on the schedule so that much gear is a no-go, especially if I also have camp gear. So it depends on the photographer. Again, I was just pointing out that students (new practitioners) of 4x5 inevitably dropped it immediately after schlepping specifically the monstrosity that is a Toyo G + case, owned by the university. Every last one of them. Those who borrowed a Crown Graphic were better off, and made better images because they actually got out there and used it.

Bernice Loui

26-Sep-2018, 08:50

Which nicely illustrates why different cameras for different needs. Me, allergic to camping and that hiking stuff.
There is NO one ideal camera and camera system for all image making needs.

IMO. it is easier to learn on a good monorail view camera. Once the basic skills have been learned, more specific image making needs can easily be applied.

Bernice

Corran

26-Sep-2018, 08:56

I do often suggest the Toyo or any cheap monorail as a good learning camera, since they are so inexpensive to buy. Unless they specifically want to shoot landscape, and then the suggestion of a Crown Graphic is made, for about the same money.

I'm pretty sure the reason monorails are so cheap is that this is the natural progression for those shooting outside the studio or anywhere that requires carrying the gear some distance. They kill their backs making a couple images and then immediately go looking for a field cam. That's what I did, I just kept the Toyo since it was mint and costed all of $200 including every accessory Toyo made it seems like. What a deal! Considering they still sell them for over $4k new.

Your specific setup to get outside (if not on the trail ;)) is admirable, but most won't really know enough or sink the time/money in to get the most mobile monorail options right off the bat.

Bernice Loui

26-Sep-2018, 09:55

That outfit was decades of lugging around a VC, that what the outfit evolved into.

Speed-Crown Graphics were once the workhorse press-media image making camera. There are LOTs of then around and mostly reasonable camera to use. Due to their age and previous life, most need some kind of service-repair before they can be fully serviceable. This is the kind of stuff that can cause anyone new to VC much grief. One of the key aspects of learning how to use a VC is fully functional and problem free, reliable VC outfit. None of the stuff for anyone new to VC can give much problem as it is difficult enough to go up the VC learning curve as is.

This is where the recommendation for a known good used Sinar F comes from as they are not expensive, easy to get parts for if needed, very straight forward to use and learn on. While there are plenty of other monorail view cameras, the Sinar stands out as a good value in many ways.

As a celebrity crow, Ansel Adams used a 4x5 Horseman L monorail for his outdoor Foto classes towards the end of his life.

Bernice

Corran

26-Sep-2018, 10:49

I remember we had one student manage to rip out the rear focus track on one of the Crown Graphics, forcing the camera closed without the focus racked in. Luckily I had some spare parts to fix it. By and large I personally haven't seen too many Speeds/Crowns with serious issues, out of the 2-3 dozen I've had through come through my hands.

PS here's an old photo from 2011 of me and the Toyo GII, hiking up to Clingmans Dome, the highest point in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Still have that tripod and use it with my bigger cameras. The metal case had my lenses, loupe, darkcloth, etc. The 15lb Toyo Case stayed home of course!

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com//photosharing/toyocarry.jpg

LabRat

26-Sep-2018, 17:27

Of all of the 50+ year old cameras I have worked on, I think the Graphic tends to be the camera that wakes from it's slumber the best... Bellows are usually ok, not a lot with the metal or wood, they respond well to restoration and care, and are usually complete enough to shoot (not a lot to fall off and get lost... The FP shutters are another matter, but a good chance can be made to work...

Too bad there's not a lot of movements available, but it makes up for it by being quite solid...

Steve K

6x6TLL

26-Sep-2018, 21:34

Wow, really a lot of great suggestions here, thanks to everyone for being so encouraging.

Ok, so remembering my previous bad experience with the Graphlex, I also remembered that I still had it somewhere in storage. Dug it out today along with some other stuff (anyone interested in a fully restored Contax IIa with multiple lenses, I'll be posting an ad soon...).

I remember really not enjoying it when I got it, despite trying it out I couldn't get it to work with me, only against me.

So I have a "Graphlex Century Graphic" with a Kalart "synchronized rangefinder". The camera has a metal folding viewing hood/shade on the rear that is spring loaded, and came with a few roll film backs (I only found one, it appears to be 6x7cm) by Singer. The two lenses (I thought there were 3, but couldn't find the third one) are Graphlex Optar 101mm f4.5 in an unknown shutter (larger than the other one, but not as large as a #3), and Schneider Angulon 65mm f6.8 in a synchro-compur (guessing #0 by the size).

The rangefinder doesn't seem to work, but I can focus roughly on the GG with the viewing hood shading the light. I should probably download the instruction manual (again) and familiarize myself with it. It seems to offer front rise as well as tilt, but only tilt upwards and ditto for rise, unless there's some way to drop the bed. I'll need to find a tripod plate for it to attach it to my ball head and tripod (RRS/Arca style).

Anyway, I suppose I could do a few tests with the camera as it is just to get an idea as to whether I want to get something bigger/meaner, like any one of the many excellent suggestions made here in the last few pages.

Corran

27-Sep-2018, 07:39

6x6TTL,

I use 2x3 Century Graphics a lot. I have 4 of them - one of them cut down to an ultralight camera dedicated to ultrawide lenses. I think they are great cameras, especially for travel or hiking due to the size/weight.

Using them can certainly be a bit fiddly, what with having to switch out the roll back and the ground glass when taking a photo. The ground glass is also of course tiny and a bit hard to focus on, especially with the 38mm I use a lot.

A 4x5 Graphic is a different animal. The sheer difference in size of the ground glass makes a big difference, and you aren't taking off the back panel to load your 4x5 film, you just slide it under the panel in the DDS holder. The nice thing about a Pacemaker Crown is you can use even a modern 58mm XL on it, up to a fairly long lens if you use a tele lens. It's a pretty versatile camera, but yes movements can be a bit limited. Note that you can reverse the front standard and get forward tilt instead of rear tilt - better for landscapes. But this makes it impossible to drop the bed and correct the lens up to parallel. It really depends on what lenses you use and how you shoot, whether or not you should do it. All my little Century Graphics have the standard reversed, because I don't use the drop bed.

As with any camera, you really need to know how to use it fully so you don't get frustrated in the field. For instance, yes as I mentioned your camera does have a drop bed. Push the center of the struts that are diagonally between the camera body and bed, and the camera will start to close. Keep the pressure up and straighten them back out and then past where they were, and the bed will push out into the lowered position. Unlock the front standard and correct the tilt back to vertical, and use rise to get back to "center." Note you have a limited range of focus there, and you may have to move your lens on the bed before focusing to get it back into range.

They are very usable cameras. HERE is a photo I shot with my 2x3 Century and 38mm XL lens a couple weeks ago (http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/savannah-1079ss.jpg).

Dan Fromm

27-Sep-2018, 08:44

OP, I've been a happy user of 2x3 Graphics for years.

To expand a little on Bryan's comments, be very careful when you close your Century. The focusing rail has to be racked all the way back. If you try to close the camera when the rail isn't racked all the way back -- use the focusing knob to move it as far back as possible, then unlock the front standard and push it as far back as possible, lock it and push on it to be sure -- you risk damaging the links that connect the inner and outer bed rails. Damaging them is a very bad idea.

I use a focusing aid with mine, a Cambo SF-320 inline viewer. These were, still may be, sold for Cambo 2x3 SF and Ultima cameras, fit all 2x3 Graflok backs. Your Century has a Graflok back. Yes, they're hard to find used.

Y'r 101 Optar should be in a Graphex shutter (rebadged Wollensak Rapax). If its speeds are off a CLA should restore them and is worth paying for. Your 65 Angulon should be in a Synchro-Compur #00. Same goes for it.

Unlike Bryan, I've had a really hard time focusing my 2x3 Graphics by eye with the focusing hood erected. When I don't use my SF-320, I use a focusing loupe. My current loupe is a Toyo (discontinued, hard to find), in the past I've used Ednalite Magnifinder loupes. Period correct, not that hard to find (there are 3 up on eBay now), usually inexpensive.

I agree with Bryan that using clip-on roll holders isn't fun. So I use insertion type roll holders, that slip in like a sheef film holder. The much-despised but very useful Adapt-A-Roll 620, 2x3 size. Not that hard to find, usually not very inexpensive. Read about them on graflex.org. They will feed from a 120 spool, must take up on a 620 spool and (horrors!) don't always wind the film tight on the take-up spool. I unload mine in a changing bag and respool the exposed film in the 120 spool it came from. Not as horrible as it sounds. But since you already have clip-on roll holders, use them unless you absolutely can't stand clipping and unclipping.

I don't agree with Bryan that using the drop bed to get movements is useful. This works for a narrow range of focal lengths and focused distances. Front rise, all 19 mm of it, is, however, very useful for disappearing foregrounds and shooting tall subjects without tilting the camera and getting (more horrors) converging verticals.

Corran

27-Sep-2018, 08:49

I don't agree with Bryan that using the drop bed to get movements is useful. This works for a narrow range of focal lengths and focused distances. Front rise, all 19 mm of it, is, however, very useful for disappearing foregrounds and shooting tall subjects without tilting the camera and getting (more horrors) converging verticals.

Dan, I agree! Especially regarding the limited range of useful lenses. My 80mm Xenotar especially doesn't work with the drop bed, as it needs to be right on the ridge of the bed to focus. Anyway, that's why I mentioned reversing the front standard, so that direct forward tilt can be used w/o dropping the bed at all. Again, depends on lenses used.

Regarding focusing - I have a bad case of near-sightedness, so I look over/under my glasses onto the GG and that works pretty well for me. If I need a loupe I definitely take off the focusing hood and use a darkcloth.

6x6TLL

27-Sep-2018, 17:30

Dan Fromm

27-Sep-2018, 18:23

OP, look at the Graflex links in "the list." Here's a link to the list: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?138978-Where-to-look-for-information-on-LF-(mainly)-lenses

To clear up a misconception, the Kalart range finder can be calibrated for one lens. When the lens is replaced the RF has to be recalibrated. I've done it, typically takes me around half an hour. Not to be done in the field.

The way to use multiple lenses on a Graphic with a Kalart is to have an pair of infinity stops and a focusing scale for each lens. Use the Kalart to measure the distance, read it from the scale for the lens the Kalart is calibrated for, transfer the reading to the scale for the lens in use. This is the same procedure used to focus any lens but the normal one on, e.g., a Kodak Retina III. Obnoxious. I just focus on the GG. And I shoot from tripod, not hand-held.

There are two solutions to switching lenses on a Pacemaker Graphic. Have a set of infinity stops for each lens. Or, have a moveable infinity stop. It is explained in the list's link to "Lenses for 2x3 Graphics", which is under the Small and Medium Format Cameras and Lenses heading. Look in the 2x3 Graphics piece for Chinaman, that's what they used to be called. There are even pictures. Easy to use, a decent machine shop can make one for you if you don't have a milling machine.

GG dim? Wash it. Or, measure it and buy a replacement.

Fresnels are available. If your Century doesn't have one -- early ones didn't -- you'll have to mount whatever fresnel you get behind the GG. That's between the GG and you.

the clip is really tightly springed

This doesn't sound right. Removing the focusing panel should be easy. Follow the links to a user manual to see how to remove the focusing panel.

Corran

27-Sep-2018, 19:48

A friend of mine replaced his Century's GG and fresnel with one bought on eBay. He tells me it is way brighter. I haven't seen it, but was going to check it out next time I see him, and maybe get a set for myself if so.

My GG has nice 6x6 and 6x7 framelines, which is helpful (full frame is 6x9).

LabRat

28-Sep-2018, 00:20

Thanks for the ideas.

Any suggestions as to where on the west coast (Los Angeles) I could get the shutters/lenses checked and serviced?

I'll look into the Adapt-a-roll, the clip is really tightly springed and a pita to get off the back of the camera, although it clicks nicely into place.

The bigger problem is the GG, it's horribly dim. I have a loupe, a Rollei 6x6 magnifier designed to also fit onto my 6008i. Alas, it's slightly too big to fit inside the pop-up hood :-(. Typical. I don't want to have to buy another one. I'm nearsighted, and the GG is so dim it's essentially unusable as is. Are there fresnels available? If not, I might just sell it and go back to my search for another camera. There's no way I can focus it as it is.

Also, do the infinity stops need to be moved when changing from the 101mm to 65mm lens?

The shutters can be serviced by Carol Miller at Flutot in Whittier, or Steve Choi in Culver City...

When you use the 65mm lens, it will usually be using the short track inside the camera body... You can leave the 101mm blocks in place if you just use those lenses... The older smaller cameras have blocks that screw down to the focusing rail slide, and these can get in the way if you start getting different lenses for it... Those two lenses are fun and useful... If you get a longer lens, you can sometimes just open the camera, leave the front standard inside camera, but roll the focus track out a little so you can carefully pull out the standard and put it back on the track in front to allow that new longer lens to focus..

As suggested, cleaning the GG on the back makes a big difference... On mine, I cut down a sheet page magnifier and put it on the back of the GG and that made it much brighter to focus...

If you are used to medium format cameras, this camera might seem a little backward at first, but has the same shooting procedure as a larger LF camera, so very good training... Getting some sheet film holders + film is good experience for you..

Have fun with it, and you will learn something new!!!

Steve K

Mamu

29-Sep-2018, 13:13

I love the Crown Graphic Special I've been using until I can get something with full movements. I didn't realize how badly I needed something with full movements until I got it. You have to change cams and set it up for using the rangefinder with each lens. If you're not going to shoot handheld, it's obviously not important. I had to download the manual just to open the thing. I like to take the metal hood off (little catch middle left side where it attaches to the back) and use a cheap loupe and DIY darkcloth (AKA black t-shirt) for critical focus. I had to push down pretty hard to get the bed on mine to drop. You'll learn a lot from it and whether LF is something you should seriously pursue. They aren't very user friendly machines so don't hesitate to ask lots of questions.

greg thomason

2-Oct-2018, 17:19

Another tool for the job. This one more unique than many, especially as an art form.

6x6TLL

13-Oct-2018, 01:16

I took two test rolls and just got the films back. The camera appears to work fine, shutter speeds are close enough for B&W work. I also took a roll of velvia while I was at it (too bad I didn't have any cheap positive film lying around instead), but it came out blank. I did notice when I wound the film on the Singer back that the B&W roll wound with some reluctance and resistance, while the velvia roll went through almost as if it wasn't there. It probably wasn't, I think there was a problem either with the back/advance, or with the way I loaded it (which I thought was identical the the B&W roll I took right beforehand).

Lens is sharp, the camera in use is fine, much easier once it's on a tripod.

I also had a look at a used Arca Swiss 4x5 camera for sale. It's not excessively heavy, but the 171mm frames are incredibly bulky and large. I also noticed that without the geared adjustments it ends up being a lot more fiddly to adjust. The geared knobs do make everything go quicker and smoother.

It seems I can pay less to carry more (bulk and weight), or pay more to carry less (for a new/modern A/S camera). There's always Toyo, Wista, Sinar and others, which I plan on investigating.

Are there any known issues with the Singer Graflex backs? It may well simply be my loading was off somehow, although the first roll worked fine.

Pere Casals

13-Oct-2018, 01:40

Are there any known issues with the Singer Graflex backs?

"In 1968, the Singer Corporation (famous for their sewing machines) bought Graflex Inc. Singer rebranded Graflex’s roll film backs with their own name".

Here you have plenty information: http://mercurycamera.com/backs/complete-guide-to-graflok-23-backs-graflex-mamiya-rb67-horseman-and-mercury/

(https://web.archive.org/web/20180821232317/http://mercurycamera.com/backs/complete-guide-to-graflok-23-backs-graflex-mamiya-rb67-horseman-and-mercury/)

Regarding your first 4x5 camera, a choice is first buying a cheap monorail camera, like cambo sc, or a toyo. There you may experiment/learn with movements and lenses. A monorail has no pratical limitations and you also will learn what limitations would you allow in a field camera.

After a few months you can replace that monorail for the camera you want. If you sell it you may loss some $70, because shipping etc, but having a solid criterion to purchase the proper gear it's worth beyond $70. Or perhaps you will want to keep it anyway, this would allow covering field usage with a more limited camera while having the full power of a monorail when a situation requires it.

Hauling a 8x10 monorail in the field cannot be adviced, but a 4x5 monorail can be better fielded because we are talking about some 1kg or 2kg excess compared to a field camera.

Another choice to start is an Intrepid camera.

Of course with an Arca Swiss you would buy top notch gear, but at this stage you still may not know what you would prefer in six months.

When engaging LF there are a lot of things to acquire, from glass to darkroom gear, so IMHO best way is starting cheap and building a solid criterion, and then calculating a budget for each "section" in order to have an optimal balance. This is avoiding G.A.S. :)

6x6TLL

13-Oct-2018, 13:08

Hi Pere,

thank you for your reply, I'll check out those websites.

Yes, I'm trying to avoid G.A.S. as much as possible. I've spent a day shooting with an Arca 4x5 with all the bells and whistles (thanks to Rod Klunkas for coming out to meet with me) and it was a great experience. While some things were fiddly, most of it was how I envisioned working with LF in the first place. I also spent a few hours with an older all-manual Arca 4x5, it was less exciting to be honest, and the camera was huge, bulky, and very fiddly.

One thing I've recognized in general (not only photography) is that ergonomics and good design are important for me, and things I'm willing to pay more for.

I've spent some time with the Century Graphic and will have the shutters and film magazine serviced (dropping them off today).

Your advice is sound, and mostly congruent with my experience in many fields I have an interest. One thing I have noticed through the years, is that cheap/poor quality tools can tend to put people off of the process in question. I also know that I tend to pick up new things pretty quickly, and like to have ample room to grow. Still, as pointed out elsewhere, putting more money into great quality glass and then trying out a few cheaper/used cameras until I find the one I want to use makes a lot of sense.

I do know I want something light, portable, flexible, and suitable for all-around work. I don't have a studio, so it will have to be portable, simple to set up and operate in the field, be that a meadow in the mountains, the middle of a busy street in Manhattan or a back alley in downtown LA.

My medium format bag currently weighs 8.1kg (just weighed it now), and that's without one of my lenses and several filters, or tripod (currently at 2.5kg, I plan on getting a carbon fiber one soon to reduce 0.5kg or more). I wouldn't want a LF setup to be any heavier.

Since a tripod is obligatory when working with LF, I would use LF for many of the same things I use MF for today, but not all. I carry one of several 6x6 cameras with me pretty much everywhere, usually either a Rollei TLR (for snapshots, street photography, informal portraits, travel, just wandering around finding things to shoot, always handheld) or a Rollei 6000 setup (landscapes, cityscapes, seascapes, portraits, etc. Usually about half handheld and half on a tripod).

So from my current POV, large format would augment/replace MF for landscapes especially, cityscapes, seascapes, possibly portraits, and force me to work slower/think more about the composition, lighting and shot before releasing the shutter, allow movements to manipulate the plane of sharpness and focus creatively as well as correct converging lines when photographing buildings, and provide me with even larger negatives (although I'm not sure that part is all that necessary).

Maybe I should concentrate on finding a few great lenses, and then look here and at eBay for a bargain camera to play around with and learn.

I sold my darkroom when I moved to the US, including a lovely DeVere 504 with color head and all the options. I don't plan on building a new one. While I can and will do my own developing, I'll either find a community darkroom I can use as needed, or find a lab/printer that can do that for me when making high quality prints. I've already found a place that makes very good lightjet prints and had a few large ones made from some 6x6 shots I made this summer. I still have my Jobo.

As far as the other bits and bobs, I think most of what I need, I have. Light meter, changing bag, developing gear, loupe, tripod, etc. I do need a focusing hood, and am thinking more and more of writing an app to log my settings and notes on my phone in the field. Post it notes and regular notes on my phone work fine normally, but not at night, or when I need to focus on the subject at hand and don't want to be interrupted.

Daniel Casper Lohenstein

23-Oct-2018, 00:36

Hello,

perhaps you already have G.A.S. You own two Rolleiflexes. You service an old Century Graphic and its film magazines.

You think of buying a greater, immovible camera as a "light, portable, flexible, and suitable for all-around work"-tool, that forces you "to work slower/think more about the composition, lighting and shot before releasing the shutter, allow movements to manipulate the plane of sharpness and focus creatively as well as correct converging lines when photographing buildings, and" provides you "with even larger negatives (although I'm not sure that part is all that necessary)."

Why don't you sell your Rolleiflex 6000 and buy a Rolleiflex SL66? With this tools you can manipulate sharpness and converging lines. Your workflow doen't change, and you are able to continue wandering around. OK, it's heavy.

If you want to have a greater negative size, why don't you try the Horseman VH or VHR? The VHR is lighter than the Rolleiflex 6000, the lenses are more modern and really excellent (e.g. Apo-Sironar, Apo-Symmar, Super-Angulon MC, Apo-Ronar) and definitely lighter than the Rollei lenses, and less expensive, too, you can use Mamiya RB67 film holders as well as Horseman 6x9 backs ... The rangefinder of the VHR offers spontaneity in handheld shots. And the camera is quite compact when folded. It's cheap, too. 250 USD, not comparable with an Arca Swiss or a Linhof Technika Press or another Rolleiflex. You can service it yourself.

6x6TLL

23-Oct-2018, 01:11

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for the excellent suggestions.

G.A.S. comes and goes, lol. I'm currently selling the Contax IIa I bought, thinking it would be great to use a rangefinder and do street photography. Except it wasn't. The Century I inherited, and tried out just to get a feel for what LF would/could be like.

I previously owned one Rolleiflex (the 6008) with a few lenses as my only camera, but after a trip to Paris with the family I realized it was simply too much to carry around, so I picked up a TLR as a travel/snapshot camera (still standardized on 120 roll film and the 6x6 frame I enjoy composing in). It didn't help that my SO at the time wasn't at all supportive of my photographic hobby, but she's no longer in the picture. The TLR is the camera I have with me pretty much everywhere. Those two are pretty much the only cameras I use, almost the only ones I have.

Other than that I have a few Nikons, also inherited, that I loan to friends and family or use when I'm teaching someone the basics of photography.

I looked at the SL66, it's simply too heavy and bulky. Really heavy. The Horseman is still roll film, 6x9 instead of 6x6. And having played around a bit with the Graflex, I'm not a huge fan of the press camera design in general.

One advantage pointed out here with LF is the fact that you're forced to work in a different way. With 35mm and MF, I can wander around and shoot whatever catches my eye, and the results are often about as random as the approach (which says more about me than the gear, ha ha ha). With LF you kind of have to think more about what it is you want to capture, how you want to convey it, what the ideal way to do so is. Yes, that's how anyone should work in any format (IMHO), but with LF you have to, with MF or 35mm it's an option, and the improvement in gear and automation makes it less and less likely to use that approach. What I'm trying to say is that I want to try moving away from the spontaneous approach, or at least use LF in a more methodical and mindful manner than I do MF. I can always bring out the Rollei if I want to be spontaneous.

I think too sometimes it's just nice to try something different. Sometimes after playing electric guitar for a while, it's nice to try an acoustic :-).

Another thing I've been reminded of, is that there is no one-right tool for all jobs. I tried for a long time to settle on one and only one camera system to cover everything (the 6008), and it doesn't make much sense (unless you only shoot one specific kind of thing). As many people pointed out, sometimes you need something small, light and fast, other times a LF rig makes more sense. Sometimes I use my phone camera! I'll be keeping both my Rolleis and using them as I always have, but will be trying out LF now, first for landscape, then around the city and ocean, and perhaps try out some portraits later on.

Lastly, I've spent a little bit of time with several of these types of cameras (press camera, folding field, monorail), and am drawn primarily to the monorail. I figure if that's what interests me and makes me want to try LF, I might as well follow it and see where it leads. Sometimes you have to go with your intuition.

Dan Fromm

23-Oct-2018, 05:42

Two quite unrelated thoughts.

Daniel, I'm all for solidarity among Daniels but I have to disagree a little with you. Topcor lenses for the 2x3 Horseman cameras are quite competitive with equivalent lenses from the big four.

6x6TLL, there's no reason why you can't work slowly and thoughtfully with any image capture device. And, although taking a long series of snapshots with a camera that uses sheet film and whose shutter has to be cocked manually isn't very practical (but think press shutter and Grafmatic), it is easy to shoot thoughtlessly with any camera that has a coupled rangefinder.

Internalize shooting discipline, don't rely on gear to enforce it.

However, if you want to buy gear "I wanna" is a good enough reason.

6x6TLL

23-Oct-2018, 06:22

Hi Dan,

I'm pretty sure I said as much (twice) in this thread.

Two quite unrelated thoughts.

6x6TLL, there's no reason why you can't work slowly and thoughtfully with any image capture device. And, although taking a long series of snapshots with a camera that uses sheet film and whose shutter has to be cocked manually isn't very practical (but think press shutter and Grafmatic), it is easy to shoot thoughtlessly with any camera that has a coupled rangefinder.

Internalize shooting discipline, don't rely on gear to enforce it.

However, if you want to buy gear "I wanna" is a good enough reason.

Agree on both counts. Not quite sure why people are telling me not to follow what I'm interested in and do someting else instead. But I asked, and am thankful for the opinions and perspectives that people have offered. Knowing myself and my purchasing habits, I'm one of the last people who would be swayed by G.A.S. I don't even own a digital camera (phone aside).

But yes, discipline comes from within. There are structural and systemic things we can do to encourage it, however. Slowing down and putting the controls on manual is one of them.

Great discussion, I really enjoy and value hearing other peoples suggestions, opinions and experiences.

Daniel Casper Lohenstein

24-Oct-2018, 00:40

Two quite unrelated thoughts.

Daniel, I'm all for solidarity among Daniels but I have to disagree a little with you. Topcor lenses for the 2x3 Horseman cameras are quite competitive with equivalent lenses from the big four.

Hi Dan,

you are completely right! especially because these Topcor lenses were calculated for medium format that has to be enlarged. The reason I mentioned the large format lenses is that the Horseman VHR offers the possibility to do some 4x5 work, with the adapter. I do not know wether the image circle of a medium format Topcor is large enough ...

Daniel Casper Lohenstein

24-Oct-2018, 00:58

"Slowing down and putting the controls on manual" can be inspiring.

But paying too much attention to technique could be very annoying.

Of course, you "can always bring out the Rollei if [you] want to be spontaneous."

But with a Linhof Technika like Horseman VH or VHR you will be much more spontanous as with the Rollei, because the whole setup with three or four lenses is lighter, you will have between-the-lens shutters that require lighter tripods than focal-plane shutters, you will have got plenty of film holder possibilities up to 4x5 (even the Mamiya RB67 film holder is lighter than the one from Rollei), you can attach a hand grip to hand hold the camera, it will be more compact and transportable, the camera is more weatherproof than a Rolleiflex, it works without electricity etc.

BTW. There is a very good remedy for G.A.S., Andreas Feiningers educational books on photography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Feininger#Educational_books_on_photography