Is it worth it to use the Speed Graphic handheld from time to time?

[RLangham]

I see a lot of contradicting opinions on this, and really, I hold a lot of contradicting opinions about this. So I've been shooting LF for about eight months (two packs of Shanghai 100 and a couple of new handmade dry plates from J. Lane on Etsy,) on a 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic (pre top-rangefinder, pre-Graflok).

My first instinct is to say that using a large-format handheld at all is a waste of film. The real advantage of LF to me is the ability to record detailed, sharp, technical images. The Speed Graphic's handheld nature, really, is a product of a long-gone era when A: LF was the predominant form of photography, and B: AP photographers needed to be able to distribute usable prints to the presses in a hurry, and so would want a large format such as 4x5" or 5x7" for making contact prints--I think of dear old Uncle Uscher developing in the trunk of his car. Most of us don't have the concern about making prints for the newspaper now, and 4x5 is usually at least a dollar per shot, so it would seem like there's no excuse to shoot LF without a steady tripod and critical focusing to get the best quality image possible.

But I also see contemporary LF photographers shooting 4x5 handheld. For instance, there was a YouTube video where a guy talked about his Crown Graphic and his Linhof Technika (I think), saying he treated them both the same way he treats a small-format camera: handheld when the need arises, tripod where possible, et cetera. Furthermore, most people that I've seen online with restored Graflex SLR's from the real old days often shoot them handheld, as was the practice at the time. I've seen a lot of pictures of people in recent years shooting handheld, especially with Speed Graphics. So... what do they know that I don't? Can you really get an image quality worth spending the money on by shooting a Speed Graphic handheld? And if so, would you do it with the front or the back shutter? I could see arguments for either. I will say that I have very precisely calibrated my rangefinder, if that helps matters.

[Dan Fromm]

What works, and doesn't work, for me has no bearing on what will work for you. Do what works for you.

FWIW, all of my Graphics' RFs are off calibration. That's irrelevant most of the time because I use more than one lens with them. I almost always shoot from tripod. But that's what works for me. Do what works for you and don't worry about what other people do.

[Corran]

Can you really get an image quality worth spending the money on by shooting a Speed Graphic handheld?

Don't get preoccupied by such things as "image quality."

Of course you can shoot handheld. That's what the thing was designed to do. At f/22 and with 400 speed film, you would technically be shooting around 1/200 anyway in full sun, and can play with the exposure from there depending on your needs.

Tripod is NOT a requirement for LF.

I've shot plenty this way - here's a shot on 4x5 Ektachrome E100VS with my Linhof Technika and 150mm f/2.8 Xenotar:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rTDywzecUJw/UlhAwyWSkWI/AAAAAAAAD94/Ghfjmvmk89s/s600/awa-1672-12x16s.jpg

And here's a whole thread of images shot PJ style with same:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?129134-Images-from-a-Donald-Trump-rally-and-corresponding-protest

I have shot handheld with my Speed, Linhof, and even a Polaroid 900 converted to 4x5. If you want to do it, you can make it happen.

[ic-racer]

Use High-power Xenon flash when hand-holding. Then it all makes sense....sharp lens, accurate rangefinder, large format, absence of motion without a tripod or gyro stabilizer, enough light to stop down appropriately etc. I'd not worry that it might be 'daylight', when you can use the fastest shutter speed on the lens with a Xenon flash.

199994

[Tin Can]

I am upgrading my 1951 4X5 Speed especially for handheld with one lens and working hard at getting RF to match

I will add a laser inside FocuSpot for usage with non human and other animals

Will use strobes and flashlube depending...

I still use my plastic toy 4X5 with fixed set distance focus

[jp]

If your rangefinder isn't proven to be working, it's sort of a last choice to shoot handheld. If you focus on the groundglass you have to have some distance between your eyeball and the groundglass, then you pull it up to your eye to frame the shot in the viewfinder or sportfinder and your focus is off by a foot instantly because you moved the camera to you and away from the subject. If you can focus and then step toward the camera that's good. We generally like to keep the camera close to our body for stability. In the 1930's you didn't have much of a choice but to use it handheld for quick photos. I have not much experience using flash handheld 4x5. Monopod can work great since it forces you to keep the camera in one spot if you are mindful of not moving the foot of the monopod.

The SLRs work better for handheld but have no movements, fewer lens choices..

[RLangham]

Don't get preoccupied by such things as "image quality."
I think what I mean is, as long as I'm getting better sharpness and resolving power than 35mm, I'm happy. Conversely, if I could have shot it easily on 35mm, I wish I would have saved the money and done that instead.


At f/22 and with 400 speed film, you would technically be shooting around 1/200 anyway in full sun, and can play with the exposure from there depending on your needs.
I have done a lot rating my Shanghai film @ 100 (box speed), f/16 and 1/120 on sunny days, going down to 1/60 on overcast days--sometimes f/11 and 1/120 instead. If I need to expose it more than that, often I'll just make a note to push process it. I've been nervous about using f/22, since I'm so used to 35mm where the diffraction gets noticeable at f/16 and bad at f/22, but at any rate, I'll take your advice and try f/22. FWIW I've heard that f/128 is not only available but also very usable on some large format lenses--that's surreal to me. At any rate, thanks for the advice! The picture looks great, by the way! Is that straight from the scanner?


I have shot handheld with my Speed, Linhof, and even a Polaroid 900 converted to 4x5.

Cool! I've wanted to buy a Polaroid 800 that they have at my local antique store and use it for 4x5" and 120, but haven't gotten around to it.

[Tin Can]

I think Weegee set his camera to 10 ft, always used a big flashbulb which let him get sharp small aperture DOF negs day or night, before we covered the planet in street lights...

[RLangham]

If you focus on the groundglass you have to have some distance between your eyeball and the groundglass, then you pull it up to your eye to frame the shot in the viewfinder or sportfinder and your focus is off by a foot instantly because you moved the camera to you and away from the subject.

Yes, I didn't try to focus with the GG at all until I had a stable tripod. By this time, I had wasted several sheets by trusting the uncalibrated rangefinder. As it is, I have the rangefinder pretty dead-on. It was mostly a matter of setting infinity razor-sharp.

[BrianShaw]

I’m with Dan Fromm on this question, except my rangefinders are accurate enough. :)

But every time this issue comes up there is the claim of”waste of film”. What does that mean? In who’s opinion? Is any one opinion universal and applicable to everybody and everything? That’s what I don’t get...

OP, do what makes you happy! But based on what you’ve said so far, handheld LF isn’t currently in your interest.

[Corran]

I think what I mean is, as long as I'm getting better sharpness and resolving power than 35mm, I'm happy. Conversely, if I could have shot it easily on 35mm, I wish I would have saved the money and done that instead.

I have done a lot rating my Shanghai film @ 100 (box speed), f/16 and 1/120 on sunny days, going down to 1/60 on overcast days--sometimes f/11 and 1/120 instead. If I need to expose it more than that, often I'll just make a note to push process it. I've been nervous about using f/22, since I'm so used to 35mm where the diffraction gets noticeable at f/16 and bad at f/22, but at any rate, I'll take your advice and try f/22. FWIW I've heard that f/128 is not only available but also very usable on some large format lenses--that's surreal to me. At any rate, thanks for the advice! The picture looks great, by the way! Is that straight from the scanner?



Cool! I've wanted to buy a Polaroid 800 that they have at my local antique store and use it for 4x5" and 120, but haven't gotten around to it.

RL,

You'll want to ditch your preconceptions from 35mm shooting. f/22 is the most common aperture for shooting LF and many/most lenses are optimized for those apertures. Many here shoot 4x5 commonly at f/32 and f/45 for DOF considerations. Diffraction is absolutely a non-issue for most as very few are enlarging anywhere near to the size needed to see diffraction. For 8x10 and 8x20 I shoot at f/64 and f/90 commonly (contact prints).

Also, sharpness and resolving power are not the sole reasons to be shooting LF (or anything larger than 35mm). There is no comparison between 35mm and LF in terms of tonalities and at middling apertures (f/8ish) LF still has very shallow DOF compared to small format. That's a big part of what handheld 4x5 images bring to the table IMO. I still shoot 35mm and 120 though btw...

Polaroid cameras will need to be converted to shoot 4x5, so if you can do that cool or there are plenty of shops doing that work nowadays. And if you want to shoot handheld I do suggest getting 400-speed film like HP5+, especially with a Speed Graphic where you can still use really fast shutter speeds.

[RLangham]

But every time this issue comes up there is the claim of”waste of film”. What does that mean? In who’s opinion? That’s what I don’t get...

OP, do what makes you happy!

It's just a money concern. I'm not commercial, and as a young guy working his first job after college, I'm usually on a fairly tight budget. At this point the most basic 4x5" sheet film out there averages slightly more than a dollar a shot. I can develop well but I can't scan (my Perfection isn't designed for anything bigger than 120), and my options for scanning are A: mom and pop photo lab, $10 setup fee plus $1 an image for shitty scans with newton rings in them (they don't even dust the negatives first), or B: mail-in services, usually $5 an image for medium-res wet mount scans. So I have to be a lot more strategic than 35mm, which I can shoot, process and scan for little more than the cost of film. It does materially hurt a little to pull a low-grade neg out of the daylight tank. On the other hand, when I get results, it makes me happy, so I tend to try and be scientific about every stage of the process.

[BrianShaw]

I completely understand “the money concern”. LF is expensive!

[Dan Fromm]

It's just a money concern. I'm not commercial, and as a young guy working his first job after college, I'm usually on a fairly tight budget. At this point the most basic 4x5" sheet film out there averages slightly more than a dollar a shot. I can develop well but I can't scan (my Perfection isn't designed for anything bigger than 120), and my options for scanning are A: mom and pop photo lab, $10 setup fee plus $1 an image for shitty scans with newton rings in them (they don't even dust the negatives first), or B: mail-in services, usually $5 an image for medium-res wet mount scans. So I have to be a lot more strategic than 35mm, which I can shoot, process and scan for little more than the cost of film. It does materially hurt a little to pull a low-grade neg out of the daylight tank. On the other hand, when I get results, it makes me happy, so I tend to try and be scientific about every stage of the process.

Then shoot from tripod and work slowly and carefully.

If money is that much of a concern -- don't take this as skepticism, I've been there too -- think about shooting roll film until you can afford sheet.

[Corran]

A suggestion: go to your local library and see what computer equipment they have to use. Very likely to have an Epson scanner like the V700 that you can scan your film on.

LF can be expensive but doesn't have to be. You don't shoot as much, naturally, so a few $5 scans are cheaper than 36 $0.50 scans...

[Jeff Keller]

With the same amount of camera movement LF will be sharper than 35mm because there is less enlargement to get to the final image. 35mm has faster lenses for low light but with plenty of light LF can come out ahead.

[RLangham]

Then shoot from tripod and work slowly and carefully.

If money is that much of a concern -- don't take this as skepticism, I've been there too -- think about shooting roll film until you can afford sheet.

I mean, I basically do. I would say the bulk of my work has been and continues to be 35mm. 4x5" has been a pretty recent experiment. I like what I've gotten out of it so far, though.

[RLangham]

RL,

You'll want to ditch your preconceptions from 35mm shooting. f/22 is the most common aperture for shooting LF and many/most lenses are optimized for those apertures. Many here shoot 4x5 commonly at f/32 and f/45 for DOF considerations. Diffraction is absolutely a non-issue for most as very few are enlarging anywhere near to the size needed to see diffraction. For 8x10 and 8x20 I shoot at f/64 and f/90 commonly (contact prints).


Hmm, I see. I will say that both the Optar and the Xenar I will shortly be replacing it with both only go up to f/32, if I remember right. I will certainly look at getting some better film soon... I'm about done with this Shanghai nonsense, but for sometimes 25 dollars and free shipping, there is a case to be made for it. Thanks for the advice!

[Louis Pacilla]

I mean, I basically do. I would say the bulk of my work has been and continues to be 35mm. 4x5" has been a pretty recent experiment. I like what I've gotten out of it so far, though.

Dan may be suggesting you could use a roll film holder with your Speed Graphic so you can still produce negatives with your S G and depending on frame size you can make up 16 frames per roll and negative sizes available 6x4.5 6x6 6x7 6x9 6x12 all on 120 roll film

[Dan Fromm]

Lou, I like 6x12 but oh! do 6x12 roll holders cost. 2x3 (6x9 is a poor metric approximation) would probably be better for the OP.

[RLangham]

Lou, I like 6x12 but oh! do 6x12 roll holders cost. 2x3 (6x9 is a poor metric approximation) would probably be better for the OP.


I mean, I do like 2x3, but I already have a Kodak Medalist II for that (very sharp, excellent color response, attractive camera). I don't really feel like spending money on a roll-film holder right now... if I did, I would probably save up and spring for a 6x12. However, I will say I have learned a lot in this thread and I feel very positive about shooting 4x5" going forward, both on a tripod and, sparingly, handheld.

[Nodda Duma]

For what it’s worth.. I’ve only ever taken two 4x5 shots handheld: both under the tropical sun of Hawaii, and both dry plates. Otherwise, I set up on a tripod. I use a speed graphic. It’s a great camera but I don’t bother with the rangefinder. Ground glass focusing for me.

[Tin Can]

I recently wrote somewhere here about a guy shooting Speed Graphic with Polaroid and strobe, always handheld in dark nightclubs, not fancy clubs, Punk Rockers.

He made real cash, year after year from mid 80's to early 2000's.

[Vaughn]

Re: Is it worth it to use the Speed Graphic handheld from time to time?

Yes

[Tin Can]

:cool:

[jnantz]

hi OP
just do it and don't listen to the naysayers
there are always going to be people who say
" waste of time " " waste of film" &c but that's because
they don't do that sort of thing and aren't interested in it. ( their loss ! :) )
its a lot of fun shooting hand held with a speed or graflex slr ...
i used to photograph buildings being demolished hand held all the time
this was before the internet so i didnt' read/hear people telling me
what a waste of time it was ;)
this was the hotel avery in boston as it was being demolished in 1990
as they used to say " everyone had a room at the avery"
the 16x20 print you can read the room numbers.
i shot it with a 15" tele-optar at about 1/60TH f8ish maybe f16 i don't remember...
don't forget to have fun !

[Bob Salomon]

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/new-york-citys-most-classic-street-photographer

[RLangham]

Well, thanks for everyone's answers and discussion! I learned a lot!

[Alan Gales]

What works, and doesn't work, for me has no bearing on what will work for you. Do what works for you.

FWIW, all of my Graphics' RFs are off calibration. That's irrelevant most of the time because I use more than one lens with them. I almost always shoot from tripod. But that's what works for me. Do what works for you and don't worry about what other people do.

I agree. Sports photographers used Speed Graphics hand held back in the day. :cool:

Personally, I can get better results handheld with a smaller and lighter medium format camera. Of course I have had a back fusion which affects hand held shooting for me. I posted this a few years ago and Frank Petronio copied me and said it took him years to figure that out for himself. ;)

Like you say, Dan, everyone is different so results vary.

[Bernice Loui]

Speed Graphic was specifically designed to be used hand held. These were THE press image making camera of their day. SG with a flash bulb "gun" and Graphmatic film pack were the mobile image making tools.

This specialization of the SG also limits the design to the optics they were designed to use. Similar was the Linhof Technika. Similar were the "Field" view camera which is a variation of a SG. View camera designs in this form were and are intended to be light weight, mobile with specific limitations.

Eventually, the 35mm roll film camera, Rangefinder Leica M series or Single Lens Reflex aka Nikon F replaced the Speed Graphic for new media image work and a lot more. !20 roll film was some where in between.


Bernice

[Tin Can]

How to hand-hold my Speed Graphic? Image and discussion straight out of WWII training manual

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/how-to-hand-hold-my-speed-graphic.259522/

[Corran]

Good example pic on that link:

https://d1ro734fq21xhf.cloudfront.net/attachments/00K52f-35148784.jpg

That's exactly how I hold my Speed or Linhof, except with the hands reversed on the Linhof (grip/shutter release on the left side).

[reddesert]

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/new-york-citys-most-classic-street-photographer

Thanks for that!

Also, with reference to the Canadian Lieutenant photo posted above, it is proven that your pictures will be sharper if you can pull off wearing a snappy beret, and even if they aren't sharper, you'll look sharp.

[Doug Herta]

I have been hand holding the Speed Graphic pretty much all the time. The scans are too large to post here, but if you want to see the negative detail from an El Vez performance (always entertaining BTW) go to the link below. See the detail in his tiger suit? The cat ears on the dancers? The reflections in the trees from the window above them on the outdoor stage?

http://dougeflash.com/index.php/people/#jp-carousel-102

[LabRat]

The other pluses is the camera is calibrated with built in stops, so with practice one can remove camera from bag or case, it can be opened and mostly set by feel, and start shooting... You can quickly bang off a few sheets easily...

Not everywhere you go allows tripods, So the advantage rather than problem is most LF gear is limited to a tripod, so you can wander around shooting someplace casually framing shots with the viewfinder...

And you can put it on a tripod too...

Because of the size and slight heft of the camera, it tends to steady itself somewhat...

A few sheets exposed on a bright day shot handheld with shorter speeds will look great, once you get the hang of everything... Hey, go shoot a burning Hindenburg with it... It has been done... ;-)

Steve K

[Vaughn]

Good example pic on that link: ... That's exactly how I hold my Speed or Linhof, except with the hands reversed on the Linhof (grip/shutter release on the left side).

I never looked that cool with my pre-anniversary Speed!

[Peter Lewin]

It seems to me that this thread has concentrated on "is it possible to use the SG handheld" (which is obviously "yes, that was what its was designed for") rather than "why use the SG handheld?" I can see arguments on both sides, which in the end come down to why one uses Large Format in the first place. The OP starts the thread mentioning technical, sharp images. Many of us enjoy using view cameras for precisely that reason: the process is slow, thoughtful, we can frame accurately, focus accurately (often using a loupe), and utilize swings and tilts to control our plane of focus. Those are all reasons which require a tripod and GG focusing. Then there are those of us who prefer working with the large negatives in the darkroom; for me that is a tactile thing, if I describe it to non-LF-users, I am always gesturing with my hands how I hold the large negatives. Of course, for many (most?) it is both of those things. But if it is precision we are after, handholding the SG defeats the purpose. If it is the large negative in the darkroom, then handholding does make sense. You need to be aware of your motivation.

[RLangham]

But if it is precision we are after, handholding the SG defeats the purpose. If it is the large negative in the darkroom, then handholding does make sense. You need to be aware of your motivation.

You get it. I did mean "does it make sense to," not literally "can I?" From reading this and from my exploration of LF so far, I am beginning to conclude that it makes all the sense in the world to (sparingly) shoot handheld with the Speed Graphic. And of course, my motivation is to have fun and create something that I can enjoy and show people. So yeah, I think it makes sense, all told.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm not a Speed Graphic aficionado, but isn't that how thousands of news photographers did it for at least a couple decades? That would kinda settle the possibility question.
Heck, my own brother routinely handheld a 4x5 Linhof Technika for commercial shoots where fast activity was involved. For very fussy image sharpness in high-vibration environments like around heavy pounding industrial machinery or aboard a helicopter, he attached a gyro; the results were amazing.

[Willie]

News shooters for decades used them and did just fine. If you want to use it that way - why would we try to discourage you?
Remember that the old "f/8 and be there" came from the time they were the main tools of Press Photographers.

[C. D. Keth]

I think it still makes sense to do it if the act and the aesthetic fits your needs. Handholding and producing large negatives is a different look than handholding to make smaller negatives and the impact on human subjects will be different as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[catalinajack]

If one has no need of a Speed Graphic's curtain shutter, a Crown Graphic weighs less and is easier to hold steady. I own pristine examples of both in both 3.25 x 4..25 and 4 x 5. Any admirer of Graphics would drool over what I have, all acquired over time at reasonable prices. All but one are in storage now as we are living full time aboard a 44-foot boat. I keep a Crown on board with which to play. I develop the negatives on board and scan them on an Epson. I prefer darkroom prints but, alas, no space aboard the boat for a darkroom. In four or five years we will purchase another "dirt house".

Sent from my SM-T830 using Tapatalk

[seezee]

It's just a money concern. I'm not commercial, and as a young guy working his first job after college, I'm usually on a fairly tight budget. At this point the most basic 4x5" sheet film out there averages slightly more than a dollar a shot. I can develop well but I can't scan (my Perfection isn't designed for anything bigger than 120), and my options for scanning are A: mom and pop photo lab, $10 setup fee plus $1 an image for shitty scans with newton rings in them (they don't even dust the negatives first), or B: mail-in services, usually $5 an image for medium-res wet mount scans. So I have to be a lot more strategic than 35mm, which I can shoot, process and scan for little more than the cost of film. It does materially hurt a little to pull a low-grade neg out of the daylight tank. On the other hand, when I get results, it makes me happy, so I tend to try and be scientific about every stage of the process.
X-ray film works out to about 25¢ per 4″×5″ negative. See https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-Use-of-X-ray-film-technical-discussion-with-example-images&highlight=technical+x-ray

[seezee]

For very fussy image sharpness in high-vibration environments like around heavy pounding industrial machinery or aboard a helicopter, he attached a gyro; the results were amazing.

:eek:

[RLangham]

X-ray film works out to about 25¢ per 4″×5″ negative. See https://www.largeformatphotography.i...echnical+x-ray

Really? That's fantastic. I could really get on board with that. Do you know a current distributor of that type of film? I made a cursory search through my regular channels and most of the x-ray film I found was considerably more expensive than that--in fact, generally more expensive than my trashy Shanghai Pan 100.

Where do you get yours?

[Corran]

4x5 will have to be cut down from 8x10. Here's what I use when messing around with x-ray:

https://www.cxsonline.com/text/detailpage.tmpl?command=showpage&sn=809310&sku=WMG1417&cart=1580413182528854&location=10011004

Start reading :)
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48099-Use-of-X-ray-film-technical-discussion-with-example-images

Single-sided film with easier handling is more expensive. The above cheap film is double-sided.

[Bruce Watson]

Can you really get an image quality worth spending the money on by shooting a Speed Graphic handheld?

Margaret Bourke-White was the master of handheld 5x4. She put many many covers on Life Magazine, at least some of which were hand-held. Dorothea Lang was another world famous hand-held expert.

Can you do as well? I have no idea.

Really, how you choose to work is deeply personal. Do what works for you; yours is the only opinion that matters on the subject of "what works for you".

I will say (I can't help myself sometimes) that the reason I shot so much LF was because I wanted the control of camera movements and the film size. I made some nice large prints, most with the film plane plumb and leveled (one of those that used every movement the camera could make), that I couldn't make any other way. And for that, I was on a tripod 100% of the time. I've never hand-held 5x4 in my life, but not because there's anything wrong with it; it just wouldn't work for what I wanted in my final prints.

[RLangham]

4x5 will have to be cut down from 8x10.

What kind of cutter would you recommend for that?

That link does look enticing with those prices. From the forum thread you linked, it seems that the "green" film can be shot as ASA 50, is that correct? And will it work well with d-76 or Dektol?

Anyways, thanks for the links! This may be my road into doing more LF than before.

[Corran]

You'll want to test for yourself but my general rule of thumb for that film nowadays is an EI of 50-80 and developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 6 minutes. It's very high contrast, so I'd start with higher-than-normal dilutions for those developers and shortish development, and then suit to taste. It's cheap enough to experiment ;).

Others have nicer cutters, but I've used a simple paper cutter made for scrapbooking. The best part is you can do it under a red safelight - so much easier than you might think.

[RLangham]

You'll want to test for yourself but my general rule of thumb for that film nowadays is an EI of 50-80 and developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 6 minutes. It's very high contrast, so I'd start with higher-than-normal dilutions for those developers and shortish development, and then suit to taste. It's cheap enough to experiment ;).

Others have nicer cutters, but I've used a simple paper cutter made for scrapbooking. The best part is you can do it under a red safelight - so much easier than you might think.

Well, that's all very good news. I'll have to get around to buying a safelight bulb and borrowing a paper cutter, but that shouldn't be difficult to accomplish. I think based on what you said, I'd start at the high end of that EI range and a very short dev time in 3-1 Dektol and work from there.

One last thing: when you say double sided, do you mean it has emulsion on both sides? So I could load with either side facing up?

[Corran]

Yes. It's a little weird, but the single-sided film is more expensive. There's a plethora of info on that thread. Start reading it back-to-front and you'll get the hang of it pretty quick. I think all my example photos from the years have disappeared due to a hosting change but there's lots of good examples there still you can peruse and see what you like (and what the film/dev/etc. was).

[Andrew Plume]

Hi Brad

Well it was certainly good to see Lori with a Giant T

regards

Andrew

[seezee]

Really? That's fantastic. I could really get on board with that. Do you know a current distributor of that type of film? I made a cursory search through my regular channels and most of the x-ray film I found was considerably more expensive than that--in fact, generally more expensive than my trashy Shanghai Pan 100.

Where do you get yours?

https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/fuji-x-ray-film.html

https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/carestream-x-ray-film.html

Ektascan is single-emulsion; easier to handle & slightly sharper images but more expensive. The rest are double-emulsion (front & back). The main difference between green & red is where their respective spectral sensitivities fall.

EI changes throughout the day when shooting outside: as high as EI80 at noon and as low as IE25 before 10 AM or after 2 PM depending on latitude & time of year. Clouds & shade will also affect the EI depending on how much blue/green light they filter.

Consider "stand" developing to tame the contrast. Many of us use very dilute Pyrocat, Rodinal, or other compensating developers with x-ray film.

You'll need a guillotine paper cutter to trim to size. Something like the Dahle 18e (https://smile.amazon.com/Dahle-Automatic-Adjustable-Gridlines-Guillotine/dp/B000W1YNNW/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=dahle+18e&qid=1580484566&sr=8-2).

[Corran]

FWIW this is similar to the paper cutter I use for film and it works fine, at 1/8th the cost:
https://www.amazon.com/LETION-Cutter%EF%BC%8CPaper-Guillotine-Safeguard-Scrapbooking-Photographs/dp/B07MCCL2N3

I have not found any need to change my EI when shooting green-sensitive emulsions. That seems to be more of an issue with blue-sensitive films. I do have to be careful with the very green-dominant scenes here in the south.

[RLangham]

The second coating of emulsion on the back doesn't cause problems? I'd imagine there would be a second, slightly out-of-focus negative on the back that would make it harder to scan. Since this doesn't sound like it's an issue you've had, why doesn't this occur?

[Corran]

You are correct and the dual-emulsion images are slightly softer but not really anything to get worked up about. You can remove one emulsion with bleach if that's of interest. It's a pain in the butt though and not worth the bother IMO...and I used to do it on every sheet.

[Vaughn]

The second coating of emulsion on the back doesn't cause problems? I'd imagine there would be a second, slightly out-of-focus negative on the back that would make it harder to scan. Since this doesn't sound like it's an issue you've had, why doesn't this occur?

Handling the double-sided is a little trickier due to scratching the emulsion against the bottom of the tray or such during the development process.
I stopped using the double-sided because I was getting significant loss of sharpness making carbon prints (very thick emulsion)...but no problem with platinum printing (no emulsion).

A portrait: 8x10 platinum/palladium print from double-sided x-ray film, and a detail. Not the greatest reproductions, either, sorry. This negative was processed by the crew at the local hospital -- they got a kick out of seeing something else besides images of body parts!

[RLangham]

Hmm... I like the tonal range. The overall feel of the photograph is timeless. Feels like it could have been taken in 1950 or ten minutes ago.



Handling the double-sided is a little trickier due to scratching the emulsion against the bottom of the tray or such during the development process.

Not necessarily a problem for me. I use a two-sheet 4x5" daylight tank that doesn't involve either side of the neg touching anything. I bought it from China after finding out that I am terrible at tray developing. (Which explains why I have only developed one of my dry plates.)

As for prints, I only do hybrid photography. I mostly get my 4x5" scanned by a mom-and-pop lab (who put in the bare minimum of effort, unfortunately,) so printing is less of a concern than scanning. Does it scan well? Note that my lab tech, John A., does not handle it well when he encounters something that he's never seen before.

[Vaughn]

Definitely light on the red sensitivity (Cut, load, and process film under a red safelight). My son Calder all of a sudden had freckles I never noticed!

[jnantz]

News shooters for decades used them and did just fine. If you want to use it that way - why would we try to discourage you?
Remember that the old "f/8 and be there" came from the time they were the main tools of Press Photographers.

I believe Frank Thorp V is shooting handheld speed graphic along with a handful of other things. He's in DC covering Congress for NBC News.

[RLangham]

I believe Frank Thorp V is shooting handheld speed graphic along with a handful of other things. He's in DC covering Congress for NBC News.

Another of the Congress photojournalists, David Burnett, has a quite intimidating 4x5" SLR that was custom built for him around an Aero Ektar, with apparently some Graflex parts. I imagine he has to use some fast film and some wide apertures, as he isn't pictured using a flash in any of the photos I've seen.

[jnantz]

Another of the Congress photojournalists, David Burnett, has a quite intimidating 4x5" SLR that was custom built for him around an Aero Ektar, with apparently some Graflex parts. I imagine he has to use some fast film and some wide apertures, as he isn't pictured using a flash in any of the photos I've seen.

yeah he's using one of john minnicks' aero liberators ( i think that is what its called ) i've used a regular old 4x5series D with a big fast tessar for handheld/street work, its about 300% easier to use handheld than a speed graphic. my rangefinder for my speed G isn't calibrated so i have to either zone focus or do the groundglass focus-close the lens+stop it down-insert the film holder-dance which is a PITA. the graflex slr's you just focus and shoot... ezpz..
have fun!

[RLangham]

yeah he's using one of john minnicks' aero liberators ( i think that is what its called ) i've used a regular old 4x5series D with a big fast tessar for handheld/street work, its about 300% easier to use handheld than a speed graphic. my rangefinder for my speed G isn't calibrated so i have to either zone focus or do the groundglass focus-close the lens+stop it down-insert the film holder-dance which is a PITA. the graflex slr's you just focus and shoot... ezpz..
have fun!

I've narrowly missed buying a Graflex SLR at a place in Gulfport before. I didn't know what shape it was in and I was wanting to take a girl out that night, so I didn't spend the money. As it was she got drunk and made me buy her an expensive dessert! I should have bought it.

Really, though, my rangefinder is not a worry for me. I took a loupe and a very steady tripod and adjusted both the rangefinder cam and the infinity stops using the license plate on my truck as a target, at like 15, 30 and 60 feet. I got it to where at mid-to-close range, it's *razor* sharp. I also customized the rangefinder by taping a bit of color film (from a blank frame in a developed roll of 35mm) inside the top window to make the rangefinder spot show up bright against a dim image. The reason I worry about image quality handheld is camera shake, especially since only the back shutter works on my camera.

[Corran]

Oh, I see you added your location, or perhaps I just missed it!

I travel to the Biloxi / Ocean Springs area often. I've shot a lot of 4x5 and larger along the coast. Lots of great places I'd like to explore on the Pascagoula River.

[RLangham]

Oh, I see you added your location, or perhaps I just missed it!

I travel to the Biloxi / Ocean Springs area often. I've shot a lot of 4x5 and larger along the coast. Lots of great places I'd like to explore on the Pascagoula River.

I was just visiting family in Ocean Springs the other day... there's a cafe there called the Greenhouse that I really like. We also hit a Goodwill there and I found a Soviet m42 lens for 3 bucks! It's seized up but I'm trying to get it apart to relube it.

[henrysamson]

Way back in the 70's I got a job at a NASA base as a photographer. I was given a Crown Graphic, a Honeywell flash and a bunch of grafmatic 6 sheet film holders. The strobe was the kind that had an external high voltage battery that was in a pack that I wore over my shoulder. The head was attached to a flash bulb handle that was attached to the camera and provided a nice hand grip. I would load the holders with 4x5 Tri-X and shoot all kinds of PR stuff. Award ceremonies, group shots, grip and grins, etc. I shot handheld with natural light outside or the strobe inside. The leaf shutter in the lens (135mm) synced at all speeds so it was possible to use the flash to fill in the shadows a bit in direct sunlight. Yes, I did use a tripod when it was appropriate and possible. After an assignment the film would be developed in a Kodak Versamat processor and come out dry in about 7 minutes.

I know that by this time most of this kind of work was being shot on 35mm but our manager was kind of old school. Also, it allowed us to take just a couple of shots, process the film and have it in the print lab very quickly. It also gave our "customers" fewer shots to choose from and streamlined the workflow. Last but not least, the photographs came out a lot better that 35mm. The tones were much smoother and 8x10 prints were grainless and reasonable cropping could be done without loss of quality. It was easy to edit the shots since the negative was so large. I learned a lot and it was a great experience. I've done it some myself over the years and it is a lot of fun and attracts a lot of attention.

[Bob Salomon]

Way back in the 70's I got a job at a NASA base as a photographer. I was given a Crown Graphic, a Honeywell flash and a bunch of grafmatic 6 sheet film holders. The strobe was the kind that had an external high voltage battery that was in a pack that I wore over my shoulder. The head was attached to a flash bulb handle that was attached to the camera and provided a nice hand grip. I would load the holders with 4x5 Tri-X and shoot all kinds of PR stuff. Award ceremonies, group shots, grip and grins, etc. I shot handheld with natural light outside or the strobe inside. The leaf shutter in the lens (135mm) synced at all speeds so it was possible to use the flash to fill in the shadows a bit in direct sunlight. Yes, I did use a tripod when it was appropriate and possible. After an assignment the film would be developed in a Kodak Versamat processor and come out dry in about 7 minutes.

I know that by this time most of this kind of work was being shot on 35mm but our manager was kind of old school. Also, it allowed us to take just a couple of shots, process the film and have it in the print lab very quickly. It also gave our "customers" fewer shots to choose from and streamlined the workflow. Last but not least, the photographs came out a lot better that 35mm. The tones were much smoother and 8x10 prints were grainless and reasonable cropping could be done without loss of quality. It was easy to edit the shots since the negative was so large. I learned a lot and it was a great experience. I've done it some myself over the years and it is a lot of fun and attracts a lot of attention.

I used to use that same strobe, really liked them until one day the coil cord from the pack to the strobe shorted out and burned my shirt, my pants and my side.
Switched to Metz the next day!

[henrysamson]

I used to use that same strobe, really liked them until one day the coil cord from the pack to the strobe shorted out and burned my shirt, my pants and my side.
Switched to Metz the next day!

I was warned to be really careful with the strobe. Something about it could be used to "weld steel". I think they were joking but I was careful anyway.

[seezee]

Way back in the 70's I got a job at a NASA base as a photographer. I was given a Crown Graphic, a Honeywell flash and a bunch of grafmatic 6 sheet film holders. The strobe was the kind that had an external high voltage battery that was in a pack that I wore over my shoulder. The head was attached to a flash bulb handle that was attached to the camera and provided a nice hand grip. I would load the holders with 4x5 Tri-X and shoot all kinds of PR stuff. Award ceremonies, group shots, grip and grins, etc. I shot handheld with natural light outside or the strobe inside. The leaf shutter in the lens (135mm) synced at all speeds so it was possible to use the flash to fill in the shadows a bit in direct sunlight. Yes, I did use a tripod when it was appropriate and possible. After an assignment the film would be developed in a Kodak Versamat processor and come out dry in about 7 minutes.

I know that by this time most of this kind of work was being shot on 35mm but our manager was kind of old school. Also, it allowed us to take just a couple of shots, process the film and have it in the print lab very quickly. It also gave our "customers" fewer shots to choose from and streamlined the workflow. Last but not least, the photographs came out a lot better that 35mm. The tones were much smoother and 8x10 prints were grainless and reasonable cropping could be done without loss of quality. It was easy to edit the shots since the negative was so large. I learned a lot and it was a great experience. I've done it some myself over the years and it is a lot of fun and attracts a lot of attention.

:o:o:o

[Dan Fromm]

I used to use that same strobe, really liked them until one day the coil cord from the pack to the strobe shorted out and burned my shirt, my pants and my side.
Switched to Metz the next day!

Um, Bob, my first flash was a Metz Mecablitz 100. Very useful potato masher style unit, with cables from battery box to flash that quickly aged and became very frightening.

[Bob Salomon]

Um, Bob, my first flash was a Metz Mecablitz 100. Very useful potato masher style unit, with cables from battery box to flash that quickly aged and became very frightening.

But without the voltage and amperage that’s that Honeywell pack had.

My first strobe was an Ultrablitz with separate pack that besides the ready light also buzzed when charged.

[C. D. Keth]

This is quickly becoming like the Monty python sketch with the Yorkshire men all one-upping each other regarding who had it hardest growing up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob Salomon]

This is quickly becoming like the Monty python sketch with the Yorkshire men all one-upping each other regarding who had it hardest growing up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At least it isn’t a dead parrot.

[Dan Fromm]

Right! Our elderly parrot yet lives.

[seezee]

This is quickly becoming like the Monty python sketch with the Yorkshire men all one-upping each other regarding who had it hardest growing up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:cool::cool::cool:

[RLangham]

This is quickly becoming like the Monty python sketch with the Yorkshire men all one-upping each other regarding who had it hardest growing up.


Back in my day, you whippersnappers... we had to sensitize wet plates! Wasn't no "film." We didn't have exposure meters, so we had a trained monkey run out into the scene and tell us how bright it was out there. I saved up for thirty whole years to buy the first f/8 lens for whole plate!

[robertraymer]

Going back to can you ve should you?

Obviously you can, whether you should or not is up to you. I bought a beat up speed graphic a few years ago and used it quite often to shoot handheld. For me I bought the speed graphic so that I would have a very portable camera to make candid large format portraits with. I love the look of large format, but I also like the spontaneity and ability to shoot quickly that 35mm/120 allows, and the speed graphic was a great alternative to allow me to shoot LF in ways that a studio/field camera would not, specifically shooting my kids at play, friends ask we walked around town, and occasionally co-workers (firefighters) at work, though that project is now almost exclusively in studio now. With the speed graphic and 2 grafmatic backs that gave me 12 sheets of 4x5 that I could carry around in a regular camera bag designed for an SLR. I even adjusted the (then non working) rangefinder specifically to work with an 8" pentac, and even though it does not wok with other lenses, it gave me what I wanted, a handheld 4x5 portrait camera that I could still use by focusing on the GG for anything else.

I have since purchased an RB Series D that is even better suited for this purpose, given that it is an SLR and with a 12 shot "bag mag" only slightly larger, which led me to restore the Speed Graphic.

The point is that I had a purpose in mind, and shooting handheld was not only possible, but made sense for me. Had I instead been interested in shooting mostly landscapes or architecture, this would not have been the case. So if you have a speed graphic with a properly calibrated rangefinder then yes, shooting handheld is absolutely possible and can yield beautiful images. However, if what you plan on shooting does not require shooting hand held, and if you are worried about the possibility of "wasting" film by getting images that are occasionally out of focus or soft, then you are probably better off shooting with a tripod and focusing on the GG.