Getting back into film - why not LF?

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Hi all, just found this great resource as I have spent the last week daydreaming about shooting film again. I can't give myself too much credit with film, mostly my experience is limited to a high school photography course (limited to B&W 35mm, we developed our negatives and made enlargements). But looking back at some of the shots I took for that class and reminiscing about the serene sense of fulfillment I felt in the darkroom, I really would like to take it on as a hobby. A desire to be better at documenting married life (and maybe a soon-to-be third family member) plays into this as well.
I've always had a sense that digital simultaneously cheapens photography for me, as well as makes it overwhelming if I am trying to do more than casual snapshots; both of these feelings are a result of the sheer number of shots that can be taken to try and best capture a moment... Then trying to choose the best frame to edit and publish/print out of dozens of candidates leaves me a little demotivated. Hence a desire to get back to a format where each shot feels more valuable (because it costs more, at the very least). The idea of medium or large format has always intrigued me, and as I've done some research I think it will offer what I'm looking for - infrequent but important and hopefully beautiful shots that can be cherished, lack of practicality compared to 35mm understood and accepted.

I have found a couple of 4x5 cameras for sale locally - an older Arca-Swiss (https://cosprings.craigslist.org/pho/d/colorado-springs-arca-swiss-4x5/7304166507.html) and a Wista 45SP. (https://denver.craigslist.org/pho/d/broomfield-wista-45sp-technical-field/7298566289.html) Any advice for a first large-format camera would be welcome!

[Tin Can]

Nearly everybody gets LF camera 2...3...just because

Lenses matter more

Try hard to get working good shutter and keep it

Keep the chems away from the baby

[sharktooth]

Bring a small but bright LED flashlight so you can check the bellows. If the bellows are not light tight it can be a bitch to repair or find a replacement.

It's also a bad time to be buying now, since the prices have gone up lately. I'm hoping things will come back down after the pandemic when cabin fever has subsided.

For a first time large format buyer I'd try to get a complete outfit from a reputable retailer, or from someone you trust. You may pay more, but at least you should get everything you need, like camera, lens, tripod, film holders, loupe, dark cloth, cable release, changing bag, light meter, etc. This all adds up, but you're going to need all that stuff. Once you've been doing it a while it becomes a lot easier to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Before you fork out, why not try shooting digital with a tripod all the time. That will give you a small taste of what you're getting into.

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Thanks for the advice!
I do still have a couple 35mm cameras, I’ll give it a try with solely-tripod shooting for a while.

[Ulophot]

Hi, Mikey. As one who cut his proverbial teeth in 35mm for a decade before getting my own 4x5, I know that it is a big jump in many ways. While the advice above is useful, I think you also need to answer some questions, for yourself, about what purpose the larger format has for you. Some want freedom from grain, the resolution of the fine detail, the potentially smooth tonal range; others want features of the camera movements; others want to slow down and take their time through every image; some prefer the image proportions; some love viewing the image on the ground glass at 4x5, 5,7, 8x10 or larger; others enjoy photographing in several formats; and various combinations of these and other considerations.

The point is, it is an investment, so to speak, in image-making in a slow fashion, very much different from 35mm, even 35mm on a tripod. It can be great fun, lots of challenge, a continual learning experience, and so forth, but it's just challenging enough to warrant some amount of careful thought before diving into. My own story is, that, having taken a second-year photo-major course that included an introduction to 4x5, and having devoured the Ansel Adams photography series as well as pored over countless images, I realized, when confronted by a certain design challenge for a book cover illustration in 1979 (Dope, Inc.), that only a view camera could render it. A friend bought me one, along with a 75mm lens, and, despite my rookie LF experience, we managed to get the image. Later, I found the dimensions wonderful for portraits with a 210mm that I added, and loved being able to make Poloroids for ad images and, later still, architectural interiors I made professionally for some time, again with the 75.

I really don't mean to sound scary. With films and formats in the ranges available today, and the financial investment and learning curve to start up, not to mention the "hybrid" approach that some employ (film negative, electronic scanning and printing), it seems to me useful to define one's reason for trying it out before jumping in.

[Alan Klein]

Hi all, just found this great resource as I have spent the last week daydreaming about shooting film again. I can't give myself too much credit with film, mostly my experience is limited to a high school photography course (limited to B&W 35mm, we developed our negatives and made enlargements). But looking back at some of the shots I took for that class and reminiscing about the serene sense of fulfillment I felt in the darkroom, I really would like to take it on as a hobby. A desire to be better at documenting married life (and maybe a soon-to-be third family member) plays into this as well.
I've always had a sense that digital simultaneously cheapens photography for me, as well as makes it overwhelming if I am trying to do more than casual snapshots; both of these feelings are a result of the sheer number of shots that can be taken to try and best capture a moment... Then trying to choose the best frame to edit and publish/print out of dozens of candidates leaves me a little demotivated. Hence a desire to get back to a format where each shot feels more valuable (because it costs more, at the very least). The idea of medium or large format has always intrigued me, and as I've done some research I think it will offer what I'm looking for - infrequent but important and hopefully beautiful shots that can be cherished, lack of practicality compared to 35mm understood and accepted.

I have found a couple of 4x5 cameras for sale locally - an older Arca-Swiss (https://cosprings.craigslist.org/pho/d/colorado-springs-arca-swiss-4x5/7304166507.html) and a Wista 45SP. (https://denver.craigslist.org/pho/d/broomfield-wista-45sp-technical-field/7298566289.html) Any advice for a first large-format camera would be welcome!

Film photography is not simple if you plan on converting (scanning) for printing, displaying on your TV or monitor or cell phone, etc. You're going to be busy enough with a child so trying to find the time to scan and edit film is time-consuming. Of course, if you only plan on making let's say 4x6" prints, that's easy enough with a film camera like the 35mm you have an outside processing lab.

I would consider using a digital camera for your family shots. Get one with an articulating screen so you can easily get down towards the floor for more intimate shots of children and pets. Digital also allows video clips with the same digital camera. You can combine both still and clips into one family-oriented video show for showing on a monitor, or TV, or cellphone. Or download to Youtube like this.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDzogShfhgCHh2rVvEsFOJQ

Then reserve your film photography for selected moments for your own pleasure. I think your wife would probably appreciate that as well. She'll be wanting to show the kid's pictures to friends and not wait until your process, scan and give her the results. Of course, cellphone pictures will come to the fore anyway bypassing your involvement. That's bound to cause conflict.

Anyway, that's my thoughts.

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Philip, Alan, thank you for the points you made and the advice given. In the interest of keeping my initial post from getting too long, I left out some of the details.

My primary reason for considering LF was to force the process to be slow, careful, and involved (treat each shot like a mini investment). Probably next up would be clarity and the impact of having movements available. I also have an addiction for learning new skills (especially technical/quantitative skills that offer room for creativity - I’m a research engineer as my day job, mechanical background), and the LF process seems to offer plenty of opportunity for that! It certainly will only be a supplement to cell phone photos and occasional DSLR use. I have a Rebel T2i that I’ve haven’t taken a single shot with in the last 3 years, mostly because I’ll end up firing off hundreds of shots in a single outing, then feel overwhelmed when I sit down to choose a few shots to edit and print. I probably mostly just need to get over it, or maybe practice being a little more mindful shooting digital in any format.

This evening the wife and I loaded a roll of expired Fuji color film into a 35mm inexpensive SLR, and got out to the local state park (Cheyenne Mountain) to get some fresh air, catch sunset, and teach her some photography basics. Mostly tripod shots with a few handheld. We are setting our expectations pretty low for this roll, but we had a great time regardless! It was nice to stop and take some care with setting up shots and really soaking in the views). She’s a medical physicist involved in radiation therapy for cancer treatment, so it was pretty cool to see her draw parallels with her medical imaging knowledge.

I imagine that even if i really fall in love with LF, a few years from now more than 99% of my photos will be digital (and probably 90%+ of those will be from a phone). But I also hope the remaining small fraction in LF will both help create and document some lasting memories and mementos.

Thanks again to everyone for the sage advice. I’ll certainly take it into careful consideration.

[Ulophot]

Mikey, an engineer such as you might enjoy at least some of Harold Merklinger's in-depth treatment of depth-of-field and discussion of the "hinge-line."
file:///C:/...Local/Temp/FVCADNDM.pdf

I worked at it for a bit and made myself a little chart, but the math is out of my scope, and I found the use of the hinge line too cumbersome in the field. I haven't a mind for geometry. The principle, however, is interesting.

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Mikey, an engineer such as you might enjoy at least some of Harold Merklinger's in-depth treatment of depth-of-field and discussion of the "hinge-line."
file:///C:/Users/Chefs/AppData/Local/Temp/FVCADNDM.pdf

I worked at it for a bit and made myself a little chart, but the math is out of my scope, and I found the use of the hinge line too cumbersome in the field. I haven't a mind for geometry. The principle, however, is interesting.

Thank you for the resource, Philip. I'm looking forward to reading it.
I think the link you gave is a local copy on your machine, but I think I found the web-based version from the filename: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/FVCADNDM.pdf

[Paul Ron]

once upon a lifetime ago, i used lf alot. sold everything but recently i picked a wista. is a nice camera, a bit heavy but built like a tank.

now depending how n what you plan to do with your camera, concider if you are going to haul it in the back country... perhaps a lighter wood camera may be your poison.

as tin can mentioned... lenses are everything. although most lens brands are all exceptional quality for starters. you can wet your feet on a budget and later upgrade as you go if you plan to stay with it.. thats what i did before investing on a couple top of the line lenses.

for starters, you will spend more time getting to know your film and chemicals than how lf actually works. learning lf will come as you practice using it and getting valuable tips n tricks in here from some very talented people.

have fun.

[Jim Noel]

Mikey, an engineer such as you might enjoy at least some of Harold Merklinger's in-depth treatment of depth-of-field and discussion of the "hinge-line."
file:///C:/...Local/Temp/FVCADNDM.pdf

I worked at it for a bit and made myself a little chart, but the math is out of my scope, and I found the use of the hinge line too cumbersome in the field. I haven't a mind for geometry. The principle, however, is interesting.

Merklnger's information is very interesting and I am very familiar with it. I old never recommend it to a 1st time user of LF. It may well cause them to get so involved with the technicalities that they end up not making any images.

[Mikey Antonakakis]

A local camera shop has a Wisner 4x5 kit available, including 4 lenses (Schneider 75mm and Fujinon 90mm, 125mm, and 210mm), 9 film holders, fresnel, dark cloth, tripod plate, and 6 month warranty (including lenses). Supposedly all tested, functional/in spec, and light tight. I’m not sure I will find a better bang for the buck setup...

[Mikey Antonakakis]

I was a little hesitant to buy the Wisner kit locally, largely due to the no-longer-in-business status of Wisner and the potential headaches that could arise if I needed any camera-specific replacement items. And after researching the specific lenses, it looks like I would have paid a bit of a premium for the kit (but at least I would get a warranty).
So I researched current companies, and like many others was drawn to Chamonix, and got myself on the waiting list. Looks like I will have a 45F2 by the end of the month! (Along with loupe, folding viewer, and extension board). Now time to start shopping for lenses and everything else...

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Update! My 45F-2 arrived a week or two ago, and since then I've been piecing together the rest of my kit. So far, I have amassed:

Jobo/Chamonix loupe
Folding viewer from Chamonix
Extension board
Fujinon 125mm f/5.6
Rodenstock 210mm f/5.6
Cable releases
Used Minolta Spot Meter F
Slik S103 tripod ($10, good enough for now!)
3 film holders (used Fidelity Elites)
Film (TMAX 100, HP5+, and Foma 400)
SP-445 "flight pack" with the Foma 400 and SP-76EC, Fixer #7, and SP-H2O Flow
Stearman Press Zone-Calc, Zone-view, and logbook
thermometer, variety of measuring beakers, chemical bottles, clothespins
Epson V600
Igloo backpack cooler from Goodwill ($6); insulated/padded, happens to fit the 45F-2 bag perfectly! Camera takes up about half the space with more than enough room for everything else


I shot my first 4 sheets of film last night (Foma 400, by far the cheapest per sheet) using both lenses (from 8s to 1/8s exposures, variety of apertures from F5.6 to f/22), and developed this morning. Metered at ISO 400 (oops, should have used 250 or 320) but I have a feeling the shutters run a bit slow (maybe partially offsetting my ISO mistake). Slightly pushed the development (based on ZoneCalc output and metering mistake) by mixing the SP-76EC 1+8 (N+0.5?) and developed for 9min, doing my best to follow Stearman's recommendations for the process/chemicals/film. No leaks from the SP-445! And images showed up! They aren't awful, but other than a very quick and dirty iPhone camera scan of one of them, I'll have to wait until they dry to scan and find out if they're more than "not awful". So far I am not seeing any obvious light leaks (loading/unloading in a closet within a closet, handling loaded film holders, and in-camera).

I did make one silly mistake: using a mailer from Delta Airlines I made a 4"x5" template to practice loading the film into the SP-445, since I don't yet have any scrap film sheets. After developing, in addition to 4 sheets of film I also had a mailer from Delta come out of the tank, so it seems I forgot to remove it from one of the SP-445 holders before I loaded the film into them! Thankfully it didn't seem to affect the quality of the development very much (I think I still had the emulsion side out), and definitely won't be happening again! The sheet was offset by about 1/2", but other than that it looks okay.

I think at this point I might now be officially "introduced" to large format, and despite some nail biting it is very enjoyable so far!

[Jim Noel]

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ILIM/courses/vision-sensors/readings/TIAOOFe.pdf is the original address for Merklinger.
OR just search for "the ins and outs of focus"

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Figured out a workable process for negative scanning with the V600. Made a template/mask, scan twice to capture the full negative, then photomerge in Lightroom.
Spent a lot of time scratching my head on adjustments to make in the scanning software, and finally settled on a no-correction scan ("No Color Correction" in the Configuration menu of EPSON Scan, linear response) followed by a rough estimate of a 2.2 gamma curve in Lightroom. Part of my reasoning for not correcting is to get a more accurate appraisal of the exposure before I do any further processing.

Here are the first four shots (all Foma 400 metered at 400) in two posts, each processed a bit due to a bit of underexposure:

#1, First LF photo: Rodenstock 210mm, 8s, f/22. Focused on the mirror frame. Level camera with front rise to center the mirror. Forgot to adjust for the long exposure time, so came out a bit underexposed.
217111

#1 detail, ~10x crop:
217115

#2: 210mm, 1/8s, f/22. Taken 15 minutes before sunset with overcast skies, mountains with 3000ft prominence directly to the west (peaks are 1.5 mile away). Focused on one of the foreground homes, a little rear tilt to get some of the clouds "in focus".
217112

#2 detail, ~10x crop. Downtown is 5 miles away and was not used to focus. Pretty cool that I can count the windows, blows my iPhone12 out of the water at least. Forum upload is hurting the resolution on these crops.
217116

[Mikey Antonakakis]

#3, Fujinon 125mm, 1/2s, ~f/6.7, focused on the shutter speed ring of the lens and used some front rise. Cropped out about half of the negative. After a closer look, there may have been a little camera shake.
217129
#4, Fuji 125mm, 1/4s, ~f/7. Don't think I used any movements, or maybe used the leftover rise from the previous shot. After 10 minutes I got tired of waiting for the hummingbird to show up again and just took the shot. Was losing light quickly at that point.
217130

[Bernice Loui]

Looks GOOD, do the effective B&W film speed testing to set up the basic effective film speed, developer used and development time/process and the remainder of the print making system (in this case scanner). Give up notion if the negative is poor, it can be "fixed-up in software.. Information that was never recorded on film has a strong tendency to resist being recovered unless that information is created then installed.


Bernice

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Looks GOOD, do the effective B&W film speed testing to set up the basic effective film speed, developer used and development time/process and the remainder of the print making system (in this case scanner). Give up notion if the negative is poor, it can be "fixed-up in software.. Information that was never recorded on film has a strong tendency to resist being recovered unless that information is created then installed.

Thanks Bernice! Your point regarding "fixed-up in software" definitely rings true, and my primary aim right now is to get good negatives (to that point, I just started reading Ansel Adams The Negative). In my line of work (railcar testing engineer), I learned pretty quickly that a good analog signal is paramount - the best you can hope to do when digitizing is to not mess it up! And if you digitize a bad analog signal, well... you just end up with garbage data. There are many many telemetry sensor manufacturers that claim their software can do some magic to ensure a good signal; in fact, those sensors work great on a bench, but as soon as you put them on a freight railcar with all its vibrations, they are completely useless.

I've already identified the first few steps for improvement in the negatives:

adjust ISO to a more realistic value (Foma 400 datasheet seems to have some good info, and I will look into film speed testing)
measure shutter speeds; already done with the Fuji 125mm, as suspected it runs at least a bit slow at most shutter speeds... it's close to perfect at 1s and 1/2, and somehow also at 1/250, the rest of the range is 10-15% slow. Oh, and 1/400 = 1/250
don't forget to adjust with long exposures. Foma datasheet seems to be too pessimistic here (6x multiplier with 10s shutter, my 8s exposure with zero compensation was underexposed, but I don't think by 2+ stops)
don't leave literal garbage in the developing tank!


P.S. I seem to have fixed the attachments in the second photo post, hopefully they show up now.

[Ulophot]

Mikey, it's great to see that you've gotten off to such a fine start and are enjoying it so much. You seem to have avoided a number of typical pitfalls, which may be due in part to your thoughtful and analytical engineer training. All the better. (And $10 for a decent tripod is hard to beat.)

You may have done this automatically, but if not, consider keeping a record of servicing for your equipment, perhaps on a extra Excel sheet, if you keep your equipment inventory data in one, and set calendar reminders for next service. Since our lenses, shutters, and meters are no longer manufactured, keeping them serviced is wise. Periodic clean, lube, and adjust (CLA) will vary with condition, last check-up, use, and, in some cases, climate and conditions. I have three formats of camera, 35, 645, and 4x5, and keep records and reminders for all (along with battery change reminders).

Looking forward to seeing more of your successes!

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Thanks Philip! That’s a very good idea, I will be sure to implement it.

[Bernice Loui]

Problem with "box speed" of B&W film, ISO spec imposes a set of assumptions of what the image and print making process will be. Film has an innate light sensitivity to produce a given density coupled with the development process, then on to the print making process. Where the box speed ISO spec assumption can fall flat is once an individual's print making demands are placed on the box speed. Then is when and why the box speed flat fails to meet the print making goals.

Processed film density is a combo of innate film sensitivity to light and how much light over time the film is subjected to. Part two is development and developers. As a combo/system there is no escape from the reality they work as a system resulting in the film's latent image density and ability to be made into a print.

Note this ISO spec film curve, note the toe at the curve beginning at 0.10. This is nil for density and not a lot if any information will be recorded at that film density. Could work for some, absolute fail for others. Beyond establishing the effective film speed that meets your specific needs, that film curve is often bent to meet the needs of a scene to be imaged and print goal needs.
217149

Key is a GOOD negative that is going to closest to meeting the print goals, less becomes a patch-up, fix-up at best and software tinkering or wet darkroom tinkering is not gonna get this did.
https://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/WBM/Library_files/FilmTestEvaluation.pdf

Oh, films have production tolerances too like any techno item mass produced. Depending on how demanding your image making needs are, might be good to check this per film batch.

Individuals seeking more than ISO spec for information recorded in film are likely going to alter-bend that curve to fit their image making needs. It really comes down to tailoring the entire system to your print making goals. This means working backwards with the image goals as a system from scene to be images, lens, shutter, camera, film, film post processing to print making to print mounting. Each and every facet of this system is interactive and all must be worked together in proper harmony to achieve the print goals.

IMO, initially stay with one film and one developer. Figure one combo out first before considering any changes to film, developer and development process.


Bernice




Thanks Bernice! Your point regarding "fixed-up in software" definitely rings true, and my primary aim right now is to get good negatives (to that point, I just started reading Ansel Adams The Negative). In my line of work (railcar testing engineer), I learned pretty quickly that a good analog signal is paramount - the best you can hope to do when digitizing is to not mess it up! And if you digitize a bad analog signal, well... you just end up with garbage data. There are many many telemetry sensor manufacturers that claim their software can do some magic to ensure a good signal; in fact, those sensors work great on a bench, but as soon as you put them on a freight railcar with all its vibrations, they are completely useless.

I've already identified the first few steps for improvement in the negatives:

adjust ISO to a more realistic value (Foma 400 datasheet seems to have some good info, and I will look into film speed testing)
measure shutter speeds; already done with the Fuji 125mm, as suspected it runs at least a bit slow at most shutter speeds... it's close to perfect at 1s and 1/2, and somehow also at 1/250, the rest of the range is 10-15% slow. Oh, and 1/400 = 1/250
don't forget to adjust with long exposures. Foma datasheet seems to be too pessimistic here (6x multiplier with 10s shutter, my 8s exposure with zero compensation was underexposed, but I don't think by 2+ stops)
don't leave literal garbage in the developing tank!


P.S. I seem to have fixed the attachments in the second photo post, hopefully they show up now.

[Tin Can]

Wasn't there a big ISO/ASA change adapted for some films

Like suddenly 200 speed film was now 400

But it was the same film

[Bernice Loui]

Box speed is a rough starting point, depending on developer to be used, processing and all that. Box speed and brand recommended development works for some, absolute fail for others. Was touched on previously in this post.. which devolved into a non-productive word fest towards the end.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?163962-Precision-and-Accuracy-in-LF-Photography-How-much-is-enough/page7&highlight=minolta+flash+meter

Bernice



Wasn't there a big ISO/ASA change adapted for some films

Like suddenly 200 speed film was now 400

But it was the same film

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Bernice, thank you for this info - that type of "don't assume, test" approach is right up my alley! I look forward to reading the Lambrecht paper.

As for sticking with one film - I have 46 sheets of Foma 400 left, so I'll try to get through that before thinking about using anything else. At max I will develop 4 sheets at a time, so that's at least 12 shoot/develop cycles. I'm also going to try to avoid N+1/N-1 unless I think it will be important for shots I really care about - I'll try to get as close to "N" as possible with composition, scene/timing, and exposure.

Until I get a chance to test the film and development materials/process, I have the advice from Stearman Press at least, to meter the Foma 400 at 250 (seems like they have a good amount of experience with this film). Here's the Foma 400 datasheet, too: https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400

[Tin Can]

Thanks, I won't bother

I use only a few different films, one developer and agitation






Box speed is a rough starting point, depending on developer to be used, processing and all that. Box speed and brand recommended development works for some, absolute fail for others. Was touched on previously in this post.. which devolved into a non-productive word fest towards the end.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?163962-Precision-and-Accuracy-in-LF-Photography-How-much-is-enough/page7&highlight=minolta+flash+meter

Bernice

[Mikey Antonakakis]

Next set of 4 sheets. Fireworks shots are 10s and 20s exposures, otherwise same settings.

217369

217370

217371

217372

Added Flickr link to signature for higher resolution than the forum seems to allow (doesn't seem to be showing up yet, link below)
Flickr 4x5 album (https://www.flickr.com/photos/75176076@N08/albums/72157719505677473)