As a beginner, what was the most surprising thing about LF Photography?

[Kino]

I ask this question because, for some unknown reason and despite my years of being around cameras, I assumed long focus lenses on LF were much more plentiful than normal to wide lenses. Now why did I make this silly assumption? Must be my ingrained, 35mm focal length mindset that looked at these "long" (to 35mm) focal lengths being listed alongside information published on LF photos. It's taking me a while to flush this bias out of my system and think in format related focal lengths.

Silly, but true...

[MartyNL]

I thought LF photography was the pinnacle format, "The bigger the neg, the better the image"...
Turns out, "Good images have nothing to do with format!"

Instead, results come second to pleasure, "The bigger the neg, the better the fun!".

I just really engage and enjoy the hands-on play factor and process of LF much more than any other format.

[munz6869]

The surprising thing about Large Format of me was the social/performative aspect. People often come up to me for a chat whilst I'm photographing (because I'm stuck in one spot for a period of time & it's pretty obvious what I'm doing) and I've really enjoyed inexpertly explaining what I'm doing - so much so at times I miss the light completely or make 'unforced errors', but actually that's ok...

Marc!

[Tin Can]

I shot 35 since I was 7

and dreamed of MF for decades

but MF was way too expensive

NOW I know LF was cheaper

and 8X10 contact prints are easy

frame to 11X14

WOW!!!

[Ulophot]

During my first year of a photography major at college (never completed), we had brief exposure (no pun intended) to 4x5 -- a very basic demo, as I recall, by our teacher, Ray Metzker (a Leica habitué), and some assignment for borrowing a Calumet from the school's equipment center and trying it out. That was it. The fellow who had preceded Ray but left just before I got there, Murray Weiss, was an LF specialist, and I'm sure the curriculum would have been different.

I read about LF for years before having a camera of my own in 1978, so I was familiar with the principles. I think the most surprising aspect was how little tilt is required for many subjects.

[Dugan]

After decades of shooting 4x5 & 5x7, when I first made the jump to 8x10 I was amazed at how the ground glass was like a "picture window"...sorta like going from a DX-sensor Nikon digital camera to an F3HP with an 85mm f1.4 lens.

[jnantz]

I never really realized what a pain in the @$$ it is to develop film ..

[Michael R]

I never really realized what a pain in the @$$ it is to develop film ..

I’m in a similar boat - specifically I was really annoyed by how difficult it turned out to be to find a way to get even development. The methods I naively assumed would work turned out to be crap. That was a real bummer, and ended up being a lengthy, difficult rat hole.

Honestly for me, virtually everything about the LF process turned out to be surprisingly or not so surprisingly a drag. I like the big negative for printing, and that’s about it. Loading film sucks, operating the camera sucks, and processing film mostly sucks lol.

On another note just to comment on Philip’s post above, I’m a fan of Ray Metzker’s work. I think he ended up settling on mostly medium format but I don’t know a whole lot about how he worked. Great stuff though.

[Myriophyllum]

The magic of a contact print. Even in 4x5"...

[xkaes]

I was surprised by how much lighter my LF system was than my MF system -- and how much bigger the negatives were. I could crop endlessly!!!!

[diversey]

The most surprising thing for me is when you see your negatives on your light box!

[darr]

The first time I used a 4x5 was in photography school. I instantly disliked the dark cloth and quickly upgraded to an in-line viewing hood for my student model Calumet. Now, over 40 years later, I'm celebrating the arrival of a customized binocular bag bellows viewer for my Ebony cameras. Some things never did change for me. :)

[Rayt]

With LF I can go out all day and come back with zero exposed negatives whereas with 135 it’s motor drive city.

[ArghGee]

My entry into LF was relatively slow given my age (now 79), but the interest was always there. I used Nikon 35mm for years and began my own b&w developing and printing at 19 years of age when I went to Sydney (NSW, Australia) for work in 1964 and bought a Praktica Nova B SLR. The Praktica was replaced with a Nikon FE then began the expansion of my Nikon gear. I think I've still got about 12 of them plus lenses from 15mm to 2,000mm. I did, early on, buy a Zeiss-Ikon Super Ikon folding camera about 1975 from a lady whose husband had died. It was his camera and he took it on world tours when his wife was the leading violinist for the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. She was a lovely lady and knew of my interest in photography so offered the camera to me. A roll of Ektachrome and some b&w through the camera and I was hooked on the bigger format. I expanded my gear to include a Rollei 6006 and a Mamiya RB67 ProS and have used both regularly - especially the RB. Some 30 or so years ago I had the opportunity to borrow a 4"x5" camera and took some negs that I developed. That was the step up to LF. I acquired a Cambo and an Arca-Swiss at an auction and used both for some time before getting a Sinar P2 4"x5" about 15 years ago. I sold the Combo and Arca-Swiss but, of course, the Sinar is not exactly easy to drag around the country on field trips, so I got a Chamonix 045-N2 about 5 years ago. In between at some time I had the opportunity to get an 8"x10" back for the Sinar. An elderly photographer friend died about 2 years ago and I was given his Linhof Kardan 8"x10" camera but without the rail! The compendium was also falling apart - literally. I was able to get a rail through eBay and recently purchased a new compendium that I have to fit. I will then have a (relatively) easier 8"x10" camera for field trips with the photographic club I belong to. I still do my own processing - film and prints - and explain to friends that 'I just love swimming in the chemicals'. I get far greater pleasure from film, especially LF, than I ever got from using my Nikon D300 DSLR.

[Vaughn]

I did not realize how basic and simple LF would be. It helped I was taking my second photo class and had a 4x5 assignment to jump start me. With the simple instructions, demos, and the proper equipment (cameras, and tools in the darkroom) it was pretty straight forward...just with multiple ways to mess up.

I learn photography with a Rolleiflex. Looking at its GG's backwards image and the way I used the camera making landscapes with a tripod and f22, progressing to 4x5 and it upside down image seemed pretty normal. With the Rollei I was using Panatomic-X in Microdol-X (1:3) and enlarging to 10"x10" and occasionally 15"x15". Going to 4x5 was as beautiful as I had hoped.

The biggest surprise I got was early on after spending a long time under the darkcloth, I straighten up and took the darkcloth off my head. Looking around, the world was, for a split second, upside down...pretty cool.

[Mick Fagan]

As a beginner in large format photography, I marvelled at how a simple application of rear shift, or front rise or fall, changed my perception of what was possible and is such an easy thing to do. This was the real revelation LF photography gave me, of which I'm still enamoured to this day.

Another aspect I quickly utilised, was the ability to expose a single sheet, then develop and print that single sheet. This to me, is the cheapest form of film photography, with the maximum satisfaction.

[Tin Can]

Agree!

0ne sheet is best for all beginners

Shoot ONE and go develop it to

fully dry

examine

repeat

1 sheet 0nly needs 5x7 trays

and a bathroom


As a beginner in large format photography, I marvelled at how a simple application of rear shift, or front rise or fall, changed my perception of what was possible and is such an easy thing to do. This was the real revelation LF photography gave me, of which I'm still enamoured to this day.

Another aspect I quickly utilised, was the ability to expose a single sheet, then develop and print that single sheet. This to me, is the cheapest form of film photography, with the maximum satisfaction.

[Alan Klein]

The first time I used a 4x5 was in photography school. I instantly disliked the dark cloth and quickly upgraded to an in-line viewing hood for my student model Calumet. Now, over 40 years later, I'm celebrating the arrival of a customized binocular bag bellows viewer for my Ebony cameras. Some things never did change for me. :)

Darr, do you have a link for the customized binocular bag bellows viewer?

[Alan Klein]

My entry into LF was relatively slow given my age (now 79), but the interest was always there. I used Nikon 35mm for years and began my own b&w developing and printing at 19 years of age when I went to Sydney (NSW, Australia) for work in 1964 and bought a Praktica Nova B SLR. The Praktica was replaced with a Nikon FE then began the expansion of my Nikon gear. I think I've still got about 12 of them plus lenses from 15mm to 2,000mm. I did, early on, buy a Zeiss-Ikon Super Ikon folding camera about 1975 from a lady whose husband had died. It was his camera and he took it on world tours when his wife was the leading violinist for the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. She was a lovely lady and knew of my interest in photography so offered the camera to me. A roll of Ektachrome and some b&w through the camera and I was hooked on the bigger format. I expanded my gear to include a Rollei 6006 and a Mamiya RB67 ProS and have used both regularly - especially the RB. Some 30 or so years ago I had the opportunity to borrow a 4"x5" camera and took some negs that I developed. That was the step up to LF. I acquired a Cambo and an Arca-Swiss at an auction and used both for some time before getting a Sinar P2 4"x5" about 15 years ago. I sold the Combo and Arca-Swiss but, of course, the Sinar is not exactly easy to drag around the country on field trips, so I got a Chamonix 045-N2 about 5 years ago. In between at some time I had the opportunity to get an 8"x10" back for the Sinar. An elderly photographer friend died about 2 years ago and I was given his Linhof Kardan 8"x10" camera but without the rail! The compendium was also falling apart - literally. I was able to get a rail through eBay and recently purchased a new compendium that I have to fit. I will then have a (relatively) easier 8"x10" camera for field trips with the photographic club I belong to. I still do my own processing - film and prints - and explain to friends that 'I just love swimming in the chemicals'. I get far greater pleasure from film, especially LF, than I ever got from using my Nikon D300 DSLR.

I;m your age and started LF during covid with a Chamonix 45H-1 and still shoot with my RB67. Both sets weigh too much. I use my heavy old Gitzo tripod for both. I try to shoot not too far from the car. I don't have a dark room and send my film out to pro shops and scan film with an Epson V850. (previously V600). How do you keep up with all that stuff?

[Michael Graves]

I guess the thing that shocked me the most was that a word such as Scheimpflug could actually exist.

[jnantz]

I’m in a similar boat - specifically I was really annoyed by how difficult it turned out to be to find a way to get even development. The methods I naively assumed would work turned out to be crap. That was a real bummer, and ended up being a lengthy, difficult rat hole.

Honestly for me, virtually everything about the LF process turned out to be surprisingly or not so surprisingly a drag. I like the big negative for printing, and that’s about it. Loading film sucks, operating the camera sucks, and processing film mostly sucks lol.


it took someone who had a clue showing me how to flip up the spring thing in a hanger when I first used them ... and I always laugh at myself when I shuffle a stack of film in a tray, I put it all in the water and spend like 15 minutes separating all the film stuck together in a big block, and then when it goes in the developer I am constantly counting the film to make sure it didnt' reglue itself. LOL ... if I was rich I'd just get a Honda Asimo robot to develop my photos for me. I have a feeling it would start cursing like C3P0 saying "master J I am having a devil of a time separating this film, are you sure this is how I am supposed to do it" :).

[Alan Klein]

I guess the thing that shocked me the most was that a word such as Scheimpflug could actually exist.

I took German in college and got a D and an F. My LF photography isn't much better.

[Michael R]

it took someone who had a clue showing me how to flip up the spring thing in a hanger when I first used them ... and I always laugh at myself when I shuffle a stack of film in a tray, I put it all in the water and spend like 15 minutes separating all the film stuck together in a big block, and then when it goes in the developer I am constantly counting the film to make sure it didnt' reglue itself. LOL ... if I was rich I'd just get a Honda Asimo robot to develop my photos for me. I have a feeling it would start cursing like C3P0 saying "master J I am having a devil of a time separating this film, are you sure this is how I am supposed to do it" :).

You need one of those I Love Lucy chocolate conveyor belts to drop your films into the water one at a time. That’s how you’re supposed to do it.

[Tin Can]

I took German in college and got a D and an F. My LF photography isn't much better.

I did not speak at all until almost 4

Then short sentences

Tard

until 2 years academic Latin

that helped with USA Lingo

Very glad I dropped out until age 50

[darr]

Darr, do you have a link for the customized binocular bag bellows viewer?

Alan,
I recently purchased a used binocular viewer on eBay, drawn to it by its removable bracket, with the thought that a custom bracket could be made for my cameras. I sent the viewer to SK Grimes, and they successfully fabricated a bracket for my camera setup. I’m unsure who manufactures this particular binocular bag bellows viewer, as it didn’t fit my Sinar, Cambo, or Linhof 4x5 cameras. You can check out the article I wrote, along with photos of the viewer, after receiving it back from SK Grimes:

https://photoscapes.com/binocular-viewer-for-ebony-4x5/

[Ulophot]

I guess the thing that shocked me the most was that a word such as Scheimpflug could actually exist.

Deligtful.

[Mark Sawyer]

I guess the thing that shocked me the most was that a word such as Scheimpflug could actually exist.

I understand the Scheimpflug Principle, but there's always something in the wrong place sticking out of the plane of focus to spoil it. I'm pretty sure it should be renamed the Schadenfreude Principle.

[Tin Can]

I knew a big guy, played at NAZI. Mean. Kicked out of NYC and parent Cop.

Gets married to a very smart lady

They have baby

The bully died, drugs again

The child is now adult

Father had a large 'Schadenfreude' tattoo on arm

[Michael R]

Schadenfreude is my middle name.

[ArghGee]

I;m your age and started LF during covid with a Chamonix 45H-1 and still shoot with my RB67. Both sets weigh too much. I use my heavy old Gitzo tripod for both. I try to shoot not too far from the car. I don't have a dark room and send my film out to pro shops and scan film with an Epson V850. (previously V600). How do you keep up with all that stuff?

I'm fortunate to still be fit and well. My Chamonix fits into a LowePro Trekker backpack along with 3 lenses: 90, 150, 300, some filters and a Profisix light meter, and with the Gitzo GT0531 (carbon-fibre) tripod either carried (short excursions) or strapped to the bottom of the Trekker. I use a Giotto MH 1312 ball-head but I'm not a big fan of ball-heads for LF. The Chamonix is light enough weight for it. I use three Grafmatic holders (6 sheets in each - different films) to reduce bulk of normal double-dark film holders. It's an easily managed combination. I agree the RB67 is a heavy bugger to carry around but I love it for photographing around Adelaide or where I can drive to the location. I've got it in a large aluminium case along with 5 lenses, filters, and several film backs. No way I could lug all that around on a field trip! :(

[otto.f]

My most surprising thing was that I did it. Working with LF in a studio is not that difficult; you take your time, leave the setup to wait for the moment you know what you want, etc. But going out for landscape, where, what, by car, walking, by bike, etc. is another thing. I succeeded in figuring out what I wanted, a German castle, when to shoot it, on a misty morning in November, the point of view and arriving there on a gravel bike that I packed with my Chamonix F2 and everything I needed. There was nothing I forgot to bring and I just made one mistake out of four shots with the castle showing up out of the fog. It resulted in a diptych on the wall. I’m surprised that it exists in my life: outdoor LF photography without crucial faults including development and wet printing.

[Alan Klein]

Alan,
I recently purchased a used binocular viewer on eBay, drawn to it by its removable bracket, with the thought that a custom bracket could be made for my cameras. I sent the viewer to SK Grimes, and they successfully fabricated a bracket for my camera setup. I’m unsure who manufactures this particular binocular bag bellows viewer, as it didn’t fit my Sinar, Cambo, or Linhof 4x5 cameras. You can check out the article I wrote, along with photos of the viewer, after receiving it back from SK Grimes:

https://photoscapes.com/binocular-viewer-for-ebony-4x5/

Is there a magnifier on it?

[Alan Klein]

I understand the Scheimpflug Principle, but there's always something in the wrong place sticking out of the plane of focus to spoil it. I'm pretty sure it should be renamed the Schadenfreude Principle.

I thought calculating the f stop by figuring out DOF for a MF camera was tough. I should have figure that any process that has a name like Scheimpflug would be difficult. I can't even spell it.

[darr]

Is there a magnifier on it?

Yes, the magnification is similar to the Sinar binocular.

[Doremus Scudder]

I jumped to 4x5 from 35mm (lots of Nikon F2s, etc. - still have them).

The biggest surprise for me was how different focusing the view camera was. Yes, I could rack the bellows in and out and focus on an object in the scene, but dealing with movements and finding the optimum focus for the desired depth of field quickly became the main goal. That meant I was focusing on just about everything else but the objects in the desired plane of sharp focus, then finding the compromise. Once I learned the near-far method, I never looked back.

Best,

Doremus

[Alan Klein]

Yes, the magnification is similar to the Sinar binocular.

I have two viewfinders for my Chamonx 45H-1. The magnifier eyepiece on the top is one see link). Of course, when I use it I have to lower the tripod. I;m afraid to focus only using it. Can you focus yours with just the binocular magnifier?

I also have the folding viewer at the bottom to use instead of a dark cloth. Problem is my loupe is just long enough to reach the GG, sometimes.

https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/viewfinders

[darr]

I have two viewfinders for my Chamonx 45H-1. The magnifier eyepiece on the top is one see link). Of course, when I use it I have to lower the tripod. I;m afraid to focus only using it. Can you focus yours with just the binocular magnifier?

I also have the folding viewer at the bottom to use instead of a dark cloth. Problem is my loupe is just long enough to reach the GG, sometimes.

https://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/accessories/viewfinders

Your viewfinder is a Cambo T-20 copy ( https://www.cambo.com/en/products/technical-view-cameras/analogue-cameras/traditional-large-format/viewing-accessories/t-20 ). I use the T-20 for my Cambo Wide 650 and had the Cambo T-21 In-line viewer (upside down view) for my first 4x5. Does your T-20 viewfinder turn 90 degrees to use for a sideview? The original does.

If I am using a wide-angle lens, I focus first with the viewfinder (soft focus), then final focus with a loupe; otherwise I focus only with the viewfinder. Everything looks in focus when I soft focus with a wide-angle and I learned this after using a stronger power loupe to tweak.

[Ulophot]

I understand the Scheimpflug Principle, but there's always something in the wrong place sticking out of the plane of focus to spoil it. I'm pretty sure it should be renamed the Schadenfreude Principle.

Double-delightful. Oder, vieleicht, doppelt-entzückend.

[Alan Klein]

Your viewfinder is a Cambo T-20 copy ( https://www.cambo.com/en/products/technical-view-cameras/analogue-cameras/traditional-large-format/viewing-accessories/t-20 ). I use the T-20 for my Cambo Wide 650 and had the Cambo T-21 In-line viewer (upside down view) for my first 4x5. Does your T-20 viewfinder turn 90 degrees to use for a sideview? The original does.

If I am using a wide-angle lens, I focus first with the viewfinder (soft focus), then final focus with a loupe; otherwise I focus only with the viewfinder. Everything looks in focus when I soft focus with a wide-angle and I learned this after using a stronger power loupe to tweak.
Yes it does rotate 90 degrees for a side view, although when would I use it on the side like that?

[Dan Fromm]

Yes it does rotate 90 degrees for a side view, although when would I use it on the side like that?

rotating back

[Ben Calwell]

I was surprised that back in the Bronze Age, shooting LF could be a chick magnet. When I was about 12 or 13 in the early 1960s, I was at a state park with my family and noticed a young man photographing a waterfall with what I believe now must have been an 8x10 Deardorff. This fellow was pretty dashing looking, and I remember thinking how cool he looked with that big camera on a tripod. Soon, a very attractive young lady approached him as he fiddled with the camera. I overhead one snippet of their conversation when he said to her, “This is how I earn my living.” After getting his shot, the dashing photographer drove off in his convertible with the young lady seated beside him. I remember thinking to myself, “Wow, I wanna get me a big camera!” I’ll never know if she was attracted to him, his camera or his convertible, or a combination of the three.

[Vaughn]

I wish I was just a beginner when I finally realized that tilting the camera up and making both standards vertical is the same as keeping the camera level and using just front rise -- and that the first method does not have a better chance of keeping the film within the image circle than the latter method.

[Michael Graves]

I was surprised that back in the Bronze Age, shooting LF could be a chick magnet. When I was about 12 or 13 in the early 1960s, I was at a state park with my family and noticed a young man photographing a waterfall with what I believe now must have been an 8x10 Deardorff. This fellow was pretty dashing looking, and I remember thinking how cool he looked with that big camera on a tripod. Soon, a very attractive young lady approached him as he fiddled with the camera. I overhead one snippet of their conversation when he said to her, “This is how I earn my living.” After getting his shot, the dashing photographer drove off in his convertible with the young lady seated beside him. I remember thinking to myself, “Wow, I wanna get me a big camera!” I’ll never know if she was attracted to him, his camera or his convertible, or a combination of the three.

I remember taking that shot. You were there that day?


Just kidding. I was never dashing or good looking, although I did own a convertible.

[Vaughan]

I was never dashing or good looking, although I did own a convertible.

Ah yes, the old Symmars. I had a 180mm. Loved the IQ of the lens. Hated the Synchro-Compur shutter.

[notorius]

Ah yes, the old Symmars. I had a 180mm. Loved the IQ of the lens. Hated the Synchro-Compur shutter.

I still have one 210/370, same feelings. Would rather own 900 Turbo convertible.

[Heroique]

I wish I hadn't spent the first year using my Tachi 4x5 without knowing the additional camera movements I could achieve by tilting the camera on its side. For example, I could have used front shift to improve many landscapes, but the official specs led me to believe it wasn't possible. Even today, as I review more recent shots, it will still occur to me I didn't use my camera to its fullest potential. An eternal learning process!

[neil poulsen]

Discovering Ansel Adams, Imogene Cunningham, Edward Weston, and other black and white photographers.

That led me to learn and develop my own testing and developing methods for using the Zone System. I regard the Zone System as an enormous step forward in my photography. But actually, it's just a systematic methodology for exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights.

[Alan Klein]

rotating back

Dan, the viewer rotates but wouldn't have to if I'm rotating the whole back with it on it. MY question is when I:m looking let;s say in landscape view, when and why would I rotate the viewer 90 degrees keepng the back in landscape mode. I could use it to see only part of the view.

[Alan Klein]

I was surprised that back in the Bronze Age, shooting LF could be a chick magnet. When I was about 12 or 13 in the early 1960s, I was at a state park with my family and noticed a young man photographing a waterfall with what I believe now must have been an 8x10 Deardorff. This fellow was pretty dashing looking, and I remember thinking how cool he looked with that big camera on a tripod. Soon, a very attractive young lady approached him as he fiddled with the camera. I overhead one snippet of their conversation when he said to her, “This is how I earn my living.” After getting his shot, the dashing photographer drove off in his convertible with the young lady seated beside him. I remember thinking to myself, “Wow, I wanna get me a big camera!” I’ll never know if she was attracted to him, his camera or his convertible, or a combination of the three.

Well, I think the answer is that he got the girl and you didn't even though both of you use a LF camera. :)

[Drew Wiley]

I sure got a kick out of an incident along the trail when a teenage girl and her mom approached me and asked if they could look under my darkcloth. I obliged them. The girl said, "Coool; but is the image always like that?" She was referring to it being upside-down, and then asked where the rotation app was, as if it were like a cell phone. I told her, just to hang the framed picture upside-down, and then the image itself will be rightside-up again. Her mother laughed, having seen view cameras in use before.

[David Lindquist]

Ah yes, the old Symmars. I had a 180mm. Loved the IQ of the lens. Hated the Synchro-Compur shutter.

Just curious, why did/do you hate the Synchro-Compur shutters?

Full disclosure: I do prefer the ergonomics of the No. 0 and No. 1 Copal shutters to the corresponding Synchro-Compurs.

Further disclosure: It took me a while to get how "old Symmar" connected with having a convertible.

David

[Mark Sawyer]

The girl said, "Coool; but is the image always like that?" She was referring to it being upside-down, and then asked where the rotation app was, as if it were like a cell phone...

That rather reminds me of the time I was setting up my 8x10 and a little girl was so disappointed to find out that no, I wasn't going to play the accordion.

[Jim Peterson]

I was surprised that I couldn't see what I was doing, especially in the corners. I have a decent loupe and dark cloth. My eyesight is fading but not terrible. Chamonix 045n2. Mostly landscapes so want everything in focus. I have f 5.6 to F8 lenses. I tend to compensate and expose at F32 to make sure everything is in focus. I guess that maybe that is what the F64 group was all about. I don't know. I have never shot anything at F64. Am hoping to try 5x7 and maybe I will see what I am doing better? 8x10 too over the top and expensive for me.

[darr]

Yes it does rotate 90 degrees for a side view, although when would I use it on the side like that?

You can rotate the viewfinder from landscape to portrait mode without having to remove the camera back, allowing you to check the composition seamlessly. While it might feel a bit awkward at first (I got used to it over time), as you mentioned, you often need to lower the tripod to view through the top of the viewfinder. However, instead of adjusting the tripod height, you can simply rotate the viewer 90 degrees, and look through the viewer. It works that way too, though it may take a little getting used to.

[Alan Klein]

You can rotate the viewfinder from landscape to portrait mode without having to remove the camera back, allowing you to check the composition seamlessly. While it might feel a bit awkward at first (I got used to it over time), as you mentioned, you often need to lower the tripod to view through the top of the viewfinder. However, instead of adjusting the tripod height, you can simply rotate the viewer 90 degrees, and look through the viewer. It works that way too, though it may take a little getting used to.

But if the back is in landscape mode and you rotate the viewfinder 90 degrees to portrait view, you won't see the whole ground glass on the sides. Right?

[darr]

But if the back is in landscape mode and you rotate the viewfinder 90 degrees to portrait view, you won't see the whole ground glass on the sides. Right?

Alan, you're right if your camera requires removing, rotating, and reinstalling the back for portrait mode. Not all cameras work that way, though many do. For instance, my MT 3000's back rotates without needing to be removed.

[Vaughan]

Just curious, why did/do you hate the Synchro-Compur shutters?

The speeds were never right, and it had the old 5-10-20-50-100 (or whatever they are) shutter speed scale on it. To be frank, my dislike is mainly the frustration I enjoyed putting the thing apart and putting it back together again trying to fix it. Then I bought a Fujinon NSW 90mm f8 in Copal shutter and learned how good Japanese shutters can be. (All this was in the mid to late 1980s when I was young and impressionable.)


It took me a while to get how "old Symmar" connected with having a convertible.

My work here is done.

[Jody_S]

I was surprised to eventually figure out that the gear doesn't matter.

I was poor as a kid, used my dad's Canon because that's all I had, and coveted all the lenses and especially those beautiful MF cameras at the camera store. I had to save for each roll of film. Developed in a basement cold room and printed with one of those Russian enlargers that fit in a briefcase, couldn't afford the proper enlarger bulb so all my photos had a spot in the middle that showed the writing on the light bulb. And I got discouraged because I wasn't really progressing (so I thought), I had no mentors, no Internet of course, and I simply couldn't reproduce the photos I was seeing in the Photo (Paris, in French) magazines I was buying.

Then I got serious when I was laid up after a surgery, started doing wildlife photography, where gear actually does matter, and started working with a lab run by a true pro, who taught me a lot.

But since doing LF, I have concentrated on 'seeing' instead of magic bullets in the form of new lenses, cameras, tripods, whatever I might think would finally enable me to take those 'perfect' shots. And I have now sold so many of my favorite cameras and lenses, only to go back out and fall in love with yet another old piece of crap because I can get the image I saw in my mind as I was composing and taking the shot. And I have been disappointed in all of the gear I spent real money to buy. I keep going back to the stuff that most would dismiss as junk.

So yeah, I have a Cooke knuckler for sale. What a letdown. Also an Hermagis Eidoscop, and a Wolly Velostigmat II with the soft focus adjustment, though I may modify it to unscrew all the way and try it again. I recently fell in love all over again with a Darlot 10" f4 Petzval. I haven't even shot with it yet, I just mounted it on a camera and pointed it out my window.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, you're right if your camera requires removing, rotating, and reinstalling the back for portrait mode. Not all cameras work that way, though many do. For instance, my MT 3000's back rotates without needing to be removed.

I;m not making myself clear. Leaving the camera in landscape mode, but rotating the vieer so you can see from the side chops off the sides to see of the landscape view.

[Vaughn]

I was surprised that I couldn't see what I was doing, especially in the corners...

The trick with the corners is to get one's eye on the same path the light is taking through the lens to the corner one is looking at -- then the corners brighten up just fine.

[darr]

I;m not making myself clear. Leaving the camera in landscape mode, but rotating the vieer so you can see from the side chops off the sides to see of the landscape view.

It doesn't appear that way on my camera. Since your viewfinder is a copy of the Cambo T-20, I can't speak for your specific model. Here are quick snapshots taken with the camera and viewer in landscape mode and then the viewer rotated 90 degrees. The only noticeable difference is that, at the 90-degree rotation, the image on the ground glass appears upside down.


https://cameraartist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/dsf2210-me.jpg

https://cameraartist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/dsf2198-me.jpg

Instead of asking about this, why not take your camera out and explore its viewfinder firsthand? Working with your equipment directly will help you better understand its limitations. A lot of confusion can be cleared up by simply spending time experimenting with your camera.

[John Kasaian]

Hmmm.....what first impressed me was one of the first images I took of the old Millerton Courthouse reconstructed on the shore of Millerton Lake near Friant Dam.
I made a contact print and took it to a local pro for suggestions, since I was self taught and didn't know what I was doing.
A white park maintenance pick-up truck was parked in front of the old courthouse which completely ruined an otherwise decent scene, but the was nothing I could do about that except move quite aways back, hoping that the swirling fog might add a bit of mystery to an otherwise lackluster picture of a Toyota maintenance vehicle parked in front of an 1850's courthouse.
the "pro" brought out his loupe and studied my print and surprised me by pointing out that he could easily read the truck's license plate numbers.

Until then I didn't realize how sharp LF could be.
What potential!

[Drew Wiley]

John - many a time I've stood at the edge of the cliffs way up above Millerton, and have wished that I could have seen what the river and its surroundings looked like before the dam. My dad at least remembered it. Same with Vermillion Valley way upstream - how beautiful that must have been. So much was lost, not only to the heartbreak of John Muir, when Hetch Hetchy valley was damned (deliberate misspelling), but almost lost when the LA water dept under Mulholland had their sights sets on Yosmite Valley itself, planning a takeover and dam there. He had dams on the San Joaquin planned clear up past Balloon Dome - then his power suddenly crashed with his own infamous dam collapse disaster.

Yeah, I've had my 8x10 atop most of the Tables. A good workout, to say the least.

[bob carnie]

For me it was the feel of handling 8 x 10 film , it just felt cool

[Havoc]

I still find it surprising after all these years how much stuff and weight you need to take along, then how much time you need to spend to set it all up and then the effort it takes to develop those sheet and end up with nothing to show because you forgot to close the lens before drawing the darkslide, forgot that you had already exposed that sheet, had the wrong film in it, your shutter packed it that time, you messed up focus, you missed that *** in the corner because everything was upside down, you cannot pay for development so mess it up yourself and countless other things.

Never understood how I ended up with all that gear for it.

[Alan Klein]

It doesn't appear that way on my camera. Since your viewfinder is a copy of the Cambo T-20, I can't speak for your specific model. Here are quick snapshots taken with the camera and viewer in landscape mode and then the viewer rotated 90 degrees. The only noticeable difference is that, at the 90-degree rotation, the image on the ground glass appears upside down.


https://cameraartist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/dsf2210-me.jpg

https://cameraartist.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/dsf2198-me.jpg

Instead of asking about this, why not take your camera out and explore its viewfinder firsthand? Working with your equipment directly will help you better understand its limitations. A lot of confusion can be cleared up by simply spending time experimenting with your camera.

Good advice. Thanks.

[Steven Ferson]

I got an opportunity to buy a Chamonix 8x10 at the end of 2023.

I really liked the results of my yashica mat 6x6. I looked for a used chamox 4x5, thinking that 8x10 would be to expensive new and rare to find used, until one showed up for sale without lenses or film holders and I took the plunge.

Surprises:

- good modern lenses at reasonable prices are relatively rare in Europe. I found a Fuji 250 and a Fuji 360, but choices were limited.
- used 8x10 film holders are rare and expensive. Import from Japan is even more expensive (30% customs)
- a leightweight 8x10 is limiting in lens choice, due to practical limitations in weight on the front
- you need a really stable tripod
- developing in trays was :mad:, until I bought a stearman tank :cool:. No complaints any more.
- Fuji lenses are possibly to sharp for portraits if the subject did more than 20 laps around the sun. I’m am considering some Tessar or heliar alternatives, but struggle with weight concerns.


My setup is relatively leightweight and fits in a mindshift backpack, with the tripod strapped te the side. I can ride on a bicycle with my 8x10 gear.

For a hybrid analog /digital workflow a 4x5 or MF is probably easier / better to get good results.
The view on the ground glass of an 8x10 and contact prints are awesome.

The camera is a conversation starter and it is easy to find strangers for a portrait or to get access to a good place for a shot on an event. Most people think you are a working event pro :cool:

Steven

[Chuck_4x5]

My Chamonix fits into a LowePro Trekker backpack :(

I have the 4x5 Canham DLC and am interested in what particular model of the Lowepro Trekker that you have for your Chamonix system.

[ArghGee]

I have the 4x5 Canham DLC and am interested in what particular model of the Lowepro Trekker that you have for your Chamonix system.

My LowePro is simply titled 'LowePro Photo Trekker'. I bought it about 1997 before travelling to California. It comprises green canvas opening flaps on a black canvas body, with good separation panels inside as well as the various useful pockets. It's had a lot of use and has yet to start fraying or having threads disintegrate. A really well-made pack! An old photography friend passed away a couple of years ago and his wife gave me his Trekker. It's an older model than mine but still in good condition but is, shall I say, 'weather-worn'. I took it to the photographic club I belong to here in Adelaide as a freebie, and no-one was interested in it. What I like about the Trekker is it is designed as a back-pack, but the straps that sling over the shoulders and the ones at the front that tighten around the midriff can all be slipped into the body of the pack for travelling in a vehicle or if using the shoulder sling. There's two straps at the bottom for attaching a tripod, but it would have to be a relatively small tripod - good for 35mm but a stronger tripod is needed for LF so I carry mine. My Chamonix measures 20cm x 19cm x 10cm (approximates), so if your camera folds to roughly those dimensions you'll have no problem fitting it into the Trekker with plenty of room for lenses, filters, light meter and a few film carriers. I hope this helps.

[John Kasaian]

John - many a time I've stood at the edge of the cliffs way up above Millerton, and have wished that I could have seen what the river and its surroundings looked like before the dam. My dad at least remembered it. Same with Vermillion Valley way upstream - how beautiful that must have been. So much was lost, not only to the heartbreak of John Muir, when Hetch Hetchy valley was damned (deliberate misspelling), but almost lost when the LA water dept under Mulholland had their sights sets on Yosmite Valley itself, planning a takeover and dam there. He had dams on the San Joaquin planned clear up past Balloon Dome - then his power suddenly crashed with his own infamous dam collapse disaster.

Yeah, I've had my 8x10 atop most of the Tables. A good workout, to say the least.

I remember hearing old timers reminisce about going up to Millerton from Fresno and for picnicking. There's a lot of History there that's underwater.

[Drew Wiley]

If they're insane enough to build another dam right upriver at Temperance Flat, Millerton Res is going to be damn near empty on drier years. But we won't see the original valley - just a lot of mud and bathtub rings. There's actually an island of pumice which can be seen out there if the water is low enough, just like what they once quarried on the Madera Co side of the River. More often, the water is low enough to expose the former salmon leap just below the newer power plant upriver. My dad asked the chief engineer why they weren't going to put in a salmon ladder at the dam like was done in the Northwest. He replied, "Nobody is going to drive way out here to go fishing". Now, of course, there's a trout fish hatchery just below the dam - no salmon.

With his help per clues, I've traced some of the remaining above water old freight wagon trails on both sides of the River. I probably wouldn't have the strength to go back to the same places with a heavy pack of Sinar gear. Glad I got the shots when I did - some interesting artifacts, probably now gone. and some stunning rocks. Now that's one of the first things one discovers about view camera photography - It will keep you in shape! And a cheap pack will likely bust. One day I did a cumulative 9,000 feet of climbing further back in that canyon; there are some tricky cliffs too.

[ArghGee]

Re: Dams. Here in Australia we had plans by the Tasmanian Government to dam the Franklin River - one of the last pristine areas in Tasmania. They'd already dammed (and damned) Lake Pedder - a breathtakingly beautiful natural lake. The Franklin River dam was eventually stopped as a result of concerted efforts by many people and an iconic photograph called "Rock Island Bend' by Peter Dombrovskis who tragically lost his life on 28th March 1996, while photographing in the Western Arthur Range in southwest Tasmania. Peter was influenced by many photographers, Ansel Adams being one such. Peter used a Linhof Master Technika 5" x 4" field camera, using three lenses; a 90mm Nikkor F4.5, a 150mm Schneider Symar-S (standard lens), and a 300mm Nikkor; sometimes using a polarising filter. I use three such lenses with my Chamonix. If there's enough of a ground movement amongst the population, large nature-destroying projects can be stopped. Even so, it was a huge battle to save the Franklin. I encourage readers here to search 'Franklin River' or 'Peter Dombrovskis' to get inspiration to record our fast-diminishing pristine nature areas. You never know - one of your photographs might generate a ground movement to move a government (who are mostly in the pockets of large corporations and developers) to abort plans to destroy nature areas. When my wife and I were visiting California in the mid-1990s, I ensured we would go to Muir Woods and Yosemite. I would go back again just to visit Yosemite again.

[Drew Wiley]

Yosemite Valley was slated for a dam too. But where a lot of chatter went on a couple decades ago involved a truly gigantic dam on the last de facto wilderness stretch of the lower San Joaquin River. Very few people have ever been in there, with me being one of them. Then whitewater runners came, but weren't all that aware of what lay above. At the very top, the Nature Conservancy and Sierra Land Trust have acquired enough land to protect some of the rare biota and rock formations, and as a seamless buffer zone from trophy home developers encroaching from the other side. Public access is denied on that side of the River, but there is now an accessible trail on the opposite side. I have mixed feelings about that. I remember when the solitude was wonderful.

A friend asked why I didn't make a LF photo project out of the remote portion for sake of public awareness - something serious enough for a large scale public presentation with real impact. But I didn't have the heat tolerance I once did. During cooler early season, like Feb, I still had the strength. No longer.

Eventually the whole damn dam idea devolved into a financial pipe dream. 30% of the water would just evaporate. Three, maybe four, extant hydroelectric plants would be submerged at the two ends of the proposed lake. One of them runs on a fantastically expensive tunnel through solid diorite ($23,000 per linear foot for 7 miles back in the 70's). Not only would the utility companies have to be reimbursed for those extant incredible engineering projects, but also reimbursed for any lost electrical generation revenues for the lifespan of the system - perhaps another hundred years. Today, if actually done, it would probably be a project approaching a trillion dollars. Recharging permeable sandstone aquifers lower down with any surplus water, and pumping it back out as needed, would make far more sense. But big ego types come along who want their name on a giant dam.

A couple trails have been put in peripherally lower down, but the main part is rarely entered. There are remains of a couple old bulldozer mining roads. Nobody lives there. Much of it is very steep. It's mostly BLM land, Federally owned already. It would be a good candidate for WSA status (Wilderness Study Area). But my days of lugging an 8x10 in there are over, and I doubt anyone else will ever do it. That kind of terrain can basically protect itself except from one thing - dams.

So to get the thread back on track, what did I technically learn from print projects like that - use precision adhesive film holders for 8X10 film when big enlargements are in mind. It does make a difference. Mere lens quality can't handle everything. Also use a tripod itself built like a mountain. So no, that wasn't my first set of surprises in LF photography, but was when transitioning from 4X5 to 8X10.