Attaching a imacon back to a 4x5

[Graham Twomey]

So I have been looking at 4x5 cameras and have decided that I will be using my Imacon 96c back on a view camera. I am having a hard time figuring out how to attach it to any view camera. from what i have read it seems very possible but I can not find a adapter or back that would allow the back to be attached to any camera. Does anyone have experience or advice or product that would help me?

Thank you!

[Gene McCluney]

In general, the makers of the digital backs provide adaptor plates to attach their backs to popular cameras. Have you tried contacting Imacon? or have you looked at their web site?

[aphexafx]

What make/model is your camera? Anyway, Hasselblad might be able to point you...

[Graham Twomey]

I have a Hasselblad H1. It looks like I may need to get the i-adopter for the V camera. I can not seem to find this adapter and then once I have it how would this then attach to a view camera. I think I am looking for someone that has actually set up a system like this.

[dwhistance]

What kind of view camera are you thinking of using? If you look at the Linhof, Sinar and other websites you will see that they sell specific adapters for each back to allow you to fit them onto their cameras. There are also a few other suppliers who sell adapters which can be made to fit a range of cameras and backs.

Bear in mind that swings/tilts etc are much more subtle with a digital back than with 4x5 film so a camera with finely geared movements will be helpful. Once you have decided on a specific camera then I'm sure you will be able to locate the correct adapter plates.

David Whistance

[aphexafx]

I was asking about the make of your view camera. This will play a large part in determining what you need to mount your Imacon to it.

[Graham Twomey]

I am actually trying to decide on the camera that will best fit my back before I buy one. So its still up in the air so to speak. I am also looking for something used so an older model. The TECHNIKARDAN S 45 looks great! But not sure if I will be using it enough to justify the expense.

[B.S.Kumar]

Graham,

You can buy any brand of view camera you like. I have an Imacon 132C with a Hasselblad V mount, and I use it with a Sinar, a Cambo WideDS and a Wista 45D. You need to buy a Graflok adapter with a Hasselblad H1 mount. All the DB manufacturers make such adapters. Keep an eye on eBay.

Kumar

[Graham Twomey]

Thank you its starting to make sense now. If I bough the Toyo View stationary adapter then I would be limited to Toyo cameras correct? http://www.adorama.com/TY180407.html

This LF world is some what confusing! 35 and Medium just came so naturally! Think it will be worth the education though!

One more question if I attached the back via the Toyo adapter how do I trigger the back? I am guessing that is what the 2 sockets are for on the left hand of the back that I have never used.

[B.S.Kumar]

Yes, you can use the Toyo View adapter, but it would be limited to Toyo cameras. The Graflok is better, in case you want to change cameras later. The price should be about the same, and selling the Toyo adapter would be more difficult. To trigger the back you need to attach a mini-phone type flash synchro cord from the lens' flash socket to one of the sockets on the back. You should have got two such cords with your back - one long and one short.

Kumar

[Gene McCluney]

I can't quite understand the interest in using a medium-format digital back on a 4x5 view camera? I have a scanning-back for 4x5, and that seems more attuned to the functionality of a 4x5 view.

[Graham Twomey]

I can't quite understand the interest in using a medium-format digital back on a 4x5 view camera? I have a scanning-back for 4x5, and that seems more attuned to the functionality of a 4x5 view.

Fair enough comment. I may be wrong but what I would hope to get out of it is the ability to move the lens and take advantage of the sever tilt and shifts that can be obtained by a view camera.
I was going to move to film but after seeing the chromogenic prints from some truly amazing photographers that were shot on film then scanned it changed my mind. The prints I get from the Imacon back I found printed substantially cleaner. I am sure you find the same with your scan back. I think now that professional printers have moved to digital the work flow is demanding digital capture as well. Am I opening a big can of worms here?

[Gene McCluney]

If you use the extreme wide angle lens required to give a reasonable field of view on a 4.5 x 6 cm digital chip, you will still be restricted in movements due to the camera being very compressed. Otherwise, the normal and slightly long focal length lenses normally used for 4x5 will become extreme telephoto lenses. Some digital backs have "issues" with a form of color fringing and vignetting if the lens is off-center, due to the micro-lenses of the chip.

A 4x5 color transparency is hard to beat for mural-sized quality, and you can take full advantage of your cameras capability. Many people (including myself) have adopted a hybrid workflow for color and b/w, shooting on film, and scanning and printing by inkjet.

I absolutely do not believe that modern photography demands digital capture, rather the industry has become accustomed to the short turnaround provided by digital, and expects that speed from all projects. If you have in-house film processing and scanning, as I do, then the time differential is insignificant.

There is no digital back that can capture the amount of detail possible with a 5x7 or 8x10 camera and well exposed and processed film.

Since the scanning-back I have requires constant light, and takes up to 3 minutes to scan the scene, it is a specialized studio tool for still-life and products only, and can not take the place of film for general photography.

[Graham Twomey]

I certainly in theory agree with what you are saying.
I just took part in a photography festival and had my first gallery solo show. All my images were captured digitally with both my Blad and stitched DSLR. My prints ranged from 17"x17" with many 7' plus and one that was 14.5'x14.5' all prints were chromogenic done with a Oce Lightjet Printer. I was excited to see work done by a few large format photographers that were also featured for the festival. I was very disappointed with the quality of prints form the LF film prints. The LF prints were also printed on a chromogenic printer. I did compare the prints with my printer and she explained that when scanning film that the scanner also picks up the film grain and that is what we were seeing in the final prints.
I am still open to going film just now need to see the benefit. So it seems back to the back on a LF camera.
Till RED come out with the Epic 617 pro! And I have enough pocket change to get one!

[Gordon Moat]

Sounds like poor scanning technique, though it can also depend upon the film used. I have never had film grain show up in prints from 4x5 Kodak E100VS and Fuji Astia 100F, but maybe that's just my luck. Anyway, if your path of least resistance to better prints goes through a digital back, then you have found an ideal solution for you. Every once in a while, there are some EBAY sellers with Graflock to Hasselblad adapters for 4x5 cameras; that might be a solution for you.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[duff photographer]

If you are planning on only using your Imacon on a 4x5 camera I would seriously consider the Arca Swiss 6x9 F-Compact Metric with M/Orbix, the latter function providing very fine adjustment which you would need for digital capture. I tested one recently and was very impressed with the functionality and quality. If I could afford it I'd have one over any other alternative out there.

If you plan to use 4x5 film as well then disregard what I said above. I have an Ebony but the way they are constructed limits the weight you can put on the back (it will flex back a little which means the image on the sensor is not completely face on) and adjustment is a lot cruder, especially if you want to take shots to stitch together. My experience of other brands is poor but I guess they would need to be sturdy and have the ability to make fine adjustments.

Cheers.