Move from 35mm to 4x5

[laroygreen]

Hey guys,

New to the forum, and I'm seeking some advice on an issue that I've been going back and forth on for the last month.

Basically, I currently shoot 35mm (full frame) and do primarily portraits. Its worked well for me, and I haven't had any issues and I can print images up to about 34x22 (with up-resing) with decent results.

Lately, I've been thinking about a big personal photography project and I want to do something I typically don't do, and that is to potentially make really large prints. I say potentially, because its my intention to get these images hosted in a gallery, and large print sizes (anything over 34x22 unframed) would probably hurt my chances of getting a show (at least in the gallery I have in mind). Eventually however, sooner or later, my ultimate vision for this project is to have big prints, and by big, I mean anywhere from 60"x75" - 90"x112" (where I'll get something this large printed on inkjet is a question that only time can answer :) ).

The project itself will be closer to portrait photography than landscape photography, will make use of lots of strobe lights, and will require a big investment of time and money on my part. My thinking is that if I'm going to go to all this trouble, I might as well take the extra step and not compromise on my vision of someday making really large prints.

Trouble is, I've never shot film in any meaningful way (on any format) and large format is definitely going to be a leap for me. Not only will I have to learn how to use a view camera (probably not that hard since I don't have to mess with movements as such for portraits), but I'll also have to learn how to develop my own colour film (my vision calls for colour film as well)!

Other than the challenges of my abilities, there is also a matter of cost to get started. I would obviously get a basic used view camera, bigger tripod, various little accessories, but I would probably also have to get a Jobo cp* to develop the film myself. Then, assuming that works, I'll still have to scan the film (I have access to an Epson 10000xl). As a rough estimate, this is probably going to be around 1500 - 2000 USD maybe? This in light of the fact that I already own a top of the line DSLR that is and will be my primary camera for some time.

Question is, is it worth it? Should I just be happy with my 35mm prints? I've never had any issues before, and other than the fact that I see these as large prints in my mind, the audience would still probably appreciate it just the same. I also don't know if I'll be doing much LF photography outside of this project as I don't own my own studio, and landscapes just aren't my thing (I would probably move down to rollfilm if I still wanted to do film).

One part of me says "use the money and time to make the project better in other ways, like better models, better wardrobe, etc." and another part of me says "you'll one day regret not having a large negative" and as such, I am thoroughly confused. Any advice would really help! I don't want a technical pursuit to overshadow what it is I'm trying to do in the first place, but I also don't want to be lazy and compromise the quality that I'm looking for.

[mdm]

Just get a 80 megapixel digital system and be done with it. No compromises. I am shure Richard Avedon and Irving Penn would be using one of those.

[John Kasaian]

You can get a monorail for about $200 (Calumet 400 or Graphic View)or a B&J Rembrandt. A suitable lens for $250 and up (and up and up!) A stack of film olders for around $40 and a Tilt-all tripod for around $100 or less. Light meter, loupe & focusing cloth for ??? I don't know what Jobos go for these days.
If you don't really need the movements a view camera affords, you might do as well with a medium format like an RB67.

[Brian C. Miller]

Laroy, welcome to the Large Format Forum! You're a bit like Alice, coming upon the Mad Tea Party. Yes, we're mad here, all of us, quite mad. So you're in for a lot of crazy, contradictory opinions.

First, about film. I don't know about the Trinidad & Tobago area, but if there isn't a photo lab there that can process LF film, you can send it to a lab stateside for processing. While developing film is not difficult, it is easy to mess up color film development.

Second, scanning. At minimum you'll need a scanner like the Epson 700 or 750, and that's really the bare minimum. The Epson 10000XL is a good scanner, it will handle 4x5 film, but it's really not what you want. Let me explain.

You want to print absolutely humongous sizes. OK, that's wonderful. There's a fellow in New York who does portrait work like that, and somewhere there's a link to a YouTube video showing him at work. The camera he uses is an 8x10. Unless you can afford a $40,000+ 80Mp camera, that's what you'll need for excellent quality. The color film for these runs about $10 per sheet. You can get going with an 8x10 with a lens for under $1000, easily.

Yes, the quality will astound you. However, view cameras take a good bit of work to use. Using an 8x10 is about the same amount of work for using a 4x5. The 8x10 is just bigger and heavier, that's all. You'll be using it in a studio, instead of hauling it all over the place, so no problems there. The camera is simply big, but really, they're all sweethearts.

We recently had a discussion about 80Mp cameras and 8x10 cameras. (link (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=72076)) Amidst the discussion there is some good information, along with a few photos. The print size you want is well inside the territory of 80Mp and 8x10 cameras, and basically nothing else will do. The closest digital "cheap seat" is the new Pentax 645D, at roughly $10,000.

You'll have to spend a bit of time learning how to use the camera. This isn't difficult, and black & white film can be reasonably cheap, even cheaper if you use xray film. Plus lots of fabulous portraits have been made using 8x10 cameras and black & white film.

Start looking for a decent 8x10 camera in reasonable shape, and get a 300mm to 360mm lens. You'll need a couple of film holders and a light meter. Remember this one rule: the age of the camera and lens does not control the quality of the portrait.

You can easily process black & white film yourself, and do it very very cheaply. You don't need anything sophisticated, just three paint trays, less than $20 of chemicals, running water, and a dark room. You don't need an enlarger for 8x10, and Edward Weston never used one, so don't worry about it.

Please have a look at the information on the main page, and there's lots of good stuff in the forum here.

Enjoy!

[laroygreen]

Thanks guys! Very helpful!

I wish I could afford a medium format digital back, but that is just way beyond what I'm willing to spend on a potentially one-off photography project (especially if you can get close enough to that for far less money with a bit extra work).

I was also thinking 8x10 made more sense, but assumed it required twice as much work (in retrospect, that's actually pretty silly). Ultimately, what I want, is a picture of a staged environment, with models (so maybe around 35mm-50mm on an average dslr in terms of focal length), that can be printed as 1:1, that is, if I'm 5'11" in life, then I'll be 5'11" in the print.

There are a few labs around here, but none of them are any good (went to ask about development the other day and they didn't even know what was 120 film!), so, that's where the whole notion of self development came about. I also thought about shipping the negatives state side, but that scares the hell out of me, i.e. what if it gets lost, or damaged? Unlike rollfilm, sheets can be easily exposed to light if not handled carefully (say maybe customs). So, I figured I would rather develop myself just to avoid that.

Its a lot of steps, but I have modern technology to help me, i.e. I can download film development apps that ping each step of the process, and using a jobo to keep the colour process consistent. There are also several comprehensive videos on youtube on how to develop colour c-41 film in a Jobo, so, I may oversimplify, but it doesn't seem too hard (or am I disillusioned)???

Also, to mitigate any mishaps, I'll do a lot of exposures for each scene, maybe 20 (which should all be close the same), and develop the first few batches 1 at a time (also do plenty of practise runs before I actually start shooting), so that any mistakes would only ruin 1 exposure. I'll also use my dslr to hedge my bets, so if all else fails, I'll still have a good digital capture.

I basically have 1 year to pull this off, from learning how to use a view camera, learning how to develop film, to shooting the project and printing the negatives.

Am I being too paranoid about shipping off the film for processing and am I getting way over my head with large format vs the ease of 35mm?

Also, as you can see from my ridiculous print sizes, I too am quite mad.

EDIT
Is medium format film realistic for my print sizes? Maybe 6x8? I don't think it will be actually much easier to do, because the real beast is getting the film developed.

[Jordan]

Buy a large format camera and enjoy it! It will take a little practice, but the end results will be worth it. I don't understand why a member on this forum would encourage someone inquiring about large format to seek a medium format digital back? Yeah they may be great, but honestly here is a chance to introduce a new person to, as I assumed, we as "large format photography" forum member's favorite way to make pictures.

[Ari]

If you already work well within your chosen format, why not try pushing the boundaries of that format instead? Larger formats will get you more dots per inch, resolution, etc etc but it isn't about the numbers.
LF is a different approach, and one you might not find suitable for your work. To do it simply for bigger prints is not just a matter of having a bigger camera, but having a different mindset.
You may find that you enjoy it, and eventually, you might thrive in large format; but producing the best possible picture is what it's all about, so make sure you've first exhausted all the possibilities of the 35mm format before investing time and money just to get slightly sharper images.

[photobymike]

Well bigger is better.... mmm is some cases.. some of my best pictures are done with a 35mm camera... with that said i think quality is better, and if you look for that you will get what you want. as a side note i have seen some really great pictures with a cell phone camera. Taking great pictures is not about the camera as much about the photographer and his or her story ...vision... being in the right place at the right time... The Boy Scout motto comes to mind ... "be prepared"

For me its a matter of meditation, being at peace with my God and patience. Then having the camera that you are conformable with to capture the moment that satisfies your soul. Take the time 5 or 10 minutes to just look and study your subject... even if you are shooting a portrait. Take the time to study develop a re pore.

You will find all the junk that you call your camera stuff will get in your way. So keep it simple and cheap.. put your money into a reliable sharp lens and camera body... i use a 4x5 TOYO rail for my field camera simple, cheap, and reliable. Spend a few shekels on a good scanner, the best your wallet will stand. I use an Epson V750 but a V700 is good also. Then buy a APPLE Mini MAC. That will save you hours of frustration ...thats from years of computer experience there.. LOL

Camera, film, lens holders, darkroom ect.. 700 .... Mini MAC 700 ... scanner 500 There ya go under budget...

[laroygreen]

Just reading some threads on the forum, I can see this is probably the most zen like photography forum out there :) !

I do understand that LF photography is much more of a meditative process than using smaller formats, just because it takes so long and costs a lot per exposure. I get that, 100%, and this is the lure for a lot of persons. Its hard to compose from a tripod when using a 35mm and most medium format cameras, mostly because you don't have a huge, luxurious ground glass to look through, and to really critique the frame before you take the picture (you can do it on smaller formats, just probably not as well, and not as comfortably).

However, not withstanding the many obvious benefits of LF photography (not to mention camera movements!), for this project, I'm only concerned about being able to print large eventually. I've already thought about what I'm doing, I've already designed the sets (in my mind and on paper), thought about the fabrics, the lighting, the poses the composition. I've already done my contemplation and I know exactly what I want to achieve. I also know that I won't be printing as large as I would like, simply because there would be no place to put the work up for display. So, printing really large may be a pipe dream, but, I may someday do it if everything works out really well, but if I don't have a large enough negative to begin with, I'm already denying that chance.

Basically, I would not use most of the strengths of large format photography, other than the much larger negative, which could be a waste and beyond the whole point of doing it in the first place, but I just see it as a means to an ends, that is, large prints with detail that can really show off the diligence and care I put into this project. Being able to walk up and stand upright, looking at a person as if they were sitting right in front of you.

In fact, I think I'm pretty sold on doing it already (thanks to the above comments), however, developing colour film is going to be an issue (any insights?) and that is the only thing that I'm really doubting (really, really!). It seems easy-ish, but people complain all the time about how difficult it is, and how tight the tolerances have to be, so I'm not sure what to believe.

[photobymike]

I develop color negative all the time in the kitchen ... its easier than B&W believe it not!

Tetenal C41 kit makes it easy .... use with jobo and you will get the most out of the kit... Developer for 8 minutes at 86 F then the blix for 6 min at close to 86 ...then stabilize at room temp after short rinse..... so easy i pay my kids to do it.

there has been much discussion on pre rinse here ... forgot to mention the pre rinse for 5 minutes at temp

[Jamie123]

Get a medium format camera. I'd go for a Mamiya RZII set up.

Let me tell you why you should go MF instead of LF. Firstly, you might be mislead a bit about the advantage of the large ground glass. Yes, it is big but it is also upside down and can be somewhat dim at times as the maximum aperture of most LF lenses is not that large. And then there's the fact that, once you have all your settings in place, you have to tell the subject to hold still while you close down the lens, cock the shutter, slide in the film holder, remove the darkslide and make the exposure.
An MF camera such as an RZ in comparison is much easier to use. You have a large sized ground glass you can look at with both eyes, the image is right side up and, since it's an SLR, you can capture spontaneous expressions much more easily. That, and you can shoot more frames than you could with LF for the same price.
Don't get me wrong, I love LF portraiture but for someone coming from 35mm digital I think it would be wise to first go with MF. It's still a somewhat slower, more contemplative process than 35mm but not as extreme as LF.

Now as for quality, I really think there's no need to go 4x5 or 8x10 just because you want to print big. For years people have shot billboard campaigns on 6x7 film with no problem. And that was before there were such fine grained films like Kodak Portra 400/160 or Ektar 100.

As for your 'vision' and your project, I'd advise you to take things slowly. One thing you have to understand is that when you start using a new format and equipment it takes time to adapt and perfect your vision in that medium. You might want to first try out a few things and make sure you're really comfortable with your chosen format before you start with your project and, more importantly, before you spend lots of money.

[Len Middleton]

First, welcome to the asylum. The inmates here are an opinionated lot, and most are very happy to provide one to you. All you have to do is sort out which bit of advice would work best for you. So you did come to the right place...

I expect that from what I remember in Port of Spain (in 2006 when the Soca Warriors were in the World Cup), that you are likely on your own, with little infrastructure to support you.

A LF (large format) 4x5 or 8x10 will very obviously change the way you work in a very big way. MF (medium format) will be a change, but not as radical.

You can of course limit the composition and focusing issues through preperation and advanced set up for either LF or MF.

The bigger issue will likely be the lack of resources to manage the output. Shipping a Jobo processor will likely be expensive, maybe more than the purchase price. You might consider the use of Jobo drums, but on a motor base instead rather than a Jobo processor. I do not know how at what temperatures the C41 chemcials need to be used at or how sensitive they are to temperature variation. That might have an impact as well.

As I do only wet darkroom, others can better advise you on digital scanning and output.

Good luck with your project,

Len

PS I would not bring the LF camera to a match for the Soca Warriors or the West Indies. :D

[laroygreen]

I wouldn't bring those to a match either! Waste of film :)

Anyways, I thought of medium format, and to me, I might as well stick with my DSLR if that is the case. The advantage just doesn't seem to be much worth it (as mentioned, the real issue is probably developing film, though I guess 120 would be easier than sheet). Also been thinking that in this day and age, you really don't need a ground glass on modern SLRs as you can just hockup a mini hdmi monitor or laptop and just use live view on a larger, probably brighter screen. But, that wasn't my initial aim in any case, as I probably won't even be directly behind the camera, but more off to the side directing the models (read, not fashion!), i.e. once the focal length and focus is set, I'll only be re-engaging the shutter and changing film.

:( , still don't know. Anyways, I'm going by the gallery I want to show in sometime this week, so maybe I can get some guidance and see what their looking for (also, the owner was a popular film photographer in his younger days, who shot large format, who knows, he might have stuff laying around I could buy or even borrow :) )

P.S. My shipping company has a simple formula, basically 2/3 the cost of the item would cover customs and shipping. So, if a jobo costs 500 USD I'd have to pay around 330 USD in shipping and customs. So, even though I say I could spend up to 2000 USD, in reality, I'll probably spend around 3300 USD in total. Truly depressing :( but, that's just how it is.

[Jamie123]

Well, if you think your 35mm DSLR comes anywhere near 6x7 film you're terribly mistaken. I use both a Canon 5DII and 6x7 film and, believe me, the 6x7 is much better. It's not only the resolution but also the soft gradations. IMO the difference between 35mm and 6x7 film is a lot bigger than the difference between 6x7 film and 4x5 film.
You can buy a simple Jobo drum (no need for a heavy processor) for very little money and do the development by hand. The smallest ones that work for 120 film take two rolls on one reel so with 6x7 that's 20 shots. Personally, I've never developed C-41 at home but a friend of mine does it and says it's a piece of cake. All you have to look out for is that the initial bath is the right temperature but after that there's not much you can do wrong.
Anyways, are you sure you can't have film processed locally at a decent quality? Ask that gallery owner, he might know someone that does it.

I don't know what kind of gallery you're looking at but if you're talking about a serious art gallery it's surely not as easy as just telling them about your vision and asking what they're looking for. I don't want to discourage you but you may want to do the project first and then approach the gallery. Also, what they are looking for should be irrelevant to your project.

[Brian C. Miller]

Martin Schoeller, New York 8x10 portrait photographer, YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZTGXhWjAf4)

OK, here's my experience with color developing: you have to have a lot of film ready to go, otherwise the chemicals will go bad on you fast. While color is just as easy to develop as black & white, the chemicals oxidize very quickly. You can't put them away like you can with b&w chems.

A Jobo CPE2 can be easily used with the 4x5 reel tanks (2551/2553), no problem, I do it myself. However, you will need either an ATL or late model CPP2 to use the big expert drums. The color chemicals need to be around 40C, and the CPE2 will be good enough for that. The temperature control is not calibrated, so you have to use a lab thermometer (about $30) to get the actual reading.

As for scanning, the smaller the negative means that you'll need a better scanner. Based on my experience, I would use drum-scanned MF up to 48 inches. 4x5 is better quality, 8x10 is better quality yet. If you use 8x10, then you can also use an Epson 700 or 750 scanner. These will get reasonably good detail from the negative. There is a scanner comparison page here where you can match up scanners for comparison.

Come to think of it, since you're next door to Venezuela, is there a lab there that can develop color for you?

[laroygreen]

Was just thinking that MF won't get me to where I want to be, so might as well stick with the lesser (easier and cheaper) of 2 evils (in this case). Kinda like sticking with your old car, rather than buying a new Toyota, when you really want a Ferrari :). But, you are right, physically, 6x7 isn't that much smaller than 4x5, but since starting this thread, I've graduated from 4x5 to 8x10 :)

With the Jobo drum, seems like a good idea (I've seen this on Vimeo as well), but I just wanted to make sure I minimized the potential for mistakes (by automating as much as possible, especially the temperture). May be overkill to get the whole thing. I'd rather send a negative to the US than Venezuela. Not for any other reason than I would have to find someone reliable who could recommend a good lab that would do mail in processing. For the US and UK, you can see those endorsements online all the time.

I've never done anything of this scale before photographically, and it will be a big gamble. I don't expect any financial reward, but I'll be so disappointed if I can't pull this off in the way I intend to (forget the large prints for now). I really want to get these images out of my mind on onto paper as exactly as the laws of reality allow. I can't paint or write, so photography is the only way I can show it to people. It may be that no one wants to see it, but once I transfer my vision to paper, I'd be happy regardless. So, as long as my pursuit for a larger negative doesn't detract from my primary aim, I'll pursue it just because it provides more options later. If it starts to interfere (cost, quality, etc.), then I'll revert to 35mm.

So, I guess its settled then? 8x10 view camera!

I've seen some recommendations for view cameras in the thread (thanks!), but, I'll go and do some reading first to make sure I understand what I'll need and why before asking about any specific gear to buy. The local library has copies of Ansel Adams' books, and they also have a few other view camera books from yonder years (good thing the technology hasn't changed much).

Thanks all for the help and I'll be back soon!

[Two23]

The difference between 35mm and 4x5 is like the difference between a toy piano and a Steinway. If you are shooting in a studio only, an 8x10 might work for you. If shooting at different locations, a 4x5 would be a lot easier to work with and more economical. Modern lenses have Copal shutters, and you can attach CyberSync etc. triggers to pop the monolights. Don't forget that LF has much less DoF than 35mm, but that might actually be an advantage for portraits.


Kent in SD

[Greg Gibbons]

Well, I'm not a pro, but I am an engineer, so maybe my two cents is worth a little. I've also shot digital, 6x7 and 4x5 and 35mm. If you successfully get the resolution you want out of 35mm at 20x30", then 6x7 is roughly the same resolution at 40X60. That's nearly life-size, which is what you said you wanted. IMHO, 35mm doesn't really print without grain quite that big, but you know what you currently get and what you want.

4X5 is nearly double each dimension again over 6x7, so you can get either the same resolution you're getting from 35mm 20x30, but now at 80"X 120". Or, you could get better definition, grain, detail, and gradations at four feet by 5 feet.

That's just the engineering bit. The practical bit is that with sheet film, it's easy to take 2 shots of the same thing, and keep one in reserve. Send one shot off to a lab in the States without worrying, because you have a backup even if they screw it up. If you clearly label it photographic film, I doubt you'd have a problem, although you might have extra insurance if you used Quickloads, which ARE still available. (They are individually wrapped, so to speak).

Yes, you can shoot a billboard on 6x7 film. Ever seen a billboard up close? It's one of those things where you can't even tell what you're looking at other than a bunch of colored dots. It doesn't sound like you plan to make people stand 30 feet away from your prints.

[laroygreen]

well, 20x30 isn't really that good if you print it straight out of camera (at say 180 PPI). You have to do a bit of post-processing (up-rez, noise reduction, sharpening, etc.) before it looks passable, and even then, you have to print on a textured paper to hide any small artifacts (but to most viewers who aren't photographers, the pictures will still look really good). This was my approach, and mileage varies a lot, and I'm no expert on print quality either.

[David de Gruyl]

One thing I can say: My 8x10 camera is (without a doubt) one of the cheapest camera systems that I own. The whole kit could be had for ~$700, including the lens and tripod.

On the other hand, you pay for it in per-shot costs. But looking at a good negative (or better: a transparency) is like magic. Mostly, I bought mine to do contact prints with / from.

Consider something: can you reasonably work with 2+ GB files? That is the size you are looking at from a fairly high resolution, 16 bit color scan. ~500 MB base files in 4x5 (2400 dpi, which is on the low side). Can you afford to / do you want to upgrade you computer. (Yes, I am assuming a hybrid workflow. You can ignore this if you are printing optically, but then you need to get a LARGE enlarger.)

[Bill_1856]

You can get a monorail for about $200 (Calumet 400 or Graphic View)or a B&J Rembrandt. A suitable lens for $250 and up (and up and up!) A stack of film olders for around $40 and a Tilt-all tripod for around $100 or less. Light meter, loupe & focusing cloth for ??? I don't know what Jobos go for these days.
If you don't really need the movements a view camera affords, you might do as well with a medium format like an RB67.

Words of true wisdom!

[David Higgs]

i think I've got an idea of your expected picture. I've forgotten her name but a scandanavian photographer produces life size images of people using an 8x10. I went to an exhibition featuring her work last year. You could go right up to the print and see every detail in the clothing and the skin texture - it was a very memorable experience.

I went from digital to film last year, and happily develop C41, E6 and B+W using a Jobo. The 4x5 I use is relatively easy to get the hang of, especially as you aren't considering movements.

However for one project there is a large outlay for all the camera/lens/developing and the time required to get on the learning curve, the thing thats hardest is learning to scan - its taken me a year - developing and operating the camera is easy in comparision.

A friend is a commerical photographer, I know what he'd do, he'd hire an 80MP camera for the day and do the whole lot in one go...

thats got to be the 'easy' answer

if your heart is in it, and you want the challenge of film then 8x10 or 4x5 should do it, I've blown up cropped 4x5 to near lifesize successfully.
a decent 6x7 MF image won't be far off the above quality

use the Epson to proof - and pay for a decent scan to print off


/my ramblings

[laroygreen]

I plan on a hybrid workflow, and I have a highly competent computer system which can easily manipulate files up to 4GB in Photoshop (either a huge file, or a file with many layers). Files up to 10 GB will have some slowdown, but it is hardly noticeable.

Also, maybe MF is worth another look since that seems to be a predominant recommendation. I'm well verse in 35mm, but I've never ventured beyond it so I may well be underestimating what I can get.

If I scan a 6cm x 7cm negative at 2400 DPI, it will result in a print that is roughly 19" x 22" @ 300 DPI? Conversely, a 4"x5" scanned at 2400 DPI, would result in a print that is roughly 32" x 40" @ 300 DPI? Assuming my math is correct, 4x5 would get me closer to where I want to be (and obviously 8x10 would be twice as large) in theory at least.

[David de Gruyl]

obviously 8x10 would be twice as large

Four times. Pet peeve, sorry.

Yes, and you can scan at higher resolution. Usable resolution is somewhere around 3600-4800, although you are looking at film grain at that point.

It is fairly common practice to scan 35mm film at 3600 dpi (or greater, although I can't see any difference). The resolution of the film is the same, it is just that the area is different.

If it were me, I would certainly be going with 8x10. I would have no issues with a print from 6x7 (medium format) at 24x30 or even a bit bigger. Much larger than that, and you might want to consider larger film (or ignore it: most big prints are not viewed from up close).

[reyno bundit]

now im confused is the op calling a digital camera a 35mm camera.

or am i missing something here

[William McEwen]

Laroygreen -- don't jump in until and start purchasing until you've spent some time with a view camera. Is there a view camera user you can tag around with and kick the tires, so to speak? It's a different way of working, and some people aren't suited for it.

[laroygreen]

@reyno_bundit: Yes, I'm calling DSLR a 35mm, because I have a full frame camera and not APS-C.

I'm going to check an old photographer here who may have used a view camera in the past to see if he has anything lying around. Other than that, I plan to do as much research as possible before I commit to buying anything.

On a side note, he's 3rd generation, and his great grandfather was a photographer, who documented much of the countries early history. He also took lots of pictures of his wife when she was in her early 20's, and she was really really pretty, but now she's 98, so its inspiring to actually see how much she's changed.