PDA

View Full Version : LF for large digital reproduction?



jim steines
2-Sep-2011, 22:42
Gday all

I'm a commercial 35mm shooter and when i shoot landscapes I stitch to get resolution for prints which are usually about 60" wide. Stitching is obviously very limited, and about a year ago I came close to taking the LF plunge, but funds and other things conspired against me, but I'd like to take another crack. Due to aforementioned $ issues a Shen Hao of some sort has always been my first choice, but I'm not sure of the exact format. Film will be scanned on an EpsonV700 and printed with an Epson 9800, both of which i do personally. The thing is I'm not sure if 5x7 will be enough for 60" reproductions given I cant drop a bundle on a lens, but yet as I understand it the 5x7 bracket is where you get the most bang for your buck. I dont know enough about this to make a decision, hoping LFPF can help!

I was tempted to drop $1600 on this Shen-Hao w/ 240 + extras (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Shen-Hao-5x4-large-format-camera-240-lens-many-extras-/220841840410?pt=UK_Film_Cameras&hash=item336b330f1a) but that is absolutely maxing out my budget . . but that auction has pretty much everything you need. Jeez, things are so much simpler in small format . . ha

Cheers all, Tom

Daniel Stone
3-Sep-2011, 00:47
1stly, welcome!

Are you shooting b/w, color, or a mixture of the both?

Use the later-designed APO-designated lenses. They deliver stellar results, and it shows at big enlargements.

Forget the Epson if you want quality(tonality and pure fine detailed) results. Get DRUM SCANS. You'll shit your pants when you see the fine details brought out of your film when you compare it to the mush your Epson will deliver at higher "resolutions"... Seriously... Get some Depends, cause its scary how good a quality drum scan is...Use the search function here to find the threads talking about different labs/persons who might be the right fit for you.

If you're doing panoramic stitches, why not just go with a dedicated panoramic camera in the first place? Look at Peter Lik(and many other people), and you can see they can make it happen. Its just how "wide" do you want to go perspective-wise?

sorry to be so blunt, but I hate beating around the bush with sentimental "cooing and blabbering" :)

cheers, and welcome to the forum!

Dan

Jason_1622
3-Sep-2011, 00:53
You can get a lot more for your $$$ in 4x5" and you can get a huge scan from it! 60" scan? Not quite sure, but I've easily done 36" print scans from it. I bet you could push it to 60" with minimal loss. With that being said, I've seen some good 5x7" deals, just because it's not as popular of a format. I went to one studio closing and they could barely give the 5x7 stuff away!

rdenney
3-Sep-2011, 01:05
...Film will be scanned on an EpsonV700 and printed with an Epson 9800, both of which i do personally. The thing is I'm not sure if 5x7 will be enough for 60" reproductions given I cant drop a bundle on a lens, but yet as I understand it the 5x7 bracket is where you get the most bang for your buck...

5x7 has its admirers, to be sure, but it's less available than either 4x5 or 8x10.

Most here would say that a V700 can be enlarged about 4x, and maybe up to 6x without too much compromise. Thus, if you want to make 60" prints at high quality, with film scanned in a V700, the starting point for you is 8x10, not anything smaller. The V700 runs out of additional ability to record detail at about 2000 spi.

For lenses, you'll need a minimum of 5 line pairs/mm, which at 6x (8x10 printed at 60") will require a lens that resolves 30 line pairs/mm. That is not particularly challenging, so 8x10 is not that demanding of lenses except in coverage. If you do normal lenses, a 12" Kodak Commercial Ektar or Ilex-Caltar will be relatively cheap ($200-400) and it will certainly deliver that quality. Short lenses with 8x10 coverage a bit more challenging.

Not all 8x10 cameras are monstrously expensive. One that is new, from China, that people have been curious about is the Wilderness 8x10, though I can't seem to find a price at the moment. Probably less than a Shen-Hao or a Chamonix, both of which run in the $2500-3000 range for 8x10. But you can also find a used monorail or bed camera for MUCH less--I"ve seen them as cheap as several hundred dollars. But cheap used 8x10's don't come up for sale all that often.

If you go 4x5, you'll need a lens that resolves 60 line pairs/mm (which the modern designs do), and a better scanning capability. Even with 5x7, you'll need a better scanner than a V700 for that size print, if you don't want to make too many compromises. The 4x5 equipment and materials are a lot cheaper, but when printed at 60", your viewer will need to stand back a bit.

Rick "who scans 4x5 on a V750, but doesn't make larger than 16x20 prints" Denney

jackpie
3-Sep-2011, 02:28
As Dan has mentioned you need to consider if you are planning to shoot colour.

Colour film, E6 and C41, is almost impossible to source in 5x7.

However B&W film in 5x7 is readily available, so don't think the format is dead!

jim steines
3-Sep-2011, 03:39
Thank you Daniel! You’ll notice that I signed up at the start of this year, but didn't get around to asking anything. I never got a panoramic camera because I could always get stitching to work, plus working purely digitally was good for a cheap and fast workflow without compromising on quality. (when i say 'commercial,' i use the term losely, although the gallery does do very well in the summer months)

Apologies, in my OP read 5x7 as 4x5. I plan to shoot both colour and B&W equally at this time. I appreciate and enjoy shooting B&W far more than colour, but the market prefers colour. 5x7 seems to me to be a good compromise between the two, but the trouble sourcing film in that size is a killer as you mention Rick.

I would very much like to shoot 8x10, but considering my inexperience, the fact that I will be carrying this camera a lot, and the price differences, as well as lens availability, I think my best choice would be to at least start with 4x5. I also plan to use this camera not only for landscapes but also for architecture and hopefully product photography. I know a monorail camera would be more applicable for the latter but I'm just dipping my toe in here. I will mainly be shooting very long exposure light-painting type landscape photography where tonality is important, so again B&W is probably the way to go here.

I knew drum scans are the bees knees, but its now clear that if I'm going to eek every bit of quality from 4x5 they will have to become standard.

thank you all for your quick replies, my confusion is lessening!

edit:

However B&W film in 5x7 is readily available, so don't think the format is dead!

this has my brain racing

Jim Jones
3-Sep-2011, 04:33
Jim, 4x5 images can be stitched, too. LF cameras don't have to be new and expensive to perform well. This year I'm upgrading my equipment. For less than the price of the Shen Hao you cited, I've bought a few used 4x5 cameras, extra lenses, and just for fun, a DSLR outfit. The LFcameras that took the greatest photos of a few decades ago are bargains now.

jim steines
3-Sep-2011, 05:24
The LFcameras that took the greatest photos of a few decades ago are bargains now.

Very true. I must keep this in mind.

As I plan to do large-scale light painting (think car-mounted spotlights driving around) a single exposure is a necessity.

Noah A
3-Sep-2011, 07:38
I've done 48x60in prints from 4x5 and they look great. I have a drum scanner, and at that huge size a good scan is very important. But I recently spoke with a well-known contemporary fine art photographer and I was shocked to learn that he was using a V750, even for his 50x60 exhibition prints. So take that for what it's worth.

Drum scans are definitely better though, but buying and maintaining a drum scanner can be expensive over time. A smart route would be to get a v750 and see how it works for you. At the very least you can do your initial scans on the Epson and they'll probably be good enough for portfolio prints, web use and smaller exhibition prints. Then if you need a scan for a huge print, you can outsource a drum scan.

I hate to start an argument, but for the kind of work you describe precision and rigidity will be extremely important. I wouldn't mess about with a wood landscape camera. If you'll need a lot of movements I'd go for a monorail. The Toyos are nice and solid and inexpensive, but there are lots of options here. If portability is a concern and you don't need a ton of complex camera movements, I'd go for a metal folding field camera. Again, an old Toyo, or even an old press camera could work. Of course, if you can find a good deal, a beater Linhof Technika will last you a lifetime and it's one of the most rigid cameras out there. But you don't have to spend that much, you just need a solid platform to hold your lens and film.

I hate to break the bad news, but if you do want to print to 60 inches the lens does matter. The old adage that lens quality doesn't matter as much in LF only holds true if you're making contact prints or small enlargements. If you're pushing your negs to huge sizes, you'll need a very good lens.

You'll spend enough money on film over time to make your lens expenditures seem small. If you get a 135, 150 or 210 Apo Sironar S, you'll be blown away by the quality. They're a little harder to find on the used market but they pop up once in a while and sometimes at very good prices.

LF can seem complicated but really it's quite simple. And the quality is worth it. When it comes to large prints, you'd have to spend a fortune on an MFDB to even come close do a drum-scanned 4x5 negative.

sully75
3-Sep-2011, 07:55
5x7 film is plenty available. No color, and the selection is limited, but if I order some today from the places that stock it, it will be here by Tuesday or Wednesday, no problem.

5x7 is a great format for scanning. It's almost 2x the area of 4x5, and yet much more manageable than 8x10 as far as the size of holders and well...everything. It also fits on the cheaper, older Epson scanners like the 4870. I've made 13x19 prints from 5x7 negatives that were pretty awesome, scanned on the 4870. Honestly, I've made some pretty stunning 13x19 prints from 4x5 negs that didn't seem to be pushing it at all. I think my prints are pretty good. I don't exactly get the 4x enlargement thing. I've made 8x10s from 35mm negs I've scanned on the 4870 (which is really not suited to doing 35mm) and they came out great too.

I'd rather take a good negative scanned on a bad scanner by a guy who knows how to scan than the best negative on a great scanner by a guy who doesn't know how to scan.

E. von Hoegh
3-Sep-2011, 08:14
Thank you Daniel! You’ll notice that I signed up at the start of this year, but didn't get around to asking anything. I never got a panoramic camera because I could always get stitching to work, plus working purely digitally was good for a cheap and fast workflow without compromising on quality. (when i say 'commercial,' i use the term losely, although the gallery does do very well in the summer months)

Apologies, in my OP read 5x7 as 4x5. I plan to shoot both colour and B&W equally at this time. I appreciate and enjoy shooting B&W far more than colour, but the market prefers colour. 5x7 seems to me to be a good compromise between the two, but the trouble sourcing film in that size is a killer as you mention Rick.

I would very much like to shoot 8x10, but considering my inexperience, the fact that I will be carrying this camera a lot, and the price differences, as well as lens availability, I think my best choice would be to at least start with 4x5. I also plan to use this camera not only for landscapes but also for architecture and hopefully product photography. I know a monorail camera would be more applicable for the latter but I'm just dipping my toe in here. I will mainly be shooting very long exposure light-painting type landscape photography where tonality is important, so again B&W is probably the way to go here.

I knew drum scans are the bees knees, but its now clear that if I'm going to eek every bit of quality from 4x5 they will have to become standard.

thank you all for your quick replies, my confusion is lessening!

edit:


this has my brain racing

You can find used monorails (say a Calumet CC400) for peanuts. All you need is a light-tight bellows and front and rear movements.

If you must spend big$$, spend it on the lens, a good exposure meter, and some filmholders. I'm thinking you can get set up for well under $ 1000, including a tripod, say a Marchioni Tiltall.:)

Ivan J. Eberle
3-Sep-2011, 09:07
While 5x7 and 8x10 will scan more readily for big enlargements on a flatbed like your Epson, the cost of film 'til you get proficient should be factored in. I believe this will likely mitigate whatever savings you might have in mind. Personally, I'd opt for 4x5 and Epson flatbed scanning for learning, proofing and small portfolio prints, with better drum or higher end flatbed scans outsourced for the big exhibition prints.

Yes, you will need good sharp lenses but you don't necessarily need Rodenstock APO Sironar S series lenses. Just about all modern coated LF lenses perform similarly by normal taking apertures of f/16 to f/32, except for the limits of coverage in extreme moves (e.g. Caltar IIN lenses are made by Rodenstock are identical to APO Sironar N lenses but for the engraving, equally spectacular and commonly found in sizes like 210mm for under $200 for near mint examples.)

timparkin
3-Sep-2011, 10:45
I have a Howtek 4500 drum scanner and a V750 and spent some time comparing them. I can get about 2400-2600 dpi out of the V750 and most colour transparencies are hard pushed to get more than this (and even when they do they are at very low contrast).

Even at 2500dpi (split the difference) you can print at 250dpi at 10x enlargements which gives you 40x50" -- and to be honest, you don't need prints that can be examined with a loupe when you are producing pictures at that size. 150 dpi prints would look sharp to nearly all non-photographers (i.e. unless you are looking for evidence of unsharpness and know enough to know what to look for).

So - any 4x5 will do the job for you (I would recommend a Chamonix for best bang per buck as I've found the Shen Hao to not be stiff enough for anything apart from still conditions).

As for lenses, most will out resolve your film, never mind your Epson scanner *and* you can always send off for drum scans.

Tim

Frank Petronio
3-Sep-2011, 13:12
For about $1000 you can get a Sinar F, heavy Gitzo 3-4-5 tripod, and a modern Rodenstock or Schneider 135 to 210 lens and not have to make apologies to anyone - you will have state-of-art, better than Ansel Adamns equipment that is as capable as anything out there. Most people go too lightweight with pretty wooden toy cameras out of the romantic aspects or idealistically thinking they will go backpacking. Then they fiddle around....

Use the Epson for small stuff and proofs, get drum scans of the selects.

Daniel Stone
3-Sep-2011, 20:53
just FYI,

IF you go with a 5x7 camera, many have 4x5 reducing backs available for them. Field cameras, less chance...

However, COLOR FILM IS AVAILABLE FOR 5X7. You just have to buy 8x10 and cut it down :). Its simple, and if you properly set up a rotatrim(or other, hi quality rotary trimmer), you can make many sheets out of a 10-20 sheet box. Many emulsions for both color neg and transparency are still available in 8x10, but if you're not up to the task of doing that cutting-down in the dark, then use a 4x5 reducing back.

cheers,

Dan

Robert Jonathan
3-Sep-2011, 21:37
Definitely go for a heavy metal monorail.

I remember when I first was turned on by large format, I was an inch away from buying a wooden camera. I am very, very glad I didn't.

Monorails are heavy and stable, easy to set up, the standards are parallel, and you'll be ready to shoot.

Consider looking for a Horseman L series 4x5. Whether it's an LE, LS, LX, whatever, doesn't matter.

A Cambo SCX or a Cambo Legend are also good choices.

For Sinar, forget the F. You can find a used P, P2, or X, sometimes for amazingly cheap prices.

Then spend the rest on a APO Symmar or a Sironar S lens.

For scanning film, take your keepers and send them to a drum scanning service like West Coast Imaging ( http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/scan/wciscans.htm ).

And you can get 50 sheets of Portra 160 in 5x7 brand new at B&H: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/761617-USA/Kodak_1355825_5x7_Professional_Portra_Color.html It's quite expensive!!

Frank Petronio
3-Sep-2011, 21:54
I concur, for a few hundred more than a Sinar F you can get a better camera, I just mentioned it as a good entry point.

I guess at this time you ought to decide what film you think you'd shoot. I'll just tell you to shoot color negative, 4x5 Kodak Portra.

5x7 color is very expensive (so is 8x10).

Adamphotoman
3-Sep-2011, 22:05
When you do get to printing consider using a software rip to run your printer. You can easily double the print size using the rip.

I use a rip called Imageprint by Colorbyte. It is astounding as long as you send a 300 dpi file to the printer and have the printer resize the image to print. Don't let PS do it.
So if you only get a 40 inch file and want to go 50 inches don't sweat it.

Go 4X5

Look at U shaped standards.

Sinar P or P2 are heavy. Sinar F may not be heavy enough. Try to find a Norma and I would suggest an Apo Sironar-N or an Apo Symmar. Although the Apo Sironar-S is a better lens, if you are doing infinity to medium distance work the Apo Sironar-N or Apo Symmars will be fine and so much cheaper. The Caltars are rebranded and less expensive. Be watchful. I think Caltar11-N are the Apo Sironar-N.

Would be good to hear what you finally decide upon.
Grant

jim steines
4-Sep-2011, 01:36
I believe I will be going with a 5x7 metal field. I'm tending away from a monorail given weight considerations, but I'm not so sure this is a good decision. I'm prepared to take a hit on the body for the lens. Planning $700 on the lens, 500 or less for the rest, but considering how much of a subjective choice this is I've got my work cut out.



I'd rather take a good negative scanned on a bad scanner by a guy who knows how to scan than the best negative on a great scanner by a guy who doesn't know how to scan.

Good advice. On this, I think there is a particular art to enlarging and sharpening images. Adamphotoman I read your post with interest.

I'm confident enough in my tripod for learning but I'd like to hear what heads and (if?) QR systems are used.
timparkin, could you elaborate on lenses outresolving film?
Also, on a side note, is fibreglass ever used for construction?

jackpie
4-Sep-2011, 06:35
I believe I will be going with a 5x7 metal field. I'm tending away from a monorail given weight considerations, but I'm not so sure this is a good decision. I'm prepared to take a hit on the body for the lens. Planning $700 on the lens, 500 or less for the rest, but considering how much of a subjective choice this is I've got my work cut out.

The only 5x7 metal fields I can think of are:

Linhof Technika 5x7
Toyo Field Half Plate
Rittreck 5x7

I have no experience of the Technika, but I own and use both the Toyo and the Rittreck.

The Toyo Field is a 60s camera with interchangable backs for rollfilm, 4x5, Half Plate, 5x7 and Whole Plate. The original 5x7 back is very rare. It seems that most of the 5x7 backs in use are custom made. It's a lovely little camera, light and portable, and with a decent set of movements. I use mine with the half plate back for B&W. It uses standard Graphic Pacemaker lens boards. It conveniently folds with a Kodak Ektar 203 mounted. The longest lens I use is the Nikon 300m.

The Rittreck is a camera from the 70s and also has a full set of interchangable backs going up to 8x10. It's folds nice and compact, but is quite heavy. It has slightly more bellows extension than the Toyo. It has a larger custom lensboard so is usable with larger lenses, but still only has about 370mm of bellows extension. It seems the camera was used in Japan for mobile portraiture with big Fujinon f4.5 tessars. It's too heavy for backpacking but good from the car.

Don't dismiss mono rails. My classic 5x7 arca swiss is lighter and more flexible than the Toyo Field. Take a look at the bigger picture. The weight of the whole 5x7 kit, lenses and film holders, soon makes differences in camera weights insignificant. Then the 5x7 mono rails make more sense.



I'm confident enough in my tripod for learning but I'd like to hear what heads and (if?) QR systems are used.
timparkin, could you elaborate on lenses outresolving film?
Also, on a side note, is fibreglass ever used for construction?

Carbon fibre is used in lightweight tripods.

AnselAdamsX
4-Sep-2011, 07:13
What about a Canham MQC 5x7 metal field camera?

Brian Ellis
4-Sep-2011, 07:27
I believe I will be going with a 5x7 metal field. I'm tending away from a monorail given weight considerations, but I'm not so sure this is a good decision. . . . Also, on a side note, is fibreglass ever used for construction?

It's a good decision IMHO. The last thing you need in the field is a camera designed for use in a studio - big, heavy, bulky, etc.In my many years here I've seen at least a hundred threads started by people who want to switch from their monorail to a field camera because of the weight, bulk, etc. I don't remember any asking about a switch in the opposite direction though there may have been one or two I've forgotten about. Learn from the mistakes others have made. Get a field camera for field work (which doesn't totally exclude monorails, there are some designed for field work but not most of the ones mentioned here).

As for fiberglass, Mike Walker's cameras are made of ABS mould-injected plastic. That's the closest to fiberglass I know of. http://www.walkercameras.com/

Frank Petronio
4-Sep-2011, 08:26
He mentioned spending $800 on a high-end lens and having $500 left for a decent camera. Except there are no 5x7 field cameras available for only $500 unless he is extremely lucky to get something undervalued.

Probably shouldn't have even mentioned 5x7 to the poor guy since it is pointless and won't help him learn or even make a decent photo. Sometimes on these forums we lay our personal desires (5x7 is nice) onto unsuspecting newbies and it doesn't help anyone, except sometimes you can pick up a sweet deal a few months later when the newb sells all his new gear at a loss.

We're just going to go in circles with this. The OP should read up on the basics in the core of this website - there are also numerous threads about getting started in large format photography, picking cameras, etc.

But... I'll make a condensed summary of all those threads -- start with some simple and inexpensive 4x5 set-up and figure that out first, then get into the nicer, fancier gear after you've made sure you have the patience and attitude to even do this. Otherwise you'll just be cannon fodder like most of the tourists who buy cameras and then resell them, unused, after they sit around for months or years.

Just go here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info to read up and come back to the forum after you get a grounding.

If you buy a starter outfit as suggested, for a decent price, then you can easily flip it later. But the nice thing is that a large format "starter outfit" can usually become an "expert outfit" in the right hands. Some $200 4x5 Crown or Calumet or Toyo or whatever camera is perfectly capable of making world-class work, it just won't be as nice a camera as a $1500 one....

And yes, Ansel Adams made plenty of 50" prints from relatively primitive, cheap gear that most of us would shun today.

Noah A
4-Sep-2011, 10:00
As usual, Frank offers a voice of reason...

You'll be hard pressed to find a 5x7 camera for $500. Not to mention that with 5x7, everything else you'll need gets more expensive. You'll need a lens with larger coverage. This may be fine for a normal lens but if you want a wider lens down the road your choices will be more limited and you'll spend more. The film holders are more expensive. Used fidelity 4x5 holders can be had for as little as $10 each. And have you checked out the cost of film? B&W is not a problem but color film in 5x7 is going to cost you.

And do you really, really want to screw around in the darkroom cutting 8x10 sheets down to 5x7? You'll need to do a precise job or your film may not fit the holders. And let's not forget about dust. Don't forget to check to see if the labs in your area process 5x7 film, and again compare the cost to 4x5.

With 4x5 you'll have the option, if you choose, to shoot fuji instant film. It's not cheap but can be a good learning tool or, more importantly, a good proofing tool. If you're doing complex setups you may want that option down the road.

Do yourself a favor, stick to 4x5 and a metal camera of some sort. You can always switch to 8x10 later if you need still more quality, but I suspect you'll be blown away by the quality of the 4x5.

jim steines
5-Sep-2011, 19:15
You sound like you know what you're talking about, Frank, so will trust your advice and start with 4x5. A folding metal design would be my first choice, but I'm not sure I've answered the field vs monorail issue. Right now I would prefer a field design because I don't need the extra movements and weight is a consideration, but I haven't ruled out a monorail design entirely.

I am a rather meticlous and exacting person who is not likely buy something based on romantic preconceptions. An LF system is a large purchase and I aim to make the right decision, it's just unfortunate that 'right' is almost completely subjective. I have read and printed the majority of the information on this (and other) sites, but am yet to go through the forums. If I get a LF system, I will use it, and strive to do it properly. The mistakes (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/mistakes.html) page did the opposite of intimidate me.

I mentioned fibreglass because Ive worked with it and you can build anything with it. It is cheap, light, lightproof, very strong, and is very very easy to fix. It can easily be made to look beautiful, as you can gel it any colour or have any printed design. Injection plastic molding is also a good idea, too though. Just more expensive and harder to fix.

Frank Petronio
5-Sep-2011, 19:33
There was a very expensive Carbon Fiber 4x5 back in the 90s, it was a short-lived product though, search out "Carbon Infinity" - it was pretty cool.

While buying into a large format system is more of a commitment of time and money than an inexpensive consumer digital camera, it doesn't have to be overwhelming or too complicated.

Because so much of this is subjective and personal, most photographers here will try different cameras over time, perhaps a light field camera to contrast against a robust studio-type camera. If they really like this form of photography and have the resources, they might eventually get one of the more exotic and expensive cameras that combine the best features (compact yet robust, light yet fully featured). But it is just like anything else in life: you can have it cheap, robust, and fully-featured... but only two out of those three characteristics!

What happens to a lot of newcomers is they have deep pockets at first and want to buy the "best of everything" and then they get overwhelmed and it sits around and they never really use anything to its best advantage. It is a much better route to be a tourist and enjoy the process, try a couple of different styles of cameras and photography and then you can narrow down what appeals most to you based on your experience, not someone else's.

Luckily the classifieds section of this forum has proven to be a reliable way to swap gear and usually, if you buy out of need and have patience, you won't overpay at first and then you can swap things around without ever losing very much from your initial investment.

Heck, some of the sharpies here actually make money lol.

Also a gathering or workshop is a really great way to get a feel for all of this, they do happen fairly regularly around the country and you might put some feelers out for one near you.

Good luck!

jim steines
5-Sep-2011, 19:49
I'm in Australia but I'm aware of meetups and I plan to contact some LF users in my area to really understand just what it takes.
Thats the thing with 2nd hand, it generally doesn't loose too much value, so if you're smart you can try something for shipping.
What I want to do is get a middle of the road camera and a good lens and then learn to use them well before I make any more decisions.

Frank Petronio
5-Sep-2011, 20:13
Just a for-instance, you can get a Sironar-S lens for about double what the same focal length Sironar-N lens will cost (just ballparking here).

But in terms of improving the sharpness of your 50" prints, the majority of the photographers here will tell you that using a more robust tripod (i.e. heavy) will have a great impact on your print quality. The differences are very subtle and you have to be working at the highest level - getting good $$$ drum scans, using very good technique, the best inkjet and media, etc.

So it may well be a year or ten before you ever cross the threshold of really being at the point of seeing the difference in your work. I've been working as a photographer for 28 years and only occasionally make a poster.... for a magazine spread or moderate portfolio print you won't ever see the difference - so I've never felt that I needed a Sironar-S.

Yet there are plenty of people who put Sironar-S lenses on wooden cameras with #2 tripods in the wind no less... to each their own ;-p

jim steines
5-Sep-2011, 20:44
Yet there are plenty of people who put Sironar-S lenses on wooden cameras with #2 tripods in the wind no less... to each their own ;-p
to each their own indeed.
From start to finish, the only issue apart from my skill that would adversely affect the printed image would be my tripod. I couldn't imagine an S making a difference for a few years yet.
In terms of 4x5 metal field cameras, what could you recommend in the sub half-G $ range?

Frank Petronio
5-Sep-2011, 21:15
If you use only one of those words, either metal or field, then you might find something ;-p

I can feel good about recommending one of the Toyo 45A or Wista VX or SP cameras, depending on their individual condition of course. They often come up in the $600 to $800 range.

There was a "Super Speed Graphic" metal camera that you can find for around $4-500 that is decent but it won't have as many movements as the Toyo or Wista.

Wooden cameras shouldn't be completely discounted, but alas the better ones, like the Wista, Chamonix, maybe the Shen-Hao, Wisner, Zone VI, etc. usually start around $600 and up.

The bargains are the metal monorails like the Sinar F1, F2, Norma, as well as a range of Toyos, Cambos, older Arca-Swiss ABC models, Horseman, some entry-level Linhof Kardans (my fav) and others - they start at $200 and $500 will buy you a lot of camera. There are several encouraging threads about how these can be transported reasonably -- they aren't that much bulkier or heavier, some models are actually lighter than the field cameras. You can tell my bias here....

Frank Petronio
5-Sep-2011, 21:29
My advice is a little different than most, what I would do is purchase an inexpensive fifty-year old 4x5 Crown Graphic press camera with the stock lens. These can be found for $300 or so. It won't have as many movements but it is nearly bulletproof and you can see how you like large-format photography without a big investment. Will an old lens be as sharp as the latest technology? No, but you can still make pleasing 16x20 prints and you can take it out into the snow and surf without worrying so much.

Then if it takes, spring for an inexpensive metal monorail, a Sinar-Toyo-Linhof, etc. and a modern, quality lens or two. A more robust outfit with full movements. You can refine your technique with it and see where your photography takes you.

If you kept both cameras you'd still have less invested than most people with their medium-quality field cameras yet you'd be more capable and able to shoot a broader range of subjects. You can always put a modern lens on the Crown and go backpacking with it and get state-of-the-art results - after all, these are simply lightight boxes. But unlike the people with field cameras, you could also take the monorail out and shoot a very precise still life with large displacement movements, or use very wide or long lenses, do things that require a more robust camera....

Just saying, there is more than one option here ;-p

jackpie
6-Sep-2011, 02:27
The problem here is that you ask about 5x7 metal field cameras and high end optics, so in good faith we answer about those items. How are we to know you are asking the right questions without knowing more about you, your preferences and intended uses?

LF cameras are a niche product, 5x7 is a niche within that, and metal field cameras are a niche within that. So is that really the way to get started in LF? It might be, but the safe option would be to take Frank's advice and get the Crown Graphic which is a great and affordable all rounder to get you started.

Alternatively your desire for a 5x7 metal field camera might be the right choice for your application. I recommended the Toyo Field and stand by my recommendation. There is a full outfit on ebay now 110576637677 that includes both 4x5 and 5x7 backs. Take a look it might suit you well. These cameras have a small following, and I believe even Frank has owned and enjoyed using one!

Frank Petronio
6-Sep-2011, 03:56
http://frankpetronio.com/archive/my_new_old_5x7_toyo_metal_field_camera.html

They are nice cameras but I'm not so sure I'd want to start with one. It has a short, frail bellows and is not intuitive to fold up. It's something for someone who knows what they want, I think, and if you follow my inconsistencies or outright exaggerations and fibs, then you'll learn to do what I say and not what I do....

rdenney
6-Sep-2011, 06:23
I agree with most of what Frank has said except the Crown Graphic recommendation.

The point of large-format photography is to learn the value of camera movements. Without the camera movements, a large-format camera is just a bother--expensive film, difficult processing scenarios, old-fashioned and finicky equipment, ground-glass focusing on an image that is upside down and backwards, and really narrow depth of field or really long shutter speeds. The benefit of the format will not be seen at normal print sizes (the sorts of prints one can sell to middle-class people to hang on their middle-class walls).

But when one considers the potential of the camera movements a new capability emerges that is difficult and very expensive to implement on small cameras. With movements, we can tilt the plane of sharp focus to just about any angle on any axis. And we can do that while separately correcting for perspective convergence, and all that without digital manipulations that may not be trivial to achieve, especially without a cost in terms of image quality.

The Crown Graphic, with its very limited movements, has all the spattering grease and saturated fat with little of the taste and none of the sizzle and aroma of frying bacon.

Also, a decent Crown ain't cheap any more. They are becoming a minor fad, with the effect that they are now in the several-hundred-buck range for one with all its original equipment in reasonable working order. For that money, one could buy a Sinar F, or a Cambo SC, and have a camera whose movements are simple and direct, and can be visualized just by looking at the camera.

Many field cameras require compound moves to achieve what are simple, one-step moves on a monorail. A folding field camera with no rear rise will need a drop bed and rear tilt on the lens standard to simulate a rear rise or a front fall. Or a field camera with limited shift will have to be turned, and then the shift simulated with rear and front swings. Sure, there are some field cameras that don't require as many of those compound moves, but they tend to be more expensive.

Some field cameras are quite ingenious and a few are reasonably affordable. They are certainly romantic--many with exotic woods and materials. Most come from exotic places these days.

But we have heard from some of our most experienced members on this forum how they still appreciate (and use) their Calumet monorail cameras made 50 years ago. If these heavy and bulky (and cheap) models are usable by our best members, then we should not discount the usefulness of newer, lighter, and more modular models. A Sinar F2, for example, will cost less than a field camera, but you can disconnect the bellows, turn both standards sideways at either end of the rail, and put it in a briefcase. If you decide to use a 600mm lens, you can add the rail extensions you need for relatively small cost. If you want to use a 47mm Super Angulon, you can install the correct wide-angle bellows and still have a reasonable range of movements with that lens. The camera weights about 8 pounds without lens--heavier than some field cameras to be sure, but lighter than some, too. And more flexible than most. And if you are trying to figure out what combination of downward tilt and sideways swing you need, you can visualize it from outside the camera in a very obvious way.

Here's the important aspect of Frank's advice: If you later decide you want a field camera, you can buy one that is compatible with those Sinar lensboards and bellows. If you decide on something that replaces the rail camera, you can sell it for what you paid for it--sorta like free rent with a moderately sized deposit, though with the added benefit of a real learning experience.

I had previously advised that an 8x10 camera might be the only solution to your stated requirements. I stand by that statement. But you stated a desire to make 60" prints, and then established a constraint of using a V700 scanner. The scanner is the limiting factor here. A 60" print from 4x5 is a 12x enlargement. That is easy, schmeazy with a PMT drum scan. Any good, modern lens from one of the major brands, when used with good technique, will deliver the resolution needed ("modern" here means the last 30-40 years or so, and "major" means Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Nikon, or one of their stencil brands including, say, Caltar). The scanner is the limiting constraint here. That 12x enlargement is beyond what an Epson can do if...

...you require apparent sharpness to the limit of what your viewer can see with the unaided eye from up close. You can certainly make 60" prints from 4x5 scanned on a V700, and they'll look decent--from an appropriate distance.

You didn't specify how you expected your viewers to see their prints, so there was no implied resolution requirement. I assumed a requirement many of us try to fulfill. Others assumed different requirements, and you therefore got different advice. But how you expect your viewers to look at your work is for you to determine.

Back to the field vs. monorail debate: This is a long-standing debate on this forum. Yes, many who own monorails end up with a field camera. There are many reasons for that, and not all of those reasons have to do with what people actually need. Frank is right that lots of beginners try to start at the end point, and end up falling off the learning curve rather than moving up it.

I confess to harboring a minor desire for a field camera, but I'm self-aware enough to know that the desire is as much for a pretty camera as for any specific advantage. So, I stick with my monorails, and the fact that they are monorails certainly does not keep me from doing photography. I also have a Speed Graphic bought last year for the apparent reason that I needed a project (still unfinished, but getting closer). I expect I'll use it for fun, such as a fancy instant-film camera, or for the occasional vintage-looking portrait. It will never be my serious camera for large-format work. But I'm on my fourth monorail camera since I bought my first large-format camera in 1982 or so. And I spent five or six years using a school-owned Linhof monorail camera before that. I have not run out of steam with the monorail design by any means.

Rick "who has used a Linhof followed by a NewVue, Calumet, Cambo, and Sinar--tracking the best available for the money I had at the time" Denney

Frank Petronio
6-Sep-2011, 07:16
Just don't buy a NuVue! OMG what an awful camera!

Corran
6-Sep-2011, 08:00
After lugging a Toyo GII monorail + tripod + lenses + other stuff over the weekend I really want a nice field camera (the Crown Graphic was nice but some shots needed REAL movements).

HOWEVER, the only thing that suffered in my situation was my shoulder and arms.

Go for the monorail if you are trying to save money for your first foray into LF. Just be ready to suffer a little for the art...

rdenney
6-Sep-2011, 08:50
Just don't buy a NuVue! OMG what an awful camera!

I bought that camera and paid $200 actual, honest 1982 dollars for it. If that doesn't prove my underlying stupidity, nothing will. After years with a Linhof Kardan Color, that Newton was sheer torture.

To think, now one can buy a Sinar F2 for about the same money, in real dollars.

Rick "who probably paid the most for that Calumet in real dollars, desperate for something better than the Newton" Denney

tgtaylor
6-Sep-2011, 10:06
If you settle on 4x5 field format, then the Toyo 45AX or AII would be my recommendation:

http://toyoview.com/ProductInfo/ProductInfo.html

It has all the movements you will ever need for landscape and will even handle some architecture.

Thomas

pdmoylan
7-Sep-2011, 18:45
Consider the readily available Omega 45d monorail to start. $295-395. Though not yaw free, has all movements (most importantly, back rise and tilt) and weights about 8lbs (about the same as an Arca F line or Technikardan. Takes 158mm x158mm Toyo boards (also readily available), replacement bellows are available from Toyo. It is not a folding camera but the aluminum rail can easily be taken off and with bellows carefully fitted into a backpack. I trust Gitzo series 3 tripods with 1570 head to assure stability. With recessed board can handl 75mm - 450mm lenses. However be very careful not to over-tighten the various screws including the tightening tripod mount. If you crack the plastic, epoxy and shims work wonders for a very tight, vibration free unit.

jim steines
7-Sep-2011, 20:41
Go for the monorail if you are trying to save money for your first foray into LF. Just be ready to suffer a little for the art...

I guess weight isn't really an issue. I'm not going to be going for treks, and if a few kilograms is the cost of a lower priced camera with more (and more obvious) movements, a newb like me can't really complain.

jim steines
7-Sep-2011, 23:28
I've been looking around for monorails. The Omega 45d seems like it would suit me, but there a few types out there. Linhof Super Color ST? Cambo? How about this one (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=80033) posted here not long ago? Quite a few options, I wish I knew what I was looking for.

jackpie
8-Sep-2011, 02:27
Can't you find any monorails locally?

I'm in the UK and do buy camera gear from the Europe, US and Japan, but shipping is expensive. I am prepared to pay international shipping for small, rare, or very specific items, but surely you can find a suitable monorail in Oz?

Frank Petronio
8-Sep-2011, 07:04
I've been looking around for monorails. The Omega 45d seems like it would suit me, but there a few types out there. Linhof Super Color ST? Cambo? How about this one posted here not long ago? Quite a few options, I wish I knew what I was looking for.

All good choices, those are the popular brands. You have to start somewhere and they are all similar, it is more the details like how the knobs work, etc. and you will find some are slightly nicer for you than others.

I'd look at the range and try to find a clean "outfit" with everything in good condition. Usually you can tell from the photos if there has been abuse, corrosion, etc.

Some of bellows might have pinholes or gears can be stripped, so it is best to buy from a real photographer selling, someone honest who cares about their reputation - such as on this forum (mostly!). If you buy a kit off eBay with lousy photos and from someone claiming to know nothing about cameras ("Grandpa's camera found in the attic", Pawn Shops, etc.) then you may get a good deal. Or get a piece of junk.

Sinars have been the most popular so there is a wider range of parts available. For example you can buy a good 4x5 Sinar bellows for $50-75 on eBay if you need to replace one. The Alpina was their cheapest, not the best platform. The original Norma was and many, like me, consider it one of the best cameras ever - it is so nicely made that it would probably cost $10K new today. The F and P models from the 1970s can be inexpensive and good but some have been used a lot... the later F2 and P2 cameras are very nice.

Linhofs are very well made, perhaps the best, but sometimes the older bellows are worn and replacements can be expensive since they are leather and very fine. They made a dozen-plus good monorails, you want to buy these from good sellers that can verify their condition.

Cambos are a little less fussy but solid cameras, widely available and without major flaws. Same with most of the Toyo-Omega line, although more plastic gets introduced with later models.

There are plenty of other brands too but you probably want to stick with what is popular so you can find accessories and parts as needed.

There are older 50s-60s Calumet, Graflex, and other designs that are very functional and good values but you would want to buy outfits in excellent condition....

There is a ton more info if you search around. And you know what people say about opinions and xxxxx.

jackpie
8-Sep-2011, 16:40
Out of curiosity I took a look at Australian LF prices at the dealers linked in this old thread. "Links to LF retailers in Australia"

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=4286

and checked ebay.com.au

I now see that LF equipment is expensive in Australia, so it could be cheaper to import a camera.

Frank's run through of monorails is brilliant. He should write a text book! You saw earlier in this thread how everyone recommended different cameras, well Frank has done a great job in describing them with an open mind.

One camera most would agree is a classic is the Sinar Norma, and there's a nice 4x5 model on Ebay UK at the moment, item 360389937018.

Mark Darragh
8-Sep-2011, 23:01
Jim,
Just a few quick thoughts from a fellow LF user in Australia. It can be hard to find good equipment at reasonable price in Australia but it is still worth looking locally as well as overseas. If you haven't looked already the "Photographic Trader" magazine is a great resource and you may turn up some surprising finds.

I also second the comments regarding looking at a monorail. I use two for field photography and have found no reason to go back to a flatbed camera.

Hope this helps.

Frank Petronio
8-Sep-2011, 23:06
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=80033

Michael is a very trustworthy seller and that is a fine, older but very capable camera.

jim steines
11-Sep-2011, 05:19
Theres a guy here in aus whos got a complete Horseman L45 setup.
75, 90, 150 and 180, compendium and bag bellows, sliders, a polaroid back as well as a sinar filter set. What would be a fair asking price for this, considering its in good nick? I don't know any more about the lenses right now, maybe leave them out of the estimate.
theres also a full modern darkroom setup, but I dunno about that.
cheers guys.

Frank Petronio
11-Sep-2011, 07:06
I haven't looked but oftentimes it takes a seller a few months or years to realize the outfit they paid paid many thousands for in the 80s-90s is now only worth many hundreds. The nicer studio monorails sell for ~20% of their new price nowadays. Sinar's top of the line P cost the same as a cheap car, now you can find them for $600. The later P2 for a grand.... so the Horseman is probably in the $500 range, very roughly speaking.

Those lenses are probably still desirable by most hobby photographers and hold their value better. Brand, maximum aperture, shutter choice, condition all play a role but if they are contemporary to the camera maybe $400/$400/$250/$250 roughly.

Or something in the $1500 range for the entire kit, that wouldn't be unheard of.... be patient, as most of the hobby photographers here are not inclined to really dig in and commit, so the for sale will likely linger.

Brian Ellis
11-Sep-2011, 07:30
You might stop to think about why there are so many monorails available and why they sell for so little relative to what they cost new. Hint: nobody wants the monorails so there's plenty for sale and with so few buyers the price has to be dirt cheap to move them.

Frank Petronio
11-Sep-2011, 08:16
Sure the reality is that the vast majority of large format photographers work near their cars, with wooden field cameras using moderate lens with maybe a little rise and/or tilt. Everything else is overkill....

My observation is that people tend to do the same shots over and over, doing what works. If your little folder makes it difficult to be expressive and make use of creative movements, you tend not to use those movements, stop learning, and fall back into a recipe or formula. Many of the people here have never even tried a quality monorail. So my suggestion is to at least give them a try, especially since they are such a bargain.

Ivan J. Eberle
11-Sep-2011, 09:40
The monorails evolved into high volume commercial cameras that could swiftly and easily do precise moves in one axis without affecting other moves. The time savings in setting up for a shot made this worthwhile in a production environment such as a studio, but there is a weight penalty for having all these moves geared and isolated from the others.

Most of the monorails that will be interesting for field work by us folks yet working in film today will be simpler/earlier versions, student, or base-level cameras. The Sinar Norma and F-series are interesting because they're robust, and almost all the parts freely interchange. Best of all, since Sinar became the coin of the realm in later years for commercial studio purchase, they're well-made, and became extremely ubiquitous in the used market as studios moved on to digital so they now offer the best bang for the buck.

rdenney
11-Sep-2011, 10:49
You might stop to think about why there are so many monorails available and why they sell for so little relative to what they cost new. Hint: nobody wants the monorails so there's plenty for sale and with so few buyers the price has to be dirt cheap to move them.

It isn't just low demand that can push prices down. Abundant supply can do so also. Those high-end metal monorails were professional workhorses in the days before digital overtook commercial work. Pros dump them now. Few pro large-format kits did not include a metal monorail camera, but many did not have a traditional wooden folder (except for maybe a press camera). If a pro needed a folder, it would probably have been a metal folder like a Technika.

Pros seem to use leased digital stuff now, which need a different platform.

Same thing with medium-format cameras that appealed to pros more that amateur wannabes, such as the Pentax 6x7. Thes are also selling for pennies on the dollar and they are outstanding and useful cameras.

But what do I know? I'm just an amateur these days. All my commercial work was done with inexpensive medium format such as the Mamiya C330.

Rick "usually out of fashion" Denney

Frank Petronio
11-Sep-2011, 12:02
Actually when I came to Rochester and assisted the 50 or so actual working commercial photographers that once were able to make a living here (anther story...) none of them used wooden or field or folding metal cameras, they all had Toyos or Sinars, maybe a few oddballs and one guy used his Father's wobbly beat-to-Hell Deardorff but he was the $h!thead who undercut everyone and did really lousy work.

It was only the rich kid college MFA types who resurrected old Deardorffs, the wannabee Stephen Shores and Nicholas Nixons... Fred Picker answered the call by importing Japanese wooden cameras, he did a lot to build the "hobby" aspect up and it was centered around these pretty little toys.

So I bet they really weren't selling that many wooden cameras in the 80s, Wisner was just getting going, there were Wistas and Tachis, but none of the Ebonies, Chamonix, etc. And Linhof and Arca were pretty rare and exotic to most of us.

rdenney
11-Sep-2011, 13:46
Actually when I came to Rochester and assisted the 50 or so actual working commercial photographers that once were able to make a living here (anther story...) none of them used wooden or field or folding metal cameras, they all had Toyos or Sinars...

...With Toyos being the Mamiya of view cameras and Sinars being the Hasselblad.

Cambos and Calumets were for the serious amateurs and art photographers who didn't have the scratch for a Sinar. They are, of course, completely competent cameras. The are nearly given away now because nobody will buy a Cambo for more than some fraction of what a Sinar fetches in the current market. Linhofs and Arcas were indeed exotic.

Back in the 70's, I made many modifications to Crown Graphic cameras to try to get real movements out of them, because I could not afford a "real" view camera. Sinars were hopelessly out of reach for we amateur wannabes, and even Calumets cost several hundred pre-stagflation dollars. The closest I ever got to a newly introduced Sinar F was a picture in Modern Photography. I had been spoiled by exotica, though. The architecture school I attended owned an old (even then) Linhof Kardan Color, and I was the only one who expressed any desire to use it. So, I had pretty full control over it for several years. The lens was limiting, however, being a 6-inch tessar something-or-other. But I learned how to use a view camera during that time, which is why I spent time tinkering with Crowns to get movements out of them. I even tried to modify a Polaroid Model 250 to provide some front rise, and then used it with Type 55 pack film. People do that for fun now, but for me it was only motivated by poverty--I would certainly have had a real view camera if I could have afforded one.

One of my buddies went to Brooks after college, and in his last year in college bought a (new on the market) Bronica ETR. To me, that was exotic--nobody I knew not even working pros could afford a Hasselblad kit. I was making money on weekends with a Mamiya C-3, for which I paid $100, showing up for a wedding with 10 rolls of 120, the C-3, and a potato-masher flash (which cost more than the camera and was well worth it). I assisted a photographer in Houston for a gig, and he was using a Pentax 6x7 to make photos of conference exhibits at an oil-industry trade show. This was in the 70's, and I was simply awe-struck by the potential of that camera. But in those days, the cameras were $1500 and the lenses $800-2000 each (rounding--the numbers are too big to remember).

Nowadays, those entering film photography have the privilege of starting with what only solidly successful pros could afford, for a price about what we had to pay for used bottom-feeder equipment. So, it seems a bit ironic that instead of taking advantage of the high-end stuff on the market at pennies on the dollar, people seem to want some deeply traditional design that photographers 75 years ago used because there was nothing better.

Sure, there are traditionalists, and the world needs them. But I'm talking about those who just want to make large-format photographs, not those re-enacting a past age for fun.

Rick "who is also re-enacting a past age--his youth" Denney

Frank Petronio
11-Sep-2011, 14:29
Camera prices were high and film seems dirt cheap, Polaroid was $20 for a box of 20... you could wait for your E6 to get developed in less than an hour in most cities.... And I remember paying $15K for a Mac IIci, a Postscript laser printer, and a Kurzweil flatbed scanner, RasterOps 24-bit color card, etc.

Old farts....

Ivan J. Eberle
11-Sep-2011, 15:18
Frank, what size files were you working with from scanned 4x5, then? I had a buddy here who was a bleeding-edge Mac guy c.1990 who was still doing all 4x5 work, sank $25K into a pre-Quadra Mac, a whopping 1GB HDD drive, maybe 256MB of RAM, a "fast" 24bit card 20" monitor and a Syquest drive... He was outsourcing the drum scans.

One image per Syquest Cartridge =44MB (no, not megapixels, megaBYTEs).

Effectively, he was working with the equivalent files of about a 10MP DSLR. This turned out to be quite good enough for the majority of commercial printing uses. When DSLRs reached that level, jettisoning the expense, delay and the uncertainty of film development was a no brainer.

Frank Petronio
11-Sep-2011, 16:41
In 1994 I remember doing 75mb files on a 68040 with 68 mb RAM and it would take 15-30 minutes per operation. With PS 3 or 3.5 I think.

In earlier 1991, it was still the 68030 (ci) days and I made my first photographic four-color separations for 5x7 inch postcards, 175-line screen so 350 dpi, approximately 12mb. Those took just as long back then. Know I used PS1 but by then PS2 was out, maybe the great PS2.5 program (it was the best of it's day).

By 1994 I had two computers so I could double production ;-p

I would work out my "recipes" on smaller 640x480 files, then apply the same moves to the larger files, manually, no scripts then.

The scanner worked well for grey scale, I have a 30x40 Iris from 1992 and a flatbed scan, it was probably only 2500 pixels tall ~ 8mb. The Iris came from a pre-press shop that advertised art printing after Nash started, but they lost their butt with me and I bet every other photographer they worked with.

Nash and Cone were already into this by then. I spent a day printing many prints with Jon Cone in 93, for $800 he made me a dozen large prints (I still have a few).

All of this is irrelevant now, our phones are more powerful.