Question about Format Markings on Ground Glass

[fecaleagle]

I have just acquired a Crown Graphic in excellent condition from a seller on E***. While I plan on shooting 4x5, my primary goal is to contact print Carte de Visites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carte_de_visite) using the Albumen printmaking method. I am going to order a replacement ground glass from Steve Hopf (and Son), and I would like to have him include format markings for this format.

Given the limited movements of the camera, I'd prefer to take my shots in landscape orientation, and given that the format for CDV images is 2.125"x3.5", the 4x5 film should, in my mind, accommodate that nicely. Given that all CDVs are done in portrait orientation, I'm planning on having him do the 2.125"x3.5" format marking vertically so that I can shoot a portrait-oriented CDV with the camera in the landscape-oriented position.

Can anyone with a bit more experience in shooting LF point out any caveats, pitfalls, or "oh God no, please don't do it"s that I should be aware of before I order the Ground Glass with format markings done like this?

Hopefully that was all clear enough, but if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. I've actually been lurking on these forums for quite a while now, but this is the first question I've had that hadn't been answered already in ten different ways.

Thanks!

[BrianShaw]

I've marked formats onto GG successfully with pencil on the ground side, grease pen and old-fashioned drafting tape on the smooth side.

[Oren Grad]

Can anyone with a bit more experience in shooting LF point out any caveats, pitfalls, or "oh God no, please don't do it"s that I should be aware of before I order the Ground Glass with format markings done like this?

Like Brian, I've marked alternative formats on the GG. As for having it marked permanently, the worst case is that you'll decide you really don't like the GG that way after all. Then you'll need to reinstall your original GG or perhaps get a replacement, which won't cost very much for 4x5. Which is to say, if you think it will help, go for it!

[E. von Hoegh]

You can get two CDV images on one 4x5 sheet.....

[fecaleagle]

You can get two CDV images on one 4x5 sheet.....

This seems like a good idea, but I can't imagine how I would accomplish it without constructing some sort of split back for the camera/film holder. That's a good thought though. Maybe I should sleep on that for a while and just go the pencil route for my format markings for the time being...

[Jon Shiu]

What some people do is make a mask out of paper/cardboard and affix it to the back of the ground glass.

Jon

[Doremus Scudder]

My question is this: Why do you not want to mark the cdv portrait marking in alignment with the portrait orientation of the ground glass? In other words, why a vertical format marking on the horizontal ground glass? Is there an advantage to having it this way?

I imagine I would keep portrait-to-portrait orientation.

I agree with the others that you may not need to have Steve Hopf do the marking for you. You can do it yourself with pencil to try it out (in whatever orientation you like) and then, when you want to make it permanent, just get out the fine-point Sharpie.

FWIW, I've gridded a ground glass or two with a Sharpie, on the viewing side, and it works just fine and is fairly robust.

Best,

Doremus

[BrianShaw]

Why not consider shootin 6x7 (roll film) in portrait orientation and not worry about the slight difference from the traditional CDV size?

The more I think about this, I echo Doremus' question about the limitation you've set for shooting portrait images on landscape orientated film. Seems artificially restrictive.. unless your camera cannot support putting the film in portrait format.

But a split-back sure sound interesting!

[cowanw]

You mentioned about limited movements, and it is true that you will have more movements on the 4" side of the film but only because you are using less of the image circle to start with.
Film shifting in the holder may make the long edge of you image close to the edge of the film. You have about 1/4 " to play with given 1/8 on each side will not be exposed any way
If you shoot in portrait format your image will be more centred on the film and in truth the available movements will be the same.
Still nothing wrong with what you want to do.

[Joseph Dickerson]

Graflex at one time made a split 4x5 back that gave two images on one sheet of 4x5 film. You might find one on ebay or KEH, Midwest Photo or some such.

It used a standard sheet film holder, fit any camera with a Graflok back and had it's own ground glass. You'd take one shot and then slide the film holder horizontally to uncover the other half of the film. Great for what you're trying to accomplish.

JD

[fecaleagle]

Thank you for all the great responses. In portrait orientation, the possibility of rise/fall is limited by the shift (which on the Crown is like 1/4"). It also removes any possibility of tilt unless I mod [read disfigure] the front standard for swing. Seeing that these are very traditional portraits, I'm not going rocking the bokeh too hard or anything, but I would like to keep my options open. Also, I may resort to using a shorter focal length lens in order to get my subjects into the frame from a reasonable distance, and I think I can minimize visible edge-to-edge distortion by framing the shots this way.

So as long as you guys can support this reasoning, I think that is the way I'm going to go.

[BrianShaw]

Forgive me for being pesky... but how much movement do you anticipate when shooting CDVs? I would expect little to mone. Maybe rise/fall to avoid raising or lowering the tripod column is my experience. I understand your concern since the Crown does not have a revolving back, but even when I shoot straight portraits with a fully-featured view camera I tend to use rise/fall as a compositional shortcut to adjusting the tripod.

[fecaleagle]

Graflex at one time made a split 4x5 back that gave two images on one sheet of 4x5 film. You might find one on ebay or KEH, Midwest Photo or some such.

Thanks for this information. I had read a scant bit about these and will keep my eyes open for one. An alternative to this is using a cut darkslide, but given the lack of a rotating back on the Crown, exposing the right (from the photographer's perspective) side of the film becomes tricky.

[fecaleagle]

Forgive me for being pesky... but how much movement do you anticipate when shooting CDVs?

Little to none is probably correct. Given the responses so far, I will hold off on having permanent format markings applied until I've established a workflow that I am comfortable with and find works best for me. In all honesty, I'm more comfortable using the Crown in portrait orientation, so if the results are the same (and assuredly better with the wide-angle lens [late model Angulon 90mm 6.8]) either way, I'll probably end up doing it as I've suggested.

I hope that I am not coming off as dismissive of all of your suggestions, and I certainly do appreciate any input I can get. I will try it both ways before I apply any permanent markings. Thanks!

[E. von Hoegh]

You might find a longer lens better, say the ubiquitous 127-135 found on Grafics. 90 is a bit short for what you are doing.

[Proteus617]

I would never pre-mark a GG without the camera and back in hand. I've marked off a few with a drafting pencil by opening the back and using the mask as a template. Sometimes you find that the correct position of your marks is not quite as centered as you would think.