Hello, and stupid question

[Steve Muntz]

Hi folks, I've been interested in photography for most of my life and an avid shooter for a lot of it. LF has always been of particular interest but I've never owned one. I'm feeling the need to try something new, so here I am. The process of working with one of these cameras really interests me.

My first thought was to learn about the camera by using instant film, but now I find out that Fuji is getting out of that market as Polaroid did a few years ago. I have done 35mm and MF developing with daylight tanks since I don't have access to a darkroom, or a good space to put one. I'm mainly (but not exclusively) interested in b&w over color for this, and hoping that the BTZS tube developer set might work with a changing bag.

But from there my big (stupid) question is, what do I do with those great big 4x5 negs? I don't see wet printing them myself any time soon (if ever). Huge prints aren't really my thing, but is home scanning on a flatbed and printing to 8x10 to 16x20 worth the trouble? And I know that 4x5 chromes are incredible too, but basically I'd have the same question for that.

Thanks...

[ImSoNegative]

I normally scan my 4x5's and print to 16x20, a 4x5 neg enlarged to 16x20 looks great. definetly worth the trouble,

[Peter Gomena]

Home scanning works very well from 4x5" negatives, especially at smaller magnifications. I print most of my MF, 4x5 and 6x8 negatives on 8.5x11" paper. They look good on 13x19" paper when printed at that size as well. You will find detail resolution in scans from 4x5 much better than with smaller negatives, especially if you own an Epson 700 or 750. Just as in traditional enlarging, size matters.

Peter Gomena

[Leonard Evens]

I agree that it makes sense to develop 4 x 5 negative film, scan it, and then make prints from the scan. You would get higher resolution by enlarging the negative to make a print, but you gain so much by being able to manipulate the digital scanned image, that I think you are definitely better off. This is particularly true if you are doing color. I spent years making color prints from medium format color negatives. with at best mediocre results. When I switched to scanning, I found it much easier to get the color to do what I wanted.

[Vaughn]

Alternative processes -- intimate little 4x5 images. A full-on darkroom is not needed. Many of the steps of the various processes can be done in normal room light.

Vaughn

[Brian C. Miller]

Trust us. The addicts. Yes, trust us. Of course it's worth it!

When I bought my Graflex Super Graphic, the ground glass had been replaced, and the focus was ever-so-slightly off. It took me a while to figure that out, and I went through a bit of film during my learning curve. One of the photographs I made was of a crane at Grand Coulee dam. I photographed it both with my Pentax 645 and my Graflex. I scanned the image on my then Epson 1600, and then I spent some time sharpening the image.

Know what? Size matters.

The crane had various OSHA signs on it. The 645 image was nice and crisp, and I could see that there was lettering on the signs. After I got through with the 4x5 image, I could read the signs. And that started with a slightly out-of-focus slide.

Since then I've replaced the ground glass, and now everything is nice and sharp. I still use that camera, and I'm very happy with it.

But it's not just size that's important, it's the control that the camera gives to the photographer. Swings, tilts, rise and fall, it all comes free with the camera.

[John Kasaian]

You'll need a dark space in order to load your holders. At the very minimum a changing bag, but if you have the luxury of counter on which to load your holders in darkness, you may well have the space for a 4x5 enlarger and trays. Just sayin' :)

[Roger Cole]

If I didn't have a darkroom and do wet printing I wouldn't personally bother with LF.

Well, in fact, if I didn't do wet printing I wouldn't bother with film, but that's just me. That's the fun and rewarding part of it to me. If I were going to do it all digitally I'd just shoot it digitally.

[Fourtoes]

And its not just the end product/print, the whole act/event of shooting large format is an experience/joy/frustration in itself.

[Steve Muntz]

Alternative processes -- intimate little 4x5 images. A full-on darkroom is not needed. Many of the steps of the various processes can be done in normal room light.

Vaughn

Thanks - that might be just the ticket. Can you point me in a direction with some more info about what's possible?


But it's not just size that's important, it's the control that the camera gives to the photographer. Swings, tilts, rise and fall, it all comes free with the camera.


And its not just the end product/print, the whole act/event of shooting large format is an experience/joy/frustration in itself.

That's just it - the process. It's not a computer, and there are a lot of skills to master. Small format digital has just made the 'falling over backwards' problem more obvious with pointing a camera above horizontal to the point that I think people expect to see the world that way. Someday maybe I'll have a wet darkroom, but plenty to try until that time.

Thanks for the replies!

[Brian C. Miller]

If I didn't have a darkroom and do wet printing I wouldn't personally bother with LF.

Well, in fact, if I didn't do wet printing I wouldn't bother with film, but that's just me. That's the fun and rewarding part of it to me. If I were going to do it all digitally I'd just shoot it digitally.

When I bought my Graflex, I was living in an 18ft travel trailer. Polaroid was my friend! :) I used lots of Readyloads, too. I started developing things myself when the lab I was using started messing up.

I've never had the money to afford digital at the fidelity that I want. Film, even scanned with a flatbed at home, is still ever so much better.

Steve, do you have a printer that can produce a 16x20 print? If not, then I would suggest that since you're going to send it out to have it done for you, then not to worry about it. Might as well send the film to someone who prints optically for the really big enlargements, and scan and do the smaller stuff at home.

Can you black out your bathroom? That's what I've done with mine. I have my enlarger on a cart, and I wheel it in and out as needed. The trays fit onto my sink's space, so no problem there. There's a lot you can do when you apply some ingenuity to a problem! :)

[Kuzano]

My process is simple and you may be interested in how much I invested.

1) Scanner, Epson 4990 which scans 4X5 nicely.... bought used for $200.

2) Printer, Epson 2200 printer, prints to 13x19 inch .. bought used for $200 and got 3 packs of glossy print paper which were worth about $50 each, thrown in. The printer actually has a paper path of 13 inches and will print from roll paper to 44 inches, approx. This is the next class of printer over 8.5x11. They generally run to $500 new for 13-19.

Film costs... buy my film on eBay. I don't hesitate to buy expired from sellers with very high, very positive feedback. Occasionally step up for current film. My last big purchase was two big boxes of EasyLoads and Quickloads. I picked up roughly 200 sheets of film, varied expiry and emulsions for $125. I still have about 150 of those sheets left in original boxes. Always refrigerated and those I've used have been fine, with exception to my mishaps.

No wet darkroom. Have the sheets processed in Portland for about BW $2 sheet and E6 $2.25 per sheet. Four day turnaround.

Postage or a tank of gas from home to Portland.

No wet processes in home or dark room. Has never interested me and no place for it anyway. Never had room for darkroom.

My system for 4x5 is stupid simple and stupid low cost compared to many I see. But, I am pleased with the results. I do hang them on the wall for all to see.

I do very little post processing. I've been a PC consultant for over 20 years and the very last thing I want to do with my spare time is Post Process on a computer.

[Tim Meisburger]

My two cents. Like you, I started knowing nothing, and without access to anyone who had any idea what they were doing, except the people on this forum. With their help and google, I taught myself. Is it worth it? For me, hell yeh... You mention your frustration with perspective control, and that was something that bothered me as well, but once you get into to it, you control that, and everything else!.

I used to shoot 35mm like people blast digital today, but truthfully the keepers were few and far between. When I started LF I began to make, not just take, photographs. A few years later, and on a photo trip I might typically shoot six sheets a day, and end up keeping more than I would in the old days shooting a hundred frames of 35mm. I no longer point and shoot. When I finally trip the shutter I have a good sense of what my final product will be, and if its uninteresting, I don't even set up the camera. Interestingly, this way of working carries over, and on the rare occasion I pick up a 35mm, or my wife's digital, I'm much more deliberative, and a better photographer.

You don't say where you live, but if its in the UK, I would say pick up a Paterson Orbital, as you can use it to develop both negatives and prints. Otherwise, a CombiPlan or tubes for negatives and a few small trays for prints. And a changing bag. Once you have your negative, find a windowless bathroom or closet, throw a small rug or towel against the crack at the floor, get a four watt bulb and a cheap safe light, and contact print your 4x5 negatives. They will be like jewels...

[Vaughn]

Thanks - that might be just the ticket. Can you point me in a direction with some more info about what's possible?...

This is the Bostick and Sullivan Alt Forums -- there are others.

http://bostick-sullivan.invisionzone.com/index.php

Or get this great book about the whole universe of alt processes:

http://www.amazon.com/Alternative-Photographic-Processes-Christopher-James/dp/0766820777

(shameless plug -- I have a couple images in it -- platinum and carbon prints)

The choices are many -- if you want to start out simple, try cyanotypes -- two easy to get chemicals (Bostick and Sullivan, Photographer Formulary, various chemical houses) -- Ferric Ammonium Citrate and Potassium Ferricyanide. Add to distilled water, brush onto paper, blow dry and print using UV light (the sun or cobble something together with black lights). Develop in water. Yes, one can make it more complicated than that.

Blue prints are great for some subjects (ice, snow water, etc) -- but they can also be toned in various ways to get something else besides blue.

Platinum/palladium prints are another great process. (Give you negs about 50% more development -- the process likes contrast).

But 4x5 alt process prints put together in some type of book form would be very very sweet. And a "book" can be just about anything. Small intimate images in one's hands.

There is quite the number of possibilities (gum printing over platinum, for example!). And you can make enlarged inkjet negs from scanned negatives if you so desire.

All these processes do take time to master -- so what better tool than a view camera that also takes time to use and to master! I like view cameras because they give me lots of options for image management. Placing the plane of focus where I want it to be, the time taken to look at the whole image on the GG and determine not only the center of attention, but to use the sides and corners of the image to define what is in the center.

Have a ton of fun!

Vaughn

[joselsgil]

Steve,

You may want to check out Michael Gordon's site and videos. The video shows you how to develop B&W 4X5 film with JOBO daylight tank, (not very cheap). Even with the BTZS tubes, you need some wet room work area.
Gordon prints his work on archival printer paper, no wet lab other than film development.

Personally, I enjoy working in a wet darkroom. But that is just my personal preference.

You have a lot of options as to what direction you want to take. It doesn't hurt to experiment and challenge yourself.

Hope this info helps,

Jose


http://michaelegordon.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/how-to-video-daylight-sheet-film-4x5-development-2/

http://www.michael-gordon.com/

[Roger Cole]

You don't need a big space or even running water for a darkroom. My current darkroom doesn't have running water (yet.) I have 7 gallon water jug with a spigot ($17 from Amazon) that I fill up from the water hose in the backyard as needed, and a 5 gallon bucket for waste water that gets dumped upstairs. I set off about a 10x12' area of the basement by hanging black plastic, and more plastic overhead which helps control dust and makes a "box" I can heat in the winter. The lack of running water isn't ideal but it's comfortable, big enough for all my stuff (with a couple of tables outside the area for other things like sorting negatives, drying prints and a dry mount press for flattening them) and really works pretty well. You can use a pretty small area, even a spare bathroom at a pinch, though an area you can leave set up is VERY much better than something you have to set up and break down each time.

But if even that is too much then I suppose scanning is better than not photographing (well, for me, maybe not - I just enjoy the darkroom so much but YMMV.)