Some newbie questions

[James McBee]

Hello All,

Obviously I'm new to the forum, and I'm hoping for a little input/guidance. A bit about myself: I studied photography along with filmmaking in college, got sidetracked when it became clear just how difficult it was going to be to make a living, but have recently returned to it and am starting to have some success. I'm shooting digitally at the moment, and while I'm mostly satisfied with the results, the way I shoot I can't print very large. For the most part, that's OK by me. I don't really care for the whole trend towards printing at gigantic sizes anyway. But, I'm a big admirer of the Pictorialists, and that's roughly the aesthetic that I aim for (though the content of my work is rather different). I shot a little 4x5 back in my student days, and it occurs to me that it's probably a little silly the degree to which I have been struggling to make 35mm digital, mirror a look obtained with cameras from the early 20th century. Some things I've tried have worked well (Zeiss softars), and others have turned into expensive blind alleys (Imagon 110mm), but given unlimited resources I would almost certainly prefer to be working with a view camera.

Don't get me wrong, the 5d III isn't going anywhere. Some of what I do requires dozens if not hundreds of exposures (getting just the right motion blur, say, or painting with light). I don't see myself doing that with LF. Photoshop is also a necessity, so anything I do shoot on film, will have to be scanned. With that said, I find myself missing film. DSLRs have obviously matched or surpassed the resolution of 35mm film, but I miss the dynamic range of black and white neg. Also, I shoot a lot in low light, and it is a constant struggle to get the rich blacks that I used to take for granted with film. And in the end, as I said, my print sizes are somewhat limited by the fact that I'm often shooting in the 400-1600 ISO range, and digital noise is just plain ugly compared to film grain. All of which has me contemplating switching to LF for some of my work. It's probably not going to happen this minute, as this stuff is just beginning to pay for itself, and my most urgent need is for a new printer. Also, I am toying with the idea of printing digital negatives for alternative process contact printing, and an analogue, to digital, to analogue workflow is a bit much to bite off all at once.

So, very long way of saying, I'm wondering what format I should consider. I'm guessing that 4x5 would make the most sense. I'm never going to print at billboard sizes, I like to work outside, and cost is a factor. With that said, there's something very appealing about the idea of composing on a 8x10 ground glass. So, any recommendations for a specific camera to watch for (I'll be buying used) would be welcome. A field camera would be nice, but I haven't ruled out rails, as they seem to be considerably cheaper. More movements are better of course, but coming from having none, I'll probably be happy with a lot less than some of you require. I'm also hoping for lens suggestions, or at least focal length suggestions. I'm probably not looking at a full complement. Perhaps even just one lens to begin with. In 35mm I use a 28mm for about seventy percent of my shots, and and 85mm for about another twenty percent; the rest I could easily do without. I am, however, very interested in soft focus lenses. As I said, the Rodenstock Imagon 110mm didn't really work out for me shooting digitally, but the chance to try some other SF lenses is part of the appeal of larger formats. All things being equal--not that they ever are--faster lenses would be better. Considered the Speed Graphic Aero-Ektar combo, but I'm guessing that being married to 70+ year old radioactive glass might prove a bit limiting, yes?

Anyway, thanks so much for your help. I know this was long winded, and kinda general, but I'm just beginning to dip my toes in the water as it were.

Cheers,
James

[Bernice Loui]

Welcome James,

IMO, Soft focus images does not work well with smaller formats specially black and white images. To achieve a proper "look" for these images requires a film format of nothing smaller than 5x7. It comes down to grain size and smoothness of tone that smaller film formats inducing 4x5 do not have. Finished image size makes less difference than one would believe. While soft focus lenses like the 110mm Imagon, Leica Thanbar and others were designed to produce soft focus images, the results are very different than soft focus images made using a sheet 5x7 and larger..

My suggestion would be to start out using a 4x5 to learn how to use a view camera well, once you're very comfy with this and have figured out how to deal with film processing and print making, then move up to a larger film format to meet your image making goals.

Know this is going to require a big commitment, a whole lot of work, passion for this work and a significant amount of resource, learning how to recover when failure hits hard to achieve your image making goals. This is all part of the journey..


Enjoy,
Bernice

[Mark Sawyer]

Welcome to the forum, James! There are quite a few threads dealing with soft focus lenses and pictorialism old and new. Get used to this site's search engine!

I agree with Bernice that larger formats are better, especially when using soft lenses. Enlarging the soft signature seems to break it down. Contact printing is best. Personally, I like 8x10, but if you shoot a lot, it gets expensive. But a big part of working in large format is learning to shoot less but better. I'd say jump into the format you want to use and learn it. Start with Arista.edu film from Freestyle; very good quality at a very good price.

Buy your equipment wisely and you can sell it for what you have into it if it turns into another "blind alley". You can learn what the current price trends on the soft lenses are here:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...es-Information

The results from that thread are occasionally compiled here:

http://www.antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenssales.html

[James McBee]

Thanks to you both for the advice. I have to say, you have me leaning towards 8x10. Seems like that will be the direction that I will be headed eventually anyway. I'll certainly avail myself of the search function (thanks again Mark, for that fairly exhaustive thread on SF lenses), but if anyone would like to chime in with recommendations for a camera for someone on a budget, I would greatly appreciate it. I don't expect to walk away with a Deardorff, much less one of its more modern inheritors, but as I understand it, a LF camera is essentially a box with bellows. I'm guessing there is something serviceable, that would be a little cheaper, and I'd rather spend what funds I have on better glass. Thanks.

[Leigh]

Hi James,

Permit me to suggest 4x5 as your first format, for the following reasons:
1 - There are many cameras to choose from, of all types (studio, press, field, and technical).
2 - There are many many lenses to choose from, covering the whole range from wide to long.
3 - There are many different films available, both b&w and color.
4 - It's easy to process 4x5 film at home, and relatively inexpensive at a commercial lab.
5 - There's a reasonable market for used 4x5 gear, so you can probably recoup your costs if/when
you decide to move up to 8x10.

None of those points apply to 8x10 cameras.

There are few lenses that can cover the 8x10 format, and they tend to be large and expensive.
You can cut your costs a bit by using older lenses, but they don't match the quality of newer ones.

A word of caution about selecting LF lenses...
The published image circle (IC) is usually given at f/22 for an f/5.6 lens.
The IC wide open (at f/5.6 or whatever) is substantially smaller than the IC at f/22.

For example, the Nikkor W 240/5.6 might seem like a nice choice, slightly wider than "normal".
It's published IC @ f/22 is 336mm, which would permit slight movements on 8x10.
However, its IC @ f/5.6 is only 278mm, which fails to cover an 8x10 film by a wide margin.

- Leigh

[djdister]

Leigh's points are very sound, and I would also suggest starting with a 4x5 camera. There are a few other points to keep in mind, however. Your choice of 4x5 must be able to accommodate the typically larger diameter of the classic soft focus lenses, like the Verito/Veritar, as well as the needed bellows draw. I have a 9" Verito lens that won't work on my Horseman 45FA because the lens diameter is just too big. I can use it on my 5x7, but it would work on another type of 4x5 with a larger lens board too.

I would also suggest that if you are really after the look of the Pictorialists, you will need to use alternative printing processes instead of silver or digital.

One last item - you probably will need a good scanner such as the Epson V700/750.

[James McBee]

Thanks for the additional food for thought. You all have me wavering back and forth. Looks like one can get a nearly mint Wista 4x5 or the like, for about the same as a beat to crud Kodak/B&J/Agfa/what-have-you 8x10. But as I said in my original post, I won't be making a decision for a while, so I guess I'll keep an eye on Ebay, and see what comes. It seems to me, from what you all have said and from what research I've done, that it is going to come down to spending more on the camera if I go with 8x10, and buying vintage lens, or spending less on a 4x5, and getting newer lenses. Normally I'd put my money in glass every time, but given that I'm primarily interested in SF, I'm less sure.

Dan - As to your point, I am planning on doing alternative process--albeit with the intermediate steps of scanning, photoshoping, and printing to transparency. I haven't started doing the whole digital negative for PT/PD printing stuff yet, but I will be exploring that thoroughly before I even tackle LF. I'm also not sure whether I will buy a scanner, or opt to have my lab scan the negatives for me. The cost if I take the latter route will be considerable, but the scans should be markedly better than with the Epson, and frankly I'm expecting to use LF for maybe 10 percent or so of my work. I'll grant that that could change, but I'm still a ways out from all of this.

Thanks again to you all.

[NancyP]

Hello fellow newbie! I am even newer, given that I have never shot any film larger than 120. I just bought a 4 x 5 camera from a member of the forum, and now I am researching lenses. I am an amateur, currently shoot digital and not film, and greatly appreciate the flexibility of digital in small formats. It has been part of my bucket list to learn how to shoot sheet film and take advantage of movements. So, I too am learning about lenses and deciding on FL for the first lens, and then, if I get the hang of it, a second lens. 28mm in 35mm terms = 104mm in 4 x 5 terms , most lenses available seem to be either 90mm or 110mm. 85mm in 35mm terms = 315mm in 4 x 5 terms, closest common size 300mm. As I understand it, one has to be careful about buying lenses 90mm and under, 300mm and over, to check your camera type to see if the bellows will accommodate it.

Of course, not all movements are useful, see the lead photo in .....
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subsc...movements.html

[Tim Meisburger]

I think the larger formats do have a different look than 4x5, especially portraits, but am not sure why. From a practical perspective moving up from 4x5 becomes exponentially more expensive and less portable. What I would suggest is that you start with a good value 4x5 kit with a 135 or 150mm lens, something you can easily flip for what you paid for it. Shoot for a while for fun, when you feel like, using the cheapest b&w film you can get (its all good). After a few months you will know a lot. Do you like the deliberative process of composing slowly, or do you usually reach for the digital (when shooting for fun). Do you enjoy developing film, or is it just a hassle you prefer to avoid? Do you shoot mostly in the studio, or outdoors? If the answer to the first two is yes, LF is for you, even if you don't use it professionally. With the experience you now have now gained cheaply you can operate any size view camera. Otherwise, stop then and flip the kit and no worries.

On the third question, if you prefer the studio, you are set. Any 8x10 of 5x7 will suit your needs, and provide a big contrast to the digital. If you like it mostly outside then you have a decision. 4x5 is clearly lighter, and preferred by long trekkers; but there are plenty of people who do pack long distances with 8x10 and larger formats to get that special negative in that special place. I personally think 5x7 is a good compromise; stunning portraits in the studio and relatively easy to pack, but that being said I have never shot 8x10. I do have a box of that film in the fridge though, and am looking for a back for my studio camera (oh... its a slippery slope).

Good luck and have fun!

[John Kasaian]

I'd go with an 8x10. Since you've already shot 4x5, you of all people should know what you want next. 8x10 contacts are indeed special. A beater 8x10 can be a bargain as long as it's light tight, although film holders and film is a little pricey and you'll need a sturdy tripod too.
But I think it is worth it.