Rendering quality when shooting 120 on 4x5 camera

[jbenedict]

Lens/film/camera choice in this situation points the direction you might want to go.

If you are considering using only 120 film, remember that a 90 is approximately "normal" view on a 6x6/6x7/6x9. The Graphic View does not deal well with a 90 if you are not using a recessed lens board and, even with the recessed board, it is not ideal. (I've owned a GV)

A 135/150/180 is considered 'normal' on a 4x5. There are arguments amongst users as to which one is actually the 'best' normal but the GV will work fine with these focal lenses and about out to a 240mm and longer with a telephoto construction lens (It needs a bellows draw shorter than its focal length.) If you are going to use one of these lenses on a 6x6/7/9, they will be about portrait length. How would that fit into what you are wanting to do?

It would be easy to backpack with many exposures of 120 film. 5 rolls equals 50 exposures of 6x7 and 40 exposures of 6x9. However, a view camera is used quite differently than other cameras and I'm not sure that I would need more than 10 shots for an afternoon view camera work. Yes, it is possible to 'bracket' exposures with an abundance of 120 exposures but, to me, that kind of misses the point of the more deliberative approach of the view camera. One of the objectives is to get it right the first time. 10 exposures of 4x5 fits in 5 holders- not too bulky. 4x5 in color comes in 10 sheet boxes. Just enough to fill your holders. B&W comes in 25 sheet boxes so that is 24 exposures or 12 holders. Fill six holders with film before you go and shoot all morning. Use a changing bag and refill them at lunch. A common practice. Grafmatics hold six sheets at a time and would less bulky than holders.

In this situation, I would get a 135 or 150 lens and shoot 4x5. When I had my GV, my first lens was a 127 Ektar. Only a little bit of movement possible (The 127 was considered a "normal" lens on a 3.25x4.25 Speed Graphic) but the Ektar was sharp and does a good with close-up work. If you still wanted to have the roll back, it would be like having a second lens.

That's what I think. Doing the view camera dance is something very different from using an SLR. There is a procedure which must be followed that is just not there with a SLR camera. You speak of 'depth of field' A view camera with a modern lens which covers 4x5 well and is used properly can put the depth of field pretty much any where you want it to be. Same with most of the other perspective dimensions. I learned quickly with my GV and a 127 Ektar what I could do and I figured out the limitations of the 127 Ektar and worked around them and eventual got a 205/4.5 Velostigmat which was a dynamite lens at a low cost. And coverage to 5x7 so I could use what movements I had. Unless you want to do wide angle work, the GV will have all of the movements you need until you actually figure out how to use the camera. These days, when I go stomping out into the wilderness, I take a Crown Graphic with a 135 Caltar, a Tilt-all tripod, two Grafmatics, and some basic goodies- dark cloth, a couple of filters, meter, two cable releases. And my lunch.

It's fun to learn.

[Peakbagger]

Thanks jbenedict. Fun to learn indeed! I am in fact lurking on ebay for a 135mm, probably settling on the "standard" optar 4.7 unless I can find something better in the price range that my wife will allow . I've also considered the 90mm. Just typing in '90mm' 'optar' on flickr brings up many photos produced by that lens which I really like - some that really stood out for me were shot on a 6x12 roll back even. I am getting ahead of myself though. I tend to shoot close, so probably a normal lens suits me better. I'll do what you did and figure out what I can do with the 135 and then go from there.

I did not know about the "Grafmatic" I will probably grab that for my next holder purchase. So much to learn!

[Peakbagger]

https://www.google.com/#q=PDX



With fond regards from LAX

Ha! So naughty!

[jbenedict]

Thanks jbenedict. Fun to learn indeed! I am in fact lurking on ebay for a 135mm, probably settling on the "standard" optar 4.7 unless I can find something better in the price range that my wife will allow

The 135/4.7 Optar has a similar problem as the 127 Ektar I had- coverage is just a little more than straight on 4x5. It was designed to be used on a press camera where straight on 4x5 coverage is all that is necessary.

Here is the page at KEH.com for large format lenses:

https://www.keh.com/search/list?n=151&page=2

The Caltars, Symmars, Geronars and Sironars, either 135 or 150- would do well for you and are priced from $200-$400. A lens at KEH that is listed as BGN (Bargain) is usually in very good shape and there is a good return policy.

[Donald Qualls]

Not quite ready to go out and shoot yet. I still need a lens! I just ordered one graflex sheet film holder. I'll hold off on the 120 back at the moment. I do want the full "4x5 experience". I suppose that includes self developing!
Thanks for the advices everyone.

Ut oh.

Better Google around for the difference between a "Graflex" back or film holder, and a "Graphic" back. All modern 4x5 cameras have a Graphic back; the Graflex back went out of production before 1930 (I might have that date wrong, but it was a long time ago).

Just to make things confusing, the Graflex brand was put on Graphic type film holders for decades...

Edit: Relative to lenses, you might save some money (and give up almost no quality, and only a bit more coverage relative to the Optar) getting a 135 mm (aka 13.5 cm) Tessar in an older Compur shutter. I've got two of these; one in a shutter with no works other than aperture (it was dead/missing parts when I got it) that I use on my Speed Graphic with the focal plane shutter, and one in a 1920s vintage dial-set Compur (on an Ica Ideal 9x12 cm plate camera, but I may find a way to use its bayonet mount on my Graphic View). It's hard to find a modern lens any better for general use than an 85 year old Tessar (aside from lack of coatings on one that old), and they can often be had on eBay as part of an otherwise ratty plate camera at a bargain price (more so if you're capable of doing your own clean and lube work).

If you're interested in macro, you can also do good work with the 105 mm lenses commonly found on 6x9 cm roll film cameras; again, get one with a ratty bellows and the leather falling off, bent standard, or otherwise "non-shooter" and you might spend next to nothing; mount the lens in a board and be amazed what it'll do (and how much less it costs than a similar focal length made for large format). Your GVII will easily shoot bigger than 1:1 with a 105 mm lens, and focused that close, that lens will cover 4x5 with room for considerable movements (I have one I use on my Speed and GV that covers, with no margin, at 12 feet focus and f/16 or smaller, and is sharp enough to read a license plate a block away in the negative even when set hyperfocal).

[Peter Gomena]

If your camera has an "international" Graflex-style back, do yourself a favor an buy a modern roll film back to fit it. The old graflex roll film backs usually are pretty beat, and the 6x9 version doesn't produce the best film flatness. Find a Horseman 6x9 back for 4x5 and you'll be happier.

[Peakbagger]

Ut oh.

Better Google around for the difference between a "Graflex" back or film holder, and a "Graphic" back. All modern 4x5 cameras have a Graphic back; the Graflex back went out of production before 1930 (I might have that date wrong, but it was a long time ago).

Just to make things confusing, the Graflex brand was put on Graphic type film holders for decades...

No worries Donald, I received it and it fits just fine. You're right though, all this "Graphic", "Graflex", "Graflok" can turn your head around pretty fast!

If you're interested in macro, you can also do good work with the 105 mm lenses commonly found on 6x9 cm roll film cameras; again, get one with a ratty bellows and the leather falling off, bent standard, or otherwise "non-shooter" and you might spend next to nothing; mount the lens in a board and be amazed what it'll do (and how much less it costs than a similar focal length made for large format). .

Thanks for the lens advice. It just so happens I am interested in macro work - not sure what to look for though - do you mean a camera like this? http://ebay.to/1wliNoX

[Donald Qualls]

Thanks for the lens advice. It just so happens I am interested in macro work - not sure what to look for though - do you mean a camera like this? http://ebay.to/1wliNoX

Yes, that category. You can find less nice looking ones for as little as $10 plus shipping, in my experience (though it's been several years since I bought one). The Tessar (4 elements, 3 groups, aka Skopar, and several other names from other manufacturers) and Heliar (5 elements, 3 groups, also multiple other names including Ektar) formula lenses are very good, and most of them will be either f/6.3 or f/4.5 on cameras like that -- which gives a nice bright ground glass for focusing and composing, though they won't come close to covering 4x5 at infinity that wide. Even a triplet (Anastigmat, Triotar, Radionar, etc.) can do a good job for macro work, as can an enlarging lens in that focal length range (some would claim the enlarging lenses are better for macro than those intended for scene photography, though I'm not sure you'll be able to tell the difference in prints smaller than a picture window).

[joselsgil]

I'm in PDX! Or actually across the river in Clark County, WA.

I am familiar with the name Clark County in WA. My niece and her husband just purchased a home in that area.

As for lenses in the 135mm range. I purchased a Carl Zeiss Tessar f4.5 or 3.5, don't have the lens in front of me. I purchased the lens for less than $60 and it can do some nice close-up work.

[Drew Wiley]

I dunno. I'm just starting to print the black and white prints from this last mtn trip of 6x9's. My feeling is that I would have really preferred to have done it with
full 4x5 instead, but if I had, I probably would have missed out on any number of the best shots, cause the weather, clouds, etc were awfully fickle. At least this
gave me perspective and tilt movements for the general scenes, and as long as I don't print these any larger than 16x20, they still retain most of the feel of large format prints, though I can certainly spot the difference in certain areas. For one thing, it is much easier to do acute focus on the larger 4x5 screen. It was a logistical decision related more to bulk than weight per se, and in this case, a correct estimate of what weather situations were most likely to do. But I've been experimenting along these lines a bit anyway, since two full weeks lugging gear over the high passes is a little different at 65 than it was at 45. If Quickloads were still around it would have been a different story. This was not the most practical trip for a changing tent either. But I am certainly glad I bought Horseman
holders. They seem very precise and reliable. I didn't take very many color shots, and had a separate holder for Ektar; but those were done in less tempestuous
weather situations, so I had more time to fuss with the focus and get it dead on, so these particular ones will hold up well in 20x24 prints.