Like you, I can't afford 8x10 color film. I bought a reduction back for my Wehman 8x10 so I can shoot 4x5 color when I want to. If you go 8x10, this may be a solution for you. On my camera the widest lens I can use is a 90mm with no movements (my widest lens is a 121mm). There is always a compromise.Originally Posted by dodphotography
I strongly believe that the camera itself must be rigid and precise, or else you end up with a rickety kite and not a camera. Same goes for the tripod. You're only
as good as your weakest link. All the 8x10 lenses I personally use are lightweight and top quality, and have ample coverage. Some have dramatically increased in
resale value since I acquired them, some have gone down, and a few have never been worth much. In other words, price might not have much to do with image
quality at all, but just about supply, demand, and alleged cult reputation. If you want superbly sharp lenses cheap, buy graphic arts "process" lenses in barrel. If
you want a soft look instead, stick a coke bottle over your shutter. But given the fact I probably know more about Indians and arrows than most people on the planet, I'd confidently state that it's both the Indian and the arrow, if you want to eat. John - I have a lovely soapstone arrow straightener in my collection, like
a huge slotted egg. They heated it, since soapstone retain heat superbly, then spun the shaft in it. I once also had a remarkable set of actual preserved arrow
blanks, untipped, completely straight, until my klepto cousin stole them for drug money. The paleolithic versions were even more remarkable, in which they'd
precisely groove a long section of bone or ivory using an obsidian burin (itself made by lithic techniques unknown to historic Indian tribes), then mount tiny symmetrical "microliths" in these grooves to created a long serrated projective, itself attached to a longer shaft. These were of course pre- bow & arrow for
atlatls. It requires a low power microscope to even duly appreciate the technique, which was apparently proprietary to the Ice Age, though Eskimos did similar
things for harpoons.
I agree heartily with John and Jody,
Find something and try it. perhaps even going for some cheap 4x5's to compare how the movements work. But buy somethign that feels interesting and good. I am more excited to shoot with one of my cameras, even though it has limits, because of how it feels under the dark cloth.
Also, keep looking locally so you can get your hands on one. Try out other peoples cameras if you can, maybe a school or university will let you join a class and access their cameras. Find what feels good and go for it.
Good luck!
For me, photography is a much about the journey as the destination. If the print is the destination, some get there with dilapidated wooden cameras and tarnished brass lenses, others with carbon fiber marvels and cutting edge exotic glass. Pick the one that will give you the most pleasure.
A couple more ideas:
Build an 8x10. For pinhole photography it is very simple. For a field camera, more challenging. 8x10 is still small enough to consider friction focus, I think, particularly if you focus from the back (a la tailboard cameras). A tailboard camera would be relatively simple to build, but movements might be limited, but that might be good in some cases. A monorail might not be so hard to build either. See Jon Grepstadt's site and the DIY section of this one.
Restore an old one. Old, limited movements 8x10's are out there in generally poor condition for very little money. But, often, the hard parts (brass, fancy woodwork) are in pretty good shape. Bellows can be made or purchased new or used. Lens boards are easy to make, ground glass can be bought or made. if the camera has an odd tripod mount, or none, make an adapter, install a tripod mount, build a "tray" in which the camera sits snugly and put a tripod mount on that.
You could also opt for the modify an existing 8x10 to increase movements. Many cameras could have axis or base front tilt added fairly easily, swing and shift, that would be more challenging, but not impossible. One simple approach to getting more rise/fall or shift is to mount a lens off-center in a lens board and rotate the lens board 90 degrees to make it move. Or, if you like a challenge and don't want to modify the camera, make a lensboard where the lens mount slides back and forth or floats free and can be locked where you need it.
People have recommended scanners and the OP talked about printing big but...an 8x10 negative makes a potentially beautiful contact print. Printing 8x10 contact prints is about as simple as darkroom work gets where equipment required is concerned. If you are going to scan and print large, Ken Lee's website (he's a member here) has lots of information about the scanning approach as well as LF printers. I think he commonly prints 16x20 from 4x5 and 5x7 negatives that he has scanned with an Epson scanner.
Tripods can be made from scratch, adapted from surveying tripods, or bought used. With the right tripod, a tripod head may not be needed.
It is tempting to think you can get into LF and buy everything once. But, it may happen that as you get involved you find that your tastes get more refined or your work changes direction and that "requires" different equipment. What is "ideal" for one thing is not "ideal" for another.
For example, I'm heading to 8x10's for contact printing processes for my LF work. So, I'm restoring an old 8x10 field for going hiking (I've not yet figured out the tripod for going hiking, I will probably build it taking a lot of inspiration from Ries tripods) and building an 8x10 format kit for the Sinar P (I can't imagine spending what people are asking for that bit of kit!) for close to the car and at home.
If I ever get to scanning I may well go back to film for family outings with smaller cameras like 35mm and 120 and do it in color, too. Family isn't patient with the LF work. If I find I like the scanning thing, (I doubt it...) I may go back to 4x5 because, in reality, there's way more information on 4x5 (done well) than I need for enlarging to sizes I can imagine wanting to print.
Drew, my point being that it takes a good archer to accurately shoot an arrow. No arrow, no matter how straight, can shoot by it's self. Conversely, an expert archer can hit a mark even with a dollar store Cowboy and Injuns set.
I sure appreciate the education though!
I once saw a runner up to the Swiss National Ski Team clean the clocks of a bunch of prep school US Ski Team hopefuls on a set of rusty 10 year old skis he kept stashed in a barn.
Charlie Parker played a Grafton plastic sax because he was given one gratis after pawning his "real" sax for heroin---
From Steve Hoffman Music forums:
"The most notable player of a Grafton saxophone was Charlie Parker. While in Toronto, Charlie Parker and “the quintet” were scheduled to perform at Massey Hall, but Parker had pawned his saxophone - some sources say to buy heroin. A sales representative for Grafton (or the owner of the company, depending upon from whom one receives the story) asked Parker to use a Grafton for a Massey Hall gig in May 1953"
The Grafton was arguably one of the poorest saxophones ever built, but when blown by a talented musician like the Bird, the Grafton achieved a (rather short lived) cult following after the Massey Hall concert.
It wasn't the Grafton, it was "The Bird" in spite of the Grafton.
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
I dunno, John. Down there around Fresno, back when it all used to be swamps and tule patches, the Indians didn't even have to aim that well. They'd attach small basket-like devices at the end of the arrows to whack waterfowl - their version of a shotgun. Out in the Channel Islands, big crescent-shaped flints would be attached sideways, rather than a forward-facing point, to hit the ducks. The moral of this whole story is, don't be a duck.
The day j can't make a decent photo with an old phone with a cracked screen and a scratched lens, I'll give up on lf.
Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
I agree with Drew - I had an old wood 8x10 camera for years - it was a kite! my negatives always seemed to show camera movement when I was shooting outside (there is always some wind). I could blame this on the tripod, my lack of technique in focusing, focus shift or other. I acquired a Calumet "black beauty" and it does not move - rock solid on a heavy tripod. The Calumet is probably the heaviest - heaviest 8x10 camera. I do use a 4x5 Technikardan for long walks. At 16 to 18 pounds for the camera - the Calumet is a beast of weight - however. With film holders 3 lenses, light meter, tripod, filters, etc there is still 30 to 40 pounds of equipment. 8x10 isn't lightweight equipment to haul around. There are many very fine cameras out there you need to find one that you can afford and work with.
Remember - the camera doesn't make the photograph, it only records what the photographer sees. i have owned and used LF cameras from a very early (1897)drop bed 5x7, which i still have and use with the original lens to s modern Sinar, which I no longer have. It seems that through the years i have drifted away from the modern heavy monorails with all their fancy movements, back to the nice simple and lightweight cameras like the Koronas and their ilk. These will do everything I need out of the studio.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks