I should have a Wehman now but a seller got jumpy and sold it for what felt like the quickest cash... Someone posted it for 1400 bucks at 2AM and I messaged saying id paypal first thing in the AM, she confirmed, then as I awoke she sold it to someone else. East vs west time zone thing, I was bummed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think my Wehman is ugly. It's just not as pretty as some of those wooden folders. Remember Frank calling wooden folders "pieces of furniture"?Originally Posted by Corran
My biggest beef with the Tachi 8x10 was the paper bellows (original to the camera). Not sure if the 4x5 is the same as I've never seen/used one, but when I was hiking I was always worried I was going to skewer the bellows with an errant branch. Most times I hike with the camera on the tripod and slung over my shoulder, padded with my darkcloth. Anyway, I've read a lot of comments saying the Wehman is ugly...but I think it looks cool and modern. It's the only camera I've used where people correctly guess it is newer manufacture. Even my Linhofs don't get comments like "that looks like it was made recently." Regardless of all that, the ~6 pound weight without the front bed is frankly beautiful.
Of course what do I know? I think my Jeep looks beautiful with the winch and Hi-Lift jack on the front end!
I have a bad back and I used to own a 4x5 Sinar P. It was a pain for me to mount the camera onto a tripod. With the Wehman I tilt the Ries head so I can get my fingers on the screw. I then hold the camera in place by the camera webbed strap and screw it down. I then level it with a torpedo level. Easy on my back and fast! I pull the camera around in a wheeled cordura tool bag but sometimes I do carry it a short distance attached to the tripod. I wouldn't want a heavier camera.
If you're ever looking to retire the Wehman let me know!I don't think my Wehman is ugly. It's just not as pretty as some of those wooden folders. Remember Frank calling wooden folders "pieces of furniture"?
Of course what do I know? I think my Jeep looks beautiful with the winch and Hi-Lift jack on the front end!
I have a bad back and I used to own a 4x5 Sinar P. It was a pain for me to mount the camera onto a tripod. With the Wehman I tilt the Ries head so I can get my fingers on the screw. I then hold the camera in place by the camera webbed strap and screw it down. I then level it with a torpedo level. Easy on my back and fast! I pull the camera around in a wheeled cordura tool bag but sometimes I do carry it a short distance attached to the tripod. I wouldn't want a heavier camera.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What you say it's a very good advice.
I've started in LF a year ago, my first shots were 8x10 with a borrowed camera... I can say that you are right, it is cheaper and less risky to start with 4x5, starting with 8x10 requires to be very well focussed in initially criptic techincal concerns, and gear acquisition should be slow.
Anyway it was very great to make the first shots with 8x10, it's manificience makes one adict to LF
A way is to learn as intensively as possible, and identifiying and targeting what knowledge one needs, and also from what information sources.
I found this site an incredible source of knowledge, and a way to get diverse answers from people that have a lot of bullets under skin... This is a vault of knowledge that preserves spritual concepts.
Newbies like me today have some advantages, first is that internet allows for easy learning, second is that we can access to a world wide used gear market, with very moderate prices. This allows amateurs to enjoy LF easily, and amateur photography can be very serious, I think that this is a way LF can add fresh activity.
I'm sorry but I think I'll keep mine for a while. I love using it.
Wehman's have turned up here in the for sale section and of course occasionally on Ebay. I bought mine second hand off Ebay. Just keep your eye open and hopefully you will get one.
(Sorry to get more off-topic) Also, regarding the Wehman, Bruce is a great guy and still has replacement parts. I took a spill after slipping in mud the first time I shot mine and broke the focus track. He was able to send me a replacement part within the week! He seems like a real nice guy.
I moved away from large format photography, but really enjoyed working large-format and wanted to post a few suggestions for a beginner.
8x10 isn't just a little more expensive than 4x5, it's a *lot* more expensive; think 4x the cost. However, if you want to work with digital images and scan in your slide or negative film, you can more easily use a high-end consumer scanner such as the Epson V600, V700, V750, V800, V850 with 8x10 film than with 4x5 to get high-quality results, provided you can avoid Newton rings on the 8x10 film.
That said, I think 4x5 is the way to go for beginners. Film is more affordable and comes in more varieties, the equipment will be lighter, tripod requirements will be slightly less strict. I still would suggest a heavy duty Gitzo tripod with a good Arca Swiss head like the Z2 (shameless plug, as I'm selling both on these forums). The Gitzo Super Giant Tripod I am selling is probably more than needed for height, as having a 'pod that goes above your head is useless for large-format unless you bring a ladder with you. There is a nice new UniqueBall head that doesn't provide pan/tilt head functions like the A-S Z2, but does allow you to lock the head from rotating about the yaw axis and changing the levelness of the horizon, which may be enough.
4x5 Cameras. I have used 2 4x5 cameras. The Linhof supercolor and color monorail 4x5s are great "economical" solid sturdy monorails, but portability suffers. However, movements will be excellent. They are great for learning and starting out and can found for around $500 (I see $300-$700 on eBay). Cambos, Sinars, and Calumets may be cheaper, but will not be as solid. I also have an Alpenhaus Polaroid conversion back made by Steven Icanberry with a 135/3.5 Xenotar lens mounted (more on that later). The Polaroid conversion backs are excellent for portability and they are beautiful. If Steve Icanberry still makes them, I'd suggest the Alpenhaus. These will be around $700+.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/alpenhause/m...1&_ipg=&_from=
8x10 Cameras. The Wehman field camera is fantastic. I parted with mine for $2200, about what I paid Bruce for it. Can't say enough good things about it. If you want a solid "portable" 8x10 with good movements, this is it. This is an excellent choice for 8x10 and will make field-work a relative joy.
Ground Glass. Get good ground glass. I highly recommend Hopf Glass, made from borosilicatef glass. It will make every lens you work with easier to use. Steve Hopf and his son Julian Hopf believe that they can drill small holes in the GG with a precise drill, which would allow you to use a 20x loupe for aerial focusing on the raw "aerial image". Search the forums for that. If you don't use aerial focusing, you won't need a loupe greater than 5x.
http://hopfglass.com/index.htm
4x5 Lenses. For 4x5, I've used the Schneider Symmar Convertible 150/5.6 (converts to 265/11.2) (~$150), Nikkor-SW 90/4.5 (also consider 90/8) ($350+), Schneider Xenotar 135/3.5 (~$500 in shutter), and Nikon Nikkor-T 600/9 / 800/12 / 1200/18 set (~$3k now on eBay). All are fantastic. The Nikkor-T set has a ton of movement with 4x5 and is also usable for 8x10.
If you want a moderate wide angle lens and want focusing to be a joy with 4x5, I'd recommend the Xenotar 135/3.5. There is also a 150/2.8, but it is outrageously expensive and heavy (not worth it, imo). However, all of those lenses will be top-tier to work with in their focal range, although the Nikkor-T 600/800/1200 is special. With a Nikkor-T 600/800/1200 set, you will need a 2nd mounting drilled into your Wehman and will want to use a long lens support clamped to the tripod leg and secured into that 2nd hole.
For a beginner, my top recommendation is the Schneider Xenotar 135/3.5 with 4x5. f/3.5 just makes it easier to work with than any other lens and it is very sharp when stopped down.
8x10 Lenses. I've used the Nikon Nikkor-SW 120/8 (~$350), Fuji-A 240/9 (~$455), Nikon APO-Nikkor 610/9 (~$450+$1000), and Nikon Nikkor-T 600/800/1200 set (~$3k now on eBay). They are all fantastic. The APO-Nikkor 610/9 is a beast when put in a mount and you'll need to have SK Grimes do that for you. It is tack-sharp, however. It will cost at least $700-$1000 to have it mounted in a suitably sized #5 shutter. The Fuji-A 240/9 is "the one lens" to have with 8x10 if you have to choose one and want to do field photography with the Wehman. I'm pretty sure you can unscrew the front element and get ~580/18 from the Fuji-A 240/9, as I had S.K. Grimes make a front element inner screw-on cap for the Fuji-A 240/9.
The Nikkor-SW 120/8 is the most economical super-wide you will find that covers 8x10. It is very sharp. The Nikkor-T 600/800/1200 set will give you an incredible amount of reach with 8x10, but you'll really need a solid tripod, head, and long-lens support arm. Extended to the bellows length needed for 1200mm, the Wehman can bellows can very well become a sail in the wind. I had SK Grimes make an extension box to mount this lens set in to provide greater macro capabilities with the Wehman camera.
4x5 Bottom Line: Alpenhaus polaroid conversion back with Schneider Xenotar 135/3.5.
8x10 Bottom Line: Wehman with Fujinon-A 240/9.
I really appreciate everyone's input, this is more helpful than you'll know. As I'm still working on finding all of the parts to put a "kit" together that I would like to make, I have asked a few folks what they think about one using a "vintage camera" (as they would have no idea what a Large Format camera would mean). I was surprised from a few folks saying, "That's brilliant" to others saying, "You're romancing a technology that is fading fast". I have to say, this has me at a crossroads. Frankly, my end goal is to print really big prints and document our nation's history before it's gone (Americana photography). I have taken some time and thought about why would one want to spend money on a film based hub of their photography wheel. I'm sure this answer is different for everyone. For me, it will force me to slow down and work through the composition, and a sense of fulfillment when I hold the final print and say, "I did that, from loading the film to taking the photo, developing it properly and making the print". Also, it's a way to separate one from all of the "digital noise" out there. I guess in the end, it's all about what the person wants out of their photography. I may be out in left field with this, but it feels right.
You're last post really makes me want to double down on my "bottom line" suggestions. Either the polaroid conversion back 4x5 with a Xenotar 135/3.5 or Wehman with a Fujinon-A 240/9 (conv 580/18) would be very classic setups and those moderately wide but not super-wide angles will give a nice classic angle.
With all this debate over 4x5 -vs- 8x10 again, why not 5x7?
8x10 has significantly limited choices in optics, significantly increased cost, challenges with camera movement during exposure, increased film cost, physically larger-heavier than smaller formats, challenges with depth of focus and more.
As for optics, the Fuji A240 appears to be the choice by many, yet IMO having owned and used both Fuji A240mm & A180mm, both did not impress me image quality wise. Do consider the host of vintage optics (Cooke, Kodak, Goerz and others) that are available and have a long history with being used on 8x10 and other formats. Really Good wide angle 8x10 optics will be modern-large-expensive like Schneider's XL series.
Really "big" prints, how big is really big? Projected Cinema once came from 35mm film projected on to very sizable screens.
View camera has a learning curve, larger the camera makes this learning curve more difficult. Be prepared to burn a significant amount of sheet film before being comfy with the entire process of using any view camera. It is completely different than using a modern digital imaging camera in many ways.
IMO, 8x10 (and larger) is best and idea for contact prints.
As for digital... Recent experience with Canon digital has been interesting yet, in ways bland and binary-contrived. It appears modern optics + digital camera system appears to be engineered-manipulated for producing images that are high contrast, overly sharpened, look good in a display and such. It has crowd appeal, yet IMO lacking in feel, depth and image complexity content. Digital is instant-easy, yet the image they produce still come up lacking in many ways.
Bernice
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks