Allowing Lens Availability to Dictate Format Choice

[Jody_S]

Allowing Lens Availability to Dictate Format Choice? I suppose to some degree, since I can't afford a modern ultra-wide for 8x10 but I was able to buy a Super-Angulon 65/5.6 for under $100. But thinking of the process I go through when I shoot, I prefer to think that I 'see' whatever it is possible to photograph with the kit I happen to have with me at the time. If I have the 8x10, I don't compose images in ultra-wide format. If I have the soft focus lenses, that's what I try to imagine. If I have a magnifying glass and some duct tape, I'll work with that.

Of course I'm not working toward specific goals re. images, I'm just trying to improve my vision and to a lesser degree, my technique. If I had to deliver 8x10 architectural images, then I would find the money for the lens.

[Nodda Duma]

Dan, some evidence of rebounding film interest.. Henning Serger reported in post 23 of this thread a tens of millions unit backlog amongst the major film manufacturers. https://www.photrio.com/forum/thread...rrived.168866/ He also mentioned later a very significant and ongoing increase in the Asian film market.

Adox and Ilford have both reported sales increases of 5-10% though I can’t find direct references right now.

[fuegocito]

I think the cost was always there, but for some reason 810 somehow really elbows its way into as part of the starting point entering LF film realm. I remember back in late 80's when people say LF, it's usually mean 4x5 and 45 only. I know of only two person who used both 810 and 1114 in Toronto, I assume Bob Carnie knows more. Back then I bought my first LF lens, a second hand Symmar 210mm for $400.

[Two23]

As a guy that got into LF and wetplate around 2006, I can say there was a price spike about 5 years ago, but it's going back down. Like a lot of fads, I've seen it a lot over my life - up fast, then down slowly.

Those that know me know me and a few others here bought and sold a ton of lenses in 2007-2014, I keep price records. By 2014 the golden era was over. I used to be able to sell a brass lens, or any LF lens really, on this forum within 1 day. Usually within 2 hours. Any lens, from a Tessar to a common RR. Then their common-ness started to become more apparant, and people stopped "collecting" any and every brass lens. For a while, the Best manufacturers like Dallmeyer and Voigtlander held very high values. Then the smaller ones started slipping in value. I sold a 12" Voigtlander petzval back then for $3000 PLUS a lens traded to me WITH the cash! Sold a Dallmeyer 4D for $1500. Those prices are hard to attain today. The Best quality and sizes are still pretty high, but not like that. The VERY best - huge petzvals, rare soft focus, are higher than ever before. But the average 7" petzval or 14" tessar is about half what it cost in 2010.

A year ago I bought a 12 in. Voightlander Petzval c1862 with flange for $500. I love that lens! Have it on a 5x7 Korona right now, will eventually get either full plate or 8x10 for it.

I do love lenses; the older the better. They give me a connection to the photographers of the past, and I think they look pretty damn cool.


Kent in SD

[Bernice Loui]

Similar observation with 8x10 popularity with image makers new to view camera and sheet film. Have pondered this occurrence too. Could it be due to interest in alternative process contact printing, belief bigger film is better, or ?

Yet, how many who begin their view camera journey with 8x10 have fully understood the cost, complexity and more related to the 8x10 sheet film process. How many stay with 8x10 for year after year or move on after a short time trying?

This could be a topic all it's own.


Bernice

I think the cost was always there, but for some reason 810 somehow really elbows its way into as part of the starting point entering LF film realm. I remember back in late 80's when people say LF, it's usually mean 4x5 and 45 only. I know of only two person who used both 810 and 1114 in Toronto, I assume Bob Carnie knows more. Back then I bought my first LF lens, a second hand Symmar 210mm for $400.

[dodphotography]

For me... 8x10 checks off two boxes for me.

1) I love contact prints
2.) it’s easier to use... I can’t see a 45 Gg and I hate loupes.

And a bonus 3) connects me to the past knowing I’m using the same formats as my hero’s (walker evans, Atget, Nixon, etc)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jim Noel]

Use a 16x20 camera of course! :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm with Pete, and have been for over 40 years.

[Jim Noel]

My first LF was a 4x5 SPeed Graphic in 1938. Just after WWII, about 1948 I added a 5x7 Deardorff which I still use. IN about 1960 I saw my first really good large contact print, platinum of course, and decided that was for me, so I added 8x10. I still use all these plus 7x17 ahd 5x12, but currently am emphasizing 8x10, although a much lighter camera because at my age,I'm weaker. . Always contact prints and always alternative processes. AS for lenses, I am always looking for a new to me older lens which I can afford. I am even experimenting with pinhole on8x10 trying t get effects which are a little different from the mainstream. When I had a store in the 80's, we all but gave away brass lenses which now will run into several hundreds or even thousands of dollars. It certainly is not easy for newcomers in this field of photography so it thrills me when a student, or anyone else makes the commitment.

[Mark Sawyer]

I've always found my choice of format dictated my format choice...

In wet plate, doubly so...

[dodphotography]

I've always found my choice of format dictated my format choice...

In wet plate, doubly so...

I was a mere observer of the conversation since I’m already set up for 8x10 and have been working for a while with the format but the perspectives being discussed were interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk