Scanner, enlarger, or contact printer? Which one and why???

[AdamD]

Edit: just reread your original post to notice that you'd asked about cost. Be very careful about this. Do what you can to acquire tools and materials that are good enough so that your learning process can be meaningful. In other words, so that when you screw up, you know that you have yourself to blame and not your equipment/materials.

John and all,

This is a hugely important point for me. I tend to always buy into the mid-to-upper range of "things" for for my hobbies. Guitars, telescopes, reef tanks, woodworking stuff, oh and of course.... photography.

I absolutely go bonkers when the equipment becomes part of the variables!!! It's a little like when the referees start to "participate" in the football game with highly questionable and bias play calling! When the equipment becomes a factor and an impediment to learning, I have a problem with that.

This leads to my camera gear question, but, I have to be careful and respectful to this forum....THIS TOPIC is about post process tools. You guys all helped be select a winner for me in Phase I of my journey: scanner either the 4990 or v700 if I get lucky.

The next question becomes more of a camera question for the other forum on cameras and accessories.

But, if you don't mind, this is where my struggle is with the camera. I really want to keep the cost down to start, especially considering I need to add the cost of a developer and scanner (~$300-$700). Granted, I can put that cost off a bit initially less the $100 for a development tank, which is good.

I really want a field camera like the Takahara or similar. It seems to have the right balance of what I'm looking for, but....I don't need to start there. To start I was thinking that a simple monorail is the best option. Something like the Cambo SC with a lens.

My struggle is, is that camera going to represent the features of LF well enough to teach ME and not become a "bias referee" because of its lower quality OR should I suck it up and step up to a better camera? Maybe the Sinar F1 or the xxx or the xxx or the Wista 45 field?

It's not just the cost of the camera either. I have nothing, need holders, lens, cable, cloth, loop....you name it, I need it.

I know some of you might say, 'what type of photos do you want'....it doesn't matter. I just need a platform to learn of that will be good enough to teach me the process and not become part of the process.

I've rambled a LOT...I'm sorry!!

[BrianShaw]

“ I really want a field camera like the Takahara or similar. It seems to have the right balance of what I'm looking for, but....I don't need to start there. To start I was thinking that a simple monorail is the best option. Something like the Cambo SC with a lens.

My struggle is, is that camera going to represent the features of LF well enough to teach ME and not become a "bias referee" because of its lower quality OR should I suck it up and step up to a better camera? Maybe the Sinar F1 or the xxx or the xxx or the Wista 45 field? ”

First... recognize that a camera isn’t going to teach you anything. You’ll need to learn how to make it do what you want it to do. You’re right that the wrong choice can be a limitation. It’s not a matter of quality but a matter of feature capability. If you want to use lots of movement than a press camera is the wrong choice. If you want to backpack with it, then a monorail or any other heavy camera could be a bad choice. The “step up” options are great cameras that offer finer controls and more markings, but at a great cost for similar capabilities.

Most important, though, is that whatever you get is in proper working order so that’s not throwing monkey wrench in your face. That’s why virtually every used shutter I’ve bought has been treated to a professional overhaul.

[Two23]

Really, the camera is the least important piece. This is where to cut corners. As long as it will attach a lens on on end and focus on film in a holder on the other end you are good. The film and lens affect how your image looks. The camera does not.


Kent in SD

[Bob Salomon]

Really, the camera is the least important piece. This is where to cut corners. As long as it will attach a lens on on end and focus on film in a holder on the other end you are good. The film and lens affect how your image looks. The camera does not.


Kent in SD

Unless the camera does not maintain alignment or it’s movements dont do what you want.
Photography is a chain and a camera is one of the most important links in that chain. It is just as important as the lens it has to hold and position and the film it has to hold.

[Fred L]

as suggested, look at finding a Crown Graphic (or it's siblings). it won't have many movements (front titl requires flipping the front standard base around) but it's a great camera to work with as it's pretty well indestructible. Invest $$ in the glass and film.

No doubt LF can be frustrating at times but when you see 5x7 or 8x10 contacts, it makes it all the hair pulling, worth it.

[Two23]

Unless the camera does not maintain alignment or it’s movements dont do what you want.
Photography is a chain and a camera is one of the most important links in that chain. It is just as important as the lens it has to hold and position and the film it has to hold.

Every large format camera I've owned, including 1890s British half plate, has done what I needed to do.


Kent in SD

[Drew Wiley]

I'd argue that scanning is the least efficient way to get from Point A to Point B, at least if you want a high-quality print.

[Peter Lewin]

I'd argue that scanning is the least efficient way to get from Point A to Point B, at least if you want a high-quality print.

But I would counter-argue that scanning is the most efficient way to find out if you even enjoy working with a large format camera.

Like many here, I am a dedicated darkroom printer. Over the half-century that I have been doing this, I have accumulated a lot of very nice equipment, had darkrooms in New York (well actually more of a walk-in closet with an enlarger but no running water), England (IIRC, a room with a 4x5 DeVere but still no running water), and finally NJ where it is fully plumbed. And I can certainly make much better prints in my darkroom than I can digitally.

But if I understood much of what Adam has been asking in this thread, he wants to find out if he enjoys LF film photography, without a huge injection of money, space, or time. So rather than suggesting the best approach for someone who loves the process and wants to put in the time to really learn analog photography from A to B, I have been suggesting the easiest introduction to our hobby.

And I was thinking about the whole argument about print quality. I know we have numerous threads of analog vs. digital. But the two photographers who jumped to mind were Paul Caponigro and his son John Paul Caponigro. The father, Paul, is one of the best-known LF art photographers of the generation, and an acknowledged master analog printer. His son, John Paul, is about just as well-known, and is a master of digital printing. Anyone who wants to argue about "print quality" should start with those two.

[AdamD]

But if I understood much of what Adam has been asking in this thread, he wants to find out if he enjoys LF film photography, without a huge injection of money, space, or time. So rather than suggesting the best approach for someone who loves the process and wants to put in the time to really learn analog photography from A to B, I have been suggesting the easiest introduction to our hobby.

Peter is absolutely spot on. This is exactly what this thread is all about. I first wanted to understand the different types of post processing. You all did that for me and then I wanted to understand the cost and time implications of each. You guys covered that as well. As a bonus, I also understand what's next IF I were to stick with it. Again, you guys have me covered!

I also know that to start, I just need something inexpensive that will serve as the learning platform.

I think I'm good guys.

As you all have been involved with other forums for totally different reasons, I must say this group is impressive. You guys are awesome. Super helpful and passionate!

[Drew Wiley]

Note the recent thread on Stieglitz prints. Many of these timeless images were contact-printed on a window ledge, and then developed using a simple "tray ladder" in a small closet - so, beyond the camera itself, a tiny investment. My own impression of those who begin with scanning rather than wet printing is that they have trouble fine-tuning the process. And there is nothing cheap about digital printing unless you're just talking about the lowest common denominator of office-style inkjet. I also find a tangible print to be far more rewarding, as an incentive to continue pursuing the craft, rather than something floating around in cyberspace. In fact, every really good digital printer I personally know was an excellent darkroom printer first. ... But Peter, bingo! I guess we all have somewhat different perspectives, but I find
the elder Caponigros's images solid, the Jr's images shallow and pretentious, due to taking the usual liberties of digital recklessness. Being able to do anything digitally just means doing nothing well. True liberty lies in willing to be restricted within certain parameters and learning them well, just like being confined within the four sides of the ground glass itself. Yes, some of this depends on inclination, and I obviously prefer tactility, hands-on craft.