6x7 or 4x5

ColColt · Nov 8, 2015

Nope, LPD was(is) a liquid or powder developer by Ethol. I used in many moons ago but as mentioned, I didn't know it was still around.

Bruce Osgood · Nov 8, 2015

ColColt said:
I suppose that would work but would make me a bit nervous...LPD, I didn't know they still made that.

LPD is still made and wonderful.

markbarendt · Nov 8, 2015

ColColt said:
I suppose that would work but would make me a bit nervous...LPD, I didn't know they still made that.

Yep, nervous like flirting with a new girl.

The process is robust and well proven and the risks are small.

Yep LPD is still around and works good, doesn't have to LPD though, any paper developer is fine.

shutterfinger · Nov 8, 2015

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/search?q=jobo
2500 multi tank, previous versions 25xx distinguish between cog lid and magnetic base tank.
2509n reel
roller base for tanks and drums.
best system available.
ebay might have better prices.
Mod54 and patterson tank another option.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/1164296-MOD54-4x5-Processing-Reel-Kit-with-Paterson-Tank

I had a Combi Plan, slow to fill, slow to drain, always leaked, film came out of the holder in all but the gentlest inversion cycle, sold it and never looked back or regretted it.

jimjm · Nov 8, 2015

ColColt said:
What are the simplest methods of developing film for these cameras? Can it be done in a tank of some sort like 35 or 120? another problem being I'd have to buy another scanner as the Plustek and V600 won't allow anything larger than 120 and I'm shy of a 4x5 enlarger so, scanning would be the initial way of seeing what that negative looks like.

I've used BTZS tubes for a few years now and won't use anything else. I started tray developing, then went to hangers and open tanks. Had the occasional issue with film scratching and uneven development, plus the tanks use a lot of chemicals. This was kind of a pain if I was only developing a few sheets. With the BTZS tubes, I only need total darkness when loading the film in the tube. Very small amount of developer in each tube. Development is with room lights on, and then a dim safelight for stop and fix steps. I transfer the sheets to film hangers and then dunk in an open tank for the final wash/photoflo.

Contact prints of 4x5 are large enough to give you a good idea of your results. No loupe needed like for 35mm. You could even flatbed scan the contact prints and have adequate quality for online posting, at least.

If you look around, you may be able to find a 4x5 enlarger for next to nothing, like a Beseler 45 or Omega D2. They're pretty sizable beasts, and most people who have one in the garage and don't use it would love to just offload it. Pretend like you're doing them a "favor" by taking it off their hands since no one shoots film anymore.

Sirius Glass · Nov 8, 2015

markbarendt said:
Yep, nervous like flirting with a new girl.

The process is robust and well proven and the risks are small.

Yep LPD is still around and works good, doesn't have to LPD though, any paper developer is fine.

For film?

markbarendt · Nov 8, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
For film?

Come on Sirius keep up.

For the paper.

I assume he already has a favorite film developer.

I have read the LPD directions though and it is workable for film, grainy but workable.

Sirius Glass · Nov 8, 2015

I put film in cameras, not paper. Hence the confusion. :crazy:

alanrockwood · Nov 9, 2015

ColColt said:
I've been looking at the Speed/Crown Graphic cameras lately but started thinking, other than having something to walk around with that few have or have even seen before, other than TV-will it give me any better quality than the 6x7 Pentax? Many times I've read the "6x7 approaches 4x5 quality".

Get both.

Roger Cole · Nov 9, 2015

ColColt said:
Nope, LPD was(is) a liquid or powder developer by Ethol. I used in many moons ago but as mentioned, I didn't know it was still around.

They definitely still make LPD. My all time favorite all around print developer.

markbarendt · Nov 9, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
I put film in cameras, not paper. Hence the confusion. :crazy:

I suggested above that working like Weston might be a good thing.

Shoot LF and contact print, rather than the OP needing to buy a scanner to be able to do 4x5.

removed account4 · Nov 9, 2015

the OP can use dilute ansco 130 ( 1:10 ) or dektol to process his film in trays as well
and he can also use the same developer ( 1:2 ) to print his negatives.
dektol used to be inexpensive compared to ansco 130 ( purchased at the photographer's formulary )
but is more expensive now ( went from 5$ and change to about 13$ locally ).
the fact that ansco130 can last about 1 year as a stock solution in the bottle
and about 30 days dilute and in an open tray makes up for the fact that it costs a few dollars more.

exposing paper negatives are fun, they can be processed moments after exposed and if multi grade is used with a filter ( yellowish ) tonal scale can be improved
( trade off is exposure increases so the iso drops to about iso 6 depending on the type of light used ), and paper to paper contact prints are easy and can be done with a regular old light bulb.

ColColt · Nov 9, 2015

Back to the Jobo 3010 for a moment. I watched a video on YouTube last night and there seems to be a foot pump for opening the lid. That's a new one on me. Looks like they would have made it to screw on like most I've seen. It looks like it has the potential of being dangerous if not careful. One guy filled it full of water before pumping it up and it came off easily with less zest.

I used LPD and Edwal FG7 back in the day but eventually abandoned both in favor of other developers such as HC-110 and Rodinal for film and either Dektol or D72 1:2 for paper...sometimes one of the Beers formulas I found in the Photographer's Formulary.

DREW WILEY · Nov 9, 2015

I enlarge in the darkroom, so for me the quality jump from 6x7 to 4x5 is pretty dramatic, since I do shoot both, as well as formats bigger and
smaller than these. Sheet film is also a lot easier to manage in a darkroom than roll film.

ColColt · Nov 9, 2015

If I had the proper enlarger I doubt I'd be making large prints(16x20 and larger) as there's little room for more photographs on the wall anymore but; an 8x10 or 11x14 made from a 4x5 negative would no doubt surpass by far a 35mm negative-perhaps even a 6x7, I don't know about that one but assume at a minimum the tonal range would be greater.

I don't have any problem with roll film being put on the reels, that's a breeze but I have had occasion to have problems getting 120 onto the reel-especially the Paterson plastic reels.

Sirius Glass · Nov 9, 2015

ColColt said:
Back to the Jobo 3010 for a moment. I watched a video on YouTube last night and there seems to be a foot pump for opening the lid. That's a new one on me. Looks like they would have made it to screw on like most I've seen. It looks like it has the potential of being dangerous if not careful. One guy filled it full of water before pumping it up and it came off easily with less zest.

I used LPD and Edwal FG7 back in the day but eventually abandoned both in favor of other developers such as HC-110 and Rodinal for film and either Dektol or D72 1:2 for paper...sometimes one of the Beers formulas I found in the Photographer's Formulary.

The foot pump is not dangerous. One must be careful and not do things like put their face next to the lid. Ir pops the lid up about an inch [2 or 3mm].

ColColt · Nov 9, 2015

The way one guy was talking was that some had had a tooth knocked out using the pump. In order for that to have happened he would have to have his mug right over the lid!!

Sirius Glass · Nov 9, 2015

ColColt said:
The way one guy was talking was that some had had a tooth knocked out using the pump. In order for that to have happened he would have to have his mug right over the lid!!

ROTFLMAOWBMHATW!!!*

*ROTFLMAOWBMHATW ==> Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off While Banging My Head Against The Wall

markbarendt · Nov 9, 2015

ColColt said:
The way one guy was talking was that some had had a tooth knocked out using the pump. In order for that to have happened he would have to have his mug right over the lid!!

Some people's children...

markbarendt · Nov 9, 2015

ColColt said:
If I had the proper enlarger I doubt I'd be making large prints(16x20 and larger) as there's little room for more photographs on the wall anymore ...

I've looked around at a lot of houses and the seem to have the same issue.

That's actually a good reason to consider small contact prints.

Black Dog · Nov 9, 2015

markbarendt said:
I've looked around at a lot of houses and the seem to have the same issue.

That's actually a good reason to consider small contact prints.

True!

Sirius Glass · Nov 9, 2015

No, just buy a bigger place. The economy needs more stimulation.

ColColt · Nov 9, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
No, just buy a bigger place. The economy needs more stimulation.

Me and my dog live in a split foyer about 2400 sq ft. I don't need more room! There's too much to keep straight and clean as it is plus all that going up and down the stairs. Poor little guy, He has arthritis in both back knees and I have to help him up the stairs.

Roger Cole · Nov 9, 2015

ColColt said:
Back to the Jobo 3010 for a moment. I watched a video on YouTube last night and there seems to be a foot pump for opening the lid. That's a new one on me. Looks like they would have made it to screw on like most I've seen. It looks like it has the potential of being dangerous if not careful. One guy filled it full of water before pumping it up and it came off easily with less zest.

I used LPD and Edwal FG7 back in the day but eventually abandoned both in favor of other developers such as HC-110 and Rodinal for film and either Dektol or D72 1:2 for paper...sometimes one of the Beers formulas I found in the Photographer's Formulary.

Wow. I used Dektol because I didn't know any better until I tried LPD.

Oh it WORKS fine, but once diluted to working strength is good for a day or two in my experience (I know, I know, others claim far longer, which is why I said in my experience and it turns black anywhere you spill it and stains. LPD is very clean and doesn't, and I've (accidentally) kept diluted working strength LDP for two years in a full capped bottle and it worked fine.

Roger Cole · Nov 9, 2015

ColColt said:
If I had the proper enlarger I doubt I'd be making large prints(16x20 and larger) as there's little room for more photographs on the wall anymore but; an 8x10 or 11x14 made from a 4x5 negative would no doubt surpass by far a 35mm negative-perhaps even a 6x7, I don't know about that one but assume at a minimum the tonal range would be greater.

I don't have any problem with roll film being put on the reels, that's a breeze but I have had occasion to have problems getting 120 onto the reel-especially the Paterson plastic reels.

Yes an 8x10 or 11x14 from a 4x5 negative will beat 35mm hands down, but it won't really beat 6x7 in any noticeable way in my opinion. If those are your print sizes then a move to 4x5 should be driven by something other than simple print "quality" like desire to learn the methods of large format or to use movements or whatever.

6x7 or 4x5

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency