6x7 or 4x5

[Poisson Du Jour]

If the Honourable Member Mr Wiley lives on another planet, then I live in the real world and I don't get an itchy crotch grovelling on about "dust". Dust!? Are we talking about something new and unusual here?

Dust has never ever plagued me in any format from 35mm, 4x5 to 6x7 and pinhole. It is normal to have dust in any camera (even a new camera has it), but it's more common to be dealing with dust at the finished product stage — that is when negatives, transparencies etc are cut and sleeved. No need to get anal, hot and bothered over specks of dust in the mirror box, on the mirror or even on the shutter curtain. The sleeving process alone attracts more dust than anything else and dealing with it is routine rather than revolting. A swipe with Ilford Antistatic cloth fixes it promptly. Scanning? Create a auto-droplet for patten cloning and let her rip. Done and ... dusted.

 

[Roger Cole]

If the Honourable Member Mr Wiley lives on another planet, then I live in the real world and I don't get an itchy crotch grovelling on about "dust". Dust!? Are we talking about something new and unusual here?

Dust has never ever plagued me in any format from 35mm, 4x5 to 6x7 and pinhole. It is normal to have dust in any camera (even a new camera has it), but it's more common to be dealing with dust at the finished product stage — that is when negatives, transparencies etc are cut and sleeved. No need to get anal, hot and bothered over specks of dust in the mirror box, on the mirror or even on the shutter curtain. The sleeving process alone attracts more dust than anything else and dealing with it is routine rather than revolting. A swipe with Ilford Antistatic cloth fixes it promptly. Scanning? Create a auto-droplet for patten cloning and let her rip. Done and ... dusted.

You know when people say stuff like this I just don't know what to think. It's just so at odds with my experience.

I have never had a problem with dust on the film during exposure with 35mm or roll film either. But sheet film is just heartbreakingly difficult to deal with WRT to dust. No matter what I do (and see above) I end up with dust on more than 1/2 my 4x5 negatives at the time of exposure, which results in white spots on the negative that print black. In 35mm and 120 the only real problems are in printing and, though I spend probably more time than most with anti static brushes and canned air (and yes an Ilford cloth) cleaning and checking negatives for dust before printing, I'm rewarded for that by seldom (but still not never) having a dust spot appear on a print. When it does I generally just make another print, which is far quicker and easier than spotting.

But dust on sheet film is just the albatross around the neck of my 4x5 and my enjoyment of it.

I know you shoot a lot of Velvia and print hybridly from scans. Now THAT, granted, makes dust practically a non-issue. Do you also print black and white optically? If I were scanning for my final output I wouldn't be concerned about it either. It's trivially easy to deal with in scans.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Roger, do you have a cat?

 

[che]

I would choose 4x5 for the vast array of lens choices. I rarely have dust issues.

 

[blindpig]

Roger, you might try spotting the negative before printing,then you will have a light spot on the print instead of the dreaded black spot.I made composite internegatives for a lab and handling multi layers of litho masks on and off the negative in the dark generated plenty of static and certainly attracted any dust in the area.We tried to keep everything clean but human dander is always present it seems.The result was usually a speck would appear on the finished neg,which was spotted sometimes under magnification,a brush with one or two bristles and a steady hand.Worked for us.....

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger, do you have a cat?

Not anymore. It was the ex wife's and she took it. I have a dog. The cat wasn't allowed in the part of the downstairs where the darkroom is tough, and there's no central hear or AC airflow there either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I...blow out the holders with canned air...

... But sheet film is just heartbreakingly difficult to deal with WRT to dust...I spend probably more time than most with...canned air...

As Ansel would say, you're just blowing the dust around. And, it's probably accumulated in the light traps.

Low relative humidity is a real problem, but I've been able to overcome even that since I stopped blowing dust around and started vacuuming it out more than a decade ago using one of these:

http://www.amazon.com/3M-497AJM-Portable-Electronic-Cleaner/dp/B00006HR5F​

with the HEPA filter. Then, after loading film while paying strict attention to things like not wearing any clothes that are dusty and/or static-inducing as well as wiping down the room with a damp, lint-free cloth first, I place them in bags similar to these:

http://www.uline.com/Product/Detail...g-Bags/5-x-8-Reclosable-Static-Shielding-Bags​

Keep the bags zipped closed until just before and close them again right after shooting.

If those practices don't cure the problem, you might be better off sticking with roll film.

 

[Roger Cole]

I do most of that. I actually bought a bunch of non-lint shedding lab coats, which at least are great for protecting other clothes from chemical splashes, and are long sleeved. My darkroom is in my basement which runs about 80-90% humidity in the rooms, like the darkroom, where I don't run a dehumidifier. Maybe 60% at the lowest in winter. I use anti static bags for each holder (now - used to put all my Riteways into a big gallon ziplock since they don't fit in a quart individually.)

However, I have not tried the vacuum and may. Right now is not a good time to afford even that vacuum but next year should be, and I have plenty of other uses too. I'll give that a go.

I also rather highly suspect the inside of my ancient Tech III, in spite of being vacuumed out the best I could, is a dust catcher and re-spreader, as it were. A new bellows would fix that, but then again a new camera will come with a new bellows.

 

[MattKing]

Roger, do you have a cat?

Are they helpful for dusting film holders?

 

[ColColt]

Here's what blows me away. I'm a big fan of Margaret Bourke-White, a good looking, educated and totally fearless woman that went on bombing missions over Germany and on the front lines in Italy dodging Nazi artillery shells coming in having to lie face down in mud in fox holes with her helmet over her head...how did she keep dust and dirt, not to mention mud, from getting on her film, holders or inside her Speed Graphic? I wouldn't think there was any more dust today than there was in the 30's and 40's when she was doing a major portion of her work for Life magazine.

 

[Maris]

I've heard that Margaret Bourke-white used Grafmatics loaded under dust free conditions by assistants. The work flow per subject was:

Wind Speed Graphic focal plane shutter to maximum tension.
Insert Grafmatic and cycle it to frame one.
Press shutter release.
Cycle Grafmatic to frame two.
Press shutter release again.
Cycle Grafmatic to frame three.
....and so on.

The result was a set of six sheets exposed at all the speeds the focal plane shutter would deliver. One exposure would be near enough; no light meter required. And the camera was opened only momentarily when changing Grafmatics so minimal dust.

 

[Alan Gales]

For vacuuming film holders I place my Shop Vac outside my bedroom door. I close the door as much as possible with just the hose and attachment coming into the bedroom. I then load my film holders in a Harrison tent on my bed and seal them in anti static zip lock bags.

 

[BetterSense]

Talented technicians can bleach back and spot out dust spots. I don't have any talented darkroom technicians working for me, so it is a major problem for me. It's like...yes it's possible to correct certain issues with contrast masks, but for those of us without the equipment and know-how, and very importantly, time for advanced masking techniques, it doesn't matter. My only route is to avoid the problem in the first place.

They did get dust on the negatives. Many 4x5 were for newsprint and you wouldn't know or care about a small dust particle. Small dust may be invisible in 8x10 contact prints, that becomes objectionable when enlarged. And I have seen black spots on Ansel's prints myself, on some larger prints at the Amon Carter museum. With extreme care in the cleaning and loading of the holders, cleaning out the camera before every outing and blowing it out before each exposure, dust can be minimized. But I find that simply putting in a fresh factory roll of 120 film is practically zero work in comparison; I have practically zero dust problems despite the larger enlargement (although more dust problems at the printing stage, but I csn "reshoot" prints as much as I need to ), and when in doubt I can shoot 2 frames and still be cheaper than one 4x5 frame.

I do love 4x5 but it's a hobby within a hobby for me. If I want to capture something important, risking un-fixable dust spots, leaky film holders and bellows, scratches on the film from tray developing, all for a mere 1.5x longer negative just does not make sense and I know it deep down. I use the 4x5 anyway because I love to use the camera. 6x9 view cameras are cute but the gg is too small. If I could only still buy quick loads. ..

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree about Quickloads, or some similar product. But even when they existed wasn't the only black and white film TMX? It's a fine film but often slow for my needs.

Someone should make a 6x9 view camera with a magnified gg, that you can also view with a loupe for additional magnification. I'm not sure how such a thing would work, but I'm pretty sure it could be done.

Of course there's the Fuji FX680 with full front movements but not only is it expensive and somewhat rare, the thing is an absolute beast. It'd be easier to carry an 8x10 field camera in the field.

 

[Alan Gales]

Of course there's the Fuji FX680 with full front movements but not only is it expensive and somewhat rare, the thing is an absolute beast. It'd be easier to carry an 8x10 field camera in the field.

Roger, used Fuji FX680's have really come down in price lately. They are actually pretty cheap now. The lenses are said to be excellent. Unfortunately, they are still bulky and heavy and best used in the studio. I'd much rather carry my 8x10 Wehman.

 

[Roger Cole]

Yep.

I can make a very useful, "everything I really need for an afternoon's excursion" kit with my Tech III that will be far smaller and lighter than a similar kit (given similar "angle on format" lenses) than an RB or RZ67, much less a FX680. An RZ or RB can be used handheld but (yes, I've seen them) isn't really ideal for it, so I get to carry a tripod either way. If I don't want to carry a tripod there's my M645 Pro. I'd like that camera a lot more if I left more of the kit at home. By the time I carry the camera (with winder grip and AE prism), three lenses, several backs and inserts, filters and releases, even the Polaroid back, it's the heaviest camera kit I own, even heavier than my entire 4x5 kit with darkcloth, all the holders I own etc! And I also just got my Travelwide so if I want to stick to 90mm...

I am actually thinking about getting one, probably the RZ. But that too will have to wait. I did buy some lights (hot and thus cheap) and want to set up in my basement to try some more portraiture and still life, having always been more of a "pretty skies and rocks and tress and water" kind of guy. But of course I don't NEED a MF camera for that. My 203 Ektar is a good lens and I have a 6x7 Calumet back so I can shoot roll film on my view camera.

That really sort of brings me back to the TLRs for walking around with medium format. No doubt a rangefinder would work similarly. The single fixed lens can be limiting, but then you don't have to carry others or decide which ones to take today either. And there's something refreshing about working within the limits of fixed lens, fixed back camera that is, itself, kind of liberating. You know that's what you have so you get the best shot you can. It's certainly liberating from carrying too much gear. The Yashicamat is the smallest and lightest of my kits, if I take more than one 35mm body and more than one lens. Of course I can take just one 35mm body and one lens (most often my 28-105 Series 1) and be more versatile than the fixed lens TLR, but we all do that, right?

 

[Alan Gales]

I've owned a bunch of different cameras. Many I bought and flipped on Ebay and made a profit to fund my photography hobby. Some I bought just to try out.

The RZ was one of my favorites. With the "L" grip attached it's not bad at all for hand held shooting and I have a bad back. I wouldn't want to walk around with it street shooting though. That's what medium format TLR's and 35mm rangefinders were made for. If you buy an RZ get the 110mm lens. It's sharp and also the smallest lens available for the RZ. It's a true gem. I also owned the 180mm and 50mm ULD. I loved the 180 for portraits. The 50mm ULD is an excellent wide angle.

Right now I shoot an 8x10 for b&w with a 4x5 reducing back for color (I can't afford 8X10 color film), a Fujifim X100s digital with a 23mm lens (35mm equivalent on a 35mm camera) and a couple 35mm Stereo Realists with dual 35mm lenses.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I agree about Quickloads, or some similar product. But even when they existed wasn't the only black and white film TMX?...

TMX in Readyloads and Acros in QuickLoads. Way back when, Type 55 from Polaroid, but that was a somewhat different animal, and even slower if one wished to properly expose the negative.

 

[Ari]

The Fuji GX680 is a great system, I just sold mine, and not without a some regret. It was bought to fill in for a view camera, and it did so quite admirably.
I'm now on my way to purchasing another 8x10, so I'll be back in that format soon, making the GX680 redundant for me.
It isn't that heavy, more like bulky; you can shoot it hand-held (I did), but it's better-suited to a tripod. The lenses are great, the camera is fantastic (especially version III), and it's a high-quality system.
IQ is not that far from 4x5, and it makes shooting colour film very economical.
It can be a very small kit as well: one wide lens, one normal lens, body, film back and meter all fit in a small shoulder bag; unlike VCs, you don't have to carry around any film holders, but you do get VC-type quality as well as the VC experience.
But when I get an 8x10, my medium format choice will be another Pentax 67 (my third). It's easy to schlep around, unlike the Fuji or an 8x10, and image quality is very good. I'm quite partial to the look of the P67 and the 105mm lens, but finding a non-abused set is getting harder each year. Would that I could afford the P67 II body.

 

[ColColt]

As soon as I get over my dental bills I'm giving a hard look at the Pentax 67II. It would be good company for my aging 6x7 albeit, that one is still great and I'm sure it wouldn't mind sharing the four lens with the newer one.

 

[Roger Cole]

The Fuji GX680 is a great system, I just sold mine, and not without a some regret. It was bought to fill in for a view camera, and it did so quite admirably.
I'm now on my way to purchasing another 8x10, so I'll be back in that format soon, making the GX680 redundant for me.
It isn't that heavy, more like bulky; you can shoot it hand-held (I did), but it's better-suited to a tripod. The lenses are great, the camera is fantastic (especially version III), and it's a high-quality system.
IQ is not that far from 4x5, and it makes shooting colour film very economical.
It can be a very small kit as well: one wide lens, one normal lens, body, film back and meter all fit in a small shoulder bag; unlike VCs, you don't have to carry around any film holders, but you do get VC-type quality as well as the VC experience.
But when I get an 8x10, my medium format choice will be another Pentax 67 (my third). It's easy to schlep around, unlike the Fuji or an 8x10, and image quality is very good. I'm quite partial to the look of the P67 and the 105mm lens, but finding a non-abused set is getting harder each year. Would that I could afford the P67 II body.

I can never remember those first letters in the model, and I don't want to google it every time I type it, but thanks.

I'd want to carry at least three backs for B&W and one for color. In fact I sometimes do that even with my M645 Pro. One back is for N processing, one for N-1.5 or so and one for N+1 or so. With VC paper I find this lets me do a simplified zone system kind of approach that really works and still gives me more control than just one back with one development for all scenes.

Unlike the RB and RZ I've never actually seen a GX680 in person, just photos of people with them, and those make it clear it's a very large camera. And when working with 4x5 I usually only take about six to eight holders, which aren't that big. Eight holders is sixteen sheets and more than I could shoot in one excursion. It's mostly to take, say, four sheets of color and 12 of B&W or whatever. Sometimes I take my Grafmatic with six more sheets of E6.

 

[JBish130]

I always used 4x5 sheet film cut in half for my 2x3 graflex cameras. You lose the notch, so it's important to keep the sheets together and organized correctly. I used a paper cutter with a block mounted to insure proper cut. This always worked out really well for me. I have never bought 2x3 film in my life. Of course, I'm a cheap sob too.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The mindset of shooting 4x5 versus something like a MF SLR or RF is very different. With one system you've got far more control over the image via movements, the ability to specifically process each sheet of film, and even the benefit of being forced to slow down and carefully
assess the image, with the other, obviously more spontaneity with less expense per shot. I'm a bit of a format schizophrenic, listening to just too many voices in my head, so enjoy going back and forth between systems.

 

[Black Dog]

Same universe, right?

There are parallel ones...

[video=youtube;ZafKAibBVe0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZafKAibBVe0[/video]

 

[Tim Stapp]

ColColt, I'm curious what your ultimate decision was; 6x7 or 4x5 or both? For me; after ruining 3 out of 4 rolls from my P67 and with the blessing of my wife, I picked up a Calumet 4x5 with 135 mm lens/shutter, compendium lens shade and 6 double dark slides. I'm sure I will find many ways to screw up, but I'm excited and looking forward to picking this up. Purchase on fleabay, but a local seller. I meet him Thursday to pick it up.