8x10 or 11x14 for shooting paper negs?

[Poohblah]

here's my little dilemma... i want something a bit more practical for landscape photography than my 35mm cameras, but i don't have access to a darkroom (or space to build a darkroom) that can enlarge anything greater than 35mm negs. so, my idea is to get an 8x10 or 11x14 camera and shoot paper negs and then contact print to make a positive print. now, i know very little about alternative processes or LF cameras & lenses greater than 4x5, so i am asking here basically for whatever information i can get. essentially, what i want to know is:

how will the results from this process compare to an enlarged 35mm neg? i.e. what are the differences in resolution, tonal range, etc.

what paper would i use for the neg? VC? graded? RC? FB? also, i assume paper is red-insensitive, so i assume that means i couldn't use my beloved #25 filter?

where could i source an affordable camera and lens for this? are the APUG classifieds a good source?

i've noticed a wide range in prices for LF cameras and lenses. are there any cameras or lenses in particular that i should stay away from?

is the size/weight jump from an 8x10 camera to an 11x14 camera going to be significant enough to cause it to be a major decision-making factor?

finally... tripods... i have a fairly heavy tripod that i use for 35mm. could it work for LF, or would a new, wood tripod be a requirement as well?

 

[Erik L]

If it were me, I would skip the paper negs and just shoot film and contact print if space were a consideration. You can get some cheap film for 8x10 from freestyle if money is a concern. As far as the 8x10 vs the 11x14, the difference in the size of the cameras is not too great, but the biggest difference I found is that film holders cost a fortune for 11x14 compared to 8x10. You can get crazy detail for your landscapes with either format. You might want to upgrade your tripod, try it and see first. Another thing going for 8x10 is the abundance of cheap lenses that cover compared to 11x14, more selection and better prices for 8x10.
You can pick up cameras all the time either here in the classified or over at largeformatphotography forum.
Give it a try, if it's not for you, you can probably sell the kit for close to what you paid for it.
Good luck
Erik

 

[John Kasaian]

Film is cool but paper negatives are fun (and cheap especially in 11x14) IMHO I'd use VC RC matte paper which seems to give the best results. If your landscapes don't include the sky you might also try an ortho film like Freestyle's APHS or even better a continous tone ortho such as Ultrafine. Develop in paper developer by inspection under a red safelight.
Have fun!

 

[Poohblah]

Film is cool but paper negatives are fun (and cheap especially in 11x14) IMHO I'd use VC RC matte paper which seems to give the best results. If your landscapes don't include the sky you might also try an ortho film like Freestyle's APHS or even better a continous tone ortho such as Ultrafine. Develop in paper developer by inspection under a red safelight.
Have fun!

i'd appreciate being able to develop under the safelight which is one of the reasons for the paper negs. the other of course being cost.

what advantages do the ortho papers have, anyway?

 

[John Kasaian]

what advantages do the ortho papers have, anyway?

Well, Ortho film is usually a fraction of the price of pancho film. I'm referring to APS, APHS and Ultrafine here. Ilford makes a continuois tone ortho as does ORWO and (I think) Efke. Ortho records a mind-blowing amont of detail, but is slooooow, usually something along the lines of ISO 3 (Ilford is is much faster IIRC) Developed in "normal" film developer you'll get black and white--no mid tones, but if you use a paper developer (spent paper developer works nicely) you'll achieve mid tones (how much depends on your technique-- continuous tone orthos makes it easier of course) except in the sky, which often comes out as being featureless--but rocks and trees come out pretty cool looking. With trees of course, the wind can be a problem because exposures will be long.

Jim Galli is an expert on APHS. IIRC he's got some examples on his website and has written quite a bit about his technique on Tuan's Large Format forum.

Ortho film keeps a long time and I always have kept a box of 8x10 APHS in the deep freeze next to the Eskimo Pies "just in case" I run out of panchro.

Regarding 8x10 vs 11x14:
11x14 film holders are expensive! If none come with your camera you can expect to pay $200 + for each used holder (and that's a bargain price!) OTOH $200 should easily get your four or more used 8x10 holders.

 

[bnstein]

35mm...8x10...11x14. This concept makes me sit here like a stunned mullet as I glance from my modest 35mm kit to my 5x7 camera and finding them about the same size.
I have ended at 5x7 because I find it the first format I am happy to contact print from (although 6x9 is kind of like little jewels) and although I will probably end up going to 8x10 thinking double the size is daunting. Forgive me if this is all familiar but if not look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=o62-YMQHeoI and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a64iG-A-cRI&feature=related to get some visials

Film vs paper: I do film with a tent and paterson orbital then do cyanotype which only requires UV free light so no darkroom needed. Ditto for a number of other alt. processes if you want to avoid the darkroom thing, but still do standard film.

 

[papagene]

I would suggest you PM jnanian about paper negs in an 11x14. I am pretty sure he uses this method quite a lot.

 

[geoferrell]

I tried that a couple of years ago with a pinhole camera and wooden film holders, but had trouble with the enlarging paper in the holders. I tried RC papers in 4x5 holders more recently and it does much better. The low ISO means longer exposure, and sometimes highlights block up with little detail in some areas. I think the difference in expense between enlarging paper and 8x10 sheet film is so great that it might be good to start with the paper and then go to film when you're in better practice. The enlarging paper is easier to load and processing can be done faster and under safelight. Results are interesting, too.

 

[removed account4]

hi poohblah

i shoot paper negatives all the time
both 8x10 and 11x14 ( 7x11 too )
and it is a lot of fun.

paper is dirt cheep but film holders for 11x14
cost an arm and a leg - as john kasaian said ..
8x10 film holders on the other hand are very inexpensive
by comparison

i shoot outside as well as in a studio setting, and use fiber base paper.
i have graded agfa and a boatload of ilford, faux ilford, and kodak
to play with. i use a few 300ws lights in soft boxes and long 30+second exposures.

you can expose it a handful of ways - preflash works OK
and developing in spent paper developer and a water bath works
great too.

when i shoot outside i usually like overcast days - even light.
i usually sunny-16 and figure out my exposures from there
all being told though contrast can be a real drag with paper.

there have been some good deals for cameras ( both 8x10 and 11x14 )
in the classified section so you might be able to pick one up without a problem.

weight wise .. my 11x14 is a tank of a portrait camera on a rolling stand, and the 8x10 i use
is kind of heavy too, but not THAT bad ... i am not sure what tripod you have, but surveyors tripods
and a big sturdy head work well for big cameras..

you might test the waters by making a 8x10 or 11x14 box/pinhole camera. you can see how your paper
processes out and if it is worth the time and effort of buying a camera and lenses and film holders that will not be cheap.

jerseyvic here on apug shoots a lot of ULF pinhole images, maybe you can shoot him an PM ...


good luck!

john

 

[Poohblah]

thank you very much. i thought about doing a pinhole camera made out of a cardboard box but i ran into a couple issues, specifically: i'm not sure how to get the pinhole to the right diameter, i'm not sure how to make a camera that will allow me to reload in daylight, and i'm not sure how to go about making a stable camera that won't shake on me in the wind (though, truth be told, it's a pinhole camera after all - perhaps i shouldn't worry about this). perhaps taking a changing bag would solve the reloading issue, provided that the bag is big enough to hold the camera.

when you say contrast is a drag, do you mean it is difficult to get correct? i would assume that playing around with VC paper and the color contrast filters for enlargers would help with that respect, no?

 

[removed account4]

pinhole resource will be able to sell you a laser cut pinhole,
there is also someone named pinholebilly, or something like that
(i wish i could remember what it was .. )
the image circle covers 3"x the focal length or so ..

i am sure enlarging filters would work well to deal with contrast
but with a (big) lens it might be hard to find a filter big enough to cover the whole
lens ... unless of course it is a pinhole then it is easy

if you want to have a little bit of fun ...
stick some paper in your 35mm camera and
process it to see how the contrast thing is
use different developers, different dilutions,
ages &C to see how it will effect your negative ...

have fun!

john