Can I even do Large Format?

Sirius Glass · Aug 4, 2010

grahamp said:
But unless you have a 5x4 scanner with a transparency lid you need some sort of darkroom.

Good idea! Suggest a scanner that handles 4x5s. Yep, that is a solution that start at $850 for an Epson to $10,000 to $15,000 for a Hasselblad scanner! Definitely a great path forward for the budget minded.

Steve

Steve

michaelbsc · Aug 5, 2010

SteveR said:
To develop my sheet film, I just made up some little tubes, not too dissimilar to BTZ tubes. Just a length of PVC pipe, maybe 1 1/2" diameter (I'm away from home, or I'd go measure them) with an end cap, and a little light trap at the other end. I think it was on the LargeFormatPhotography forum that I first read about the idea. Works very well, costs next to nothing to buy the parts, takes no time to make up a few tubes. Each tube holds 200ml, so just perfect for my needs of Xtol @ 1:1.

Somewhere, probably the LargeFoprmatPhotography forum as well, I read from someone who made little tubes from his wife's discarded woman's hosiery. Used similar to the "taco method" but it provided a better support structure in the juice and didn't have the hard line on the backing from the rubber band that the taco method makes.

Best I recall the trick was to find a used plastic pill bottle like medicines are delivered in, and make the hosiery tube slightly bigger than that. Use the pill bottle as a guide to roll the film and insert in the "tube" then pop it into a Paterson style tank.

Obviously the pill bottle and the hosiery tubes must be large enough diameter that the film doesn't overlap.

I've never tried this myself, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

michaelbsc · Aug 5, 2010

grahamp said:
... But unless you have a 5x4 scanner with a transparency lid you need some sort of darkroom...

Why? OK, so 4x5 contact prints are small. Deal.

You can get Cyanotype paper directly from Freestyle these days. So no darkroom required.

My family has drawers full of tiny contact prints from 2.25x3.25, 3.5x5, etc. old pictures. That's how they did it back then, and my grandmother would strike you dead if you had suggested she should throw away the only picture in the world of her father because it was only 2 inches high.

Just make sure you remember that if you develop 4x5 in a Paterson tank - using any of the various methods - you keep the center column in the tank. It's the light trap, not merely a support post for the reels. You have to have it.

Rick A · Aug 5, 2010

All the OP needs is a changing bag and some clear counter space in the kitchen to process LF film. A small rolling cart for stowing processing gear and chems and he's all set. If he doesn't have space for a DR for enlarging and printing, there's always labs and scanning. There really is no reason to not get involved with large format.

michaelbsc · Aug 5, 2010

ralnphot said:
All the OP needs is a changing bag and some clear counter space in the kitchen to process LF film. A small rolling cart for stowing processing gear and chems and he's all set. If he doesn't have space for a DR for enlarging and printing, there's always labs and scanning. There really is no reason to not get involved with large format.

As much as I don't know about the digital imaging world, I do know that you can just throw a 4x5 negative on a plain old flat bed scanner and invert the image. My nephew did it for me one day. It works.

Is that the "best image" solution? Nah, probably not. But so long as you keep the negatives you can come back later and "reprint" them when you have a better setup.

Like Rick says, if the OP is interested in LF, there's no reason not to jump in. After all, *NOBODY* starts out with every tool at their disposal. You build up.

Sirius Glass · Aug 6, 2010

michaelbsc said:
After all, *NOBODY* starts out with every tool at their disposal. You build up.

No! I want it all! NOW! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine!

lilmsmaggie · Aug 6, 2010

yeknom02 said:
Hi all,

I'm wondering whether large format is even possible given my current life situation. I'm sure I could eventually afford a camera (and whatever parts are needed - I'm totally new to even thinking about LF) but my question is about the film itself.

35mm and 120 are not problems for me to develop since I have a changing bag and tanks by Paterson and Hewes. But is the only way to develop sheet film in non-daylight hanging tanks? I don't have the space for a darkroom at all, and my options are limited to what I can pull off in a changing bag or over my well-lit kitchen sink.

Should I totally abandon hopes for a Large Format camera until I can buy my own house and pump a load of money into making a darkroom?

Short answer: NO! As someone else has commented: If you think you won't you won't.

I feel ya - I don't really have the space to setup a darkroom and the expense of acquiring enlarger, lens for the enlarger, timer, chemicals, trays, etc. was a bit daunting.

But I pretty much jumped in with both feet. I researched cameras I was interested in, asked questions here and on the LFPF: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum , read articles, etc.

Then took the plunge. Ordered a Chamonix 45n-2 which I took delivery of earlier this year; bought used lenses where I could find them (90, 135, 210), film holders and dark cloth while I was awaiting delivery of the camera. Read some more; asked more questions - Then I took a workshop.

It was exciting, exhilarating and hella lot of fun. I've learned a lot but I have a lot more yet to learn.

From one LF newbie to another: If it's really what you want to do - GO FOR IT!

Christopher Walrath · Aug 6, 2010

Relative LF newb as well. Seconded. And remember, after dark and with the lights off, any room is a darkroom. Words to live by. I'm gonna go play with my enlarger now.

Ric Trexell · Aug 6, 2010

I'm not a LF photographer, but I think you first need to decide why you want to get into LF. The difference between a 6X7 and a 4X5 is something like 30% if I'm not mistaken. If you are not enlarging your pictures more than 16X20, the average person is not going to notice much difference. Yes, you do have the advantage of tilts and swings, but again, unless you are planning to shoot buildings or exotic angles, what are the advantages? There are other things to consider with LF such as the cost of the shot, the time to load the holders and the cumberson camera itself. Did you ever see a picture taken with a LF of a windy day? I have read books on LF but have decided it is not for me for those reasons. Go ahead if that is what you want, but to me, unless you really need LF, you might not like it in the end. Ric.

tim k · Aug 6, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
Ah, but you left out that when you take off the cap to pour out one chemical for another, it must be done in the darkroom. OP does not have a darkroom.

Steve

Steve, you can put little baffles in the caps, that will allow the juice to flow thru, but will block the light. Somewhere on the web there is a picture. I did this and it is very simple. If you only have one or two sheets to do, its as easy as any roll film tank.

If you have a sink, and a changing bag, your set. I take the little tubes when I'm out in the rv. Works great.

lilmsmaggie · Aug 6, 2010

Ric Trexell said:
I'm not a LF photographer, but I think you first need to decide why you want to get into LF. The difference between a 6X7 and a 4X5 is something like 30% if I'm not mistaken. If you are not enlarging your pictures more than 16X20, the average person is not going to notice much difference. Yes, you do have the advantage of tilts and swings, but again, unless you are planning to shoot buildings or exotic angles, what are the advantages? There are other things to consider with LF such as the cost of the shot, the time to load the holders and the cumberson camera itself. Did you ever see a picture taken with a LF of a windy day? I have read books on LF but have decided it is not for me for those reasons. Go ahead if that is what you want, but to me, unless you really need LF, you might not like it in the end. Ric.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" -- Wizard of Oz: 1939

Seriously, the level of detail and resolution in a 4 x 5 negative will blow your socks off.

Don't skimp on your support system. get a GOOD tripod! I have a Manfrotto tripod with a 210 jr head. IMHO - with the Chamonix, a match made in heaven. The Chamonix is about 3 lbs., but it feels lighter. My Canon 40D w/ 17-55 weighs more.

BradS · Aug 6, 2010

Ric Trexell said:
....The difference between a 6X7 and a 4X5 is something like 30% if I'm not mistaken......

you are mistaken.

The nominal area of a 4x5 negative is: a little more than 129 squared centimeters.
The nominal area of a 6x7 negative is: 42 squared centimeters.

The 4x5 negative is roughly 3 times larger than the 6x7 negative....that is 300% - not 30%

Christopher Walrath · Aug 6, 2010

Ric Trexell said:
I think you first need to decide why you want to get into LF.

Chicks dig big cameras.

And black knee socks under my Khaki shorts and Panama straw hat.

2F/2F · Aug 6, 2010

When comparing sizes between formats, I generally look at linear dimensions rather than area. So, the way I look at it, a frame of 4x5 film is less than twice as large as a piece of 6x7 film.

I don't notice all that much difference until going to 16x20.

Ric Trexell · Aug 6, 2010

You are correct sir.

BradS said:
you are mistaken.

The nominal area of a 4x5 negative is: a little more than 129 squared centimeters.
The nominal area of a 6x7 negative is: 42 squared centimeters.

The 4x5 negative is roughly 3 times larger than the 6x7 negative....that is 300% - not 30%

********************************************************
Ok, I did the math again and found I had the decimal place in the wrong place. Still, I stand by the other part of the post, mainly the enlargement. I have blown a 35mm up to 20X24 from my Minolta X-700 and was impressed. I have blown 6X7's up to 20X24 and found them to be super. Just how many times are you going to go higher than 20X24 unless you are doing fine art work? If you are, ok, but I just wanted to point out that what you are gaining with a LF you are losing what you can do with a MF. I read an article once in a photography magazine where the author was telling about his 5X7 camera. He said you can make contact prints because you are not going to blow it up anyway. I wondered why he would use a 5X7 to make 5X7 prints. A 35mm will do that good. So I will ask those of you that do use LF, what do you do with your enlargements? Just how big do you go?

michaelbsc · Aug 6, 2010

2F/2F said:
When comparing sizes between formats, I generally look at linear dimensions rather than area. So, the way I look at it, a frame of 4x5 film is less than twice as large as a piece of 6x7 film.

I don't notice all that much difference until going to 16x20.

I see, so since the surface are is 3x, but you're looking at linear, you see 4x5 as being bigger by the square root of 3, not 3.

michaelbsc · Aug 6, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
... I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine! I! Me! Mine!

Man, you could like write Beatles songs or something dude.

Christopher Walrath · Aug 6, 2010

Through the Inverse Square Law, light that travels twice the distance covers four times the area; three times the distance covers an area nine times greater. So, in linear terms, this is twice the linear dimension. In geographic area, this is a factor of 4.

Sirius Glass · Aug 6, 2010

michaelbsc said:
Man, you could like write Beatles songs or something dude.

Man, like you broke the code or somethin'

BradS · Aug 6, 2010

Ric Trexell said:
********************************************************
Ok, I did the math again and found I had the decimal place in the wrong place. Still, I stand by the other part of the post, mainly the enlargement. I have blown a 35mm up to 20X24 from my Minolta X-700 and was impressed. I have blown 6X7's up to 20X24 and found them to be super. Just how many times are you going to go higher than 20X24 unless you are doing fine art work? If you are, ok, but I just wanted to point out that what you are gaining with a LF you are losing what you can do with a MF. I read an article once in a photography magazine where the author was telling about his 5X7 camera. He said you can make contact prints because you are not going to blow it up anyway. I wondered why he would use a 5X7 to make 5X7 prints. A 35mm will do that good. So I will ask those of you that do use LF, what do you do with your enlargements? Just how big do you go?

It is a very good question. I respectfully suggest that you start a new thread to address this question.

Can I even do Large Format?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency