I have both the Simmons book and the Stroebel book. Of the two, I'd recommend the latter.
I recently received the revised edition of the Simmons book and was disappointed. There's very little change from the original, and despite it having a copyright date of 2015 the chapter on film still talks about Kodachrome, Panatomic-X, and other films that haven't been available for a long time.
I haven't compared my original copy with the revised edition page-by-page, but it looks like the changes (if any) are very minimal. If you already have the 1987 edition, there's no reason to get the revised edition.
Thanks for that info SodaAnt. For now I am working through Ansel Adams' books. I do have the other two books and will get to them when I am able but I don't think I'll be buying any updated editions for now.
Sure they can, but without the benefit of camera movements. That's one of, if not THE (these days with modern films) big reasons to use a view camera in the first place.Thanks. I had that thought as well. There are certainly advantages to starting with 4x5 other than just the cost of film. The size and availability of equipment is one. But that argument can also be used to justify using medium format film. Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes can be used to take amazing pictures.
Sure they can, but without the benefit of camera movements. That's one of, if not THE (these days with modern films) big reasons to use a view camera in the first place.
For saving money on film, you can try using x-ray film. There's a huge thread on the LFPF about it. It's still available and MUCH cheaper than regular camera film, even Foma from Fotoimpex, but has its own issues including the fact it scratches so easily.
The better way to save money on film while learning to use a view camera, to me, is to get a 4x5 camera and a roll film back. You can shoot 120 film but with the controls and movements (and inverted GG view etc.) of the view camera. You can also use lenses that might to cover 4x5 fully, if so inclined. There are, or were, view cameras made specifically to use 120 film, or smaller sizes of sheet film that used to be more commonly available, but I'd just go ahead and get a 4x5 and roll film back because it's much more versatile.
But if one is sure they want to shoot 8x10 anyway... I think I'd still go ahead and start with 4x5 given the cost of 8x10 film these days because you WILL make mistakes and waste film. There's nothing like a view camera, which makes you do everything yourself, for showing you new and frustrating ways to screw up.And if you buy used you could probably re-sell it without much if any loss when you decide to move up to 8x10.
Even in my 30s, hauling a 4x5 outfit into the field seemed like no small matter. Within 500 yards? I wish.Anything more than 500 yards from the car just isn't photogenic.
A number of years ago, I had the pleasure of attending an exhibition of Edward Weston's 5x7 and 8x10 contact prints, and they were exquisite. I started thinking dangerous thoughts about how 5x7 and 8x10 might actually be cheaper for me than 4x5 if I did not stray from contact-printing!
But then, I also remembered this quote attributed to Weston:
Even in my 30s, hauling a 4x5 outfit into the field seemed like no small matter. Within 500 yards? I wish.
Hardware-wise, my limited LF experience in the field (tall trees, buildings) suggested to me that I didn't need the broadest range of camera movements, and sometimes they actually complicated setup. Front rise/fall, front/rear tilt (which can also serve as additional rise/fall) got a lot of use. Horizontal swings and shifts, not so much (though it can be fun to "magically" remove one's reflections from mirrors and plate glass windows with a bit of shift!) OTOH, if I were shooting more portraits, I might need little or no camera movements at all.
That Cambo in particular can get pretty confusing when I'm trying to focus and that is what I seem to struggle with the most. Based on what I've read I should be able to tell exactly what is, and what is not, in focus on the ground glass. I should not have to guess or estimate. I know that the Crown Graphic is not built to do this, but that Cambo is supposedly built to do exactly that! But I could even see with my contact prints that I wasn't getting what I thought I was. Maybe that SK Angulon 90 isn't up to it but that certainly is not what I've been told.
I was so dissatisfied with some of that 4x5 work that I tossed most of the negatives and went back to my medium format Pentax.
That is strange you had focus problems. A couple of thoughts: did you use a loupe when focusing on the ground-glass? I find it essential. (I don’t know what sort of back you have on the Crown, but most have a groundglass to use for focus as well as the rangefinder.)
You may have a problem with that Angulon, when the lens is serviced I highly doubt there was collimation done- that wouldn’t be part of an ordinary CLA service. Some test shots of a focus target could prove helpful in determining your focus problems.
You could also have a film holder/ focus screen depth problem. The film plane must agree with the groundglass plane. It is possible that they do not. Sometimes the groundglass depth is not the same as the film, leading to out of focus negatives. Also, the Depth of Focus (lens to film plane) is less the wider the lens. So while a 210mm might be within acceptable DoF, a shorter lens may not be.
And a note on film costs, since it takes longer to set up the 8x10, and I am so aware of the costs of each sheet, I take fewer shots than with smaller formats. If I take one 8x10, I could easily have taken four 4x5’s so film cost is kind of a wash. Someone else posted this concept years ago and I have largely found it to be true for me across formats.
There are two distinct advantages of most view cameras over the conveniently small cameras that many of us use: image quality and the movements of view camera front and rear standards. There have been many improvements in small format image quality, both in optics and film, over the past several decades. To replicate some of the movements of view cameras in small cameras, we can try tilt and shift lenses. My ancient DeJur Versatile Professional 4x5 enlarger has a tilting lens board that enables correcting of converging verticals. This effect can be duplicated in many enlargers by shimming the lens board. I've also occasionally used digital manipulation. Some image quality is lost in the several steps involved, so it would never completely replace photography with view cameras. It certainly was adequate for some applications.
But I believe that both of those films can also be found in 4x5.
Velvia 50 has been discontinued now in 4x5 sheets, so you will struggle to find it new at less than extortionate prices.
I taught photography and LF for 42 years and IMHO the best. easiest to read and most useful book for beginners is: A User’s Guide to the View Camera, Stone, Jim. Longman, 1997. ISBN 0-673-52006-4
the Stobel book that has been mentioned is very knowledgeable but, its dense and again IMHO and experience with University students, hard to digest.
The second one I have is the second edition, hardcover and is certainly the better of the two. Mainly because there is more (and expanded) information than in the first edition. ISBN 978-0-240-81625-8 Printed in China.
Dan,
Here's a handy book that Kodak provided. Please forgive if this has already been mentioned.
Photography with Large Format Cameras (by Kodak)
Dan,
Here's a handy book that Kodak provided. Please forgive if this has already been mentioned.
Photography with Large Format Cameras (by Kodak)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?