• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Intermediate large format questions/photography misadventures

I like dogs too, but I can't figure out how to properly care for one with 2 people working full-time. 8 hours in a kennel or having to hire a dog walker are both reasons to not own a dog in my opinion. Also, once the crazy kitten stage is passed, cats are generally just fine if left alone for a weekend.
 
So, how many of you use Ortho film to make larger negatives? Yes, I have an 8x10 camera, but I am sitting on some 4x5 and medium format negatives that I really like and would like to make them bigger or at least try the process out.
This may seem like a silly question, but here is my understanding.
My existing 4x5 neg goes into the enlarger
I place a sheet of ortho in an easel or frame or whatever I use under the lens and treat the process much the same as if making an enlargement on paper. (crop, focus, etc)
I then process that sheet (still reading a bit on suggested chemicals).
Barring any mistakes, I now have an enlarged positive from my negative.
I then contact print the positive onto another sheet of ortho to get the new large negative correct?

In short, 2 sheets of ortho to get from an in camera negative to an enlarged negative?

Is this covered in any of the usual darkroom books, and I have simply never read that portion?
 
I've done Kodalith back in high school (around 1974) -- we developed in Dektol at print dilution, but the resulting film was pretty high contrast. You might need to develop your ortho litho film in a low contrast developer like POTA or something similar -- the kind used to make microfilm give pictorial images in subminiature cameras. A high dilution film developer (like Xtol1+3 or Rodinal 1:100) with careful time control might also work.

Another option is to reversal process the ortho litho film -- develop to higher contrast than what you'd want for the positive, then bleach away the silver (using a dissolving bleach like dichromate or permanganate, not something like C-41 bleach or Farmer's Reducer that just makes the silver fixable again), fog, and redevelop to obtain a positive image. You'll generally reduce contrast somewhat from the first developer image (with camera films the first developer seems to go to or very near completion), so this may make it easier to get an enlarged negative you can work with -- and saves waiting for the interpositive to dry so you can contact print it to get a negative. Ortho litho is so cheap compared to regular camera films, however, that time saving and increased ease of use are the big reasons to do reversal for enlarged negatives.
 
Double negative technique if fairly simple with a little practice. You want to projected (or contacted) inter-positive to be of slightly lower contrast than the original, and fully exposed so that all the intended gray scale values are evident on the light box.
Then you take that to generate the new master printing negative. And it's at that step you boost to contrast back up to the best level for printing on your own preferred print media.

I tend to work with whatever sheet films I already have on hand like FP4 or TMX100. Ortho Litho is more difficult to work with because it's very high contrast and easily goes blotchy or streaky in common developers; but it's useful when you do need a significant contrast boost, and it's obviously cheap.
I use quite dilute HC-110 in those cases. Dektol is voodoo - really risks a messy neg.
 
My next question concerns Lith printing. I know it's not everyone's cup o tea, but I have a pretty ridiculous stash of old papers in hand, and I would like to start figuring out how useful they are.
The "master photographers lith printing course" was released in 1998 and there's a lot of materials in there that are no longer available, and I have some stuff that doesn't appear in the book at all.
I have a kit of the Aristo a&b liquid lith developer. before i go nuts and start aquiring a bunch of chemistry, I guess I should get a print going and test bits of paper in the Aristo and see what shakes out?

I could then test with Moersch and possibly the Photographers formulary 70 (supposed to mimic the old Kodalith dev)
 
Somewhat stuck at home due to surgery recovery, so I'm trying to get through my backlog of exposed film. I did 2 rolls of tmax 100 the other day, and some expired in 1983 (I checked the other boxes) tri-x pan yesterday. Holy base fog batman!
And it occurs to me that some of us make things difficult for ourselves;
My last 4 rolls are
1 Ilford PanF+
1 Ilford hp4
I Ilford Delta 3200
1 Acros II

It would be a whole lot nicer if I could throw 2 or even all 4 into a tank and get it done. Playing with different films is a journey of sorts, but I sure can see some benefit to only using 1 or 2 emulsions.
 
MTGseattle said:
It would be a whole lot nicer if I could throw 2 or even all 4 into a tank and get it done.
Click to expand...

Used to be you'd just chuck them in a 2-bath developer and get good results on all four. That works less will with modern, thin emulsions, even less so with T-grain and films like Delta 3200 that are meant to be pushed a stop or two.
 
How about stand developing in a single tank?
 
I appreciate the thoughts. I do happen to have time on my hands right now, so I'll stick with the slow way (1 roll at a time)
I have to daylight process anyway.
I do have enough tanks to do 3 at once, but I feel like that's asking for trouble.

My fp4+ from the other day stayed just a bit pink since I grabbed some used fixer and ended up diluting 1;4 again. I realized what I did and fixed for 10 minutes, but I should have done hypo or an additional fix. Oh well. I'll review things on a light table and see if anything is worthy of corrective measures.

I'm guessing I can tray fix cut strips if I'm careful.
 
It can be quite frustrating to remove the last bit of pinkish antihalation dye from FP4. An alkaline fixer helps, along with a fair amount of washing. But that remaining amount of about .04 magenta density requires UV exposure to bleach it out, or a sufficient amount of time to simply fade away.

The effect of the stain tends to be minimal anyway. When using FP4 for contrast masking in color printing, I simply factor in the 3 or 4 cc of magenta involved, when setting the colorhead balance.
With b&w VC printing, the stain produces a tiny amount of higher contrast, almost negligible.
 
Thanks Drew. I didn't think it was a make-or-break issue, I just knew that I had a fixer issue with that roll. I'm unsure why I didn't just stop and mix new fixer.

In other news, my roll of Fomapan 100 was a roll I ran through my modified Holga pan more than a year ago and I'm still getting scratches. I'm on the fence right now whether to pull the little Congo 90mm back to 4x5 use and thereby abandon the holga or build another sandpaper roll and see if I can fix the issue. I guess it's a good idea to keep some backing paper and spools around.
 
I've been rethinking some of my lens choices lately. This is partly due to size/weight, and also due to budget. An example; I have the older Fujinon 105mm f8 lens that takes 67mm filters and has a 250mm image circle. That's a lot of image circle for 4x5 but it is also a reasonably large lens, so I have been thinking of getting one of the 105mm f5.6 versions instead. I also have a couple of 90mm f8 lenses and 2 90mm f6.3 wide angle Congo lenses. I know Kerry Thalmann said it took quite a few samples of the Congo to get a "good copy," but the one that's been on my modified Holgapan seems pretty good so far.
My wish-list lens is a Fujinon C 600mm, and I think it is the last high-dollar investment I will make in photography if I find one for a price I'm willing to pay.
In a related line of thought, I began wondering what drives various photographers to choose certain glass. (I no longer own the required reference texts so bear with me) In her "Mother land" work, I vaguely remember Sally Mann using a lens that was broken when she bought it, or a lens that she distressed. I'm pretty sure it was an old brass barrel lens. I am also reasonably sure she explained her choice in some detail. (again, I wish I had the requisite literature)
As large format folks in particular, why do that to yourself? I remember seeing some of the work, and yes, it did look a lot different than what her results would have been with modern glass, but was it better? Did it suit the overall project? I guess we're headed into opinion land again.
 
Chuck1 said:
The cats will watch the dog, and vice versa
Click to expand...

Can one train the cat to put out food for the dog? Cats can pretty well fend for themselves if sufficient food and water is available, but dogs have little self control when it comes to feeding.
 
A Fuji 105/5.6 is going to only barely cover 4x5, with very little image circle latitude for movements. But at least the optics are going to be way superior to a Congo.

The Fuji 600 C is a great compact lens for 8x10 and larger film sizes, but would be pretty taxing on the front standard stabilty of a 4x5 field camera with the bellows extended way out there.

No need to hunt around for a funky defective lens like Sally Mann used. Just use the Cobweb App in Photoshop instead.
 
wiltw said:
Can one train the cat to put out food for the dog? Cats can pretty well fend for themselves if sufficient food and water is available, but dogs have little self control when it comes to feeding.
Click to expand...

My Aunt brought her dogs over for a visit last year. One found a crunchy treat in the litter box.
 

I don't own a 4x5 with that much bellows. The 600mm C would be for 8x10. I have my 300mm C mounted on a 30mm top hat board for just a bit of extra wiggle room.
 
MTGseattle said:
various animals eating poo. Such an odd behavior.
Click to expand...

Not odd, just natural recycled food/minerals/vitamins.

Rabbits have a small kidney shaped pellet they make that recycled the above.
 
Last edited:


Your lens choice criteria of size, weight and budget are naturally all valid, however, I'm more curious and interested in your reasoning and motivation behind your lens choice criteria.
So, why size, weight and budget?
And why not, aesthetic, creative, experimental, expressive, playful, artistic... the list goes on.

Sally Mann explained her lens choices and I doubt very much, if there was any similarity to yours.

So what I'm trying to say, is maybe it's not your lens choices that needs rethinking but rather what's behind your lens choice criteria.
So indeed for you to answer your own relevant questions of will "smaller, lighter and cheaper" be better? And will they suit your projects?
 
MTGseattle said:
various animals eating poo. Such an odd behavior.
Click to expand...

I hear it's not uncommon for dogs.

However, it addresses wiltw's comment on dogs not having much self control, and query about training a cat to put out food for a dog
 

,Valid points.

I tend to feel that one can accomplish all of your adjectives with a modern shuttered lens in the realm of large format. Experimentation might be stretching the bounds of language a bit when talking about modern lenses, but if it's a focal length one is unfamiliar with = experimentation.
Budget; I have a decent stable of lenses, so I'm simply not looking to shell out thousands in the realm of swapping 1 or 2. The Fujinon C 600 is the one exception, but it simply lurks as a periodic internet search item for now as I accomplished 600mm in a different way.

reason for swap; mainly just size/weight (hiking kit) and again, I'm really only talking about 105mm focal length. The 2 f5.6 options are both pretty tight in terms of image circle, so I'm not rushing to change, just compiling data.

As for "playing" I still own some very low-tech gear and also just acquired a Lomograflok back.
 
MTGseattle said:
I tend to feel that one can accomplish all of your adjectives with a modern shuttered lens in the realm of large format.
Click to expand...
Would you mind expanding a little more on, "your objectives" that you'd like to accomplish with your lens selection?


Of the little that I've read about Sally Mann and Mother Land, she knew modern shuttered lenses would not accomplish her objectives and made the deliberate and conscious choice to avoid modern glass.

Do you feel she made a wrong choice in her lens selection?
In your opinion, could Mother Land have been done with modern shuttered lenses and would it have been better, in your opinion?

Genuine curiosity, here, from my end and just trying to follow the last couple of posts you've shared.
 
This is generally rambling thread, but yes, If I remember correctly, the antique lens/s did covey what Sally Mann intended with those images. (I owned that book at one point, I wish I still had it to consult) I just wonder if she could have used a soft-focus filter, or smeared vaseline or something on the lens and achieved the same feeling with a modern shuttered lens. This is all mere curiosity and speculation, and with the current costs of film, testing these theories is something I'm not willing to undertake. I once shot a whole roll of 35mm through a thick glass ashtray just to "try it out," and the results were blah at best.
At any rate, I'm sure she knew within the first 1-5 images whether she was on the right track regarding her intent for that body of work.

You text either auto corrected or there was a slight miss quote. I said "your adjectives," not your objectives.

You said "...And why not, aesthetic, creative, experimental, expressive, playful, artistic..."

We're digressing a bit too. My speculation about a specific body of Sally Mann's work could have been a separate idea from me simply thinking about swapping a given lens design within a focal length.
The caveat being the reduction in image circle which likely isn't a huge issue given the images I am most likely to make. My problem lies in trying to force a given piece of gear into a capable of everything role and it is darn near impossible for that to turn out well. Maybe I keep the 105mm F8 and buy a 105mm f5.6 and compare them through actual use?

My main goal these last few days has been getting my crap organized and moved so I can print again. Today's hurdle is moving a dry mount press without damaging my still healing sternum. It may be a pulleys and levers situation. The height where it rests and the height where it lives are different enough to cause problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register