Linhof Color 4x5 for a LF beginner?

[Sean Mac]

I have all I want in miniature and medium format.

My ambition is to use 8x10 for photogravure. The etched copper plates are at least as important as pulling prints off them to me. Portraits in metal...

So it's time to make the jump into LF. I am looking at 4x5 to learn with.

The camera I'm looking at is the "Technika on a Rail" Linhof.

Serious advice, random opinion and funny comments are welcome.

 

[gone]

Oxidation will not benefit etched plates. Much better to print them. Photogravure is an art onto itself, and not like photography. More like etching or other fine art printing. I commend you for your interest, but bear in mind that there is a serious learning curve and no little expense to get good images this way.

I see no reason to start w/ 4x5 if you wish to print 8x10. Everything is exactly the same, except materials cost more. 4x5 is certainly more portable though. For a lot less money than 8x10 you can get a good 6x6 camera and an enlarger, and make prints that look as good as those taken w/ a 4x5, even up to large sizes. You just won't be doing contact printing. If you want really large prints and teeny tiny grain, 4x5 enlarged to huge sizes is "better", but the enlargers are very big and heavy. The right film, and good exposure and development, are the main things that will get you a super nice 6x6 enlargement. I never understood 4x5, even when I shot it. The difference in images compared to a good 6x6 shot just wasn't that large, if at all. You can get strange images using the limited DOF of 4x5, but that never appealed to me.

You might want to explore other alternative printing methods before starting off w/ this process. The video below shows what you're looking at. It can be done w/ a few less steps, but no matter, it is a ton of work and requires a lot of equipment and experience. I'm very interested in this process myself, and have an etching background, but it would require a full art studio, a lot of equipment, and really good venting due to the toxicity of the chemicals. Not much else will give you the tones and deep blacks of this process though. For now, I'm content to make large charcoal sketches, which also give similar tones and blacks. But it's not the same as printing, nor is the look. Mezzotint is what will give you the ultimate deep blacks and almost infinite shades of tone, but you would not believe what is entailed in producing a mezzo print. I know artists that have worked on one large plate for a year or more, never mind inking it and actually printing it, which is an art unto itself. You also have to visualize and work backwards, as you're working from dark to light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qla6kCBUUs

http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/photogravure/copper-photogravure

 

[Alan Gales]

The Linhof Color 4x5's are said to have been very well made (it's a Linhof), cheap on the used market, light weight and have quite a bit of movements.

The downside is that they are old and you can't get parts for them any longer. If you get one make sure the bellows are light tight. I don't know how hard or expensive it would be to replace the bellows.

Just remember that nice newer light weight used Shen Hao wooden field cameras show up on Ebay for $700 to $750 U.S dollars.

 

[tony lockerbie]

Having used a Color for quite a while,and I now have a Technika V, plus an Ebony wooden camera. The Technika Color is a very nice thing, but not much good if you are carrying it about (quite heavy, and doesn't fold up) Very good indoors or studio work though,and they are certainly a lot cheaper than the Technikas.
I still use the Technika a lot, although it is still very heavy and I'm getting old and feeble....hence the Ebony!
Kind of depends what you are using it for, and if you are out and about then one of the wooden field cameras may be your best option.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sure, why not? Linhofs are well built and well designed. If it is in your budget, go for it.

 

[Roger Cole]

Oxidation will not benefit etched plates. Much better to print them. Photogravure is an art onto itself, and not like photography. More like etching or other fine art printing. I commend you for your interest, but bear in mind that there is a serious learning curve and no little expense to get good images this way.

I see no reason to start w/ 4x5 if you wish to print 8x10. Everything is exactly the same, except materials cost more. 4x5 is certainly more portable though. For a lot less money than 8x10 you can get a good 6x6 camera and an enlarger, and make prints that look as good as those taken w/ a 4x5, even up to large sizes. You just won't be doing contact printing. If you want really large prints and teeny tiny grain, 4x5 enlarged to huge sizes is "better", but the enlargers are very big and heavy. The right film, and good exposure and development, are the main things that will get you a super nice 6x6 enlargement. I never understood 4x5, even when I shot it. The difference in images compared to a good 6x6 shot just wasn't that large, if at all. You can get strange images using the limited DOF of 4x5, but that never appealed to me.

I don't know anything about photo gravure so I cut out that section but I have to disagree with the rest of this about 4x5.

4x5 enlargers are certainly not "very big and heavy." They are not (or need not be, the most popular ones are not) THAT much bigger and heavier than a good medium format enlarger, and are commonly available often at give away prices. I have two, one for parts. I brought the first one home from 100 miles away back in the 90s in the back seat of my compact car, and the second one in 2012 or thereabouts from a fellow APUGer in Atlanta in another compact car. And honestly it's so stable and just generally pleasant to use my D2V that I'd prefer it for medium format or even 35mm anyway. 6x6 will lose out to 4x5 in quality easily at 16x20 and with faster films at 11x14. For one thing, if you crop to those popular sizes your 6x6 becomes a 6x4.5. I have and use all three - 6x4.5, 6x6, and 4x5 and, for that matter, a 6x7 back for my 4x5 which I use mainly for affordable color shooting on the view camera. IF you use the smaller camera LIKE a large format camera - stopped down to best aperture, on a tripod, then you can indeed make some really excellent 16x20s - but a side by side comparison between 645 and 4x5 will clearly show a very noticeable edge for 4x5. (Much less true of 6x7 versus 4x5.) A view camera also gives the advantage of being able to use movements and having become used to that I miss having a bit of tilt every time I shoot a landscape on any camera without movements, and often miss having front rise any time I have to tilt a non-movement camera upward.

Plus the view camera forces you to slow down and think, the ground glass image is a thing of beauty on its own, I think the inverted image actually aids some composition, and it's just plain fun to use, for some of us anyway.

The biggest drawback to 4x5 for me is the never ending battle with dust on the film.

Don't get me wrong, I've often said I've been tempted to get an RZ67 outfit and relegate the 4x5 to rare use (but I can put together a good three lens 4x5 kit that is, ironically, much smaller and lighter than a comparable one for an RZ67 would be.) Medium format IS very good. But 6x6 printed to the same proportions as 4x5 is effectively 6x4.5. That's good too - I have and use and like a Mamiya 645 Pro system - but the difference in large prints is significant.

 

[Ian Grant]

Having used a Color for quite a while,and I now have a Technika V, plus an Ebony wooden camera. The Technika Color is a very nice thing, but not much good if you are carrying it about (quite heavy, and doesn't fold up) Very good indoors or studio work though,and they are certainly a lot cheaper than the Technikas.
I still use the Technika a lot, although it is still very heavy and I'm getting old and feeble....hence the Ebony!
Kind of depends what you are using it for, and if you are out and about then one of the wooden field cameras may be your best option.

I agree with Tony, I've had and used 2 monorail cameras and they aren't very practical outside a studio, You need to have a good think about the practicalities.

Ian

 

[Sean Mac]

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Momus, your warning about difficulty and expense seems very reasonable. As you are interested in photogravure your input is very welcome. I have considered bypassing 4x5 and going straight to 8x10.

I have a good 6x6 camera already and don't envisage printing any bigger than 8x10.

Thanks Alan, Tony and Ian. Your opinions and advise are exactly what I hoped for when I asked this question. Portability is not a concern. I mostly travel by volkswagen and am not thinking about bringing a LF camera up any mountains. Portraits are my main interest. Suburban gardens are as far as I intend going.

Roger, I have read about the dust problem. Hopefully it will be manageable. Your point about camera movements and the appeal of the process is what has me thinking about this.

Sirius, I am as guilt free about my toys as you seem to be.

I am still thinking about all this, thanks again for for taking the time to share...

 

[mgb74]

I have seen monorails used effectively in the field but in limited conditions. In one case, it was a Calumet (so a fairly light 4x5) with a short rail. But it was kept in a case in a trunk with lens mounted, a quick release plate on and used within a few yards of the vehicle. The advantage was no unfolding and folding of a field camera. So if you're content with working out of your vehicle it might be an option. They certainly are cheap these days.

 

[btaylor]

I love my Linhof Color. It is an odd and useful mix of monorail and Technika. It is lightweight and packs up pretty small (for a monorail). The quality of materials and precision is much greater than most. They are also very inexpensive and natively take Technika style lens boards.

 

[Alan Gales]

The Linhof Color would work great for portraiture. With 16 1/2 inches of bellows draw you have plenty of room for head or head and shoulder shots with a longer lens. At 4 pounds 6 ounces you are light as a field camera.

Here is a PDF on the camera. If you find it useful then please mail M Butkus $2.
http://www.cameramanuals.org/prof_pdf/linhof_color.pdf

 

[Sean Mac]

Hi mgb74, that's pretty much how I see this working for me. (petrolhead OT: Do you run one of those?)

btaylor, it's good to get another vote in favour from an owner

Alan, the extension is why I am looking at it. I am thinking Commercial Ektar...

Thanks to you guys for taking time to reply

 

[Roger Cole]

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Momus, your warning about difficulty and expense seems very reasonable. As you are interested in photogravure your input is very welcome. I have considered bypassing 4x5 and going straight to 8x10.

I have a good 6x6 camera already and don't envisage printing any bigger than 8x10.

Thanks Alan, Tony and Ian. Your opinions and advise are exactly what I hoped for when I asked this question. Portability is not a concern. I mostly travel by volkswagen and am not thinking about bringing a LF camera up any mountains. Portraits are my main interest. Suburban gardens are as far as I intend going.

Roger, I have read about the dust problem. Hopefully it will be manageable. Your point about camera movements and the appeal of the process is what has me thinking about this.

Sirius, I am as guilt free about my toys as you seem to be.

I am still thinking about all this, thanks again for for taking the time to share...

Well if I were only making conventional prints, either optical or...coughcough, some other common way, and no larger than 8x10, I would definitely forgo large format unless I just wanted to try out working with a view camera, or really wanted to make those gorgeous 8x10 contact prints. Yes they are awesome, but I'm still not convinced that I could tell an 8x10 contact from an 8x10 enlargement made from 4x5, or even good 6x7. Maybe I could, but I'm far from sure of it. But "no larger than 8x10" does change the quality thing enormously. 645 gives me 8x10s as good as I could want and I seriously think I could not tell a good 8x10 enlarged from one of my good 645 negatives from one enlarged from a 4x5 (unless something like an obviously tilted focal plane indicated movements had been used.)

If one just wanted to play with movements there is always the extremely capable Fuji GX680 series that has been discussed on here before. Great camera with full front movements, but something of a beast.

You can also always use a roll film back on a larger format camera and mostly eliminate the dust problem, but aside from movements you're better off just using a medium format camera. And even using movements, the part of the ground glass that frames the smaller medium format image area is quite a bit smaller and makes them more fiddly to use. There are also medium format view cameras that save some size but still have the "small ground glass" thing.

 

[Sean Mac]

Hi Roger,

there is obviously an elephant in the room we are not talking about....

The "make the negative in the camera" and contact print it idea has a strong influence on my thinking.

Even if I find it more practical to do what you have been careful to not talk about I like the idea of possessing the capability to do it the traditional way.

As I learn I also teach... So there are many nieces and nephews who will grow up with a good understanding of the process that produced those great images of them when they were small.

I have plenty of expensive 35mm stuff I never use so this whole project could be close to break even.

Thanks for your thoughts

 

[btaylor]

Roger makes good points about 8x10 prints looking great from medium format negs. 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 really is overkill- in a way. In my experience there is a great deal more to working in LF than just a bigger negative. The way you work changes, it has to- given the time consuming nature of the larger, more manual, cameras. This difference changes the photographs (for me). If that's what you want, then work in sheet film. Personally, I like it.

I was taking a portrait class last year, the instructor asked how many exposures the students made. They ranged from 20 or so if they were shooting film to hundreds if they were shooting digital. I was shooting 8x10, I made 4 exposures- that made the work I did look different, and it wasn't because of resolution.

Take a look at the portrait threads over at Large Format Forum and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Alan Gales]

Sean, of the lenses I own, the Commercial Ektar is my favorite. Yousuf Karsh was well known for using one. I love his portraits.

 

[Alan Gales]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?126273-November-2015-Portraits

btaylor is right. Plus you have the choice of all those great lenses: Ektars, Dagors, Heliars, Cookes, Kodak Portraits, Wollensak Veritos etc., etc., etc.

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger makes good points about 8x10 prints looking great from medium format negs. 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 really is overkill- in a way. In my experience there is a great deal more to working in LF than just a bigger negative. The way you work changes, it has to- given the time consuming nature of the larger, more manual, cameras. This difference changes the photographs (for me). If that's what you want, then work in sheet film. Personally, I like it.

I was taking a portrait class last year, the instructor asked how many exposures the students made. They ranged from 20 or so if they were shooting film to hundreds if they were shooting digital. I was shooting 8x10, I made 4 exposures- that made the work I did look different, and it wasn't because of resolution.

Take a look at the portrait threads over at Large Format Forum and you'll see what I mean.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?126273-November-2015-Portraits

btaylor is right. Plus you have the choice of all those great lenses: Ektars, Dagors, Heliars, Cookes, Kodak Portraits, Wollensak Veritos etc., etc., etc.

I totally agree - if you have any interest in large format join the LFPF and read at least, ask if you like. There are some great and very talented folks over there. Also if you check out the "tiny formats" image sharing threads I think you'll find that people who work in large format often bring a different vision when they go back to smaller ones.

I enjoy working with the view camera too. But if I could only keep one of my cameras/systems (Pentax LX/MX/K1000 35mm, M645 Pro 645, Yachicamat 124 6x6 TLR and Technika III 4x5 - oh and a Travelewide now) it would be the M645, even though it's actually the one I use least. I use it lease because I have the others. Fast shooting and low light fast lenses it's 35mm (though getting an 80 1.9 for the M645 and the availability of Delta 3200 in 120 might change that a bit, still a 50mm f/1.4 is 35mm is a stop faster and very affordable now) and also 35mm for slides for projection. For walking around very casually, more interested in the walk than the photography but a camera in case I see something, it's more often the Yaschiamat. If I plan bigger prints, know I'll be shooting landscapes, or just want a contemplative few hours of slow working, or where slow is ok for those other purposes, the 4x5. But the 645 can to a certain extent double for any of them. (It's more like having a brick around your neck than the little Yashicamat, though.) It wouldn't "double for" the 4x5 as far as movements or compete in print sizes larger than 11x14 but up to 11x14, with medium speed film, it's still superb and really good at 16x20.

 

[Sean Mac]

I love these http://www.largeformatphotography.i...?35097-A-new-line-of-Chinese-pictorial-lenses!

I have spent a lot of time reading the LFPF and there are some wonderful artists at work in the world we share..

Alan, his portrait of Ingrid Bergman is the reason I mention the Commercial Ektar.

Btaylor, I had a freshly fed baby in his grandmothers arms to make pictures of this morning. I just kept shooting till the roll of HP5+ ran out...