My first LF camera. Excited! Can use some advice.

[Donald Qualls]

One of the beauties of large format is that a film that might be grainier than you want for typical large format subjects will be fine with the big film (because you enlarge much less than you would from even medium format, never mind 35 mm).

However, you may find you want long exposures (to smooth moving water, for instance) and won't be able to get there strictly by stopping down -- or you may not, everyone has their own preferences. You can always get another box of film in a slower speed, if you find yourself running out of aperture before you get the shutter slow enough. There are a good number of choices in 4x5, running down as slow as EI 20, maybe slower than that.

Surely, faster film is nice in my Speed Graphic, because I often hand hold it and faster shutter is good. For my Graphic View II, on the other hand, I'll be more prone to load up with ISO 100 or slower...

 

[MattKing]

I just received my first batch of film holders and TADA! I learned that each holder is good for two shots, not one. Suddenly I have twice as many.

This may be why our friends across the pond call them DDS or Double Dark Slide.

 

[madNbad]

Some people will rig up some way to hang their camera bag or some other kind of bag from the tripod and add weight, even picking up stones around them to put in a bag for the purpose, to add some stability.

Like this?

 

[Roger Cole]

Like this?

That would certainly be one way.

 

[Roger Cole]

I wonder why others always seem to be shooting in much brighter light than I do. I haven't bothered with slower than 400 (though I shoot it all a bit slower) in 4x5. But I rarely if ever actually shoot in bright sun, and I usually want a smaller stop for depth of field not a bigger one for subject isolation for shallower depth etc. I still often end up with 1/15 - 1s exposures it seems. (I also never shoot B&W without at least some filtering, so add filter factor too.) Bottom line is of course, depends on your style. HP5+ is a great choice, and what I will shoot when I get back into 4x5 soon as I can. Last time I was shooting 4x5 some ten years ago I shot TMY as my standard but as far as I'm concerned Kodak has priced themselves right out of the sheet film market and I always liked Ilford anyway. (I am also tending to Ilford now in 120, less from the much smaller than with sheet film price difference than a "dance with the one that brung ya" as we say down here desire to support those I see as supporting me.)

And yes as Donald said the grain will be perfectly ok for most people and applications. Even a 16x20 from 4x5, assuming full frame, is only a 4x enlargement, equal to only a 4x5.66" print from 35mm.

 

[tykos]

Of course, some folks use a tape strip to make a note of the contents, and some film holders have a white stripe that will take a grease pencil (or regular pencil) mark that can be rubbed off when the film is processed and the holder reloaded. Notch codes aren't what they used to be anyway; Foma 100 and 400, for instance, have the same code, just three V shaped notches.

don't know about 400, but 100 has a half circle notch

 

[MTGseattle]

Yes. get some film thought the camera with the gear you have. As far as wind (vibration)mitigation, people have mentioned the usual suspects already. Keep a small empty stuff sack in your kit bag. If you're shooting at a beach, sand/pebbles can be your ballast. I'd bet it's the 8x10 shooters that have the really good systems for staking and bracing tripods. I've seen people carry an umbrella to "shield" the camera from the wind as well. That method seems like a juggling act imo.

 

[Steven Lee]

Well... The camera and everything else has arrived! On my first run I have loaded and exposed 4 sheets. Here's my report:

• The dance of opening/closing lens, setting exposure and aperture, cocking and firing shutter and dealing with the dark slide felt absolutely natural. Not too different from my Hasselblad landscape routine. The movements are amazing, I used the rear swing to line up verticals in one shot which was great. But...
• Focusing with a f/9 lens is a challenge. Composing was even harder since the image was barely visible on the ground glass. I do not have a dark cloth yet, I was using a t-shirt which let way too much light in.
• The first film holder got exposed twice. Both sheets have double exposure on them, because I accidentally grabbed the same holder twice out of a bag and did not pay attention to color coding.
• The second holder wasn't loaded properly on one side: the dark slide wouldn't get back in.
• Bottom line: only 1 sheet out of 4 got exposed properly.

That was fun!

Side comment: the amount of emulsion touching with bare hands when loading/unloading holders is nerve-racking. Even getting HP5+ sheets out of a plastic bag wasn't possible without touching their surface. I washed my hands with soap prior to loading, keeping finger crossed.

 

[SteveInNZ]

Love it ! I think I can also check all of those off my list of learning experiences.
Those folks taking snaps with their phone don't know what they're missing.

Steve.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Side comment: the amount of emulsion touching with bare hands when loading/unloading holders is nerve-racking. Even getting HP5+ sheets out of a plastic bag wasn't possible without touching their surface. I washed my hands with soap prior to loading, keeping finger crossed.

This could be of help: photo handling cotton gloves.

 

[Roger Cole]

If your hands are clean and dry just don't worry about it. It won't hurt anything. I had the same misgivings but as long as your hands are both clean and dry and you don't so something like flatten your thumb onto the emulsion or anything it'll be fine. I've not shot as much LF as some folks by far but easily several hundred sheets and I've not once had an issue arise from handling the dry film with my hands.

 

[GLS]

Side comment: the amount of emulsion touching with bare hands when loading/unloading holders is nerve-racking. Even getting HP5+ sheets out of a plastic bag wasn't possible without touching their surface. I washed my hands with soap prior to loading, keeping finger crossed.

You can wear disposable nitrile gloves when handling the film.

 

[grat]

You can wear disposable nitrile gloves when handling the film.

Also works well for preventing sweat. Make sure they're powder free, though.

 

[Sean Mac]

All of my film holders are numbered and have red paint on the even numbered side.

I still make mistakes, but I'm getting better as it's annoying to waste the time/energy/chemistry on my incompetence.

"Do I know which film holder ?"

"Have I stopped down ?"

A good negative is such a beautiful thing.

Good luck and good light.....

 

[Steven Lee]

Well. I developed and scanned the negatives today. And here it is. My first 4x5 exposure:

It has everything:

• Incomplete development at the top due to insufficient amount of developer in a JOBO tank
• Scratches left by my repeated attempts at getting the sheet in and out of the holder
• Black dust specks! My first. A new and exiting side of dust to be introduced to!
• Fondest memories of inhaling my own t-shirt while trying to focus under it
• Surprisingly, complete absence of my fingerprints!

Couldn't be happier!

The only slightly disappointing thing is that the resolution jump is quite modest vs 6x7 or 6x6. In terms of lp/mm my Hasselblad glass outperforms this Sironar-S.

 

[Roger Cole]

It may not be the lens. The problem with resolution and sheet film, or a problem anyway, is that regular sheet film holders don't hold the film nearly as flat as the pressure plate in a roll film or 35mm camera does. There are (or were, don't know if anyone still makes one and if they do they will be $$$$ but maybe used) vacuum backs to deal with this but for the vast majority of uses they fit into the "far more trouble than they're worth" category. You get several real advantages with sheet film, along with some disadvantages: 1) much less grain from smaller enlargement factor for the same sized print, 2) the ability to process each sheet to different development times which makes precise Zone System work if so inclined, 3) some people think the tonality is improved. Others argue that's not the case. It certainly SEEMS to me to be the case, and 4) it's much easier to use camera movements and see what you're actually doing on the ground glass with the larger image to work with. There are 2x3 view cameras that can be used either with 2.25x3.25 sheet film holders or roll film backs (why anyone would bother with special order or at least hard to find small sheets is beyond me when they could use roll film, but you CAN... I guess you get that per-sheet development customization though, at least) but it just becomes "fiddly" and much harder to see the effects. I can clearly see this advantage when shooting 4x5 sheets versus just trying to compose in the area covered by my 6x7 roll film holder.

Another oft overlooked advantage of field cameras is - they're much lighter and more portable than many medium format cameras! I really like my RZ 67 Pro II and like using it where portability is not an issue, but it along with a couple of lenses much less three if I take all I own, plus a couple of film backs, makes a much larger and heavier pack than my 4x5 with three small lenses and both some sheet film holders and a roll film back. Plus I get camera movements.

What you mostly don't get, as you see, is a huge increase in resolution. It's available if you want to really work for it, meaning the finest lenses you can afford AND the flatest you can get the film. But I decided good enough is good enough - I can't print larger than 16x20 and even if I could do it 20x24 is the largest paper comes in sheets and I don't want to bother cutting up rolls. At 16x20 I have plenty enough resolution and the other gains.

The only one of your listed defects I saw right away was the uneven development. I had to look hard to find a scratch (I only found one and I was expecting it to be lateral, but if what I'm seeing is a scratch it's vertical on this image) and even harder to find black dust.

I admit I've just gone ahead and mounted, framed, and displayed prints that had small black dust specs that were in areas no one except me, or another photographer trying to be very picky and stick their nose on it looking for them, would ever notice. No one ever has. Maybe that's lazy of me, but heck, it's a hobby for me.

 

[MattKing]

Well. I developed and scanned the negatives today. And here it is. My first 4x5 exposure:

I like it - you used a large camera, to take a photo of a "Giant Camera" .

 

[Steven Lee]

Hehe true. @Roger Cole the resolution is no biggie, I get enough. I blame unrealistic expectations.
The next steps will be:

• Dark cloth! T-shirt does not work at all
• Practice loading/unloading film holders
• Figure out a way to completely fill the 2050 JOBO tank with 1L. Need to place a space filler in there somehow
• Definitely need to find a lens longer than 135mm

 

[Chuck1]

You're going to want a 90
Then a 75
And a 65
And a 58
And a 47
Then a 210
And a 240
And a 300
And a 360
And of course backup shutters

 

[GLS]

It may not be the lens. The problem with resolution and sheet film, or a problem anyway, is that regular sheet film holders don't hold the film nearly as flat as the pressure plate in a roll film or 35mm camera does.

Also the position of the ground glass may need re-calibrating.

 

[GKC]

I'll suggest vanquishing the dust in your film holders either with compressed air(good) or a vacuum(better) and storing them in zip lock plastic bags.

 

[btaylor]

Also the position of the ground glass may need re-calibrating.

This is a common problem- someone gets a view camera and they are disappointed with sharpness/resolution. In other words the film plane and ground glass frosted surface plane are not the same, leading to not quite in focus images.

 

[Steven Lee]

This is a common problem- someone gets a view camera and they are disappointed with sharpness/resolution. In other words the film plane and ground glass frosted surface plane are not the same, leading to not quite in focus images.

Wouldn't this affect the focus accuracy as opposed to resolution? In a 3-dimensional scene like above the misalignment of the screen simply moves the focus point around, but there must be a fragment showing what the lens is capable of.

In terms of lenses, I am thinking 90mm, 135mm, 180mm and 250mm. I have an "artist viewfinder" app on my phone which allows me to frame with different focal lengths for any format. For 35mm and MF my preference is similar: slightly wider than normal, slightly long normal, plus one honest wide and a portrait lens.

 

[grat]

I would be frankly astonished if a Chamonix showed up out of calibration.

210mm f/5.6 lenses are fairly common, although that's about 70mm in 35mm terms. The nice thing about the 45F-2, is it will take pretty long lenses, since true telephotos require less bellows draw than their focal length would suggest, so you have quite a few options.

 

[MattKing]

How are you determining the resolution numbers?