My first shots

[LMNOP]

Alright, folks.

If you've been following my saga, you might enjoy these test shots. If not, I apologize for the clutter, I'm working towards LF right now, this is a learning process.

Below are the first two shots from my recently acquired Calumet CC401 with Ilford Delta 100 4x5 film. I shot 4 total, I had them processed and these two scanned by my local guy, and I paid way too much. I REALLY need to get my hands on the chemicals and the right container for "taco method" developing so I can process these myself. I will still send him color, he has a decent rate for that, but I need to upgrade my scanner so I can do these myself (I know thats an unpopular topic, but hey, it works for me)
I was impressed with the light-tightness of the camera and two holders I used. The lens performed better than I expected, but the portrait shot does have a bit of a haze to it, maybe there is some speculation as to why. Regardless, I am mailing the lens out for CLA - I should have today but didn't have time. Anyway, let me know what you think!

-Patrick

 

[bdial]

The second one looks like it might be a little under exposed, and a little low in contrast which probably accounts for a lot of the veiled look. Also, if you were shooting wide open, the lens may not be at its best.

But, a great first effort, congratulations!

 

[Sirius Glass]

i agree with bdial. Great start! Keep going.

 

[palewin]

You've got images, they're in focus, so you are off to a good start. IIRC your portrait (second shot) was a long exposure, so you might have under-exposure due to reciprocity. That's just a guess as to why it looks hazy, since the lens didn't exhibit haziness in the pool shot.

 

[LMNOP]

You've got images, they're in focus, so you are off to a good start. IIRC your portrait (second shot) was a long exposure, so you might have under-exposure due to reciprocity. That's just a guess as to why it looks hazy, since the lens didn't exhibit haziness in the pool shot.

Nice call back, that was roughly 2 seconds at f22. Since the shutter isn't giving me reliable slow speeds I trusted myself and stopwatch on bulb a bit more. The shot is a bit underexposed. I wish I had the means to scan the other two, but they're all screaming test shot. I am impressed with the results, especially being so new to this camera. It pays to have read up so much the past few months. My local library was able to get me that Simmons book on library borrow.

 

[MattKing]

If you have a digital camera that focuses close, tape the negative to a window and take a picture of it.

A blank white computer monitor screen can also work as a back light source.

 

[LMNOP]

If you have a digital camera that focuses close, tape the negative to a window and take a picture of it.

A blank white computer monitor screen can also work as a back light source.

Ill borrow a friend's digital and give that a shot. I've also been thinking about scanning two strips and stitching from my medium format scanner.

 

[shutterfinger]

Those low light shots are tough to get right. Get a good focusing loupe. At http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?&ci=987&N=4220238498+4114862962 the Wista 5X focusing loupe, the Peak 8x stand loupe, and on page 2 the Peak Stand Loupe 4X with Neck String. High magnification non focusable loupes in the $10 to $25 range may add distortion and enhance the grain of the ground glass.

 

[palewin]

Until now I've agreed 100% with Shutterfinger, but I've shot LF for over 40 years without using a loupe. I'm sure that one is a useful accessory, but at this point I would spend the money on film, not a "nice to have" accessory. (If money is not an object, then certainly buy a loupe and make your own judgment.) Another alternative if you feel you need magnification of the image on the ground glass (again, I don't feel its necessary) is a pair of inexpensive reading glasses such as those sold in many drugstores.

if you can't borrow a digital camera to post your first images, a smartphone is adequate. But you need some sort of software to invert the image.

 

[gone]

Actually, you nailed the focus on the interior shot. Good job, that's tough in low light on a GG. As mentioned, its a little underexposed, that's the issue. And 2 seconds is a bit too long for me to expect someone to stay still. I like no slower than 1/15 and 1/30 is better. You can buy yourself an inexpensive shutter tester on the auction site, Those things have saved me hundreds of dollars in film. It doesn't matter what speed the speeds are actually running, you just need to know what the speed is so you can make the necessary adjustments when you expose the shot.

I used a Canon FD 50 1.8 lens for a loupe for years and it worked great.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Those low light shots are tough to get right. Get a good focusing loupe. At http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?&ci=987&N=4220238498+4114862962 the Wista 5X focusing loupe, the Peak 8x stand loupe, and on page 2 the Peak Stand Loupe 4X with Neck String. High magnification non focusable loupes in the $10 to $25 range may add distortion and enhance the grain of the ground glass.

While it is possible to focus without a loupe, depending of course how good or bad your eyesight is, a loupe certainly can make difference in some situations.

I myself currently use, and have used for many years, the Peak Stand Loupe 4X with its square base, which allows you to get into the corners and slide along the straight edge of a GG screen. After using many different powered loupes in general photography, as well as in graphic arts, I settled on a 4 X loupe as the best compromise for their ability to work over many things and without getting too close. 8X, 12X are quite good, but 4X and 5X have almost always been the ones most people seem to find satisfactory on a view camera screen.

One certain advantage of using a loupe is in direct sunshine. It may be that you are working quick, maybe don't have enough time to find something to place over your head to shroud yourself, or even as I have done, left my focusing hood behind.

I also find that if I'm taking two sheets of the one subject, I use the focusing hood to frame, then use a loupe to get critically sharp exactly where I wish to have absolute sharp focus. Then I will place a film holder in and take a shot. For the next exposure, I always double check the focus in the exact place I need it to be correct. Sometimes, more than I care to remember, focus has shifted a poofteenth with my handling of the camera back and sliding the film holder in and out. Look carefully as you change film holders, it is really easy to move the camera ever so slightly.

A quick check with a loupe will confirm absolute focus.

I did this yesterday in fact, I have a new to me 65mm lens, I shot one sheet at f22 1/30 then the other sheet wide open at f5.6 1/500. I had specifically set the shot up to check critical focus and depth of acceptable focus, as well as see if the shutter to f/stop ratio was correct. Despite my extreme care, the ever so slight movement did change the very close to the camera focusing point I had selected. A slight focus adjustment and the second sheet was in the bag.

As you gain experience and possibly wish to explore the possibilities of a camera that can give you very good perspective control, checking right into the corners of your GG to see if something is or isn't in acceptable or correct focus, is a hell of a lot easier with a loupe. One of my family members just takes her glasses off and can see if the focus is correct or not if she has her eyes about 120mm away from the GG, but she is almost legally blind without her glasses; there are trade offs in life.

Your camera has a bail back, that makes life a lot easier, but as sheet film shooting is not cheap, ensuring critical to you focus, would be to me, a way to operate frugally.

I like your exposures, especially the interior one, reasonably difficult to do. It is also possible that if you have the lens wide open, or almost wide open, there may be a bit of lens flare as it is pointed pretty much to the light.

That lens will be a cracker when you get it back, of that I'm quite sure. All you have to do is understand what you can get away with, and what you can't.

Mick.

 

[LMNOP]

I like your exposures, especially the interior one, reasonably difficult to do. It is also possible that if you have the lens wide open, or almost wide open, there may be a bit of lens flare as it is pointed pretty much to the light.

That lens will be a cracker when you get it back, of that I'm quite sure. All you have to do is understand what you can get away with, and what you can't.

Mick.

Thank you! I spend a lot of time with exposures like this, multi-second exposures on my medium format rigs. What do you mean "cracker" when I get the lens back?

 

[LMNOP]

Actually, you nailed the focus on the interior shot. Good job, that's tough in low light on a GG. As mentioned, its a little underexposed, that's the issue. And 2 seconds is a bit too long for me to expect someone to stay still. I like no slower than 1/15 and 1/30 is better. You can buy yourself an inexpensive shutter tester on the auction site, Those things have saved me hundreds of dollars in film. It doesn't matter what speed the speeds are actually running, you just need to know what the speed is so you can make the necessary adjustments when you expose the shot.

I used a Canon FD 50 1.8 lens for a loupe for years and it worked great.

Thank you! I have several FD 50mm kicking around, so I'll give that a shot!

Multiple second exposures are a risk, and I have to do some coaching with the subject, explaining the two sounds they'll hear and when to be still. With my RZ - you get the mirror slap, THEN the shutter click from the lens, which is fired separately. I always explain this in detail to any subject so that they get a warning.

Last week, I shot this portrait, same subject, RZ67 with TMax - it was a 1 second exposure I believe.

 

[LMNOP]

While I await the lens CLA I am looking into replacement glass for the CC401. The piece that it came with is sort of matte, in a bad way, and oddly cut with marker lines that are somewhat uneven. I need a gridded piece of clean glass, that would be a solid upgrade. Any tips on locating that? eBay has some for about $30.

 

[M Carter]

Couple thoughts -

Loupes: I always stuck a cheap plastic 8x in my location bags, for 35mm and medium polaroids, and 4x5 ground glass focusing. You don't need to spend hundreds on a Schneider - I found the cheap plastic giveaway loupes we used to get as promos and stuff are great for assisting focus. Stick it in one of those faux-leather lens bags or something and you're good.

Even better for focusing is a 300 watt or up light - I used a rectangular 750 watt Mole Richardson with barn doors/etc, but anything that kicks up the light for focusing (switch it off when shooting) is a big help. More of a studio tool, but I often took one on 4x5 location shoots.

Processing - I've never done the "taco" method, but for 4x5, why not just get a rectangular 6-sheet or whatever plastic tank? I used to do 4x5 E6 in one and it was really nice… they're really pretty cheap, too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I tried tray processing and several daylight tanks for processing 4'"x5" sheet film and I was not satisfied with the results. On Per Volquartz's recommendation I bought a Job 310 Expert Drum and use it on my Jobo CPP2+ processor. I get consistently great results and have never had a problem with streaking, unevenness or scratches. Yes they are not cheap but when one amortizes the cost per sheet the drum pays for itself quickly.

 

[shutterfinger]

A tip that may make focusing easier. Look at your ground glass with the back in landscape position. There are simple spring clips that hold the ground glass in place, one on each side. Remove the spring clips and the ground glass.
Wet the ground glass one side at a time then apply one or two drops of dish detergent to one side then spread out and rub gently with your fingertips only, repeat on the other side. Rinse thoroughly then rinse in distilled water or a weak PhotoFlo solution. Handle the gg by the edges only. Stand on edge and allow to air dry or dry with a lint free towel. Reinstall the gg into the camera with the ground side facing the lens. Adverage increase in brightness for 10+ year old cameras is 1 to 2 stops even if the gg had been cleaned in camera with glass cleaner.

 

[Mick Fagan]

What do you mean "cracker" when I get the lens back?

As you use an RZ, you already know what cracking good lens or lenses they have. Mamiya lenses are in many ways the equal or better than Hasselblad lenses. I worked in a commercial studio/lab complex with usually 28 photographers on the day shift and half that many on the evening shift. We had 14-16 RZ kits for each photographer, about 10 Hasselblad kits and something like 4 Rollei kits in medium format. Our E6 dip and dunk machine would be spitting out 4 rolls of 120 film every 3'30" from about 1030hr to 1100hr, or earlier if the bath was spot on. After a late lunch we would usually run a control strip through the bath again, then the afternoon session was on if everything was hunky dory.

We had a team of people pulling the films out and placing them on a vertical light box for instant appraisal, then sleeving before they went to a colour corrected light box for serious evaluation. Although there was a difference between frame sizes, 6x6 compared to 6x7, you really didn't look at the frame size as you didn't have time, you just looked at the snappier and seemingly more colourful trannies from any of the RZ cameras to know they went to one of the Mamiya studios.

The lens you have with your 4x5 camera is also a cracker of a lens, in other words, really good. It has high contrast, probably exceptional sharpness and as a bonus, great coverage allowing you to use most if not all of the possible movements of the camera it came with. The only thing it may lack, is a multiple coating to control light flare and other like stuff.

I do think you have done very well with your purchase, as for the price you paid for what you have received, only time will tell, but I don't think you will regret picking that unit up.

Mick.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Well, honestly with my opinion, both shots are good, they lack contrast or sharpness, but nothing that Photoshop or digital workflow apps can't do, i saw worse shots than those and they were fixed beautifully, but i know digital things is not the topic here, so don't worry, you should be happy and proud of your first shots, they are not bad at all and they can be fixed even with wet print, but just keep shooting and you will get there for proper exposure no doubt.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, honestly with my opinion, both shots are good, they lack contrast or sharpness, but nothing that Photoshop or digital workflow apps can't do, i saw worse shots than those and they were fixed beautifully, but i know digital things is not the topic here, so don't worry, you should be happy and proud of your first shots, they are not bad at all and they can be fixed even with wet print, but just keep shooting and you will get there for proper exposure no doubt.

Not true. You cannot stink-jet toning no matter how much you paid for Photo$hop.