Options for making negatives large enough for alt processes

Canham. Pretty hard to beat.

logan2z said:

Honestly, I haven't heard great things about the Intrepid cameras, other than their price. I'll probably opt for something else.

Click to expand...

People love to complain about Intrepid cameras. Why? Because they're not built to the same standards as cameras costing 10X as much. People sometimes buy an Intrepid and expect it to be made like a Chamonix or other far more costly cameras. Well guess what? They're not. Not the same materials, some parts are 3D printed out of plastics, there can be rough edges on the plywood, etc. Does that make it a crappy camera to work with? Far from it.
I own the early version of the Intrepid 4x5 and it's still going strong, perfectly usable. I have owned two versions of the 8x10 and the 5x7 from one iteration back. I use the 5x7 and 8x10 a lot. In fact, I have an 8x10 Deardorff to use if I want, but the fact is, I rarely choose the Deardorff simply because the Intrepid is far lighter and easier to work with than the Deardorff. I've used scores of cameras in my 66 years on Earth, and the advantages the Intrepid offers (for me) far outweigh any perceived flaws.

Don't let the complainers scare you away from the Intrepid. It's unreasonable to expect a $700 USD camera to match the engineering and materials quality of something many times its price. It's a perfectly serviceable camera. So ask yourself: are you buying a camera because it's pretty, and flawlessly engineered and people will ooh and ahh when they see you out with it, or do you want an excellent, reasonably priced camera that will allow you to do the work you want to do?

Well said @retina_restoration. A friend of mine has the MkII, and quite likes it. I watched him working with it, from set up, to take down, and I was impressed (I believe I have a video of it somewhere). Only one thing bothered me, and that was the magnets that hold the rotating back in place. If this camera had been around when I got into LF waaaaaay back in the early 90's, I would have bought one. Can't beat that light weight, either.

Dan - Ahhh, the Rubies. I was just thinking about them last week. But I've been hit by back to back annoying rhinoviruses this Fall, so haven't been anywhere yet.

I have my own take on view camera purchases. Budget constraints might dictate buying either an entry level camera or a well-used one. And prices are a little steep on even used gear nowadays, especially if tariffs are in play. But I'm glad I bought the best examples I could afford, and new, since that's equated to not only greater ease of use, but more long term reliability. And yes, hundreds of trips into the mountain in all kinds of weather can certainly test the reliability factor.

And next time you're up there between Favre and Liberty Lake, there's a couple of chipmunks that owe me for a bag of peanut M&M's they stole.

logan2z said:

I’ve been looking at the Chamonix cameras. I don’t think I could live with the limitations of the horizontal, however, because I do often shoot landscapes in portrait orientation. I do wish their 5x7 cameras weren’t so much more expensive than their 4x5 models.

Click to expand...

that's true of any 5x7 over 4x5....
They do make other 5x7 which work in both configurations.....or you could just adjust the tripod head.....

Color film is sure harder to find in 5x7. But in this case, he plans on using FP4, which happens to be one of the easiest films to secure in 5X7 size. It is a lovely proportion. And 5x7 cameras happen to be a lot lighter than 8x10's, and nearly as portable as similar 4x5's. It's easy to find suitable lenses. But 5X7 film holders still in pristine condition are getting harder to find.

I'd never consider a view camera without a reversible V - H back. Maybe some people can work that way - not me. Chamonix does make nice highly-portable cameras, however. And I think Keith Canham's 5x7 is the "sweet spot" in his own wooden camera lineup.

Andrew O'Neill said:

Canham. Pretty hard to beat.

Click to expand...

A friend of mine just bought a Canham 5x7. He drove out to Arizona from the SF Bay Area to pick up the camera and meet the maker. I'm hoping to get some time to check out the camera in the near future.

GregY said:

They do make other 5x7 which work in both configurations.....or you could just adjust the tripod head.....

Click to expand...

Right, I think I'd probably go for one of the models that supports both configurations.

logan2z said:

Right, I think I'd probably go for one of the models that supports both configurations.

Click to expand...

I bought it because i virtually always shoot landscape....& for the smaller overall size.
My Deardorff was from the '30s...I've always appreciated cameras built to last, that's my personal bias against the Intrepid.

I’d be happy to give you my spare Omega DII that can do 4x5. My wife would also support me in giving you darkroom gear that I’ll never use.

I have (once) projected a 35mm positive onto ortho 4x5 and then printed from that negative.

The idea of making two generations of reversal to end up with, say an 8x10 negative seems daunting.

Bill Burk said:

I’d be happy to give you my spare Omega DII that can do 4x5.

Click to expand...

That's very generous of you, but I'm completely out of space for darkroom gear I just gave away my third enlarger because it was sitting on the floor of my home office, unused for 5+ years - I had absolutely nowhere else to put it. If I buy a LF camera I'll probably stick to making contact prints from the negatives, and continue to make enlargements from 35mm and 120 using my existing enlargers.

Life is short so do what you feel is right. 5x7 makes a good print for sure. Used to be a good size was full plate but I don't know if you can get that film anymore.

A Canham is a fine camera.

Straight from the original negative is always best. Ain't rocket science.

You might want to also consider a 6x9 camera which would give you a decent size print while still being carry flexible. Back in the 90s I used to use an old Voigtlander Bessa II. Made some nice small prints with it.

Another option is to have someone make digital negs for you. That would get you the prints without the digital things you don't like. Frankly, having a printer and maintaining it is a real PITA. I only do it to make alt prints and the occasional color prints. If you can find someone that can make good negs then it is a win for you.

Patrick Robert James said:

Another option is to have someone make digital negs for you.

Click to expand...

I'm way too much of a control freak to do that

Patrick Robert James said:

Life is short so do what you feel is right. 5x7 makes a good print for sure. Used to be a good size was full plate but I don't know if you can get that film anymore.

A Canham is a fine camera.

Straight from the original negative is always best. Ain't rocket science.

You might want to also consider a 6x9 camera which would give you a decent size print while still being carry flexible. Back in the 90s I used to use an old Voigtlander Bessa II. Made some nice small prints with it.

Another option is to have someone make digital negs for you. That would get you the prints without the digital things you don't like. Frankly, having a printer and maintaining it is a real PITA. I only do it to make alt prints and the occasional color prints. If you can find someone that can make good negs then it is a win for you.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you could find a full plate. camera. Ilford runs its yearly ULF film order. It would be a very nice contact or alt process print size.
I bet the japanese seller BS Kumar could find a nice one.....

Bill Burk said:

I’d be happy to give you my spare Omega DII that can do 4x5. My wife would also support me in giving you darkroom gear that I’ll never use.

I have (once) projected a 35mm positive onto ortho 4x5 and then printed from that negative.

The idea of making two generations of reversal to end up with, say an 8x10 negative seems daunting.View attachment 411082View attachment 411083

Click to expand...

That's a neat example, but...it's a halftone image. The reproduction method proposed earlier through an interpositive or a reversal method will produce a continuous tone image. And while it's some work, it's not much different from making a regular silver gelatin print. Make a couple of test strips while adjusting exposure & development until you're happy with the result.

As to Intrepid cameras - you can't argue with their low price, the fact that they're available new and they're lightweight. Sure, there are drawbacks. Every camera is a compromise.

As someone who sold specialized equipment and supplies to highly skilled woodworkers and cabinet shops, I'd say there's a world of difference, probably even in the way the camera construction and material weather and does or does not retain proper dimensionality over time.

No, I could afford to go out and pay what my Ebony or Phillips cameras now cost; but replacing my beloved Sinar monorail gear would be a bargain today compared to what I originally paid for that; and it's an even more precise system than any wooden folders.

Compromise in function, yeah; but simplification doesn't necessarily imply compromise in quality or durability. For bad weather and field work, I really prefer a simplified design like my early Phillips 8X10 (serial number 009 !)

logan2z said:

For anyone who has gone the route mentioned in option #2 above, are the results worth the effort involved or does image quality suffer too greatly?

Click to expand...

For sure optically enlarged inter negatives are the way to go.

I think Dr Wood's DR5 Chrome is back up and running in Colorado. logan2z, It will cut out a step,
you might even be able to enlarge your chrome onto Xray Film.

ezphotolessons said:

I think Dr Wood's DR5 Chrome is back up and running in Colorado. logan2z, It will cut out a step,
you might even be able to enlarge your chrome onto Xray Film.

Click to expand...

If so this is a good alternative one step , we did this back in the day with Scala and it worked really well.

DREW WILEY said:

Dan - Ahhh, the Rubies. I was just thinking about them last week. But I've been hit by back to back annoying rhinoviruses this Fall, so haven't been anywhere yet.

I have my own take on view camera purchases. Budget constraints might dictate buying either an entry level camera or a well-used one. And prices are a little steep on even used gear nowadays, especially if tariffs are in play. But I'm glad I bought the best examples I could afford, and new, since that's equated to not only greater ease of use, but more long term reliability. And yes, hundreds of trips into the mountain in all kinds of weather can certainly test the reliability factor.

And next time you're up there between Favre and Liberty Lake, there's a couple of chipmunks that owe me for a bag of peanut M&M's they stole.

Click to expand...

Drew - I'll be in that area with my son-in-law right after Thanksgiving. I had hoped we would have some decent snow by then but I am starting to get a bit anxious now. There is a bit up there but not a lot yet.

And I would never presume to make anyone's decision regarding their own camera purchases. It should be a personal decision that you are comfortable with because your abilities with the camera you choose should grow with time and ownership, as mine has. However I do feel it is important that people understand that there are many of us who own and use these camera all the time. I got exactly what I wanted when I bought that camera and I have never regretted my decision.

I will go against the grain slightly and say that I prefer the enlarged negative process. Maybe I'm not being persnickety enough about the results!

My process is to create an enlarged interpositive first and then contact print the new negative from that all on ortho film. I want enlarged positive transparencies because at some point in the future I want to be able to do something like traditional lithography which requires a positive to etch the plate. I wrote up the full process on Reddit and one day I'll put it somewhere more permanent.

backseatpilot said:

at some point in the future I want to be able to do something like traditional lithography which requires a positive to etch the plate

Click to expand...

So cool! I think you mean intaglio printing if you have an etched plate in mind, but intaglio and lithography are both super interesting. The latter is practiced a lot less so. Either way, if you proceed with that plan, please post about it on Photrio as well!

logan2z said:

For anyone who has gone the route mentioned in option #2 above, are the results worth the effort involved or does image quality suffer too greatly?

Click to expand...

Logan2z,

I am a #2 guy through and through, and have been working over the last few years on my technique in doing this using today's materials. I have nearly perfected my method of making enlarged negatives from my 35mm negatives using regular camera film for both the original negatives and the interpositives, and then enlarging onto ortho litho film. The same method will work for medium format and large format.

I start by making my negatives on a medium speed film, and shooting/processing for a density range of around 1.3. I make same sized interpositives on the same film and using the same camera with a good macro lens that gives 1:1 duplicates. Making contact positives on duplicating is difficult without getting dust and dirt everywhere, and determing exposure times also difficult, as well as handling problems. Using an optical 1:1 copy is much simpler and better, although there will be a small loss in quaity, this is well made up for in practical utility. I do not plan on enlarging a large percentage of my negatives, only the few I select as being really worthy. This is a key understanding.

I use exactly the same processing for the interpositives and on a single roll of film can combine them with original negatives. I use the ttl mater on my Minolta SRT101 to help determine exposures for interpositives. A mirror lock up is required. I use a film and developer that give a very linear response to simplify. Original negatives often cover a briteness range of 10 fstops, the zones of the zone system. This is about a one thousand to one range of britenesses. On the original negative, this range is about halved to 5 zones. The interpositive, therefore, has about half of that, or 2 1/2 zones, so these are very low contrast positives. This is such a narrow range of briteness that ortho litho film can cover it with good linearity with careful processing.

It starts by making a 4x5 enlarged negative on Regent Royal that is available from B+H. This about half the cost as the Freestyle brand, and better quality. I meter the interpositive on the baseboard using a home made cds cell spot photometer for the clearest areas to determine exposure time and the densest areas to determine development time and developer dilution. I use a developer intended for normal film development that I usually dilute 1 to 1. For developing the ortho litho, I use a set of rotary processing drum I have that cover from 4x5 to 16x20. The exposure times that find by final bracketing are used for the more enlarged versions of these negatives.

Yes, this is worth the trouble. I am working on doing the same process for 4x5 negatives using my 4x5 camera and enlarger in the same way with Fuji HRU xray films. The same process can be used for any size negtives, but for larger than 4x5 contacts printing is probably better.

People aren't doing this today because it is very difficult. So called digital negatives are much easier, as are large format cameras directly, but digital negatives are not photography. That's lithography. Really great results are much easier that way, but if how you get there is important to you, than it may not be best for you. Even large and ultralarge format cameras aren't very easy, Modern films, and even the xray film that I like because they're cheap and dreamy looking also aren't easy to develop to the right density range for any given alternate process.

By enlarging negatives photographically, any size prints can be made, and almost any density range can be achieved. I currently shoot for 2.00 density range for 5x7 to 16x20 size which covers most of the processes I'm interested in. The difficulty of this makes it worthwhile.

I have always used option 2

Making alt prints from both 4x5 and 5x7, I find 5x7 to be the smallest that works well for me beyond hand-holding the print. Always exceptions, I have some single 2 1/4" prints in frames. I am taking a 4x5 to Japan for a month, but hope to do some images that use a couple negatives.

But I just finished an all-night printing session making platinum/palladium prints from three 11x14 negatives (Yosemite Valley, Zion NP, and Redwoods National and State Parks). Hard to argue about the image qualities from a big camera negative.