Request for a point in the right direction...

[monkeytumble]

Interested in jumping into LF and would appreciate directions toward recent information about starting, e.g., thread, books, websites... most of the stuff I'm finding is dated.

Thanks,

Jay Decker
Kennewick, WA

 

[Shawn Rahman]

Interested in jumping into LF and would appreciate directions toward recent information about starting, e.g., thread, books, websites... most of the stuff I'm finding is dated.

Thanks,

Jay Decker
Kennewick, WA

I'm not a LF'er, but of all of the formats, it seems to me the one that's changed the least over the past few decades. Outdated LF books? How can it be?

 

[monkeytumble]

I'm not a LF'er, but of all of the formats, it seems to me the one that's changed the least over the past few decades. Outdated LF books? How can it be?

Your point is well taken; however, I've found that the two books I've read, Stroebel's View Camera Technique (1967) and Adam's The Camera, do not cover today's realities in materials, sourcing equipment (new, used, eBay), and aspects that might be relevant to someone who is new to LF in today's digital world.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Check out the articles on the main page at lfphoto.info, and look at the Q&A forum there.

A good introductory book is Steve Simmons' _Using the View Camera_. Stroebel is more comprehensive and more advanced.

At the basic level, LF hasn't really changed terribly much in the last 50 years or so.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Stroebel's book is good but maybe a little long as an introduction. I find this one
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-li...0?ie=UTF8&qid=1201752360&sr=1-1&condition=all
short and to the point.
Beware of people who want to mystify the subject - using view cameras is really quite simple!

Regards,

David

 

[keithwms]

For some guidance and ideas on LF in the digital context, let me refer you to APUG's sister site hybridphoto, and to this site:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/

P.S. Ah I see lfp info was already mentioned by David above.

 

[monkeytumble]

For some guidance and ideas on LF in the digital context, let me refer you to APUG's sister site hybridphoto, and to this site...

Thank you. But, just to clarify, I'm not interested in that "digital context"... it just seems that "that digital context" has changed the landscape for someone trying to enter analog LF today.

 

[keithwms]

I understand.

As for how digital technology has changed LF, I'd say it's mostly at the output end... diginegs from scans and various attempts at alternatives to cibas/ilfochromes and so forth.

On the taking end of things, though, it's true that not much has changed at all. There are a few new fancy lenses and such but most of us who love LF do so because one can still coax a timeless image out of century-old gear, with no batteries, no plugs, no RAM... just you, the camera, and the scene.

35mm photography has changed far more radically than LF in recent years.

If LF lures you, then dive right in, you'll love it. And the way I see it, LF photographs have never been more valuable.

 

[Skorzen]

What are you looking to do with LF? I think this to some extent dictates how much it has changed. If you want to shoot B&W and print in the darkroom than it really hasn't changed in the past 50 or so years. What has changed is film, paper and chemistry but these things are probably better learned from forums like this which by their nature are more current. The options for color have changed a little more and become more integrated into the digital process.

In terms of buying gear I would definitely look at used stuff. What your options are in this respect are also dictated by what your intended subject matter is. Are you going to be working in a studio or shooting some remote mountaintop? Studio Monorail type cameras can be had for chump change it seems while field cameras tend to bring higher prices IMHO. Ebay can be a good source but I think better deals can be had buying either through a forum like this' classifieds or craigslist (especially if you are looking for darkroom gear). KEH can be another good source.

Finally I would also recommend that you check out the largeformatphotography.info forum as anything that has been discussed here has probably been discussed in much greater detail there (nothing again APUG but the specialized nature of that board just means more lf traffic).

I am new to LF and for me the best book type resource I have read is the Adams series. I havn't had a chance to look at to many others, but I found that while some of the film and paper he talked about may not still be available the concepts are the same.

 

[monkeytumble]

What are you looking to do with LF?

Excellent question. I'm interested in studio portraiture and closeup work. From what I've read, it seems to make sense to start with Polaroid for learning and then move on to color film and possibly B&W film.

 

[keithwms]

From what I've read, it seems to make sense to start with Polaroid for learning and then move on to color film and possibly B&W film.

I am teaching a traditional b&w photo class and we are doing precisely this. In our first two classes, we made a polaroid 665 negative and contact printed that onto ilford RC postcards to mail home. The kids had a blast. By doing this, the class learned about what a "good" negative looks like in terms of density, and learned how exposure choices will affect the final print.

What I am trying to do with them is motivate a more fundamental Zone system / BTZS way of thinking... to get in the habit of previsualizing not only the composition but also the final print. 665 and 55 have the huge advantage that you can learn all the basics very quickly and then use that to motivate further work in the darkroom. It's an expensive start but a very quick and easy one. With only eight 2-hour class sessions with my students, this is my only option.

Now that I think of it, I guess BTZS is the biggest overall change in LF in recent years. I am not a BTZS adherent per se, but I suppose that I eventually will be, and I do like the underlying philosophy of thinking through to the print and considering the entire workflow to be one process.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Jay,

I jumped in the LF a bit more than a year ago and found out that LF is a source of a great joy (sometimes also confusion). I have a few books on LF photography, but they mostly deal with landscape photography. A general book from Steve Simmons makes a good introduction.

Your choice of portrait and macro photography may make your life during the first phase of learning complicated. Macro is not easy to shoot and models could get unpatient if it take you too long to set up the camera. You may consider to start with some simpler sceene (old barns in the field are favourite ones ) to learn the camera movements and so.

To start with polaroid is a fast way to see the result (but also expensive one). Don't be afraid of developing your own BW negs. you need a few trays and some developer. Contact printing is also rather easy. The danger of the contact printing is that if you start to enjoy it you will possibly want to get a bigger camera .

Do not worry about the older books - not that much has changed on seeting up the LF camera or on the proces of BW developing/printing over last years.

Make sure you spend enough time to get "theoretically confident" with the subject beforu you start to get the gear (there will be lots of it). Once you decide what kind of stuff you want/need people around will help you to narrow your choices.

Just let me add that there is one dedicated webpage to LF which is also a great source of information.

Good luck and enjoy.

 

[jeroldharter]

This is an up to date book on 4x5 field photography:

http://www.amazon.com/Large-Format-Nature-Photography-Dykinga/dp/0817441573

Many helpful suggestions on technique and gear. Very practical and worth the money.

 

[rwyoung]

Steve Simon's book is reasonably up to date with respect to major film brands. But your best bet for finding out what is available would be to browse around here or take a look at the offering from Freestyle Photo, B&H, etc. And the techniques and movements haven't changed since the dinosaurs were shooting film. And tray development never goes out of style either.

Keep in mind that you can substitute photo paper for the film if you are willing to accept the long exposure times and extreme blue sensitivity. Cheap and easy way to get comfortable with the camera movements and almost instant gratification (ala Polaroid).

After you are comfortable with the camera (by the way, Bruce Barlow has a good book with lots of exercises to help you with just this sort of thing) then pick up a small box of film. Don't get the cheapest, but you don't need the most expensive either. Get a reliable emulsion like FP4+, HP5+, TXP or TMAX400 (I'd skip TMAX100, personal bias) if you want to do B&W yourself. These are relatively bulletproof emulsions. Start with a developer like D76, ID11 or Rodinal and tray developing. Then read up on other emulsions and what sort of things you can expect from them. Likewise other developers, especially pyro based ones.

If you want to start with color, I personally would do a negative film before working with LF chromes. There is more leaway in the negative materials, more tolerant of errors. Yes, I know this means you can hide some exposure sins and still get a nice print but on the other hand it is a little less expensive and you can alway make your second film purchase a chrome film. In a large metro area, you should still be able to find somebody to process and print for you or you could do it yourself with daylight tanks, etc.

I would suggest this order:
photo paper for film (work in bright sun to speed up exposures and learn movements) then pick an old-reliable B&W emulsion (tray development), then move to color neg (send-out first few, then do daylight tank development at home) and finally chrome (send-out then home developed). I left out Polaroid but if you want to use it instead of the photo paper, by all means. And you can always use the 545(i) holder with kodak and fuji readyloads later.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Excellent question. I'm interested in studio portraiture and closeup work. From what I've read, it seems to make sense to start with Polaroid for learning and then move on to color film and possibly B&W film.

For studio work with controlled lighting you don't really need the zone system or BTZS, you need to learn about lighting. _Light: Science and Magic_ by Hunter, Biver, and Fuqua is a good introduction. The main purpose of the Zone System or BTZS is controlling contrast and tonality when you can't control the light, as in landscape photography.

For portraiture, you don't even to know very much about camera movements in large format. If by "closeup work" you mean still life or tabletop, then camera movements are more important.

 

[Deckled Edge]

Jay,
Someone once quoted to me that the difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional has made more mistakes. My first jump into LF was a Deardorf V8, and I found that while I loved the camera, I couldn't afford the mistakes. It was when I got a Super Graphic 4x5 that I really took off. I could afford the film and the three or four smallish lenses, made my 1000 mistakes, and then got more benefit from the 8x10. Since, I have moved to 11x14 and 7x17, but I never forgot the fun and mobility of that Super Graphic. E-Bay is rife with them along with suitable cheap lenses. That plus readily available film and Steve Simmon's LF manual, and you're set.

 

[John Kasaian]

Another vote for Steve Simmons' book and the Large Format Home Page.
For getting started, you'll find the possibilities unlimited.
For the most bang for your buck, consider monorail 4x5s like the Calumet C-400s and the Graphic View I & II. They are out there as are old Omega D-2 enlargers. If your tastes run towards contacts and alternative processes, an old wooden Agfa Ansco or B&J 4x5 can be had for not much more than the monorials mentioned above, and they'll accept 5x7 backs so you'll have a less expensive 4x5 film to learn on as well as the ability to shoot 5x7 which makes for a nice size to contact print.

 

[monkeytumble]

Don't be afraid of developing your own BW negs. you need a few trays and some developer...

Intriguing... Can quality LF BW negatives be developed using simple trays by someone with rudimentary experience enlarging and developing BW prints from roll film? Or, do you really need some kind of tank development system to get consistent results?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Intriguing... Can quality LF BW negatives be developed using simple trays by someone with rudimentary experience enlarging and developing BW prints from roll film? Or, do you really need some kind of tank development system to get consistent results?

Absolutely. It takes a little practice, but many people do it that way. There's a good description of tray processing with illustrations in Adams' _The Negative_, and I think there's also an article on the main page at lfphoto.info.

 

[phfitz]

monkeytumble,

find
"Hollywood Portraits (Classic shots and how to take them)" by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos isbn 0-8174-4020-8. Nice book, presented well and they reverse engineer each photo for the lighting set-up. Even if you don't like the 'Hollywood' style it will teach you how to 'see' the lighting set-up in any photo.

"Pictorial Lighting"
"Outdoor Portraiture"
"the Model"
by William Mortensen (too old for isbn numbers)
light, people and film have not changed over time, these are still worth having.

have fun with the hunt.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

monkeytumble,

find
"Hollywood Portraits (Classic shots and how to take them)" by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos isbn 0-8174-4020-8. Nice book, presented well and they reverse engineer each photo for the lighting set-up. Even if you don't like the 'Hollywood' style it will teach you how to 'see' the lighting set-up in any photo.

"Pictorial Lighting"
"Outdoor Portraiture"
"the Model"
by William Mortensen (too old for isbn numbers)
light, people and film have not changed over time, these are still worth having.

have fun with the hunt.

Just remember a contemporary lens (pre-war, uncoated) is a MUST for the classic Hollywood look! Use pre-war lighting with a modern coated lens and every subject will look like Freddie Krueger!

 

[monkeytumble]

find "Hollywood Portraits (Classic shots and how to take them)" by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos isbn 0-8174-4020-8. Nice book, presented well and they reverse engineer each photo for the lighting set-up. Even if you don't like the 'Hollywood' style it will teach you how to 'see' the lighting set-up in any photo.

"Pictorial Lighting"
"Outdoor Portraiture"
"the Model"
by William Mortensen (too old for isbn numbers)
light, people and film have not changed over time, these are still worth having.

have fun with the hunt.

These look like my kind of books... thanks for the suggestions.

 

[monkeytumble]

Just remember a contemporary lens (pre-war, uncoated) is a MUST for the classic Hollywood look! Use pre-war lighting with a modern coated lens and every subject will look like Freddie Krueger!

Is there a (technical) reason why this is so?

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Is there a (technical) reason why this is so?

Yep! The uncoated lens will have higher general flare (even if no concentrated flare spots are visible) which spreads light into the shadows and gives a softer effect. You can still use a modern lens for "Hollywood" pics, but you will need to use a softer keylight (softbox, umbrella, etc.) rather than the focusing spotlights (which focused to anything from a small spot to a flood) which the old-timers used (and so did I when I worked in studios in the 1960s). You can check this by looking at the nose shadow in old portraits - somehow, although the nose shadow is distinctive in some cases, it's not disturbing, whereas, as I said earlier (at least for my taste), hard lighting + modern lens = the Freddy Krueger look!

Regards,

David

PS: You might find this informative, at least until you can get a copy of Roger Hicks' book:
http://ifyouwriteit.blogspot.com/2007/09/1930s-1940s-star-glamour-portraits-by.html
General principle - a usual 3- or 4-light portrait set-up is just the START - then you have to add all the mini spotlights and reflectors to get the "magic" sparkle!

 

[k_jupiter]

Ya feel most comfortable developing 135 style?

Get a Patterson System tank tall enough for your 4x5 negatives. Keep the center post, throw away the reels. I use PVC pipe cut to length (with notches at the bottom for easy fluid transfer), others use nylon screen sewn into tubes with a circumference of 4 1/4 inches. Unload the film holders, roll the film emulsion side in into the tubes, place the tube on end into the Patterson tank, develop just like 135, same times per film. The screens allow for better dissolving of the anti-halation backing on the film.

And you can make the whole setup for about the cost of a box of 665 film.

tim in san jose