Split darkslide on 4x5?

[Vaughn]

For diagnostic reasons, could you show the whole negative? Also your modified darkslide?

Vaughn

 

[Sparky]

Why do you bother with all this darkslide cutting business?? What about just taping a piece of black plastic or card across the back - right in front of the GG? That way you can nicely preview what you'll get on the GG -and it'll be consistent with the view on film. Just flip it around for the other side. I had no problems doing this before.

 

[Kino]

Why do you bother with all this darkslide cutting business?? What about just taping a piece of black plastic or card across the back - right in front of the GG? That way you can nicely preview what you'll get on the GG -and it'll be consistent with the view on film. Just flip it around for the other side. I had no problems doing this before.

Sparky,

That's outrageous! Do something simple and logical! Where is a moderator?

Good suggestion! I wish I had thought of that! Meanwhile, I'd like to figure out what I did wrong here. I'll try the in-camera matte on my old calumet 4x5...

Here are the full neg scans (contrast jacked way up so you can see the edges and rebates and the cut and whole darkslides. The holder is a fairly modern Riteway, composite holder that appears to be in good condition. The camera, however, was the "bargain of the century" find in the thrift store thread and I haven't used it that much, so there are LOT of variables here. I will reload and try this with my calumet, which I am sure it is light tight.

It is all a matter of time, which I don't have a lot of...

 

[Vaughn]

Kino...

That helps a lot.

First, you cut your darkslide just about in half -- that is why you don't have any unexposed area between the two images on the negative. If you try it again, you want to leave more darkslide than you cut out...that way the strip along the center of the neg never gets exposed because the modified slide covers it in both orientations. If the slide is 4" wide, you want to cut out only a 1 7/8" wide section.

Second, unless you load your film differently that 99% of LF users, your light leak occurred not at the flap end, but at the other end of the holder (the handle end). Usually the film notches are at the flap end.

So one possible source of light leak was when you removed and inserted the slides. Since it is an old camera, the springs might be a little weak. In your haste, you might have pulled slightly towards yourself as you pulled the dark slides out -- allowing light to sneak in between the holder and the back. In any case, you need to get into a completely dark room, get a flash light (mini-maglights with the top screwed completely off work best), put a film holder in the camera, take the lens off and stick the flashlight inside the bellows. Let your eyes get use to the dark and see if you have light showing anywhere around the film holder or thru pinholes in the bellows.

Sparky -- nice idea! For ease of use, it is about 6 of one thing or a half a dozen of another...or 3 pairs of something else!LOL! I have found the modified darkslide to be very straight forward and easy to use -- it sure takes a lot more effort to explain than it does to do!

Vaughn

 

[Sparky]

Sparky -- nice idea! For ease of use, it is about 6 of one thing or a half a dozen of another...or 3 pairs of something else!LOL! I have found the modified darkslide to be very straight forward and easy to use -- it sure takes a lot more effort to explain than it does to do!

It seems the only real downside is that the matte is SLIGHTLY further away from the film than would be a darkslide - but for me - the increased complexity and liability (dust, etc... not to mention mechanical awkwarness) would be worthwhile. I haven't done this for about 20 or so years - but I'll try to find on of my negs and scan and post it.

 

[Vaughn]

It seems the only real downside is that the matte is SLIGHTLY further away from the film than would be a darkslide - but for me - the increased complexity and liability (dust, etc... not to mention mechanical awkwarness) would be worthwhile. I haven't done this for about 20 or so years - but I'll try to find on of my negs and scan and post it.

Your method would not work at all with my 4x5 -- the back is not removable (bail back on a Gowland Pocket View) without first removing 4 screws and removing the springs...something I would not do in the field, but I see how it would be easier with a camera with a removable back.

But to each their own. I have been inserting and removing darkslides for 30 years -- it is really no big deal for me, certainly not a complex manuver. I like the way one can make a split moment decision to go panaramic, or return to full-negative, without fiddling with the back off the camera. No tape residue in the camera, etc.

I haven't found the image yet, but I am playing with the idea of putting two different 3.5"x10" images on a negative that I would actually print together as a pair...especially two verticals. I was thinking of landscapes, but full-body portraits might be fun, still lifes even. If anyone "steals" this idea, let me know how it worked!

Vaughn

 

[Sparky]

Your method would not work at all with my 4x5 -- the back is not removable (bail back on a Gowland Pocket View) without first removing 4 screws and removing the springs...something I would not do in the field, but I see how it would be easier with a camera with a removable back.

The Pocket View doesn't have removeable lensboards? Seems you could just rack it in to minimum extension and go from there(??).

 

[Vaughn]

The Pocket View doesn't have removeable lensboards? Seems you could just rack it in to minimum extension and go from there(??).

On my model (marketed by Calumet in the 80's) is about a 4" lensboard, with a 2 7/8" hole behind it -- no way can I get my hands through it! I might be able to approach it like you suggested -- but that would be turning the whole deal into a major operation -- with a much greater chance of getting dust and tape all in the wrong spots (not to mention the card itself!!

It would be easier to take the GG off and approach it that way -- and a hell of a lot easier to use a modified darkslide that I spent time on once in the comfort of my home, than mess with sticking a card in out in the field...then having to remove it...everytime I want to make a panaramic. The light could be here an gone by the time I got the job done!

But as I said, a whole different story with a removable back! I'll keep it mind if I want to do a specialized panaramic size with the 8x10. I could center one 5x10 or 6x10, for example, by using two cards.

Vaughn

 

[Sparky]

Makes sense Vaughn - I wasn't really meaning to dwell on it... just curious.

 

[BobUK]

I am new to 4x5 , and I have not yet cut down a darkslide horizontally to try making two panoramic negatives.
Therefore not had a chance to play with half slides.

So please bear with me, as I may be talking through my hat.



Covering the lower portion of the 4x5 image with the half slide, and just the top half of the film being exposed.

Should the front panel be raised about one inch to get the lens central to the 2"x5" strip of film being exposed?



I have only skimmed through the posts on this topic, so I may have missed my suggestion if already mentioned.

Thanks.

 

[Rick A]

You compose for whichever side of the GG you are using. If you are composing for the top half you do whatever is necessary to get the image you are after. Remember, the image is opposite of the actual scene, top to bottom and right to left. Mark your GG accordingly.

 

[xkaes]

Should the front panel be raised about one inch to get the lens central to the 2"x5" strip of film being exposed?

You could, but since you are using a lens designed to cover 4x5", you are not likely to see any difference -- unless you use a magnifying glass on the print.

 

[grain elevator]

You could, but since you are using a lens designed to cover 4x5", you are not likely to see any difference -- unless you use a magnifying glass on the print.

Or do it for the reasons you use rise, or no rise.

 

[eli griggs]

Woodcraft carries black epoxy paste, for $14 aprox. for a 2oz jar and though I just happened on this today, it looks to me to be an ideal photo black material for such repairs.

 

[Vaughn]

...

Should the front panel be raised about one inch to get the lens central to the 2"x5" strip of film being exposed?



I have only skimmed through the posts on this topic, so I may have missed my suggestion if already mentioned.

Thanks.

I try to start out with the lens centered on the section of film to be exposed. This uses the sharpest part of the lens, allows the use of lenses that have minimum or insufficient coverage at full-frame, and gives one a neutral starting point for any front movements otherwise needed. For example, if some front tilt is needed, I find it nice to start with axis of tilt running thru the center of the image and go from there. (assuming axis front tilt to begin with)

When doing verticals, I use front shift to center the lens on the exposed section.

 

[BobUK]

I try to start out with the lens centered on the section of film to be exposed. This uses the sharpest part of the lens............

Well done Vaughn. You seem to be working on the same wavelength as me.

That is exactly what I was thinking.

For some reason I found it difficult to put my puzzle into words, perhaps causing a little confusion for others.

I very much appreciate all the response on this.

Thank you everyone.

 

[Vaughn]

Glad to help -- right now I am using a modified darkslide for 8x10 and 11x14.

 

[djdister]

Okay, I'll play Captain Obvious here. If you are using a 4x5 camera, I suggest getting a 6x12 roll film back! Lots of emulsions to choose from in 120, easier processing and a very nice panoramic aspect ratio.

 

[abruzzi]

Okay, I'll play Captain Obvious here. If you are using a 4x5 camera, I suggest getting a 6x12 roll film back! Lots of emulsions to choose from in 120, easier processing and a very nice panoramic aspect ratio.

defintiely true but a lot more expensive. If you already have a spare darkslide, that approach is free, if you don't good 4x5 film holders with two good darkslides average around $10. I haven't done it with 4x5, but I had an 8x10 darkslide with a impact based crack so I coverted that instead of trashing it.

 

[grahamp]

Buying a pre-made 2x5 dark slide is maybe $30, so it might be the best/cheapest option if you don't know you will use a 6x12 back very much, but want to try the format. Dealing with the effective rise/fall (or shift) intrinsic to a half slide is a bit of a palaver to get two identical frames (swap the back around). And you have the fun of adding notes with exposure diagrams with each holder to track the exposed halves. Much easier to work on the centre strip of a 4x5 with a roll film holder.

If the camera is 4x5 and it will take a 6x12 back, then that is my preference. If you are on 5x7 or 8x10 then a half-slide or an in-camera mask is the only real option for the wide format, other than just cropping a full size frame and taking the financial hit for the extra film you exposed.

It is not an either/or issue. You may have a half slide and a 6x12 back if you wish. I do

 

[xkaes]

Much easier to work on the centre strip of a 4x5 with a roll film holder.

Call me crazy -- I just expose the whole 4x5 sheet. That way I can crop to any size and format I want whether it 3x5", 2x5", 1.5x4", 1x5", etc. I never know how much I want to crop -- I can't remember when I didn't crop a negative -- until I make an 8x10" print, and figure out what I want to cut out.

 

[Vaughn]

There are pro and cons, but what the pro and cons are depends on the results one wants and how one works.

I do not crop, except in the form of making panoramas using a modified darkslide. I also only contact print and I find that a 2x5 image is smaller than I wish to work most of the time. I have not made a modified 5x7 slide to 2.5x7 yet, either. But both 4x10 and 5.5x14 have been sweet. For the way I wish to work, it is pretty sweet having another format with me that weighs less than a darkslide.

I usually expose both halves of a piece of film on the same scene -- either getting a spare negative (alt processes can be hard on negatives), or changing the exposure slightly on one of the two exposures. Otherwise, the chance of confusion increases. Using a modified darkslide adds another layer of complexity...adding several new ways to mess up.

The back of my cameras can be removed, turned 180 degrees and reattached...making the second image very easy and identically composed with no other adjustments needed. This does not hold true for verticals, which require shifting the lens and re-composing for the second exposure.

It is a fun and productive way to work, and the cost of checking it out is very low. Enjoy!

Last Light, Yosemite Valley
4x10 platinum/palladium print

 

[abruzzi]

A quick comment on the question of recentering the lens. (This coming from someone that has only done this a very little on 8x10.) If the camera is zero'ed out and your're using a lens that naturally covers the full format (4x5 in this case) then you're not really pushing to the edge of the coverage circle into the iffy parts. If I used the same lens on a full 4x5 image then half of that image is what I would have got with the darkslide crop. If you're using a lens that doesn't cover 4x5 or barely covers 4x5 (like the 90mm Angulon) then there may be a benefit to adjusting the lens to center over the half frame. But for a 90mm Super Angulon, I probably wouldn't bother unless I needed to in order frame my shot. (mostly I use rise/fall/shift for final framing of the image without needing to adjust the tripod.)

 

[Vaughn]

Centering the lens on the exposed part of the negative is extremely easy to do if you have rise/fall on front. Life can be easier starting out with the camera zeroed out relative to the format used. Not necessary, but can be easier.

 

[Donald Qualls]

But for a 90mm Super Angulon, I probably wouldn't bother unless I needed to in order frame my shot. (mostly I use rise/fall/shift for final framing of the image without needing to adjust the tripod.)

The other reason you might want to do this even if your lens has more than adequate coverage is for the same reasons you'd usually use rise/fall or shift: to control the field of view independent of the perspective. If you're shooting architecture this matters more than it would with landscapes, but even out in the wild, converging trees tend to annoy the eye, even if the viewer doesn't know why.