Discussion in 'Large Format' started by william_littman|3, Jun 10, 2016.

  1. My suggestions


    also suggest developer and processing method I.E. Jobo or monobath or whatever your choice
    for color I have been successful at buying expired batches on the auction site without any color complaints and while saving a bundle
  2. X-ray
  4. My apology I frankly never
    believed it actually meant
    shouting I will avoid upper
    case as lower is always so
    popular arround here. Let's
    make America great again in
    big bold letters .how about
  5. Ilford FP4+. Pay the freight and use a film that Anchell in the Film Developing coobook says is "the film to judge all others by".
    It is not here today and gone tomorrow like the chinese offerings. It works well and is readily available.
    Basically, pick a film that is readily available and learn to use it. No reason to get locked into films that are not easily found.
  6. Still working my way through stored frozen boxes of T-Max100 and FP4+ thanks. At £2 a sheet plus processing I don't think I'll be in any hurry to buy new stocks of 5x4 sheet film. Processing is done in a Jobo tank on a CPE-2 processor, using a homebrewed Phenidone-Ascorbate version of D-76/ID-11.
    As for "instant" 5x4 sheet film in a camera with no movements and a low quality fixed lens: What's the point? Isn't digital instant enough? After all, you can always add wavy edges to and degrade the image quality of a DSLR in post!
  7. I decided to stock ISO 400 since I hardly ever shot something slower in the smaller formats. Processing: I have a Jobo CPA and conventional tanks that handle 13x18cm too.
    Safe bet with film HP5 since I somewhat know it. - I'll probably buy cheaper replacement but wouldn't use it for family group shots and such before I'll really know it.
    (I haven't gotten going with LF yet)
  8. I still shoot Tri-x as Plus-x and Verichrome Pan, are no longer made. I have found in the past that TMAX was a little to contrasty for my tastes. I still developed in D-76, and now I scan them instead of printing them in a darkroom.
  9. Rodeo Joe your response brief but many good points.I will make individual responses bcause keep getting disconnected. Wi-Fi
  10. I did a ton of magazine work in the 80s with ilford which is high quality but has a tonal range range imho best In
    In the mid grays which was great year ago a truism fit for commercial or objectvism oriented art. There is a return to the early candor of
    the wet plate look albumin print which the films I recommend have on tmax 100 ive never liked mainly because 35 I needed 400 asa to get
    the range of qualities I wanted and had to push and got grain.

    For reasons I will go into detail later 35 mm capture area was never enough to get range on film and can never be on digital
    Its an optical and projection limitation as to what the glass can cramm into a small space independently of the ability of the capture area..
  11. Zelph young
    Here today and gone tomorrow is us.Impermanence=not sure its a drawback.
    You dont want to be monochromatic forever. But if course everyone has a different
    Preference and the reason there are so many photographers.tastes are never new always
  12. Rodeo Joe
    Movements were 10 years ago if you wanted to get distortion free hd images.that is why most lf lenses optimized for f 22 and then ypu
    need tripod and lengthy setup and time exposure which forces you to shoot portraits which cant be that spontaneous. everyone today tries
    to shoot in a mor dynamic way larger apertures hand held and the movements can be done on Photoshop without loss of quality but I
    assume you were making reference to the Littman.

    It has the movements that can be used handheld thru rangefinder.

    I will post 2different degrees.the first is a study Into the use of tilt or swing in hand held 4x5.


    Otherwise as far as Im concerned movements belong in photoschool and museums
  13. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z4wypZ7XiL0/
  14. Then Rodeo Joe ref Digital" enough"
    It is not only enough but way too much in certain ways

    Take the movie Avatar it is highly defined but also highly artificially defined.
    The reason 35 or mf isn't enough in certain cases is because to attain a candid shot+ a spectral totality of choice of high texture+
    differentiation of areas of importance(bokeh)+ shutter speed for movement in the range which I seek it couldnt happen in a small capture

    Film responsiveness depends on a metal.
    In an analogy take a paper clip and it eAsily bends.
    Try to cut mm piece of it and then to bend it you need a hammer
    In short metal performs best at the right calculation of surface versus response
    I seek a rich saturated low contrast high textured and which I can control depth and spontaneity .
    4x5 is the midpoint of the formats and sufficiently responsive..at the cusp of the tolerable inconvenience for hand held
    So for my purpose its irreplaceable for that and yes for everything else digital is +++ than enough :)
  15. If I had to describe digital I can compare it with
    Putting on a pair of contact lenses of a slightly higher power than you need.
    Everything will look slightly hyper real and everything will look equally important
    Not what I need all the time.
    And sure you can get bokeh with digital but by that point you've already expended a lot of your small capture area
    And then your subject is either a small speck if an intricate composition or takes up the whole frame if you seek some texture .
    The 4x5 digital backs are coming this year. In a few years they will be great. I dont know what I Will like in a few years.I know what I need
  16. And Rodeo Joe addressing another of your good points:
    Most successful photos have been taken with a normal to slightly wide lens
    When it comes to hand held large format.

    Photography is a lot like tennis. It is as important to be at the right place as it to shoot at the right time
    And all which require agility.
    You can to the benefit of gadget makers throw the rules of success out the window and as inspector gadget
    Have a telescopic arm which extends to bridge the gap and get the shot or use a telescopic lens but at a cost
    Of compressions and killing the scene.

    Snapshot photography is a one lens game and should be the one you kike best as your point of view as to
    Be able to preview the results from a familiarity based on practice.

    And regarding quality one should consider "quality" as a synergy of qualities which add up to an intended result=the sought after image
    quakity versus an evaluation of an individual component which should be a concern for a camera crash test dummy and not a
    It so happens to be that the limited restrictive quality you question is believed to be one of the most desirable by the most proficient
    And my favourite.
  17. The right stuff!!
  18. And Joe last but not least and the most relevant point you make which applies to this discussion
    Is of course the justification for instant film.
    As you can notice from the posted image its type 55 but wasn't selected for its borders or as a gimmick.
    It was just a great negative .
    The borders of old 55 were a plus if you wished to include them as while they dont exactly look manicured
    and a bit raw vert they look artistic. new55 borders look like untrimmed dirty nails crowning dirty hands all
    very esoteric palm reading looking and perhaps there so you can figure out the uncertain future on the yet not fully decided

    Now take the picture I posted and then take Atomic x and you can say it isnt instant?
    If new 55 is an instant nightmarish result Atomic x isnt and as you pointed out well
    You can use your digital camera to take digital Polaroids..

    Now going back to the justification.
    What is valuable is the negative. Atomic x may be better than t55.
    I dont need ugly borders and if I need borders I can do what you suggested which I have done
    Since t 55has been discontinued.
    Developing atomic x in monobath is no more involved than clearing sodium sulfite from t55 and get a good
    Negative and spent a couple of bucks but if I use new55 I get a ????? Negative + a blotchy print and 13+
    And if it was a good shot it will feel as if flushing an engagement ring down the sink while washing your hands.

    I take pictures for a purpose so NO!
    But that subject has been addressed in detail in the following thread
  19. Mr Vogt
    The x ray sounds intriguing
    Can you expand a little as ti how to expose
    And samples?
  20. It is also important to understand the purpose of quantity on the road to attaining quality
    Until the day when we do indeed become gods and whatever we consider just manifests we can
    Be realistic that we make furniture by starting with a big plank of wood and trimming it to what we
    seek and disposing of sawdust.Sculpture the marble block huge the final statue isnt.
    Photography in art can sometimes benefit from this if one seeks to greatly enhance certain qualities
    Over others as you will need all of the sensitivity and range of the format but you dont need to use the whole
    Frame because you have it or because you paid for it anymore than you don't have to to eat an entire cheese
    Because you opened it.
    You didn't need 6 pounds of prosciutto but you needed prosciutto or maybe you prefer honey ham.
    In either case the entire leg is cured and then the final portions retain a quality no matter how small.

    It is irrelevant what size your enlargement will be
    But at each size the variables will have to be adjusted
    But the sought visual perception quaities should be identical
    Regardless of size of 75% of photographers or more
    Base their choices on necesity and should instead consider there
    Is already an overabundance of imagery and that if anything else may be
    Needed it would have to be of high quality instead of quantity.
    You start big and end up with a diamond then ending up with leftovers is not
    To be a concern
  21. Now Joe regarding lens quality it is agreed that 35mm lenses! !are/ need to be marvels of engineering and design just in an attempt to correct the barrel distortions of the film being only a few mm away. A friend of mine was great at painting landscapes on pinheads and which were then mounted inside glass capsule to magnify it so you could see it. His quality in the form of talent equates to the most sophisticated lens design but in both cases you run into size limitations. You can indeed obtain a huge amount of sharpness from a high megapixel 35 mm camera but the minute you start to try to enhance Certain variables over others youre dead. With that said it is already better than35 mm film because of iso without grain But everything has a limit I wish I had a 4x5 on the side back in the day when I was shooting 35. This was an award winning shot for a fashion magazine And the distortions are intentional but getting the tonal Range I wanted required pushing and if I had a 4x5 instead I would have gotten less grain and closer to the other shot Posted. One should never put all eggs in one basket?
  22. Please disregard any pm from today.
    the thread resumes here.
    this is the original question I posted which disappeared
    these are my preferences/ which are yours?>


    also suggest developer and processing method I.E. Jobo or monobath or whatever your choice
    for color I have been successful at buying expired batches on the auction site without any color complaints and while saving a bundle
  23. Fomapan
    provide a more suitable range for me closer to wet plates and palladium without the laborious testing at printing.
    please provide your motivation for preferences as intended output as well

Share This Page