4x5 Equipment Recommendation Needed

Greetings to the LF users. I have a lot of questions with LF; but to

start with I should explain my needs.

 

My knowledge with camera is limited to 35mm format, outside of a few

Brownies and an Ikonta while they were in vogue. I know very little

about 4x5 camera, except for whatever I read recently from the Kodak

large format book, which doesn't contain much. But I would like to

use such a camera to take slides of paintings that will range from

8x10 to 40x60 inches, with the majority around 16x20. A decade from

now, I hope to have enough good works for publication and enough

money to finance it. I have been told by printers (when I placed ads)

that they prefer to work with 4x5 slides. Therefore, I need to buy a

4x5 camera. As for budget, I am willing to go up to a SINAR F2, if

that is the appropriate equipment. Now to the equipment questions:

 

 

1) Which lens should I buy? By this I mean focal length and name

brand. The requirements for me are: linearity, color accuracy,

contrast, and resolution (40 lpmm should be plenty), in descending

order of importance. I don't know if I should list macro capability

but the lens must be able to work down to half life size.

 

2) How many types of lens mounts are there, and which one should I

select? I don't know if the mount is also related to the standard.

 

3) Which camera should I buy? A camera with the minimum variety of

adjustments is preferred for its ease of operation. Theoretically, I

should just aim the camera dead center and perpendicular to the

painting. Therefore, front and back shifts and tilts actually are a

distraction unless they have a good detent at neutral (zero)

settings. However, a front shift is useful for certain paintings that

are too reflective (like a million microscopic convex and concave

mirrors) and therefore cannot be shot from directly up front. A

rotating back is fun to have but is not essential. It may be easier

to rotate the painting.

 

4) Should I be thinking about bellows length? If they are not

removable, what length should I get?

 

5) Should I just jump in head-first with a plastic Toyo and let

experience be my teacher?

 

6) Or keep on using the guy who wants 25 bucks a slide? It'll be

between 50 to 100 slides a year, excluding duplicates.

 

Your comments are appreciated.

Almost any half decent 4x5 should do, and I'd invest my money in good optics and lights. Also, 4x5 positives are usually referred to as "transparencies," not "slides." Further, are you selling origninal 4x5 trannies at 25 bucks a pop?

These are by no means <i>the</i> definitive source, but for a good place to start, see...

<p>Kerry Thalmann's <a href="http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/lightwei.htm">Lightweight Lenses </a> and <a href="http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/future.htm">Future Classics</a>

 

<p>As a landscape photographer, Kerry pays extra attention to portability.

 

<p>Also have a look at <a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html">Chris Perez' Large Format Lens Tests</a>

Hello Art:

The original paintings are being sold as they are completed, priced in commensurate with rising artists ($x,000). I would like to make trannies out of them for publication eventually (another book for the coffee table). The $25 is what a photog charges me now for copying a painting and give me a 4x5 for submitting ads to magazines.

DO you mean a light weight field camera is no different from a monorail camera for my present needs? I forgot to mention that, extrapolating from my 35mm experience, wide angle lens is harder to align the painting with, and a lens in the 50mm focal length is more suitable, and 70mm is even better. The latter is probably like a 300mm lens in the 4x5 format. However, that means I need a longer bellows.

Your advice is always welcome.

Another place to start looking over cameras is Q-Tuan Long's

 

<a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lf.html">Large Format Photography . Info </a>

Like ANY camera, the body is merely a box to hold a lens and film in the correct positions, but the variations are nearly endless. For shooting paintings, you really only need the simplest set-up, unless you want to branch out to other things. I documented art for decades, using virtually every format from 35mm to 11x14, and had little trouble lining up shots with almost any lens. I often had to shoot on locations, and had to use some very wideangle lenses at times. If money is no object, get an elaborate 4x5 with all the swings, tilts, drops and shifts, but you MAY find yourself not using them very much. If money is tight, get most any 4x5 that will accomplish the job, and buy good glass and lights.

I recently made 4x5's of oil paintings. I used a 4x5 Speed Graphic with its 127 mm Optar, mainly since I had a polarizing filter that fit it, and don't for my monorail. I conclude that camera or better is fine. You don't need movements, and the Graphic has few. A longer focal length might have been better, leaving more room for the lights. The "million microscopic convex and concave mirrors" was the real problem. I am using Novatron strobes, one at each side at 45 degrees. The "mirrors" were reduced with a polarizing filter on the lens, and cured by also putting polaroid filters (sheet polarizer from Edmund Scientific) over the lights, rotated to minimize the reflections. This did NOT work with one drawing under glass, the reflection of the camera off the glass was visible. I think that front shift would not have been usefull. I checked exposure with Polaroid film. I was shooting Portra, and printing on inkjet canvas with an Epson 1270. Nice very realistic prints.

It is all personal preference, so take our recommendations with a grain of salt. In your situation, I would probably choose a monorail camera. There are many available used that will do the job for you. A Toyo 45C or CX, a Calumet 45NX, 45NX-II, or 45N (or Cambo SC), and various versions of the Linhof Kardan are potential candidates.

 

For a lens, good candidates (again many are available used) in the focal length you are interested in include the Rodenstock APO-Ronar in 240mm or 300mm, the Fujinon A Series 240mm or 300mm, or the Schneider G-Claron 240mm or 300mm. The 240 should be analagous to an 85mm, and the 300 similar to a 100mm in 35mm photography terms. The maximum aperture for these lenses is f/9.0, which should not be a problem for your application. Lenses with larger maximum apertures require the big (and expensive) Copal No. 3 shutter.

 

Your lensmount will depend on the camera you choose. You will mount the lens to the lensboard designed to fit that camera. That is one of the great things about large format photography. You can mount just about any lens to your lensboard. You are not limited to what one or a few manufacturers produce for your camera.

 

You should be concerned about maximum extension (bellows and rail length). You have to make sure that you have the length necessary to use these longer lenses. It would be good to discuss this with the salesperson when you go to buy your camera.

 

In fact, make sure you let the salesperson know what you intend to do with the camera. If he or she knows about large format photography, their input might be very valuable.

I suppose I am going to be the dissenting voice here, but let me do a little math. Suppose that by some act of God you get an excellent 4x5 outfit for $1000. Lens, camera, film holders. So far you could have bought 40 trannys at $25 each. And still you dont know how to use the camera, you have not spent any money on lighting yet, IOW what are you a painter, gallerie owner or a photographer? <p>

Now if you go with a SInar F2, lets say $1500, you are already at 60 transparencies. and we have not included the cost of film, developing, reshoots etc, etc. And on top you plan to make duplicates!?<p>

Suppose as I am sure you are thinking, ah well when I learn how to do it well I will save a lot of money. Lets examine this. I will assume you are much smarter than I am, and instead of taking you years, it takes you 1 month to become an exceptional art photographer. Of course I am not including buying all the books I have bought etc.

last I heard color transparency goes for about 4 to 7 bucks film and developing. Lets go middle of the road. and say $6. Ok for an extra $19 dollars you are getting a guy to come to your place, set up lights, take the pic, run the film to the lab, if the lab messed up to reshoot your art, and then deliver the transparencies to you in nice film protectors. I would say you are getting off cheap!<p>

 

It kills me every time I hear a question like this, everybody thinks they can just pick up a camera and start making shots just like an experienced person, Why is that? I certainly would never think I can just pick up a brush and start painting, unless I am painting my house that is. :-))<p>

 

If you really wish to undertake this, then check E bay, there are many good cameras there. Pick one that has back movements as this is the only way to "straighten" lines, pick a semi wide angle lens, somewhere in the 90 to 150 range. Of course to get good colors you will need an APO lens, (oh boy there go another 6 to 700 bucks used)

Dont forget a sturdy tripod.<p>

 

My opinion stay with the guy and save yourself a lot of grief, and concentrate on <b>your</b> art, what you know how to do best.

A view camera would be excellent for what you want to do. One difference between paintings and other flat art is that painting are almost never completely flat. When you hang them on the wall to shoot, they don't hang flat, but at an angle, and the canvas itself has curvature. Using a view camera allows you to make minute corrections for the angle the painting hangs, and you can use lens tilt and swing to correct for the curvature in plane of focus of the canvas. It would be hard to see this in a 35mm viewfinder, or even a Hasselblad ground glass. The large 4x5 ground glass allows you to put a magnifier up and see those differences.

 

A toyo is a very good choice because they are inexpensive, have many accessories and can be had used for less $250. They tend to be on the bulky side, and the older ones are just plain heavy, but in a studio situation that not a disadvantage. Toyos also go by the name Omega, and these older cameras are in most cases compatible with current accessories. Just be sure to get a grafloc back. In a studio situation, they provide lots of movement potential for the money- if you decide to do shot sculptural art in the future.

 

Two good books to check out are the Kodak Copying and Duplication Book, and How To Photograph Works of Art by Sheldon Collins.

I purchased a used Sinar F1 in great condition with Schneider Symmar-S 5.6/180, 6 film holders, and an extension rail + fresnel for $650.00.

 

That's an ok large format deal, and the kit works perfectly. Just to let you know that there are 'miracles' all the over the place nowadays :)

 

As for the rest of your questions, there's a wealth of information online, and starting with photo.net's literature on large format photography is probably a good idea.

In addition to the camera, I would suggest you think about your lights a little too. There is an excellent book called Light-Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting by Paul Fugua that you might find useful. Many people reproducing artwork find that they want a system that does not produce excessive UV radiation or heat. There is a firm called Buhl Industries that is selling a nice system aimed at art reproduction, though you would need to do a bit of color correction to use their lights with non-digital systems. Strobes will also offer reduced UV, and are cool, but they do take some getting used to. Quartz lighting is the norm for copy work, and they can be very inexpensive, just remember they can be dangerous to some types of artwork (UV and heat).

 

As for a 4 x 5, I agree that most name brands would do. You may find a repro-oriented lens (flat field) is worth it. They can be cheaper than other normal lenses, so that is a big plus.

As stated in response:

 

"Hello Art: The original paintings are being sold as they are

completed, priced in commensurate with rising artists ($x,000).

 

Are you kidding? For what your getting for a painting, (if your

selling any that is) I'd continue to use the photographer and

instead concentrate on what's making me the most money;

Painting art. If your plumbing pipes start leaking are you going to

buy tools and become a plumber too? Stick to what you do best

and let another do what they do best.

You might consider the Horseman in-camera lightmeter that just slides into the film plane. It would turn your view camera into a virtual point and shoot.

Thank you Wayne! I thought I was the only one seeing the obvious here.....

I don't think the learning curve to do 4x5 flat art reproduction is significantly greater than the learning curve to do 35mm flat art reproduction. Very little traditional large format skills are required to do good flat art repro. If you have the discipline to set up your lighting properly, and line your camera up perfectly square with the the artwork at 35mm, you can do the same at 4x5. It probably will be a more enjoyable experience at 4x5, however because the image is much larger on the ground glass, the gridlines make lining up the image with the camera much easier, and the ability to compare focus from top edge to bottom edge with a magnifier makes critical focusing easier. Moreover in the darkened room, studio like situation, the image pops brightly on the ground glass- without a dark cloth. The important difference in using a view camera is to lock in the proper shape first with rear standard, and then make any focal plane adjustments with the lens standard. The adjustments are small, you can make them visually- and you don't need understand anything about Schiemflug to make them. Better yet just keep the camera zeroed, and line the camera up like you would a 35mm- tilt the tripod head to match the tilt of the painting, choose the best focal point that give the best edge to sharpness, then let stopping down and depth of field take care of the rest.

 

The other reason for at the very least look at 120mm over 35mm is ironically enough the economics the cost of film. 64T film often is only available in 36 exp rolls in many markets- meaning to finish an entire roll - even with over and unders- you would have shoot 12 setups. Going through 36 exp is fine in a controlled copystand situation- but shooting 12 paintings off a wall that each hang from slightly differently is more I want to shoot off a single a roll. Shooting 6x7 -10 shots on; 3 set ups per roll is alot more manageable. It's a big reason I don't like doing 35mm repro.

 

So I would say pick up the Kodak Copying book, pick up some photofloods, follow the lighting instructions in the Kodak book to the letter, and try shooting some 35mm copywork and seeing if it's a regimen you want to follow. If you can do good 35mm copywork, you probably can do good large format copywork. The regimen is only slightly different- and in alot of ways alot more enjoyable. At the time I started doing large format copywork, I had only done 35mm copywork, and most of what I knew about large format, I had forgotten from college. It just happened that my first request for medium format (6x9) copywork came shortly after I got my Toyo camera. I was initially terrified of the potential variables, and was pleasantly surprise how easy- and more enjoyable- the transition was. I was initially going to shoot with my Koni Omega, then after realizing how ridiculous shooting copywork with a rangefinder would be, switched to the 4x5 camera. Definitely a better choice.

 

Another consideration if you do go large format is whether to shoot 4x5 sheet film or 6x7 or 6x9 roll film. The ideal 4x5 copy lens would be around 240mm to 300mm, and would be relatively expensive. The ideal focal length at 6x9 on the other hand would the ubiquitous and often inexpensive 210mm. You might even get one as a package deal with the camera. You could use the 210mm as an effective 4x5 copy lens- but it would require longer bellows extension, that might in some cases complicate exposure calculation. Using my 203mm to shoot 6x9 copy transparency, I have never had bellows factor as an issue.

 

Finally if you are going to be shooting painting, you might have to alter the normal "Balanced light/ 45 degree" setup some if texture is major component of ypur artwork. The normal setup flattens art as much as possible, and obliterates texture. For texture you would have the lighting stronger from one direction than one side, and move the light in closer than 45 degrees for stronger relief detail. Both the Kodak and the Sheldon Collins book go into great detail about these shooting situations- however I prefer the way the Kodak book explains basic copy setups.

 

As other posters have indicated, you are not going to save much (if any) money your first round of shooting. And your photographer's fee of $25 per tran is very reasonable. However I think the skill to do good reproduction of one's own art effectively is a skill worth having and one more artist's should take the time to master. You going to create alot of art over a lifetime, and it would be nice to have a record of all of it- not just the stuff you can afford to send out.

 

But give it a try at 35mm- see if it's something you want to do.

 

 

I think I have solved the problem here.....

 

Somebody needs to find the name of his photographer, contact him/her, and

tell him/her to raise his/her prices. It's no wonder photographers can't make

any money. 25.00 to shoot paintings that will be sold for thousands?

 

I'm with Wayne and Jorge. I just have a litte more photographer friendly

solution.

Hi everybody:

 

I would like to thank everyone (No exception!) for taking the time to respond. The replies range from the Informative, to the "Just do it!", to the Enthusiastic, to "R U CRAZY?!", and of course the tangential. Thanks also to readers who e-mailed me on additional information from alternate sites. The forum indeed lives up to its name, in a good sense.

 

There is a huge difference between paintings and photos in terms of sale revenue. A painter can sell the painting only once, however pricy it may appear to be. But copies of photos can be sold ad nauseam, theoretically speaking.

 

I am aware of the cheap $25. Frankly, it worries me, considering that "You get what you pay for." At best, he is a cookie cutter. A spirit is embodied in every piece of good artwork. A commercial photographer, even at $100 a click, is not going to spend time to look for it.

 

There may have been some confusion. My transparencies are not intended for sale, but the images are being retained for eventual publication as an art book, God willing. This is just a dream, of course; but how else can we spice up our lives?