Heaven is 4x5

So I'm mainly a lurker. I read all of your posts and respond to a

few. I basically lurk b/c my darkroom(bathroom) is being remodeled

so I haven't been developing anything, just shooting and building up

a stock pile of film that needs to be developed. I purchased a Crown

Graphic a few months ago and I thought I'd give it a wirl. Now,

understand that my scanner is garbage and it's a scanned print on

Kodak Pearl RC paper that is a very grainy paper (IMO). So ignore

the dust....and there is a ton of it!!! I shot this test shot at

midday (terrible time I know) with J&C Pro 100, f8 at 1/500. Tray

developed in D76 (straight). The midday shadows are harse and my

scanner and lack of photo software don't do it justice, but since

it's my son...I am very proud. Also I've included a cut-out to show

just how underrated the Xenar is!!!!<div></div>

OK, lets try this again.<div></div>

Here is the cut-away.<div></div>

and the camera.

one more time.<div></div>

Very impresive photograph! One day I must give LF a try. Incidently, what is your opinion of J&C pro 100? I am interested in ordering some of their products.

Pardon me for stepping in here, but hopefully I can help out with Bill's question.

 

I've been shooting J&C Pro 100 since it first became available. It's a lovely film, with great tonality, good traditional grain for a 100 speed film, and it is an excellent choice for Zone system development (expansion and contraction). It responds very well to Pyrocat-HD. Be aware, though, that it does not respond well to sudden changes in pH and in general it is a fragile film when wet.

 

I avoid using a stop bath with this film, using a series of water rinses instead. (There have been numerous reports of the film developing pinholes if regular stop bath is used.) Be careful with the emulsion as it will scratch easily during development. Either a tanning developer or a hardening fixer is highly recommended.

 

In 120, the backing paper isn't the best, and there's no tape at the end of the roll to keep the film rolled up tight. Each roll is, though, supplied with a light-tight plastic tube...just be sure to keep the tube with you for when you're unloading the film. The traditional advice about loading and unloading the film in subdued light is especially important with this film. I've not had any problems with fogging when using a "red window" camera, although the numbers aren't as easy to see through the window as those on Kodak or Ilford films.

 

In 4x5 the film does not come in a box; rather, it comes in a stiff cardboard envelope. The inside light-tight envelope does it's job well, though, so the film can be stored just fine between sessions.

 

Given the low price of the film, I think it's a great value. I absolutely love using it with Pyrocat-HD; the image quality I get it as good as anything I've ever tried.

 

(Note: I'm in no way connected with J&C...I'm just a very happy customer.)

 

Be well.

I have a Crown just like yours and it's a blast! There is no scanner, save an extremely high priced model, that can do justice to the negatives this thing can produce in the right hands. You're gonna love it. Keep practicing with it and using it will soon become second nature. I do have a couple of questions though. First, does your rangefinder still work? I had to do reset the infinity stops for the 135 on mine and also had to realign the rangefinder. Second, I notinced that your finder is masked off to give an more accurate image with a longer lens. I believe you can remove that mask, though I just use the wire "sports finder" on mine with good results.

Not a bad composition. But as you said, never ever photograph people outside any time near the middle of the day. You can get around this by using a reflector to lighten the shadows. You can lie the person down or have them turn their head upwards. If you shoot on the beach or on snow, the sand/snow will act as a natural reflector. Keep on shooting!

Bill, this is my first 4x5 with the J&C Pro 100 so I don't have a lot of experience to give you any solid opinion. From this test negative, I was very impressed with the film. I have shot J&C in both 35 and 120 and have made this film my every day staple. Considering the price...it is a steal.

 

Frank, yes my rangefinder is spot on!!! The rangelite also works perfectly. The mask on my viewfinder, that you referenced, is for my 6x7 rollfilm back that I had just run a roll thru and left in there. For the 4x5 shot, I used a much bigger mask. I also have a 270mm Xenar that I haven't used yet, but will required the infinity stops adjusted as well as another mask that I have.

 

Thank you all for your comments.

You can adjust the infinity stops yourself. On most models they fold over. Just stick the new

lens on, use a heavy tripod. Then open up for focusing. Set the lens and move the front &

bellows back & forth until the scene is in focus. It's helpful to focus on a distant tree or

building.

I then use a Sharpie to mark on the rails where the front bed rested. Later you can apply

permanent paint if needed. You can even use different color sharpies (or paint) for different

lenses. It's quick and easy to swap lenses this way, and then draw the bed out to the

corresponding infinity mark. & lock it down.

I have a crown with a 180 Symmar, 90 Angulon, and 135 Raptar. All great lenses!

Dave, Jay -- Thanks for the information. In the next little while I plan to purchase some of that film. I look forward to running it through my Mamiya C33.

Jay, Excellent picture of your son, and I'm glad you have "discovered" the primo photojournalist 4x5 snapshot camera from the late '30s to the '50s. Of course, it could be used in a studio with controlled illumination.

 

Your mask number for a 135mm lens + 4x5 size, should be #4. The wire sports finder, was designed for the 150mm lens when using the 4x5 film format.

 

Like Frank said, the mask opening is too small. Remove the mask and tell us its number.

 

I have a 3x4 Crown with a 135mm Optar, and when using the 2x3 back, my mask number is #10. The Graflex,Inc. made several masks size to be used accordingly with a film format combined with an X focal lens.

 

Regards, Tito.

Sorry Jay, I've posted my reply and just found out that you already had the answer. Tonight, I'm kind of slow.

 

Regards, Tito.

No problem Tito, I do use a #4 for the 4x5. The one in the picture is a #5.

Very cool shot, Jay.

It works for me! Nice shot Jay.

Gentlemen:

 

What is going on lately ? I have also tried 4x5 a few weeks back, and I do not think anymore of 6x6 which was my passion. I was so impressed by my first 4x5 that I got a box of TMAX 100! I have run out of 35mm film, and I do not plan to purchase it anymore. Let's see what happens when I run out of 120.

 

The 4x5 negative is so impressive that it is a pleasure to just look at it. I have read in this forum that several people tried it recently for the first time and all were awed by the results. Was it that 35mm was "oversold". This small format looks now like a "toy format" as compared to these big negatives. All the discussions about grain or no grain do not make any sense at all with 4x5. Sharpness is incredible and the tonalities... You have to experience these by yourself.<div></div>

Jay: now you see what you can do in unfavourable conditions, you'll be itchin' to shoot some more of him in more flattering lighting! Apart from the limitations imposed by the harsh lighting, I like the shot and its composition. So, apart from the cost of the camera and film, you now need to buy a 4x5 capable scanner :-)

 

Diwan: I loaded my Minox 35GT the other week with some XP2, and it surprised me how small the film seemed now, especially after shooting 6x6 and larger for the past year. In fact, since getting into 6x6 and 6x9 folders, I've hardly shot any 35mm film. The 6x6 ones especially are so easy to carry around. The 5x4 (MPP Micro Press) is not quite so easy to hang over your shoulder all day.

 

I'm just dreading when someone starts showing off his/her classic 8x10....

 

 

Paul

Like a friend on another site says... sooner than you think, 4x5" is going to start looking quite small. Care for 8x10" contact printing?

Dear Mr. Headland:

 

Yes, very much correct. The main problem with the 4x5 is not the exposure, is not the film, it is the bulk of the whole thing.

 

If you see this past thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CbyO

 

It indicates halfway down the page how I, and how somewhat, solved the bulk problem: it is to get a smaller and more portable 4x5 camera.

 

I read about your Micropress. My Speed Graflex is quite voluminous and akward for handheld operation. If you are interested in my solution, please drop me a line, I will be glad to send you more info.

 

As to portability, image quality and film capacity... Well, 35mm is a good compromise ( for snapshots...), 6x6 is rather good if one uses a Iskra or Zeiss Nettar folder type small camera, I will not be caught hauling a TLR all day long ! In 4x5, without any Grafmatic six-shooters, it can become an ordeal to carry all those sheet film holders.

 

The photograph that I posted was taken with my 4x5 camera. As you can see the result is identical to any 4x5 regardless of bulk. I will be pleased to show you my solution.

 

The scanning solution for 4x5 is to get a cheap Epson Scanner that will take 9x6. As I learned from a previous thread, to make a stiff paper mask with a cut-out where the cover light shines. Then to scan the negative in two parts. This is then joined in photoshop. To me, this is the most economical way of scanning large format.

 

Thank you,