Where have the Large format cameras gone?

[richard_]

<p>Thanks Cliff! And i'm glad you like the lens. ( From your previous threads, i knew you liked 'Novar's').<br>

For Janne Moren : Using a tripod mounted 8x10 can lead to static pictures i guess. But so can a 35mm camera on a tripod. I guess alot depends on what your shooting,etc. Edward Weston could 'wheel around' an 8x10 as well a some folks with much smaller cameras.<br>

Also, many of the 4x5 Crown graphic's have range-finders - so you don't need a tripod.<br>

And if your scanner can't do large negs. you can just make a contact print then scan that...<br>

For Les Sarile : What to look for in an 8x10 camera. (?) For the type of shooting you described (casual stuff) a Wood-field would be adequate with a 300mm-360mm 'normal' lens.</p>

 

[janne_moren]

<p>Richard, I didn't mean it negatively. LF seems to lend itself especially well to relatively static subjects, though, which is why scanning backs can be a reasonable approach.<br>

I don't mind a tripod; I often carry one around for my Pentax 67 anyway. I do kind of feel that since I use MF already (including a 6x9 format folder), 4x5 doesn't seem that big a step up, so LF would mean 8x10 or something like that. I really would prefer if I could take a course, or follow along somebody with an LF setup to see what it'd really be like to use.</p>

<p> </p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Janne,<br>

The difference between 2x3 and 4x5 is a huge jump. You are going from a bit over 7 square inches to 20 square inches of information. Unless you intend to do contact printing of the large negatives, ie some of the now called alternative processes, 4x5 can be scanned or enlarged on photographic paper to whatever print size you desire. That is why it has been a long mainstay of professional photography. If you just wanted to try out 8x10 you could rent a camera and try it. If you liked it you could buy one or build one. Even the 8x10 fixed focus Wide angle HOBO type cameras are great to walk around with. You can do the same with 4x5 or any size you like. There are lots or plans out there for DIY field cameras.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Cliff: I think that you are seeing and will continue to see less LF cameras at all purpose camera stores simply because the demand is down. But there are still thousands of users world wide. We ship LF cameras to some very far away and exotic places.</p>

[patrick_stack]

<p>Cliff -</p>

<p>Here in the Northwest I still see approximately the same number of LF folks, gathering at the more popular and dramatic sights, such as Mt. Rainier, Olympic Rain Forest and the Pacific Coast. There never was a large number of us, (I use a Wisner Classic Field 4X5, with Schneider lenses.) But the common concern I hear about is from those, (like me,) that don't do their own lab and printing work. That has indeed slowed a bunch of us down, as the labs available for custom LF work is on a dwindling list.</p>

<p>Some have said they see the day coming when they will just give up film altogether, thinking digital is an inevitable, singular medium at some point in the near future. I don't share that thought, I believe there exists enough interest in film photography to justify continued production and supply for a long time to come, but there will be a much more limited selection of types available. And that won't do the prices any favours, either, but I'll bet we'll be able to keep the Med and LF shutters firing for as long as I'll want to.</p>

<p>In my favorite high end camera store in Seattle I still see quite a lot of LF inventory, and considerable customer interest. Let's hope we'll still have supplies at hand for a long time, bet we will. I really enjoy you're many interesting post's, thank's.</p>

<p>Patrick</p>

[wmwhee]

<p>I purchased a used 4x5 tachihara field camera. A friend and I use, among other cameras, large format cameras and we exchange photographs with one another. For what it's worth, I have not seen another person shooting with a large format camera in the field. I am strictly an amateur b&w photographer. </p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>Cliff, maybe that camera is too clumsy to carry around. But, it goes to show that back then.People did the best they could, with what they had. These days, people complain about a Mamiya RB being too heavy. A camera is too manual, (where's the auto focus on this thing?).</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>You're right Jack, and those were about the best cameras of the day. It's quite interesting to have a camera like that on a Beach rather than a Brownie of some sort. Maybe there was a Bathing Beauty contest or something special. She would probably be saying to the new prism SLR users <strong>"Bless your pointed little heads, but I like mine just fine"</strong></p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Bill Wheeler, I looked at your on-line pictures and Love that one of Gene on the street with the field camera. We all need to do more of that. If people saw this more often they might want to do it themselves. Also your Ikonta with the Tessar is quite a performer. I didn't see any with your Tachihara, maybe didn't look hard enough. That is a very capable and reasonably priced camera. How do you like it and what lens/lenses do you use on it?</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Patrick, We don't have a lot of dramatic spots here in Florida. Lots of swamps and then there is Disney and the tourist traps. If I wasn't so sick, I would be running the coast, shooting the Greek sponge fishermen, the Oyster trawlers, or the Tall ships that come into Key West for the Pirate festivals, and some of that sort of thing that is very photo worthy. At this point I have to take a Nitro after I go out and close my front gate and back. I sure wish I could find some young kid that would drive me around, and haul my stuff, in exchange for teaching them. I think the Wisner's are top notch cameras, when you can get one from them.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>I meant to say Oyster fishermen and shrimp trawlers, but it was too late to edit.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>The closest Camera store to me is the Ritz in Gainesville. When I called them last year, I needed some B&W chemistry right then and was going to drive up to get it. They told me they didn't have anything B&W except a few rolls of the C41 film, and didn't even know what I was asking for. They politely told me that they could order anything I wanted, and I politely told them so could I. I don't understand what they are teaching in the Photography classes at the University there, without stocking B&W supplies at the local store. I guess the Kids must buy their supplies right on campus or don't use film anymore.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>In some areas High Schools and Jr Colleges got rid of chemical darkrooms over 5 to 7 years ago; thus the enlargers and all darkroom gear got scrapped as surplus crud. The lone token camera store here stocked tri-x in 120; D76; stop and fixer for the schools; then the schools drop they "dangerous" chemical based darkrooms. I bought a nice Bessler 23c for 35 bucks; and a kid got the Schools Durst 35mm enlarger with componon for 25 bucks; about 5 years ago at the thrift store. 10 years ago even Walmart & Walgreens here stocked tri-x in 120 and 35mm; plus Walmart sold chemicals. Now the local photo store is closed; and Walmart or Walgreens has not had a roll of tri-x in 35mm for say 5 years. In areas that schools still have chemical based darkrooms; some mail order it or buy locally.</p>

[wmwhee]

<p>Cliff, I have a 90mm lens and a 150mm lens. I would like to have a 210mm lens, but I am trying not to spend more money on equipment. I use the tachi all the time, along with other cameras, but I have not posted any recent photographs in my gallery because I have not updated, or renewed, my membership. This weekend I went on a hike in the mountains. I packed my tach in its backpack in the trunk of my car, but I decided not to carry it on the hike. It's pretty heavy, and I wanted to travel light on the hike. Instead, I took my rollei which, with its ground glass screen and decent-sized negative, is the next best thing to a large format camera. </p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Kelly, that is totally appalling, that they could teach a class of photography and not include wet photography. The new Course syllabus must look something like this:</p>

<p><strong>1)</strong> <strong>Introduction to digital Cameras</strong>.................................Push the Auto Button</p>

<p><strong>2) Artistic Study</strong>.............................................................Someone volunteer<br />to strip and sit on a stool while we all put our digital camera on<br />Auto and take your picture. ( Hopefully no one will sneak out with<br />a memory card and post to the web)<br /><strong>3) Technical Aspects</strong>........................................................We will all learn to use<br />Photo Shop to try and make something pretty out of the pictures.</p>

<p><strong>4) The End</strong> .............................................. Have a nice summer.........</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>"In some areas High Schools and Jr Colleges got rid of chemical darkrooms over 5 to 7 years ago"<br />The kids in my area are lucky then. The schools, colleges at least. Have a B&W class where a 35 is needed. Seeing that "too clumsy to use" photo, makes me think that I was born too late! Except for the being 6' under part, now!</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Some say "Save the planet-Kill yourself" I say we should start with the digital camera makers that add huge amounts of plastic to the land fills ! Going back to cameras made of renewable wood, lenses made of glass (silica..Sand, not plastic ), and emulsions made of elements from the earth like silver nitrate, that return to the earth in a natural cycle. I think I'm going to paint my View Camera GREEN !</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Cliff;<br>

digital cameras have been around along time.</p>

<p>The first ones I used were back about 1992 ish; thats 17 years ago; before many High School students today were born.<br>

Our first 35mm slide scanner was bought in 1988; our first digital wide format inkjets in the early 1990's.</p>

<p>In grade school I used WW2 surplus 4x5 tri-x; 35mm tri-x was not around even; and 35mm was not well thought at a serious format. 120/620/MF was to old farts still the Brownie kids toy format. For weddings a 4x5 was used for formals then and MF for candids; using 35mm for a wedding then would be like using say 110 or a cellphone; or worse. For school sports I used at first a crappy Argus A2; then an Exakta VX; or Speed Graphic. The school enlarger was an Omega 4x5 rig; 4x5 was the norm for school group shots of groups; or sometimes say a 2x3 rig like my Vigilant 620. One used 35mm for sports many time becuase one could bulk load it cheap; a 100 roll was say 2 to 3 bucks.<br>

<br /> With time what tools used to shoot images change.<br>

There are folks who today have never used a film camera; maybe except for a disposable.<br>

In many places there are no stores that still have a 35mm film camera available for sale; except for a bubble pack camera in the fire sale area.<br>

<br /> There is more action about LF cameras in the LF forum than the classical forum.<br>

There are many used LF cameras around; a glut of them on Ebay and old camera stores.<br>

There is also a glut of MF cameras too; since film usage has dropped.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The bulk of all LF film ever shot was for Newpapers with a press camera.<br>

Today one has small groups of folks using LF rigs at 1/1000 to 1/10000 the rate of the press camera chap of 50 years ago; a trickle.<br>

The market for LF gear is small and LF gear often lasts decades.<br>

Folks like Bruce, etc who sell LF gear wisely try to get the biggest bang for the buck with advertising; thus the internet; Ebay etc is used more than paper adverts.<br>

There are pockets of used LF gear at many old camera stores; just calling them one can find a used gizmo that one has always wanted.</p>

 

[jack_welsh]

<p>Cliff, on 60 minutes tonight, they had the problems about "E-waste". Waste from computers,ipods, cameras, etc. Not saying to go back to strickly film. But, there are parts of China and India that are so polluted, that people can't drink the water, breath the air, etc. It's from the lead, gold, plastics and the other polluting sustances found in electronic gadgets. And, people say that film cameras pollute! Never saw the substances from film and it's cameras pollute a whole city.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/08/nyregion/pollution-by-kodak-brings-sense-of-betrayal.html"> <strong>"Never saw the substances from film and it's cameras pollute a whole city" </strong> </a></p>

<p>Just go back 20 years :)</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>I'd love to, Why stop at 20 years.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>kelly, have never seen film and film cameras make it impossible to drink the water or make the air so full of acid. That the people were choking . They used 17th century technology to get the gold out. Women were heating the lead solder to extract the components from the PC board. That might be in China and India. But, film never did that the "20 years ago" in those countries.</p>

[mike dixon]

<p>Jack, do a little research into Eastman Kodak's environmental record. Film is most-definitely <strong>not</strong> an environmentally-friendly medium.</p>

[cliffmanley]

<p>Film is not Eastman Kodaks environmental problem, it's the plastics and associated chemicals to make the plastic and throw away cameras that was the problem. They are now recycling as much of that as possible and using special scrubbers on the incinerators for this stuff. If you look at the material safety data sheets on film and developing chemicals you will see that they are quite safe to us and the environment.</p>