Prospecting

[scott_fleming1]

When I purchased my 4x5 system I also got about 200 pieces of film.

I got a good deal on a nice Toyo 4x5 AII with good lenses and most

of the needful ancillary items.

 

I shot up all the film over a couple months and have since purchased

another few boxes of quick and ready loads. Not being an

acomplished photographer with an in depth knowledge of exposure and

composition but having a certain sense of what looks good in a

frame ... I've found it challenging, to say the least, making

pleasing images.

 

Adding to the difficulty of my position I'm not attempting to simply

find any pleasing scene and record it on film but rather I wish to

show and share a particular invironment I am intimately familliar

with. My river. Because I live on and with it and I happen also to

be a bit of a nature freek ... I believe I've encountered something

special that folks might benefit from. I know those special moments

I've experienced out there ... in fact experience every time I walk

the river in anything less than a murderous frame of mind ... have

enriched my life.

 

But I have a problem. I'm gettin old. I'm also not very good

at 'seeing' the three dimensional world in my minds eye in two

dimensions as it appears on film and print. Consequently I now have

a catalouge of mistakes for my transparency collection. Repetitive

mistakes sadly to say and truly egregious wastes of film. It's

really a bitch attempting to learn photography in one's mid

fifties ... with a large format camera. Actually I think I've come

up with an entirely new definition for 'silly old fart'. I gave up

chasing after young girls but then I took up chasing after 4x5

photography. I'm not sure which one is more foolish.

 

So I bought a a medium format camera. I noticed that I was getting

some good ideas on what to shoot with my 35mm but the slides were so

minute I could barely get an idea of what was there by staring into

the loupe. With the MF slides (6x4.5) I can get a real sense of

what the scene within the frame might actually look like. Now ...

every once in a while I capture something that looks really good and

I can trundle out the big gun (4x5) and go after it.

 

It's a lot less expensive and deflating for the ego let me tell ya.

I simply cannot abide sheet film holders given my lifestyle and that

means quick/ready loads only. $4.50 a pop with development. That's

alot of money to waste prospecting for a good image. Especially when

out of the two hundred I've shot I feel good about two. That's ... 2.

 

By my fourth roll with the new MF camera I've already got three

decent prospects for 4x5. By shooting 15 or 20 images during the

magic light (as many as 10 different compositions) as opposed to the

one composition and 6 exposures with the 4x5 I'm developing real

possibilities instead of just blowing quickloads. Now when I take

the 4x5 out to follow up I have a much greater chance of getting a

usable image as I've seen it in the loupe and even know how to

improve it.

 

Granted I've set myself back a bit in really gaining proffeciency

with LF format. But then perhaps not, as in many ways I was at cross

purposes the way I was going. Messing about with another unfamilliar

camera didn't help at all regarding the 4x5 and I'm making sure to

get out with it at least twice a week. Things don't stick in the ole

gray matter like they once did and constant repetition is a must

when learning complicated new things at this age.

 

One big fly in the ointment however I have discovered. The day I go

out with the MF instead of the 4x5 will inevitably be the day we get

a great sunset. Then, the next three times I go out with the 4x5 the

sunset will be ... plain.

[darin_cozine]

Thank you for sharing your experiences with us, Scott. It made for very enjoyable experiences. I would be very interested to see some of your work posted on photo.net!

 

I have a different problem myself. Between looking for a new job and watching my two daughters, I am trying to find the time to get into LF photography. I managed to steal 1 hour away a few days ago so I could expose my first BW negatives. I somehow managed to get them developed in my make-shift darkroom. Someday i might get to making some contact prints so I can scan and post them.

 

Darin.

[scott_fleming1]

Keep on pluggin. The older you get the more money you will have if you work smart.

 

I get the urge to put my stuff on the screen from time to time but then I think 'what can come of putting something meant to me thirty to fifty inches wide on a 17 inch monitor'? Someday I'll get a scanner I suppose but then I'll have to learn all that digital stuff and sit at the puter for hours when what I really want to be doing is out tramping through the countryside. BUT then there ARE those months of 100 plus weather we get down here four months a year.

 

Thanks for the nice words.

[nicholas_fiduccia]

Scott, I enjoyed reading your post. When you shoot with your

medium format camera, do you use a tripod? The reason I ask

is that I have found the tripod slows me down a lot with my

35mm camera wihich is all I currently use. I imagine focusing

and trying to set up camera movements and exposure for a LF

camera takes a bit more time than with a MF or 35mm camera. I

do think your strategy is a good one from a cost and time

savings point of view. Sometimes, I just grab my little Yashica

T4 and head out for a hike. I sometime surprise myself at just

how good my pictures are. And, because I am shooting

handheld with an automatic camera, I can experiment with lots of

different compositions in a short period of time.

 

Must be nice to live next to a river!

[nicholas_fiduccia]

Here's a shot taken with a Yashica T4!

[miles_feigenbaum___dallas_]

Toyo 6x9 120 Roll Film Hldr F/4x5

No photo.net review has been written

Member Opinions(1)

Search photo.net for more information on the Toyo 6x9 120 Roll Film Hldr F/4x5

Manufacturer's Site

 

Purchase

online: F E A T U R E D S T O R E S

Product Version Vendor Price

Toyo 6x9 120 Roll Film Hldr F/4x5 Camra Adorama $599.95

Further price comparison on Dealtime.com. Before you buy from a vendor, please check photo.net member recommendations.

 

Description: Precision 120 Roll Film Holders

TOYO 4x5 backs also allow use of these holders without the removal of the ground glass. Film travels across back without curving for plane for superb film flatness. TOYO 180-725 & 180-726 120 roll film holders have a 4x5 graflock mounting plate to fit any 4x5 camera with removeable graflock ground glass backs. TOYO 69 / 45 120 Roll Film Holder 6x9cm For any 4x5 camera

 

 

 

 

[Description & Prices above]

 

Member Opinions

Toyo Roll 6x9 for 4x5

I used this back for long on my (various) Toyo 4x5 cameras with no problems. Very simple and easy loading. No problem with film flatness. Nice feature is the double lock (one for the film door, second for the slide removal). Once I got the Sinar F2 camera, I had problem mounting the back on the Sinar rear standard. I had to make a small filling adjustment to put it on. Second problem, I could not mount it vertically on Sinar because of the size of the back it self. For vertical shots, I use Calumet C2n back. All in all, I am very happy with this roll back.

 

Steven S. Miric, Apr 22, 2002

[www.graemehird.com]

Scott,

 

I think you may have taken a step backwards here: the best way I've found of developing my vision is to use the inverted image on the ground glass. If the lines aren't working upside down, they aren't likely to work the right way up either. The slow, considered approach demanded by LF, and the cost of pushing that plunger on the cable release, are the best way to limit your film wastage and to teach you what will work with LF. Stepping back to a "point and shoot" methodology is not likely to improve your ability to see through LF eyes.

 

I think Kelly Flannagan posted a message some time ago about using a digicam as a scouting tool. That's probably more valid than the MF route, since you know that your little digital file just won't hack it for quality, and you must go back to get it with the high quality equipment. Viewing is no problem on your screen, and ongoing costs are minimal. With MF, you might be tempted to say "that's pretty good, no need to shoot that again".

 

In any case, I hope you find the vision you're looking for.

 

Graeme

[audidudi]

I agree with the suggestion to shoot rollfilm. That's how I started and for budgetary reasons, it's how I was able to continue shooting over the next three years. The Toyo rollfilm backs are among the best and should fit your camera perfectly; with a bit of careful shopping, they can be bought new for considerably less than B&H's $599.95 price (think Robert White) and used for as little as $150.

[james_driscoll2]

I suggest shooting B and W polaroid or buying a polaroid 405 holder

and using 600 series (medium format film) with your toyo.

 

If you buy type 54 it will cost you $2.00 a sheet, and you will be

able to get instant feedback.

 

If you buy polapan pro 100 in 600 series film it will cost you $1.00 a

shot, and you will again get instant feedback.

 

Polaroid is a wonderful learning tool, and for all you purists-even

Mr. A. Adams, suggests the learning photographer use it in his books.

 

I would rather spend a $100 or less on either a used polaroid 545i

back or a polaroid 405 back, then deal with buying a roll film back.

 

thanks

jdjdjdjdjdjdjdj

[james phillips]

Scott,

 

I enjoyed reading about your challenges and have found myself on occasion to be in the same position. Might I suggest (as you seem to live very close to this river) that you pick a single location to work on for the whole day? You should restrict yourself to not walking the river but rather to a very small area to work within. Then try to spend as much of the critical light times (early morning and mid-afternoon, late evening into sunset) attempting to do compositions.

 

Perhaps think ahead a few days before so that you approach the challenge with some very specific goals in mind. A location you can set-up with perhaps the sun coming directly at you or directly behind you in the early morning. Give some thought to whether you would like to use a filters during this shot and if so which filter for what specific reason? Consider your exposure and film selection before you go out to this location. Do you want the rising sun to be "blazing bright" and the tree line to be very dark? Do you want the sun to be much more subtle?

 

Be prepared before the sun starts to rise with a very specific idea of what you want the outcome to be. Have notes ready for exposures that you wish to try and why you are trying them.

 

After doing all of this you can review at home the negatives and prints to see if you are getting close to what you want. If not, then now you have the information of what you tried and how it affected your outcome. Also you have explored the full gamut of lightning conditions by staying in one place throughout a whole day. Just comparing those shots alone should help you to come closer to achieving your impressions on film.

 

Hopefully these suggestions might help you to explore the opportunities from a different and fresh perspective.

 

Good Light,

[donald_miller1]

Scott, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your experiences. A couple of thoughts come to mind. The first is that Ansel Adams was once reported to say that if he came up with one "good" image a month that he considered his considerable amount of time in the field to be effectively spent. I am not sure whether you are shooting color or black and white. Since I haven't shot color for a number of years most of my recent experience is with black and white. Along the lines of vision, a book that I enjoyed and that directly addresses seeing "upside down" is "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" I believe the author was Edwards. An aid to seeing is also a "viewing frame" very simply constructed along the ratios of the film format. Some folks attach strings with knots in it to approximate the focal length of the lenses used. I personally use the Zone VI viewing filter. I have found it to be helpful. As a final comment on your age and engaging in 4X5 photography, I am 60 years of age and have just bought a 12X20 inch camera. Am I crazy??? Probably, but this is my life, it is not a "dress rehearsal".

[ed_pierce2]

Scott:

Maybe your style of photographing is more suited for medium format. There's nothing wrong with that, don't think of it as a failure. Two good images out of 200 slides...that's really not unheard of, especially if you are bracketing and using several sheets per shot. I use B&W, and get maybe five keepers a year, out of about 500 sheets of film, or 150 setups.

 

I know all about working rivers & streams with a 4x5; that's where I spend at least half my shooting time. It's damn hard, no question about it. And the best camera position is invariably the hardest spot to get to. I tell myself that harder work = better results, and that my work is unique because very few people will go through what I do to make pictures. Probably not true, but it makes me feel better.

 

You might do this already, but one thing I do is carry my camera as little as possible. I put it down out of the way and scout around a lot without it. If I find an image, I then have to decide if it's really possible to get the camera into that spot; sometimes it just can't be done, or it's too dangerous, or I'm just too lazy.

[paul_.]

Scott: 1) sunsets are overrated, but getting deeply into a place (in any medium) is probably underrated, IMO; I think your relationship with the river sounds full of all kinds of potential. 2) Your Toyo is a good camera, but not fast for a field camera. If you like 4x5 ditch everything for a Linhof Tech IV with a rangefinder, cammed lens(es) and a grip--no more "one shot per evening" 3) It sounds like you have a 645. I learned to hate that format, through owning/using each (yes, all three) of the manual Fujis (45, 65, 80) plus a Mamiya. 645 brilliantly combines the worst of large format (fewer shots per roll, troublesome loading, bigger cameras (even if the Fujis were light) with the worst of 35mm (small neg--you get a bigger neg, but not bigger enough to make the larger prints you got it for in the first place). 4) May I suggest a 6x7? The Fujis are decent and easy to use (IMO the 6x7 provides a tinier bit sharper and more even neg., I guess due to using less of the image circle), and aren't pricey, the Mamiya 7 will give you incredible results and IS pricey, and there are others. 645 and 6x7 are night and day. I once (no kidding) had the owner of what was at the time LA's leading contemporary photo gallery look at a 16x20 working print of a neg. shot with my old Plaubel Makina 67 and remark that it was great that I was working in 4x5 since so many young artists were using med. format (wish I still had the PM but they can be trouble). So you may find work made with a 6x7 an end in itself, not a means to an end. 5) just chase older women. 6) Are you in Texas, or am I confusing you with another poster? Wherever you are, take a trip to the nearest university library and look over their art photo section. Buy/check out some books (you can usually get a community users card). Look at good work. I think that�s the most overlooked way to �learn� photographic artmaking (quotes because �learning� photo, unless your aspiration is to be a tech, is really learning to make art. Anyone can learn the technique of photography, just as anyone can learn to make realistic drawings. It�s the next part, the learning to make work that satisfies you, that counts).

[scott_fleming1]

... for the contributions and suggestions. It's enjoyable to hear of other's varried experiences and methods.

 

Some of the most productive comments above, for my needs, involved the 'art' of photography and the problem of 'seeing'. Some mentioned lines ... and staring into the ground glass. I just have not gotten there yet I guess. I look into the ground glass long enoug to get the focus right and make sure there are no plastic coke bottles or dead fish or such in the frame. Then I check the 'basic' composition as to how much sky as opposed to how much earth/water. I may notice if that tree on the near horizon perhaps sticking up would be better left out of the frame.

 

For me, perhaps because of my older eyes, the gg is not much better than a polaroid for really seeing the potential of an image. I've seen something with my eyes which is nearly always just a scenic and the light. It's about the vegetation and the geology of the place. It involves the moving water. Then, most of all, how the light touches everything. The 'lines' don't mean much to me. A 5 inch wide gg just does not reproduce what my eyes see as I look over the camera.

 

So my problem has been learning to faithfully reproduce the real world through the illusion of film. My failures have been mostly failures of exposure and of learning what can and what cannot be seen on a flat piece of transparency film. Some of my efforts which seem to fall short on the light table might actually be somewhat impressive if blown up to four or five feet. Anybody know of a 4x5 projector?

[ed_pierce2]

Without a doubt, seeing is the most difficult, yet most crucial, aspect of expressive photography. It sounds to me that you're on the right road. Being frustrated indicates you care enough to keep trying.

 

There's a sense of peace and of being involved which I get from moving water. A river is always moving, yet remains in the same place. I can touch and feel water but I can't pick it up. No two shots of moving water are the same. This water is bound for faraway places, but will be back again.

 

My more successful river/stream pictures are small areas. A broader view is much more difficult to manage. With a small area, it's easier to have just a few elements in the image, which can make a stronger image.

 

Personally I also find it much easier to make an expressive B&W photo rather than a color one. The colors get in my way and detract from the forms and textures.

[carl_weese]

Scott,

 

I've just put up a show of my work from a nearby forest reserve

with a river. The trick to "seeing" a subject like this may

be,mostly, perseverence. I've been spending time in the park

since 1974, but the thirty pictures in the show were made from

1996 to the present. That's twenty-two years of just looking,

before six years of shooting.

 

From a technical standpoint, switch to negative film. Shooting

forest subject matter with the limited tonal range of transparency

film is putting a major hurdle in your way. I wasn't happy with my

forest work until I began printing it in platinum, from 8x10, 7x17,

and 12x20 inch negatives. Nothing else, technically, could

convey my vision of the subject.---Carl

[scott_fleming1]

Well you really got me thinking. I've never shot print film as of yet with the 4x5. Can the lab look at the negs and tell which ones are within a stop or so of acceptible exposure thereby saving me the expense of proof printing overly dark or blown negs? I'm sure I could pick this ability up after a while if I had the lab helping me on the first several.

 

Besides taking the giant leap to 4x5 I took the leap from negs to trannies at the same time. I'm just now getting to the point where I can begin to trust that I understand what my light meter is telling me as pertains to transparencies. I love em but I know what you say when you call them an obstacle. There are so many images I just don't even try to take when using slides as I know the outcome will be too dark and if I open up it won't look like I want it to.

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

[paul_coppin]

One problem you may be having with exposure may be a combination of tranny film and your subject. I'm assuming you're in "big sky" country, or at least your river views typically include a lot of sky, and if you're "magic light" evening shooting for sunsets you've maybe got bright sky, dark shadows, and rapidly changing ratios. If so, tough shoot with transparency film without ND grads, and they can be tricky to use right. Maybe you need to limit your view to scenes of less contrast and more stable light until you get more comfortable analysing the light in a scene. A bunch of consistent, albeit prosaic scenes might be your first target, rather than trying to capture the image of your mind's eye, which is tough for most of us. Is the MF camera autoexpo? As an exercise, it might be a plan to pick a tolerable view with the 4x5 and a box of film, and work the same scene until you get it right, keeping notes. You may be juggling too many variables at once. If you're not using a gray card you might get one and stick in the scene some distance from the camera and at the same light angle and take a reading, then wander the meter about the scene and learn to recognise elements that give you the same middle tone. That's going to be your first step to then sorting out whether the bright and dark areas are within the 6 stop range of trans film.

[scott_fleming1]

GreyWolf,

 

I should have sought your advice long ago but then I would not have been able to grasp it at the time. Obviously you know of what you speak, because I have been forced by circumstances into doing just about everything you suggest. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

Best Regards,

Scott

[scott_fleming1]

Ed,

 

Narrowing the perspective. I know you're right and my instincts whispered early on to go that way ... but I was seduced by the 'grand perspective' ... and still am. Never quit. Never surrender. Never say die.

 

I am picking up the longer lens more these days though.

[www.graemehird.com]

Scott,<p>

 

You say <i>"The 'lines' don't mean much to me". </i><p>

 

Perhaps that's my poor expression of the property we are looking for. When I said "if the lines aren't working when inverted" I probably should have said "composition" or "graphic design" instead of lines. The inverted image is almost a pure image which is not being filtered by your memory of the scene in front of the camera (which is in turn influenced by what you are feeling at the time: the smells, sounds and biting bugs that are all part of the experience of being there.) The viewer of your image won't have the benefit of your experiences at the moment of capture, so they are only seeing the pure image <i>sans</i> filter. What I'm saying is that the inverted image should be a competent image that will display a graphic quality of its own: if it doesn't, then your tranny is not likely to show one either.<p>

 

<i>A 5 inch wide gg just does not reproduce what my eyes see as I look over the camera. </i><p>

 

Precisely! Therein lies the problem. Neither does the tranny: your eyes (through that wonderful interpretation device, your brain) "see" the whole experience, including sounds, tactile stimuli and peripheral vision, whereas the GG is <b>only</b> reproducing the light reflecting from the scene. This property is further enhanced when you remove yourself from the environment by ducking under the dark cloth. When you later look at your trannies, you are seeing what what you saw on the GG: if the tranny doesn't cut it, it's because what you saw on the GG didn't cut it. You just didn't recognise it at the time because you were remembering the world outside the dark cloth, not critically assessing the image on GG.<p>

 

<i>So my problem has been learning to faithfully reproduce the real world through the illusion of film.</i> <p>

 

I get the impression that you may be reproducing the real world more faithfully than you want to, not the other way around. You <i>are</i> getting exactly what was in front of the camera, but you are only remembering selective parts of the scene (probably those parts of the that made you get the camera out in the first place). You need to be more selective with the scene, and critical of the image on the GG, <b>before</b> you push the button, not after.<p>

 

Try this little exercise: take some of the well exposed trannies out into the field and stand in your tripod positions. Look at the scene in front of you and compare it to the tranny. Does it faithfully reproduce the real world? I'll bet you it does, only <i>too</i> well. Then set your camera up as it was when you took the picture (same lens, filter and composition). After you've set up, look at the GG and compare it again with the rotated tranny. Has the tranny faithfully reproduced what you see in the GG? Apart from the differing light conditions, the images should be essentially the same. The camera's not at fault: it did what it was told to.<p>

 

<i>My failures have been mostly failures of exposure and of learning what can and what cannot be seen on a flat piece of transparency film.</i><p>

 

Your high "failure" rate is not likely to be due to camera error, but is more likely related to your failure to recognise that the image on the GG is not going to be a "winner". Critically assess that image before inserting the film and you will save yourself money and time, and learn your craft in the process. While I can't help you with the exposure, I <u>can</u> tell you that what can and can't be seen on a flat piece of transparency film is the same as what can and can't be seen on your ground glass.<p>

 

Good Luck,<p>Graeme

[scott_fleming1]

Paul,

 

Dude! Yer cookin on another planet! Don't stop.

 

You sound like the kind a guy who will blaze the new path one day. Or rediscover one long lost.

 

Yes sunsets are over-rated but the light from them cannot be dismissed.

 

Thanks.

[scott_fleming1]

Graeme,

Boy, you folks down there sure are liberal with your vowels. =)

 

Thanks for the hard thought and extensive response. In looking at your lightning pic I KNOW you did not figure that out on the gg. It's sort of that way with the broad scenes I'm trying to catch. Lots of guess-work. The eye is so advanced compared to the shutter and a particular film. You'd think science would have come up with something better by now.

 

I notice no one has picked up on my comment regarding a 4x5 projector. I really want to see some of these transparencies on the wall at 10x or 20x. Looking at this teensy little pictures just does not cut it for me. I always liked that section of the museum where the paintings were at least 8' by 12' though. Small art just never did it for me. Even looking at St. Ansels best stuff I think ... "If only I could see it at life size." I know, it's just a wierd wrinkle I have.

 

I really like your lightning pic. I especially like that you took it over a city. Very special. Is it purple on your wall or is that just a www aberation? And Cumulo Louminous. Can't believe you snagged that title and no one thought of it before. Genius. I like the image too. Like to see it at about 6'x ____ in an Ilfochrome.

 

Thanks for your help. Scott

[wayne_crider4]

Scott I'm in my early 50's and have experienced te same as you. Maybe like

me you just need to be more fluid in finding your compositions and less static.

I always shot better handheld with the Graphics speed finder or with the RB;

What about a viewer and open lens before you plant yourself?

[www.graemehird.com]

Yep, the rest of the world has lots of vowels to spare too! I think the declining US dollar must be causing some sort of shortage there. I'll lend you a few if you like. :)

 

Thanks for the comments on the photos. The lightning shots are preconceived and visualised before I even leave the house: the internet tells me where the storm is headed, and I go to one of the sites I've marked out around town. I set up the canvas with a foreground, some one else wields the brush for the sky. He rarely misses the canvas. I rarely miss the foreground, but I've got the GG to help me.

 

The purple comes from the rendition that velvia gives it. I have not tried to correct (?) it out because I like it. I'll load up a quad-toned B&W with a different slant on things.

 

Cummulo Luminous looks great at 16"x30", 6'x11' might be pushing the friendship with the wife (not to mention the bank manager) a little too much!

 

Cheers, and keep up the interesting threads. I'm enjoying following your development through the photographic journey to personal satisfaction.