james_chinn

It seems to me the vast majority of posts have nothing to do with technique or aesthetics, but with equipment and materials. I think if you look through posts you will find a large percentage deal with someone plugging a favorite camera when someone asks for advice on a purchase, favorite or preferred lenses, tripods, film etc. Photonet should welcome announcements by workshop organizers, and manufacturers.

 

If someone is introducing a new LF product it should be mentioned here. No need to get into pricing or a sales pitch, just the announcement, some info and a link to more information.

The Bauhaus in Germany with Gropius and Nagy in the 20s was a definite influence on their American counterparts. The New Bauhaus and later the Institute of Design in Chicago was a further development and extension of modernism. While White was focused on the application of teaching photography for the world of illustration and advertising, the New Bauhaus/Institute was concerned with teaching and exploring the use of photography as a design tool in and of itself. Nagy would discuss in lectures the ideas of "light in place of pigment", and drawing with light". He was in favor of liberating photography from the world of representational art.

Later Nagy was followed by Harry Calahan and Aron Siskind who expanded on using photography's unigue attributes and characteristics as design tools.

The early modernists came out of the Clarence White School. Best known would be Ralph Steiner, Margret Bourke-White, Laura Gilpin, Paul Outerbridge and Dorethea Lang. A great deal of this work was made in the 20s and predates F64. Strand was influenced by these photographers and at the same time his early studies of abstracts in 1916 helped move White and his teaching away from pictorialism to modernism. Adams credits Strand with opening his eyes to what would become the F64 estetic in 1932.

 

On the East coast the technology for reproducing photographs for publication in magazines arrived around 1920 and fueled the need for a modern realsitic rendering of subjects. One example that most will be familiar with is Typwriter Keys by Ralph Steiner. Made in 1921 it is completely modern by F64 standards yet predates F64 by 11 years. The other fact about the photo many don't realize is that it was made for an advertisement for a ink manufacturer. This evolution was not just occuring in America. The same movement was taking place in Europe at the same time.

 

Adams, Weston, were modernists but it is important to understand who came first. The source for my argument is the book, Pictorialism into Modernism, published by George Eastman House and authored by Bonnie Yochelson and Kathleen A. Irwin. The book accompanied a traveling exhibit by the same name organized the the Detroit Institute of Art in 1996.

After shooting LF for about 15yrs it seems in retrospect that starting out with 8x10 and contact printing is an easier way to go. You eliminate the hassles and expenses of an enlarger, lens, etc. You can get stunning prints with contact printing even on non AZO paper.

 

I would start out with HC110 for a film developer or jump right in with Pyro. Agitation is not really an issue because you are going to be using trays so agitation is pretty controlled.

 

For paper I would start with a couple of boxes of an Ilford or Forte Fiber based paper and as you get the hang of things move on to AZO for really superior prints.

 

It is interesting to note that I now know of two others who both went to school to study photography and after realizing most of their professional time is spent with digital imaging and computers, have opted to use LF film and wet darkroom for personal work.

I think it is a mistake to have a preconceived notion of what image you want and exactly how you want to make it. i don't want to be someone who has a dozen film holders loaded, drives all day to get someplace for the end of day light, passes up many other opportunities and finds the sky clouded over and the light poor when I get there. You need to have an open mind to many possibilities, but that is a personal choice. I have learned that the "perfect light" happens while I set up the tripod, or two minutes after I expose the last sheet of film in what I thought was the "perfect light".

 

I think it isn't that the photographers Richard mentions have nothing between the ears, they simply don't see. That is what is great about just getting in the car and driving if you are open to all the opportunities. Even the most mundane county road will reveal some magic if you are in tune with it.

I have built double holders to go with my 11x14. Basically a plastic frame, with a groove cut to hold the darkslide. The film itself lays on the bottom of the box with a 1/8th inch stainless steel frame that is hinged on one side lays on top of the film. It is spring loaded and exerts pressure on the film to keep it flat and in place. A thin neoprene curtain provides a double light baffle for the darkslide. Overall thickness is 1/2" or about the same as an 8x10 holder. Even with having a specialty plastics shop cut and mill the pieces, it is a fraction of the cost of a new holder. Weight is less than standard 11x14 holders by a few ounces. I think I could probably make one lighter with wood frame and plastic darkslide and center but I don't know how sturdy it would be.

 

Since my camera is custom built, the back and film holder were designed together. If I ever come across a cheap or damaged standard 11x14 holder I could use for precise measurments, I would adapt my holder design to fit standard 11x14 backs.

Sending your gear ahead via UPS or Fed-ex is the safest way to go even though it adds expense to a trip. It can be insured and if it requires inspection because of the insured dollar amount they will be carefull because getting it there in one piece is their business. You also don't have to lug it around terminals and be worried that some baggage handler will recognize what it is and make off with a bag or two.

My first camera was the short architecture 401. I bought a new bellows and had a longer rail made at a machine shop. When I bought the camera with a 203mm ektar it cost 250. The new bellows $200 and the rail $90. Today on eb** you could pick up a complete body with the longer rail for $100 to $150. Then you have a spare bellows, extra knobs, (they break easy) ground glass, springs etc. The other option is call MPEX or Badger or Lens and Repro, they may have a rail available off a real junker.

I don't know if anyone knows how many LF shooters there are in the US, but I see almost every LF camera offered on Ebay is bought by someone. I have also noticed that if I look at back issues of View Camera or Shutterbug or the archives going back to 97/98 there seems to be a greater availability of LF film in size and mfg.

 

Every few days we have posts from new LF shooters or posts by 4x5 shooters who want to move up to a larger format. There is a major resurgence in ULF cameras and alternative processes. If there was no demand you would not see old B&J or Empire 11x14s selling for close to $3000.

 

The demand for film is there and thanks to the www and sites such as these, it is very easy to get started in LF because of the huge knowledge base about gear, processes, printing etc available on the web. I agree that there will be a shakeout of mfgs. I will not be suprised if Kodak gets out of B&W entirely. But that leaves more market for others to persue.

The nice thing about the postcards is that you have an actual physical print in your hands, usually contact printed and it displays the work of the photographer even with any blemishes caused by shipping. Besides the quality issue, I simply would rather control the context in which my work is seen. That might mean it is seen by someone in a restaurant where I have work hanging 20 ft away. But that image was selected for that space with a certain audience in mind.

I have the same problems with quality of reproduction as those listed. If I get a web site up someday and want to present a few examples I will probably have them professionaly scanned for optimum resolution. To share my work with a group of peers and see their work in return I participate in a traveling portfolio that allows members of the group to see a collection of the actual fine prints.

On one of the DIY LF sites someone built a 20x24 camera and used stainless steel from large cake knives. If you get the kind with wooden handles that are riveted, you can drill out the rivets and use those holes for mounting. If you need to cut to shape and drill you would be better off having a machine shop do it because it might cost you more in dulled and broken drill bits than a shop will charge.

 

Even hacksaw blades can be used. Grind off the teeth and double up for needed resistence. Much easier to drill and shape than stainless.

 

Finally, do a Google search for "flat blade springs". It has been a while but there are several companies that sell springs or material. check with any for local distributors or outlets. Actually probably makes more sense to do this one first.

on the APUG site we have organized a traveling portfolio that has 20 participants. It began in New York where the first person includes an 11x14 or smaller matted or unmatted print with a story or technical info etc. He mailed it to the next person in England, then on to Norway, Mexico, (where it is now), several stops in the US and ends in Australia or New Zealand. When it returns to the first person he replaces his print with a new one and so forth. The plan at APUG from what I gather is to have several of these portfolios going at one time so anyone who wants to participate can.

 

While one cannot keep any prints, it allows you to see the the work of peers from many locations for several days. I will probably receive it sometime in June and plan to have some temporary display space and lighting set up at home to really enjoy the work.

 

Yes, there is the cost involved of shipping the case to the next person and the cost of the portfolio case itself. A member in New York generously got the case and participants have donated to help pay the cost. As far as the cost of shipping, while in the US or European locations the expense is not great, trans-Atlantic or Pacific can be somewhat expensive. But again some of the participants have offered to help defray those costs to the overseas photographers. Later in the year we will have a forum for participants on the site to discuss each others work.

 

I have seen exchanges discussed several times but nothing ever comes of it but this effort is working. The APUG site has the current guidlines and discussions in the archives. I hope that we can have several going at once so at the end of each we can rearrange the groupings of people and see a broader range of work. Also if I see a work I like I can then discuss an exchange with that person privately.

Do a google search for LF cameras or DIY LF Cameras or some such topic. I don't remember the actual URLs but there is several sites and lists dedicated to building your own LF cameras and one has detailed instructions on building both pleated and bag bellows. Search Rhoades Cameras or Doug Bardell. I think they both have sites that include bag bellows instructions.

Yes there are some hazardous substances in PMK. Pyrogallol I believe is a documented carcinogen but you need to bath or drink the stuff to get any where near lethal dosages. Common sense aplies. Don't imerse your hands or fingers in the stuff, use gloves. Use proper ventilation if possible. If you spill it on a surface, clean the spill before it has time to dry, the substances are far easier to ingest if they become dust. Wash hands and equipment thoroughly after use. Yes people over the years have handled the stuff with no gloves but I always think about Weston developing Parkinson's disease and wonder if there is a connection to all the skin contact. But occaisonal exposure should cause no harm.

Every now and then I will go out with my Speed Graphic and try some street/urban shooting. No matter how hard you try, it is very difficult for the camera not to become a part of the image because of its size and strangeness to most people. in a world of smaller and smaller where casio just introduced a 3.5 mgpxl camera the size of a credit card big cameras will by nature influence the people in the scene. With Leicas and digital you can get the "decisive moment" and be anonymous to the subject.

 

With larger formats, urban photography with people is more environmental portraiture. I made a series of images from a small street side cafe area where cars had to stop at the corner about 20 ft from me. I set the camera up set the focus for the side window of the cars and got great shots of individuals gawking at the camera from their car. The gawking at the camera was what I wanted. People notice a big 8x10.

Xtol is truly one of the great mysteries of life. I personally have never had a problem in three years. I use distilled water, mix at the low end of the temp range and use it up (5ltr) within about one month or sooner. I always decant to smaller containers upon mixing and dilute with distilled water. Upon warnings about caked or gummy pkg contents I have found two in 3yrs and returned both for new pks without any problems. I respect the experience of others and have become paranoid enough that if I am going to use it after it sits for more then a couple of days I process a test strip first.

 

I personally like it with Tmax and Tmy at 1-1 and 1-2 dillutions as well as Delta 100. One thing about Xtol is if you like it and it is discontinued there are formulas for ascorbate developers on the web and particularly at Unblinkingeye.com.

As others have stated, you can't come close to replicating the quality of a fine print either silver or inkjet on a monitor. But if someone asks about a technical issue and I believe I have some applicable knowledge, I am assuming the person making the inquiry will be able to see what I am talking about in his own work.

 

There is a growing body of knowledge about how to produce images specifically for reproduction on a monitor. That doesn't mean the same image will look good as a physical print. I would rather have my work displayed in its best way which means on a wall rather on a dirty, poorly calibrated monitor.

I use a JOBO and followed their recommendation for a presoak at the beginning. I still do a presoak but only for one minute. I have developed test sheets of the same subject matter both ways and never noticed a difference, but I still do it to maintain a consistent protocol.

I opted to build my own 11x14. I have used it to produce portraits and industrial landscapes. The portraits have an incredible richness and depth when contact printed. ULF has a couple of advantages with regards to the negative. You have the ability to spot and remove some flaws on the neg itself, and it is very easy to use various masking techniques to specific areas of the neg before printing.

 

I don't hike into the back country with the 11x14, I have 4x5 for that. I also have an 8x10, but have found I used it less because the 11x14 takes its place as a contact medium and the time and money I was going to spend on building an 8x10 enlarger went into the larger camera.

 

I have found that the amount of time on making an image is proportional to the size of the format. 4x5 seems like working with 35mm when comparing it to 11x14. it takes longer to set up to camera, longer to compose make exposure decisions etc. Because of the cost of film and chemistry needed to develop film of that size, i find I work really slow in order to make no mistakes and have the exact kind of composition and lighting I need. With a limited number of film holders you cannot make extra exposures to "cover all the bases". You will find real frustration is when you develop your film and find a major flaw due to poor technique at the time of exposure.

 

That is part of the learning curve and ULF really forces you to improve your techique. When you see the potential on the mistakes you will be that much nore determined to not repeat them.

 

Also, check archives and unblinking.eye com for articles on developing by inspection. It is a must for LF negs.

 

Good luck and give yourself time to learn, the images you make will be incredible.

Last year i did some tests as I was making some frequent trips to Chicago. I Started with two film boxes, one containing 8 Sheets of exposed film and the other 8 sheets unexposed of HP5. After each trip I unloaded one shet from each box. At the end of 8 such trips I processed and found no fogging. That is 16 exposures to the last two sheets. This was with hand checking one way and bag checking the other. I can't speak for color but would would assume with 2 or 4 screenings you are ok.

Kodak Commercial Eastman View 8x10 is an excellent camera, except it has no front tilt. I bought one and made some brackets similar to those on the rear that then allowed me to have tilts. The camera is fairly light for 8x10, of magnesium construction and folds up compact.

they sell very cheap because of the no front tilt, but if you are handy or have someone make the front brackets they sell for around $200-$250 on ebay.

Nate, look for used Calumet C-300 4x5 cameras and Orbit cameras of the same design. these were commercial workhorses in the 60s and 70s and provide complete movements, revolving back etc. Check with Midwest Photo Exchange. They will be higher than Ebay, but they will sell you a camera in good shape. The same with the lens. you may want to purchase a lens that is the same as what you did most of your 35mm shooting with, if it was 50mm, a 150mm in 4x5 is the same, 135mm somewhere between 40mm and 45mm in 35 format.

 

You will also need at minimum 4 film holders, a focusing device, ( an old 50mm lens from a 35mm camera works good for a cheap starting loupe) and a tripod heavier then your 35mm tripod was. You will also need a lensboard, drilled for the shutter your lens comes with.

 

the camera can be purchased between $200 (good camera on ebay) to 350 for a camera from MPEX. Lens anywhere between 250 and 400 for a good starter 150mm lens. Buy Arista film for B&W from Freestyle, the same as Ilford film at much less cost.

 

Finally, contact print your negs for awhile until you can get an enlarger. Once you get the hang of it, you will want a darkroom to make enlargements.

 

Good luck and keep the site posted on decsions or questions you have.

I have used Xtol for a few years and have yet to experience a problem. If you go the Xtol route, use distilled water for stock and dilutions. Make sure you use a minimum of 100ml of stock for every 80sq inches of film. I also mix at the highest temp listed on the package. Mixes easy. You may end up with a few granules left after mixing. I usually run mine through a fine mesh strainer if I see some. The only consensus on possible failure is shelf life. I would not let stock go past 30 days. I don't because I process enough film I use 5 litres up in a month. I would also decant into smaller bottles after mixing to prevent premature oxidation from partially filled containers and repeated opening.

 

I find Delta 100 and Xtol make a great combination. no grain in 8x10 enlargement, minimal up to 11x14 and great sharpness. I expose at ei50 and cut the Anchell and Troop time by 15%. I have pretty much settled on Xtol with 35mm except for PanF for which I will sometimes use Rodinal, depending on the subject matter.

Just the other day I saw a someone with a LF camera photographing a new office building. I stopped and struck up a conversation. He was 22, and was working for a local photographer who does mostly architecture and commercial work. He had been out of school for a year where the bulk of his phtography studies were in the digital realm. He discussed the wonders of the digital backs for the Sinar he was using and the MF cameras at the studio. I told him about my background and my use of LF cameras up 11x14. He became excited as he told me about work he had recently seen done as 8x10 contacts and platinum prints.

 

He said he was so mesmerized by the prints, both silver and platinum that he had purchased an older Toyo 8x10 and was building an 11x14 pinhole camera. So I have faith there will always be those who apreciate fine work in the non-digital media and will wish to persue it themselves.