james_chinn

Justin,

<p>

I don't know much about Pentax cameras but I would recommend

something that has a match needle design for exposure in the view

finder such as a Nikon FE. I think older K-1000 had this design. My

daughter is 6yrs old and has pretty much mastered basic use of an FE

once I set shutter speed and EI.

I agree with previous posts that fiber provides a certain "depth" to

an image. I always find the glossy RC papers to have to much of

shine or glare when viewed at certain angles which takes away from

any delicate highlights. I do however use RC to make initial prints

of images that I may want to complete as fine prints on fiber. I

will print from a series of negs and then use the RC prints to put on

the wall and "live with" for a few weeks to decide if I should go

further with that neg.

Thanks for correcting me Jose, to many photo sites running around in

my head.

I would say if you want to list bad apples, go to the opinions forum

on the community page at photonet.com. Under camera shops you will

find hundreds of comments and reviews of

retailers/dealers/suppliers.

<p>

Before you EVER think of buying mail order go to this site and do a

search of that dealer. Also beware, that some dealers will from time

to time change their name after so much heat is placed on them by

disgruntled customers. As you will see there are a thousand sad

stories in the naked city- don't become another one.

Thanks Scott for the post. Many on these forums who have been in LF

for some time already know of the service and reliability of Badger

and Robert White. I think it is good to once in a while mention the

good retailers/suppliers (I would add Midwest Photo Exchange and

Freestyle) who are helpful and backup what they sell. God only knows

for every good supplier there are 5 who would screw their own

granmother out of her last penny.

<p>

For a good source of feedback on retailers go to the community forums

on photonet.com and search (i believe) photo retailers and

suppliers. It is a real eye opener. It will save readers from

making a costly mistake in the future.

Photovison- PO box 845 Crestone, CO 81131

www.phtovisionmagazine.com

If you check Ebay, Crown Graphics in good condition run between $200

and $350 with a Graphex Optar 135mm or Schneider Xenar 135mm. I have

seen used F8 SA 65mm lenses listed anywhere from $375-$500 at various

dealers, (Midwest, Lens and Repro etc) depending on condition and

shutter. the price he is giving sounds a little bit high unless

everything is excellent ++.

<p>

All that being said, A Grpahic is not a field camera in the true

sense of the term. if you are used to using a lot of movements in

the field with your monorail you may be dissapointed. There is very

limited front tilt and rise and a drop bed, although I do not know if

it is enough to prevent problems with 65mm. No rear movements, no

revolving back.

<p>

I have a Speed Graphic which I bought used a few years ago and

refurbished the rear shutter. I use 90mm and a 150mm lens and like

to carry it around and use it as a "point and shoot" the way it was

designed for. But I also use it on occasion for other work,

especially in very bad weather. Like you, my other camera is a

monorail, but I have adapted to carrying it in the field. These

cameras are very rugged (and also heavy) but fun to use and a good

tool in the right situations.

<p>

Hope these thoughts help.

I have never used sprint but have heard they are good products. I

don't know your location but you may want to try local sources for

this or other liquid equivalents, as shipping cost can be quite high

due to the wieght of liquid involved if you plan to mail order.

As you stated in your post, one needs to re-evaluate their subject

matter depending on choice of B&W or color. I think it really is

true that one needs to have a different approach between the two. I

greatly admire those that can move between the two, providing a

totally different vision and feel to their work depending on the

choice.

<p>

I think that is why when I use color I keep to more monochrome

renditions and muted colors. When I try to use a more

colorful "palette" of subject matter, the final result is not

satisfying. I seem to get better results just using a 35mm and

making a lot of exposures, probably because I have so many more to

edit from.

<p>

I believe I will get better at using color as I continue to learn to

appreciate its own unique difficulties and opportunities. But I will

probably always approach a subject first from how will it communicate

as a B&W print, and then explore any possibilities for a color

rendition.

Here is my "rocket science answer. As already stated use a heavy

duty black t-shirt. I use one with long sleeves. The reason for

long sleeves is I also carry along a very light weight nylon

windbreaker. If it rains I can side the sleeves of the T-shirt into

the windbreaker to hold them together and place have the windbreaker

as a rain ocver. Total cost about 10 dollars.

From a viewing standpoint I think B&W still commands a certain

presence when it is on the wall. It is this initial departure from

the rest of the color world that first attracted me. When i was

younger I remember seeing my first large prints 16x20, 20x24 at a

museum with my 6th grade class and being mesmerized with the images.

I feel the same way today. I well executed B&W print seems to always

attract attention. An equivalent color eventually seems to just

become part of the furniture, IMHO.

<p>

For myself, monochrome (B&W, toned, lith prints etc) eliminates

extraneous color detail that simply would distract from the final

image. Even in color a lot of what I do is very low saturation, but

there seems to always be a small element of color that would focus

the viewers attention and distract from the overall image.

<p>

Second, I like take ordinary subject matter and produce a more

dramatic abstract presentation. For myself, a good abstract "fools"

the viewer at first, as they see something (hopefully) totally new to

them. Upon further viewing or seeing the caption they recognize what

the abstract is from and gain a further appreciation for a different

way of seeing. For the subject matter I use, color reveals to much

reality and takes attention away form detail.

<p>

One of the strengths of color is using it for abstractions that

normally B&W would produce as lifeless. Your flower example is

excellent.

<p>

Finally, B&W provides unlimited opptions for interpreting a negative

in the darkroom. Of course this now is possible with color through

the digital medium.

<p>

I am working more and more with color as I slowly find the kind of

film and techniques that fit my vision. Lower saturation and muted

or washed out colors fit my vision in LF.

It is going to be a matter of what you are comfortable with and

crunching the numbers. Omega enlargers are always on E-bay at

reasonable prices, usually pretty reliable units. The cost of an

8x10 camera (used as well as new) and a couple of lenses as well as a

new tripod to hold it, will far exceed the cost of the enlarger and

shipping.

<p>

OTOH, if you only enlarge to 8x10 now, why not simplify your prinintg

process and have the larger neg for contact printing. You can always

get an enlarger later or maybe find one in Venezuela.

<p>

Good luck,

Black and White is simply a way to abstract reality so that it

focuses the viewers attention. It allows an image to become

minimalist in nature yet retain incredible amounts of information.

It obviously retains its ability to convey a message because it is

still widely used in high profile journalism and advertising.

<p>

Most B&W photographers I imagine view color as a distraction when

trying to communicate composition, detail, depth, and volume in an

image. All that being said, excellent color work is produced by

individuals who understand how to use color as a tool for compostion

and supporting the message of the image.

<p>

Color is also a more difficult genre to work with. One must consider

the kind of light involved and how changes affect color saturation,

fitration for films, the fact that different colors and their

relationships in the image will change how other colors are perceived

by the eye and all the variables involved in printing.

<p>

On the other hand, it is very easy to shoot color and consistently

get mediocre results, because it is so easy to fall in to the trap of

using color only as the conveyor of your message, with no substance

other then "pretty or gaudy" colors on paper.

<p>

FWIW, I use color mostly in 35mm and 120, opting for films that can

produce low saturation and somwhat subdued colors. This seems to be

the best way I can get the results I want with my subject matter.

Sharpness is in the eye of the photographer. People don't plunk down

a few thousand for new LF gear and lenses to have unsharp images

unless it is part of the design of the image. Look at most

advertising work. The in thing is selective focus and depth of

field. I would imagine most of this work is done with LF because you

can calculate the exact placement of sharpness with in the image.

<p>

Most of my LF work is totally sharp because it is documentary in

nature. I am recording a scene that needs to be sharp and do what

needs to be done to eliminate exteraneous material from the image.

Lf is simply the best tool for that particular aspect of my work.

<p>

The current trend in fine art photography is for unsharp images

bordering on total blur, usually taken with 35mm, sometimes toy

cameras, and pinhole cameras. I am not a sharpness freak, but some

of the work I have seen looks the same as what my duaghter could do

when she was 3. Check out www.photography-guide.com/index.html to

see current Photo galleries in New York. Look for any name you are

not familiar with and the work will be of the unsharp-blurry genre

and not inexpensive to purchase.

I have found XP2super to be an excellent film when down rated to 200

or 100 ei for a wide range of subjects. Maintains good highlight as

well as shadow detail. I agree it may not be as sharp as Delta 100

or Acros, but I find the graduation between tones to be pleasing for

porraits. It also prints well with traditional materials, that

latitude in ei gives you a lot of options on how to interpret the neg.

Keith,

<p>

There is a lot of creativity with large format, but done in the

context of what a large format camera's strengths are. That is a

very precise rendering of the subject in greater tonality, depth and

detail than other formats. If I want part of the image to be skewed,

have limited depth of field in focus, converging parallels etc, it is

my decision with the controls of the camera.

<p>

Recently I have started using a Holga 120 plastic camera for the fun

of it, after seeing some really wonderfull work by a couple of

friends. I am attracted by the focus- sharp at the center and softer

as you move to the edges. I like the idea that you never know

exactly what you will get with each shot. That you have settings for

focus and only two aperatures permanently set at 1/100. In other

words it is the total antithesis of LF. No thinking, planning the

shot, choosing lens, camera position, aperature filters etc. Just

compose and shoot.

<p>

Of course the Holga is not my pinhole camera, not my Nikon FE or FA,

not my Mamiya 330 and not my 4x5 or 8x10 camera. Each camera and

format promotes a certain style of creativity with its strengths.

<p>

One needs to be careful about comparing work across formats. Most

photographers choose a camera and format because it is the right tool

to make their statement.

<p>

One is not going to see the more fluid and spontaneous work done in

35mm with LF because it isn't possible, unless you are very adept at

using a Speed Graphic. Some subject matter can be photographed with

both medium and LF, but if the photographer's vision includes 30x40

or larger prints, he is probably going to choose LF to acheive the

final results. Sometimes you just need to have a different "tool" to

acheive your vision on paper.

<p>

If you do not read them already, View Camera has a fairly good

sampling of work by contemporary LF photographers, and Black and

White Magazine frequently highlights photoraphers in the Spotlight

section who use LF in a variety of ways.

One more caveat, It is good practice to keep with one set quantitiy

of stock for dilutions once you decide. With the JOBO system I have

found that small changes in chemistry can make major changes in neg

density. Consistency in methods will provide consistent negatives.

Bob,

<p>

I have always stuck to the conventional 100ml of stock before

dilution with JOBO processing. I have never had any problems with

consistency for D76, Xtol or HC110, the three primary developers I

use with the JOBO. This is for 80 sq in of film. You can get away

with 80ml with D76 but have never tried with Xtol. If you are just

diluting 1-1 you can play it safe and go with 130ml. Any higher

dilutions I go to a larger tank or tray process LF negs, although you

can reduce the number of negs (say 2) and reduce stock to 60 or 70

and get a higher dilution ratio.

<p>

Good Luck,

LF will be around for quite awhile, even though the choices of

materials will become more and more limited. I think we are in the

golden era of LF cameras also. As more professionals move from LF to

medium format to take advantage of digital we will se the market for

LF cameras shrink. This is good and bad. You will see less of the

medium priced cameras from calumet, toyo, linhoff and probably more

or steady demand for field cameras like Wisners. Oh, and lots of

used cameras for cheap!

<p>

My other worry is that large companies such as Ilford will reduce

their inventory of silver based products and concentrate efforts on

digital. I know many on this forum will say as long as there is a

market for the products companies will produce them, but if the

margins are small enough the justification is not there. This is the

reason I have decided to build a simple box camera for making some

11x14 negs instead of trying to buy one used. I just don't have

confidence these ULF format films will be available in the not so

distant future.

<p>

I have no problem with the march of digital. The problem I have is

the idea being pushed that digital is far superior to traditional

methods and that you can get quality results with modest investment

up front. In my previous post on the subject, someone listed the

cost to scan a neg and make a lightjet print. $39 for the one time

scan and $29 for 1 print. I guess that is a bargain. Maybe I am the

only one, but that seems pretty expensive compared to making prints

in my darkroom.

<p>

I know there are those who will say they get great prints from their

Epson(insert model # here) and special paper with archival quadtone

inksets. I have yet to see one that matches a silver print that I

can produce. If you have to reduce the quality of the work you

produce to get into digital, what kind of a artist/craftsman are you?

Older 8x10 and 4x5 Calumets, and a Speed Graphic, for large format

with 8x10 B&W printed with both contact printed for platinum and

silver. Traditional developers, Pyro, D-23, Xtol, HC-110.

Traditional papers, Ilford VC, Forte, and Oriental. Traditional post

printing techniques with Ferri, Thiocarbamide, selenium and gold

toners. Print sizes range from 8x10 to 20x24. Market is myself, and

any prints sold from those I provide to local businesses for art work

on the walls and some architectural and interior consignments.

I also work with all other formats , with my latest rebellion to

technology being the use of a HOLGA camera.

Like to make a clarification to the previous post. Towards the end I

talk about using "the same tools and materials". It should

read "using the same tools and materials as the greatest

photographers of all time." I apologize for my dreadful proof

reading.

Greetings,

<p>

I want to discuss a gripe I have with how digital for the large format realm is presented in various publications such as View Camera, Camera Arts, Phototechniques etc.

<p>

From what I understand there are a variety of ways to achieve a fine print using digital technology. These are using desktop printers and scanning film to produce inkjet prints, desktop scan of negs and reproduction of larger negs for contact printing, drum scanning negs and printing from file, drum scan and make dupe neg in larger format for contact printing, drum scan and have the neg printed via lightjet or simial technology, or using a digital back omitting film altoghether.

<p>

The problem I have is I have seen work produced via desktop methods using epson 3000 printers and various aftermarket inksets and software and they do not match up to equivalent silver or platinum, not to mention the inability to produce sizes over 16x20.

<p>

Those other methods as proposed by photographers such a Chip Forelli, Charles Cramer, Huntington Witherill, Howard Schaub etc are astronomically expensive. I believe in a previous issue of View Camera Forelli stated that it costs almost $500 to get a negative for printing, and that others propose drum scan (40$ per scan) and then digitally output a larger neg ($40-$60 per neg). I have not seen any of these gentleman's prints in person, but I have read in other posts that they are only equal to the best B&W prints. I understand that Cramer's work is incredible but costs are also in the several hundreds of dollars.

<p>

My beef is with the fact that these methods and technologies are thrown around as if we are all going to take out second mortgages in order to go digital and produce the same quality of print, with less permanence than we already acheive.

<p>

Does it irk you that these articles never discuss the negatives of digital while only espousing the virtues? I remeber reading a review by one of the above that discussed printers, saying that he had a closet full of printers but the newest (at that time) epson was probably the last he would need to purchase. Of cours untill it breaks down after the warranty runs out or the next last one comes out. I don't know about you, the last time i looked in the closet it was not full of discarded enlargers, just film and paper.

<p>

I am not a silver junkie. I believe digital will be part of the future of LF. But why can't the articles inlude the costs of digital method vs the quality of the final product. Can I afford one of the better epson scanners and quadtone inks or whatever the flavor of the month is, yes. But what is the point if the quality is poorer then my silver prints. Some will argue that their prints are better then silver, but I would argue they have not achieved the level of craft they are capable of with traditional materials. Maybe the high dollar technologies are superior, and I understand the need to discuss them, especially for professionals.

<p>

Maybe the ability to achieve the highest quality with digital means only an elite few will be able to get those results. The beauty of traditional LF is that I can use the same tools and materials, (and I literally mean same tools and materials) and the only hinderance to making equal or better prints is my ability. In some cases those tools are less expensive for me now then they were for them 50yrs ago.

<p>

Alright, done with the rant. My question is do you think we need more honest discussions about digital in the LF realm? Would it not be a benefit to everyone to know the costs and quality issues of various technologies. Am I being cynical to suggest that some of the hype is designed to sell printers and scanners to photographers hoping for great results only to be disappointed when they don't equal the more expensive technologies?

<p>

Take it or leave it, would like to see any comments you may have.

Josh,

<p>

Of cours you are right. I guess to clarify, she is more dazzled by

the quality compared to a lab for 4x5 and 8x10. Pretty comparable to

what you get at Walgreens. She also loves to shoot b&w, but doesn't

enjoy the darkroom, she leaves that aspect to me. So she likes the

idea of direct camera to print even with the image quality of most

say $300-$500 cameras. My thinking is I have wanted to get a

scanner to use for placing images on the web and for filing my 35 and

medium contacts. By convincing her to keep with film and scan prints

and negs allows me to share the scanner. Otherwise I can't afford

both a good digital camera and flattop scanner. I may have stretched

the truth a little, but the quality of images with my Nikons and film

will exceed any camera we would at present consider as well as

provide a platform for scanning my 4x5 work.

My wife has decided to enter the realm of digital imaging. This is bad news. First, it will drain financial resources away from my wet darkroom endeavors, second my 6 year old daughter who has shown a great interest in photography over the last two years may be seduced by the digital side. Alas I see this as an inevitable phase for my wife who has become "dazzled" by her sisters' digital output with their point and shoot digital cameras.

<p>

I have decided to outflank my wife by convincing her to keep using my 35mm gear and invest in a scanner and phtoshop to get that "professional quality". I know next to nothing about scanners but would like to at least get a flatbed that can produce decent files from my 4x5 negs ($1000 or less). I have also convinced her that eventually we will need a printer capable of using dedicated ink sets like John Cone's or MIS quadtones. She is going to love what she (I) can do with this set up.

<p>

Thanks in advance for your input.

In response to Wes, I am lucky, for I still make photographs of the

things that interest me and then see if any of them are worth

something to others.

<p>

For Chirs, I understand what you are saying, nature photography seems

to be the overwhelming use for "artistic" phtography. But if we look

close at that premise, I think that seems to be the case because most

photo publications dedicate a large portion of content to the genre.

The general public excepts landscape and nature as the most popular

use of the medium because of the packaging of Ansel Adams and to a

lesser extent Weston. If you want a reproduction of a photograph in

poster form what do people see? Adam's Moonrise, Half Dome, Clearing

Winter Storm, Aspens etc. I don't see to many Ralph Gibson, Robert

Frank, Eugene Smith, Brett Weston, Robert Adams, Winnogard, Evans,

White, Siskind, Clark, Bullock, Heinecken, Brandt posters and

calanders.

<p>

There are those who are pushing the boundries or at least exploring

other genres. Most of it goes on with other formats, I think Large

Format has become synonomous with landscape for a lot of people.

That is why I first purchased a LF. But I think those who are

dedicated to improving thier craft explore many other avenues of

expression. To Steve Simmons credit, he presents quite a few in View

Camera. But I know people upon learning that a print I made of old

cars from the 40s placed along a river bank for erosion control was

made with an 8x10 change the conversation from the content and

compostion of the print to "why waste an 8x10 tranny, couldn't you

have gotten it with 35mm?"