tom_hieb

�Is home flatbed scanning really a serious alternative to printing a 4x5' negative on an enlarger?�

 

Absolutely! I�ve been very happy with the results I get scanning with an Epson 4870 and printing on an Epson 2200. Of course, I can only print up to 13� wide, but if I need a bigger print I can send my file out to a lab. And hopefully, large format printers will continue to get cheaper and better in the future. You didn't say how big of prints you normally make, and I supose this will hve some bearing on which direction you choose to go. However, I'm not all that enamored of prints larger than 16x20. If the only thing impressive about an image is the size of the print, then the photographer needs to get out and take more photos.

 

�However, option 2 seems still superior when it boils down to quality of the final print and maybe also to stability of the print in terms of time.�

 

Actually, I think you will find that the quality of the prints you will get by scanning and digital printing will be far superior to your wet darkroom prints. Not because the process is better, but because you can do far more in the digital darkroom, in terms of dodging, burning, saturation, contrast, touch-up, etc�, than you could ever do in the wet darkroom (unless you are a real master printer). And once you get a print to look like you want it to, you can make an unlimited number of the same quality. This also addresses the longevity issue. I mount my prints so I can easily take them apart and replace them if they fade or discolor unacceptably. Replacing a print only costs a few bucks and by the time it happens, inks will likely have improved to make it even less likely to happen in the future. If not, just replace it again. (Of course, this is more of a concern if you sell a lot of prints.)

 

The digital darkroom also allows for much more efficient use of time. If you have a challenging print that you want to get just right, you can work on it when you get a chance and if you don�t finish, you can save the intermediate results and come back to it later. Try doing that in the wet darkroom.

 

There are many other advantages I could mention, but I won�t because this has been discussed a lot. Suffice it to say that in my opinion, you will get far better prints with the digital process. (I�m sure that there will be those that strongly disagree.) I haven�t sold my darkroom equipment yet, but that�s mostly because there are a few alternative printing processes that I would like to explore when I get the chance.

 

Tom

Pinhole photography is a lot like using the Zone System - you need to calibrate for your particular setup. I would recommend getting some sheets of B&W film and using your light meter and a little trial and error. With the 4x5 pinhole camera I am using I usually meter at f90 and multiply this exposure time by 10. On bright sunny days this can be surprisingly short (1 or 2 seconds). For low light conditions I do add additional time to account for reciprocity. It didn't take me too many sheets, with the help of the light meter, to get to a good exposure. I have made a lot of pinhole exposures lately and at this point in time, I doubt if I even need the light meter. It shouldn't be that hard and and you should be getting something more than what you described. Try some regular B&W film. Maybe the Polaroid is the problem.

When I feel stale I like to give myself a somewhat arbitrary project or assignment. For example, I recently assigned myself the project of making 100 pinhole images. As part of the project I built a nice pinhole camera out of oak that takes 4x5 film holders. I could have just used a pinhole on one of my large format cameras, but building the camera was part of the re-freshening. Researching pinhole photography was also refrehsening.

 

I have only taken about 30 images so far, but already it has been mentally stimulating to try and figure out just what a good pinhole image should be and just what advantages, if any, you get fom a pinhole. I have yet to take any pictures tht are very good, but it has been fun and I have learned that you can get amazingly sharp images with a well-made pinhole and a lot of unsharp masking in Photshop.

 

Try doing something a little odd or a little out of the ordinary to refresh your creativity.

From where I live the Grand Canyon is an easy day trip, so I have been there a lot of times.

 

Although the North Rim is very nice, there is really no reason to avoid the South Rim. Even during the most crowded seasons it doesn't take much of an effort to get away from the crowds and get nice pictures.

 

If you want to avoid the crowds, get away from the Grand Canyon Village area and stay off the South Kaibab and Bright Angel trails. I much prefer the Desert View area and the eastern part of the park. I get better pictures in this area.

 

If you want some solitude, even in the busy season, stop at a parking area, such as Grandview Point, Moran Point or Lipan Point, and just hike along the rim for a short distances. Even if you only hike a quarter mile from the parking area you are not likely to see many people. I have spent entire days photographing along the rim in these areas and not seen another person.

 

If you are lucky you will get some interesting weather which will make your pictures much better. The suggestion to include an interesting foreground element or use tree limbs to frame the canyon is good. Graduated filters are also handy. You don't get very good photos right at sunrise or sunset because the canyon is too dark, but it doesn't hurt to be out early to catch the good light as soon as the sun rises a bit.

 

If you want to hike a long distance into the canyon plan accordingly and bring lots of water in hot weather. If you are not a strong and experienced hiker you might want to stick with the Bright Angel or Souht Kaibab trails. However, some of the more remote trails offer some spectacular pictures if you have the experience and inclination to get there.

 

Bring lots of film because you have limited choices at the Canyon and what is available is expensive. Have a great time!

 

For photography I

Between central Minnesota and Santa Cruz CA is a huge chunk of real estate - and you only have a little over three weeks to see it! Here is what I would do.

 

Divide the trip into different regions, such as great plains, mountains, deserts, and the west coast. Within each region choose an area to visit that is as close to pristine as possible (probably a national park) and an area to visit that is more developed. While in the pristine areas concentrate on developing an understanding of the natural environment. While in the more developed areas, concentrate on visiting historical sites and understanding how the area developed given the constraints imposed by history and the environment. For example, you could choose to visit any number of national parks to define the mountain environment (Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Tetons...) and you might want to choose a historical mining center, such as Butte, Montana, to try an understand some of the why and how the mountain environment was developed. I am suggesting this because you specifically said that you wanted the trip to foster an understanding of the development of the US.

 

I also like the suggestion that you concentrate on a few areas in more depth and not try to see as much as you can from the windshield. Also, remember that planning the route with your son can be half the fun.

 

The trip sounds like great fun. Bring plenty of film and digital storage media!

Hmmmm..... the elusive missing link. And they say large format photography doesn't evolve.

Don't do it!!! I have done a number of weddings successfully. However, they are very stressful, things move very fast, the lighting is always bad, they are never on schedule, you need to be very good at using flash units and lights, and you need to have backups for absolutely everything. You couldn't pay me to take my 4x5 cameras or transparency film to a wedding (unless the bride and groom were both photographers, asked specifically for this, and were very understanding).

 

Why don't you offer to use your 4x5 to take some pictures of the couple a few weeks before the wedding. You can do some romantic shots at the beach or the mountains or wherever you like to do scenics where you live. This way, you can take the time you will need in a setting you are used to and probably have a good time in the process.

 

Explain to the couple that you would be glad to take some pictures at the wedding, but you should not be the main photographer because wedding photography is a specialty that takes experience,knowledge and equipment that you don't have. They should understand.

I didn't realize you could get this film in 4x5 as a special order. I guess I need to pay better attention. It's fun film. Count me in for a few boxes if you are looking to put together an order.

I just registered for the conference this morning (my schedule changed and I was able to go). The lady I talked with was a little hesitant about adding more registrants. She said that there would probably be standing room only for some of the presentations. She thought that about 260 people had signed up at this time, so I imagine that more forum participants are going than have responded to your post.

Wow, this sounds like a real industrial strength enlarger. Great buy!

 

I don't think your wife will kill you if she is already resigned to your 8x10 camera(s) and all the paraphenalia that goes with them. Assuming that she doesn't kill you, would you be kind enough to post a photo of your enlarger when you get it. Also, maybe you could post a photo of the truckers unloading the enlarger. I can show these to my wife and it will make my most recent purchase seem tame by comparison. This might help some of the other LF forum members too.

Gee, thanks a lot Chris. I was just sitting at my computer thinking that I needed to go to a larger negative - like maybe 8x10 or 11x14 or 12x20 when you had to go and tell me that you have a 9 foot tripod. And to make matters worse, somebody else has to tell me that Clyde Butcher has even a larger one. Now I need one too! And just when I thought I had about all the photographic items that I need.

 

I guess what I really need is to get over this bigger is better mentality. Maybe there is a 12-step program I can go to to help me through this. Or better yet, maybe there is a 14-step or 16 step or even a 12x20 step program......

A while back I was hiking along the top of a canyon with my wife when

we came across an abandoned stream gage mounted on a platform that

was hung from the side of a cliff and accessed by an old metal

ladder. Thinking that the platform might be an interesting

perspective for a picture down the canyon, I cautiously went over the

side of the cliff and down the ladder. My wife, who complains often

that I have my camera set up too close to cliff faces, would not even

go near the cliff, but she stayed up top with my camera equipment

while I checked things out. (No use hauling down all the LF gear

before scoping things out.) The ladder and platform turned out to be

surprisingly sturdy for as old as they looked. When I got down to

the platform I noticed a large rock sitting on the edge of it.

Thinking to have a little fun with my wife, I pushed the rock off

into the water while simultaneously doing my best impression of the

cartoon-like falling off the cliff voice. Oh noooooo......splash!

The rock made, what seemed to me, just about a man-sized splash when

it hit the water. There was a brief moment of silence from above and

then I heard my wife say " well, if you're going to go swimming, you

might as well take your cameras." This was followed shortly by what

seemed to me to be a backpack-sized splash. I took me a moment, while

I checked to make sure my cameras were not floating downstream,

before this struck me as funny.

Wow, what a great product! I think I want one, but I have a few

questions first: Will I need a bag bellows or recessed lens board?

What about a center filter? When the major manufacturers steal your

patent, will the lens be sharper as a Schneider, Rodenstock or Fuji

CMW? What size filters does it take? Will it fit my new Shen Hao?

Will there be a digital version? Please respnd as soon as possible

because I am leaving soon to spend a few days in Utah and I am hoping

to get a picture of Delicate Arch that encompasses the Arch, the Dura

Log stains and about 56 galaxies. Thanks!

Just guessing, maybe 10 to 15mm. I use the lens mostly for

landscapes and find that I don't usually need a lot of shift or tilt

at this focal length. If I can figure out how to do it, I will try to

measure the image circle within the next day or two.

Like a lot of people on this forum I am somewhat of an equipment junkie and I own a variety of 35mm, medium format and LF equipment. Because of other comittments, I have recently had less money to spend on photography and I have decided to concentrate primarily on LF. Because I can't just totally quit buying equipment or taking pictures(If I did I would probably have siezures and my wife might think that I had taken a mistress)I have been trying to think of ways to cut costs and stretch the available funds without selling off any equipment. While there is a lot of information on this forum that will help in doing this, I don't know that I have seen this question asked specifically. And with all the expertise on the forum, I am curious as to what others in this situation might have come up with. So far, I have come up with the following money saving ideas:

 

<p>

 

1. I bought an Epson flatbed scanner with film adapter. This has been great for evaluating my negatives without cranking up the darkroom to make contact prints or test prints.

 

<p>

 

2. I have come to like outdated paper. I have gotten some very nice prints using old outdated paper that I find on the sale table at the local camera stores. I have never really had a problem with any of these papers and some seem to have a quality that can't be duplicated with newer papers. I especially like using such paper for portaits. I suppose that someday I will get burned buying the old paper, but so far, so good.

 

<p>

 

3. I shop for most of my camera bags at the outdoor, luggage and cooler sections of WalMart, Sam's Club and other discount stores. There is some good usable stuff here! I recently got a great backpack at Sam's Club that is nicely padded with lots of pockets for all my field gear for about $40. This may not seem like the best area to save money, but I am hard on field equipment and go through bags and tripods rather quickly. So it is a somewhat frequent expense. I don't find that the more expensive camera bags hold up much better than the stuff I find at the discount stores.

 

<p>

 

4. I refuse to save money by using older lenses. I recently replaced a usable 127mm Kodak Ektar with a new Rodenstock 135mm. I just don't like the uncertainty of older lenses and shutters.

 

<p>

 

I would appreciate any cost cutting ideas you have or comments on any of the above. Thanks!

 

<p>

 

BTW, I enjoy this forum greatly and have been reading regularly for several years. I don't post very often, but I am going to try to do so more frequently just as soon as I develop any kind of expertise. (Don't hold your breath for this!)

I have this lens and I like it. I have never tried to measure the

coverage but at f22 (which is what I use it at most of the time)it

does cover 4x5 with a little bit of movement. I just recently made

some 16x20 enlargements of a photo I took with this lens and I was

more than happy with the sharpness throughout the entire negative. I

have never had a problem with flare, but I am careful to shade my

lenses when I shoot. You probably would have some problems if you

pointed it into the sun. At f22 I can't detect any light fall off in

my negatives, at least for the types of photos I shoot, so I have

never felt I needed a center filter. And finally, one thing I like

about the lens is that it extends far enough either side of the

flange so that I can use it on a Crown Graphic (which I like using as

a field camera) without even dropping the bed. I hope somebody else

will be able to provide you with more specific numbers.

 

<p>

 

Tom

I live in the 4-corners region and, for what it's worth, can suggest

the following. Take the Nikon and the Pentax and leave the 4x5 at

home. If you have never been to this area before think of this as a

reconaissance trip. The 4x5 will slow you down too much and lead to

frustration. You can get excellent results, experiment more and see

more of the region with the smaller formats. I suspect that after

this first trip you will want to come back again to work a few of

your favorite areas with the 4x5.

 

<p>

 

Beware that the previous posts warning against trying to do and see

too much are very true. If you are not careful you could spend the

majority of your vacation driving between photo spots. I suggest that

you pick one or two towns as "base camps" and concentrate on taking

short day trips from there. Flagstaff or Moab might be good choices.

If you chose Flagstaff, for instance, day trips could include: Grand

Canyon NP; Sedona; Walnut Canyon, Sunset Crater and Wupatki National

Monuments;the San Fransisco Peaks; Petrified Forest NP; the many

attractions within the City of Flagstaff; and numerous other great

photo sites within a few hours drive. (You can also purchase medium

and large format film here and have your film processed the same day

with good results.) You could also spend several nights in the

Canyon DeChelley area and drive up to Monument Valley as a day trip.

 

<p>

 

The base camp approach has worked well for me. I spent a week last

summer in Zion NP using my 4x5 and infrared film. I got much better

pictures than I would of if I had tried to drive all over Utah and

photograph in 20 different spots.

 

<p>

 

Finally, be sure to bring both color and B&W film. The color is, of

course, great for the early morning and evening, and the B&W allows

you to keep shooting during the middle of the day, when the harsh

sunlight washes out much of the color in the landscape.

 

<p>

 

Have fun whatever you decide to do!

I have had this lens for about a year and I am happy with it. I have

used it mostly with B&W and B&W infrared film. Your results may be

less satisfying if you plan on shooting a lot of chrome. Here is

what I have found.

 

<p>

 

Light fall-off is very noticeable when viewed wide open on the ground

glass, but rarely noticed on the negatives (usually shot at f22). I

haven't felt as though I needed a center filter. Negative contrast

and sharpness at the edges seem fine. Lens flare has not been a

problem. The lens is quite big, so it does not fit in the pack as

easily as others might, but who cares.

 

<p>

 

I bought this lens in mint condition for $325 and I have no plans to

replace it with a more modern (i.e more expensive) lens. I hope this

helps.

I can't provide any detailed technical analysis of the 4 part

developers, but since nobody else seems have any advice I can offer

the following. I use the Tetenal E-6 kits with good success. I

process in a Jobo CPE2 processor. I am careful to be consistent

with my temperature and timing, and I warm the rinse water in a

seperate bath to the same temperature as the chemicals. This is

certainly not state of the art equipment or techniques. However, I

can't tell the difference between the chromes I have processed and

the ones processed by a professional lab - and I can be very

critical.

I too am from a small Arizona town and have to travel to Phoenix for

LF support. My vote is also for Rod Klukas at Photomark. By far the

best place to go to talk with knowledgable people and try things out.

I have never used anything larger than 4x5, so I have no advice on

8x10 cameras. However, if you talk to Rod, I'm sure he will have

plenty of advice.

I have a project that I would like to do using infrared, black and white film which I would shoot, mostly outdoors, through a dark red filter (Tiffen # 29 I believe). I started working on the project using 35mm but was very disappointed with the quality of an 11x14 enlargement - much too grainy! I would like to do the project using my 4x5. However, based on my past, limited experience with infrared, I realize I could go through a lot of film before I finally get things right. I would appreciate any advice or insights from those who have used infrared film with a large format camera. I am especially concerned with film handling. Is it true, as I have read, that touching the film when loading the holder can fog the film? Also, how much heat can the film tolerate (I live in Arizona where it can get rather hot). Finally any hints on making accurate exposures using infrared film would be very welcome.

I have to disagree somewhat with the answers above. I think the 90mm

is more equivalent to the 24mm than the 75mm is. There always seemed

to me to be more to lens equivalency and aspect ratio than the simple

mathematics of the question suggests. For example, I recently took a

photo that I was quite pleased with using an 80mm "normal" lens on a

6x6 medium format camera. I later tried to take an equivalent photo

on 35mm film and found that I needed a 24mm lens to include all the

important elements of the picture. And in the end, the 35mm

composition was not as nice as the original. My point is, that for

me anyway, a 90mm on 4x5 has always had the feel of at least a 24mm

lens on a 35mm camera. I rarely feel that I need anything wider than

90mm. I would look real hard at getting the 90mm. As previously

pointed out, it will probably be cheaper and lighter. Also, there is

less concern about needing a center filter. However, if you do a lot

of architectural photography, get the 75mm. In this case, it always

seems that wider is better.