deardorff8x10

I use them as my c-41 lab for all formats (they even do 5x7). I cannot comment on

the lack of mottling in the ad, as I have not really noticed it in the work of other labs.

I do not see mottling on the film they have done for me, but then I didn't really see it

before I used them. Their developing is very clean, push/pulls are good, etc. Their

prices are fair. I recommend them highly.

I also live in NYC. While he may be a bit contrversial due to success, look at Thomas

Struth. He did b/w pix of NYC and other modern cities, then switched to color, which

I think are more powerful. I do really like the b/w pictures, but the color ones seem

to have more emotional strength. In the current mentality, it seems like b/w has a

certain nostalgia, either for the 40's-70's or for Atget, while color is more "trendy",

but I don't think that is bad. After learning b/w in California in the 70-80's, I think

my color work in NYC is better.

My favorite is 8x10 (I have Deardorff) -- really great to use & I like contact printing. Nothing like seeing 1:1 on a ground glass.

 

Second is probably m4.

The post above is correct. I use the B1e, since I never pan a view camera. I take the ball off and on a lot and didn't want the pan feature, since I thought it could come loose. One can rotate the camera with the ball unlocked, although the camera can then move in all directions.

I think it is primarily in the enlargement factor. I don't know about color, but in b/w there is also infectious development where highlights are smeared out a bit since some of the silver goes into solution locally and is redeposited near highlights. This is even worse with grainy film. The major difference I see is in local contrast where 4x5 and especially 8x10 are very sharp due to clearly delineated dark-light edges.

 

I also have a theory that I have not worked out scientifically. This is that at normal enlargement and viewing distances 4x5 is about as sharp as the eye, while 8x10 is sharper -- I often find that prints from 8x10 have a slightly unnatural look, since they are overly detailed (e.g. some very detailed landscapes or life-sized portraits where one can see every pore). I like this look.

I use a Lee w/a adapter and a 4x4 Tiffen polarizer and this lens. With the back in portrait mode for buildings, I did not notice significantly uneven skies. Sometimes, in landscape mode with rise so there is a lot of sky, I do see modest unevenness with 4x5, and more with 5x7. I have been able to correct it in printing.

Perhaps you should look more emotionally and a bit less visually. I.e. what feelings does your being there again bring up and how would you visualize those.

 

Another thing to consider is putting a new technical approach. I.e. try a shallow depth of field to isolate certain fetures. Shoot low to the ground. Allow things to be a bit out of focus. I really like Lee Friedlander's desert photos -- parts are out of focus, his shadow is sometimes in the frame, and compositions are wild. But, it feels to me like the desert I grew up in more than Ansel Adams' work.

Two questions-

 

Did you use a center filter (the sky looks very even)

 

Were you focused a bit close (so the lens was a bit further away)?

 

Thanks,

Michael Waldron

I have used the 150 and even 110 on a 8x10 Dorff with front swing. It can be a bit tricky, since mine is a bit old, to make sure the standards are totally parallel, but other than that it works fine. The best thing about the dorff is the sliding front, making rise easier with short lenses, since the bellows doesn't have to move.

 

Another alterntiave, though expensive, is the non-folding ebony.

 

Michael Waldron

I have a harrison dark cloth that is waterproof on the silver side and a bellow lens shade, so I extend the shade, then cover everything with the dark cloth. The worst thing is having wind blow rain on the lens (good idea to tilt down a bit), because it is basically impossible to dry it off outside in humid conditions. I have taken a few pictures in not too contrasty situations with a little rain on the front of the lens and it seemed fine. Wouldn't want a bright highlight shining on it though.

 

While I haven't done it, and don't hold me responsible, I imagine that a modest amount of rain on a camera wouldn't be too damaging if it were dried off soon after exposure to the elements. On things other than cameras, lacquered wood, metal and leather are out in the rain a lot without significant damage. Shutters are probably different, and I take pains to keep them dry.

My longest lens is a 480/19". The problem with my camera (Deardorff) is that at extreme extentions, it moves about in the wind a bit. This lens is ok for portraits, but not really that long.

 

For some reason, I really only like my 210 and 300 on that camera -- it seems to have something to do with a combination of size of the negative and perspective. I have seen some landscapes done with a 600 that were nice due to the extremely flat look that the lens brought. I find that in most cases I just move back and forth to change perspective rather than switching lenses.

I have one and use it for 4x5/5x7 as well as 8x10. It is fine for both, but fairly thick, so it is not really compact when folded or rolled up. It has silver plastic on one side that is waterproof in case of rain. It can also serve as a quasi-reflector.

 

I don't really use the velcro to attach it because of the shape of my camera (a deardorff, so there is a gap between the rear standard and the base that lets in light -- it is not possible to wrap the cloth only around the glass as might be the case on a rail camera). I think that the ebony cloth looks nice, since it is thinner (but still waterproof, supposedly), but it is expensive.

 

On the other hand, I use the thick Harrison cloth to wrap around the camera or filmholders for protection, so I don't mind carrying it around. BTW, it seems to be made of the same material as their film changing tent, so you can be co-ordinated :).

 

Hope that is helpful.

I agree -- on 4x5 I have not felt I needed a CF. On 5x7, the corners are dark if I use some rise, so I am thinking of getting the CF for that. Supposedly, it will cover 8x10, but I have not really found that to be the case -- maybe when I get the CF I will try again.

Benny's comment is correct -- anything on the edge will be "drawn out". On the other hand, if you take a picture of a brick wall with the film parallel to the wall with a SWC, all of the lines are straight. I will see if I can figure out how to post some images or e-mail you some. It isn't bad for portraits, but you have to be careful and keep things in the center.

 

While there are other good alternatives, I find the SWC small, light and easy to use, but it is overpriced. But, since I like the square, have other Hassy backs, filters, etc, I lived with the price.

Wisner and 5x7 Deardorff use 4x4 boards, but I don't know if the format is the same.

The photo guide is a great resource.

 

This is not really Leica related, but if you have time you should also see the Thomas Struth show at the Metropolitan. There are two parts -- smaller view camera scenes of streets and cities (mostly b&w), then huge color photos. I think the feeling is a bit leica-like, although the technique certainly isn't!

 

Michael

I think the one good thing with M is that there is no sutter lag and you see if the person closed their eyes, etc. since there is no blackout, but I sort of find it hard to see the instant of exposure with a strobe in any event.

 

On the other hand, with closeup, it is a bit hard to really judge framing and perspective.

 

I typically move back and forth to preserve focus and find M a tiny bit easier than hassy for that. I think one might as well use a bigger negative if possible, but it doesn't seem that you have any MF.

Finally, you have to be careful with shutter times if you use modelling lights, etc. with large apertures. One great thing about MF is the 500 synch with strobes.

 

Michael

I have a 5x7/4x5 Deardorff and use a 19" (480) Artar. As the bellows go to about 23" I can focus to about 10' or so. I have used it outside, and not really noticed that wind was a problem. The lens is small, but is mounted in a Copal 3 shutter, so it is a bit heavy. I think the 5x7 camera idea is a good one. I do notice that the lens has more flare and a bit cooler color than more modern lenses.

 

While expensive, the Nikon or Schneider telephoto designs with swappable rear elements is probably the way to go.

You can also consider the Ansel Adams approach of pre-exposure to put a bit more detail in the shadows. I have done that with tranny film with 1-1.5 stop pre exposure and gotten a bit more detail, but more like 5 stops than 6. for this reason, I pretty much often use c-41

I have a 210 Apo Sironar-W which allows modest movements on 8x10 and it is quite nice. It weighs a lot, is in Copal 3 shutter and uses 100mm filters. However, it is a modern lens with multi-caoting and supposedly ED glass. It seems about as sharp as my 110 SSXL, although it is a bit hard to tell. One theory I have heard is that wider coverage lenses (i.e. 75 vs 80 vs. 100 degrees) generally have a bit less resolution. With 8x10 though, I don't think that will be an issue unless you make 8x10 foot enlargements. Also, I don't know if the aspheric element of a 210 ss xl will aid in this. Wider field lenses also may cause more flare by projecting light on the interior of the bellows. You would then want to use a carefully adjusted compendium hood.

I have both 5x7/4x5 and 8x10 deardorffs. They are very nice cameras. I agree with all of the above regarding portability, etc. Three other points:

 

1) Shooting 8x10 is expensive. Provia is $7-8/sheet plus about $4 to process. Color negative is about $8/sheet and $15 for develop and contact. B&W isn't too bad. Makes sense that it is about 4x as expensive vs. 4x5.

 

2) My Deardorffs (and I assume most old wood cameras) have some alignment problems. I.e. if you line up the standards with the body, they are not parallel. Given the Deardorff design whereby front rise and tilt are the same control, it is very hard to get the front standard perfectly square. For portrait or landscape, this is not a big deal, but troublesome for really wide angles or architectural type things that you want to line up.

 

3) One great feature is the sliding front lens panel, which is really great. I don't know why all wood cameras don't have this feature.

I use 1200 w/s (2x600 profoto monolights) and get f22-32 on 400 color film. I usually rate tri-x around 200-320, so I think that would do it for f22.

 

Regards,

 

Michael

I use a 1325 with 4x5 and 8x10 deardorffs and have not had a problem using either an arca swiss ball head or a large bogen 3-way. I am 6'3" and don't need to put the legs all the way out -- I tend to leave the bottom leg halfway in. However, my cameras add some distance between the bottom attachment point and the bottom of the rear standard.

 

I fine the tripod easy to carry just by holding onto one leg at the balance point slightly down from the apex -- the joint is stiff enough to hold the weight.

You could look at some Japanese photographers like Hatakaeyama (hopefully spelled correctly), who recently did urban scenes in Tokyo and some in England too. I think most people in urban settings like to be spontaneous, so they use handheld cameras. I have used an 8x10 in Brooklyn where I live! Interestingly, the Russians in Brighton Beach who stopped said they all used to see such a camera back home -- it really wasn't wierd for them to see an 8x10 at the boardwalk. Some asked me to take a picture of their granddaughter, which I did.

I would go 4x5 or 8x10 and crop. On 8x10, you could use a 4x5 lens like 180, which should have enough coverage (10-11") to get a 4x10 panoramic by cropping.

 

The problem will be the existing light -- overcast or high thin coulds vs. harsh sun. Maybe a few volunteers could hold white sheets as fill reflectors.

 

I would go for it, as it is a fun project (and maybe in line with a great tradition of big group portraits).