barry schmetter

The cool thing is there's going to be an instant community of photographers with Travelwides, so they'll be plenty of help

to get everyone up and running. There are tons of 90mm f/8 lenses that will work just fine on the camera as well as many

lenses besides the 90mm Angulon. Everyone will get a high quality pinhole to start with, so the camera is usable out of

the box.

As a practicing wet plate artist; if these are real tintypes, *nothing* should be touching the front surface. No glass, no acrylic, nothing. After tintypes are dried, they're coated with a varnish--typically gum sandarac with oil of lavender. Other materials pressed up against the front of the varnish will gradually adhere over time--and not uniformly. When it's time to remove the tintypes from your frame, it will likely be impossible to remove anything from the front of the tintype without damaging the image.

<p>If you're careful when you shoot your plates, you won't have major problems with dripping silver nitrate. Silver nitrate will attack any wood, but wiping down the back of your plates and wiping out your plate holder regularly will prevent most damage. Most wet plate cameras are (and were) made of good quality mahogany and cherry. Walnut is probably the third most popular choice. All are excellent choices. Poplar is not a commonly used wood for large format cameras.</p>

<p>A twin lens reflex (TLR) with an older lens design like a Yahicamat, Minolta Autocord, or Rolleicord would be inexpensive and give a bit of a vintage look. A 120 folder like an Agfa Isolette, Ensign Selfix, or a Zeiss Super Ikonta would all have older lens designs that lend a little character. For grain, you could shoot Ilford Delta 3200 film--it's available in 120 rolls.</p>

<p>The second shot is just beautiful--reminds why large format is worth the effort. I love how you see a section of the clock face in the background; it ties the whole image together.</p>

<p>An 8x10 field kit usually weighs significantly more than a 4x5 kit, by virtue of film holder weight alone. Add the weight of the camera, larger lenses, bigger tripod and darkcloth--and the difference may be more than you think. Assuming you're ok with the weight, you have a disconnect between the scanner quality and your desire for top quality massive enlargements. The V750 will manage to do a reasonably nice 4X enlargement (32"x40" from a full 8'x10' neg), but beyond that image quality deteriorates rapidly when compared to a professional flat bed or drum scanned image. If you're picky about quality, you may want anything beyond 3X pro scanned.<br>

<br /> I have a Nikkor 120mm SW f/8 lens to use an an ultrawide on 8x10. It covers the format with almost no room for movements. It's very sharp and the price is reasonable since you can still buy new ones for $750 at B&H. If you want to have ample coverage for movements, the Nikkor 150mm SW f/8 would be a good choice. It'll cost twice as much as the 120mm, but the image circle is huge (~400mm @ f/22). The Shen Hao 8x10 seems like a very good value--there aren't many new 8x10 cameras for around $2000. Beyond that, the Chamonix and Canham Traditional are excellent choices.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sounds like you're ready for large format. I'd recommend a Chamonix 45N-1 camera with a universal bellows. It's a very solid and precisely crafted lightweight field camera with plenty of movements at a reasonable price (<$800). The bellows extend from 45mm to 395mm (and even longer with an inexpensive bed extension). I've been using mine for a year and a half and it's a top notch camera by any measure.<br>

http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/45.html</p>

Errr, what I meant to say is-- once a lens coating is breached, slightly scratched or even excessively dusty, the amount of flare, coma, spherical, and chromatic aberrations will obscure the drop in contrast, acutance and resolution. You get what you pay for--that's what I say. Might as well tape a piece of broken pickle jar to a lensboard, but the pickles only cost $1.89 and you get something to eat. :)

I've become an inveterate large format lens bottom feeder and I'd be very surprised if you could demonstrate any of those defects under any condition. I have much much worse lenses that produce perfect negatives. I can appreciate the fact that some photographers demand flawless pristine glass and thank my luck when they sit out and don't bid against me.

The Harrison tents are the best, but I agree--get the middle size because it gets cramped inside.

I'm sure the Tachihara is a great camera--they've been around for a long time and the owners seem generally pleased. Faced with the choice between the Shen Hao, Tachihara, and the Chamonix--I got a Chamonix 45N-1 and have no regrets. The Chamonix is extremely light and completely rigid and the build quality is beautiful. It's really a joy to work with in the field. I recently got the universal bellows and the rear folding viewer and both are great and reasonably priced accessories. I may be wrong, but I don't think the Tachi has interchangeable bellows. The Chamonix does have a Graflok back, but most people don't need them anyway. The materials are impeccable--black walnut (or maple), carbon fiber, and aluminum alloy. The price difference isn't that big--maybe $150, so I'd pick the camera that has the features you want.

Cheap and Deardorff are two words that don't usually go together. You can sometimes buy a beat to hell old dorff for around $500, but you have to plan on doing some repairs and refinishing yourself. Never buy a dorff with a split base--they can be very difficult and expensive to repair. You could search locally and you might get lucky, but it would have to be a solid gold lighting bolt of luck. eBay is really the best source by far. You can pick up a dorff for around $1300-$1400 in excellent condition--they're absolutely worth it. Lens and Repro? They're usually more expensive than eBay.

 

Maybe you should consider a less expensive camera. A Kodak 2D is an excellent camera and you can pick one up for $300 in good condition. It doesn't have all the movements of the Deardorff, but enough to get by for most landscape and portrait work.

I have a feeling they either don't distribute the sheet film versions in the Czech Republic or the distribution is very limited--so that may account for their answer. I use it branded as Arista EDU Ultra and I can assure you, it's a very decent film. I've heard some complaints of the roll film being curly, but the sheet film is on a different base, and it's very flat. I haven't had any problems with pinholes, poor coating, or incorrect sizing, but as I mentioned, the emulsion is a bit soft. I develop it in Pyrocat-HD and have been generally pleased with the results. I rate the film at an EI of 100 and am very careful about handling and wash temperature. Don't temperature shock this film unless you like reticulation. It's certainly worth trying a box to see if you like it because it's half the price of Kodak/Ilford sheet film.

Fomapan 200 is alive and well and available in 4x5 and 8x10 sheets. In the US, Freestyle Photo is the best source. The emulsion is a little soft and you have to be careful handling it during processing to avoid scratches, but otherwise it's a very nice film and reasonably priced.

The camera movements are at least half the fun of large format--I'd go with a nice wood field camera like the Shen Hao or the Tachi. The Crown would make a fine second camera, but a Speed with it's built in shutter would be even better--you can play around with funky barrel lenses and scrap optics.

C'est down.

I went to one of the DC shows a couple of years ago and found it depressing. The dealers all seemed like they were in sour moods and the prices were nothing special. The visitors were sparse and the whole affair seemed dingy. There are some great photo shows in town--so I'd make that a primary destination and not budget a lot of time for the Photorama show.

Walter-- It's very simple for the Chamonix--you don't need the bevel or any of the cuts or protrusions. The board just needs to be rectangular in the correct dimensions with a maximum thickness of 2mm. I measure a Wista board and the general thickness seems to be about 1.9mm with my cheapo calipers.

I have an one if you're interested. It's labeled Calumet on the front, but it's made by Cambo and their name is molded into the rear of the board. The Calumet is a rebranded Cambo, but I'd be happy to sell you my Calumet branded board. It's the same board, though.

With the Epson driver, the 3800 will print to a length of 37.4 inches. With the inexpensive QuadTone RIP, you can go even longer for black and white. For color, you'd need an expensive RIP to print longer than 37.4". I prefer precut sheets because they don't have the curl issues of roll paper and for the most part, the prices are fairly close per square inch. I also use a variety of papers and don't want to have to continually swap rolls. I do occasionally buy roll paper and find it trivial to cut it down into sheets for my 3800. The major advantage of any roll feed printer is the ability to do production work and print large jobs unattended. The 3800 is not a production printer, but if you're not doing a huge volume and plan on using a variety of Mk and Pk papers, I think the 3800 is a good choice. At this point, I consider Epson's lack of a dedicated channel for each ink to be major drawback with their roll feed printers.

One more point. Better make sure the Toyo will handle such a short lens--you may need a bag bellows or a recessed lens board.

Lenses designed for 35mm cameras have image circles way too small for 4x5. Not to mention the fact--no shutters either. Maybe you can find a 55mm f/4.5 Apo Grandagon lens to rent. It'll cover 4x5 with no movements. It wouldn't hurt to have a center field filter too, although the light falloff can be fixed in Photoshop.

Richard--You can also achieve foreground to background sharpness with a bit of rear tilt. The only difference is that the foreground will be slightly more prominent--some people prefer this. The other advantage of rear tilt is that it requires less image circle than front tilt.

It seems like the 240mm Sironar S gives mainly gives you a couple of extra stops for viewing in exchange for the additional weight, size, and expense (over the Fujinon 240mm A). The image circle is only marginally larger than the Fujinon. For me, weight is a prime consideration, so I don't think the tradeoff makes sense.

A nice start would be a polarizer, a warming filter, and a ND grad or two.