Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,509   Posts: 1,543,568   Online: 1057
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    I just loaded my own Sinar in the truck and am going to head out in a few minutes. But a couple of other suggestions. I think it would be more difficult and less rewarding to use a roll-film back. The smaller image is much more finicky to focus and quite a few roll-film holders don't hold the
    film on a very precise plane. One might get pretty frustrated trying to sort
    out why certain images aren't in good focus. After one learns the basics,
    then you can transfer those skills if necessary to a roll-film back. And full
    4X5 film does give a much more usable neg or chrome with less issues
    with dust spots or inevitable film blemishes. If you're planning on a home
    color darkroom somewhere down the line, then color neg film makes the
    most sense, but without actually printing it, it's difficult to guage your progress. Scanning and viewing on a monitor is a pretty crude form of evaluation since 4X5 film is really meant to hold dramatically more visual
    information than you can see on a screen. Some labs can offer you both a
    contact sheet and a disc, and that might be helpful getting to first base.

  2. #22
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,882
    I agree with most of the rest, but less issues with dust and blemishes with sheets? You load film holders in a clean room? I have few 4x5 dust problems now but none with 120 (at least, none on the film prior to exposure - in the darkroom of course just clean the thing and make another print or learn to spot.) That was true with Quickload and Readyload but other than rapidly diminishing and expiring film via eBay or very expensive import of remaining Quickloads those aren't that practical anymore.

    I also don't have any problem evaluating a 6x6, much less 6x7 or 6x9, transparency on a lightbox with a loupe. Totally agree about negatives being hard to evaluate without printing and about the smaller ground glass image being finicky and more difficult to work with, though.

  3. #23
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,117
    "roll-film back. The smaller image is much more finicky to focus and quite a few roll-film holders don't hold the
    film on a very precise plane."

    I have used roll film backs in view camera for certain projects that I needed a view camera and a lower cost film, due to the volume, and never ever had a focus problem, with hundreds of shots.

    Perhaps I am just lucky to have several Graflex roll holders and view camera that everything worked perfectly the first time, every time. However, that is what the equipment is designed so if it doesn't, something else is wrong. JMHO
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  4. #24
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,882
    Quote Originally Posted by fotch View Post
    "roll-film back. The smaller image is much more finicky to focus and quite a few roll-film holders don't hold the
    film on a very precise plane."

    I have used roll film backs in view camera for certain projects that I needed a view camera and a lower cost film, due to the volume, and never ever had a focus problem, with hundreds of shots.

    Perhaps I am just lucky to have several Graflex roll holders and view camera that everything worked perfectly the first time, every time. However, that is what the equipment is designed so if it doesn't, something else is wrong. JMHO
    I've never had a problem focusing as such nor with film flatness with mine. But I do find the smaller image harder to work with, especially if movements are being used.

  5. #25
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    I've never had a problem focusing as such nor with film flatness with mine. But I do find the smaller image harder to work with, especially if movements are being used.
    In my use I was mainly copying flat works, art, photos, etc. For restoration, a 16x20 print or larger would be made for the artist and then later re-photographed and reproduced to the original size. Other than bellows extension, no movements used. Always razor sharp.
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    Yeah Roger, I always load filmholders in a true cleanroom, but if I have to
    use a changing tent it's got a clean poly liner inside it. Rollfilm holders are
    infamous for inaccuracy. Certainly not all of them were precisely made,
    and not all view camera backs seat them ideally. But I guess it depends on one's standard. With my Horseman 6x9 holder I can get images way sharper than the best of med format SLR or rangefinder lenses, but that's because of the huge advantage of plane of focus movements on a view camera, esp if one is a long focal length junkie like me. With a conventional camera all one can do if stop the lens way down. And then the Horseman back is one of those with a solid reputation for quality control, but requires removal of the std 4x5 back. The only interest I personally have in this is for very long backpacks as I gradually enter further into geezerhood and want more room for food in the pack, and want to travel the high passes a bit faster. But the downside is that it takes a much slower film (25) to equate to the detail I typically get in
    4X5 with a more convenient speed. Not complaining, esp since my day
    camera is usually 8x10 anyway. The biggest nuisance with small film is
    that it is more fragile, more electrostatic, and little blemishes are proportionately bigger in the print. And the only film out there in 25ASA
    with a very long scale compared to larger format films is Efke 25, which
    is a little more blemish prone than films by Ilford, Kodak, or Fuji. But I
    have gotten some wonderful images with it. Colorwise, we've now got
    Ektar, which will take a fair degree of enlargement from roll size.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin