Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,965   Posts: 1,558,403   Online: 811
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    5
    @Rick A. Thanks for the link. That site has plethora of info. Answered most of my questions.

    Thanks a lot guys. I think you guys answered most of my questions. The site rick mentioned is a killer. I will go register over there as well.

    @PKM-25. Agree to you some extend. Like I said, I do have my 35mm for things that I think I can't wait to setup the LF. Besides such a great depth of photography.... maybe once I get into it more. Right now, it is for the experience.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    509
    Images
    4
    Rakmaya

    I would agree with much of what others have posted here with one exception. Several folk have recommended a roll film holder for the 4x5 - and I would not get one of those as you are starting out. Like you, I moved from 35mm to LF, and one of the biggest changes between the formats is getting into the mindset of really contemplating each image and analyzing it before releasing the shutter. A roll film back encourages your 35mm brain to function when you have the LF camera in front of you. It is much better to immerse yourself in the LF world and get in the habit of thinking in that mode before trying to treat the LF camera like a big 35mm.

    Personal preference: I shoot 99% of my images in B&W. Ilford HP5+ is a good film with lots of exposure latitude, so it is hard to get a negative that you can't print with HP5+.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The highest state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark_S View Post
    Rakmaya

    I would agree with much of what others have posted here with one exception. Several folk have recommended a roll film holder for the 4x5 - and I would not get one of those as you are starting out. Like you, I moved from 35mm to LF, and one of the biggest changes between the formats is getting into the mindset of really contemplating each image and analyzing it before releasing the shutter. A roll film back encourages your 35mm brain to function when you have the LF camera in front of you. It is much better to immerse yourself in the LF world and get in the habit of thinking in that mode before trying to treat the LF camera like a big 35mm.
    I am just as contemplative and detail oriented with 35mm as I am with 4x5, so I am not sure I buy the whole LF makes you think more about the image thing. I was shooting all day for a big fine art commission in single digit temps at high altitude. In most of the shots, I set the camera up, pegged focus and was ready to pull the slide in only about twice the time it would have taken to do the same thing with a Blad or Nikon on a tripod. Using the camera is really the easy part, I laid out the hard parts which are mostly to do with film processing and handling. I shot 3 film holders, half of one 6x12 back and 1.5 rolls in the other....I did not treat the camera like a big 35mm with the roll film backs on, it was more a case of the ideal aspect ratio...

    But the bottom line is this, the OP already made it perfectly clear in his reply to me that he is more interested in experiencing using the camera than getting the most powerful image he can and that is ok.

    So with that in mind, yeah, I agree, skip the roll film backs for now and use the camera in 4x5 format.
    "I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~

  4. #14
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    495
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    Hi, Rakmaya! Years ago I bought a Graflex Super Graphic. Of course it came with its standard kit 135mm lens, and I found out something: you don't need a big range of lenses. You just need one lens, and then use it well. What you do need to do is learn how to properly load and unload the film holders, expose the film, and develop it.

    For quick feedback, you can use Fuji instant film. You'll need either a Polaroid 405 holder or a Fuji PA-145 holder. The film is the FP-100C, and I think there's also a 3000 speed B&W film. It produces a very good image. It's just a tad under 4x5 in size, but it's OK.

    If you have a real darkroom, or a room that can be made dark (I use my bathroom), you can process in trays. You can also process in Patterson tanks using the "taco" method. You may be able to find a used HP Combiplan tank. Don't bother with the Yankee tank. There are Jobo tanks and reels for processing 4x5.

    Most chemicals will work with most films. Actually, there's only a few exceptions, like you're not supposed to use TMax developer with sheet films. Otherwise, just about any developer will develop your film. Start with something common, like D-76 in a packet or Ilford Ilfosol liquid. Start with what is recommended in the instructions, and then adjust from there.

    Enjoy your new camera!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post

    But the bottom line is this, the OP already made it perfectly clear in his reply to me that he is more interested in experiencing using the camera than getting the most powerful image he can and that is ok.

    So with that in mind, yeah, I agree, skip the roll film backs for now and use the camera in 4x5 format.

    Yes, you are correct, since I am just starting up, I would like to first get the experience.

    @Brian: As far as the developing is concerned, I have had some experience with tray process (in bathroom). I will do that. I think the most important is going to be to have a good method in shooting + organizing the exposed + then getting it into the developer. I ordered the HP5+ sheets today.

    Got myself a 210 schneider used. The 90mm was too much to afford now. At my level, any lens would do justice.

  6. #16
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,473
    Images
    225

    Moving to large format and need some help

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller View Post
    Hi, Rakmaya! Years ago I bought a Graflex Super Graphic. Of course it came with its standard kit 135mm lens, and I found out something: you don't need a big range of lenses. You just need one lens, and then use it well. What you do need to do is learn how to properly load and unload the film holders, expose the film, and develop it.

    For quick feedback, you can use Fuji instant film. You'll need either a Polaroid 405 holder or a Fuji PA-145 holder. The film is the FP-100C, and I think there's also a 3000 speed B&W film. It produces a very good image. It's just a tad under 4x5 in size, but it's OK.

    If you have a real darkroom, or a room that can be made dark (I use my bathroom), you can process in trays. You can also process in Patterson tanks using the "taco" method. You may be able to find a used HP Combiplan tank. Don't bother with the Yankee tank. There are Jobo tanks and reels for processing 4x5.

    Most chemicals will work with most films. Actually, there's only a few exceptions, like you're not supposed to use TMax developer with sheet films. Otherwise, just about any developer will develop your film. Start with something common, like D-76 in a packet or Ilford Ilfosol liquid. Start with what is recommended in the instructions, and then adjust from there.

    Enjoy your new camera!
    Wait why not use Tmax dev??


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #17
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,610
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Wait why not use Tmax dev??


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    T-Max RS instead - dichroic fog is the problem with "plain" T-Max developer (IIRC).
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  8. #18
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,473
    Images
    225

    Moving to large format and need some help

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    T-Max RS instead - dichroic fog is the problem with "plain" T-Max developer (IIRC).
    So then why doesn't everyone just use the RS version and discontinue the other?

    Also is DD-X (being supposedly similar to Tmax) also not ok for LF? And if so what is Ilford's equivalent.

    Thanks.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #19
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,610
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    So then why doesn't everyone just use the RS version and discontinue the other?

    Also is DD-X (being supposedly similar to Tmax) also not ok for LF? And if so what is Ilford's equivalent.

    Thanks.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    The RS version is optimized for replenishment and is packaged differently (two solutions rather than one). The non RS version is not suitable for replenishment, and is cheaper.

    While DD-X may give similar results, most likely it is chemically quite different. I don't know that there are a lot of near identical equivalents between the Kodak and Ilford product lines, other than ID-11-D76 and, formerly, Perceptol-Microdol X.

    Have you reviewed the page of Ilford developers on their site: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/...ilm+Developers ?
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  10. #20
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,473
    Images
    225

    Moving to large format and need some help

    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    The RS version is optimized for replenishment and is packaged differently (two solutions rather than one). The non RS version is not suitable for replenishment, and is cheaper.

    While DD-X may give similar results, most likely it is chemically quite different. I don't know that there are a lot of near identical equivalents between the Kodak and Ilford product lines, other than ID-11-D76 and, formerly, Perceptol-Microdol X.

    Have you reviewed the page of Ilford developers on their site: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/...ilm+Developers ?
    As long as I can use DD-X that's all that matters to me

    I don't want to use any Kodak chemistry as I don't want to get used to something only to have it disappear. Same with the film. Plus with the exception to Tmax 400, the ilford stuff is cheaper and that's my main concern, if Acros weren't so cheap (plus the 2 minute reciprocity failure rate) I would be shooting all ilford. So thanks for the info!


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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