Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,661   Posts: 1,481,611   Online: 904
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45
  1. #31
    xya
    xya is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    184
    if you are still weighing the pros and cons, I put another vote for 8x10 or 7x9.5. I just bought the most affordable basics, a russian wooden camera, some barrel lenses, a shutter and one shuttered wide angle lens with slight scratches. all this wasn't 500$ yet. I only have 2 double holders, but I'm looking for more if I see a bargain. it's real fun already. and it's so different from smaller formats.

    I mainly shoot 120 film. when most professionals moved to digital and their old gear became out of fashion, I bought myself a 4x5 technikardan. it was great to explore it, but enlargers are really really expensive. and in the end, most of my prints are 7x9.5 or 8x10. so the difference between a 120 and a 4x5 negative isn't that impressing at this size.

    all I can say is that a direct print from 7x9.5 has something special, maybe it's not rational even, but I just adore it. this is my very personal opinion of course. I just wanted to let you know.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,500
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by xya View Post
    if you are still weighing the pros and cons, I put another vote for 8x10 or 7x9.5. I just bought the most affordable basics, a russian wooden camera, some barrel lenses, a shutter and one shuttered wide angle lens with slight scratches. all this wasn't 500$ yet. I only have 2 double holders, but I'm looking for more if I see a bargain. it's real fun already. and it's so different from smaller formats.

    I mainly shoot 120 film. when most professionals moved to digital and their old gear became out of fashion, I bought myself a 4x5 technikardan. it was great to explore it, but enlargers are really really expensive. and in the end, most of my prints are 7x9.5 or 8x10. so the difference between a 120 and a 4x5 negative isn't that impressing at this size.

    all I can say is that a direct print from 7x9.5 has something special, maybe it's not rational even, but I just adore it. this is my very personal opinion of course. I just wanted to let you know.
    In my part of the world, SF Bay area, you can't give enlargers away. My MXT is staying but go to Craig's list and you'll see 4x5 enlargers for a song. Getting a decent 150mm lens might take you awhile longer.

    tim in san jose
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  3. #33
    TheToadMen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Netherlands, Europe
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    930
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    19
    The "Fuji Super HRT Green X-Ray" film seems to be a good and cheap option. There are several discussions on APUG about this film.
    I'm gonna try to get it in 18x24 cm format for my russian FKD camera to test it.
    "Have fun and catch that light beam!"
    Bert from Holland
    my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
    my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup


    * "So much time and so little to do. Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it. Thank you." (the original Willy Wonka: Gene Wilder, 1971)
    * My favorite cameras: Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T2, Nikon F4s, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras

  4. #34
    Mark Feldstein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Monterey, CA / BiCoastal NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    163
    IMHO 8x10 work is hardly a "major learning curve" as someone claimed above. Sure, it's more labor intensive by virtue of size and bulk, but involves the exact same photographic principles as any other type of view camera traditional photography, ie. "exposure, lighting, perspective, depth of field, subject movement (you mean moving targets?)", swings, tilts and so on.

    The same person above said they shoot 8x10 because of ". . .the tonal and intense image granularity blow [you] away." I really wish [s]he would explain what tonalty and granularity has to do with the format you're using rather than the way the film is exposed and processed.
    Last edited by Mark Feldstein; 06-23-2013 at 10:56 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    _________________________________
    Without guys like John Coltrane, Count Basie and Duke Ellington, life....would be meaningless.

  5. #35
    Doc W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by msbarnes View Post
    LF photography has always intrigued me but I have never taken the leap. I know that you can enter 4x5 relatively cheap me but many of the large format images that I like were shot on 8x10...

    1. Are there any fashion/portrait photographers that used mostly 4x5. I really like the work from roversi, avedon, and demarchelier to name but I believe they used 8x10 and iin that industry it makes sense to "skip" 4x5..

    2. Is there a cheap 8x10 settup? Learning 4x5 would be more practical/cheaper for sure but if 8x10 is what I like, then maybe that is where I should start. Well this is just a thought. I figured that 8x10 is exponentially more expensive but I have never looked into it. Starting with LF with something cheap like a Graflex seems more logical.
    Karsh shot in 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. If you wanted to do mainly portraits and studio photographs, you could save yourself some money by learning on something like a 4x5 Crown Graphic. You won't need a lot of movements because that kind of photography is mainly about lighting and exposure. The problem with starting with 8x10 is that every mistake is much more expensive. A box of 25 sheets of 4x5 FP4 is $28.95 at B&H. A box of 25 sheets of 8x10 FP4 is $94.95. And if it really is just studio lighting and exposure you want to learn, you could do that in medium format and when you have the hang of it, get yourself a studio 8x10, which will not be nearly as expensive as an 8x10 for use in the field.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    san jose, ca
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,500
    Images
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Feldstein View Post
    IMHO 8x10 work is hardly a "major learning curve" as someone claimed above. Sure, it's more labor intensive by virtue of size and bulk, but involves the exact same photographic principles as any other type of view camera traditional photography, ie. "exposure, lighting, perspective, depth of field, subject movement (you mean moving targets?)", swings, tilts and so on.

    The same person above said they shoot 8x10 because of ". . .the tonal and intense image granularity blow [you] away." I really wish [s]he would explain what tonalty and granularity has to do with the format you're using rather than the way the film is exposed and processed.
    I must be wrong Mark. Having never touched a 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10, I am just guessing. Blowin' it out my ass. And never having taught photography classes, I would have no idea the issues raised when formats get bigger. <rolls freaking eyes>. I have to admit, every format is the same. Film is film. Never mind Lucy. Just listen to Mark.

    And I suspect you have never even seen an 8x10 negative. Or you would realize how ignorant your second comment is.

    tim in san jose
    Where ever you are, there you be.

  7. #37
    Doc W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Feldstein View Post
    IMHO 8x10 work is hardly a "major learning curve" as someone claimed above. Sure, it's more labor intensive by virtue of size and bulk, but involves the exact same photographic principles as any other type of view camera traditional photography, ie. "exposure, lighting, perspective, depth of field, subject movement (you mean moving targets?)", swings, tilts and so on.

    The same person above said they shoot 8x10 because of ". . .the tonal and intense image granularity blow [you] away." I really wish [s]he would explain what tonalty and granularity has to do with the format you're using rather than the way the film is exposed and processed.
    I think one could learn on an 8x10 as easily as a 4x5 but as I said in my other post, mistakes are a lot more inexpensive. It hurts less and costs less to develop a landscape and find an out of focus cable release in the foreground. And that is just one of the many common mistakes we all made (or still make).

  8. #38
    TheToadMen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Netherlands, Europe
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    930
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc W View Post
    I think one could learn on an 8x10 as easily as a 4x5 but as I said in my other post, mistakes are a lot more inexpensive. It hurts less and costs less to develop a landscape and find an out of focus cable release in the foreground. And that is just one of the many common mistakes we all made (or still make).
    Hi guys,
    You're right, all of you. But in the end (for me), nothing beats holding a real, large negative (like 8x10") in your hands, looking at what you created yourself ... crooked as it may be ... and make a beautiful contact print with it.

    Or as Ansel Adams said:
    " ... avoiding the common illusion that creativity depends on equipment alone ... "

    Just my little stone in the pond
    "Have fun and catch that light beam!"
    Bert from Holland
    my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
    my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup


    * "So much time and so little to do. Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it. Thank you." (the original Willy Wonka: Gene Wilder, 1971)
    * My favorite cameras: Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T2, Nikon F4s, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras

  9. #39
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,778
    When you equate the cost per shot film cost to roll film you are comparing apples to oranges. Personally, I might shoot 6 -12 images on a BIG day with my 8x10. If you are bent on 8x10 I don't think you are going to save very much by investing in 4x5 first, (the basics learning curve is short and brutal for either) however there are many instances where 4x5 is much more convenient to use, and over time, yes of course it will be cheaper, but then again, your negs will be 4x5. As far as negative size making a difference, personally I have never ever seen anything that approaches, let alone rivals the qualities of a good contact print, and that's what 8x10 and larger is mostly about, contact printing, which is, in my opinion, still the zenith of photographic endeavor.

  10. #40
    Doc W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    123
    Images
    2
    JB, I have to disagree. It seemed to me that the OP was concerned with cost and if that is the case, then learning on a cheap Graflex is very cost effective. Also, it sounded to me that he was mainly interested in studio work and can just as easily learn the basic elements with roll film as with sheet film. Why practise lighting with an 8x10?

    If he has money to burn then, sure, get an 8x10 and have fun.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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