Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,900   Posts: 1,584,401   Online: 752
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    East Marion, NY, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Soeren
    Are you guys bodybuilders or what
    All us Americans look like The Terminator, didn't you know that?

    Strong like bull, smart like tractor...

    5x7 rocks! Depending on subject matter, 5x7 is often a large-enough print size, and you can't beat contact prints for tonal gradation and sharpness.

    I never in my life thought I could own a 5x7 enlarger, but I soon will. My life is now complete!

  2. #22
    rjs003's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Finger Lakes of New York ( Wine Country)
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    264
    Who's giving away 4X5 enlargers? Please put my name on the list for the freebe enlargers.

  3. #23
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by rjs003
    Who's giving away 4X5 enlargers? Please put my name on the list for the freebe enlargers.
    The guy who gave me mine (a De Vere 54) only had the one! It was free, although I did give him (unasked) £20 for his beer fund. The enlarger was complete and working, the company technical safety officer (me) freaked when he examined the cold-cathode head and found electrical parts in close proximity to a hollow water-filled plastic diffuser from which half the contents had already leaked and condemned the head immediately, so I had to buy another head for a shattering £25, most of which I recouped when I sold the condenser head which also came with the enlarger. The very kind donor of this equipment was a fellow member of the British Royal Photographic Society and responded to an inquiry of mine on their bulletin board!

  4. #24
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
    Under the table, I have the commode.
    Aaaah. My nice narrow rolling table also slips neatly between the throne and the tub/shower, and goes back far enough to allow good access to a tray under the bathtub tap, which I use as a holding tray while working, followed by shuffling prints from old to fresh water (in two trays) when I'm done and ready to wash. This is for RC prints; I hope to build a self-siphoning print washer before I'm ready to do fiber based prints that will need a better wash than this.
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    540
    Hi there,

    Can I make a suggestion: GraphicView I 4x5 camera. They were originally designed to be enlargers, just set both standards to the second stop (full back tilt) and raise the front lens board. They wall mount very easily and are now CHEAP as dirt. Light-tight bellows are not a deal breaker for these. Adapting a cold-light head is no problem, they used to make a 'Graflarger' head that fits. More bellows than you need and full movements.

    Just a thought.

  6. #26
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,282
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Another vote for 5x7".

    The cameras and holders cost about the same as 4x5", film is twice the price but also twice the area: Contact prints can look great.

    Enlargers are often cheaper than a comparable 4x5" one due to size - I got my Durst 138S for the price of shipping. Getting it to my (upstairs) darkroom was a bit difficult - that beast is heavy!

    Many common lenses for 4x5" can also be used on 5x7", plus 13x18cm was long considered "minimum" for "serious work" in Germany (true! See H. Schmidt, "Photographische Hilfsbuch für ernste Arbeit", Berlin 1910) and there are lots of very very good and very cheap lenses to be found there.

    Since I've mentioned 13x18cm, those holders are cheaper than 5x7" on the second-hand market. Germany again...
    Depreciation? Whazzat? My 12x10" Lancaster Patent lens cost me the same this year as it cost when it was new: £24. Of course £24 was a lot of money in 1912...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    I think that 35mm for travel and situations like a visit to the Zoo is most economical, 36 frames under $4.00 US is not bad. For overall economy with other situations like portraitures, landscapes, tabletop 4X5: A good MF system will still cost more than a 4X5 (Cambo, Graphic View, or Speed and Crown Graphics) with 2 or 3 lens, the cost of a 4X5 enlarger is not much more than a 6X7 or 6X9, the footprint is not much bigger. To shoot a roll or 2 of MF is about the same as 4 or 6 sheets of JC Pro 100. When I shoot 4X5 I have much less wast than when I shoot 35 or MF.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    When it comes to cameras and economy...long term..I Leica CONTAX.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Anthony & Scovill. Don't trust any of those new companies.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,243
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Soeren
    When Talking relatively traditional cameras e.g. not pinhole, what is in your opinion the most economical format.
    1 Entry price and operation
    1½ price/ succesfull prints
    2 upgrading price
    2½ depreciation

    Regards Sĝren
    I've been giving this some thought. Clearly LF is the screamin steal, with 35mm a very close second. Anyone who says Hassy's are going for a song these days has a much richer song than I.

    The bodies are not what gets you in MF. IT is the glass. Modern glass for LF is way out of your question as well, but since LF cameras can take such a huge amount of lenses there is something out there that will fit anyone's budget. So:

    1-Any of the contact printable sizes of LF that do not get into the ULF category (unless you are Jim Galli that is). That means anything from 6x9-say 8x10 is a steal camera body wise these days. If you contact you are not worrying about an enlarger.

    1.5-The only thing bad about a contact print is caused by the photog not the equipment so this is way cheap and LF gives you biggest bang for the buck. Even if you include film in the equation.

    2-Upgrading price is simple. LF all the way. If I was to up grade my MF stuff I would have to replace everything. As it is, I bought a Sinar and the lense I had for the Busch pressman fit and work just fine.

    2.5-I am not sure about this. With the onset of digital everything analogue has depreciated, but I have seen a trend toward higher prices in the used market for all but 35mm cameras emerging (Ebay is my source for price trends, so this is totally unscientific)

    Just my opinion though, on all of this. Ten years ago I could not afford to go into LF now LF equipment is just about all I can afford. Go figure.
    Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI

    So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004

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