 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / June 2004recomend equipment for my purpose??
I've never used large format before. However I own an RB67 so I appreciate the results that a larger negative can give. I'm interested in 4x5 for two specific areas. SCENIC: For my own personal enjoyment and also for selling as matted / framed for private sale. This will include a certain amount of architecture. LANDSCAPE: My other hobby is landscaping and gardening / horticulture. I could be photographing peoples yards and gardens and farms either for pleasure or profit or both. This would include a lot of close-up and macro photography. I'm guessing a 4x5 set up with tilting and shifting would be best? With my own wide angle 35mm lenses there is a high degree of barreling and distortion in order to include all that I need in the frame. Would tilt and shift reduce this? On the subject of tilting and shifting...is that a whole science in itself to know how to correct focusing and what ever else it achieves? Is there a relatively simple formula for determining exposure? For my purposes what would be a good entry level camera and lens(s)? Also for printing 4x5 negs to enlargements is it more economical in the long run to have a lab do the printing? I've done some 35mm b/w, and color processing before so I know what's involved. Unless there is a strong argument for printing 4x5 negs myself I'd rather not go that route for a long while. Are there services that can scan the 4x5 neg to a file for me to tweek and upload to a printing lab? Thanks, Ivan Yeah Yeah....I know....I'm going to get several posts saying to read earlier posts. I'm doing that now so save yourself the trouble. :o) Unless of course there is a particular thread you want to point me to. Ivan > Also for printing 4x5 negs to enlargements is it more economical in the long > run to have a lab do the printing? I've done some 35mm b/w, and color > processing before so I know what's involved. Unless there is a strong > argument for printing 4x5 negs myself I'd rather not go that route for a > long while. In the long run it's always cheaper to do it yourself. In the long run you'll have paid for all the equipment. The problem is how do you define the long run? Considering how cheap used darkroom equipment is today it won't take too long to pay for a well setup darkroom. Odds are your first batch or two of film will pay for a B&W processing setup. OTOH if you don't enjoy it you don't enjoy it. I wouldn't suggest developing/printing your own if you don't enjoy the dark. Do what you enjoy and leave the rest to somebody else. Nick > Do what you enjoy and leave the rest to somebody else. Best advice yet in this group.  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ NICK'S reply: > In the long run it's always cheaper to do it yourself. In the long run > you'll have paid for all the equipment. The problem is how do you define the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > developing/printing your own if you don't enjoy the dark. Do what you enjoy > and leave the rest to somebody else. "In the long run"...well for me I'm wondering how long it will be before digital backs for large formats will equal the resolution of film at an affordable price. I DO enjoy darkroom work i.e.. precise control over cropping and being able to enlarge to a precise custom size. However, I'm enjoying "digital" darkroom work now more than I ever enjoyed chemical darkroom. I'm thinking I would prefer to develop my own film and make my own contact prints, and let a lab scan the negative to a digital file for me. On the other hand, if there were a profit to be made from custom printing 4x5 negs for others I would be very interested in setting up a large format darkroom. With large format equipment still going strong I suspect that the film will still be available for some time to come....or at least until I'm six feet under....I'm 45 now so you do the math!! :o)) Basically photography and small business mingle freely in my future so I don't want to make an investment now that will soon be obsolete. Ivan > "In the long run"...well for me I'm wondering how long it will be before > digital backs for large formats will equal the resolution of film at an > affordable price. I DO enjoy darkroom work i.e.. precise control over I wouldn't hold my breath. I can't see why anybody would develop one and mass market it. > On the other hand, if there were a profit to be made from custom printing > 4x5 negs for others I would be very interested in setting up a large format [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Basically photography and small business mingle freely in my future so I > don't want to make an investment now that will soon be obsolete. One of the local shops charges $3 per 4x5 sheet [B&W or C-41] that's Canadian and before taxes. Plus that's non-rush. OTOH my 4x5 developing equipment set me back not much more then C$100. Even with me choosing one of the more expensive new options. But my setup can also be used for smaller formats [with extra reels] or even for prints. My used enlargers weren't exactly expensive either. Getting a roll of 35mm printed up to 8x10 from a pro lab might exceed what I paid for my enlarger. So it doesn't take long to pay for the equipment. Nick Nick: thanks for the prices. It's helpful. > One of the local shops charges $3 per 4x5 sheet [B&W or C-41] that's > Canadian and before taxes. Plus that's non-rush. OTOH my 4x5 developing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Nick > [...] About that barrel or pincushion distortion - shouldn't be happening in _any_ case. You might have a low-end lens or one pushed way beyond reasonable design. Converging verticals is another matter and Yes, the LF with perspective controls can help you in that regard and others. You should find the view particularly good for shooting down somewhat across a garden to get deeper focus; that, in part, is what they are built for. As to all of your technical questions, don't expect to get answers that are as in depth as you seem to be looking for on the internet. Go buy a good book on large format. Simmons, Stroebel, the Ansel Adams series...whatever...you'll get more of the big picture from reading them than you will from gleaning opinions on the internet. As far as the darkroom end of it...if you're not doing color darkroom work consistently and ....sorry...got cut off by a hair-trigger "return" key... ...darkroom work...if you're not doing color darkroom work on an almost daily basis, you will face the problem of aging chemistry being inconsistent, maintaining temperature control and just plain making the time to do the darkroom work. These factors can make darkroom work more of a burden than a pleasure...that "fine control" that you seem to be after will be attained at a steep cost. Commercial labs are running all the time...they are consistent and, in my opinion, cost effective. If you're sweating a cost difference of 10-25% per shot, do you really want to get involved in shooting another format? Look into medium format cameras that will allow you to still shoot roll film and get perspective corrections: there are several choices available. Seems like most people are just using medium format and large format originals for scanning these days anyway...the prints are being made on inkjet and iris printers...the quality issue of large format versus medium format under that set of circumstances is arguable. argon For your intended uses, you seldom need extreme movements. A 4X5 field camera with a 150mm lens is a good starting place. It's lighter and may be easier to use than the RB67. As an alternative, a 4X5 press camera (e.g. a Speed Graphic) may give you what you want. You will probably use front rise and fall and front tilt the most. The movements will not correct barrel distortion (which is a property of the lens). You will find depth of field more of a problem than with 6X7, and tilts and sometimes swings are useful to get around it. There are several good books on how to manage the movements. The Kodak "Book of Large Format Photography" is a good introduction, Stroebel's "View Camera Technique" in very thorough. Many low cost flat bed scanners can now handle transparencies of 4X5 inches. Doing the scanning and tweaking yourself is worthwhile. Commercial labs will do it, but they are expensive. > I've never used large format before. However I own an RB67 so I appreciate > the results that a larger negative can give. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Thanks, Ivan > For your intended uses, you seldom need extreme movements. A 4X5 field > camera with a 150mm lens is a good starting place. It's lighter and may be [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Doing the scanning and tweaking yourself is worthwhile. Commercial labs > will do it, but they are expensive. Norman, thanks so much for your valuable input. BTW, I just read a convincing review of the Epson 4870 here http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_1.htm Now I'm curious if scanning a contact print from the 4x5 negative would be equal or preferable to scanning the negative itself. Ivan. "Ivan" asked: "... Now I'm curious if scanning a contact print from the 4x5 negative would be equal or preferable to scanning the negative itself. ..." No. Not equal ... by a "long shot." You would have the additional loss(es) caused by the paper printing process. Paper prints are (generally) limited to somewhere around 10 line-pairs per millimeter resolution ... because that's roughly the resolving limit of the human eye. Any detail beyond that would probably just be "gone" ... Why do you think you *need* to make prints ... of any kind ... before scanning? > Why do you think you *need* to make prints ... of any kind ... before scanning? Because I've been conditioned by previous bad reports to believe that negatives just don't scan as well as prints on ANY flat bed. That's the only reason why. I'm trying to plan a work flow that suits my purposes before I invest in a system. Thanks for that information, it's valuable. It answered an important question. I appreciate the knowledge and experience in this news group. Ivan >> Why do you think you *need* to make prints ... of any kind ... before >scanning? > >Because I've been conditioned by previous bad reports to believe that >negatives just don't scan as well as prints on ANY flat bed. That's the only >reason why. If that's your reasoning, I believe you're mistaken. Negatives are in fact ideal for scanning and it doesn't really take any huge talent. Most scanner drivers will get you most of the way there, and a basic knowledge of color correction will take you the rest of the way. In many regards negative film is easier to scan than slides. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > >> Why do you think you *need* to make prints ... of any kind ... before > >scanning? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and a basic knowledge of color correction will > take you the rest of the way. You miss the whole friggin point, Mr. Digital. One wonders why you are even here. > > Why do you think you *need* to make prints ... of any kind ... before > scanning? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thanks for that information, it's valuable. It answered an important > question. I appreciate the knowledge and experience in this news group. From time to time I work with a well-published photographer who feels the same way. He makes wet prints first, then scans and then only to accomodate sampling of his work on the web. The outcome is just what he wants: a reasonable compromise to present web-version of his _real_ prints which have already been interpretated onto paper - already been through the limitatations of gradation inherent in the medium. There is a certain amount of handwork that is important to retain. It is about esthetics. Choose what you want and don't be mislead by those who substitute arithmetic for esthetics, for example Rafe who hasn't done enough LF to even comment from experience. He will deluge you with impressionistic bullshit metrics. Make your own way. Personally, I think you are on the right track. Print, then scan. The print is everything. >It is about esthetics. Choose what you want and don't be mislead by those >who substitute arithmetic for esthetics, for example Rafe who hasn't done >enough LF to even comment from experience. He will deluge you with >impressionistic bullshit metrics. Piss off, Mr. Stafford. You're off base as usual, and probably off your meds as well. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.