Large Format photography group - From "zero to hero!"

Haha sorry for bad day @FishyFish , id have been the same, one significant mistake and it i just cant be bothered for the rest of the trip. Ive come to terms now I’m not paying £10 per sheet but more £100 for that one incredible shot and 9 burnt sheets
 
FishyFish said:
A massive failure this afternoon. :(

I took a half day off work as I knew the weather was nice for once, and it was one of the only chances I had to try and photograph some autumn colour. So after lunch I headed out to Padley Gorge in the Peak District with the Chamonix and a bunch of film with the intent of shooting some of the Ektar that I have.

I found a nice scene with a backlit oak tree, so set everything up, carefully checked my focus and the camera settings and then took the shot. I then headed a little further down the gorge to try and find the next one. By this time, the light was low enough that a lot of the area was already in shadow, so I looked to photograph a clump of autumnal leaves on a sapling which were illuminated in a shaft of sunlight. It was a slightly tricky shot to focus, requiring some tilt to get everything sharp. After setting up the shot and feeling relatively confident about the sharpness, I went to meter the scene and then noticed with dismay that my meter was set to ISO400. This meant the first shot was two stops underexposed. This was very frustrating an, to be honest, set the ball rolling for the rest of the afternoon's disappointment.

As I'd already wasted one expensive sheet of colour film, I was now even more conscious of the need to not waste any of the remaining three sheets on sub-par images, especially given the fact I'd have to send them away for developing at notable cost, so I binned the shot of the leaves and decided to move elsewhere for something better. I was now in the wrong frame of mind though - everything I considered seemed like it wasn't worth the effort (or cost) - and so I set up and then dismissed several shots while the sun sank lower in the sky. Eventually (and now in a pretty bad mood) I just said to myself "f**k it" and packed everything away and came home.

I was seething in the car all the way back because a) the weather and light was beautiful and I had been unable to take advantage of something I rarely get the chance to, and b) I wasted an afternoon's leave for the privilege. I saw several beautifully lit scenes on the way home which, had I had a smaller format camera with me, I could have photographed, but I just had to drive past them all.

The weather looks good again tomorrow, and I'm going to have another attempt at capturing autumn colour, but I'll be taking some medium format gear this time to make sure I actually capture something on film. I expect the same locations will be much busier tomorrow, unfortunately.

Anyone else have "one of those days"?
Click to expand...
I recall making a special trip to a location with the Kodak wholeplate camera and getting all set up and metered to take a couple of wholeplate shots. Pity I'd forgotten to change the back from halfplate to wholeplate. :asshat:
 
desf said:
Just saw that LCE Oxford are selling some used 5x4 dark slides if anyone is interested. No idea if £10 each is a good price.

Second hand cameras, camera part exchange, digital cameras UK, used cameras, photographic shops, England

The London Camera Exchange supplies second hand cameras, new cameras, digital cameras and other camera equipment and provides a camera part exchange in photographic shops all over England, UK.
www.lcegroup.co.uk
Click to expand...
Looks like they are all sold...
 
This guy any of you I spotted on the bus to work in London this morn ha

Eurgh iPhone pic too big!

LF photographer was doing a lovely bit of work at 8:30 in the morning
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I managed to find time to take the Chamonix for a spin the last couple of weekends and exposed four sheets of film The first since late autumn last year, mostly down to lack of opportunity rather than desire.

Chamonix 045N-1
Fujinon NW 135mm f/5.6
Ilford HP5+
Ilfotec DD-X 1+4 9mins @ 20°


Standing silent by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
Just discovered this thread.
So...you guys walking around with these massive boxes on a tripod to take a picture:p?
I discovered medium format a while ago and I thought I maxed out on photography, little did I know.
So for large format is it a photosensitive paper that's exposed to the light?
Or just film that's bigger than 120?
Excellent pictures by members on this thread by the way & respect for having the patience to set these thigs up before taking a picture
 
Last edited:
Marino said:
Or just film that's bigger than 120?
Click to expand...
I think that these days it's taken to be 5x4 inches or more, although there are cameras which take 2.25 x 3.5 inch film sheets, if you can find the material. Generally, the latter get used more with 6x9 roll film backs.
 
Marino said:
Just discovered this thread.
So...you guys walking around with these massive boxes on a tripod to take a picture:p?
I discovered medium format a while ago and I thought I maxed out on photography, little did I know.
So for large format is it a photosensitive paper that's exposed to the light?
Or just film that's bigger than 120?
Excellent pictures by members on this thread by the way & respect for having the patience to set these thigs up before taking a picture
Click to expand...
LF is usually considered to be using sheet film (or glass/metal plates) with a size of 5"x4" or bigger.
There is a bit of a grey area on the boundary, I think of my quarter plate Thornton Pickard Reflex as large format even though it doesn't quite meet 5x4, it is at least slightly bigger than 6x12 (cm). Sadly I need to get the shutter sorted & find film holders before there's any chance of using it.

Historically there have been roll films in many different sizes including '112' & '54' which were both bigger than 5x4.
122 size roll film was bigger than 120, and was only discontinued in 1971 quite a bit later than the other odd types, at 140mm x 83mm it's bigger than quarter plate.

So far I've not walked around with any of my LF kit (5x4 monorails). I'm working on a transport box (with wheels) but given the weight of the tripod I need to hold the camera steady it will still be travel by car. Many LF photographers use cameras that can be packed into backpacks & carried into the wilderness - no wilderness round here so I don't need to try that!
 
Last edited:
Marino said:
Just discovered this thread.
So...you guys walking around with these massive boxes on a tripod to take a picture:p?
I discovered medium format a while ago and I thought I maxed out on photography, little did I know.
So for large format is it a photosensitive paper that's exposed to the light?
Or just film that's bigger than 120?
Excellent pictures by members on this thread by the way & respect for having the patience to set these thigs up before taking a picture
Click to expand...

This is the camera I use:

www.chamonixviewcamera.com

45N-1 Classic — Chamonix View Camera

Due to popular demand, we made a batch of 45N1Classic cameras with red standard bellows in teak/black. This is the lightest and least expensive 45 camera model suitable for students of LF photography. Tech Data for 45N1Classic Weight: 1,470 grams Bellows draw: Max: 395mm, Min: 45mm Front rise:
www.chamonixviewcamera.com www.chamonixviewcamera.com

It's fairly big and cumbersome when set up (compared with smaller format cameras), but it's mostly empty space inside the bellows so not that heavy, and I can carry it about easily in a backpack (it collapses down a lot). I don't tend to walk about with it attached to the tripod (unless there are compositions available in close proximity). This is mostly because I don't trust myself not to fall a*se over t*t and smash the lot on the floor though. :LOL:

It's a 4x5 camera, and takes readily available sheet film (although plates or paper negatives can be used too).
 
Last edited:
Thx for the info I was curious because I thought paper was used as a photosensitive surface to record the image.
Wow the sizes of LF film is insane:oops: :$
I thought 35mm is enough for my needs, and still is. But when i printed from a 120 film the difference was shocking. The level of detail was something else. So I can imagine what LF is like.
I’ll follow this thread from now on and I hope i never end up giving my self more trouble by going into LF photography:exit:
 
Marino said:
Thx for the info I was curious because I thought paper was used as a photosensitive surface to record the image.
Wow the sizes of LF film is insane:oops: :$
I thought 35mm is enough for my needs, and still is. But when i printed from a 120 film the difference was shocking. The level of detail was something else. So I can imagine what LF is like.
I’ll follow this thread from now on and I hope i never end up giving my self more trouble by going into LF photography:exit:
Click to expand...
There are a few images from earlier in this thread by @abbandon (??) who used LF and some pretty large scans. This one I think was 80 Mpixels at 5x7, but I think he went larger in other images. It's worth panning across the big image and looking at the brickwork...
https://flic.kr/p/iP2QSx
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbandon/11690299883/sizes/o/in/photostream/


That said, I'm personally not at all interested in huge pixel count files, nor much interested in critical sharpness (or micro contrast, for that matter). I'm just gradually learning how to make pictures I like a little more consistently!
 
ChrisR said:
There are a few images from earlier in this thread by @abbandon (??) who used LF and some pretty large scans. This one I think was 80 Mpixels at 5x7, but I think he went larger in other images. It's worth panning across the big image and looking at the brickwork...
https://flic.kr/p/iP2QSx
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/abbandon/11690299883/sizes/o/in/photostream/


That said, I'm personally not at all interested in huge pixel count files, nor much interested in critical sharpness (or micro contrast, for that matter). I'm just gradually learning how to make pictures I like a little more consistently!
Click to expand...

Do you know the trick for seeing photos at their maximum uploaded size on Flickr Chris?

If you alter the URL to say sizes/o after the number in the URL, you'll get a full resolution version (dependant on what size image was uploaded of course), e.g.:

www.flickr.com/photos/fishyfish/53553410745/sizes/o/

or, if the picture is big enough, something like:

www.flickr.com/photos/fishyfish/53553410745/sizes/4k/
 
Last edited:
Just wondering what tripods other people are using for their LF cameras? I have an Intrepid 4x5 and use either a Manfrotto 190XDB with 498RC2 or 410 head, or a Benro something or other with a gitzo ball head; The Manfrotto is slightly more stable and the geared head fine, but I do feel I need something more chunky and solid - I years ago threw away a solid steel ton-weight tripod that my dad had in the 1950's, but now wish I had it! So what do people use for stability, especially if shooting larger LF formats?
 
The Intrepid is pretty forgiving in terms of what tripod you can use, personally I use Gitzo 1 series legs (bought on deep discount on Amazon about 10 years ago) and a Arca Swiss P0 head for my 5x4 (about 3kg in total). For my 10x8 setup (about 5-6kg with lens) I use Gitzo 3 series legs and a Manfrotto 229 3 way head. I’m happy with that setup although the grail would be an Arca Swiss Cube.
 
I use an older metal Manfrotto 55 tripod with a 229 head for my rare outings with the old Kodak wholeplate, but my recent Benro Tortoise 34 with Benro geared head is fine for the Ebony RSW45 as well as my mf and 35mm.
 
I have been thinking these last few weeks that this year (from now, so 3/4 of the year) I will look to commit to more 5x4. I have a little stock of FP4, a teeny bit of HP5 left, a few sheets of Portra 160 and a box and a bit of E100 so I am set for a while. I just need some subjects, time and light. Speaking of light, I have a Godox AD400Pro knocking about with no trigger so I will look to pick one of those up soon to try my hand at some flash with the large format. See what happens.
 
Downhill Specialist said:
I have been thinking these last few weeks that this year (from now, so 3/4 of the year) I will look to commit to more 5x4. I have a little stock of FP4, a teeny bit of HP5 left, a few sheets of Portra 160 and a box and a bit of E100 so I am set for a while. I just need some subjects, time and light. Speaking of light, I have a Godox AD400Pro knocking about with no trigger so I will look to pick one of those up soon to try my hand at some flash with the large format. See what happens.
Click to expand...
I missed what camera you have.
Nice selection of film though.
 
@lindsay There's a section on tripod choice at the Photography Online episode linked below, and they're very keen on spiked feet if that's an option for you? It starts at 6.50 in.

 
lindsay said:
Just wondering what tripods other people are using for their LF cameras? I have an Intrepid 4x5 and use either a Manfrotto 190XDB with 498RC2 or 410 head, or a Benro something or other with a gitzo ball head; The Manfrotto is slightly more stable and the geared head fine, but I do feel I need something more chunky and solid - I years ago threw away a solid steel ton-weight tripod that my dad had in the 1950's, but now wish I had it! So what do people use for stability, especially if shooting larger LF formats?
Click to expand...
I have an old Manfrotto 55 which is ultra sturdy but correspondingly heavy. I bought a Berlebach Report with a leveling head and this what I take on holiday, not on planes I might say, might be a bit difficult to get on the plane hidden up your trousers. It works well with my 5x7 Kodak Specialist, which is a very big camera.
 
Thanks for the recommendations and responses guys - and I'll watch that video Peter asap, thanks.
 
A bit of a late reply on tripods. I generally use a Manfrotto carbon fibre tripod (441? Not sure of the model). I also have a Benbo tripod, from the days when there was only one model, bought from Jessops of Leicester (also in the days when there was only one store) c 1980. Additionally, a Benbo Trekker.

Of more importance to me is the tripod head. I prefer geared heads, and have a couple of Manfrotto geared heads, one the heavier duty one. My 10x8 weighs about 4 kg before adding a lens and film holder.
 
I have two tripods in use for large format.

A Manfrotto 055 CXPRO 4 combined with a Benro GD3WH geared head. I'm very happy with the Benro head which enables fine control of positioning. Not so happy with the 055 legs as I've had a lot of trouble with the clamps breaking (and linked with this, the lower portion of one leg falling out and disappearing). It's great that you can buy parts for even very old Manfrotto tripods but I've actually paid enough on replacement parts that I could almost have replaced the legs entirely for the same price.

The 055 is used with my Intrepid 4x5. I don't think it's quite up to supporting my Horseman monorail or Kodak half-plate cameras. Those cameras are supported by a Manfrotto 075 with a Manfrotto 029 three-way head.

The 075 legs are super-sturdy, with adjustable struts to support the legs and a geared centre column. With other tripods I avoid raising the centre column but I'm happy to do so with the 075. The three-way head is difficult to control precisely. One day I might try the Benro head on the 075 legs, if I can manage to remove the heads from the legs.

The disadvantage of the 075 legs is of course, the weight.
apc_6607-hdr.jpg
 
I used to use the 029 head - I still have it in fact. I switched to a geared head precisely (pun intended) for the precision it gave.
 
I recently came across a Gitzo Std 4 tripod with their R No 4 pan tilt head at a boot sale. It seems steady enough for my monorails & is definitely lighter than my 058B so I willingly forked out the £15 they were asking :p
I should be shooting lots of 5x4 this weekend, so perhaps I'll be able to compare them properly next week
 
I have been contemplating 10x8 recently. A friend of mine even went and bought an intrepid and I was so, so tempted but instead I have managed to get my hands on a pretty nice Aero Ektar and Speed Graphic. Not sure if that was a good move or not but at least it keeps my workflow the same.
 
As for tripods, I personally am using a Manfrotto 055 carbon fiber, and a manfrotto ball head that is the older version of their XPRO magnesium currently on their website - I forget the exact name. If find that for 4x5 this is more than adequate, with one exception, which is the maximum height of the legs without using the central column. I really dislike using the central column, as it's no where near as sturdy when extended. My long term goal is to use a Gitzo set of legs that extends much higher than my current setup, but I can't justify the cash right now :(

That being said, I have just bought an intrepid 8x10 which, I have to say, I am really enjoying. Principally it's the same as 4x5, of course, but there are a few tricks to learn to maximise the usability of this camera. In terms of tripods, I found that even what I have is sturdy enough, however the small quick release plate that marries to the camera is far too small for the size of the camera. I knew this was likely to be an issue so I went in eyes wide open, but using the camera has 100% proved it to me. The camera both wobbles about on the small contact area, and, perhaps more importantly, because the contact area is so small, any torque on the camera that would cause a yaw motion quickly overcomes the friction between the head plate and the camera, and the camera will rotate to a new position, messing up the composition. Either some adhesive grip tape, or a new tripod head (or some other interim solution) is required.

There are some other issues with the intrepid as well, but these can be solved by modding the camera subtly.

[The first is to do with the ground glass carrier - The leading edge that touches the film holder, where the film holder first enters the camera, is a right angle. This means that a lot of force is required to overcome the retention spring and hence push the film holder in fully so that the notch of the holder engages with the grove of the camera. The risk is that one messes up the composition if not careful. I've not explained this too well; I can elaborate if anyone is interested.

The second is that the same ground glass carrier has no notches on the opening face that allow purchase by hand in order to lift it higher and hence allow the film holder to enter the camera. This needs to be in the centre, as the wooden chassis that holds the ground glass is prone to elastic deformation, and hence bending of the ground glass. I would expect that not being too careful here might even risk shattering the ground glass, though I have no knowledge of this ever actually happening to people. Probably just me being overly cautious.

The third is that near full bellows extension, the bellow tensions is sufficient to bend the front standard backwards slightly, introducing a visible tilt. One has to manually adjust the centre tilt to bring the lens back to parallel with the film plane.]

Sorry for the divergence there, but I figured it might be useful info to the odd person :)
 
Last edited:
I've actually managed to find some time to shoot some large format film!

I shot this first one last month. I'd intended to shoot more, but - with my usual luck - I got caught by a rogue rain shower and had to pack up the gear. It's ok as a picture, I suppose.

Chamonix 045N-1
Fujinon NW 135mm f/5.6
Ilford Delta 100
Ilfotec DD-X 1+4 10.5mins @ 20°

The lane past the copse by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

The next (and another couple I'll probably post tomorrow) was shot this weekend just passed. I decided the three sheets of Delta had been sat in the holders long enough (at least nine months!) and ought to be shot, so I decided to photograph some churches. Because I'm out of practice, I spent so much time trying to get the focus sorted, that I forgot to check the verticals (although I've rectified that a little in post processing). This one has turned out quite well (although the right hand side of the church seems to be very slightly less sharp than the left.

Chamonix 045N-1
Scneider-Kreuznach Super-Angulon 5.6/90
Ilford Delta 100
Ilfotec DD-X 1+4 10.5mins @ 20°

St. Peter's Church, Letwell by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

I need to buy another yellow filter as well, I think, to give the skies a touch more contrast.
 
Last edited:
Another couple of churches. The first one is the best although, again, there's a drop off in sharpness at the right side of the frame. There's also a scarecrow hidden in the shot somewhere. :)

Chamonix 045N-1
Scneider-Kreuznach Super-Angulon 5.6/90
Ilford Delta 100
Ilfotec DD-X 1+4 10.5mins @ 20°


St. Martin's Church, Firbeck by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

The second is disappointing. I've somehow managed to miss focus across the whole frame leaving it slightly soft (probably not that apparent here on the forum, but you can see it if you look at the full-size version).

St. Winifred's Church, Holbeck by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
FishyFish said:
The second is disappointing. I've somehow managed to miss focus across the whole frame leaving it slightly soft (probably not that apparent here on the forum, but you can see it if you look at the full-size version).
Click to expand...

Which lens did you use? Some lens designs (older ones) for LF do require to be focused at the taking aperture (Dagors are the obvious example; I think some of the old Symmars are Dagor design).
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
Which lens did you use? Some lens designs (older ones) for LF do require to be focused at the taking aperture (Dagors are the obvious example; I think some of the old Symmars are Dagor design).
Click to expand...

It was the Scneider-Kreuznach Super-Angulon 5.6/90 that I borrowed. It worked ok on the other two shots though, so I expect it's operator error, rather than lens design. :)
 
As an alternative theory... Wide angle lenses have a great depth of field, but that comes with a small depth of focus (depth of field being the latitude the subject has to move forward or back and still be sharp, depth of focus being the latitude that the film has to be out of true). So a small error in the film holder (as the ground glass has been given a clean bill of health with the other shots) might be an explanation. Or simply the back not being square on (I'm assuming that you didn't need any tilts or swings).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top