8x10 View Cameras

3x4 is almost dead as far as format goes. There's only one film, Efke 100 but it's a good film and if I want other emulsions I can cut 4x5 down too. I use Efke 100 because 3x4 isn't a serious format for me and I have a wide array of other formats I usually shoot. No big loss if 3x4 goes away because 4x5 is relatively cheap and cameras are cheap too.

No question there are a few people shooting whole plate but only a few compared to other formats. Cameras aren't cheap as a rule and good used holders are hard to come by and new are very expensive. Just guessing I would say the are in the $300 range per holder but I may be wrong. 4x5 holders are dirt cheap and even 8x10 are cheaper new than whole plate and many are available in great condition used for around $50-70 each. Again consider the cost of platinum. Don't get me wrong I think whole plate is a great size but not a good value for the average guy. Why not just go to 8x10?
 
Last edited:
Here's my choice for View Cameras.......

Here's my choice for View Cameras.......

The Sinar Norma.
A Monorail type, hundreds of original parts available. 6x6cm (with Rapid Adapter!) up to 8x10. I have several Normas, and most of the original accessories. Here's one set-up for 5x7, with my -new- Sinar Symmar Norma 360mm lens, mounted on a Sinar Aperture-Control board (the deluxe setup which interacts with the Norma shutter, through steel cables, running front to back):
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'll be following the path to larger and larger negatives...I hope I don't.
Of course, 35mm led to 6x9 and recently to 4x5. I plan to put the brakes on hard by 5x7!

I agree with x-ray on the beauty of small contact prints.
 
I don't understand why 5x7 fell out of favor. It really is a perfect size. More than ample size for contact printing. Equipment cost and size not much more than 4x5. I suppose the abudance of 4x5 enlargers swayed people to 4x5.

I have seen, actually held, platinum prints "up close and personal". Matt Magruder's 12x20 prints are stupifying. The cost does seem prohibitive. Vandyke brown prints are substantially less expensive. While not unattractive, the few I have seen lacked that special something you find in a platinum print. I had the good fortune to meet and talk with Richard Sullivan of Bostick & Sullivan. Richard had several of his carbon transfer prints side by side with Matt's platinum prints. While different, the carbon process holds it's own next to platinum and vice versa. In fact, the two processes compliment each other. I investigated the cost and it seems quite reasonable. If you make your own carbon tissue the cost is very low. If you skip that step and buy Richard's perfectly made carbon tissue, the cost is still reasonable. The trade off between carbon transfer and platinum is the increased labor. I for one could more easily find the time for carbon transfer than I could find the money for platinum. I am definitely in the early stage of heading in the direction of making carbon transfer prints.

GOOGLE carbon transfer printing. Sandy King has some good information on the web. Bostick & Sullivan sell the papers, carbon tissue and chemicals. They also have a nice line of contact frames required for either process.

The best part is that you don't need a real darkroom for platinum or carbon transfer printing. I also second the idea of printing small and intimate. The mass market photo labs sold a zillion 3x5 snapshot prints and even smaller from 120 & 620. 4x5 contact prints have an amazing amount of detail and tonality.

Go big or go home!
 
There is a lot of good advice in the thread above. I find 4x5 contact prints to be very enjoyable. In fact, a Crown Graphic with a 127mm Ektar in supermatic shutter, 4x5 holders could have you contact printing 4x5s on 5x7 paper less expensively than almost any other film-to-finished print option. Of course there are a lot of practical problems to solve, but that, I am tempted to say, is half the fun. 8x10 is gorgeous, but not necessary to get into this form of photography. The contacted printed negative, even at 4x5 can be very beautiful. Skin tones in LF are closer to what I experience looking across the table at someone than any camera/lens combination. My first LF camera was a Speed Graphic and I can still remember my jaw hitting the floor when I saw my first contact prints. Good luck!

Ben Marks
 
I agree with with x-ray (who has some of the best real-world experience on this forum) and Venchka/Wayne.

I would start with 4x5 to see if LF is going to be "it" for you, Dave. (Not that you would give up other formats/RF, of course.) It is pretty easy to move up to 8x10, including selling the 4x5 gear if you don't want to retain it. There are relatively more buyers for 4x5 than 8x10. I'm a small guy and have a mobility disability, so 8x10 is out of the question for me, even though I would love to make 8x10 contact prints in PL/PD.

But x-ray makes a great point that "small" prints can be equally satisfying. In fact, it may even stretch one's seeing more. Making a photo/composition that works as a small print is, for me, often more difficult than a larger print ... forces you to simplify, to exclude the extraneous. YMMV.

I have a Zone VI tripod and the Zone VI 4x5 bag, and a couple of other Picker products. The Zone VI cameras went through various versions and manufacturers. The reviews I've read give the various versions varying marks, and I would venture to say that unless a used one is in pristine condition, it may not be the best value. I have a Toyo 45A, which is a very sturdy metal field camera. Not the lightest, but not the heaviest, and damned near indestructible.

Good luck,

Earl
 
Trius said:
I would start with 4x5 to see if LF is going to be "it" for you, Dave.
(snip)
But x-ray makes a great point that "small" prints can be equally satisfying. In fact, it may even stretch one's seeing more.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I agree. The advantage to starting with 4x5 is that the film is fairly easily available in a wide variety of emulsions and more affordable to experiment with than 8x10.

Does anyone know about digital generation of larger negs - conversion of 4x5 to... ?
 
One of these days I will have a few decent 4x5 negatives and begin to attemp to make a larger digital negative on OHP film. Some folks do it and rave about the process. Some folks say don't even think about it. With that kind of disparity, you got to wonder what's going on. I guess the printer and ink have much to do with it. I don't plan very big enlargements at first. 5x7, or the rough equivalent in the 4x5 aspect ratio, will be fine. If that works, I may try larger. I shall see for myself.

Does anyone here have hands on experience with carbon transfer printing?
 
venchka said:
Does anyone here have hands on experience with carbon transfer printing?
Click to expand...

That's my current interest but, no, never done it. Carbon prints are stunning. So stunning that I fear smaller (4x5) may not be very effective. I've found 4x5 to work well in cyano and gum-bi, but less so in Pt.
 
Dave and the rest of you,
This thread has me thinking again (hopefully more clearly each time I delve into these thoughts) about what kind of photography do I REALLY love to do, and what equipment do I need to do that. Recently I've been coming to the conclusion that I don't need the rangefinder equipment... my old SLR equipment serves those purposes just fine.

But for working slowly and with much contemplation out in the landscape, a 5x7 sounds nice. I tried a 4x5 for a bit some years ago and liked it. But I always wanted to do contact platinum/palladium contact prints and I think 5x7 is a much better compromise for that. So, I have a question for you all: Is there still a significant range of film choices in the 5x7 format? From what I see these days, it seems like the film companies are cutting back to the 4x5 format. True?

Jamie
 
Jamie,

I don't look at 5x7 stock. Search at B&H, Freestyle, Badger Graphics, Bostick & Sullivan and anywhere else you can think of. Also, ask this question at the Large Format Photography Forum. 30 days after joining that forum you can watch the for sale ads. 5x7 cameras and holders come up and are sold in a heartbeat. Somebody always wants 5x7. Good luck.

That said, all you really need is one emulsion and one developer. I'm sure you can find a ready supply of at least one emulsion. Some flavor of Pyro would be nice. Those are readily available.
 
Thank you Venchka. After I sell off the RF equipment, I'll have a look at the sites you recommended.

By the way, I notice we're the same age. I wonder if mid-life brings on the need for quieter, slower contemplation... thus the larger format. Hmmm...
Jamie
 
You think? Or the need to make amends for mistakes made in our misbegotten youth? Whatever the reason, better late than never. The iorny is that we were much more capapble of toting this stuff when we were too young and too stupid to appreciate it.
 
There's plenty of selection in 5x7 emulsions. I shoot a couple of emulsions and have problems getting it as is the case at the moment. It's due to higher demand for the format than there has been for many years. I purchased a K B Canham 5x7 / 4x5 last year and shoot a considerable amount of film through it. It's nice to see the format popular again.

If there's any question about the value or credability of 4x5 platinums I received an email from one of my galleries today that they just sold 5 of my 4x5's at $500 each to one collector. My 4x5 platinums have become very popular.

This past summer I was in Carmel and in the Weston Gallery. I have always admired the work of Ryuiji who does stunning platinums. I purchased one of his Ice Forms images of tulips. These are 4x5 platinum prints and are stunning. Here's a link to his work:

http://www.westongallery.com/ryuijie2.htm

It strictly a personal thing about (print) size. ;<) No one can tell you what will satisfy you as an artist but I would still suggest starting small and if you get along with the camera and process then move up.

As to digital negs, I was with Kim Weston (grandson of Edward) this past summer and working on platinum printing. I printed a digital neg of one of his images. The neg was done by Graham Nash (yes of Crosby, Stills and Nash) and done the way they should be done and the prints were stunning. I'm not that good at digital neg making because I haven't invested the time but plan to. I've also seen some large prints made from digital negs from scanned 8x10 B&W and the are superb. The gallery in Atlanta that I'm in sells some from a fellow that a professor at a university in NC. I believe he's at Duke but don't know much about him other than his work is superb. These are the best I've seen but as a rule believe an original silver gelatin neg will yield more depth in the final print. I'm investigating having Chicago Albumen Works make some digital silver gelatin negs made of some of my images and see how they work. They will provide a range of negs optimized for the process you are using. For example pure platinum requires a neg that will print normally on a #0 to 1 silver gelatin paper in order to print with normal contrast. Palladium is even flatter but richer and much warmer in tone. My personal likes are for an 11:1 mixture of Palladium to Platinum which requires a neg that would be almost unprintable on SG paper and require a 1/2 grade. It's possible to print flatter negs but they are not as good even with contrast adjustments in the emulsion.

IMO platinum printing is about as much fun as you can have with your clothes on so buy a couple of books, take a seminar or class and start slow bex=cause you'll make a stack of mistakes. Platinum isn't like SG printing. It's more art than science with relative humidity in the room being a factor, the type of paper you use (very very particular process about the paper issues), the ratio of Pd/Pd, your light source, your neg, developer choice and temp of developer, the way you coat the paper and the toxicity of chemicals. These are the things that keep it interesting and fun because the final print is unique to your style.

A final point, not all photographic films will work for platinum. For example Tmax 100 has a UV coating on it that prevents the platinum emulsion from being exposed but Tmax 400 works fine. Many things to learn and I'm still learning.
 
Don,

Thank you so much! You really are an inspiration. I genuinely appreciate the fact that you share your experience freely with the rest of us. Thank you!

How do you present your 4x5 prints? I assume they are matted. How large do you usually make the mats for a 4x5 print?
 
x-ray said:
Don't get me wrong I think whole plate is a great size but not a good value for the average guy. Why not just go to 8x10?
Click to expand...

well equally i dont have anything against 8x10, and i guess an individuals reasons for choosing different formats are as varied as there are people. If it wasnt for the fact that i got my whole plate Ruby to begin with, for largely my wooden vintage/antique collection i would not of considered it viable myself against 8x10, but now that i have used it i find i like it more, so much so that if i was buying new now i would seriously consider buying whole plate over 8x10. not that the size doesnt have some quirks to deal with in todays world with materials but they arnt too much of problem in reality, but a few reasons that i prefer whole plate over 8x10;

i prefer the aspect ratio for many situations, i think it came from the original fellas with deregeotypes (spelling yeah i know) that used Leonardo DaVinci formular for the best apect ratio. for head and shoulder portrait i sometimes prefer 8x10 but i find enlarging 4x5 (or 9x12) works well for me in these situations. for contact prints the whole plate is a very nice size.

set up cost wise, second hand i keep a relatively sharp eye out on whole plate and 8x10 (no idea why!) and i find that whole plate is by far cheaper in most instances (new is not much different but usualy a bit cheaper). holders dont come up often but again on occasion i have bought and seen them sell for $20-40, thats not to say some dont go dearer.

prices for lenses are akin to saying how long is a peice of string but there are a number of lenses to be had cheap and some lenses that are suited for 5x7 will just cover whole plate. I find a whole plate set up is lighter than 8x10 as well, all things being equal but it would depend on the maker of course and weight is lighter for 8x10 holders if you are using modern plastic holders.

for enlarging (particulary colour) at home the cut down 8x10 sheets to the size i mentioned earlier makes best use of the epson flat bed scanner capabilities for resolution, as opposed to less scanning a full sheet of 8x10 and for black and white contact prints i like whole plate, which makes a whole plate camera quite versitile i think.

so whilst at the moment i shoot an aray of formats i find i like 9x12 (the cameras are just so small, easy and portable) 4x5 for its all round versiltility, i dont bother with 5x7 or half plate much (just for fun, same with 1/4 plate) and prefer to skip the size. whole plate more than 8x10 and I am on the look out for something like 12x20 now, again skipping a few sizes, that should be fun, where does it stop eh...i have even been considering buildng my own 20x24 lately but trying to wiegh up just how much and in what situations i would use it... of course this isnt for plat. printing lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom