Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I've always been enchanted by contact prints from 8x10 negs but I've never made the leap to actually buying a 8x10 view. (I do have a 4x5 that doesn't get much use.) I don't need or want movements, just a scale focused light-tight box that I can put on a monopod or tripod for point-and-shoot LF work with a wide angle.
I've recently been thinking about flogging some unused gear after our current financial difficulties ease and using the proceeds to pick up a direct view 8x10 like a Fotoman or Gaoersi. The price scares me a bit, but I can control that slightly by buying used.
Another option would be to homebrew a Hobo-style camera ala Pico DiGoliardi's 4x5 that can be seen at http://www.digoliardi.net/sw4x5/ - this may actually be my best bet.
Does anyone here own one of these beasts, or have experience with one they can contribute?
I've recently been thinking about flogging some unused gear after our current financial difficulties ease and using the proceeds to pick up a direct view 8x10 like a Fotoman or Gaoersi. The price scares me a bit, but I can control that slightly by buying used.
Another option would be to homebrew a Hobo-style camera ala Pico DiGoliardi's 4x5 that can be seen at http://www.digoliardi.net/sw4x5/ - this may actually be my best bet.
Does anyone here own one of these beasts, or have experience with one they can contribute?
OldNick
Well-known
My late father-in-law was a studio photographer for some years. Packed away in my garage, I have his 8x10 studio camera and its wooden tripod. Neither is in very good shape, but what I would contribute is that they are quite heavy. I don't think you could use an 8x10 on a monopod. To cut expenses, his camera was fitted with a 5x7 back and slide mechanism that permitted two 3.5x5 exposures on a sheet of 5x7 film, which was loaded in standard 5x7 holders. He achieved excellent portraits with the rig, but it never left his studio. He used a 4x5 Speed Graphic for any field work.
Jim N.
Jim N.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Ken: why not make an 8x10 pinhole camera? You can't beat the price. I've seen some LF pinhole work that looks very good.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Jim, that's the appeal of a Fotoman-type P&S. It weighs around 10# and can be handheld in a pinch! No bellows, no rails, no movements - just big honking negs.
http://www.fotomancamera.com/product_list.asp?id=167
http://www.fotomancamera.com/product_list.asp?id=167
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Bob, that's a great idea! That way I can get a feel for the darkroom end of things and test the concept.
Anybody seen a decent LF pinhole camera project tutorial lately? (Off to Google!)
Anybody seen a decent LF pinhole camera project tutorial lately? (Off to Google!)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You can use the Fotoman hand-held, but levelling it is a swine. Much easier with a monopod, but easier still with a light wooden tripod. I used an MPP that weighs 1 kg.
Holders are big and heavy; carrying half a dozen of them for any distance, along with the camera, gets your attention. They are also expensive, and they had better be in good condition if you want to avoid light leaks.
As well as the Fotoman I've used a custom 'Glandolfi' wooden box. An 8x10 P+S is, for me, more of an attractive fantasy than a useful camera; but if you want/need one, there is nothing quite like them.
I fully take your point about the beauty of 8x10 contact prints, but increasingly I believe that very small enlargements (<3x) can be indistinguishable. Far too many people enlarge 4x5 inch to 16x20 inch because they (think they) can.
Cheers,
R.
Holders are big and heavy; carrying half a dozen of them for any distance, along with the camera, gets your attention. They are also expensive, and they had better be in good condition if you want to avoid light leaks.
As well as the Fotoman I've used a custom 'Glandolfi' wooden box. An 8x10 P+S is, for me, more of an attractive fantasy than a useful camera; but if you want/need one, there is nothing quite like them.
I fully take your point about the beauty of 8x10 contact prints, but increasingly I believe that very small enlargements (<3x) can be indistinguishable. Far too many people enlarge 4x5 inch to 16x20 inch because they (think they) can.
Cheers,
R.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Roger: I are studiously trying to be provocative?Roger Hicks said:
Do explain. Yes, a 16x20 from a 4x5 neg is not going to be indistinguishable from a contact print. Or are you saying that too many people who make 16x20 from 4x5 don't really know how to do it correctly?
I'm not intending to hijack this thread, so feel free to PM me or I can start another thread.
(BTW, last night I posted some TMY-2 shots on flickr, and yowza I'm liking this film. I can't wait to get my hands on 4x5 TMY-2. It may well replace TX for me in large format. I'm betting 16x20s from 4x5 TMY-2 would be might tasty.)
Earl
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Earl,Trius said:
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. But an 8x10 enlargement can be indistinguishable. Or a whole-plate off 6x7cm (3x).
I'd add that I'd far rather see the magic of an 8x10 contact print or 2x enlargement than a 4x enlargement off 4x5, which often looks no better than a 7x enlargement off 6x7cm, and sometimes even looks worse.
Cheers,
R.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Thanks. Comparing to a contact print is generally "not fair", indeed.
I really like looking at my "proof" prints from 4x5. When I was shooting a lot of 4x5, one dictum of Picker to which I did subscribe was that a "good" photographer's contact proofs should be better than most people's finished enlargements. It's one of those things that should not be a religious thing, IMO, but I used that thought to work on improving my work overall.
I made sure I got my exposure and processing nailed down, used good quality fibre paper for the proofs, used consistent and repeatable methods, etc. It worked.
But of course a 4x5 contact just isn't an 8x10. Physically there's no way I could handle working with an 8x10, so I have wondered about making 8x10 digital negatives from 4x5 originals. The process just seems too difficult or at least too laborious, but maybe I'll change my mind.
In any event, I rarely printed larger than 8x10 or 11x from my 4x5 shots, unless there was a customer requirement for doing so. I do recall a b&w commissioned portrait of a brother & sister that I made to 16x20 (or maybe it was 20x24) on Brilliant. I was pretty happy with it.
I really like looking at my "proof" prints from 4x5. When I was shooting a lot of 4x5, one dictum of Picker to which I did subscribe was that a "good" photographer's contact proofs should be better than most people's finished enlargements. It's one of those things that should not be a religious thing, IMO, but I used that thought to work on improving my work overall.
I made sure I got my exposure and processing nailed down, used good quality fibre paper for the proofs, used consistent and repeatable methods, etc. It worked.
But of course a 4x5 contact just isn't an 8x10. Physically there's no way I could handle working with an 8x10, so I have wondered about making 8x10 digital negatives from 4x5 originals. The process just seems too difficult or at least too laborious, but maybe I'll change my mind.
In any event, I rarely printed larger than 8x10 or 11x from my 4x5 shots, unless there was a customer requirement for doing so. I do recall a b&w commissioned portrait of a brother & sister that I made to 16x20 (or maybe it was 20x24) on Brilliant. I was pretty happy with it.
epatsellis
Newbie
Ken Ford said:
Ken, I own 3, a homebuilt 8x10 field, a Calumet/Orbit and a Sinar P. depending on your budget and abilities, building one isn't out of the question. Having said that, I tend to use my P whenever I can, but once I get my 20x24 (and 16x20 back and filmholders) I'll probably be spending some hardcore time with that for a while.
erie
V
varjag
Guest
Ken, I can only advise you to not ditch the movements, unless you have other LF camera with movements already. You will need them.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I do have another 4x5 available, so that's not an issue!