First use of the Paterson Orbital for 4x5 ... and a blunder!

[JohnTF]

But that's 120 square inches of film - how many 135 rolls is that? 🙂

And I always thought LF stood for "Leica Format". 😀

We used to say 1 roll = 1 8x10 sheet, or 4 4x5, never really questioned it too much.

I suppose some developers have greater capacity than others, but chemistry is hardly my choke point in finances for photography.

Regards, John

 

[gdi]

The whole Leica thing is tedious ... I mean how many medium and large format cameras have they made? 😀

I'm proud to say that I have three Leicas in my cupboard and not one of them has been used for several months now! 🙂

But I think the digital Ms have rendered 4x5 obsolete, no? I know I kept hearing that an M8 image was better than 4x5 - is the M9 better than 8x10?😉

 

[gdi]

4x5 is great fun - I thoroughly enjoy my Speed Graphic and have a Super Graphic on the way. (I'll need a couple of RF cams if anyone knows a good source.)

I like the no fuss approach to developing and use a Phototherm Sidekick. The 4x5 holder holds 4 sheets and uses about 14oz/414ml.

I have also used a Bessler 8x10 print drum and motor base with great results. The "tortilla" method never gave me even development.

 

[Keith]

4x5 is great fun - I thoroughly enjoy my Speed Graphic and have a Super Graphic on the way. (I'll need a couple of RF cams if anyone knows a good source.)

I like the no fuss approach to developing and use a Phototherm Sidekick. The 4x5 holder holds 4 sheets and uses about 14oz/414ml.

I have also used a Bessler 8x10 print drum and motor base with great results. The "tortilla" method never gave me even development.

After developing a few negs in the Paterson now I'm very pleased with it ... the development appears to be even, it's incredibly easy to load and it makes zero mess. It's tempting to put more than 150ml of solution in but if you do it tends to slop developer out of the draining corner as you agitate!

I never though of my M8 as being a replacement for 4x5 ... but I do remember the comments regarding that theory. A scan from a 4x5 negative and a file from an M8 both have a lot of detail ... but that's the only similarity IMO! 😀

 

[Freakscene]

Keith,

Kodak give times for continuous agitation of sheet film in rotary tubes - although they were obtained by experimentation with BTZS-type tubes and the times are only for Kodak films, I always found their times a very, very good place to start. They are also a good place to figure out how much to decrease developing time. It's usually about 10%.

150 mL of almost any stock developer will develop four 4x5 sheets. You need more with dilute developers, but there's less reason to dilute your developer when you're using sheet film.

Marty

 

[Keith]

Keith,

Kodak give times for continuous agitation of sheet film in rotary tubes - although they were obtained by experimentation with BTZS-type tubes and the times are only for Kodak films, I always found their times a very, very good place to start. They are also a good place to figure out how much to decrease developing time. It's usually about 10%.

150 mL of almost any stock developer will develop four 4x5 sheets. You need more with dilute developers, but there's less reason to dilute your developer when you're using sheet film.

Marty

Thanks Marty ... I'm thinking of trying straight Xtol to do the next four negs I develop. What major difference in the negatives can I expect as against using 1+1?

 

[Freakscene]

With large format, not much if you get your times right and you're not enlarging to enormous sizes. Increasing dilution gives better sharpness, a slight speed increase and slightly more grain. The larger the film format, the less you notice all of those things.

Marty