Several new cheap LF cameras

[Rick Waldroup]

Again, the price of film holders is the killer. Actually, so is the price of film. Then there's processing. My biggest camera is only 12x15 inch but it's a swine to handle, a bit like wet (and possibly live) fish.

Whole plate is only 6.5 x 8.5 inches, though: hardly ULF.

Cheers,

R.

I am currently paying about $5.00 per sheet for Bergger 8x10 400 B&W film. Tri-X and some of the Ilford 8x10 films are $10.00 per sheet. I am seriously considering using some 8x10 x-ray film which comes in at about a 1.00 per sheet or less.

I use a drum roller that I modified for processing the film, so that cut my chemistry down from approximately 32 oz by tray processing to 8 oz via the drum method. However, I can only process one sheet at a time. So it is slow going.

Why in the world I ever let my wife talk me into getting back into film photography, is beyond me.🙄 , especially with the format I chose.

But you know what, I am having a blast with this- expensive as it is.

 

[Corran]

But DON'T waste time with 4x5 inch

Highly disagree. 4x5 cameras are easier to find, cost less, including all the accessories, have so many lens options easily available, and provides more than enough film area to make larger prints than most people ever make anyway.

Also, if optical printing, 4x5 enlargers are easy to find and get running.

If one only wanted to make contact prints (or alt processes), you might be right. But for hybrid/silver enlarging 4x5 is definitely the sweet spot in cost, size, and availability. IMO 4x5 contact prints are still nice little things that mount to 8x10 well.

 

[emraphoto]

Yeah, I guess I meant... is making fun of hipsters a thing anymore.

A tired, curmudgeonly thing yes

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Highly disagree. 4x5 cameras are easier to find, cost less, including all the accessories, have so many lens options easily available, and provides more than enough film area to make larger prints than most people ever make anyway.

Also, if optical printing, 4x5 enlargers are easy to find and get running.

If one only wanted to make contact prints (or alt processes), you might be right. But for hybrid/silver enlarging 4x5 is definitely the sweet spot in cost, size, and availability. IMO 4x5 contact prints are still nice little things that mount to 8x10 well.

I looked long and hard at getting back into 4x5 but went with 8x10 (which I used to shoot, too) because of the bigger contact print. I plan on printing them and then matting them to 16x20 which will make a decent size wall print. I cut my own mats.

I was afraid if I got back into 4x5, that it would lead to buying another 4x5 enlarger, which would lead to a bigger darkroom, which would lead to.....😱 who knows where. 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Highly disagree. 4x5 cameras are easier to find, cost less, including all the accessories, have so many lens options easily available, and provides more than enough film area to make larger prints than most people ever make anyway.

Also, if optical printing, 4x5 enlargers are easy to find and get running.

If one only wanted to make contact prints (or alt processes), you might be right. But for hybrid/silver enlarging 4x5 is definitely the sweet spot in cost, size, and availability. IMO 4x5 contact prints are still nice little things that mount to 8x10 well.

But, as I've said before, why enlarge 4x5? My not go 3x off 56x72mm for a picture which should be indistinguishable (if you do it right) from a whole-plate from a contact print?

Sure, it's the "sweet spot" for some, but (I'd suggest) only because it's cheap. If you want the true LF experience, 5x4 is just too small.

This is pure personal opinion, but equally. it might save others from something that didn't suit me: piddling about with what is just a big medium format. For me it's too small to contact print. I found it useful commercially but uninspiring for "fine art".

Cheers,

R.

 

[aizan]

with 4x5 you can make a 20x24 print at home without heroics. it’s the extra notch above 6x7 that people want.

 

[Roger Hicks]

with 4x5 you can make a 20x24 print at home without heroics. it’s the extra notch above 6x7 that people want.

Aas I say, a big medium format. You can't say what "people want". Some want something different. Not another over-enlarged picture. Use 5x7 and a 3x enlargement (15x21) can look like a contact print. AND you can get decent contact prints.

I am horribly cynical when it comes to "If you can't make it good, make it big."

Cheers,

R.

 

[kaiyen]

I shoot 5x7, and Roger makes several great points. It's noticeably larger than 4x5. And a contact print can be enough by itself (for those of us without 8x10 enlargers).

Love LF..

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Aas I say, a big medium format. You can't say what "people want". Some want something different. Not another over-enlarged picture. Use 5x7 and a 3x enlargement (15x21) can look like a contact print. AND you can get decent contact prints.

I am horribly cynical when it comes to "If you can't make it good, make it big."

Cheers,

R.

4x5 ain't big MF. It is using different lenses. For camera and for enlarger.
Because of it and some other factors it looks different from MF. On 8x10 print.
Yet, I was able to develop up to two 4x5 in regular developing tank and scan them by cheap V500 scanner.
I do not print big, don't even have space for huge trays. Where I'm I never seen larger than 4x5 enlargers. But 4x5 are available. I have one, it allows to print from Minox to 4x5 negatives.

5x7 is too small for contact prints and for photos, in general. IMO.

I like 8x10, but I don't like to deal with tray developing in the total dark. 8x10 would be great for glass plates, but I'm not keen on exposing my family and myself to deadly chemicals in our family home basement.

 

[Mackinaw]

.....I like 8x10, but I don't like to deal with tray developing in the total dark......

Stearman Press is developing a 8X10 daylight processing tank. If it's as good as their 4x5 tank (which I have), it may be worth looking at.

https://shop.stearmanpress.com/blogs/news

Jim B.

 

[BillBingham2]

Sounds like someone needs to start a Kickstarter for affordable film holders...

What we need is a working 3D printed design put into the public domain.

B2 (;->

 

[DominikDUK]

4x5 too small not really 4x5 contact prints can look superb but, but the photographer has to take the photograph with a small sized contact print in mind.
I love carte de visite portraits and they are much smaller than 4x5, yet still show a lot of details.
I have to agree though that 5x7 is one of the best formats, I also admit to rarely printing larger than 5x7. The only drawback of 5x7 is lack of film choice, there are fewer films offered in that size :-(

 

[kaiyen]

The only drawback of 5x7 is lack of film choice, there are fewer films offered in that size :-(

Agree. I settled on a few, bought a bunch of boxes (a "bunch" is relative - one goes out and shoots 5 sheets per outing, so you don't need a lot to last a long time), and that was my "insurance." I really like the look of Foma in Rodinal.

 

[Corran]

5x7 is pretty much a dead format IMO. The benefit over 4x5 is nil, it's harder to find enlargers if you want to go bigger, and it's still not much of a contact print. That said, I am considering getting one...but only a 3D printed camera w/ dedicated ultrawide. For various reasons that I have - but I would never recommend it to a newbie.

8x10 and bigger for contact prints, 4x5 for enlarging up to 20x24. 6x7 enlarges well to 11x14 and that's about it.