Large Format Photography

[epeace]

I know this is the Canon DP forum . . . . but being that many of the members here are experienced photogs (even if amateur) I thought I might poke and see how many know much about large format photography . . . .

I just picked up a Toyo-View 4x5 View camera a couple weeks ago . . this thing is way cool . . . i particularly like the perspective correction and selective focus abilities . . just cant do that with 35mm . . i plan on doing a great deal of architecture/interior photography so i have to learn this thing inside and out . . .

tonight ill be sussing out how this 550 Polaroid film pack holder i just got today works with the camera . . . heheh

sitting here in the office looking at it i have no earthly clue . . . .

[Todd Jacobsen]

Amazing how a tilt/shift lens seems much easier...

[Digital Prophet]

Congrats to you on making the leap. I am personally moving into medium format and I love it too. One day I will hopefully make the leap to large format. But that is a ways off.

As for the tilt/shift I don't think that it is any easier per se. But one this is for sure, you could NEVER get the detailed enlargements from a small format camera that you can get from a large format. That and there is really something ... artistic about using a camera that is entirely mechanical and manual.

- Digital Prophet -

[PhotosGuy]

Have fun with it!
The first suggestion for your architecture/interior photography is that you get a 1-2' carpenters level & make sure that the back of the cam (film plane) is straight up & down. No, you may not always want that, but for architecture/interior photography , it's the best place to start to keep the buildings & walls straight.

[epeace]

Have fun with it!
The first suggestion for your architecture/interior photography is that you get a 1-2' carpenters level & make sure that the back of the cam (film plane) is straight up & down. No, you may not always want that, but for architecture/interior photography , it's the best place to start to keep the buildings & walls straight.

this thing actually has those little level thingys on the rear standard. . my tripod also has them so . . that seems to be covered :)

[rdenney]

sitting here in the office looking at it i have no earthly clue . . . .

There are two principles that will inform nearly every decision you make with a large-format camera:

Perspective correction: If the film back is vertical, there will be no vertical perspective convergence. Using shifts or combinations of shifts and tilts, move the lens sideways with respect to the vertical film back to get the composition you want. But eliminating vertical perspective starts with a vertical film back.

Scheimpflug Effect: The planes that include the film back, lens board, and plane of sharp focus all intersect. When the film back and lens board are parallel, that intersection is at infinity and the plane of sharp focus will intersection there, too (which means it will be parallel to the lens board and film back). But if the lens board and film back are tilted with respect to each other such that their planes intersect, the plane of sharp focus will intersect along the same line.

Thus, if you want a picture of a forest, with the leaves on the forest floor all in focus, then start with a vertical film back (to keep the trees vertical without perspective convergence). Then, note where the film back plane intersects the ground. This will be right under the camera at ground level. Tilt the lens board so that it lines up with that point. Voila! The ground will be sharply focused at all apertures. Then stop down to get the tops of the trees in focus.

The trick is deciding where the plane of sharp focus needs to be. I once photographed a tree stump with the front of a mission chapel as the background. I wanted the chapel bell tower to be sharp, and I wanted the tree trunk to be sharp. The problem was that the tree trunk was about two feet in front of the camera, and the chapel was about 150 feet away. No depth of field will ever accommodate that. So, I imagined a plane between the chapel tower and the stump, and if that plane was a wall, it would have extended from two feet to the right of the camera, with the camera lookingg basically down the length of it. I tilted the lens to the right so it pointed to the intersection of the film plane and that "wall", and the chapel was sharp along with the center of the stump. The only thing in the picture not in focus was a root at lower left projecting from the stump, and I cropped that off.

Get a 10X loupe (a cheapie plastic one will do fine, and cover everything but the lens with black photographic tape. Use is to view your ground glass to check focus.

Use the open corners of your ground glass to check for lens coverage. If, looking through the open corner through the lens, you see anything but the diaphragm blades, the lens is beyond its movement capabilities and needs to be backed off. It's much easier to see it that way than by looking for vignetting on a fresnel ground glass.

Get a good focusing cloth. It needs to be opaque. Velcro around the lens board will help keep it in place.

Don't forget a lens shade.

Keep a notebook and be rigorous about how you metered the scene and your exposures and focusing strategy. That's the only way you'll be able to do a post-mortem if something goes wrong. Mark your film backs rigorously and make sure your notes are descriptive enough to match negative to notes.

Everything else is just a matter of practice.

Rick "Cambo 4x5 with regular and bag bellows; 47, 65, 90 and 121 Super Angulons, 160 Geronar, and 210 Ilex Paragon; Pentax and Minolta spot meters; compendium shade; 6x9 rollfilm back; Peak loupe; home-made focus cloth; and no desire to do the necessary darkroom work" Denney

[epeace]

wow . . great response . . especially the bit about the chapel and tree stump . . .

i bought a binocular viewing housing (http://i16.ebayimg.com/01/i/03/e4/05/de_1_s.JPG)that attaches to the film back thats sort of like a viewfinder . . it flips the image in the ground glass right side up by reflecting it off a mirror inside . . i havent received it yet . . its en route . . that would eliminate the need for the focusing cloth right? and the loupe . . ill know better once i get it on the camera which is at home . .

this polaroid film holder (http://images.marketworks.com/hi/48/48259/2_2638_1a.jpg)is bigger than i was expecting (but i dont know jack about it so.. ) . . its a 550 . . . the guy who sold it to me says its supposed to work with my camera (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7505170345) . . . i guess ill have to just sit down with it and read the manual . . . i have no idea how the film holders attach to the camera (polaroid or otherwise) . . . i thougth they slipped into the back which is hinged . . . but looking at this polaroid holder . . i dont think thats the case . . .

[epeace]

ps. i bought a loupe just now anyway . . . why not . . it was $5 . . . :P

[robertwgross]

this thing actually has those little level thingys on the rear standard. . my tripod also has them so . . that seems to be covered :)

Yes, my tripod has the little ones also, and they are nowhere nearly as accurate as a carpenter's level.

However, a carpenter's level is too heavy for many people to carry far. I do photo-backpacking, so excess weight is a no-no. I made the compromise with a six-inch plastic carpenter's level.

---Bob Gross---

[rdenney]

wow . . great response . . especially the bit about the chapel and tree stump . . .

i bought a binocular viewing housing (http://i16.ebayimg.com/01/i/03/e4/05/de_1_s.JPG)that attaches to the film back thats sort of like a viewfinder . . it flips the image in the ground glass right side up by reflecting it off a mirror inside . . i havent received it yet . . its en route . . that would eliminate the need for the focusing cloth right? and the loupe . . ill know better once i get it on the camera which is at home . .

this polaroid film holder (http://images.marketworks.com/hi/48/48259/2_2638_1a.jpg)is bigger than i was expecting (but i dont know jack about it so.. ) . . its a 550 . . . the guy who sold it to me says its supposed to work with my camera (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7505170345) . . . i guess ill have to just sit down with it and read the manual . . . i have no idea how the film holders attach to the camera (polaroid or otherwise) . . . i thougth they slipped into the back which is hinged . . . but looking at this polaroid holder . . i dont think thats the case . . .

I think you'll find that a binocular viewer will not be convenient if you use a lot of movements. A loupe and a focusing cloth is much easier. The view helps for architectural shots when the camera is jammed into an interior making access to the ground glass difficult. I don't have one and have never missed it.

Backs attach in two ways. The ground glass is usually in a frame that is held to another frame with two arms that are sprung to keep it tight. That other frame is held to the back of the camera with two sliding clips. The sliding clips are called a "Graflok" back because they were first introduced by the Graflex company. Roll film holders and other accessories are often designed for a Graflok connection. The Polaroid back is designed to slip under the ground glass the same as a film holder. Both slide right under the ground glass from one edge.

Rick "who thinks you'll need a changing bag for loading film holders if you don't have a darkroom" Denney

[rdenney]

One of the basic concepts of perspective is that parallel lines appear to converge as they travel away from the viewer.

If the back is vertical, then vertical lines do not travel away from the viewer. Hence, they do not converge. If the film back is vertical, there will be no perspective convergance of vertical lines in the scene. At least, with rectilinear lenses, heh, heh.

If we look up, the lines at the top converge. If we look down, the lines at the bottom converge. If we look straight at the building, the lines will appear not to converge, because we can't do that and see up or down enough to notice any convergance. That's the effect rectilinear lenses convey, though it is not really natural with extremely short lenses. But I still love those extreme wides.

Rick "who thought that's what he said" Denney

[epeace]

dunno . . . i got the monocular viewer today and its awesome . . without it the image being upside down was, well, a bit obnoxious . . and i will be doing alot of architecture/interior work with it so . . i guess it all works out . .

i found, later that day, that the holder slid right in like any other holder . . it was just alot thicker . . i wasnt aware that the back would open that wide . . but i love the polaroid holder . . closest thing to the instant gratification of digital ill get for the time being . . lord knows i wont be dropping money on a Phase One anytime soon . . .

so if i have the little slide locks on the back (and the viewer) that means its graflok compatible then?

[DocFrankenstein]

I would love a 4*5 camera... with all the tilts and shifts and...

But I need a darkroom first... and this is where reality kicks in ;)

[soupdragon]

I have a really nice minolta flash meter with spot attachment that I used to use on my MPP MKVII.

These are really handy when once you have calibrated them to your ground glass you can meter straight off the image.
I don't use it these days so if you want to buy one you know who to talk to.

[PhotosGuy]

Do you know about the slide for the film holders? One side of the metal tab is black & one side is silver? So you know if the film is exposed?

[epeace]

Do you know about the slide for the film holders? One side of the metal tab is black & one side is silver? So you know if the film is exposed?that is to keep unexposed film, well, unexposed when you remove the holder from the camera . . i dont know if one side being black means anything . . mine is silver on both sides . .

why would you need a dark room to use a 4x5 camera DocF? there are plenty of labs who would be more than happy to process your exposed sheet film for you . . or you can do what im doing and use a polaroid back . . . 60 second gratification . . . .

[PhotosGuy]

If they aren't painted, then I suggest that you do it!
Here's something else to think about. Now you have the ultimate contrast control! You can shoot, say 3 sheets at different exposures, & process each at a different time to control the contrast! We used to do that with color outdoor car shots, as well as B&W. You can get some interesting color shifts by doing that. Since they were either sunrise or sunset, the color shifts were "pluses" instead if "minuses". (Good instead of bad.)
If you try that, use a grease pencil to write +1, -1 on the exposed side of the slide so you can keep track of what you exposed each one at.

[epeace]

paint them? really? is that supposed to keep out more light then?

i am definitely going to have to experiment heavily with this cam to get a good feel for its strengths and weaknesses . . thats interesting what you were saying about the color shift at different times of the day . . . i would think noon on a clear day would yield the most contrast no?

[PhotosGuy]

paint them? really? is that supposed to keep out more light then? Excuse me, but :D:D:D NO!
"One side of the metal tab is black & one side is silver?"
When you load the film you make sure that the unpainted metal side is out. After you've exposed the film, you put the slide back in with the black side out so you know the film has been exposed.

[DocFrankenstein]

that is to keep unexposed film, well, unexposed when you remove the holder from the camera . . i dont know if one side being black means anything . . mine is silver on both sides . .

why would you need a dark room to use a 4x5 camera DocF? there are plenty of labs who would be more than happy to process your exposed sheet film for you . . or you can do what im doing and use a polaroid back . . . 60 second gratification . . . .
Now I'm kinda curious. How much would it cost on average to make a print from a 4*5 negative?

I guess... I could even shoot film and then make contact prints without the enlarger? :confused:

[epeace]

hahahah . . . . there is a marking on one side of the slide which i think will suffice to that purpose . . . but good point . . . . thats not really a lesson you want to learn the hard way . . .

[PhotosGuy]

I could even shoot film and then make contact prints without the enlarger? That's how prints were first made. You'll need a contact frame.
No more cost to make prints from 4X5, than 35mm at local pro labs. Good luck at Wallmart! ;-)

[rdenney]

I would love a 4*5 camera... with all the tilts and shifts and...

But I need a darkroom first... and this is where reality kicks in ;)

Let me whisper something evil in your ear:

6x9 Rollfilm Back.

Even more evil:

6x12 Rollfilm Back.

Then, you can get all the benefits of the view camera, and let the lab fool with the chemicals.

I put a 6x9 back on my Cambo and then scrounged a 47mm Super Angulon on a recessed lens board, a bag bellows, and a short monorail. There are medium-format view cameras, but boy they are expensive. There are lots of 4x5 cameras targeted to the budget-conscious.

Rick "who thinks this could be done for about a grand with careful shopping" Denney

[rdenney]

That's how prints were first made. You'll need a contact frame.
No more cost to make prints from 4X5, than 35mm at local pro labs. Good luck at Wallmart! ;-)

A sheet of glass will serve as a contact frame.

But I have to say that making good contact prints is not really any easier than making good enlargements. The light falling on the print during exposure still needs to be just the right brightness for just the right length of time. I used an enlarger for making contact prints, so that I could stop down the lens and use my timer. I just laid the negative on the print paper instead of putting it in the enlarger carrier.

But you could use a super-cheap junk-store enlarger intended for 35mm to make contact prints and it would work fine (by "fine" I mean "consistently"). An enlarger that accepts 4x5 is a bit more expensive, though I still see Omega D2's and D3's with condenser heads for only a few hundred dollars (I paid over a thousand for mine--back before the digital revolution). You don't need the dichroic colorhead for black-and-white work, and the loose Polycontrast filters work as well as a variable contrast head if you take care of them and keep them from collecting dust.

The bigger cost is in a room that works as a darkroom, trays, sinks, and chemicals. If you do it enough to keep from having to throw away stale chemicals all the time, you'll get tired of doing it in the basement laundry room. The tanks and hangers that work well for 4x5 are not cheap. I ended up using Kodak hard rubber tanks with floating lids, and metal hangers for the negatives. I could process 10 at a time and get consistent agitation. the Yankee-style daylight tanks just don't work well with 4x5.

But in any case, my Omega is aging gracefully in the attic while I now scan all my negatives. And when I pull out the view camera, it's with a roll-film back so that I can have the negatives processed at a local lab.

Rick "who thinks many enjoy darkroom work more than field work, but not me" Denney

[epeace]

hmm. . . scanning negatives? . . . can you do that safely? how do you do it?

could you just inverse the polarity in photoshop to get the digital print?

[rdenney]

hmm. . . scanning negatives? . . . can you do that safely? how do you do it?

could you just inverse the polarity in photoshop to get the digital print?

Yes. I use an old Acer flatbed scanner at 1200 pixels/inch that has a sufficiently large transparency adaptor. For 4x5, it's more than enough, providing a 29-megapixel scan. Scan it as a full-color transparency, invert it in Photoshop, use the channel mixer to make it black and white (scanning black and white usually leaves a color cast), and correct the image as desired. Leave it in 16-bit color until you target the image for a specific output device. Warning! TIFFs will be about 175 megabytes each. When you print, leave it in RGB and use all the inks to make the print. If your printer profile is well-calibrated, crossovers will be minimal, but a hint of toning on the image will make them go away. You'll get much richer blacks and better tonal separation printing with all the colors rather than just the black ink. If you want to make a big investment, you can find an old Epson 1200 and buy a quad-tone black and white ink system for it. My prints have been good enough not to compel me to do that, but sometimes people get downright mystical about black and white.

You'll be absolutely amazed by the clarity and detail in the prints, such that you'll never again be fully sastified with a 20D or 10D image enlarged to 13x19.

My Minolta Multi scanner, which can now be bought pretty cheap on the used market, will make a scan of 6x9 with as many pixels as a 20D. The larger format means, however, that each pixel integrates more information and is therefore more accurate. It will support larger enlargements, and at 13x19 will look outstanding.

Rick "who thinks big negatives take a lot of heat of the scanner" Denney

[epeace]

wow great tip . . definitely a shove in the right direction . . . you can control the quality of your prints that way

ill be needing a new scanner now anyway as i have recently discovered, to my dismay, that visioneer is an all PC (ms windows) company . . . . . no Mac drivers . . . .

anyone have a decent Mac compatible scanner they want to trade for a once-used Visioneer Photoport 7700 USB Scanner? . . . yah . . i used it once last year for a job . . its been in the box ever since . . .

so when you have the film developed do you get prints too? or do you just have them develop the negatives?

[epeace]

ok i might be a moron . . . Polaroid Type 79 film apparently cannot be loaded into a model 550 film holder . . im guessing that they might go in regular film holders? (i havent picked up any yet shame on me) . . . if so that might be why they're so much more expensive than regular 550 film pack film . . . which i do have on the way should be here tomorrow . . looks like i have to pick up some regular film holders too . .

[Moments]

Originally Posted by PhotosGuy
Do you know about the slide for the film holders? One side of the metal tab is black & one side is silver? So you know if the film is exposed?

If your film holders darkslides are silver on both sides, one side will have bumbs, like brail and the other side should not. For film holders that have black and white or silver sides, When you load unexposed film in the film holder, the white/silver side of the darkslide shows, and once you pull out the darkslide to expose the film, you turn the darkslide around and place it back in the film holder so the black side is showing. That is how you know if the film has been exposed or not.


Epeace, congrats on moving into large format!

If you are going to do architecture/interior photography, what lens did you or are you going to get? I used to use a 90mm, or 120mm and the occasional 150mm lens, and I would have liked to have a 65mm for some interior photography. IMO, I have found that Schneider lens were sharper and had more contrast than Rodenstock lens. I would stay away from Caltar, Fuji, and some Nikon large format lens if you are serious about shooting with the 4x5. There are many types besides focal lenghts and manufacturers of Large format lens and some are intended for various types of photography.

BTW, I would also say you might need a bag bellows if you go with any lens shorter than 150mm if you are going to make any thing more than small swings/tilts.

As far as the binocular viewing housing on a 4x5, I did not find them (even a Sinar)to better than a good 4x Schneider loupe. (Try out a Schneider against the $5.00 one and you will see the difference) Depending upon the amount of swings and tilts you might place the cameras standars in, you might have trouble in seeing all of the image in ground glass with a binocular viewing housing.

[Ken Fong]

Hey another Toyo-view user on this forum! I recently bought a used Toyo-view field camera on eBay...they're great! It's really helping (forcing) me to take better pictures. Opens a new world of possibilities...as well as a hole in my wallet. Dreams of 30x40 prints...

[epeace]

the lens i have is the one that came with the camera . . . its a Rodenstock Geronar 210mm f/5.6 Sironar-N Lens with Copal - No.1 Shutter . . .

once again tho Bloo comes throo . . . excellent posts by the dog and redenney . . ive actually saved them so i can digest them . . its alot of info at once . . . .

right now im trying to suss out the whole focusing situation . . it seems like i have some manner of zoom capability when increasing the distance between standards . . . but then i lose focus . . im guessing because these lenses arent zoom lenses that there is no zoom capability at all . .

again . . so much to learn . . . .

as a sidebar . . 210mm on a large format doesnt seem to be the same as on a 35mm . . whats the deal there?

[Moments]

[QUOTE=Bloo Dog]

More about film holders: I have a few that are so old that they're made of wood! The dark slide, of course is metal.

If you bought those new, you are really showing your age. I had a few wood 8x10 holders that I bought used, and it was very sad when they would fall apart. I was never a fan of the newer plastic slides. It's been a long time since I shot on film, I can't even find the last 10 4x5 holders I kept after switching to largeformat digital.

Some times I really miss shooting 8x10 and 4x5 chromes. nothing can compare to looking at a good chrome on a good lightbox. About 5 years ago I went into a ad agency to show my book. With my portfolio case which was 75% 8x10, 20% 4x5 and 5% prints at my side, I found out that the lightbox at the agency was put away in storage. We had to use the universal lightbox, the cieling.

Digital is nice, but I miss big film!!!

[Moments]

[QUOTE=Bloo Dog]

More about film holders: I have a few that are so old that they're made of wood! The dark slide, of course is metal.

If you bought those new, you are really showing your age. I had a few wood 8x10 holders that I bought used, and it was very sad when they would fall apart. I was never a fan of the newer plastic slides. It's been a long time since I shot on film, I can't even find the last 10 4x5 holders I kept after switching to largeformat digital.

Some times I really miss shooting 8x10 and 4x5 chromes. nothing can compare to looking at a good chrome on a good lightbox. About 5 years ago I went into a ad agency to show my book. With my portfolio case which was 75% 8x10, 20% 4x5 and 5% prints at my side, I found out that the lightbox at the agency was put away in storage. We had to use the universal lightbox, the cieling.

Digital is nice, but I miss big film!!!

[epeace]

ah that makes perfect sense . . . if the back was a 35mm back instead of a 4x5 . . . the viewable content would seem much tighter, due to cropping, than it does in the 4x5 but the same magnification . . .

so . . . the distance from the subject and focal length of the lens determines the distance between the standards then . . .

[PhotosGuy]

Here are couple more things which haven't been mentioned by PhotosGuy yet. (He's letting on to things bit-by-bit-- that devil!). :D I type w/2 fingers! (& would rather read your comments, anyway!)
Plus, anyone who takes up large format who doesn't have to due to client requirements is obviously a masochist by nature, & will appreciate being left alone to make his own learning-curve miZtaKes!

"The new holders don't come with any way to lock the dark slides!"
No locks? Some $%^*ing bean counter did away with them? I HATE this "Bottom-line" mind-set. It's going to be the end of us yet!

Below is a pic of the "Old" slides & the holder WITH locks. I left them unlocked when unexposed after an experience where the holder was dropped by an assistant & I couldn't get the damn thing unlocked in the cam & the shot was disappearing away into the sunset. It made more sense to lock the exposed film after that.

[rdenney]

Rick,

How old is that Acer?

My UMax scanner's software can scan print and transparency as well as negative film media. It's a 48 bit machine that can accommodate a 11"x14".I don't have to do any of that stuff in Photoshop. My scanner is pretty old too-- 1999.

I can't imagine a scanner that can accommodate transparency not being able to accommodate negative film as well.

The software that came with will do color negatives, but it's quite confused by black and white negatives and it's easier to do the inversion in Photoshop. I can also use VueScan with that scanner, and it will do it all. With black and white, though, doing a Photoshop inversion is quite simple.

Many scanners convert images to 8-bit (or even 16-bit) grayscale when you select "black and white negative", and you don't want that. I would rather keep all the information in RGB color and remove any color cast in PS. You get much finer tonal gradation that way, including at the print stage unless you have a purpose-modified black-and-white printer.

Few flatbeds will do better than 10 or 11 bits of dynamic range (0-3.0 or 0-3.3 density scale), even if they write them to a 16-bit file. If the negative is overexposed, this might be a problem. Vuescan (if it supports the flatbed in question) can multiscan, even with multiple passes, which helps in this regard. My Acer was found lacking in punching through dense skies on color negatives without noise, but I haven't noticed the problem with black and white, so far.

To answer your question, the Acer is at least six years old at this point, and even when new I paid about $100 for it. Newer scanners might have better software, though unless the software manipulates the scanner at low level (and few do with flatbeds) to get the right dynamic range, I'd rather scan at 16-bit and make the changes in Photoshop which is usually much more sophisticated. Flatbeds, after all, usually target low price points and the software is written on a tight budget.

Rick "who thinks a newer Epson would do better but not that much better" Denney

[kellmeister]

I admire you guys for trying LF. I usually shoot MF and some LF and am currently looking at getting a digital 20D. Film is nice to do every once in awhile as it slows yourself down and makes you really compose a scene.
I would like to stick with film but hate darkroom work which is where photoshop offers better control. That and "decent" film scanners for MF are around 2k..

[Ken Fong]

I don't like darkroom work either (mainly, the smell), so a nice compromise is to get a scanner like the Epson 4990 (under $600)...this thing seems to be made for scanning MF and LF slides and negatives. If you need any higher quality, then you would maybe consider the drum scans at a lab service.

My two-cents on preloaded (e.g. QuickLoad) holders. Yeah, they more than double the cost of the film and represent more things to pack...they also have the film flatness issue (film rests on a plane that is slightly different than if you used a traditional film holder...causing some sharpness issues at larger apertures). But there are some situations where they are convenient, like when you are on travel and do not have access to an E6 lab. The alternative would be to come up with a portable dust-free environment to change out and store your film. Does anyone know if something like light-safe tupperware storage exists? (BTW, labs seem to prefer you to keep the film in the holder, not to submit them in bulk...so they probably won't like receiving tupperware.)

[rdenney]

A 210mm lens gives the EXACT SAME degree of enlargement (actually more on a view bellows camera at full extension) as on a 35mm camera.

You'll have to think about this a while, though. 35mm film is much smaller than 4x5 film. A 210mm lens fills up the 35mm camera viewfinder and the cropped image fills up more of the 35mm negative because the film is smaller. The degree of magnification is the same when the lenses are equal distances from the film plane.

I recommend telling people to think about their lenses in relation to the normal lens, with the normal lens being defined as the diameter of the film. The normal lens for 4x5 is 160mm (as 43 is normal in 35mm and 28 is normal on a 10D). Thus, a 210 is about 1.3 times normal, which is equivalent to a 56 on a 35mm camera. Thus, it's a little longer than normal. (Actually, the reason for the popularity of the 210 in large format is that it is a normal lens for the 5x7 format--thus, lots of lenses are made in that focal length).

I have lenses in 47, 65, 90, 121, 160, and 210. All of the lenses at 121 and shorter are Schneider Super Angulons. They are Super Angulons because they support a very wide illumination circle, making it possible for fairly extreme movements. The 160 is a Rodenstock Geronar, which is a triplet that works fine when stopped down a bit. The 210 is an ancient Ilex Paragon that has a real old-world look. The longer the lens, the cheaper you can get away with, because the longer lenses were designed for the 5x7 and 8x10 formats and will allow plenty of movements even with an old-fashioned design. Lens resolution isn't nearly as critical with 4x5, unless you are making huge wall-sized enlargements that will be viewed from up close.

Everyone's right: There are no zoom lenses for large format.

The Three Main Principles are as true for large format as for those confused by APS-sized sensors: Camera position determines perspective, focal length determines magnification, and format determines field of view. We can be more specific for large format: Film back positions determines perspective, focal length at focus determines magnification, and format determines field of view.

And, because we seem bent on writing a book on large-format photography, here are a few more items:

You need a bag bellows when the lens board and film back are so close that using the movements you want forces the bellows to distort in painful ways. You need a recessed lens board when that's what it takes to make a lens in question focus at infinity (which is when the lens board and film back will be closest). I use recessed lens boards on my Cambo for the 90, 65, and 47, and I'm likely going to have one made for the 47 that has a deeper recess (it JUST focuses to infinity when the bases for the lens and film standards are touching).

I think you'll find that the Rodenstock lens is excellent, but bordering on a bit long, depending on what you want to photograph. Remember that "stopped down" in large format is something like f/32 or 45. f/16 and 22 are normal apertures, and f/11 is quite wide open. Most large-format photographers would not use anything wider unless they want selective focus. My lens's maximum apertures are f/5.6 up through the 121, which is an f/8. The 160 Geronar is an f/6.3, and the Ilex is a 4.5, making it a real speed demon. My sharpest images come at about f/22 or f/32 as the best balance between depth of field and diffraction. Get used to slower shutter speeds! And don't skimp on the tripod.

As to lens quality, don't get hung up on it. If you will make wall-sized enlargements that are viewed from up close, then buy only the best, but short of that you'll be more limited by technique than glass for a long time to come. The Caltar lenses are made by others--Rodenstock or Nikon but there are others, too--and they are excellent. Caltar used to be the brand name of Ilex, and Ilex was a good, working-class lens maker for commercial work here in the U.S. The Nikkor-SW lenses are excellent. The Schneider lenses are beyond excellent. But old press-camera lenses of humbler origins can be quite good, too, including Kodak (the Ektars are highly regarded), Wollensak, and Ilex. Remember that we don't enlarge the images as much so lens faults don't glow in the dark the way they do with the tiny cameras we use today.

Rick "a large-format photographer since 1976" Denney

[Ken Fong]

All of the labs I've worked with require that the exposed film be brought to the lab in a 4x5 film box, preferably the same box it came in, though I'm always asked "Is this E-6?"

That's good to know...I won't need to buy so many holders. Now I just need to work on changing them out safely and cleanly in between shoots. How are you labeling your individual sheets? (for Quickloads, you write right on the envelope). And for the lab service, what is the "imprinting" option? Are they transcribing your field notes onto the film?

thanks

[rdenney]

That's good to know...I won't need to buy so many holders. Now I just need to work on changing them out safely and cleanly in between shoots. How are you labeling your individual sheets? (for Quickloads, you write right on the envelope). And for the lab service, what is the "imprinting" option? Are they transcribing your field notes onto the film?

Answer, from my backwoods perspective: I don't, none, and no. On the few occasions when I've had transparencies processed outside my own darkroom, I get back sleeved images and it's left to me to know whay they are about. That's why I have a stack of polaroids in my field book, and why I often sketch the composition there to make sure I remember which image is which. If you want something in the image to denote specific things (like camera settings), I have to put it in the image.

For stuff that I process, I index the images according to my numbering of my filmholders, and then store them in sleeves numbered similarly.

Maybe there's high-end equipment that will do data imprinting on sheet film, but I don't run in those circles.

Rick "who thinks we take EXIF for granted sometimes" Denney

[Ken Fong]

Thanks,
So it sounds like I will need to be more organized in my note taking.
One recent rookie experience I can share: I used 2 Quickload sheets to shoot 2 identical SF Bay Bridge shots. I took the first shot, put the film down, got distracted, then couldn't remember which film I had just put down (nothing was labelled), then I grabbed the (same) exposed sheet and shot again (thinking I was shooting a new sheet). I didn't realize this error until the lab processed the first sheet and it was all black (no exposure). I presumed the second sheet had the double exposure, so I asked the lab to pull it one stop. The results were surprisingly normal and I could not tell it was a double exposure (plus the tripod did a great job of holding steady for the two shots). I learned so much from that mistake.

[epeace]

I recommend telling people to think about their lenses in relation to the normal lens, with the normal lens being defined as the diameter of the film. The normal lens for 4x5 is 160mm (as 43 is normal in 35mm and 28 is norm

. . .

ark the way they do with the tiny cameras we use today.

Rick "a large-format photographer since 1976" Denney

wow rdenney . . . thanks for this post :D