120 film stock

Karl C wrote in post #5654291
Thanks for the info on LF. Sounds like LF is for a specific niche such as landscape and portrait, neither of which I do.

LF is the best system for architecture and cityscapes. It's also phenomenal for macro. I have examples of each. Really the only thing you can't do well on LF is action and wildlife.

The best thing about LF, though, is the optics. Not just because the lenses are great, but because the relationship between the lens and the print is outstanding. Bokeh is gorgeous and the subject has an unreal 3D quality.

This is a contact print of a snapshot I took of my son Max on 8x10 film a few days ago. This is on an Agfa 8x10 view camera, using a Schneider 300mm Symmar lens, Ilford HP5+ rated at ISO 800, 1/15 sec at f/8, pushed 2 stops. You can see the 3D effect, the gorgeous background blur, the smooth and long textural and tonal gradations, etc. Composition wasn't perfect, but oh well.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5654457
LF will slow you down. Its an incredible discipline. Michael Johnson a pretty well known midwest landscape photographer once told me a story of waiting 2 hours for a cloud to get in the exact spot to balance a composition. That photograph is in the permanent collection at the Art Institute in Chicago. It forces you to become very conscience of even the edges of the frame. Heres a guy that did street photography with a 4X5 and a Hasselblad for his East 100th Street project click on East 100th st Amazing work...

http://www.art-dept.com/artists/david​son/

Most really serious landscape photographers at one time or another usually deal with LF and the zone system.

Not sure if I have that kind of patience. Two hours for a cloud? That is commitment.

Thanks for the link. Bruce's portfolio of Brooklyn Gang, Time of Change, and East 100th Street are simply fantastic. The photos are rich with contrast and tonality; to me what B&W should look like. I think the other two portfolios of Subway and Central Park weren't nearly as good.

Did he do his own B&W darkroom work?

DrPablo wrote in post #5656258
LF is the best system for architecture and cityscapes. It's also phenomenal for macro. I have examples of each. Really the only thing you can't do well on LF is action and wildlife.

The best thing about LF, though, is the optics. Not just because the lenses are great, but because the relationship between the lens and the print is outstanding. Bokeh is gorgeous and the subject has an unreal 3D quality.

This is a contact print of a snapshot I took of my son Max on 8x10 film a few days ago. This is on an Agfa 8x10 view camera, using a Schneider 300mm Symmar lens, Ilford HP5+ rated at ISO 800, 1/15 sec at f/8, pushed 2 stops. You can see the 3D effect, the gorgeous background blur, the smooth and long textural and tonal gradations, etc. Composition wasn't perfect, but oh well.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Sometimes, composition takes a back seat to the subject matter! Very nice shot of your son. Nice boken and tonal range.

Karl C wrote in post #5656820
Not sure if I have that kind of patience. Two hours for a cloud? That is commitment.

Thanks for the link. Bruce's portfolio of Brooklyn Gang, Time of Change, and East 100th Street are simply fantastic. The photos are rich with contrast and tonality; to me what B&W should look like. I think the other two portfolios of Subway and Central Park weren't nearly as good.

Did he do his own B&W darkroom work?


Sometimes, composition takes a back seat to the subject matter! Very nice shot of your son. Nice boken and tonal range.

Yeah I'm sure he did on the East 100th stuff. In fact he gave everyone that he photographed a print. He shot Kodachrome on the Subway book and had die transfer prints made. Die transfer was the only archival color process and from transparencies a very long and tedious process. You have to make 3 pin registered matrixes(RGB) then Kodak used to make the dyes and you would use the dyes with the three matrixes on paper. Probably a half day to make the first one but then you could crank'm out after that. There was a company in Germany that did it in the 80s and if I remember right it was $500 for an 11X14. But the color is like no other.

DrPablo wrote in post #5656258
LF is the best system for architecture and cityscapes. It's also phenomenal for macro. I have examples of each. Really the only thing you can't do well on LF is action and wildlife.

The best thing about LF, though, is the optics. Not just because the lenses are great, but because the relationship between the lens and the print is outstanding. Bokeh is gorgeous and the subject has an unreal 3D quality.

This is a contact print of a snapshot I took of my son Max on 8x10 film a few days ago. This is on an Agfa 8x10 view camera, using a Schneider 300mm Symmar lens, Ilford HP5+ rated at ISO 800, 1/15 sec at f/8, pushed 2 stops. You can see the 3D effect, the gorgeous background blur, the smooth and long textural and tonal gradations, etc. Composition wasn't perfect, but oh well.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

JUST BEAUTIFUL DOC....

DrPablo. 8x10 snapshot huh, is that your camera strap in front of the lens? Just kidding, great shot. Anyone who has shot with 8x10 will appreciate the difficulty in shooting a moving target. Are you going to do a lith process on it? I like the one you posted earlier,
kind of reminds me of glass plate photos.

I love how my 120 film stock post is now turned into a post about shooting 8/10 plates This site is great.

If you guys had the chance to buy a 24-70L or a Bronica or Mamiya or Hasselblad...which would you get? I'm new but I love my digital but am playing with a yashica-A and the results are great, but can't afford both.

briancmo wrote in post #5657006
If you guys had the chance to buy a 24-70L or a Bronica or Mamiya or Hasselblad...which would you get? I'm new but I love my digital but am playing with a yashica-A and the results are great, but can't afford both.

All of them ...

I actually already have almost all of them!
Now, seriously, it depends on what you have to shoot... and the 24-70L cannot be compared to a medium format camera. It is a different thing with a different purpose.
I always shoot digital when I am payed for taking pictures, or when I am in a hurry. When I shoot for my pleasure, and I have plenty of time, I shoot film.

Brian, it would depend on whether you want any additional lenses to go with the camera. Hasselblad 500 series might eat the budget if you want one in mint condition. On e-bay you might be able to buy a cosmetically challenged camera somewhat cheaper. I don't really know about the Mamiya and Bronica prices, they were historically cheaper than blads.

briancmo wrote in post #5657006
If you guys had the chance to buy a 24-70L or a Bronica or Mamiya or Hasselblad...which would you get? I'm new but I love my digital but am playing with a yashica-A and the results are great, but can't afford both.

Depends. I've owned the 24-70L (and other L's) and they're fine pieces of equipment. However, I also enjoyed shooting MF (for the short time I did) and would go that route if current circumstances were different.

tiziano wrote in post #5657102
All of them ...

I actually already have almost all of them!
Now, seriously, it depends on what you have to shoot... and the 24-70L cannot be compared to a medium format camera. It is a different thing with a different purpose.
I always shoot digital when I am payed for taking pictures, or when I am in a hurry. When I shoot for my pleasure, and I have plenty of time, I shoot film.

I shoot mainly for fun so time is on my side. Nothing I shoot right now is action-related. And, if you look at my gallery, most of the photos there could've been taken with a MF system.

breal101 wrote in post #5657234
Brian, it would depend on whether you want any additional lenses to go with the camera. Hasselblad 500 series might eat the budget if you want one in mint condition. On e-bay you might be able to buy a cosmetically challenged camera somewhat cheaper. I don't really know about the Mamiya and Bronica prices, they were historically cheaper than blads.

I looked at a Bronica SQ MF system, through KEH, and it was in the $350 range for the body, waist-level finder, 220 back, and 80mm f/4 lens. Granted, it's not a Hassy, I hear good things about Bronica along with Mamiya.

I would suggest a Bronica ETRSi.
It's a great camera, with great lenses, and it can be bought for nothing. Hasselblad is great, but expensive.

Edit: I meant: as a cheap good MF camera. I am not debating with the 24-70L, as that's a totally different thing.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5654499
Yeah you get exposure for the shadow with your spot meter, whether you want it at zone II or III and then calculate your exposure. Then you meter your highlight and see the contrast range and figure where you want to place that highlight. That will determine your negative development time. A stop to much contrast N-1 need a stop more N+1. I used to process my sheets in trays usually 14 sheets at a time. The agitation would be bottom sheet to top and 14 sheets would give me the perfect agitation. AHHH the good old days.

I figgered my post was long enough to make the point without going into the details of the Zone System, heh, heh.

I could never get the hang of processing in trays. Using hangers required MUCH less finger dexterity, and was a lot less subject to the resulting accidents. However you do it, though, the agitation process becomes a religiously followed ritual, because it affects the development process significantly. In my case, I lifted the hangers out of the tank, tilted them 45 degrees to the right for one second, dipped them back in the tank, lifted them out again, tilted them to the left for one second, and put them back in. I repeated that process for the first 30 seconds and then every minute thereafter. Meticulousness counts with large format.

If I had graduated to 8x10, I would have gotten over my issue with trays, though. Mixing chemicals for deep tanks for film larger than 4x5 will have you reaching for your checkbook often. I did find, though, that I could keep the chemistry longer when I left them in the tanks and used the floating lids.

Rick "who still had half a dozen Kodak hard rubber deep tanks for 4x5 in a box somewhere" Denney

This thread brings back lovely film/MF memories. Some nice shots presented as well.

breal101 wrote in post #5656985
Are you going to do a lith process on it? I like the one you posted earlier, kind of reminds me of glass plate photos.

Thanks, glad you like it! I may do a lith print, but I'll probably do a cyanotype or vandyke brown print first. I don't have a darkroom at the moment since moving to NC, but I'll soon have access to a very good one at the school where I'm on the faculty. Cyanotyping and vandyke brown printing require UV light, and don't need all the trays and space of standard printing.