|
a cyberpunk goose posted:those last two are sickk agreed and same  Mukaejima by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr  Naoshima by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
The wood handle is useful for carrying the camera when you aren't using it. For me, it gets in the way when I am using it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
change my name posted:looking everything over it seems like the Pentax 645 is probably the best place to start? What makes you say this? If you want to shoot 6x6, shoot 6x6. If the cost of Hasselblad is an issue, there's other options.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:Does a Bronica etrsi 645 with AEII finder, Zenzanon pe 75 and 150 lenses for 250 sound like a good deal to break into medium format? Save another $250 and get a really nice Pentax 67 kit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:A Graphic View 4x5 camera in good clean condition If you want to hate taking your 4x5 anywhere, definitely get a 50+ year old monorail.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Oh, I'm not even close to actually going 4x5. I barely compose anything worth keeping on 20-25% of the roll film I shoot. Just curious. Buy my RZ (about half a pound than the RB, by the way), use your RB lenses on it, and buy a Sekor-Z 50mm ULD. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
It's also quite possible your developer/agitation scheme is responsible for some of the grain too. More/stronger agitation and higher development temperatures can definitely make grain more pronounced.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Choicecut posted:Wow that's good to know. Looking at my notes, I did 11:50 in ddx with 60 second initial agitation and then 5 second flips every 30 seconds. I didn't know that agitation would introduce more grain; I was under the impression it would just make it more contrasty. I have a couple more rolls to develop, so with knowing this, I think I will play with the agitation intervals a bit. What temperature?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:I really need to get a focusing hood Worth every penny: https://viewcamerastore.com/collections/btzs-focus-hoods/products/4x5-btzs-focus-hood-dark-cloth
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I might be a money-haver again soon and I'm really interested in a decent M/LF panoramic camera to complement my 35mm Horizon. I know about the GH617 and it looks pretty good for my needs but then I found the Shen-Hao which looks as rad as hell. I like the idea of using 120 rollfilm rather than sheet film as it better suits my current capabilities wrt to filling cartridges, developing and scanning. The fact that it's a view camera with a LF camera lens would also be a nice way to get a head start on 'proper' LF in the future. The Shen-Hao will let you use more different lenses, with movements; but if you're not used to dealing with focusing and composing on ground glass, or to film backs that don't automatically stop, the Fuji 617 cameras will be easier to use. Sludge Tank posted:You can get graflex 120 roll film pano backs for some 4x5 cameras. Like the toyo or sinar for instance. They can be 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 but im not sure if they go up to 6x17 (they could do) 6x17 is wider than 4x5, but there's this back with built-in extension: http://www.bhcamera.us/dayi617back.php It can use only a limited range of focal lengths (I've heard 90 to 180mm), but if you already own a 4x5 camera it doesn't require buying a whole new camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I am used to focusing on waist level finders, is there a big difference between using those and LF ground glass other than the size? I guess I'd need to use a cloth or a shade to see it more clearly. My Moskva shoots 6x6 and 6x9 so the film advance isn't geared to a particular frame size, it's all managed by eyeballing red windows on the back. I suspect the Shen Hao back has a similar arrangement, you'd just need to advance it three 6x6 or two 6x9 frames at a time. With rare exceptions like the Graflex RB, LF cameras don't have mirrors, so the image on the ground glass will be upside down. The Fuji doesn't have ground glass or a TTL viewfinder, but the hotshoe viewfinder (don't buy a camera that doesn't have the one matched to the lens included) will be easier to use, if perhaps less precise, than a ground glass.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Good to know. What about lenses? 6x17 has a diagonal of 180mm so obviously that's the minimum image circle I'd need but I expect that I'd want more for the movements. What are the usual allowances for that? Also I know nothing about LF lenses. What am I looking for and what would be a good match for that sort of use? I'd go for at least 220mm image circle to have a decent amount of movements. Fortunately there are lots of options - on the short end the best choices are the Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8 and 120mm f/8; for medium lengths, just about any modern 180mm and 210mm will give you lots of movements. Longer lenses tend to have larger image circles, so most any 300mm lens, for example, will cover generously.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
 Chinese Village by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
 Montavilla Motel by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
I'd also like to note that the Arista Premium reels are compatible with Paterson tanks and cores, so you can get both reels that don't suck and a tank that develops more than one roll of 120. edit: the Paterson tanks also fill and drain dramatically faster than the Arista tanks. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Feb 16, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Skoora posted:Finally did my first actual shoot with my RB67, two rolls of portra 400 Looks like your back has some gnarly frame spacing issues?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Tony Two Bapes posted:Hey all, quick super noob stupid question. I'm thinking about taking the plunge into large format within the year, but there's one thing I've been unable to get my head around. If you're shooting color film, how do you take it to the joint that does the developing? Do you leave your exposed film in the holders, or do you put it back in the box it came out of? Is it a personal preference? Again, I realize that this is a really ignorant question and I could probably find the answer through a quick google search, but I've been super curious about this and thought I might as well come to some people who will know for sure. Large format is intimidating in a way that I haven't felt in a while. I put it back in the box it came out of, but if you don't have a box handy my lab will unload holders for you before developing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
indyrenegade posted:I just got a good tax return back from the good ol Cananananadian government and I think I wanna take the plunge on a medium format camera. It's been something I've wanted to pursue for years after running around with my Canon AE-1. The RZ67 (a Pro II) was my first medium format camera and I loved it. I do not recommend the prism finder - it's ridiculously heavy. I think I used mine once or twice in five years of owning the camera.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
The P67 grip is nice for carrying the camera but feels nearly useless to me for actually shooting with the camera. Mine is in a drawer somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
scotty posted:I know you weren't looking for a suggestion for something other than the left hand grip, but this dude in the Philippines makes a great right hand grip. I've been using it for a while now and it's a lot more functional for me. When I'm shooting anything lower than 125 I tend to cradle the poo poo out of the grip and use my other hand to brace the lens after focusing. Haven't had too many unusable results. How's it attach? None of the photos show that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
ianskate posted:Really loving these! They're all so really smooth and moody, just get good emotional feels from them. The first step to nailing exposure is not to overexpose by 3-5 stops.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2019 01:16
|
|
|
ianskate posted:Haha, thanks for all the replies, wasn't expecting so much feedback. I'm aware of some of those things and have had reasonable success with other cameras and film stocks over the years, but I suppose maybe it's the lens (105 2.4) being out slightly out of focus or not as sharp as I'd hoped for. Something just doesn't feel "right" visually, if that makes any sense. It's not your gear. How are you scanning and what's your color workflow?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:So, I fell in love with the idea of a LF camera over the winter. I also like to build stuff, so the original plan was to build my own, but other more important projects kept getting in the way, so I finally caved in and ordered an Intrepid Mk4. I now that there's cheaper options on ebay, but I was keen on a field camera, as I plan to take it with me hiking in the mountains. I have a BTZS hood but you can use a black t-shirt. You definitely need a loupe if you care about critical focus. $6/sheet is not a reasonable price for development unless you're unwilling to develop yourself or mail to Citizens Photo, which will do it for $2.50/sheet. (edit: your post history suggests you're Canadian, in which case I'd still recommend developing yourself - look up the taco method) I have had and heard nothing but bad experiences with Intrepid products. If it's not too late, cancel the order and get a Crown Graphic instead. The extra ~2 pounds isn't that much considering each film holder is half a pound and you'll probably be taking more than one. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 21:32 on May 21, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Yeah, I'm in Canada...so call it $4 USD $100 is about right. Make sure you get one that doesn't have clear sides (for viewing film/slides). At $6 (or even at $4) per sheet just for developing, cheaping out on a camera that has a good chance of not being light tight is a mistake. Avoiding false economies is especially important with large format.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2019 23:09
|
|
.
|
Blackhawk posted:Got my film holders today woo, camera and 135mm Fujinon lens incoming as well. Go ahead and chuck the wooden ones in the trash where they belong.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:Is there a consensus "cheapest large format camera worth buying", or is the link in the op still pretty accurate? Chamonix.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:Yeah I looked at film prices after I posted that and it's all pretty much the same, thought there was a wider range. What are the non garbage bw films I should try out? Ilford is where it's at for me. HP5+ for 400 speed - and faster, because it pushes great up to 3200. I still have a large stash of 4x5 Fuji Acros for my 100 speed film, but Ilford has the roughly equivalent Delta 100. Kodak 4x5 B&W stuff is fine but too expensive for what it is.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:Been researching enlargers and I see intrepid is selling a kit to convert an lf camera. Does it look like it'll be a legit option? I'm not sure how you could read any of the posts about Intrepid's cameras in here and think this is a good idea.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:Anyone use a jobo 2520 tank and the 2509n reel with manual rotation on one of the roller bases for 4x5? Wondering how that compares to the sp-445 in regards to ease of use and consistency since the cost is comparable. I've used the 2509n (two of them, in a larger tank) but not the SP-445. I like how little chemistry I had to use for how many sheets I could develop at once, but the motor controller on my CPP-2 is a little wonky and the minimum rotation speed is pretty high, so I was getting some surge marks on my negatives. It'll most likely be fine for you on a manual roller base as long as you don't get too aggressive with the rotation (and make sure you alternate directions) and make sure you use the flaps. It apparently also helps to load 4 sheets instead of 6. I ended up moving up to a 3010.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:How do you all feel about roll film backs? I like the idea for c41 since I can get color roll film developed for insanely cheap, but then again it'll just be a big medium format camera with movements. I suppose it would be a cheaper way to learn the camera. Wild EEPROM posted:False economy. I disagree, rollfilm backs can be good. I'm always going to shoot 4x5 if it makes sense, but there's some cases where I want movements and also don't need 4x5. The main practical issue is that a 135mm lens is normal-wide on 4x5 but pretty tight on even 6x7, so you're either getting a much shorter lens (I have a 65mm that just barely covers 4x5 and is used rarely for that purpose but more often gets used when I'm using my rollfilm back) or taking an entirely different kind of photo. All that said, I think you should learn to use a 4x5 camera by shooting 4x5 film. There's nothing you'd get out of shooting color rollfilm in the camera that you couldn't get with much less effort by shooting black and white sheet film instead.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Eurgh, struggling with scanning. Strong blue cast that's hard to get rid of. (Use Vuescan). This is a common problem I've heard from users of Vuescan and the simplest solution is not to use Vuescan.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2019 07:00
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Lol, wtf. I figured a maintained software, with colour profiles, etc would be better than something from 2007, but no.. That's better, but I'd also suggest not letting Epson Scan invert your negatives. Scan as 48-bit positive and invert in Photoshop instead, either with Colorperfect or some other plugin (downside is these tend to cost money) or using curves (downside is this can be time-consuming to get perfect). Don't use the Photoshop action I've seen mentioned here a few times - it intentionally clips shadows, which is bizarre to me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:ok but why is a thumbprint/scratch/etc on a filter on the rear of the lens worse than a thumbprint on the back element itself. It's a bit closer to the film plane but it's a problem either way and if it happens wouldn't it be better to happen to a (replaceable) filter than an expensive lens? ok but consider the optical effect of a filter on the rear of the lens vs on the front. yes plasmats require slightly more extension than tessars, so no, they won't work with the same cam if you really want accurate cams, consider making your own https://graflex.org/articles/oakes/
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
I would definitely be more worried about scratches on the front group of my LF lenses. Even with a high-grade coated glass filter, I've run into edge cases where I wish I hadn't used them - and yes, those edge cases will be worse with the filter on the rear. When it comes to focusing cams, "accurate enough" depends on your personal standards and your usual subject distances. Also, given sample variation and tolerances, a cam made for your specific lens and your specific rangefinder is always going to be more accurate than mass-produced cams also subject to sample variation. Whether that's worth the trouble is your call.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:mostly intellectual curiosity, the "if I bought a nice lens set what would be the best way to protect it so it didn't get trashed" thing. The best way to protect your lenses is to leave them at home in the box.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2019 05:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:This looks perfect, thanks! I'm assuming the carbon fiber is worth the extra price over aluminum? This'll be my first real tripod that wasn't just something I bought randomly off Craigslist. Absolutely - it makes it that much more likely you'll decide to bring it with you instead of leaving it at home because it's so heavy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Is there any real difference between the scanning capacity of the Epson V700/750/800/850? Or quality? There's two main differences. The light source on the V8x0 is LED, which warms up faster and, I suspect, keeps its color consistency longer than the CCFL light source in the V7x0 (maybe only an issue after a decade and tens of thousands of scans, which is where I'm at with my V700). The other difference isn't the scanner itself but the film holders - the ones that come with the V8x0 are slightly more height-adjustable (5 built-in positions instead of 3), they have ANR plastic built in (which really isn't an advantage unless your film is super curvy), and hold less film for scanning at once (1 sheet 4x5 instead of 2, 1 strip 120 instead of 2, 24 35mm frames instead of 36). Fortunately, it seems the V7x0 holders work in the V8x0 scanners just fine. Other than that, they seem to me to be exactly the same.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
Pondex posted:e: What's the most economical development setup? I used a Jobo-tank with 4x5-reels this time, and it uses 1500ml for 6 sheets, which is pretty steep IMO. Jobo tanks and rotation instead of inversion.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 20:52
|
|