8x10 View Cameras

[dave lackey]

Okay, my long search for direction towards large format has been rekindled by a visit to a local camera shop to pick up a Summarit lens for my M3...whilst there, I found a couple of wonderful 4x5 view cameras, a Wista and a couple of Zone VI...

The prices are about $700 - 800 USD, which seem good.

However, I really would like to do platinum printing which requires a contact print.

Should I get the 8x10 view camera (Wista, Tachihara,etc.) or can I accomplish a large 8x10 contact print with the 4x5?:confused:

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

[Beemermark]

My preference is 5x7. The contact prints are gorgeous, the 5x7 print size is large enough that it looks good matted in a frame, I never really liked the 8x10 perspective, and 5x7 is a whole easier to lug around, develop and print.

My 2 cents.

[johnwnyc]

I think you'll find that 4x5 is a bit too small for contact printing. However if you use a mixed digital/wet workflow I understand that you can generate larger negatives with very good control. Remember the old rule of thumb that always applies whenever investigating new formats: rent or borrow first before investing.

I shoot 5x7 and I think it's the perfect complement to rangefinder photography. Speaking of which -- this is Rangefinder Forum after all, and you're talking about a format that requires tripods! If I were you I'd check out the threads over at largeformatphotography.info for more.

[MCTuomey]

+1 head over to largeformatphotography.com

but i believe 8x10 is prerequisite for platinum printing

[Todd.Hanz]

Cool!

Have you looked at making an enlarged negative? I shoot 4x5 and what I do is scan the negative, resize to whatever size I want. Print the enlarged negative on "Pictorio White Film", then contact print. I have never made PL/Pal prints but have wanted to. The process is alittle more involved than what I've outlined but it works well.

Go to http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php and search enlarged negatives.
Also here http://www.danburkholder.com/ look for his tips on digital negatives, alot of folks are doing this.

8x10 contacts are amazing, if you choose to go that way. Good Luck!

Here's a 4x5 shot for inspiration ;)

Polaroid contact with a sabatier effect applied to negative during processing
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/128/360180842_349fdf1c94_o.jpg


Todd

[Todd.Hanz]

You might also consider the availability/price of film, 8x10 isn't cheap. You probably will burn alot of sheets in the begining so you might consider that as well.

[venchka]

My thoughts:

You will need a contact frame. Not cheap new.
UV light source or try the sun.
Large Format Photography Format For Sale area is FULL of everything you need. Join now. There is a 30 day wait to use the For Sale listings.
You may need to upgrade your tripod or head.
One lens at first. One lens is maybe all you'll need.
Don't overlook whole plate, 6 1/2"x8 1/2". Cameras, film & holders are out there. The lenses are about the same as you would need for 5x7 or 8x10. I just saw several of Ansel Adams whole plate contact prints. Plenty big for intimate viewing.
Investigate carbon transfer printing. More labor intensive than pt/pd. The raw materials are cheap.
In addition to film costs, 8x10 film holders ain't cheap either. Figure $50/ea. used.

That said, hardly a day goes by that I don't about turning Bigfoot and Bubba and a few lenses into a camera bigger than my 4x5s.

[venchka]

ps: I think you can do better than your dealer by buying from an individual. Common sense, I reckon. It seems to be the case here.

I got my Zone VI field camera for a bit less than the prices you quoted.

And another thing....

An Idea I have toyed with for contact printing 4x5 negatives. Shoot pairs or quads of the right scene. Contact print the negatives together. 4x10 is an established format with film and cameras to match. So, I reckon two 4x5 negatives end to end would do the same thing only different. Could be a hairbrained idea or a plan. I'll know when I make a print.

[sepiareverb]

810 cameras are beasts, and the lenses make them even heavier, and the tripod that will hold one weighs a ton, but there are few things as lovely as an 810 contact print. This is a good time for LF as lenses and cameras haven't been this cheap in a long time. I just got a 450/9 Nikkor for a song for an 810 project I'm going to tackle this winter.

Something from my last 810 project:
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff221/sepiareverb/separation2-1.jpg

[venchka]

Stop it. Nobody needs 8x10. Like you said. Big. Heavy. Useless.

Stop it!

I picked up one of Richard Ritter's new 8x10s back in October. Two fingers did the job. Talk about being forever spoiled.

Stop it Wayne! LOL!

[rogue_designer]

englarging 4x5 negs with enough density for PP printing is tough by digital means. But there are improving methods out there.

The Dan Burkholder book on the subject is still the "bible" but as far as I know he has not updated it to include techniques for the new pigment based inkjets.

8x10 negs are gorgeous things. Totally worth the beastlyness of dealing with the camera. The big problems come in when you want to contact print bigger than that... the cameras get huge in a hurry. :D

[venchka]

Whole Plate makes alot of sense. A month ago I was in a museum full of Ansel Adams whole plate contact prints. I could be very happy with a whole plate camera, one lens, 2-3 holders. Sigh...................

[aizan]

looking through an 8x10 groundglass is as revelatory as looking through a rangefinder. accept no substitutions! ;)

[jmcd]

For simplicity's sake, if one wants an 8x10 negative to work from I would start with an 8x10 camera. If you're in the studio, any camera will work well, including the very friendly but heavy Ansco.

If you're working from a car and not going to far beyond it, almost any camera will do fine, including the Ansco. But it gets heavy.

For excellent and light weight, I like the Canham JMC.

A heavy tripod keeps the whole rig bottom heavy and stable. I like the Ries J100_2, with the 8x10 legs. The J100 is lighter and works, but is considerably more springy.

I find it much easier to get an excellent print from contact, rather than enlarging. Going through a box of mixed prints, the contact prints stand apart clearly quality wise.

There is no time like now to shoot any size film you desire.

[chippy]

Whole Plate makes alot of sense. A month ago I was in a museum full of Ansel Adams whole plate contact prints. I could be very happy with a whole plate camera, one lens, 2-3 holders. Sigh...................

some can be had quite cheap too, the other day on the bay a japanese whole plate sold for about $250 with a holder, relatively good nik..like most it didnt have front or rear swings like my Ruby Royal has but you can often get away without them

[Frank Petronio]

Over the past 3 years I got a 8x10 Fatif monorail, a quality Italian camera made in the 70s and 80s, with a user vintage Orbit lens for only $200; A Eastman 2-D from Jim Galli for $175; A Calumet C-1 8x10 with a nice 10" (240mm) Kodak Commercial Ektar with several boxes of out of date film for $350 (pinholed bellows I repaired) for $350; and the stellar find, a near mint 8x10 Sinar Norma for $580. While the cameras other than the Norma were not perfect, they were all very usable.

Just keep your eyes open, for the price of a Bessa you can be shooting with a real camera. It just takes patience.

[venchka]

looking through an 8x10 groundglass is as revelatory as looking through a rangefinder. accept no substitutions! ;)

I'm sure you are correct. In fact, I know you are correct.

Then I looked into a 12"x20" groundglass. To quote the younger set...

"OH

MY

GOD"

:cool:;)

[x-ray]

Dave, I platinum print and have for many years. I shoot 3-1/4x4-1/4, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 and have shot considerable 11x14. I have no issues shooting 3x4 and making platinums. I love small images which is a matter of preference but I also love large prints. I sell a considerable number of 4x5 platinums through my galleries so there must be a good number of people who like small prints. Even my gallery in Atlanta is requesting a series of 3x4's which I am starting on.

Not everyone is cut out to shoot LF. 4x5 is easy (all relative) to carry and lenses are cheaper than 8x10 lenses and somewhat smaller. /when I carry my 4x5 Ebony out it weighs in at a reasonable weight that I can carry all day. Remember you have lenses, film holders or film and change tent, a stable tripod and head and meter. When I carry my 8x10 Deardorff out with all the goodies it gets really heavy and takes a considerable amount of space to transport. Just guessing I would say my 8x10 kit weighs well over 100 pounds and my 4x5 somewhat under 25 pounds. I also have a K B Canham wood 5x7 and lenses that probably weighs in at $35 pounds and the tripod for my 5x7 is the same as my 4x5 and many of the lenses will double between 4x5 and 5x7. Holders are larger but not like 8x10. I love 5x7 and shoot quite a bit but emulsion types are more limited for 5x7 vs 4x5 or 8x10 and of course the cost increases substantially as the format increases in size. My suggestion would be to buy a reasonably priced 4x5 and see if you like LF and can deal with platinum's issues. Remember a 25ml bottle of platinum is $200 and this won't go very far if you do 8x10 even if you do a 50/50 Pt/Pd mix. Learning with 8x10 at this kind of cost is very expensive. You will have many failures before you get a good keeper and platinum requires quite a long learning period. Even reading books and taking courses you will not make great prints for some time.

I think the Zone VI is actually a Wista. Wista, Zone VI, Shen Hao, Canham, Ebony and many more are superb cameras. If you're learning look at an old ansco, korona, empire state or Kodak 2D and pick up a good lens that's a common FL like a 150 or 210 symmar or symmar-s, Nikkor w, Fujinon w, Ektar, Wollensak Raptar or Rodenstock Serinar. Prices are dirt cheap ( all relative) and can often be purchased for less than older vintage lenses Like Dagors, Cooke, Protars and Turner Reich lenses. MY suggestion would be to stay away from odd sizes like full plate. Film is hard to find and sometimes not available at all plus it's a rather obscure format now and could vanish form production at any time. It's my understanding that the more obscure formats are only produced once a year and only if enough sells from the previous run. Only one or two companies make those formats and you may only find one or two emulsions available like Efke 100 and HP5. The cost of these special cut films are higher too.

I was in Nashville a couple of weeks ago and there was a major photographic exhibition for the Eastman House. It covered the history of photography from the beginning to now. Remember many of the very prized images of the early years were 1/4 plate or even smaller. Edward Weston only contact printed and not only shot 8x10 but a great deal of 4x5 in his graflex slr. In the show were a number of 4x5 and 3x4 prints by Lewis Hine including the boiler maker image and one from the Empire State Building construction series.

[sepiareverb]

Forgot about the holders x-ray- that's where the bite is for 810.

[chippy]

x-ray, whilst overall i agree with your post and shooting 4x5 is an ideal place to start for a number of reasons, i have to come to the defence of whole plate format.

whole plate film is actually cheaper than 8x10 (as it should be) not a lot, but more or less relative to its size compared to 8x10.

whole plate lately it seems is enjoying a resurgence if anything and not a decline, i actually have more difficulty obtaining 3.25x4.25 (quarter plate) than whole plate film..and their are a couple of camera makers building new full plate cameras as well.

as long as film is available then so will whole plate size be i am sure. many more people now are mentioning they prefer the classic dimentions of whole plate.

at the moment whole plate film can be obtained from a number of sources world wide, FP4, HP5, Foma, TMY 400, Efke and Wephoto, all year round, will cut any size film format if they dont have it on their shelf. they have whole plate in 25ASA as well 100ASA and 200ASA. on other occassions there are some other emulsions available from various places.

if all one has or can obtain is 8x10 then of course it can be trimmed but another usefull method is to make a simple adapter to put in the whole plate film holder (assuming you dont want to buy these holders new that ebony make) to make use of a sheet of 8x10. as you can see you end up with one conventional size for whatever and one panoramic format. these formats are quite usefull in that they fit on the epson flat bed scanners and fit within its zone to make use of the second scanner which increases the resolution to the scanner highest capability

http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk67/retrotography/8x10_cut.gif

[x-ray]

3x4 is almost dead as far as format goes. There's only one film, Efke 100 but it's a good film and if I want other emulsions I can cut 4x5 down too. I use Efke 100 because 3x4 isn't a serious format for me and I have a wide array of other formats I usually shoot. No big loss if 3x4 goes away because 4x5 is relatively cheap and cameras are cheap too.

No question there are a few people shooting whole plate but only a few compared to other formats. Cameras aren't cheap as a rule and good used holders are hard to come by and new are very expensive. Just guessing I would say the are in the $300 range per holder but I may be wrong. 4x5 holders are dirt cheap and even 8x10 are cheaper new than whole plate and many are available in great condition used for around $50-70 each. Again consider the cost of platinum. Don't get me wrong I think whole plate is a great size but not a good value for the average guy. Why not just go to 8x10?

[Nokton48]

The Sinar Norma.
A Monorail type, hundreds of original parts available. 6x6cm (with Rapid Adapter!) up to 8x10. I have several Normas, and most of the original accessories. Here's one set-up for 5x7, with my -new- Sinar Symmar Norma 360mm lens, mounted on a Sinar Aperture-Control board (the deluxe setup which interacts with the Norma shutter, through steel cables, running front to back):

[dazedgonebye]

I don't think I'll be following the path to larger and larger negatives...I hope I don't.
Of course, 35mm led to 6x9 and recently to 4x5. I plan to put the brakes on hard by 5x7!

I agree with x-ray on the beauty of small contact prints.

[venchka]

I don't understand why 5x7 fell out of favor. It really is a perfect size. More than ample size for contact printing. Equipment cost and size not much more than 4x5. I suppose the abudance of 4x5 enlargers swayed people to 4x5.

I have seen, actually held, platinum prints "up close and personal". Matt Magruder's 12x20 prints are stupifying. The cost does seem prohibitive. Vandyke brown prints are substantially less expensive. While not unattractive, the few I have seen lacked that special something you find in a platinum print. I had the good fortune to meet and talk with Richard Sullivan of Bostick & Sullivan. Richard had several of his carbon transfer prints side by side with Matt's platinum prints. While different, the carbon process holds it's own next to platinum and vice versa. In fact, the two processes compliment each other. I investigated the cost and it seems quite reasonable. If you make your own carbon tissue the cost is very low. If you skip that step and buy Richard's perfectly made carbon tissue, the cost is still reasonable. The trade off between carbon transfer and platinum is the increased labor. I for one could more easily find the time for carbon transfer than I could find the money for platinum. I am definitely in the early stage of heading in the direction of making carbon transfer prints.

GOOGLE carbon transfer printing. Sandy King has some good information on the web. Bostick & Sullivan sell the papers, carbon tissue and chemicals. They also have a nice line of contact frames required for either process.

The best part is that you don't need a real darkroom for platinum or carbon transfer printing. I also second the idea of printing small and intimate. The mass market photo labs sold a zillion 3x5 snapshot prints and even smaller from 120 & 620. 4x5 contact prints have an amazing amount of detail and tonality.

Go big or go home!

[Benjamin Marks]

There is a lot of good advice in the thread above. I find 4x5 contact prints to be very enjoyable. In fact, a Crown Graphic with a 127mm Ektar in supermatic shutter, 4x5 holders could have you contact printing 4x5s on 5x7 paper less expensively than almost any other film-to-finished print option. Of course there are a lot of practical problems to solve, but that, I am tempted to say, is half the fun. 8x10 is gorgeous, but not necessary to get into this form of photography. The contacted printed negative, even at 4x5 can be very beautiful. Skin tones in LF are closer to what I experience looking across the table at someone than any camera/lens combination. My first LF camera was a Speed Graphic and I can still remember my jaw hitting the floor when I saw my first contact prints. Good luck!

Ben Marks

[Trius]

I agree with with x-ray (who has some of the best real-world experience on this forum) and Venchka/Wayne.

I would start with 4x5 to see if LF is going to be "it" for you, Dave. (Not that you would give up other formats/RF, of course.) It is pretty easy to move up to 8x10, including selling the 4x5 gear if you don't want to retain it. There are relatively more buyers for 4x5 than 8x10. I'm a small guy and have a mobility disability, so 8x10 is out of the question for me, even though I would love to make 8x10 contact prints in PL/PD.

But x-ray makes a great point that "small" prints can be equally satisfying. In fact, it may even stretch one's seeing more. Making a photo/composition that works as a small print is, for me, often more difficult than a larger print ... forces you to simplify, to exclude the extraneous. YMMV.

I have a Zone VI tripod and the Zone VI 4x5 bag, and a couple of other Picker products. The Zone VI cameras went through various versions and manufacturers. The reviews I've read give the various versions varying marks, and I would venture to say that unless a used one is in pristine condition, it may not be the best value. I have a Toyo 45A, which is a very sturdy metal field camera. Not the lightest, but not the heaviest, and damned near indestructible.

Good luck,

Earl

[Gumby]

I would start with 4x5 to see if LF is going to be "it" for you, Dave.
(snip)
But x-ray makes a great point that "small" prints can be equally satisfying. In fact, it may even stretch one's seeing more.

I agree, and I agree. The advantage to starting with 4x5 is that the film is fairly easily available in a wide variety of emulsions and more affordable to experiment with than 8x10.

Does anyone know about digital generation of larger negs - conversion of 4x5 to... ?

[venchka]

One of these days I will have a few decent 4x5 negatives and begin to attemp to make a larger digital negative on OHP film. Some folks do it and rave about the process. Some folks say don't even think about it. With that kind of disparity, you got to wonder what's going on. I guess the printer and ink have much to do with it. I don't plan very big enlargements at first. 5x7, or the rough equivalent in the 4x5 aspect ratio, will be fine. If that works, I may try larger. I shall see for myself.

Does anyone here have hands on experience with carbon transfer printing?

[Gumby]

Does anyone here have hands on experience with carbon transfer printing?

That's my current interest but, no, never done it. Carbon prints are stunning. So stunning that I fear smaller (4x5) may not be very effective. I've found 4x5 to work well in cyano and gum-bi, but less so in Pt.

[venchka]

Keep me posted. I am very interested.

[Jamie Pillers]

Dave and the rest of you,
This thread has me thinking again (hopefully more clearly each time I delve into these thoughts) about what kind of photography do I REALLY love to do, and what equipment do I need to do that. Recently I've been coming to the conclusion that I don't need the rangefinder equipment... my old SLR equipment serves those purposes just fine.

But for working slowly and with much contemplation out in the landscape, a 5x7 sounds nice. I tried a 4x5 for a bit some years ago and liked it. But I always wanted to do contact platinum/palladium contact prints and I think 5x7 is a much better compromise for that. So, I have a question for you all: Is there still a significant range of film choices in the 5x7 format? From what I see these days, it seems like the film companies are cutting back to the 4x5 format. True?

Jamie

[venchka]

Jamie,

I don't look at 5x7 stock. Search at B&H, Freestyle, Badger Graphics, Bostick & Sullivan and anywhere else you can think of. Also, ask this question at the Large Format Photography Forum. 30 days after joining that forum you can watch the for sale ads. 5x7 cameras and holders come up and are sold in a heartbeat. Somebody always wants 5x7. Good luck.

That said, all you really need is one emulsion and one developer. I'm sure you can find a ready supply of at least one emulsion. Some flavor of Pyro would be nice. Those are readily available.

[venchka]

I just checked Freestyle. They have more 5x7 film than you could use in several lifetimes. No worries!

[Jamie Pillers]

Thank you Venchka. After I sell off the RF equipment, I'll have a look at the sites you recommended.

By the way, I notice we're the same age. I wonder if mid-life brings on the need for quieter, slower contemplation... thus the larger format. Hmmm...
Jamie

[venchka]

You think? Or the need to make amends for mistakes made in our misbegotten youth? Whatever the reason, better late than never. The iorny is that we were much more capapble of toting this stuff when we were too young and too stupid to appreciate it.

[x-ray]

There's plenty of selection in 5x7 emulsions. I shoot a couple of emulsions and have problems getting it as is the case at the moment. It's due to higher demand for the format than there has been for many years. I purchased a K B Canham 5x7 / 4x5 last year and shoot a considerable amount of film through it. It's nice to see the format popular again.

If there's any question about the value or credability of 4x5 platinums I received an email from one of my galleries today that they just sold 5 of my 4x5's at $500 each to one collector. My 4x5 platinums have become very popular.

This past summer I was in Carmel and in the Weston Gallery. I have always admired the work of Ryuiji who does stunning platinums. I purchased one of his Ice Forms images of tulips. These are 4x5 platinum prints and are stunning. Here's a link to his work:

http://www.westongallery.com/ryuijie2.htm

It strictly a personal thing about (print) size. ;<) No one can tell you what will satisfy you as an artist but I would still suggest starting small and if you get along with the camera and process then move up.

As to digital negs, I was with Kim Weston (grandson of Edward) this past summer and working on platinum printing. I printed a digital neg of one of his images. The neg was done by Graham Nash (yes of Crosby, Stills and Nash) and done the way they should be done and the prints were stunning. I'm not that good at digital neg making because I haven't invested the time but plan to. I've also seen some large prints made from digital negs from scanned 8x10 B&W and the are superb. The gallery in Atlanta that I'm in sells some from a fellow that a professor at a university in NC. I believe he's at Duke but don't know much about him other than his work is superb. These are the best I've seen but as a rule believe an original silver gelatin neg will yield more depth in the final print. I'm investigating having Chicago Albumen Works make some digital silver gelatin negs made of some of my images and see how they work. They will provide a range of negs optimized for the process you are using. For example pure platinum requires a neg that will print normally on a #0 to 1 silver gelatin paper in order to print with normal contrast. Palladium is even flatter but richer and much warmer in tone. My personal likes are for an 11:1 mixture of Palladium to Platinum which requires a neg that would be almost unprintable on SG paper and require a 1/2 grade. It's possible to print flatter negs but they are not as good even with contrast adjustments in the emulsion.

IMO platinum printing is about as much fun as you can have with your clothes on so buy a couple of books, take a seminar or class and start slow bex=cause you'll make a stack of mistakes. Platinum isn't like SG printing. It's more art than science with relative humidity in the room being a factor, the type of paper you use (very very particular process about the paper issues), the ratio of Pd/Pd, your light source, your neg, developer choice and temp of developer, the way you coat the paper and the toxicity of chemicals. These are the things that keep it interesting and fun because the final print is unique to your style.

A final point, not all photographic films will work for platinum. For example Tmax 100 has a UV coating on it that prevents the platinum emulsion from being exposed but Tmax 400 works fine. Many things to learn and I'm still learning.

[sepiareverb]

http://www.colorcarbonprint.com/

Indeed the most incredible color print I've ever seen. The Kodachrome of prints.

[Gumby]

... they just sold 5 of my 4x5's at $500 each to one collector.

OK... my opinion of smaller Pt prints just changed!

[venchka]

Don,

Thank you so much! You really are an inspiration. I genuinely appreciate the fact that you share your experience freely with the rest of us. Thank you!

How do you present your 4x5 prints? I assume they are matted. How large do you usually make the mats for a 4x5 print?

[chippy]

Don't get me wrong I think whole plate is a great size but not a good value for the average guy. Why not just go to 8x10?

well equally i dont have anything against 8x10, and i guess an individuals reasons for choosing different formats are as varied as there are people. If it wasnt for the fact that i got my whole plate Ruby to begin with, for largely my wooden vintage/antique collection i would not of considered it viable myself against 8x10, but now that i have used it i find i like it more, so much so that if i was buying new now i would seriously consider buying whole plate over 8x10. not that the size doesnt have some quirks to deal with in todays world with materials but they arnt too much of problem in reality, but a few reasons that i prefer whole plate over 8x10;

i prefer the aspect ratio for many situations, i think it came from the original fellas with deregeotypes (spelling yeah i know) that used Leonardo DaVinci formular for the best apect ratio. for head and shoulder portrait i sometimes prefer 8x10 but i find enlarging 4x5 (or 9x12) works well for me in these situations. for contact prints the whole plate is a very nice size.

set up cost wise, second hand i keep a relatively sharp eye out on whole plate and 8x10 (no idea why!) and i find that whole plate is by far cheaper in most instances (new is not much different but usualy a bit cheaper). holders dont come up often but again on occasion i have bought and seen them sell for $20-40, thats not to say some dont go dearer.

prices for lenses are akin to saying how long is a peice of string but there are a number of lenses to be had cheap and some lenses that are suited for 5x7 will just cover whole plate. I find a whole plate set up is lighter than 8x10 as well, all things being equal but it would depend on the maker of course and weight is lighter for 8x10 holders if you are using modern plastic holders.

for enlarging (particulary colour) at home the cut down 8x10 sheets to the size i mentioned earlier makes best use of the epson flat bed scanner capabilities for resolution, as opposed to less scanning a full sheet of 8x10 and for black and white contact prints i like whole plate, which makes a whole plate camera quite versitile i think.

so whilst at the moment i shoot an aray of formats i find i like 9x12 (the cameras are just so small, easy and portable) 4x5 for its all round versiltility, i dont bother with 5x7 or half plate much (just for fun, same with 1/4 plate) and prefer to skip the size. whole plate more than 8x10 and I am on the look out for something like 12x20 now, again skipping a few sizes, that should be fun, where does it stop eh...i have even been considering buildng my own 20x24 lately but trying to wiegh up just how much and in what situations i would use it... of course this isnt for plat. printing lol

[Trius]

What? No PT/PD 20x24 prints? Slacker.

[x-ray]

I present my 4x5's in a 100% acid free natural white cotton rag mat. Usually 11x14 with a 1/2 to 1 inch open area around the print. I usually leave about two inches extra white paper that the image is on around each side so as to have only the paper the platinum is coated on showing through the window of the mat. I sign just under the print on the paper the print is made on. I don't have one at the moment to scan and show but will in a week so I will try to post one. I use a simple museum black frame made of 1-1/2 inch black wood or one with a slight soft gold edge. It's fairly traditional to frame like this. I like to keep it simple as to not distract from the image.

[jwhitley]

englarging 4x5 negs with enough density for PP printing is tough by digital means.

Huh? I took Ron Reeder's workshop at PCNW last Spring, and it was no problem to get outstanding digital negatives for alt. process printing from Epson 3800 printers. BTW, we used Pictorico OHP, not the more expensive white film, and that worked fine; we were also using Quadtone RIP (QTR) with customized profiles for the printing.

See the book Digital Negatives (http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Negatives-Photoshop-Alternative-Printing/dp/0240808541/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231392167&sr=8-2) by Brad Hinkel and Ron Reeder for more info. Ron also has a ton of great info and updates on topics covered in the book; see http://www.ronreeder.com/, in the articles section.

Also, APUG isn't a resource for digital negative work, but folks there can offer advice and assistance for traditional contact printing and making enlarged negatives for contact printing from smaller formats (again, by traditional darkroom means). You'll need to look to its sister site, http://www.hybridphoto.com/ for discussions and expertise on digital negative work.

[JCT]

I love 4x5 contacts -- something about the intimacy. They remind me of fine jewelry, small and intricate. A little hard to describe (and I'm a little incoherent after a silly day at work) - but they make me work a bit harder (in a good way) -- I find myself digging about trying to see "everything".

Close second is 5x7 -- I've been shooting with an Anba Ikeda, light as a feather. And I love the aspect ratio. I also have an old B&J that I got for a song and am restoring.

Some day I want to learn Pd -- I'm hoping my lab science background is helpful!

But beware the pull of "bigger" -- I stumbled on a stellar deal for a user Deardorff 8x10, just had to buy it. ;)

JT

[x-ray]

I love 4x5 contacts -- something about the intimacy. They remind me of fine jewelry, small and intricate. A little hard to describe (and I'm a little incoherent after a silly day at work) - but they make me work a bit harder (in a good way) -- I find myself digging about trying to see "everything".

Close second is 5x7 -- I've been shooting with an Anba Ikeda, light as a feather. And I love the aspect ratio. I also have an old B&J that I got for a song and am restoring.

Some day I want to learn Pd -- I'm hoping my lab science background is helpful!

But beware the pull of "bigger" -- I stumbled on a stellar deal for a user Deardorff 8x10, just had to buy it. ;)

JT

I agree that the intimacy of 4x5 is part of the charm. Bigger isn't always better. I started working on a series of 3x4 Pt/Pd prints last year and really love the size. Groupings or singles of small prints are stunning IMO.

I do love 5x7 and split my shooting about 50/50 between 4x5 and 5x7 and only take my 8x10 out on rare occasions. I sold my 11x14 and have another that needs a new bellows but haven't gotten the interest up to get it put together. I went through my 8x10 phase many years ago and shot so much in product photography that it lost it's charm. Also now that I'm getting older I don't enjoy lugging the 150 pounds of gear around like I once did. I purchased my 8x10 Deardorff from a fellow photographer back in the early 70's. It was old at the time and had a bad bellows and no front swings. I purchased it for $75 and another $75 of a 165mm Wollensak wide angle. Sold the Wollensak and bought a WA Dagor that I still have and purchased the current front swing mod from Jack Deardorff and a new bellows. I guess I have about $450 in it and have shot probably 10,000 sheets through it. It's still as tough and solid as a new one but looks a little battered as any camera used that much over 70 years or so. I don't want to sell it because I will want to shoot 8x10 again one day but I just can't get the excitement going over the format at the moment. I have to admit that I would like a 7x17 one day. I had a 12x20 but it was too large for me but a nice 7x17 is about the right measure for a nice pano and some stunning Pt/Pd prints.

[Handy]

Huh? I took Ron Reeder's workshop at PCNW last Spring, and it was no problem to get outstanding digital negatives for alt. process printing from Epson 3800 printers. BTW, we used Pictorico OHP, not the more expensive white film, and that worked fine; we were also using Quadtone RIP (QTR) with customized profiles for the printing.

[ZorkiKat]

Whole Plate makes alot of sense. A month ago I was in a museum full of Ansel Adams whole plate contact prints. I could be very happy with a whole plate camera, one lens, 2-3 holders. Sigh...................

Whole Plate as in "Full Plate"? That's only 6.5 x 8.5 inches (16.5 x 21.5 cm), hardly larger than 5X7.:)

I'm using a "Half Plate" wooden camera with a 4X5 reducing back. 5X7 appears to be manageable, and even this can make a 4X5 negative look like a "miniature"...

[35mmdelux]

Just keep your eyes open, for the price of a Bessa you can be shooting with a real camera. It just takes patience.

4x5 contact prints are ok; 8x10 far better. I saw 'dorf 8x10 for $200 in the classifieds a few days ago. gone by now. lowest price ever.

[bmattock]

... or can I accomplish a large 8x10 contact print with the 4x5?:confused:

I'd like to see that, actually.