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?

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



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:

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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...................

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]

Originally Posted by aizan

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"

[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

[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