Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
A SIMPLISTIC approach to exposure...
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
Dec 27, 2020 21:49:03   #
User ID
 
TriX wrote:
I’m almost embarrassed to admit that after >60 years of photography, I have never owned or used a 4X5 (or larger) view camera, but since I have a 4X5 enlarger, I’ve been considering it. Off topic, but do you have a large format recommendation if I decide to try that experience before I die?

Crown Graphic with a 90/6.8 Angulon and a Horseman 6x12 roll holder. This requires, and therefore justifies, your 4x5 enlarger, but avoids sheet film.

The Horseman will cost more than the Graphic but it is soooooo worth it. And yes, acoarst I used one. 6x12 rawks !!!

Another justification for your enlarger is a 3-frame 35mm carrier. A whole roll of 36 enlarged proofs is twelve prints. Cut 8x10 or 11x14 paper in half lengthwise or mask your easel and rotate the uncut paper for 2 exposures per sheet.

Beyond proofing, I also would shoot intentional 3-frame sequences or arranged abutments of content and shapes. Full frame (15 or 16mm) fisheyes would look great ganged in triptychs. I prolly still have the hogged out Omega-D carrier somewhere. You wouldn’t even need to buy a camera ... although once you get into it you’ll want a half frame camera for 6-frame “hextychs”, or is it “sextychs” ?

Reply
Dec 27, 2020 22:11:00   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
User ID wrote:
Crown Graphic with a 90/6.8 Angulon and a Horseman 6x12 roll holder. This requires, and therefore justifies, your 4x5 enlarger, but avoids sheet film.

The Horseman will cost more than the Graphic but it is soooooo worth it. And yes, acoarst I used one. 6x12 rawks !!!


Thank you both for the excellent information.

Reply
Dec 27, 2020 22:15:59   #
User ID
 
TriX wrote:
Thank you both for the excellent information.

I was prolly still adding crazy good stuff after you read my post. Go back to it and check it out the edited version :-)

Reply
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Dec 27, 2020 22:33:28   #
User ID
 
lamiaceae wrote:
I had two 4x5" enlargers but gave both away when we moved. I have two 4x5" cameras still. A studio rail type Omega View, very similar to a Toyo. My other is an old Gunlach wooden field camera. The "leica" of view cameras are the Sinar and Linhof. With view cameras the brand mean little as the camera is just a means of holding the lens and shutter, and to hold the film in place. The main issue is the view camera needs to be steady yet have smooth and precise movements. Not all that hard to achieve. Other used view cameras like Calumet, Burke & James, B&J, and Kodak are fine to use. Wista, other kits can be good but not all models and new wooden cameras are expensive. Look for used in general. What is most important is good glass, same as always. For large format lenses like Schneider and Nikon. There are also Rodenstock, Calumet, and Kodak (old). I prefer Copal shutters, but I also have Compur. These days when I shoot 4x5 I scan the film and then work digitally.
I had two 4x5" enlargers but gave both away w... (show quote)

Imagine if view cameras were in very common use ... UHH would have 15-page threads that argue base tilt vs axis tilt and flatbed vs monorail and the same crap would reoccur every few weeks over the same topic. The Grahic users could sneer at the Linhof users and the Wannabees Club could lecture noobies about stuff as if they were experts but really getting it all bass ackwards while pretending that basic principles are quantum theory. They’d prolly discuss the “crop factors” of various rollfilm adapter formats. “A 65 is really a 90 except when it’s a 120 .... “ and what about the “nifty one-fifty” cult ?

Reply
Dec 27, 2020 22:36:55   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
User ID wrote:
I was prolly still adding crazy good stuff after you read my post. Go back to it and check it out the edited version :-)


Excellent ideas - never thought of using the 4x5 carrier that way (with appropriate modifications/insert)! It’s a Bessler 45 MXII with a dichro head, an APO Rodagon and various carriers . I also have a 67 dichro that I need to get rid of. Much appreciated information.

Reply
Dec 27, 2020 22:56:20   #
User ID
 
TriX wrote:
Excellent ideas - never thought of using the 4x5 carrier that way (with appropriate modifications)! It’s a Bessler 45 MXII with a dichro head, an APO Rodagon and various carriers . I also have a 67 dichro that I need to get rid of. Much appreciated information.


If you wanna use my extended 35mm 3-frame carrier you’ll hafta get an Onega or I could ship you mine, just pay for crating and freight !

In the early days of digital conversion from film I actually hoped there would be a digitizing easel for existing enlargers ... some kinda scanneresque thing but without it’s own light source. I have no doubt that it could work. But obviously the market went elsewhere.

Not only do I know it would work, but I had already used its precursor. I made 35mm B&W positives and internegs by substituting a Nikon body without its prism in place of the enlarging easel. Just takes a whole lotta lens extension to get rollfilm reduced to 35mm format !!! Like a duping rig built upside down. IIRC I swapped the 80 or the 50 onto the cone from the 150.

Reply
Dec 27, 2020 23:20:52   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
User ID wrote:
If you wanna use my extended 35mm 3-frame carrier you’ll hafta get an Onega or I could ship you mine, just pay for crating and freight !

In the early days of digital conversion from film I actually hoped there would be a digitizing easel for existing enlargers ... some kinda scanneresque thing but without it’s own light source. I have no doubt that it could work. But obviously the market went elsewhere.

Not only do I know it would work, but I had already used its precursor. I made 35mm B&W positives and internegs by substituting a Nikon body without its prism in place of the enlarging easel. Just takes a whole lotta lens extension to get rollfilm reduced to 35mm format !!! Like a duping rig built upside down. IIRC I swapped the 80 or the 50 onto the cone from the 150.
If you wanna use my extended 35mm 3-frame carrier ... (show quote)


Interesting that I had the same idea, I actually tried modifying a scanner, removing the light source and projecting the enlarger image onto the open bed. It’s been decades, but as I recall, the issue was not enough light output from the enlarger, among other things. Anyway, so far from anything usable that I didn’t pursue it further. I probably should have projected the image onto a ground glass screen on the scanner bed.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.