Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Question from a non-lf user.
Question from a non-lf user.
I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them. (I also
took the NYIP course, and the old National Camera Camera Repair course - now
defunct) but I have a few questions that I have wondered about. If you
don't do your own developing and printing, how do you send the exposed
pictures in to a lab? To take the picture you load the film in the holders,
but do you send the holders to a lab then? If not is there some sort of
light tight envelope that you can get? I have the catalog from FreeStyle
but haven't seen anything like that in there. I don't know if I would like
LF photography and would not want to invest in all the darkroom stuff if I
was going to only try it for a few years, and then give it up for MF or just
35mm. Also, on average if you wanted to take lets say six portrait shots of
a model, how long would it take you to focus, drop in the film and go
through the whole process of getting six great shots off. The books I
bought are "Using The View Camera" by Steve Simmons and "Large Format
Photography" by Jack Dykinga. Also one more question, how close can a view
camera focus for macro work? The average 50mm lense on a 35mm will get down
to about 18 inches with out any closeup filters or a macro lense. I have
seen close up pictures but nothing is said as to how close you can really
get. Oh, one more question, the reason I'm interested in LF is because I
don't like the results I have seen of 35mm shots being blown up to 16X 20.
I would really like to have enlargements made and not look soft. (Although
I do have one that is a 20 X 30 or so and it is really sharp. I must have
got the dof just right. Right now I'm using Minolta X-700's. If these are
dumb questions, perhaps you could suggest a book that will cover these
questions for a very simple minded person line me. Thanks. Ric in
Wisconsin.
I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them. (I also
took the NYIP course, and the old National Camera Camera Repair course - now
defunct) but I have a few questions that I have wondered about. If you
don't do your own developing and printing, how do you send the exposed
pictures in to a lab? To take the picture you load the film in the holders,
but do you send the holders to a lab then? If not is there some sort of
light tight envelope that you can get? I have the catalog from FreeStyle
but haven't seen anything like that in there. I don't know if I would like
LF photography and would not want to invest in all the darkroom stuff if I
was going to only try it for a few years, and then give it up for MF or just
35mm. Also, on average if you wanted to take lets say six portrait shots of
a model, how long would it take you to focus, drop in the film and go
through the whole process of getting six great shots off. The books I
bought are "Using The View Camera" by Steve Simmons and "Large Format
Photography" by Jack Dykinga. Also one more question, how close can a view
camera focus for macro work? The average 50mm lense on a 35mm will get down
to about 18 inches with out any closeup filters or a macro lense. I have
seen close up pictures but nothing is said as to how close you can really
get. Oh, one more question, the reason I'm interested in LF is because I
don't like the results I have seen of 35mm shots being blown up to 16X 20.
I would really like to have enlargements made and not look soft. (Although
I do have one that is a 20 X 30 or so and it is really sharp. I must have
got the dof just right. Right now I'm using Minolta X-700's. If these are
dumb questions, perhaps you could suggest a book that will cover these
questions for a very simple minded person line me. Thanks. Ric in
Wisconsin.
Re: Question from a non-lf user.
Hi Ric,
Where are you located in WI?
I use a changing tent to load and unload film. I just use an empty film
box to take exposed sheets to my local lab (I do develop my own B&W sheets
using trays). You can get the "light tight" envelopes you speak of. Fuji
offers Quickload film and Kodak offers Readyload film. As you can
imagine, using these systems make things much more convenient. But film
in these formats costs 2x as much.
The time it takes to set up a single shot depends on if you are using view
camera movements or not. To just set up a simple landscape shot with no
movements, I can start from folded up tripod/camera to exposure in about
2-3 minutes. To make another exposure after already focused and setup
takes only about 5-10 seconds to flip the film holder and fire off the
shutter. To re-focus, I would need to remove the film holder, open the
shutter, and grab the dark-cloth.
If I'm using movements, sometimes I take 10 minutes or more to figure out
my movements and focus.
For macro, it all depends on the length of the bellows. I don't do much
macro, but I'm pretty sure I can make a life-sized photo with my 150mm
lens and a typical field-camera bellows.
--Mike
On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:54:49 -0500, Ric Trexell wrote:
> I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them. (I also
> took the NYIP course, and the old National Camera Camera Repair course - now
> defunct) but I have a few questions that I have wondered about. If you
> don't do your own developing and printing, how do you send the exposed
> pictures in to a lab? To take the picture you load the film in the holders,
> but do you send the holders to a lab then? If not is there some sort of
> light tight envelope that you can get? I have the catalog from FreeStyle
> but haven't seen anything like that in there. I don't know if I would like
> LF photography and would not want to invest in all the darkroom stuff if I
> was going to only try it for a few years, and then give it up for MF or just
> 35mm. Also, on average if you wanted to take lets say six portrait shots of
> a model, how long would it take you to focus, drop in the film and go
> through the whole process of getting six great shots off. The books I
> bought are "Using The View Camera" by Steve Simmons and "Large Format
> Photography" by Jack Dykinga. Also one more question, how close can a view
> camera focus for macro work? The average 50mm lense on a 35mm will get down
> to about 18 inches with out any closeup filters or a macro lense. I have
> seen close up pictures but nothing is said as to how close you can really
> get. Oh, one more question, the reason I'm interested in LF is because I
> don't like the results I have seen of 35mm shots being blown up to 16X 20.
> I would really like to have enlargements made and not look soft. (Although
> I do have one that is a 20 X 30 or so and it is really sharp. I must have
> got the dof just right. Right now I'm using Minolta X-700's. If these are
> dumb questions, perhaps you could suggest a book that will cover these
> questions for a very simple minded person line me. Thanks. Ric in
> Wisconsin.
Hi Ric,
Where are you located in WI?
I use a changing tent to load and unload film. I just use an empty film
box to take exposed sheets to my local lab (I do develop my own B&W sheets
using trays). You can get the "light tight" envelopes you speak of. Fuji
offers Quickload film and Kodak offers Readyload film. As you can
imagine, using these systems make things much more convenient. But film
in these formats costs 2x as much.
The time it takes to set up a single shot depends on if you are using view
camera movements or not. To just set up a simple landscape shot with no
movements, I can start from folded up tripod/camera to exposure in about
2-3 minutes. To make another exposure after already focused and setup
takes only about 5-10 seconds to flip the film holder and fire off the
shutter. To re-focus, I would need to remove the film holder, open the
shutter, and grab the dark-cloth.
If I'm using movements, sometimes I take 10 minutes or more to figure out
my movements and focus.
For macro, it all depends on the length of the bellows. I don't do much
macro, but I'm pretty sure I can make a life-sized photo with my 150mm
lens and a typical field-camera bellows.
--Mike
On Tue, 22 May 2007 19:54:49 -0500, Ric Trexell wrote:
> I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them. (I also
> took the NYIP course, and the old National Camera Camera Repair course - now
> defunct) but I have a few questions that I have wondered about. If you
> don't do your own developing and printing, how do you send the exposed
> pictures in to a lab? To take the picture you load the film in the holders,
> but do you send the holders to a lab then? If not is there some sort of
> light tight envelope that you can get? I have the catalog from FreeStyle
> but haven't seen anything like that in there. I don't know if I would like
> LF photography and would not want to invest in all the darkroom stuff if I
> was going to only try it for a few years, and then give it up for MF or just
> 35mm. Also, on average if you wanted to take lets say six portrait shots of
> a model, how long would it take you to focus, drop in the film and go
> through the whole process of getting six great shots off. The books I
> bought are "Using The View Camera" by Steve Simmons and "Large Format
> Photography" by Jack Dykinga. Also one more question, how close can a view
> camera focus for macro work? The average 50mm lense on a 35mm will get down
> to about 18 inches with out any closeup filters or a macro lense. I have
> seen close up pictures but nothing is said as to how close you can really
> get. Oh, one more question, the reason I'm interested in LF is because I
> don't like the results I have seen of 35mm shots being blown up to 16X 20.
> I would really like to have enlargements made and not look soft. (Although
> I do have one that is a 20 X 30 or so and it is really sharp. I must have
> got the dof just right. Right now I'm using Minolta X-700's. If these are
> dumb questions, perhaps you could suggest a book that will cover these
> questions for a very simple minded person line me. Thanks. Ric in
> Wisconsin.
Re: Question from a non-lf user.
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
>I have been interested in LF cameras . Also one more question, how close
>can a view
> camera focus for macro work?
One question that hasn't been answered for you yet,
A given focal length lens will focus at 1:1 (life size image) at twice it's
focal length. So how 'close up' you can go with a given lens depends on the
bellows length on the camera that you have. A 4x5 normal lens is nominally
6", so at 1:1 it would require 12" of bellows. It follows then that shorter
lenses would generate a greater 'magnification' of a subject with the same
length bellows, than a longer lens would. Don't expect lots of depth of
field at 1:1. Different focal length lenses will have different
perspectives at 1:1. Don't forget to compensate for the length of bellows
in figuring the needed exposure.
One way of looking at this trade off is that some cameras have a bellows
that is about 12" which could be handy to carry around, as in a 'field
camera', while a view camera with 16" or 22" bellows might be more flexible
in handling macro/close up chores, longer focal length lenses, or using
extensive movements. The longer bellows don't compress well for use with
short lens and infringe on movements ... so if you're planning a lot of
architectural work with 75mm and 90mm lenses you might prefer a 'bag
bellows'. Some cameras have modular system to accommodate various needs,
others have fixed bellows. Choices to be made.
Steve Simmons' book does cover these issues under close up cameras on p19,
calculating exposure on p70, and other places. Lots of 'treasures' to be
found in it.
Good Luck
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
>I have been interested in LF cameras . Also one more question, how close
>can a view
> camera focus for macro work?
One question that hasn't been answered for you yet,
A given focal length lens will focus at 1:1 (life size image) at twice it's
focal length. So how 'close up' you can go with a given lens depends on the
bellows length on the camera that you have. A 4x5 normal lens is nominally
6", so at 1:1 it would require 12" of bellows. It follows then that shorter
lenses would generate a greater 'magnification' of a subject with the same
length bellows, than a longer lens would. Don't expect lots of depth of
field at 1:1. Different focal length lenses will have different
perspectives at 1:1. Don't forget to compensate for the length of bellows
in figuring the needed exposure.
One way of looking at this trade off is that some cameras have a bellows
that is about 12" which could be handy to carry around, as in a 'field
camera', while a view camera with 16" or 22" bellows might be more flexible
in handling macro/close up chores, longer focal length lenses, or using
extensive movements. The longer bellows don't compress well for use with
short lens and infringe on movements ... so if you're planning a lot of
architectural work with 75mm and 90mm lenses you might prefer a 'bag
bellows'. Some cameras have modular system to accommodate various needs,
others have fixed bellows. Choices to be made.
Steve Simmons' book does cover these issues under close up cameras on p19,
calculating exposure on p70, and other places. Lots of 'treasures' to be
found in it.
Good Luck
Re: Question from a non-lf user.
Ric,
I went to 4x5 in 1989 and never looked back. Two reasons: clarity with a
life-like quality to my 20x24" prints, and the availability of camera
movements to give me the focal plane that *I* want. No print from 35mm can
give you a print that makes you want to touch it - it's a whole new world
with large format. When people write that they get "tack sharp" 16x20's from
their 35mm, I assert they've never seen a 16x20 from a 4x5.
An option for you is the 6x7cm format. It took me well over a year to choose
4x5" over 6x7cm. I knew 6x7 would give me better quality prints than any
35mm, but I was afraid I'd be too restricted by a 6x7 camera's inabilities
(i.e., the camera movements) compared to large format. Sure, LF can be a
pain in the butt to use, but the results are worth it. I'm looking to create
art that shows the details, texture, and form that I see with my eyes, not
make on the fly (even with tripod, cable release, self-timer set) snapshots
that are flat, soft, and have limited tonal range.
So, 6x7 is more convenient, and a Pentax 67 is known as "35mm on steroids."
That is, the Pentax's operation and shape is very similar to that which you
are already used to - but it's just much bigger. That's the camera I thought
of getting if I didn't get the 4x5. What about the 645 format? For me, 645
isn't enough of a jump from 35mm.
So if it's greatly improved print quality you're looking for, and the
relative convenience of 35mm-like operation, I suggest you consider the 6x7
format.
Howard
Ric,
I went to 4x5 in 1989 and never looked back. Two reasons: clarity with a
life-like quality to my 20x24" prints, and the availability of camera
movements to give me the focal plane that *I* want. No print from 35mm can
give you a print that makes you want to touch it - it's a whole new world
with large format. When people write that they get "tack sharp" 16x20's from
their 35mm, I assert they've never seen a 16x20 from a 4x5.
An option for you is the 6x7cm format. It took me well over a year to choose
4x5" over 6x7cm. I knew 6x7 would give me better quality prints than any
35mm, but I was afraid I'd be too restricted by a 6x7 camera's inabilities
(i.e., the camera movements) compared to large format. Sure, LF can be a
pain in the butt to use, but the results are worth it. I'm looking to create
art that shows the details, texture, and form that I see with my eyes, not
make on the fly (even with tripod, cable release, self-timer set) snapshots
that are flat, soft, and have limited tonal range.
So, 6x7 is more convenient, and a Pentax 67 is known as "35mm on steroids."
That is, the Pentax's operation and shape is very similar to that which you
are already used to - but it's just much bigger. That's the camera I thought
of getting if I didn't get the 4x5. What about the 645 format? For me, 645
isn't enough of a jump from 35mm.
So if it's greatly improved print quality you're looking for, and the
relative convenience of 35mm-like operation, I suggest you consider the 6x7
format.
Howard
Re: Question from a non-lf user.
On May 23, 7:20 am, "Howard Lester" <heyles...@dakotacom . net > wrote:
> Ric,
>
> I went to 4x5 in 1989 and never lookedback. Two reasons: clarity with a
> life-like quality to my 20x24" prints, and the availability of camera
> movements to give me the focal plane that *I* want. No print from 35mm can
> give you a print that makes you want to touch it - it's a whole new world
> with large format. When people write that they get "tack sharp" 16x20's from
> their 35mm, I assert they've never seen a 16x20 from a 4x5.
>
> An option for you is the 6x7cm format. It took me well over a year to choose
> 4x5" over 6x7cm. I knew 6x7 would give me better quality prints than any
> 35mm, but I was afraid I'd be too restricted by a 6x7 camera's inabilities
> (i.e., the camera movements) compared to large format. Sure, LF can be apainin the butt to use, but the results are worth it. I'm looking to create
> art that shows the details, texture, and form that I see with my eyes, not
> make on the fly (even with tripod, cable release, self-timer set) snapshots
> that are flat, soft, and have limited tonal range.
>
> So, 6x7 is more convenient, and a Pentax 67 is known as "35mm on steroids."
> That is, the Pentax's operation and shape is very similar to that which you
> are already used to - but it's just much bigger. That's the camera I thought
> of getting if I didn't get the 4x5. What about the 645 format? For me, 645
> isn't enough of a jump from 35mm.
>
> So if it's greatly improved print quality you're looking for, and the
> relative convenience of 35mm-like operation, I suggest you consider the 6x7
> format.
>
> Howard
Dear
I ran into your message quite accidentally while researching about
some details on 'Diabetes' and thought of sharing some of my findings.
I've read at ' * w w w .medical-health-care-information . com /Health-
living/Diabetes/index.asp
that Diabetes is a set of related diseases in which the body cannot
regulate the amount of sugar (glucose) in the blood. Diabetes is a set
of related diseases in which the body cannot regulate the amount of
sugar (glucose) in the blood. Insulin allows glucose to move from the
blood into liver, muscle, and fat cells, where it is used for fuel.
People with diabetes either do not produce enough insulin (type 1
diabetes) or cannot use insulin properly (type 2 diabetes), or both.
I hope the above is of some help to you as well. Regards, Sherrybove.
On May 23, 7:20 am, "Howard Lester" <heyles...@dakotacom . net > wrote:
> Ric,
>
> I went to 4x5 in 1989 and never lookedback. Two reasons: clarity with a
> life-like quality to my 20x24" prints, and the availability of camera
> movements to give me the focal plane that *I* want. No print from 35mm can
> give you a print that makes you want to touch it - it's a whole new world
> with large format. When people write that they get "tack sharp" 16x20's from
> their 35mm, I assert they've never seen a 16x20 from a 4x5.
>
> An option for you is the 6x7cm format. It took me well over a year to choose
> 4x5" over 6x7cm. I knew 6x7 would give me better quality prints than any
> 35mm, but I was afraid I'd be too restricted by a 6x7 camera's inabilities
> (i.e., the camera movements) compared to large format. Sure, LF can be apainin the butt to use, but the results are worth it. I'm looking to create
> art that shows the details, texture, and form that I see with my eyes, not
> make on the fly (even with tripod, cable release, self-timer set) snapshots
> that are flat, soft, and have limited tonal range.
>
> So, 6x7 is more convenient, and a Pentax 67 is known as "35mm on steroids."
> That is, the Pentax's operation and shape is very similar to that which you
> are already used to - but it's just much bigger. That's the camera I thought
> of getting if I didn't get the 4x5. What about the 645 format? For me, 645
> isn't enough of a jump from 35mm.
>
> So if it's greatly improved print quality you're looking for, and the
> relative convenience of 35mm-like operation, I suggest you consider the 6x7
> format.
>
> Howard
Dear
I ran into your message quite accidentally while researching about
some details on 'Diabetes' and thought of sharing some of my findings.
I've read at ' * w w w .medical-health-care-information . com /Health-
living/Diabetes/index.asp
that Diabetes is a set of related diseases in which the body cannot
regulate the amount of sugar (glucose) in the blood. Diabetes is a set
of related diseases in which the body cannot regulate the amount of
sugar (glucose) in the blood. Insulin allows glucose to move from the
blood into liver, muscle, and fat cells, where it is used for fuel.
People with diabetes either do not produce enough insulin (type 1
diabetes) or cannot use insulin properly (type 2 diabetes), or both.
I hope the above is of some help to you as well. Regards, Sherrybove.
Re: Question from a non-lf user.
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
>I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them. (I also
> took the NYIP course, and the old National Camera Camera Repair course -
> now
> defunct) but I have a few questions that I have wondered about. If you
> don't do your own developing and printing, how do you send the exposed
> pictures in to a lab? To take the picture you load the film in the
> holders,
> but do you send the holders to a lab then? If not is there some sort of
> light tight envelope that you can get?
I would hazard a guess that most large format users process their own film.
Otherwise, they save the boxes and packaging that the film comes in, and use
that to take the film to the lab. You also make sure to label the box as to
the film type (since you might not being using the origianl box), and write
the word "Hot" in big letters on the box.
>I have the catalog from FreeStyle
> but haven't seen anything like that in there. I don't know if I would
> like
> LF photography and would not want to invest in all the darkroom stuff if I
> was going to only try it for a few years, and then give it up for MF or
> just
> 35mm. Also, on average if you wanted to take lets say six portrait shots
> of
> a model, how long would it take you to focus, drop in the film and go
> through the whole process of getting six great shots off.
Generally, when you use large format, you are very, very cautious to make
sure that everything- lighting, background, every strand of hair, etc- is
in the right place and looks good, so six shots of a model would be six very
different shots; ie: each one a different pose/set/wardrobe. If you're using
large format, the time involved is not an issue. My guess-- ten minutes plus
per shot, depending on wardrobe changes, set changes, etc..
>The books I
> bought are "Using The View Camera" by Steve Simmons and "Large Format
> Photography" by Jack Dykinga. Also one more question, how close can a
> view
> camera focus for macro work? The average 50mm lense on a 35mm will get
> down
> to about 18 inches with out any closeup filters or a macro lense. I have
> seen close up pictures but nothing is said as to how close you can really
> get.
Depends on how far you can stretch the bellows; and the lens. You may be
able to get extremely close, but the lens might not give the best results,
Also, you will need to provide additional exposure when you rack the bellows
way out.
>Oh, one more question, the reason I'm interested in LF is because I
> don't like the results I have seen of 35mm shots being blown up to 16X 20.
> I would really like to have enlargements made and not look soft.
> (Although
> I do have one that is a 20 X 30 or so and it is really sharp. I must have
> got the dof just right. Right now I'm using Minolta X-700's.
The quality of the negative (and the lab!) determines the quality of the
finished print. A tripod can make a world of difference, and it's pretty
make a requirement with large format.
>If these are
> dumb questions, perhaps you could suggest a book that will cover these
> questions for a very simple minded person line me. Thanks. Ric in
> Wisconsin.
>
What's the line? "The only dumb question is the one that doesn't get asked"
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
>I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them. (I also
> took the NYIP course, and the old National Camera Camera Repair course -
> now
> defunct) but I have a few questions that I have wondered about. If you
> don't do your own developing and printing, how do you send the exposed
> pictures in to a lab? To take the picture you load the film in the
> holders,
> but do you send the holders to a lab then? If not is there some sort of
> light tight envelope that you can get?
I would hazard a guess that most large format users process their own film.
Otherwise, they save the boxes and packaging that the film comes in, and use
that to take the film to the lab. You also make sure to label the box as to
the film type (since you might not being using the origianl box), and write
the word "Hot" in big letters on the box.
>I have the catalog from FreeStyle
> but haven't seen anything like that in there. I don't know if I would
> like
> LF photography and would not want to invest in all the darkroom stuff if I
> was going to only try it for a few years, and then give it up for MF or
> just
> 35mm. Also, on average if you wanted to take lets say six portrait shots
> of
> a model, how long would it take you to focus, drop in the film and go
> through the whole process of getting six great shots off.
Generally, when you use large format, you are very, very cautious to make
sure that everything- lighting, background, every strand of hair, etc- is
in the right place and looks good, so six shots of a model would be six very
different shots; ie: each one a different pose/set/wardrobe. If you're using
large format, the time involved is not an issue. My guess-- ten minutes plus
per shot, depending on wardrobe changes, set changes, etc..
>The books I
> bought are "Using The View Camera" by Steve Simmons and "Large Format
> Photography" by Jack Dykinga. Also one more question, how close can a
> view
> camera focus for macro work? The average 50mm lense on a 35mm will get
> down
> to about 18 inches with out any closeup filters or a macro lense. I have
> seen close up pictures but nothing is said as to how close you can really
> get.
Depends on how far you can stretch the bellows; and the lens. You may be
able to get extremely close, but the lens might not give the best results,
Also, you will need to provide additional exposure when you rack the bellows
way out.
>Oh, one more question, the reason I'm interested in LF is because I
> don't like the results I have seen of 35mm shots being blown up to 16X 20.
> I would really like to have enlargements made and not look soft.
> (Although
> I do have one that is a 20 X 30 or so and it is really sharp. I must have
> got the dof just right. Right now I'm using Minolta X-700's.
The quality of the negative (and the lab!) determines the quality of the
finished print. A tripod can make a world of difference, and it's pretty
make a requirement with large format.
>If these are
> dumb questions, perhaps you could suggest a book that will cover these
> questions for a very simple minded person line me. Thanks. Ric in
> Wisconsin.
>
What's the line? "The only dumb question is the one that doesn't get asked"
Re: Question from a non-lf user......Thank you.
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
> I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them.
*************************************************************************
Thanks to all that responded with answers to my questions. I think I saw my
first 4 X 5 shot when I worked for a short time at a camera shop in
Milwaukee. (No longer there.) A really pretty gal brought in a Polaroid
shot that she wanted dupes made of and I was blown away at the quality of
the Polaroid. (Most guys would try to hit on the girl but I was more
interested in looking at the photo.) One thing I would also like to do is
get back to real photography and not rely on those built in computers to
make all the decisions for me. LF has many benefits that a standard camera
doesn't and I'm sort of at the end of the learning curve with 35mm. Not
that I'm a super duper photographer, but there isn't that drive to learn
35mm photography like there was years ago. Although I have the area for a
dark room and water hook ups, the idea of learning all that for what might
be a few hundred photos a year if that, doesn' t cut it. As this would just
be a hobby investing in thousands to set up a darkroom would kill my desire
to go with LF.
To answer Mike's question, I'm in Berlin Wi. Thanks again all. Ric.
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
> I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them.
*************************************************************************
Thanks to all that responded with answers to my questions. I think I saw my
first 4 X 5 shot when I worked for a short time at a camera shop in
Milwaukee. (No longer there.) A really pretty gal brought in a Polaroid
shot that she wanted dupes made of and I was blown away at the quality of
the Polaroid. (Most guys would try to hit on the girl but I was more
interested in looking at the photo.) One thing I would also like to do is
get back to real photography and not rely on those built in computers to
make all the decisions for me. LF has many benefits that a standard camera
doesn't and I'm sort of at the end of the learning curve with 35mm. Not
that I'm a super duper photographer, but there isn't that drive to learn
35mm photography like there was years ago. Although I have the area for a
dark room and water hook ups, the idea of learning all that for what might
be a few hundred photos a year if that, doesn' t cut it. As this would just
be a hobby investing in thousands to set up a darkroom would kill my desire
to go with LF.
To answer Mike's question, I'm in Berlin Wi. Thanks again all. Ric.
Re: Question from a non-lf user......Thank you.
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:1358nnqb9tk93b7@corp.supernews . com ...
>
> "Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
> news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
>> I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them.
> *************************************************************************
> Thanks to all that responded with answers to my questions. I think I saw
> my
> first 4 X 5 shot when I worked for a short time at a camera shop in
> Milwaukee. (No longer there.) A really pretty gal brought in a Polaroid
> shot that she wanted dupes made of and I was blown away at the quality of
> the Polaroid. (Most guys would try to hit on the girl but I was more
> interested in looking at the photo.) One thing I would also like to do is
> get back to real photography and not rely on those built in computers to
> make all the decisions for me. LF has many benefits that a standard
> camera
> doesn't and I'm sort of at the end of the learning curve with 35mm. Not
> that I'm a super duper photographer, but there isn't that drive to learn
> 35mm photography like there was years ago. Although I have the area for a
> dark room and water hook ups, the idea of learning all that for what might
> be a few hundred photos a year if that, doesn' t cut it. As this would
> just
> be a hobby investing in thousands to set up a darkroom would kill my
> desire
> to go with LF.
> To answer Mike's question, I'm in Berlin Wi. Thanks again all. Ric.
Let me add my two bits to this thread:
First, doing your own processing of bw images allows the individual
treatment of each negative should you desire to do so. Plus and minus
development with concomitant exposures makes for individualized processing.
Color work, I understand, does not allow for such wide variation in
exposure/development. Grab hold of such tomes as Adams' *The Camera*, *The
Negative*, and *The Print* and Schaefer's *Zone System for Fine B&W
Photography*.
Second, with the ever increasing popularity of digital there is much 4x5
equipment on the used market for much less than thousands. The old Omega
and Beseler enlarger standbys can be had for a couple of hundred dollars.
In fact, just the past week or so was a 4x5 Beseler with lens, digital
timer, color analyzer, a color head, and some other miscellaneous goodies
for the grand sum of fifty dollars on Craigslist here in the SF Bay Area.
And these enlargers if properly cared for last and last and last. But hurry
because the supply of such items is not infinite. In fact, you may already
be hard pressed to locate - even on EBay - my favorite processor of 4x5 bw
negatives - the Unicolor 8x10 drum.
Third, darkroom-wise the only marginal cost of working 4x5 bw as compared to
medium format or 35mm is that enlarger and film processing equipment. You
don't have to discard all that medium format or 35mm processing equipment.
Those timers, trays, thermometers, tongs, safelight, etc. can be used for
4x5 work as well.
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:1358nnqb9tk93b7@corp.supernews . com ...
>
> "Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
> news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
>> I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them.
> *************************************************************************
> Thanks to all that responded with answers to my questions. I think I saw
> my
> first 4 X 5 shot when I worked for a short time at a camera shop in
> Milwaukee. (No longer there.) A really pretty gal brought in a Polaroid
> shot that she wanted dupes made of and I was blown away at the quality of
> the Polaroid. (Most guys would try to hit on the girl but I was more
> interested in looking at the photo.) One thing I would also like to do is
> get back to real photography and not rely on those built in computers to
> make all the decisions for me. LF has many benefits that a standard
> camera
> doesn't and I'm sort of at the end of the learning curve with 35mm. Not
> that I'm a super duper photographer, but there isn't that drive to learn
> 35mm photography like there was years ago. Although I have the area for a
> dark room and water hook ups, the idea of learning all that for what might
> be a few hundred photos a year if that, doesn' t cut it. As this would
> just
> be a hobby investing in thousands to set up a darkroom would kill my
> desire
> to go with LF.
> To answer Mike's question, I'm in Berlin Wi. Thanks again all. Ric.
Let me add my two bits to this thread:
First, doing your own processing of bw images allows the individual
treatment of each negative should you desire to do so. Plus and minus
development with concomitant exposures makes for individualized processing.
Color work, I understand, does not allow for such wide variation in
exposure/development. Grab hold of such tomes as Adams' *The Camera*, *The
Negative*, and *The Print* and Schaefer's *Zone System for Fine B&W
Photography*.
Second, with the ever increasing popularity of digital there is much 4x5
equipment on the used market for much less than thousands. The old Omega
and Beseler enlarger standbys can be had for a couple of hundred dollars.
In fact, just the past week or so was a 4x5 Beseler with lens, digital
timer, color analyzer, a color head, and some other miscellaneous goodies
for the grand sum of fifty dollars on Craigslist here in the SF Bay Area.
And these enlargers if properly cared for last and last and last. But hurry
because the supply of such items is not infinite. In fact, you may already
be hard pressed to locate - even on EBay - my favorite processor of 4x5 bw
negatives - the Unicolor 8x10 drum.
Third, darkroom-wise the only marginal cost of working 4x5 bw as compared to
medium format or 35mm is that enlarger and film processing equipment. You
don't have to discard all that medium format or 35mm processing equipment.
Those timers, trays, thermometers, tongs, safelight, etc. can be used for
4x5 work as well.
Re: Question from a non-lf user......Thank you.
Ric Trexell spake thus:
> "Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
> news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
>
>>I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them.
>
> Thanks to all that responded with answers to my questions. [...]
> Although I have the area for a dark room and water hook ups, the idea
> of learning all that for what might be a few hundred photos a year
> if that, doesn' t cut it. As this would just be a hobby investing in
> thousands to set up a darkroom would kill my desire to go with LF.
> To answer Mike's question, I'm in Berlin Wi. Thanks again all.
You're in a similar position to many casual large-format users, giving
you basically two choices:
1. Set up a darkroom and do your own black & white processing, or
2. Shoot color (either negative or reversal) and have a lab do your
processing.
You might want to consider the second one. The materials are more
expensive, though after figuring the cost of a darkroom, they may be
close to equivalent. Remember to include the cost of making prints from
the film. Shooting color negatives may be a good way to get started;
they're more forgiving so far as exposure goes (about as much latitude
as black & white). The problem will be finding someone in your area, or
by mail order, who can make prints from these.
Of course, there's also the "hybrid" (digital/wet film) alternative:
shoot film, then scan it. Lots of ways to skin this cat.
--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "fuck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.
- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
( * users.erols . com /mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)
Ric Trexell spake thus:
> "Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
> news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
>
>>I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them.
>
> Thanks to all that responded with answers to my questions. [...]
> Although I have the area for a dark room and water hook ups, the idea
> of learning all that for what might be a few hundred photos a year
> if that, doesn' t cut it. As this would just be a hobby investing in
> thousands to set up a darkroom would kill my desire to go with LF.
> To answer Mike's question, I'm in Berlin Wi. Thanks again all.
You're in a similar position to many casual large-format users, giving
you basically two choices:
1. Set up a darkroom and do your own black & white processing, or
2. Shoot color (either negative or reversal) and have a lab do your
processing.
You might want to consider the second one. The materials are more
expensive, though after figuring the cost of a darkroom, they may be
close to equivalent. Remember to include the cost of making prints from
the film. Shooting color negatives may be a good way to get started;
they're more forgiving so far as exposure goes (about as much latitude
as black & white). The problem will be finding someone in your area, or
by mail order, who can make prints from these.
Of course, there's also the "hybrid" (digital/wet film) alternative:
shoot film, then scan it. Lots of ways to skin this cat.
--
Any system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order
of use of the word "fuck" is incapable of writing a good summary
and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa.
This is an inviolable rule.
- Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site
( * users.erols . com /mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)
Re: Question from a non-lf user......Thank you.
Hi Ric,
I'm here in Madison. If you are ever in town, I can show you my 4x5
setup.
wrt to setting up a darkroom. It doesn't take much. I use my laundry
room. I acquired an old Omega 4x5 enlarger for $75. A couple trays and
some other miscallaneous stuff and thats pretty much it. I mix my own
developer using mostly Vitamin C from my local healthfood store.
In fact there a listing right now on craigslist for an Omega D2 4x5
enlarger for $25. If you want the exact listing, reply and I can send you
the link.
I've had a lot of fun with 4x5. The fun is more in the process of using
a traditional view camera. It is very mistake prone and I get frustrated
that many of my negatives have flaws in them from developing errors or
dust/crap on the negative. But when I do nail a negative, the result is
very worthwhile.
If you don't mind spending money on lab costs, then 4x5 can be rewarding
and fun without doing any darkroom work. You can shoot color
transparencies to your heart's content. They look stunning on the light
table. Then if you have a winner deserving of a 16x20" print, have the
lab do it. You can also have lots of fun shooting Polaroid Type 55
without a darkroom. This gives you both a negative and a positive.
If you are on a tight budget and don't want to setup a minimal darkroom,
then I would stay clear of 4x5 (and all film photography for that
matter...the only cheap film photography is 35mm and I'm not happy with
35mm minilab quality).
--Mike
Hi Ric,
I'm here in Madison. If you are ever in town, I can show you my 4x5
setup.
wrt to setting up a darkroom. It doesn't take much. I use my laundry
room. I acquired an old Omega 4x5 enlarger for $75. A couple trays and
some other miscallaneous stuff and thats pretty much it. I mix my own
developer using mostly Vitamin C from my local healthfood store.
In fact there a listing right now on craigslist for an Omega D2 4x5
enlarger for $25. If you want the exact listing, reply and I can send you
the link.
I've had a lot of fun with 4x5. The fun is more in the process of using
a traditional view camera. It is very mistake prone and I get frustrated
that many of my negatives have flaws in them from developing errors or
dust/crap on the negative. But when I do nail a negative, the result is
very worthwhile.
If you don't mind spending money on lab costs, then 4x5 can be rewarding
and fun without doing any darkroom work. You can shoot color
transparencies to your heart's content. They look stunning on the light
table. Then if you have a winner deserving of a 16x20" print, have the
lab do it. You can also have lots of fun shooting Polaroid Type 55
without a darkroom. This gives you both a negative and a positive.
If you are on a tight budget and don't want to setup a minimal darkroom,
then I would stay clear of 4x5 (and all film photography for that
matter...the only cheap film photography is 35mm and I'm not happy with
35mm minilab quality).
--Mike
Re: Question from a non-lf user.
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
> I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them.
*******************************************************************
Thanks again for the information and opinions on the LF subject. Thanks
Mike for the offer of seeing your set up. I'll keep you in mind. The issue
for me is quality and whether my developing and printing would come under
that heading. I think just learning the camera would be all I would want to
tackle begining with LF. I did take a b/w developing course while I was in
the Navy but never did get into color. At some point I would no doubt want
to do some dodging, burning and cropping but not at first. Ofcourse I could
"cheat" and just do that stuff on the computer. I think that there are
several pro photogs or hobbyists around that might develop and print my
shots. I have been tossing around either going LF or getting a Mamiya RB67
but again, that is like comparing apples and oranges. Right now the house
needs a new roof and the car is getting along in miles so those will have to
come first. Thanks again. Ric.
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
> I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books on them.
*******************************************************************
Thanks again for the information and opinions on the LF subject. Thanks
Mike for the offer of seeing your set up. I'll keep you in mind. The issue
for me is quality and whether my developing and printing would come under
that heading. I think just learning the camera would be all I would want to
tackle begining with LF. I did take a b/w developing course while I was in
the Navy but never did get into color. At some point I would no doubt want
to do some dodging, burning and cropping but not at first. Ofcourse I could
"cheat" and just do that stuff on the computer. I think that there are
several pro photogs or hobbyists around that might develop and print my
shots. I have been tossing around either going LF or getting a Mamiya RB67
but again, that is like comparing apples and oranges. Right now the house
needs a new roof and the car is getting along in miles so those will have to
come first. Thanks again. Ric.
Re: Question from a non-lf user.
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:135e0gooq6ka774@corp.supernews . com ...
>
> "Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
> news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
>> I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books
>> on them.
> *******************************************************************
> Thanks again for the information and opinions on the LF
> subject. Thanks
> Mike for the offer of seeing your set up. I'll keep you
> in mind. The issue
> for me is quality and whether my developing and printing
> would come under
> that heading. I think just learning the camera would be
> all I would want to
> tackle begining with LF. I did take a b/w developing
> course while I was in
> the Navy but never did get into color. At some point I
> would no doubt want
> to do some dodging, burning and cropping but not at first.
> Ofcourse I could
> "cheat" and just do that stuff on the computer. I think
> that there are
> several pro photogs or hobbyists around that might develop
> and print my
> shots. I have been tossing around either going LF or
> getting a Mamiya RB67
> but again, that is like comparing apples and oranges.
> Right now the house
> needs a new roof and the car is getting along in miles so
> those will have to
> come first. Thanks again. Ric.
>
No one seems to have addressed the question about
micro/macro work.
Because of the very long bellows draw in comparison to a
35mm camera there is really no limit to how close you can
get. However, there is an inherent property of lenses which
requires them to be optimised for a subject at a fixed
distance. Standard camera lenses are optimised for
essentially infinity. Often standard lenses do not perform
well when used for very close work. A better choice is an
enlarging lens mounted on a shutter. The choice of focal
length will depend on the size of the object you are
photographing. For micro work, that is, where the image is
larger than the object, an enlarging lens turned around
backward will work quite well. The lens should be chosen so
that the magnification is about the same as would be the
case in enlarging. For instance, a 50mm enlarging lens,
intended for 35mm film, will do very well for coin sized
objects on an 8x10 camera but will work well for 4x5 also. A
few years ago there was a flood of "process" lenses on the
market because the cameras they were used on were supplanted
by digital image setters. In particular the Goerz
Apochromatic Artar was available in large numbers. This is a
slow lens intended for same size reproduction but it works
well over a very large range of magnification inluding
infinity focus when stopped down a bit.
In general the sensitivity of a lens to distance is
least for slow lenses and for narrow angle lenses. The
variation of correction with distance depends on the
variation of the angles the light rays in the lens make with
the lens surfaces and these are least as the lens is slower
and narrower angle. This is why high speed 35mm lenses don't
do well for enlarging but slow LF lenses usually will work
satisfactorily.
Enlarging lenses are generally optimised for the range
of magnification the manuacturer thinks it will be most used
at. For 35mm the range is centered around about 10X, for 4x5
around 3X.
As for processing I agree with those who suggest doing
it yourself. For B&W at least its very simple and not much
more difficult for color. Negatives can be developed in
trays or print drums although a proper tank is a
convenience. Loading holders requires a dark place. If you
don't have a darkroom or other place get a "loading bag",
this is a light tight double bag with elastic arm holes.
There are also loading tents made but they are expensive and
a loading bag will work with a little getting used to.
At local pro labs film is often for processing in the
holders, which are returned to the photographer. Otherwise
you can put the unprocessed film in the light tight bags and
boxes the film came in. Talk to the lab first to find out
what their recommendations are. But, again, I recommend
doing it yourself.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com
"Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
news:135e0gooq6ka774@corp.supernews . com ...
>
> "Ric Trexell" <rictrexell@vbe . com > wrote in message
> news:13573tqkkbuc86c@corp.supernews . com ...
>> I have been interested in LF cameras and bought two books
>> on them.
> *******************************************************************
> Thanks again for the information and opinions on the LF
> subject. Thanks
> Mike for the offer of seeing your set up. I'll keep you
> in mind. The issue
> for me is quality and whether my developing and printing
> would come under
> that heading. I think just learning the camera would be
> all I would want to
> tackle begining with LF. I did take a b/w developing
> course while I was in
> the Navy but never did get into color. At some point I
> would no doubt want
> to do some dodging, burning and cropping but not at first.
> Ofcourse I could
> "cheat" and just do that stuff on the computer. I think
> that there are
> several pro photogs or hobbyists around that might develop
> and print my
> shots. I have been tossing around either going LF or
> getting a Mamiya RB67
> but again, that is like comparing apples and oranges.
> Right now the house
> needs a new roof and the car is getting along in miles so
> those will have to
> come first. Thanks again. Ric.
>
No one seems to have addressed the question about
micro/macro work.
Because of the very long bellows draw in comparison to a
35mm camera there is really no limit to how close you can
get. However, there is an inherent property of lenses which
requires them to be optimised for a subject at a fixed
distance. Standard camera lenses are optimised for
essentially infinity. Often standard lenses do not perform
well when used for very close work. A better choice is an
enlarging lens mounted on a shutter. The choice of focal
length will depend on the size of the object you are
photographing. For micro work, that is, where the image is
larger than the object, an enlarging lens turned around
backward will work quite well. The lens should be chosen so
that the magnification is about the same as would be the
case in enlarging. For instance, a 50mm enlarging lens,
intended for 35mm film, will do very well for coin sized
objects on an 8x10 camera but will work well for 4x5 also. A
few years ago there was a flood of "process" lenses on the
market because the cameras they were used on were supplanted
by digital image setters. In particular the Goerz
Apochromatic Artar was available in large numbers. This is a
slow lens intended for same size reproduction but it works
well over a very large range of magnification inluding
infinity focus when stopped down a bit.
In general the sensitivity of a lens to distance is
least for slow lenses and for narrow angle lenses. The
variation of correction with distance depends on the
variation of the angles the light rays in the lens make with
the lens surfaces and these are least as the lens is slower
and narrower angle. This is why high speed 35mm lenses don't
do well for enlarging but slow LF lenses usually will work
satisfactorily.
Enlarging lenses are generally optimised for the range
of magnification the manuacturer thinks it will be most used
at. For 35mm the range is centered around about 10X, for 4x5
around 3X.
As for processing I agree with those who suggest doing
it yourself. For B&W at least its very simple and not much
more difficult for color. Negatives can be developed in
trays or print drums although a proper tank is a
convenience. Loading holders requires a dark place. If you
don't have a darkroom or other place get a "loading bag",
this is a light tight double bag with elastic arm holes.
There are also loading tents made but they are expensive and
a loading bag will work with a little getting used to.
At local pro labs film is often for processing in the
holders, which are returned to the photographer. Otherwise
you can put the unprocessed film in the light tight bags and
boxes the film came in. Talk to the lab first to find out
what their recommendations are. But, again, I recommend
doing it yourself.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com
Re: Question from a non-lf user.
Forgive my chopping up your query but here are some answers
from my own experience:
darkroommike
Ric Trexell wrote:
To take the picture you load the film in the holders,
> but do you send the holders to a lab then?
Nope, use the three part boxes you get your film in.
If not is there some sort of
> light tight envelope that you can get?
At one time Meisel furnished light tight envelopes to ship
off your film, not sure any lab still does this. Since I
shoot only B&W now.
I don't know if I would like
> LF photography and would not want to invest in all the darkroom stuff if I
> was going to only try it for a few years, and then give it up for MF or just
> 35mm.
Today you can do a hybrid system, shoot film, process only
and get a scanner for printing. Very cheap way to get your
feet wet.
Also, on average if you wanted to take lets say six portrait
shots of
> a model, how long would it take you to focus, drop in the film and go
> through the whole process of getting six great shots off.
LF may not be the best choice for rapid work, a cheap MF
system may be the better choice.
Also one more question, how close can a view
> camera focus for macro work? The average 50mm lense on a 35mm will get down
> to about 18 inches with out any closeup filters or a macro lense. I have
> seen close up pictures but nothing is said as to how close you can really
> get.
Get a LF macro lens or a reversing adapter and mount an
enlarging lens in reverse on a shutter. The Polaroid press
type shutter and Tominon make a very good macro rig. (Note
the Polaroid shutter has no diaphragm so is unsuitable for
lenses without irises.) Schneider and Rodenstock make rigs
to reverse their enlarging lenses into Copal/Compur
shutters. Any would be pretty good and Zeiss makes some
true macro lenses for MF/LF that are unbelievably good and
incredibly expensive. Their are also scanning rigs for LF
macro that give fantastic depth of field but way outside my
expertise.
Oh, one more question, the reason I'm interested in LF is
because I
> don't like the results I have seen of 35mm shots being blown up to 16X 20.
> I would really like to have enlargements made and not look soft. (Although
> I do have one that is a 20 X 30 or so and it is really sharp. I must have
> got the dof just right. Right now I'm using Minolta X-700's. If these are
> dumb questions, perhaps you could suggest a book that will cover these
> questions for a very simple minded person line me. Thanks. Ric in
> Wisconsin.
At one time Kodak made some fair guides on LF, copying and
Close-up; they show up on eBay all the time.
Forgive my chopping up your query but here are some answers
from my own experience:
darkroommike
Ric Trexell wrote:
To take the picture you load the film in the holders,
> but do you send the holders to a lab then?
Nope, use the three part boxes you get your film in.
If not is there some sort of
> light tight envelope that you can get?
At one time Meisel furnished light tight envelopes to ship
off your film, not sure any lab still does this. Since I
shoot only B&W now.
I don't know if I would like
> LF photography and would not want to invest in all the darkroom stuff if I
> was going to only try it for a few years, and then give it up for MF or just
> 35mm.
Today you can do a hybrid system, shoot film, process only
and get a scanner for printing. Very cheap way to get your
feet wet.
Also, on average if you wanted to take lets say six portrait
shots of
> a model, how long would it take you to focus, drop in the film and go
> through the whole process of getting six great shots off.
LF may not be the best choice for rapid work, a cheap MF
system may be the better choice.
Also one more question, how close can a view
> camera focus for macro work? The average 50mm lense on a 35mm will get down
> to about 18 inches with out any closeup filters or a macro lense. I have
> seen close up pictures but nothing is said as to how close you can really
> get.
Get a LF macro lens or a reversing adapter and mount an
enlarging lens in reverse on a shutter. The Polaroid press
type shutter and Tominon make a very good macro rig. (Note
the Polaroid shutter has no diaphragm so is unsuitable for
lenses without irises.) Schneider and Rodenstock make rigs
to reverse their enlarging lenses into Copal/Compur
shutters. Any would be pretty good and Zeiss makes some
true macro lenses for MF/LF that are unbelievably good and
incredibly expensive. Their are also scanning rigs for LF
macro that give fantastic depth of field but way outside my
expertise.
Oh, one more question, the reason I'm interested in LF is
because I
> don't like the results I have seen of 35mm shots being blown up to 16X 20.
> I would really like to have enlargements made and not look soft. (Although
> I do have one that is a 20 X 30 or so and it is really sharp. I must have
> got the dof just right. Right now I'm using Minolta X-700's. If these are
> dumb questions, perhaps you could suggest a book that will cover these
> questions for a very simple minded person line me. Thanks. Ric in
> Wisconsin.
At one time Kodak made some fair guides on LF, copying and
Close-up; they show up on eBay all the time.
