[nathanm]

I finally got my Shen-Hao 4x5 camera going.  It's quite a different experience, that's for sure!  The camera itself and the lenses are really beautiful to look at in and of themselves.  Even though this is one of the cheapest cameras available it's not very chintzy.  (joke)Still, it was made in China so who knows, maybe steel bolts will spring out and plunge through my hands!  Those Chinese can't be trusted, they're going to kill us all!! Ahh! Run! Run for your lives!!!(/joke)  The only chintzy bit is the rear shift mechanism which moves very roughly.  I put a little oil on it, but it was of no use, the metal parts still gnash quite crudely.  Elsewhere there are teflon bushings on the moving parts so they all move smoothly.  Of course it would be silly to expect totally smoove machinst-like accuracy on something like this.  The multi-kilobuck Sinars and Linhofs will have to fulfill the brick shithouse category I guess.

So far the biggest hurdle is that the ground glass is extremely dark.  I am gonna have to get a fresnel for this thing right quick as it is nearly impossible to see anything but the center of the scene.  Indoor shooting is even worse.  I've just played with it so far inside, aiming it out the windows and whatnot untll I feel confident enough to go out and shoot with it.  I also don't have all the necessary stuff to transport it to the field quite yet.  This is an expensive bit 'o business!

The Schnieder 90mm lens is a beaut, there's NO distortion on this sucker at all that I can see.  I used to be a big fan of barrel distortion and fisheyes, but now I am starting to see the appeal of perfect and rectilinear images.

I've only shot Polaroids so far and to tell you the truth, Polaroids kinda suck.  It's that same crappy Instamatic look that I remembered from back in the day.  The color is wacked.  At work we have a board full of pictures of everyone that works there shot on Polaroid and these remind me of that.  However, I was impressed with the Type 55 film as you get a negative with that.  I only shot one of those so far and was impressed with how much range it had.  I put the camera right in front of a window and pointed it into the sun and after scanning was able to retrieve detail.  Not too shabby.

In the print the windows were nearly all white!  I brought them back down using the Hightlight\Shadow tool in Photoshop.

Here's a Sepia shot of the 'ol Hi-Fi rig which I rather liked.

Lots 'o fun to be had with this thing.  With this camera there's no excuse for bad images, the tool cannot possibly be blamed.  When I figure out how\where to process actual film negs\chromes I suspect that will be the Ah-Ha moment.  Polaroids are cool, but a bit of a disappointment.

[konut]

The Type 55 is absolutely phenomonal. Don't dismiss it too quickly. Detail retrieval is fabulous, and the tonal range is beautiful. Scanned into Photoshop you've got a lot to work with, as you've seen.
Save up for some sort of digital back. Film photography is quickly becoming a cost prohibitive, and resource short, endevour.
Are you using a shroud for focusing? 

[SET Man]

Hey!

    Polaroid is a good way to check the exposure but it got pretty expensive now these days. Although I don't often use my 4x5 now but when I'm going to shoot something I usually have a few sheets of Polaroid film with me.

   I use 52 the one without neg. I think it cost about $3 a sheet now... and more so with the 55 that you are using.

   You know don't get the fresnel glass just yet. Just use to the regular glass back, you will get use to it.

   Nice window view there. I see you scanned and bring back some highlight with photoshop.... of which I think only take a minute right. To do that in the wet darkroom will take awhile to do that

    Anyway, enjoy you new 4x5 cam. I do wish I had time to take my 4x5 out sometime.
Take care,
Buddy

[nathanm]

It seemed that jumping from 35mm digital (not that I had a digital cam, but it's what I was contemplating before this) to 4x5 film was the most logical choice at least in regards to sheer resolution.  Also, in my job scanning 4x5s always yielded the most satisfying results.  I don't really have enough experience with film to warrant a genuine desire for it, but digital backs at this time don't make any sense for my budget.  Although the Betterlight scanning backs are wicked high res, they are also wicked high expensive and I really dislike the bizarre artifacts that occur when something in the frame moves.  And single shot digital backs (which are really just medium format sized anyway) are insanely expensive.  (30 grand)  If I had that kind of money I would buy a house, not a camera!   I figure if I am going to have a 4x5 camera it only makes sense to use film since it covers the whole image area.  I have seen some guy mount a digital SLR to a view camera however and that seems like it might be interesting. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbend/197944167/in/set-72157594308891448/

Still, the tiny tiny frame of a digital camera would make for an uber-telephoto view with the lenses I have!  Heh!  But I like the fact that I can still use this body with different backs as time goes on.

Also, film seems like the most nostalgic thing to do, kind of like listening to vinyl in the year 2007!   But I do agree that the continuous costs of film  as opposed to up front cost of digital film does get my goat a bit.  I have aready spent as much on film as I would have for a giant memory card.  Oh well, I am looking forward to the puzzled stares and police inquisitiveness that's likely to result from hauling this monster out in public.

The camera came with a, (I think) a BTZS dark cloth shroud thingy.  It's a white\black vinyl kinda hood.  Sweaty as all get out.  Doesn't form a lightight seal with the camer aobviously, but it does allow you to better see the glass.  I'm already thinking of building my own hood.  Something that's more rigid and doesn't flop against your head.  Maybe with a fan in it or something.  I also thought of making my own bag bellows.

[JohnR]

Very cool. I have a Polaroid back laying around here somewhere... I'll have to try it. Last time I couldn't figure out how to get the film in it...

[TONEPUB]

Hey Nathan

Try the folks at Beattie, they might have a generic focusing screen for your camera.
I used to use one on my Sinar and it was great.  Liked it so much I got one for my
old speed graphic too!  It will give you about two more stops of brightness while viewing,
which will help focusing as well...

Have fun!

Say, do you need any more film holders?  I may have about 8 or 10 of them still lying
around, would be happy to send em to a good home!  Just let me know and send or PM
me with your address!!

[Robert57]

Thanks for sharing your new toy, Nathan, and for being game to head up this photo circle. This was a fun read. It is very exciting, and challenging, to plunge into the whole view camera craft. It really forces you to slow down and compose carefully--the opposite of the typical "fire away and hope" approach with point-and-shoot camers.  Seeing the image upside down and reversed on the ground glass, while it takes some time to get used to, can help one to see form and light more clearly, disembodied from subject matter. I found this deliberate framing process on the ground glass to help my compositions. With an old view camera you have to be careful about the standards getting out of parallel, though.

While it seems logical to max out the film size to 4x5, don't rule out medium format film with your view camera. For years I used a roll-film back with my 4x5 camera for landscapes, allowing me to shoot 120 film for 6x7 cm images. Roll film is a whole lot more convenient to shoot, and a lot cheaper too, especially for bracketing exposures. Seeing a 6x7 transparency on a light box is almost as cool as a 4x5 trans. Of course you need different (shorter) focal length lenses for the same perspective, but these also are much more forgiving in depth of field and speed. You can find fairly inexpensive used 6x7 or even 6x12 panorama 120 film backs (Graflock backs) from Horseman and Calumet (and even Sinar on the high end). You also wold probably need a bag bellows for easier movements for these shorter lenses.

Have fun!

Rob

[nathanm]

I just ordered a fresnel apparently for my camera from Badger Graphic.  It was "only" 80 bucks as opposed to hundreds for some of the other screens I've seen.  I don't quite get why there's models specific to certain cameras; aren't they all the same size?  Thickness of the glass maybe?  Hmmm.  Hopefully that wlll make it easier to compose a shot.  The upside down part isn't so bad, (well, moving the camera is counterintuative) but the fact I can't see a damn thing was annoying!  heh!  I also don't get why fresnels for cameras cost hundreds but you can get a sheet magnifier for a few bucks.  What's the difference?  Finer ridges I would guess?  It seems to be one of those things where if you buy Blu Tak for speakers they charge you $20 but if you buy the same thing to hang a poster they charge you $2...I dunno.

I would also really like to be able to shoot macro stuff, but based on what I've read this is an ill-suited genre for large format.  What's the combination that's required to get real close on small objects?  Wide lens + racked out front standard or do you go for longer focal length lenses?  I can focus on something about 1.5 feet away with my 90mm, but again this is almost conjecture because it's so hard to see anything.  I suspect the limited bellows extention on the Shen-Hao may preclude it from macro stuff.  Hmmm...

Thanks TONEPUB, very generous of you!  Right now I've got four holders but haven't shot any film yet.  I have to figure out where to get it processed.  Here's another dumb newbie question: How do you send your exposed film to the lab?  Do I keep it inside the holder and send the whole thing or do you remove the film in the dark and put it in an envelope or something?  In the package I bought there's a whole bunch of rectangular black plastic bags and I wasn't entirely sure what they were for.  Maybe just to keep the loaded holders in so as to avoid light leaks?

Here's a shot of the new toy, I mean tool! Tool!


Amazing, for once my forehead is not the lightest part of the image! Thank you cable release! 

[SET Man]

I would also really like to be able to shoot macro stuff, but based on what I've read this is an ill-suited genre for large format. 

Hey!

    Well, they do have macro lens for large format believe it or not. But you could use other lens and just extend the bellow. For close up work 150mm and longer work well. I use 210mm for my close up work. 90mm will give strange look to the photo though.... unless that is what you are looking for.

    All you need to do is to extend the bellow. But when you do you don't forget the exposure compensation.

    Now the question is how long can you extend the bellow on your camera? If you need to do lots of very close close-up works than you are better off with monorail cam than field cam.

    Oh! BTW.... sometime I would cheat a bit by using a +1 close up filter on the front of my 210mm if the subject or object is very very small

Take care,
Buddy

[shooter]

Nathanm, You can reverse the elements on the super angulon, they make OK macro lenses that way. Be careful with vibration when doing closeup with large format, some graphic art lenses eg. Apo Ronar and Apo Nikkor perform well at 1:1, photo lab usually requires you to download exposed 4x5 film into a empty film box, for convenience use ready load film, load like polaroid, nothing to down load and no mix up.

[nathanm]

I did a test last night by focusing on a light blub, which works REALLY nice for getting a bright image on the glass!   and was able to get much closer than I had originally thought.  Within a few inches.  Of course you still run into the super shallow focus plane, but that's to be expected.  The reversed elements is an interesting idea, so the front and back lens elements have the same diamter\thread? 

The fresnel arrived today and I guess I predicted correctly: WAY super fine ridges on that sucker not even visible to the naked eye.  I don't even wanna touch it much less make the zingy sounds like on lenticular gift cards!  I wonder if these are made from a mold or CNC'd?

Strange-looking photos?  Well I hope so!

[SET Man]

Hey!

    nathanm, since you are just getting into large format. There is a very good book that you might want to pick up. I think this will help you and answer almost all of the questions you have.



Using the View Camera
 
   This is the book that got me started in LF photo world. Excellent book and I still have it. You could pick it up at your local Branes & Nobles, there should be one there. Also while you are there check out this magazine.. View Camera

   Also, it is best time now to practice loading and unloading the film holder....  you will need darkroom when you do this Make sure that they are clean before loading. And it is best to unload it into an empty film box than hand it to the lab.... because if you hand them holder with films in it they will charge you a dollar or two more per holder. Ready load films are great and convenience but they do cost a lot more.

   Hope this help.

Take care,
Buddy

[drphoto]

Now that you' ve got the large format bug......wanna buy an Sinar 8x10 cheap? 

[nathanm]

I'm more concerned that I won't get the bug!  I better learn how to use this thing before I go into any Sinar stuff, although I would really love to try one.  They look like precision machines.  For me to use one would be an insult to the camera, probably.

The fresnel is a great improvement, still gotta go under the sweatbox for maximum effect, but the view is much more evened out.   Unfortunately I just lost four Type 55's when the damn metal clip came off as I pulled them from the bag.  DOH! 12 bucks flushed! *sigh*

That reminds me; the Polaroid 545 Pro back is just about the most nonsensical thing I ever heard of.  Just flat out stupid!  Each one of the film types has a number, and you enter the number into it so it can beep at you when the processing time is over.  But do you enter the number of the film type?  HELL NO, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE!  Can't have that!  So instead of plugging in the two-digit film brand you've gotta cross reference ANOTHER number and use that instead!  WTF!?  I thought engineers were supposed to be smart!  I know, why get upset over such a little thing, but that's just it; it's so crushingly pointless and simple how could they possibly screw it up!?  Look at this insanity!  And check out the disclaimer at the bottom, what a hoot!  It's screwed up now, but we might screw it up some more!

[lazydays]

I finally got my Shen-Hao 4x5 camera going.  It's quite a different experience, that's for sure!  The camera itself and the lenses are really beautiful to look at in and of themselves.  Even though this is one of the cheapest cameras available it's not very chintzy.  (joke)Still, it was made in China so who knows, maybe steel bolts will spring out and plunge through my hands!  Those Chinese can't be trusted, they're going to kill us all!! Ahh! Run! Run for your lives!!!(/joke)  The only chintzy bit is the rear shift mechanism which moves very roughly.  I put a little oil on it, but it was of no use, the metal parts still gnash quite crudely.  Elsewhere there are teflon bushings on the moving parts so they all move smoothly.  Of course it would be silly to expect totally smoove machinst-like accuracy on something like this.  The multi-kilobuck Sinars and Linhofs will have to fulfill the brick shithouse category I guess.

So far the biggest hurdle is that the ground glass is extremely dark.  I am gonna have to get a fresnel for this thing right quick as it is nearly impossible to see anything but the center of the scene.  Indoor shooting is even worse.  I've just played with it so far inside, aiming it out the windows and whatnot untll I feel confident enough to go out and shoot with it.  I also don't have all the necessary stuff to transport it to the field quite yet.  This is an expensive bit 'o business!

The Schnieder 90mm lens is a beaut, there's NO distortion on this sucker at all that I can see.  I used to be a big fan of barrel distortion and fisheyes, but now I am starting to see the appeal of perfect and rectilinear images.

I've only shot Polaroids so far and to tell you the truth, Polaroids kinda suck.  It's that same crappy Instamatic look that I remembered from back in the day.  The color is wacked.  At work we have a board full of pictures of everyone that works there shot on Polaroid and these remind me of that.  However, I was impressed with the Type 55 film as you get a negative with that.  I only shot one of those so far and was impressed with how much range it had.  I put the camera right in front of a window and pointed it into the sun and after scanning was able to retrieve detail.  Not too shabby.

In the print the windows were nearly all white!  I brought them back down using the Hightlight\Shadow tool in Photoshop.

Here's a Sepia shot of the 'ol Hi-Fi rig which I rather liked.

Lots 'o fun to be had with this thing.  With this camera there's no excuse for bad images, the tool cannot possibly be blamed.  When I figure out how\where to process actual film negs\chromes I suspect that will be the Ah-Ha moment.  Polaroids are cool, but a bit of a disappointment.

I have a Pentax 645N that I play around with from time to time. I've soon learned that this camera will do more than I can imagine. Makes my Nikons look like cheap junk.
gary

[drphoto]

Hey Nathan, if you decide you want to print from the Poloroid 55 Neg, you need to overexpose the poloroid print by about a stop to get enough density in the neg. (for conventional printing in an enlarger......I dunno about scanning)

Get tuppeware container (or such) and fill w/ water. After peeling off the neg, keep them in the water until you get home. You clear of the gunk w/ a solution of sodium sulfite.....not regular fixer.

You can make some really lovely prints from these babies.

Oh....one other tip. When loading your film holders for conventional film.....don't take the darkslide out....just pull it back.

[nathanm]

I think that is what happened accidentally on that first shot I took, the print was overexposed by a stop or more but the neg was good.  I think I read somewhere that it was technically impossible for both the neg and print to be equal, which makes sense I suppose.  My current metering scheme is very half-ass, I am using my old 35mm camera but I have to hold a flashlight in the little light intake thingy so that I can actually see the reading illuminated in the viewfinder.

So I take it the sodium sulfite solution clears the blue gunk off?  I knew I needed that stuff, but for this junk test shot I just rinsed the hell out of it and rubbed it off.

Oh....one other tip. When loading your film holders for conventional film.....don't take the darkslide out....just pull it back.

Thanks!  I was wondering about that.  Are you certain to fog the film if it comes all the way out or is it just a better-safe-than-sorry kinda thing?  But then why are there white and black markings on them?  Aren't you supposed to flip it around to indicate, 'hey this one's exposed'?

I'm gonna hold off on printing and scanning until I shoot something worth looking at first.  But I will probably do that digital.  I just don't have the room or patience for the whole enlarger thing.  I worked a temp job once doing enlargements in a photo lab and it never struck me as being particularly fun.  (just got to look at lots of cute girls)  Dodging and burning in a darkroom with little sticks seems like the stone age compared to Photoshop.  I respect those who do everything conventional analog, but I know I would get very frustrated with the process.

[drphoto]

Nathan. On film holders.....the convention is white side out for unexposed....flip to black for exposed.

 When prepping to load you need to remove the slide and blow out the dust with dustoff or whatever, but put it back in to actually load the film. Blow out the hinge area too.

 For some odd reason....B/W film is much more likely to attract  dust than trans. Why? I have no idea. One of life's mysteries.

When I first got started I read some Kodak book that said to remove the slide when loading, which is bullshit.

You can practice with an old piece of film with your eyes closed to learn it. It seems sort of scary at first, but once you get the hang of it, it becomes second nature. I used to be able to load dozens of holders in a matter of minutes.

Of course, I haven't shot film now for 4 years or so. In fact there is no lab left in my area that does E6 and I sold off all my darkroom a long time ago.

BTW: Many years ago I ran a custom B/W photo lab, meaning I would process the film any way wanted and print on whatever paper. It sucked! I put in around 16 hours a day for 2 years. I have no desire to ever step in front of an enlarger or sink full of chemical trays again.
However, I will say....there is nothing like a good old sliver geletin print. Printing good greyscale images digitally is a bloody nightmare.(yeah...I know all about hexachrome and all that crap....but it's still a PIA)

[nathanm]

After some time has passed I've finally started shooting some stuff in the field with my new camera.  (Mainly I got a light meter, the 35mm camera wasn't cutting the mustard)  It definitely is a slow process, it's the anti-point and shoot!  There's nothing really worth showing at this point, but I've made progress.  The process is a lot of fun, because it's just so utterly archaic to be using something like this in the year 2007 when every single "problem" of these cameras has been solved by new technology.  Okay, so I'm not doing wet plate collodion or daugerrotype, but still... 

I shot three sheets of Velvia today (had been saving these)  but I've gotta admit being denied instant gratification of seeing your shot right away is quite an adjustment.  We are so spoiled by digital!  Heh!  At work I deal with 4x5 transparencies quite a bit, but it will be so cool to see one with something artsy on it and not just mundane product shots.

[JohnR]

How are you finding the whole movements thing?

Look forward to seeing more