[LargeFormat] Intro & Camera [now LF vs Roll film]

[Jonathan Taylor]

on 6/19/03 12:05 PM, Dan Kalish at kaliushkin@att.net wrote:

> What do you find scary about 4x5 sheet film?

You know, it's unknown... just scary.  :)

Well ok, I'm not really _that_ scared. I'm just concerned about cost,
loading, and dust. 

Like I said, what little I know about LF is all theoretical, stuff I've read
in books and the net. Part of what put me on the LF path was the b&w and
infrared landscape work that I started last summer. I had a burning interest
in my subject (Lake Champlain-- because I thought I was about to leave for
good) and I wanted to do it right. Out came the tripod. Out came the silly
Nikon shift lens. The infrared Wood Effect complemented my original
vision/inspiration for lake landscapes, so out came the changing bag and
opaque filters. Down went my shutter speeds. Up went the mirror. Out came
the hand held meter and cable release. It wasn't long before I realized that
this photographic project would be best served by an LF camera.

Now I'd already been playing with the idea of getting an LF setup for my
teaching and had some preliminary ideas for how it could enhance our
photography instruction. The new budget year was going to be light for
computer hardware and software purchases, so here I am plunging in to LF
photography.

Although since last summer I've definitely begun to get into the mode of
thinking more and shooting less, I still chew through a lot of film, and
when I'm shooting infrared I almost always need at least one bracket, if not
two or three. Roll film seems like a good way to cut costs, at least
initially while I figure out what I'm doing.

> My personal opinion is that using a rollfilm adapter in a LF camera gives
> you all the disadvantages of a LF camera (large, cumbersome, every step
> takes a lot of time) with none of the advantages (large negative).  If you
> want to use medium format film, use a medium format camera.  There may be a
> place for 2x3 cameras but as someone else posted, don't take on too many
> goals at once with the same equipment.

Why is using a roll film back so cumbersome and slow? It seems to my
theoretical understanding that it should be the opposite. I mean for
starters you don't have to load and unload your film after every single
shot.

> Doing all the dry darkroom work that 4x5 requires (loading the film holders;
> removing the film from the film holders; loading a developing tank) is a
> piece of cake.  Just last night I removed my second batch of exposed film
> from film holders.  The actual process was easy.  What was hard was finding
> the film I knocked over onto the floor.

This is really good to know. Still I don't really relish the added loading
time before I can go out and shoot. Except for a month and a half in the
summer I have to squeeze my shooting time in around my teaching day.
Spending 30 minutes or more loading film before I can go out and shoot
sounds like a pain. How long does it typically take you all to load film?
How do you fit this in your photographic routine?

As for dust , I have a pretty good idea how I'll deal with it, I would just
rather not have to deal with it at all _before_ I'm ready to make a print.
I'm sure I'll find some way to cope however.   :)

jt