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

[Stuart Phillips]

I think film costs are about equal when you look at square inches of film.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Taylor" <jtyr@sover.net>
To: "Large format" <largeformat@f32.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] Intro & Camera [now LF vs Roll film]


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat