[LargeFormat] LF vs Roll film

[Dan Kalish]

see below

Dan K.


> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:07:44 -0400
> Subject: Re: [LargeFormat] Intro & Camera [now LF vs Roll film]
> From: Jonathan Taylor <jtyr@sover.net>
> To: Large format <largeformat@f32.net>
> Reply-To: largeformat@f32.net
>
> 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.
>
...
>
> 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.

If you compare using rollfilm in a medium format camera and rollfilm in a
large format camera, the latter is far more cumbersome and demanding.  You
still have the tripod, the setup, the period of time after you've framed the
picture and before you take it.  Inserting and removing the film holder is a
minor inconvenience.  I add in one shot with a Polaroid film holder to let
me know how the composition and exposure are doing.

The process of loading and unloading film from the film holders is another
minor inconvenience.  The most inconvenient aspect I find is that I do it at
night just to make sure the closet is adequately dark.  Otherwise, spend
some time with the lights on getting to know where everything is, then
practice with your eyes closed.  It took me 5 to 10 minutes to unload 7
sheets last night.

I suppose this is part of the large format philosophy of using very little
film and spending a lot of time on each composition.  This from a person who
has exposed a total of one dozen sheets of film with large format cameras.
I'm a newbie, too.  I do have a lot of darkroom experience, though.  YMMV.

>
> > 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
>
>


Dan Kalish
Flushing, New York, New York, USA