Large Format photography group - From "zero to hero!"

StephenM said:
From memory - this is a quick answer to a quick question! - the Xenar is a telephoto design, which means it's not so easy to use when you tilt/swing. So I'd go Symmar, especially as (assuming it IS a Symmar not Symmar S etc.) it will be a convertible lens and give you another focal length if you need it.
Click to expand...

Thanks Stephen. The 180mm I've seen isn't a convertible (as far as I can tell), it's a sinar symmar 180/5.6. I'm guessing that means it's a Symmar S?
 
The convertible Symmars have double scales if you can see a photo of the lens front. The later Symmars were multicoated (from S onwards).

SymmarTwoScales.jpg
 
And therefore made between November 1968 and July 1970. My (illustrated) Symmar is from the 1950s.

Edit to add: I just happened to know that Schneider made it easy to date their lenses from the serial number, and looked it up :). I didn't just happen to know when this one was made...
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
And therefore made between November 1968 and July 1970. My (illustrated) Symmar is from the 1950s.

Edit to add: I just happened to know that Schneider made it easy to date their lenses from the serial number, and looked it up :). I didn't just happen to know when this one was made...
Click to expand...

You've let me down, I thought you just knew serial numbers off by heart!

With this being a later lens, would you still recommend it over the 150mm xenar?
 
I'd backtrack, as I've just checked and without the "tele-" prefix, the Xenars aren't telephoto. It's going to come down to personal preference for the focal length. Many years ago, it used to be advised that you should double/halve focal lengths when building up a set. A "rule" more observed in the breach, as people had the trinity of 35mm/50mm/135mm - these were 35mm days!

I generally prefer longer rather than shorter lenses, and if I had the 90mm covered, I'd double it and go for 180mm. My favorite focal length on 5x4 is 210mm, and to be honest if the Symmar had been convertible the extra length would have swung it. My choice of lenses for 5x4 differs considerably from 35mm, where my two lens outfit for light weight was 21mm and 90mm. With 5x4, I seem to stick with a normal for the format lens most of the time. That's how I "see" things - rather stuck in the past, as in my young days (or even earlier) long focal lengths were recommended for landscapes rather than the ubiquitous recommendation of extreme wide angles today.

The later Symmars are "better" than than the older ones, in that the multicoating does reduce flare and increases the contrast - although extra development could compensate for that.
 
StephenM said:
I'd backtrack, as I've just checked and without the "tele-" prefix, the Xenars aren't telephoto. It's going to come down to personal preference for the focal length. Many years ago, it used to be advised that you should double/halve focal lengths when building up a set. A "rule" more observed in the breach, as people had the trinity of 35mm/50mm/135mm - these were 35mm days!

I generally prefer longer rather than shorter lenses, and if I had the 90mm covered, I'd double it and go for 180mm. My favorite focal length on 5x4 is 210mm, and to be honest if the Symmar had been convertible the extra length would have swung it. My choice of lenses for 5x4 differs considerably from 35mm, where my two lens outfit for light weight was 21mm and 90mm. With 5x4, I seem to stick with a normal for the format lens most of the time. That's how I "see" things - rather stuck in the past, as in my young days (or even earlier) long focal lengths were recommended for landscapes rather than the ubiquitous recommendation of extreme wide angles today.

The later Symmars are "better" than than the older ones, in that the multicoating does reduce flare and increases the contrast - although extra development could compensate for that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the considered reply Stephen, I appreciate your experience over mine with 4x5. I'll have another look at the 180. Cheers
 
Well, I've just taken the plunge and ordered a couple of lenses for my as yet unmade 10x8 camera. My thoughts ran that with the Intrepid's comparative large number of UK sales (large compared to the source of lenses that will cover 10x8) that as time gets closer to the market getting flooded (well, slightly damp anyway) with 10x8 cameras there will be a number of people chasing a small number of lenses. If Poundland's short supply of Vista can drive the ebay price up to £10, the effect on lenses would mean I'd have to sell the house to afford one!
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
Well, I've just taken the plunge and ordered a couple of lenses for my as yet unmade 10x8 camera. My thoughts ran that with the Intrepid's comparative large number of UK sales (large compared to the source of lenses that will cover 10x8) that as time gets closer to the market getting flooded (well, slightly damp anyway) with 10x8 cameras there will be a number of people chasing a small number of lenses. If Poundland's short supply of Vista can drive the ebay price up to £10, the effect on lenses would mean I'd have to sell the house to afford one!
Click to expand...

I like your logic. I'll wait till people get bored and sell their full kit, living on the trailing edge.
 
I know a number of people here have used Fomapan; how have you found it? At some point I'll have to get some 10x8 film, and if I haven't missed anything it seems to be a straight choice between FP4 and Fomapan 100.* If there are any other black and white films I've missed (probably because they are stocked by someone not on my usual search list) I'd be grateful to know of them. My usual rationale is that compared to a missed masterpiece, film (even 10x8) is cheap; and cost isn't the primary consideration. I'm looking at Fomapan specifically because it is so much cheaper, and if it works as well I have no objection to using it. FP4 isn't my first choice anyway, but Ilford don't make PanF in sheet film.

* As far as I can see, with Kodak it's just TMax 100 that's available, and I prefer not to use "designer grain" film given the dire warnings about the slightest extra development pushing the contrast off the scale (slight exageration, but it's more critical and I prefer to avoid that).

Harman offer Ortho (I prefer panchromatic, but always mean to try ortho sometime)) and HP5, but I don't like fast films.

And of course, I don't do colour because I find it too difficult and don't "see" photographs in colour (except garish things).
 
Well Stephen I have used a fair few sheets of fomapan 100 and I rather like it. I haven't found it to be grainy and I rather like the tones it produces.

Andy
 
Any problems with soft emulsion? I know that some of the older "styles" of film were more delicate when wet than modern ones.
 
Not so far, it seems reasonably robust and it does seem to dry well.
 
Good point, and one I hadn't considered. I think I can safely ignore it though, as much of my photography is done outdoors and I have more problems avoiding leaves and grasses moving during the exposure. Thinking about from this standpoint, I begin to wonder if I should actually move to a fast film; or at least perhaps have some on hand for any work in less good lighting with stationary subjects. Thinking as I type, perhaps this is a good reason to stick with FP4 as it will give me the fine grain and still be usable with church interiors.

It's certainly given me something to mull over. Thanks.
 
StephenM said:
Good point, and one I hadn't considered. I think I can safely ignore it though, as much of my photography is done outdoors and I have more problems avoiding leaves and grasses moving during the exposure. Thinking about from this standpoint, I begin to wonder if I should actually move to a fast film; or at least perhaps have some on hand for any work in less good lighting with stationary subjects. Thinking as I type, perhaps this is a good reason to stick with FP4 as it will give me the fine grain and still be usable with church interiors.

It's certainly given me something to mull over. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Foma becomes nearly unusable at the shoulders of the day, its recpirocity means you can be out run by sun set if you're stopped down quite far. FP4 can be a bit of race at times too tbf.

HP5 would be okay in 10x8 surely?

Looking at Maco, those seem to be your options when it comes to traditional grains though.
 
Isn't Adox still available ?
 
I found that CHS100 was - on the Maco site. Everywhere else I'd looked said "out of stock" or just didn't list it. I liked the old KB14 film, so I will be looking into this one carefully. Unless someone can given a good reason not to try it, I may order a box later today, and see if I can get it!
 
I have spent part of the morning using my light meter to get an idea of exposure times if I stop down to f/45 or less, and concluded that under those conditions Fomapan might be a major problem. I've already alluded to one of my hang ups from 35mm days of avoiding fast films (defined as in excess of 50 ISO) because of grain; I also tend to avoid stopping down below f/16 because of a fear of diffraction effects (based on my calculations and what this implies for degree of enlargement). I also (on the diffraction front) recall one author who had examined Edward Weston's contact prints from 10x8 remarking that diffraction effects were visible even without any enlargement in the prints.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
I have spent part of the morning using my light meter to get an idea of exposure times if I stop down to f/45 or less, and concluded that under those conditions Fomapan might be a major problem. I've already alluded to one of my hang ups from 35mm days of avoiding fast films (defined as in excess of 50 ISO) because of grain; I also tend to avoid stopping down below f/16 because of a fear of diffraction effects (based on my calculations and what this implies for degree of enlargement). I also (on the diffraction front) recall one author who had examined Edward Weston's contact prints from 10x8 remarking that diffraction effects were visible even without any enlargementm in the prints.
Click to expand...

I think, given the standards you set for yourself, the only way you'll know exactly what you can be happy with is to try it. Though I concur fomapan at f45 is reading a book territory.
 
If sunny 16 says f5.6 at 1/asa, then stopping down to f45 gives a shutter speed of 0.64 seconds, which is just about within the reciprocity thing being linear (I'd give it a second). At f4 for sunny 16, f45 gives 1.28 sec, which needs extended (3 sec sounds reasonable). Beyond that, and you're rapidly into the reciprocity banana curve.

In other words, for general daylight use, Fomapan 100 should be fine. Duller than f4 sunny 16, you need a plan, or a different film. Don't forget filter factors.
 
Bit of a thread revivial, and mildly on topic :D

Does anyone know where to get Rodinal on the cheap these days? Preferably with free delivery? So far I've found AG for about £19 inc del, and speed graphic for £17 inc del. Anyone know of anywhere cheaper?
 
Last edited:
Woodsy said:
Bit of a thread revivial, and mildly on topic :D

Does anyone know where to get Rodinal on the cheap these days? Preferably with free delivery? So far I've found AG for about £19 inc del, and speed graphic for £17 inc del. Anyone know of anywhere cheaper?
Click to expand...
Is that for a litre?
 
Woodsy said:
Bah. You know you're having a s**t day when a rodinal order becomes a rodinal + adox fixer + box of 5x4 delta 100 order.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a right-sized day to me!
 
Woodsy said:
Bah. You know you're having a s**t day when a rodinal order becomes a rodinal + adox fixer + box of 5x4 delta 100 order.
Click to expand...
Sounds like BAU. Which is probably why I have to start another "having a clear-out" thread in the sales section soon. :oops: :$
 
I was just browsing on another forum (I've washed my computer since :D) and came across this interesting video. Never mind the camera - just ogle those bellows!
 
Mike Johnston of TOP has a post this week asking for those who use 4*5 cameras and contact print their work to "send me a JPEG or a digital snapshot of a recent print, or of yourself holding a print, and I'll post a sampling of them at the end of next week. Please mention your name, age, and location when you send it, as well as the size of your negative". I know @joxby of this parish does things like that, I wondered if he or anyone else wants their moment of fame?
 
He'll "post a sampling of them"
no idea what that is
I don't shoot 4x5, or contact print, so that's me out...lol, it wouldn't be difficult to print 120 @ 4x5 with an enlarger though.
I can't really figure out what its about
isn't @eeyore contact printing 4x5 ?
 
Sadly, I don't contact print either. I'm not really 100% sure why you would with 5x4? Is it not a bit diddy for the purpose of direct viewing (instead of enlarging, scanning or projecting I mean)?
 
Small yes; but not unknown. I visited the Constable exhibition in Brighton recently, and there were a couple of prints of about this size on the wall (I compared them with a sheet of 5x4 film I had in my notebook to make sure). Less recently, there was at least one 5x4 contact print on display in the "Ansel Adams at 100" exhibition - that would have been in 2002.

For direct viewing - well, I used to make my 35mm prints on quarter plate paper for viewing (3.75 x 4.75 inches). It works for photos to be passed round.
 
I contact print lots of 35mm/6x6/6x7 but that’s more for contact sheets/proofing although they do make for nice gifts. I have a few boxes of 5x7 paper so I’m planning on making a few contact prints with 4x5 on those once I figure out how to print the full rebate on there accurately with minimum fuss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top