|
Just sold my Graflex monorail for what I originally paid for it, now time to save a little to get that Chamonix 
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Because I'm getting in on the first page, I just want to plug my own favorite camera: Fuji GW690. Another big thumbs up for the GW690ii here too. One think I learnt when you're shooting in T mode, the shutter only closes when you wind on and only after the film has moved past the open shutter a little as well, which results in stuff like this: 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:1.) Buy cheap film. If you want to go cheapest with decent results, go Foma 4x5 film with Rodinal, film and development for about $1 a sheet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
 Just did a TinType workshop today (that is me above), have to say I'm going to put the Chamonix on hold and get into wet plate for while. Its so much fun, I couldn't recommend it enough. This was shot with my Speed Graphic using the monster f/2.9 lens, all the extra light and shallow depth of field really and the lack of coatings makes this lens really work for tin type.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:That photo owns.I'm just gonna leave this here, http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/wetplateholders.html Cheers man, I might post the first go at the self portrait later, LOTS of interesting defects. The lady teaching the workshop showed us how to use unmodified film holders for wet plate. All you do is cut the metal a touch thinner and you can use the pressure on the holder from the graflok back to keep the metal flush in the holder. I'm basically gonna use the cash from the monorail I just sold to get set up with chemicals and build a little portable darkroom. I haven't been this excited about photography in a long time 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
rcman50166 posted:Camera Shopping Update If portability is important, you have to go the RB67, the 4x5 will be impossible to walk around with. Also 4x5 incurs a lot of little bits a pieces to actually do properly, do have any 4x5 film holders? Do you have a sturdy tripod? Do you have anyone nearby that'll process the 4x5 for you? Are you willing to do it? I personally would follow the conventional wisdom and get the medium format first, then jump to large format later if you're still keen. A couple more plates from yesterday, the shot with the Bessa is a touch overexposed, while the messed up one of my face is caused by a bad developer pour, still kinda neat I think.  
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
I remember seeing those shots when you put them up last time, and thy just made me even more excited about doing tintypes. That latest one with the well dressed gentleman is fantastic, all the tones are there. Were you shooting with an Aeroektar or something else with a huge aperture? As for the pouring method we were taught using the Coffer method where you sit it on your hand, propping up the plate with your fingers. It worked but felt a little awkward. Are you doing them yourself or as part of a group/workshop? We've gotta get more dorkroomers doing wet plate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Nondo posted:Thanks! I was shooting with a Dallmeyer 3B that belongs to my teacher. He does tintypes at a state park here every first Saturday of the month where there are volunteers in period attire. I drive out and assist for practice and take my own photos too. I'm having issues with my plate holder so I didn't even bring my camera last time. So you're shooting an 8x10 with a 4x5 back or just 8x10 plates? I'm guessing from the Dallmeyer lens, which looks to be the more sophisticated cousin of my Dallmeyer 8" f/2.9 lens which I was shooting with. As for the backs we were using, they we just standard 4x5 holders, where the plate was cut to 92x125mm so that it fits in, while the end tabs kept it pressed flat, worked really well. Have you got a proper wetplate back? I was thinking on the drive home from the workshop that there would be some societies/groups who'd love to be shot on tintype, and it'd be a perfect opportunity to get better at the process.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Then why not use Vuescan? I'm pretty sure it very similar to orthochromic film in that you can process in trays under a safe light and pull the negs when you get the density you want. I also remember hearing that the emulation is quite a bit thicker then standard film, and it's also easier to scratch.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Dumb question, but are you sure it isn't on the negative? I think it looks like a combination of not great C41 processing (low dynamic range) and some light leaks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Well, all you need to do now is work out if its the bellows or the holder thats leaking light and be stoked your scanner isn't buggered.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
I got a bit excited on Ebay last night and got myself an 8x10 wooden tailback wetplate camera as a fixer-upper (needs some bellows), and a cheap brass lens that should cover an 8x10 plate.   I was planning on building my own 8x10 wetplate camera, but the more I read into it the more I realised I was going to struggle to find the time, and make the space to work on it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Bought an 80+ year old box camera today, chucked some Acros in it and stand developed it:  
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2013 12:02
|
|
|
Nothing says sex creep like a MF camera and a tripod. I'm assuming that person who commented on Flickr is a friend of yours?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
Yeah, it looks like the film wasn't rolled tight enough and a small wrinkle let some light in. I had this happen once on my GW690ii when I didn't latch the roll in properly causing the take up to be a little wonky.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
I'm guessing you used the Harman positive paper? Is it just like regular paper processing?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Huh? How do you use an opaque paper negative in an enlarger? The paper isn't 100% opaque, so if you stick enough power through it and expose for long enough it'll work. I'll be very interested in the prints that come out of it, especially from someone who knows their way around an enlarger.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
^^ Great shots as per usual, love those old get-ups. I've got all my tin type stuff ready to go, nearly started on the weekend but found I needed to season the silver nitrate bath overnight and ordered the wrong plates. The plates are just big sheets of coated aluminium from a trophy store, and they're going to send some new stuff this week so I can get it all going this long weekend coming up. The brass 10.5" lens I got from eBay arrived, so now I'm just waiting on the wooden tailboard camera to come from Spain so I can get to work on doing some big plates at some point.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
I don't think it's terribly difficult to learn how to do, and you can get ready made kits from Bostic and Sullivan for a reasonable price (if you're in the US), so knowing in depth chemistry isn't required. But having said that, if you can find a tintype workshop, go and do that. Learn all the tricks, save yourself from a ton of learning pains, and also find out if you actually like the process and the resulting shots before you jump in feet first. I went into the workshop thinking it'll be great to play around with, but not something I would totally get into. But the whole process and the uniqueness of the resulting photo just blew me away and I knew that I had to get into it properly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Do any of you guys in Australia know how difficult/expensive it is to obtain the chemicals there versus the US? WAY harder, health and safety regulations are very strict here, it's pretty much an industry unto itself. In order to ship the tintype chemicals around 100km you're looking at >$200 in shipping for a specialist courier. Ellie Young who runs Gold Street Studios where I did the workshop also sells tintype kits just like B&S, and she's more than happy to drop them off at a Melbourne photography shop for you to pick up. If it wasn't for her I wouldn't be able to do wet plate, it'd be just too much red tape and  .
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
More loving freeways, shot with the GW690ii on Acros stand developed in Rodinal: 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2013 12:13
|
|
|
Well I tried the tintype on the weekend, without a lot of success. Lots of fogged/low contrast plates, which at the moment I'm thinking is due to the developer concentration being to high and also the temperature being too high (the last week has been loving hot down here). But hopefully I'll give it another crack this Sunday with a better understanding of the process (and it'll be 15C cooler). Anyway, went to the photography market here in Melbourne (held twice a year) and found this big-rear end Schneider lens for $100:  All I really know about it, is that was made in the mid 70's, f-stop range 5.6-11 and no shutter. I'm gonna try mounting it on this 8x10 wetplate camera I'm restoring at some point, it's too big for the Speed Graphic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2013 12:22
|
|
|
Finally got the tintypes working at home, first here is a shot of the laundry with all the crap laid out: And here are a couple of shots that came out okay (worked out the developer was too hot last time):   They're a little messy due to a couple of not so great colloidion pours, and reusing cleaned plates from all the disasters the other week.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2013 06:50
|
|
|
If you're even just thinking about making some tintypes, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXOseY7HxxU wet plate snype  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 12:59
|
|
|
Ilford are now doing a pinhole camera in 8x10 size: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/03/20/ilford-releases-a-new-harman-titan-8x10-pinhole-camera-with-f288-aperture/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
That kind of design is next on my list of things to make, just need to get a graflok back first and go from there. I really like what this guy has done (go to post #9): http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15043 Also, I nearly finished building an 8x10 sliding box camera, I'll post some pics on the weekend when it's done.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It will almost certainly be a scale-focus helicoid. Note the external VF, there's no rangefinder here. The 90mm is the equivalent of a 28mm wideangle, so it's a little more forgiving of focus errors. Pretty much this, think of it like the Bessa-L. I haven't decided what to make the body out of yet, there is some place here in Melbourne that will CNC carbon fibre for a reasonable price.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Seriously, anyone considering LF should buy a Chamonix and be done with it. It is unironically the best camera I have ever used. I wouldn't disagree for a second, but I had all the movements plus some in a cheap monorail compared to the Chamonix and I barely ever used them. I couldn't justify dropping $1000 on something I wouldn't get much benefit over the Speed Graphic I have, which has the bonus of a focal plane shutter. Also I'm getting into wet plate and I wanted some cheap 8x10's to play with, so long story short the Chamonix wasn't a great fit for me. Chamonix did get some of my money, I just ordered one of their 8x10 wetplate holders, looks to be the best bang for the buck. (I couldn't be bothered ruining/converting a film holder). Santa is strapped posted:I personally don't think this camera is for me. I wouldn't buy it for the same reason I wouldn't buy a Holga. I'd rather save up the money for the real thing. As a toy camera it's great but the costs associated with it are prohibitive (cost of film, developing, etc) I've thought about it a bit more too, I think I'd be more interested in picking up a GSW690 (the wide angle version of the amazing GW690). I probably try building an ULF pin-hole or something crazy like that instead.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2013 12:12
|
|
|
My new home made 8x10 sliding box camera. Built out of 12mm thick plywood and all cut with a handsaw. The lens is a big C-Claron Schneider lens I picked up at a photography swap meet, and the wet plate holder is from Chamonix. The lens being the whole reason I built the camera, it'd break any other camera I have that I would mount it on. I’ve just got to finish it off with a elasticated back made from MDF, and I’ll need to find some frosted glass/acrylic. But in the meantime I'll just some baking paper as the focusing screen. Oh, and I built it in portrait orientation, I found I shoot nearly 80% that way:  Compared to the Dorkroom unit of measure the ME Super on top:  I'll shoot some paper with it next weekend once I get it finished off, and once I get a big dipper tank built I'll do some 8x10 tintypes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Rad as gently caress, also just make some legit ground glass. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/78392-making-ground-glass-focus-screen.html Cheers for that, I'd been thinking about making my own as I wasn't too keen on trying to get a glazier to cut me a couple of 8x10 pieces (I'm restoring a 1905 Derogy wetplate field camera too). I'll have a search around today for someone to sell me some glass, and I should be able to find a source for the silicon carbide too and just order it through work. Paul MaudDib posted:What is a C-Claron? Some kind of copy lens? How does it compare to a G-Claron? MrBlandAverage posted:
I really I'm not 100% sure its a C-Claron, I asked over at the Large Formate Forum and thats what they seemed to think it is. All I know is that it's got a Schnieder badge on it, a serial number that puts it being made in the 1970's and an f-stop range of 5.6-11. The focal length is around 240mm and it appears to be made for doing 1:1 copies, so the whole camera ends up being relatively compact. On the baking paper ground glass the image looks very sharp, and seems to easily cover the full 8x10. As for comparisons to the G-Claron, I'm not entirely sure, but I think it's just a simpler/less featured version of the same lens design. My lens appears to be coated too, which is a positive. nielsm posted:Sweet. I thought I'd need some felt or whatever to seal it up, but I think the flat black pain I've used and that it's a pretty tight fit seems to do the job of keeping it light tight. I haven't put a guide rail in or anything that fancy (lacking skills really), but I'm probably going to router a groove into the base board to lock the back plane down when it shifts. Precise focusing is fairly easy as its all very solid, you can shift a mm or two quite easily without feeling like it's going to shift out of focus by its self.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 22:49
|
|
What focal length is your C-Claron? Is it the 477/6.7?
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I know. I'm very bad at scanning, but I'm by far the worst at color correction. I don't think I have the eye for it yet. What would you change? Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_qeZOWqchM, I think its XKCD Larper. I made a rough looking focusing screen out of some cheap picture frame glass and some sand paper and go my 8x10 camera working. This is shot with the lens wide open on some Ilford Multigrade paper developed in some Rodinal (I couldn't be bothered getting any proper paper dev):  First thing, the lens doesn't cover 8x10 wide open, however, it does if the object being focused on is close enough (I'm honestly not sure if this how all large format lenses work), but I'm guessing it's because the lens is a 1:1 copying lens for A4 documents, so the lens is to be not designed to be so close to the focal plane. Tomorrow I might try some RA-4 paper with it, see if I can get some cheap 8x10 colour happening.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:If it is a C Claron it might not cover 8x10 at distance you could try it stopped down to see. I think you're right, I think it'll be good for close portraits but not for any focus greater than a focus greater than 1-2m. I do have an old brass lens that I might mount on there tomorrow if I get time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:That is, indeed, how large format lenses work. Think of the image circle as the intersection between the cone of light projected by the lens and the film plane. Focused at 1:1, the image circle is twice as wide as it is when focused at infinity; bellows extension focused at 1:1 is twice what it is focused at infinity. Cool, that's the idea I had in my head of cutting the image cone with the focal plane. I'll do some tests to see what are the lens's limitations. I was happy with how sharp the images are I get from it, and there wasn't any weird hazing, so I think it'll still work well for 8x10 tintype portraits.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
He is one striking looking dude, are you getting those deep blacks with lots of burning?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:It's the way I print. Yes I burn the borders to vignette the scene, but the blacks in my printing come from using split filters, which means I can get the blacks as bold as I want while essentially still keeping the whites as they are. I'm still very much learning when it comes to printing, it always impresses me how much you can push the blacks while keeping detail in the highlights with split filtering.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
I tried shooting some expired RA-4 paper in the homemade 8x10, managed to get some sharp images, but they REALLY lacked colour: Next time I'll use some loose RA-4 printing filters in front of the lens, as the paper negatives were really red, so I'll need to add lots of magenta and yellow. And the paper was developed in a Rollei digibase RA-4 kit at room temperature.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
I had another crack at colour paper, this time finding stuff in the lounge room to shoot. This was at night under room lighting, the negatives were very magenta, with little colour saturation again, even with some filtering. I'll have to go harder next time: And here's a crop, surprised with the detail: 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Wouldn't color paper not have an even color response because it's made to work with color negatives that have that orange base? Anyway, the colors may not be right, but you're getting cool results. McMadCow posted:I don't know if color paper is completely neutral, but you correct for the orange base in the darkroom. I figured I'd get more of a colour response than I'm seeing right now, as the paper should be responsive to most of the colour spectrum. But I'm really liking that I'm getting the unpredictable results, I'll try some daytime portraits with it next. I've still got to get an 8x10 dipping tank so I can move up to the big tintypes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
nielsm posted:What are the exposure times like with the paper? Have you tried adjusting them significantly? The iso of the paper is about 12, compared to black and white, which is about 3. I've played a little with the exposures a bit outside, and didn't really see much change in the colour palate. PE at APUG posted:It is Tungsten balanced with high UV and IR sensitivity so you will need a good UV filter. The Blue is about ISO 100, the Red is about ISO 25. So it looks like the paper could be really flexible, making 8x10 IR and UV images could be pretty fun.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
It looks like your under exposing the film and the lab (or yourself, did you scan them?) is having to push them up during the scan, resulting in a lot of grain and not so much shadow detail. What film types were these?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2013 09:05
|
|