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

Anyone here using D23 with foma? I'm trying to stick to 1 film one dev combination for now

All over the web I hear different things and not much documentation which is expected as the original d23 is so old

What I've read so far ha!:

d23 needs 250ml per 80 sq inch
d23 needs 200ml per 80sq per film
should be used straight
should be used 1:1 for better sharpness
use d76 times for d23
if use 1:1 then double the times

I know this is up for debate when it comes to bnw, I would like though a good starting point. Even the massive dev doesnt seem to agree with itself

Screenshot 2023-04-28 at 20.22.50.png
 
This weeks GAS purchase was a 150 Rodenstock N for a bargain sum of £200, the prices on these vary wildly and it was lower as it has a electric compure shutter, after testing shutter speeds are bang on from 32 seconds down to 1/30th. They start to divert after 1/60 - seems electronics cant overcome mechanical limits of faster speeds. Bought from Ffordes. May have to make some franken battery when this one dies but well worth it for the price
 
Off this week so ventured out mainly for practice, todays mistakes were

1. Using zone system forgot to move shadows to Zone 3 on first sheet
2. Did no bellows extension whatsoever!
3. Also rise was pretty big today and didnt check my corners round the front

Will dev tonight and off to the darkroom tomorrow

Chamonix N-2 and Rodenstock 150mm
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5128.jpg
    IMG_5128.jpg
    167 KB · Views: 23
  • IMG_5127.jpg
    IMG_5127.jpg
    91.3 KB · Views: 23
  • IMG_5126.jpg
    IMG_5126.jpg
    206.9 KB · Views: 24
  • IMG_5125.jpg
    IMG_5125.jpg
    259.2 KB · Views: 25
  • IMG_5124.jpg
    IMG_5124.jpg
    146.5 KB · Views: 24
1 Should be within tolerance (with FP4 anyway!)
2. Shouldn't matter unless you were at less than about 3 feet
3 Been there, done that (on Hadrian's Wall).

Now prove me wrong :)
 
StephenM said:
1 Should be within tolerance (with FP4 anyway!)
2. Shouldn't matter unless you were at less than about 3 feet
3 Been there, done that (on Hadrian's Wall).

Now prove me wrong :)
Click to expand...
haha the proof is in the printing! fingers crossed!
 
Working on settling on film speed for Foma 100 today, my iphone camera doesnt show everything clearly. These were at EI 50 and 100, metered by the function button of the camera. d23 (1:1) for 10 mins in Jobo 3010.

The shadow detail in the EI 50 is there so my shadow speed I think is around that value. However I've overdeveloped and so the highlights have blown. I'm thinking ISO 64 with maybe 25% off dev time?

In the EI 100 shot I do like the black of the neck strap

Also my base exposure (calculated off a blank neg to paper black) was 6x3 seconds at f22! Seems the enlarger at the darkroom has a very bright bulb so may need ND filters






IMG_5137.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To a pretty good approximation, the shadows get as dense as they're going to get a short way into the development; after that, you're just increasing the highlight density (aka contrast). So I'd leave the exposure alone and cut the development time.
 
Last edited:
Trying out my new (to me) Chamonix 045N-1. :)

I have a movement-related question about the first shot... The bottom of the power pole looks a little soft, presumably because I used a bit of tilt to get the foreground as a well as the tree in focus. Is there any way to avoid things in the mddle distand dropping out of focus like this, or is it just a case of stopping down the aperture and hoping for the best?

Chamonix 045N-1
Fujinon NW 135mm f/5.6
Ilford HP5+
Ilfotec DD-X 1+9 15 mins 45 secs@ 20°

Both shots at f/32 1/60sec.


Again by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


Kiveton Park Station by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
As I understand it yeah, stopping down would have helped. If you are going to start tilting I'd look into The Scheimpflug principle - this is the easy to follow example I've seen
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOynPW7aSHI


the scene is relatively parralelel as well so perhaps would have looked at putting the focus distance half way between your foreground subject and background and choosing optimum f stop, see links below. I'd consider tilt if there was a mountain all the way back on the horizon

 
Don Fischer said:
Soft? Looks fine to me! I think sometime people are simply to critical of what they do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm probably being picky to be honest, and it looks fine in the version embedded on the forum. It's noticeable on the full size scan, but probably mostly to me. It's the first shot from my Chamonix, so I was scrutinising it quite heavily.
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
As I understand it yeah, stopping down would have helped. If you are going to start tilting I'd look into The Scheimpflug principle - this is the easy to follow example I've seen
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOynPW7aSHI


the scene is relatively parralelel as well so perhaps would have looked at putting the focus distance half way between your foreground subject and background and choosing optimum f stop, see links below. I'd consider tilt if there was a mountain all the way back on the horizon

Click to expand...

I know about Scheimpflug, but I think I need to experience how it works in practice rather than theory, especially when it comes to checking focus across the whole composition.

I think I also need to better understand the DOF I get with 4x5 and my 135mm lens at different apertures. I'm playing it safe with a lot of f/32 shots currently when I might be able to get away with wider apertures.
 
I did find out that my 135mm lens vignettes with a lot of front rise (this is cropped to remove the worst of it, and the vignetting further reduced in Lightroom):

Chamonix 045N-1
Fujinon NW 135mm f/5.6 @f/22
Ilford HP5+
Ilfotec DD-X 1+9 15 mins 45 secs@ 20°


St Peter and Paul's church, Eckington by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
FishyFish said:
I have a movement-related question about the first shot... The bottom of the power pole looks a little soft, presumably because I used a bit of tilt to get the foreground as a well as the tree in focus. Is there any way to avoid things in the mddle distand dropping out of focus like this, or is it just a case of stopping down the aperture and hoping for the best?
Click to expand...

Isn't the answer f/64? ;)
 
I took the MPP 4x5 out yesterday and shot some local cricket (I hope). I also have some shots from the previous weeks so have 12 sheets to develop.

It's Fomapan 100 and I'll be using DD-X in my SP445. Hoping I get the chance to do that tonight.

Here's a shot on my phone, bit of a lack of contrast in the scene so it will be interesting to see how the Fomapan sees it.WhatsApp Image 2023-06-04 at 17.46.26.jpg
 
FishyFish said:
I know about Scheimpflug, but I think I need to experience how it works in practice rather than theory, especially when it comes to checking focus across the whole composition.

I think I also need to better understand the DOF I get with 4x5 and my 135mm lens at different apertures. I'm playing it safe with a lot of f/32 shots currently when I might be able to get away with wider apertures.
Click to expand...
Have you tried F-stop (an iPhone app, dunno about Android)? The interface is completely un-intuitive to me, but you can select sensor size, focal length, aperture and subject distance and it gives you near and far "in-focus" distances. For example at 4x5, 135mm, f/16 focused at 10 metres you get near limit of 5.36m and far limit of 74.66m...
 
Those are something special looks like a long time ao. German soldiers? Do all the great photography you want, you couldn't improve on this much! Great photo's should inspire memory's!
 
Don Fischer said:
Those are something special looks like a long time ao. German soldiers? Do all the great photography you want, you couldn't improve on this much! Great photo's should inspire memory's!
Click to expand...
Thank yoiu.

I suppose we should be pleased that the German's didn't make it to Rawtenstall in WWII but thankful to the people who keep history alive like these reenactors and the East Lancs Railway.
 
FishyFish said:
Trying out my new (to me) Chamonix 045N-1. :)

I have a movement-related question about the first shot... The bottom of the power pole looks a little soft, presumably because I used a bit of tilt to get the foreground as a well as the tree in focus. Is there any way to avoid things in the mddle distand dropping out of focus like this, or is it just a case of stopping down the aperture and hoping for the best?

Chamonix 045N-1
Fujinon NW 135mm f/5.6
Ilford HP5+
Ilfotec DD-X 1+9 15 mins 45 secs@ 20°

Both shots at f/32 1/60sec.


Again by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


Kiveton Park Station by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
Click to expand...
A bit late with this, but I don't really follow this forum.

This is a major problem with movements and large format, When you change the lens tilt, you also tilt the plane of focus and where the centre of any depth of field radiates from.

It's a real pain if you have things like tall trees in the foreground or tall buildings/trees in the mid ground, which can easily end up out of focus.

I found, I needed a bit of an iterative process using a focus magnifier and checking the focus with the lens stopped down to the working aperture,

Starting with the tilt I thought I needed and then refocussing until I got as much of the image within the depth of field as I could.

If this didn't give me everything as sharp as I needed, I would slightly reduce the tilt and refocus and then re-check what was and what wasn't within the depth of field.

Sometimes I would end up with a vertical plane of focus without any tilt, or just a tiny bit of tilt compared with where I started, and sometimes you could slap on as much tilt as the lens coverage allowed.

I haven't actually done this for years, but remember the biggest issue was clearly identifying what was and what wasn't in focus when the image on the ground glass was very dim because the lens was stopped down.
 
myotis said:
A bit late with this, but I don't really follow this forum.

This is a major problem with movements and large format, When you change the lens tilt, you also tilt the plane of focus and where the centre of any depth of field radiates from.

It's a real pain if you have things like tall trees in the foreground or tall buildings/trees in the mid ground, which can easily end up out of focus.

I found, I needed a bit of an iterative process using a focus magnifier and checking the focus with the lens stopped down to the working aperture,

Starting with the tilt I thought I needed and then refocussing until I got as much of the image within the depth of field as I could.

If this didn't give me everything as sharp as I needed, I would slightly reduce the tilt and refocus and then re-check what was and what wasn't within the depth of field.

Sometimes I would end up with a vertical plane of focus without any tilt, or just a tiny bit of tilt compared with where I started, and sometimes you could slap on as much tilt as the lens coverage allowed.

I haven't actually done this for years, but remember the biggest issue was clearly identifying what was and what wasn't in focus when the image on the ground glass was very dim because the lens was stopped down.
Click to expand...
Thanks Graham, appreciate the response.
 
Today's lesson in large format photography is that it gets very stuffy under a dark-cloth on a hot sunny day and should you wear spectacles, they will steam up in a matter of seconds, making the endeavour very frustrating.

My current cloth is just a black t-shirt. I think I might sew it inside a white t-shirt to see if it will reduce some of the heat (and also further reduce the light).

Also - always take a spare cable release. Mine broke meaning I had to manually fire one of the shots with the lens shutter release. Luckily it was a 1/60sec exposure, so hopefully it will be OK.
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
Today's lesson in large format photography is that it gets very stuffy under a dark-cloth on a hot sunny day and should you wear spectacles, they will steam up in a matter of seconds, making the endeavour very frustrating.

My current cloth is just a black t-shirt. I think I might sew it inside a white t-shirt to see if it will reduce some of the heat (and also further reduce the light).

Also - always take a spare cable release. Mine broke meaning I had to manually fire one of the shots with the lens shutter release. Luckily it was a 1/60sec exposure, so hopefully it will be OK.
Click to expand...
Sucks being a glasses wearer in so many different things.

I've used some inexpensive cable releases and whilst none have broken a few have got tight and unreliable. Since I bought a cable release from Kaiser-Fototechnik I have never had a single issue. Smooth and really well made but of course, not cheap. I do carry a spare cheap one as I am more likely to lose the Kaiser I suspect than for it to break.
 
Can anyone recommend a loupe that I can use with the fold out hood on an MPP MkVII?

I know I can use a 50mm lens inverted or I could take the hood off the MPP but I think there has to be a long loupe that isn't silly money.

If there isn't what loupe would you recommend (I am hoping to find used to save money) to use on a ground glass and I'll live with taking the hood off?
 
moggi1964 said:
Can anyone recommend a loupe that I can use with the fold out hood on an MPP MkVII?

I know I can use a 50mm lens inverted or I could take the hood off the MPP but I think there has to be a long loupe that isn't silly money.

If there isn't what loupe would you recommend (I am hoping to find used to save money) to use on a ground glass and I'll live with taking the hood off?
Click to expand...
Worth a try as its cheap - I've read +2/3 reading glasses will work
 
FishyFish said:
Today's lesson in large format photography is that it gets very stuffy under a dark-cloth on a hot sunny day and should you wear spectacles, they will steam up in a matter of seconds, making the endeavour very frustrating.
Click to expand...
Even worse, my dark cloth is made of black plastic. It is light and compact but horrible inside. I’m also a specs wearer but I might try taking them off for LF work and rely on my loupe to check the fine detail.

I keep thinking about buying a better dark cloth but the cost and weight put me off.
 
Kevin Allan said:
Even worse, my dark cloth is made of black plastic. It is light and compact but horrible inside. I’m also a specs wearer but I might try taking them off for LF work and rely on my loupe to check the fine detail.

I keep thinking about buying a better dark cloth but the cost and weight put me off.
Click to expand...

I've seen some on eBay that are not too expensive, but I'm wary of the "buy cheap, buy twice" adage. I think the white t-shirt sewn with the black one inside route is my next step - certainly the cheapest! After that' I'll see.

Annoyingly my loupe doesn't quite focus perfectly with my naked eye. It has to be right on the ground glass, and the focus is very good, but when I use it with my glasses I can percieve an improvement, albeit marginal.

Here's another shot from yesterday that would hve been better had I been able to see what the hell I was doing. :LOL:

Chamonix 045N-1
Fujinon NW 135mm f/5.6 with yellow filter
Fomapan 100
Ilfotec DD-X 1+9 12 mins @ 20°


At the edge of the birch wood by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
FishyFish said:
I've seen some on eBay that are not too expensive, but I'm wary of the "buy cheap, buy twice" adage. I think the white t-shirt sewn with the black one inside route is my next step - certainly the cheapest! After that' I'll see.

Annoyingly my loupe doesn't quite focus perfectly with my naked eye. It has to be right on the ground glass, and the focus is very good, but when I use it with my glasses I can percieve an improvement, albeit marginal.

Here's another shot from yesterday that would hve been better had I been able to see what the hell I was doing. :LOL:

Chamonix 045N-1
Fujinon NW 135mm f/5.6 with yellow filter
Fomapan 100
Ilfotec DD-X 1+9 12 mins @ 20°


At the edge of the birch wood by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I'm looking for a bit of help with the photo above...

As I've already said, I had a lot of issues trying to focus the image due to the humidity under the dakcloth, but even so, some of the focusing seems weird. Some closely adjacent areas differ markedly in sharpness.
Now, this might be down to movements that were used - I certainly had a bit of tilt and swing going on (although not anything extreme) - and my still basic understanding of the Scheimpflug principle, but I'm not ruling out some other weirdness. Someone asked me if the film might not have been flat, for instance. This would seem unlikley given the construction of the film holder and the relative rigidity of 4x5 sheet film, but I'm no expert.

What do people think? The yellow shaded area in the copy of the picture before is the bit that raises the most questions for me.

If you click on the linked picture below on a computer, you should be able to zoom right in on the original photo on Flickr to see what I'm on about more clearly.

Thanks.

OOF oddity.JPG
 
As its such as isolated issue I would also think the combination of tilt and swing. Annoylingly the best way is too probably take the same photo with no movements and use a dark towel to avoid the darkcloth issue. Also take it with swing only and tilt only.

I get why you may use swing for this composition but not tilt? Looking very closely the OOF are actually goes all the way up to the top of the photo which supports a movement issue if youve had no other issues with this lens
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I’m viewing on a phone and can’t see the issue in the yellow area. However I think any use of tilt in this scene is going to put the tops of the foreground trees outside of the plane of focus. Swing makes sense to bring the far left tree into focus.
 
I've had a look on a big screen now ... this might be way off beam but it looks a little like the scanning artefacts you get when you accidentally have ICE turned on when scanning a B&W image. Have you looked at the neg on a light box with loupe to confirm if the issue is on the neg ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top