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

sirch said:
you can never have enough tripods and bags, besides I think they are pack animals and get lonely on their own :whistle:
Click to expand...
If you have to carry them you can easily have too many.
For heavy items like my 5x4 cameras I use a Manfrotto 058B, which is rock steady & easily adjustable, but too heavy for any kind of distance (6.7kg without the head). I don't think I've taken it more than 100m from the car, except on the first trip out with it when I had the whole family available to help :)
 
Ive had good experience buying from Japan

Calling a lens with haze, fungus and seperation Very Good it a bit of a stretch :ROFLMAO:

www.ebay.co.uk

Very Good!! Rodenstock Sironar 150mm f/5.6 | eBay

Appearance:Please refer photo. / Optic:Lens Condition <br> <br>Internal dust : Few, It will no affect. <br> <br>Scratches : None. <br> <br>Fungus : Visible with strong lights, It will no affect. <br> Inside, One points. <br> <br>Haze : Visible with strong lights, It will no affect. <br> Front...
www.ebay.co.uk
 
I devved four more sheets during my lunchbreak today. Two look fine (from glancing at the negs), the other two are beset by light leaks. One of the light leaks looks to be very similar to the one I had earlier and posted here: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...y-group-from-zero-to-hero.504894/post-9269394.

The other one (from the same film holder) looks very similar to a leak that @ChrisR had in this post: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-acrylic-4x5-field-camera.636352/post-8295523

My initial assumption is that this particular film holder might be no good, so I'll probably avoid using that one unless I can rule that out as the cause.

I'll pop some scans up later when the film is dry and I've finished work.

Luckily the two borked shots are just of the local church, so I can easily shoot them again (and I'd only really shot them to practice and to give me four sheets to dev rather than just putting two in the Stearman tank).

Any suggestions for reliable sources of film holders (and any types to avoid)? I was going to buy a couple more in any case? Ta.
 
FishyFish said:
I devved four more sheets during my lunchbreak today. Two look fine (from glancing at the negs), the other two are beset by light leaks. One of the light leaks looks to be very similar to the one I had earlier and posted here: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...y-group-from-zero-to-hero.504894/post-9269394.

The other one (from the same film holder) looks very similar to a leak that @ChrisR had in this post: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-acrylic-4x5-field-camera.636352/post-8295523

My initial assumption is that this particular film holder might be no good, so I'll probably avoid using that one unless I can rule that out as the cause.

I'll pop some scans up later when the film is dry and I've finished work.

Luckily the two borked shots are just of the local church, so I can easily shoot them again (and I'd only really shot them to practice and to give me four sheets to dev rather than just putting two in the Stearman tank).

Any suggestions for reliable sources of film holders (and any types to avoid)? I was going to buy a couple more in any case? Ta.
Click to expand...
What are the current ones? Fidelity? There are loads for sale on the ebay, i think with a lot of LF stuff you buy and test to see if it’s useable, you can still buy new ones for peace of mind but will cost you
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
What are the current ones? Fidelity? There are loads for sale on the ebay, i think with a lot of LF stuff you buy and test to see if it’s useable, you can still buy new ones for peace of mind but will cost you
Click to expand...
Yeah, Fidelity Elite.

I don't mind using eBay but I'd prefer to pay a little more to have peace of mind that they'll be good from the get go. Second hand is fine, but I want to avoid wasting film (and more importantly, my time) on shots that then turn out to be useless beyond identifying a fault. On that basis, I'd probably favour a trusted seller or camera shop, which is where the seeking of recommendations comes in.

I don't plan on buying brand new ones though if I can avoid it.
 
FishyFish said:
I devved four more sheets during my lunchbreak today. Two look fine (from glancing at the negs), the other two are beset by light leaks. One of the light leaks looks to be very similar to the one I had earlier and posted here: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...y-group-from-zero-to-hero.504894/post-9269394.

The other one (from the same film holder) looks very similar to a leak that @ChrisR had in this post: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-acrylic-4x5-field-camera.636352/post-8295523

My initial assumption is that this particular film holder might be no good, so I'll probably avoid using that one unless I can rule that out as the cause.

I'll pop some scans up later when the film is dry and I've finished work.

Luckily the two borked shots are just of the local church, so I can easily shoot them again (and I'd only really shot them to practice and to give me four sheets to dev rather than just putting two in the Stearman tank).

Any suggestions for reliable sources of film holders (and any types to avoid)? I was going to buy a couple more in any case? Ta.
Click to expand...
TOYO !!

I replaced all my 54 holders due to being fed up of intermittent leaks from used ones.

My 13x18 holders are however used ( mostly fidelity) and I have to confess that it took some sifting through and testing to clarify what was good.
Trusting sellers is a gamble! ….I would advise a reputable retailer , buy new or at least pulurchase from a Tog whom you know and trust.

10x8 I have a couple of Fidelity used holders two brand new TOYO holders .

With all this said , I’ve had a light issue with my latest 54 exposure which was an important shot which I don’t have time to retake.
Ironically it’s not visible on the rebate of the neg, only in the image itself , so in theory not a holder problem.
Possibly a filter issue or more likely human error.
Oh well it’s as it is.
 
Here's a phone snap of the two negs with light leaks.

Any thoughts as to the likely cause? The rebate doesn't seem to be showing signs of the light leaks - there's a bit on the portrait orientation shot of the church but it doesn't really correspond with the defect on the image.

The one on the left shares similarities with the light leak that @ChrisR encountered, although mine seems to have almost half the neg affected as well as the worst part of the leak near the edge.

20230131_162643.jpg

The defect in the one on the right is identical to the shot I posted here previously - the only difference being that the film had been loaded into the holders in a different orientation for each shot.

20230131_163335.jpg

I think I can rule out the film or the development being the cause as the two other shots from the same pack of film, and developed in the tank at the same time are both fine.
 
Last edited:
Something to do with removing the dark slide? It looks like a fairly well defined line where general light leaks in my experience tend to be fade away from the point of the leak
 
FishyFish said:
Here's a phone snap of the two negs with light leaks.

Any thoughts as to the likely cause? The rebate doesn't seem to be showing signs of the light leaks - there's a bit on the portrait orientation shot of the church but it doesn't really correspond with the defect on the image.

The one on the left shares similarities with the light leak that @ChrisR encountered, although mine seems to have almost half the neg affected.

View attachment 380111

The defect in the one on the right is identical to the shot I posted here previously - the only difference being that the film had been loaded into the holders in a different orientation for each shot.

View attachment 380112
Click to expand...
Film holder and or spring back not sat properly prior to removing darkslide.

I’m pretty certain Nige as having spent half hour in the darkroom with the Walker Titan, filmholders, lens and filter used for the last exposure and a torch , I know exactly the cause of my light entry !

Doesn’t matter how experienced we are, these irritating hiccups arise occasionally.
 
Hmm. It appears that the problem is on the other shots too, just not as pronounced.

I've taken a look at the camera and now think the issue is coming from where the camera back is attached. If I put a light source inside the camera I can see a very thin line of light, but it's from where the back is attached to the camera, not from where the film holder is pressed against the back. I've no idea how to proceed now short of contacting @stevelmx5 to see if it's possible to get a repair.

The amount of light visible through the gap is negligible, probably less than a 10th of a millimetre, which probably explains why the impact on the negatives is much more pronounced where I've shot in duller light.

The light is coming out from this arrowed area, although it seems more pronounced at one side, which probably explains how some of the light leaks are occuring down one half of the negative:

Chroma back.jpg

The circled area shows where a bit of the black tape surrounding the green acrylic looks to have been crushed slightly. I've no idea if this has anything to do with the problem though.
 
FishyFish said:
Hmm. It appears that the problem is on the other shots too, just not as pronounced.

I've taken a look at the camera and now think the issue is coming from where the camera back is attached. If I put a light source inside the camera I can see a very thin line of light, but it's from where the back is attached to the camera, not from where the film holder is pressed against the back. I've no idea how to proceed now short of contacting @stevelmx5 to see if it's possible to get a repair.

The amount of light visible through the gap is negligible, probably less than a 10th of a millimetre, which probably explains why the impact on the negatives is much more pronounced where I've shot in duller light.

The light is coming out from this arrowed area, although it seems more pronounced at one side, which probably explains how some of the light leaks are occuring down one half of the negative:

View attachment 380120

The circled area shows where a bit of the black tape surrounding the green acrylic looks to have been crushed slightly. I've no idea if this has anything to do with the problem though.
Click to expand...
Hi. I’m happy to take a look at the back if you want to post it across to me. I’ll send you my address via pm.

Although, looking at your negatives, I’d expect light coming in from the top to cause a lighter band horizontally across the frame, rather than one half of the image vertically?
 
The simplest way to identify if there’s a light leak when the camera is setup is to go into a dark room and point a bright torch (I usually use the one on my phone) into the front of the camera with the lens/board removed.

You can also reach into the front of the bellows with the torch and point it directly at the rear standard, moving it all around, and any leaks will be pretty obvious.

As well as saving film, using this method is a much harsher test because it’s very rare that you’ll have such pinpoint direct light hitting the camera from multiple angles.
 
stevelmx5 said:
Hi. I’m happy to take a look at the back if you want to post it across to me. I’ll send you my address via pm.

Although, looking at your negatives, I’d expect light coming in from the top to cause a lighter band horizontally across the frame, rather than one half of the image vertically?
Click to expand...

Thanks Steve. That would be great. Happy to provide as much info as I can as to what I’m noticing.
 
FishyFish said:
Thanks Steve. That would be great. Happy to provide as much info as I can as to what I’m noticing.
Click to expand...
If you want to send the whole camera instead, I’m happy to take a proper look at both the film back and body.

I made quite a lot of changes between the early acrylic Kickstarter cameras and the latest ones I built last year, so I’m sure I can get to the bottom of any issues on your camera.
 
Last edited:
stevelmx5 said:
The simplest way to identify if there’s a light leak when the camera is setup is to go into a dark room and point a bright torch (I usually use the one on my phone) into the front of the camera with the lens/board removed.

You can also reach into the front of the bellows with the torch and point it directly at the rear standard, moving it all around, and any leaks will be pretty obvious.

As well as saving film, using this method is a much harsher test because it’s very rare that you’ll have such pinpoint direct light hitting the camera from multiple angles.
Click to expand...
I’ve popped a light inside the camera this evening (a phone with the torch switched on) in a dark room and can see light emitting from where the back attaches to the camera. It’s more noticeable at the top (with the back in portrait orientation, or from the right side in landscape), but I can see a little light escaping at the sides too. To be clear, it’s a razor thin slice of light that can only be seen when you look at it from the correct angle, but it’s there. And I guess that if I can see light coming out, the film will see light coming in. :)
 
stevelmx5 said:
If you want to send the whole camera instead, I’m happy to take a proper look at both the film back and body.

I made quite a lot of changes between the early acrylic Kickstarter cameras and the latest ones I built last year, so I’m sure I can get to the bottom of any issues on your camera.
Click to expand...

That is very kind of you Steve. PM me your details and I’ll get it packed and posted to you. If there are any costs involved, just let me know what they are - happy to pay for the repair if it’s needed.

Thanks again. :)
 
FishyFish said:
Hmm. It appears that the problem is on the other shots too, just not as pronounced.

I've taken a look at the camera and now think the issue is coming from where the camera back is attached. If I put a light source inside the camera I can see a very thin line of light, but it's from where the back is attached to the camera, not from where the film holder is pressed against the back. I've no idea how to proceed now short of contacting @stevelmx5 to see if it's possible to get a repair.

The amount of light visible through the gap is negligible, probably less than a 10th of a millimetre, which probably explains why the impact on the negatives is much more pronounced where I've shot in duller light.

The light is coming out from this arrowed area, although it seems more pronounced at one side, which probably explains how some of the light leaks are occuring down one half of the negative:

View attachment 380120

The circled area shows where a bit of the black tape surrounding the green acrylic looks to have been crushed slightly. I've no idea if this has anything to do with the problem though.
Click to expand...
Sorry this is happening, Nige. I've been relieved seeing your successes so far that you hadn't had the problems I had, assuming these were my user error.

The two suggestions from subsequent posts to the one of mine you referenced earlier were to keep the back pressed against the camera with a thumb (etc) while withdrawing the dark slide, and/or leaving the dark cloth draped over the back of the camera while the dark slide is removed. I looked for and didn't find a light leak in the actual camera body (and IIRC so also did John @thedarkshed, who had a Chroma and was much more knowledgeable than me).

If there's a problem with the camera itself, drop me a PM (if that's the correct approach) and we'll see if we can get it sorted.
 
ChrisR said:
Sorry this is happening, Nige. I've been relieved seeing your successes so far that you hadn't had the problems I had, assuming these were my user error.

The two suggestions from subsequent posts to the one of mine you referenced earlier were to keep the back pressed against the camera with a thumb (etc) while withdrawing the dark slide, and/or leaving the dark cloth draped over the back of the camera while the dark slide is removed. I looked for and didn't find a light leak in the actual camera body (and IIRC so also did John @thedarkshed, who had a Chroma and was much more knowledgeable than me).

If there's a problem with the camera itself, drop me a PM (if that's the correct approach) and we'll see if we can get it sorted.
Click to expand...
Thanks Chris, appreciate that. (y)

When checking the camera in a dark room with a light inside, the light I can see escaping appears to be coming from where the back attaches to the camera body rather than where the film holder is slotted in (which had been what I’d expected to find), and I can’t see that being affected by the dark slide being removed - those magnets are strong. :) I’m not ruling out the possibility of some of the leaks being down to my ham-fistedness when inserting the film holder or removing the dark slide, but I’ve seen evidence of light leaks on six of the ten sheets I’ve so far successfully exposed which is a lot even for me!
 
Here're the other two frames of Fomapan 100 I devved yesterday. You can still see the light leaks, but less pronounced here - I think because it wasn't as bright.

At least I'm improving my focusing, using tilt and swing to get stuff sharp (well, mostly, there are still things to work on, but it's much better than before).


Steetley chapel by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


Steetley chapel by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
shop.stearmanpress.com

What's next: SP-645, SP-8x20, Bigger and Better...

SP-645 The original SP-445 wasn't even in production and people were asking for a higher capacity version! We had requests for systems that could process six, eight, ten and even a few asking for twelve sheets. Anything past eight gets really complicated, really fast. Even an eight sheet version...
shop.stearmanpress.com

Stearman back with a 6 sheet tank now by the will of the people
 
acrobatic_Citron said:
shop.stearmanpress.com

What's next: SP-645, SP-8x20, Bigger and Better...

SP-645 The original SP-445 wasn't even in production and people were asking for a higher capacity version! We had requests for systems that could process six, eight, ten and even a few asking for twelve sheets. Anything past eight gets really complicated, really fast. Even an eight sheet version...
shop.stearmanpress.com

Stearman back with a 6 sheet tank now by the will of the people
Click to expand...
Unless in a desperate need to have numerous sheets developed quickly for clients , I really do not see the benefits of souping so many in one go.
In fact it can be detrimental !

Fair enough , one saves on chemicals, namely developer , however is it really worth the risk of losing all the negatives if an error is made?
No doubt there will be some that are super confident…… my words to those who may believe that errors won’t happen as they’re soooo experienced are that we are all human and all very much capable of making a complete c*#% up!

Besides, if working alone with scanning / printing, only one negative can be worked on at a time.

Personally I prefer to soup one sheet at a time.
I can do 4 ( 5x4 format) in one go in the same tank but it is rare that I do so.

Everyone has their prefered method.

I simply choose to avoid losing exposures and work through one at a time.
 
I do 6 at a time quite often with my Mod54, it allows me to unload my Grafmatics in one go.

The 8x20 looks tempting for me personally, although I get by with using my 8x10 and Paterson Orbital at the same time.
 
FruitFlakes said:
I do 6 at a time quite often with my Mod54, it allows me to unload my Grafmatics in one go.

The 8x20 looks tempting for me personally, although I get by with using my 8x10 and Paterson Orbital at the same time.
Click to expand...
Do you not get issues either loading the mod 54 or the sheets coming adrift and sticking to each other during development?

I was never at ease with the system tbh
 
Asha said:
Do you not get issues either loading the mod 54 or the sheets coming adrift and sticking to each other during development?

I was never at ease with the system tbh
Click to expand...

Surprisingly, no. I avoided using it for a while (opting to do 4x at a time in the orbital) but when I got the Grafmatic I didn't want to go through two unloading and developing cycles. I don't invert the tank for agitation though, I just use the twirly stick. My negs come (B/W and colour) come out evenly developed and they don't have marks from the arms.
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
Do you not get issues either loading the mod 54 or the sheets coming adrift and sticking to each other during development?

I was never at ease with the system tbh
Click to expand...
I would say this is a mod54 specific issue, the stearman you have a rack per sheet so great reduce the chance of an issue - their 1st gen holders needed work and now on gen 4 ppl seem to be very happy

To “zone” system properly you do need to wait a while till you have 6 n+1s for example
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I shot a couple of sheets of HP5+ this morning, the first time I've used my Chroma since @stevelmx5 very kindly took a look at the camera and resolved the issue I was having with light leaks. The good news is that the two shots I made today show no signs of leaks. It was foggy and the light was dim, but I think I would still have seen leaks were there an issue, so it looks like I'm back up and running. Thanks Steve, absolutely marvellous service!

The shots are nothing special - tests more than anything and I was rushing as I had to get to work. The top of the willow tree is a little out of focus, and I'd have preferred the foreground rather than the background to be sharp in the picture of the bench, but this is what happens when you don't take your time I guess. Looking forward to shooting some more and spending more time getting things right.


Foggy willow by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


Frosty bench by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
I shot a couple of sheets of HP5+ this morning, the first time I've used my Chroma since @stevelmx5 very kindly took a look at the camera and resolved the issue I was having with light leaks. The good news is that the two shots I made today show no signs of leaks. It was foggy and the light was dim, but I think I would still have seen leaks were there an issue, so it looks like I'm back up and running. Thanks Steve, absolutely marvellous service!

The shots are nothing special - tests more than anything and I was rushing as I had to get to work. The top of the willow tree is a little out of focus, and I'd have preferred the foreground rather than the background to be sharp in the picture of the bench, but this is what happens when you don't take your time I guess. Looking forward to shooting some more and spending more time getting things right.


Foggy willow by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


Frosty bench by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Yeah he’s an ok bloke that @stevelmx5 :p.

Best to keep him on his toes Nige,;)
:exit::LOL:
 
FishyFish said:
I shot a couple of sheets of HP5+ this morning, the first time I've used my Chroma since @stevelmx5 very kindly took a look at the camera and resolved the issue I was having with light leaks. The good news is that the two shots I made today show no signs of leaks. It was foggy and the light was dim, but I think I would still have seen leaks were there an issue, so it looks like I'm back up and running. Thanks Steve, absolutely marvellous service!

The shots are nothing special - tests more than anything and I was rushing as I had to get to work. The top of the willow tree is a little out of focus, and I'd have preferred the foreground rather than the background to be sharp in the picture of the bench, but this is what happens when you don't take your time I guess. Looking forward to shooting some more and spending more time getting things right.


Foggy willow by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr


Frosty bench by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Glad it's all sorted for you Nige, happy to help (y)
 
In a new installment of my ongoing (and unintentiona!) project "How can Nige mess up his large format photos", we have this...

4x5 wonky photos.jpg

Somehow, both these sheets are wonky. Looking at the negatives I can only assume that I've not loaded them into the holders correctly - in a way I didn't even know was possible! It's not happened on any of the other sheets that I've loaded myself. Anyone else had this happen?

It means the second is now unusable (despite it being otherwise ok) as the top of the church is cropped when the negative is scanned, and even more so if I rotate it in Lightroom. I'll make sure I don't frame things so tightly in future so I can at least have a chance to save the picture should it happen again.

At least the other shot was easy to save due to the framing being a bit wider. And still no light leaks, despite the camera being in full bright sunshine for the second picture. I wasn't particularly concerned that there would be any leaks after Steve fixed it, but this was a good test. :)

Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Beighton by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
 
FishyFish said:
In a new installment of my ongoing (and unintentiona!) project "How can Nige mess up his large format photos", we have this...

View attachment 381640

Somehow, both these sheets are wonky. Looking at the negatives I can only assume that I've not loaded them into the holders correctly - in a way I didn't even know was possible! It's not happened on any of the other sheets that I've loaded myself. Anyone else had this happen?

It means the second is now unusable (despite it being otherwise ok) as the top of the church is cropped when the negative is scanned, and even more so if I rotate it in Lightroom. I'll make sure I don't frame things so tightly in future so I can at least have a chance to save the picture should it happen again.

At least the other shot was easy to save due to the framing being a bit wider. And still no light leaks, despite the camera being in full bright sunshine for the second picture. I wasn't particularly concerned that there would be any leaks after Steve fixed it, but this was a good test. :)

Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Beighton by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Yep my last exposure gave an image that was wonky on the negative.

The film moves within the holder.
If you shake a loaded one you can hear the film shift.
a tap on the side of the holder before loading into the rear standard will usually ensure that the film has seated itself level on its bottom edge though it’s rare that I remember to perform the procedure.

Being unable to obtain the print from the negative can be overcome by not composing edge to edge on the groundglass thus allowing yourself a margin of error to play with.

Edit, can you still not get the second scan if placing the neg direct on the scanner glass instead of in the dedicated film holder ?
 
Last edited:
I've not seen that happen before. It looks as if the film holder lets the sheet slide out under a loose join somewhere....

When I've messed up (sorry, I meant to say, set myself a technical and creative challenge;)) and had to rotate, I've cloned in more sky if that fixed it.
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
Edit, can you still not get the second scan if placing the neg direct on the scanner glass instead of in the dedicated film holder ?
Click to expand...

Probably, but I've found that I get the best resolution using the film holders callibrated to a certain height. So while I'd maybe get all the image in shot and could then finagle it in Photoshop, my OCD brain would probably notice that it wasn't quite as sharp as it could be. :runaway:

It's the local church so it's easy enough to re-take If I want to, but these pictures were effectively final tests before I chance my luck taking the camera further afield, so no huge loss really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top