Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: LF Workshops? was

Re: LF Workshops? was

2005-08-28 by Paul Aparycki

If you keep abreast of some of the manufacturers offerings they are a good
source sometimes, and they are most often just a two or three day affair.
SinarBron has offered workshops, and I presume some of the others do also,
they are however geared toward people who already have experience and are
looking for newer skills, AND they are usually a showcase of the
manufacturers equipment. I attended one of these many, many moons ago and
the overload of super-sophisticated do everything equipment was a little
much . . . the best cure for that, being to ask the price of aforesaid gear
. . . that will usually sober you up right away. (my experience was playing
with 8x10 Sinar Ps, digital shutter with electronic remotes and a truckload
of Broncolor gear . . . nice, but not really needed).

You didn't mention if you own an LF camera or not. If you don't, the
workshop is a good way to go as it will give you the opportunity to try out
some equipment. While most LF equipment is more alike than it is different,
there are certain attributes between makes that will make one camera more
appropriate for you than another and considering that a basic LF kit can
start to add up in price (it is NEVER the camera and lense that are a
problem, it is the $30 for this, $200 for that, $105 for this do-hickey),
you want to be sure that you are comfy with what you choose.

As for the books, those are excellent suggestions . . . Stroebel's book a
classic. There is also an excellent book called "The Large Format" by C.
Koch (mister Sinar) and C. Marchesi . . . if you buy one of their cameras
they give it to you.

good luck
Paul Aparycki


> > Are there any workshops to help get a grip on the mechanics
> > of shooting with a LF camera?
>
> Tillman Crane occasionally teaches one at the Maine Photographic Workshops
> and/or Peters Valley Craft Center. Steve Simmons teaches one at the Sante
Fe
> Photographic Workshops. John Sexton's workshops usually have some large
> format instruction even though they aren't labelled as such. You just need
> to go to the web sites or get the catalogs of the major workshops, i.e.
> Maine, Sante Fe, Anderson Ranch, Palm Beach et al and you'll likely find a
> large format workshop being taught at one of them. However, I don't think
> you need a workshop to get into large format photography, there are
several
> good books, one by Leslie Stroebel, another by Jim Stone, from which you
can
> learn all you need to know to get started.

Re: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was

2005-08-28 by Scott McLoughlin

Thanks one and all for the pointers, suggestions and advice.

No, I don't currently own a LF camera. I have Leica, Nikon
film gear, and a D70.

I scan my negs with a LS-50 (Coolscan V), and find I have
trouble printing beyond 8x10; can't quite make it to 11x14
going the scanning/digi-printing route.  My D70 just about
makes it to 11x14 (or 11x17) shooting on a tripod.  Lower
grain/noise I guess. 

(I am currently experimenting (slowly) with Delta 100 in
HC-110 with tripod shooting to see what sort of pleasing-
to-me enlargement I might get.)

But I like working with, and the "look," of B&W film. So
I've been toying with buying a MF rig (Mamiya RZ or 'Blad)
over the last year. I do sort of balk at the $2K film scanner, I
have to admit.

Well, I've been glad I've mulled it over. Lately, I've been
thinking a LF rig might do me better. Some careful nudes,
studio lighting shots, a bit of "peeling paint" (a phrase Tina
used recently).  I've got too much nice, or at least suitable,
kit for quick shooting already, after all.

A buddy of mine would probably lend me his 4x5 field camera
for a workshop, or maybe even his mono rail.  It might just
be fun/useful to get a jump on the learning curve with a workshop.
I've been going it alone with books and online forums for the
last year, and some human instruction and feedback might be
welcome.

I'd likely dev the negs myself, and then scan the negs on a 4990
flatbed (not too pricey) and digi-print from there.  No room for
a wet darkroom.

Scott


Paul Aparycki wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>If you keep abreast of some of the manufacturers offerings they are a good
>source sometimes, and they are most often just a two or three day affair.
>SinarBron has offered workshops, and I presume some of the others do also,
>they are however geared toward people who already have experience and are
>looking for newer skills, AND they are usually a showcase of the
>manufacturers equipment. I attended one of these many, many moons ago and
>the overload of super-sophisticated do everything equipment was a little
>much . . . the best cure for that, being to ask the price of aforesaid gear
>. . . that will usually sober you up right away. (my experience was playing
>with 8x10 Sinar Ps, digital shutter with electronic remotes and a truckload
>of Broncolor gear . . . nice, but not really needed).
>
>You didn't mention if you own an LF camera or not. If you don't, the
>workshop is a good way to go as it will give you the opportunity to try out
>some equipment. While most LF equipment is more alike than it is different,
>there are certain attributes between makes that will make one camera more
>appropriate for you than another and considering that a basic LF kit can
>start to add up in price (it is NEVER the camera and lense that are a
>problem, it is the $30 for this, $200 for that, $105 for this do-hickey),
>you want to be sure that you are comfy with what you choose.
>
>As for the books, those are excellent suggestions . . . Stroebel's book a
>classic. There is also an excellent book called "The Large Format" by C.
>Koch (mister Sinar) and C. Marchesi . . . if you buy one of their cameras
>they give it to you.
>
>good luck
>Paul Aparycki
>
>
>  
>
>>>Are there any workshops to help get a grip on the mechanics
>>>of shooting with a LF camera?
>>>      
>>>
>>Tillman Crane occasionally teaches one at the Maine Photographic Workshops
>>and/or Peters Valley Craft Center. Steve Simmons teaches one at the Sante
>>    
>>
>Fe
>  
>
>>Photographic Workshops. John Sexton's workshops usually have some large
>>format instruction even though they aren't labelled as such. You just need
>>to go to the web sites or get the catalogs of the major workshops, i.e.
>>Maine, Sante Fe, Anderson Ranch, Palm Beach et al and you'll likely find a
>>large format workshop being taught at one of them. However, I don't think
>>you need a workshop to get into large format photography, there are
>>    
>>
>several
>  
>
>>good books, one by Leslie Stroebel, another by Jim Stone, from which you
>>    
>>
>can
>  
>
>>learn all you need to know to get started.
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>

[Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was

2005-08-29 by skipc52

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin
<scott@a...> wrote: <snip>  

>I'd likely dev the negs myself, and then scan the negs on a 4990
flatbed
> (not too pricey) and digi-print from there.  No room for a wet
darkroom. Scott

Try Polaroid Type 55 film on a 4x5 LF. Shoot for either a neg
orprint—not both—and 
scan on a flatbed scanner for b/w digital printing without a
darkroom. Groovyborders if you 
so choose...skip

Re: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was

2005-08-29 by Paul Aparycki

Something I do a lot when I shoot 4x5 for myself (most of the time I am
using a roll back and agfapan25). The results on 55 are magic when you get
it right. It has a beautiful tonal range, very, very fine razor sharp grain,
and while Skip didn't elaborate, the exposure for a good neg is not a good
exposure for a print . . . Polaroid acknowledges this and addresses it in
their data sheets. If you go this route, practice until you get a feel for
the material and then pull the sheets without processing . . . do it later
at home. Using their little sand bucket and trying to clear this stuff while
you are fighting off mountain lions, killer bees and williwaws is not a good
idea.

Downside? It is a little expensive and it is delicate (which is why it is
better to process in a confined area). It is also an enviromental hazard,
but then so is the excess byproduct from computer manufacturing, so I guess
we are excused. (maybe we can get Christo to wrap an island with all those
discarded monitors instead of pink sheets?).

good luck
Paul Aparycki

>I'd likely dev the negs myself, and then scan the negs on a 4990
flatbed
> (not too pricey) and digi-print from there.  No room for a wet
darkroom. Scott

Try Polaroid Type 55 film on a 4x5 LF. Shoot for either a neg
orprint-not both-and
scan on a flatbed scanner for b/w digital printing without a
darkroom. Groovyborders if you
so choose...skip

RE: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was

2005-08-29 by Martin Wesley

The process of shooting, developing and flatbed scanning Polaroid 55 film
for digital B&W printing was described in depth by George de Wolfe in View
Camera magazine in 2001(?). The back issues would be worth finding for
anyone considering this procedure. http://www.viewcamera.com/
 
George and others have done some beautiful work with this.
 
Martin
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of skipc52
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:09 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin
<scott@a...> wrote: <snip>  

>I'd likely dev the negs myself, and then scan the negs on a 4990
flatbed
> (not too pricey) and digi-print from there.  No room for a wet
darkroom. Scott

Try Polaroid Type 55 film on a 4x5 LF. Shoot for either a neg
orprint-not both-and 
scan on a flatbed scanner for b/w digital printing without a
darkroom. Groovyborders if you 
so choose...skip 







Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




  _____  

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 


	
*	 Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> " on the web.
  

*	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Uns
ubscribe> 
  

*	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 


  _____  




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was

2005-08-29 by Paul Aparycki

Rather than sending the money to View Camera magazine, there is this article
(I am assuming it is the same) stashed away in the bowels of Polaroid's site
http://www.polaroid.com/global/printer_friendly.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=8455
24441761262&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=282574488338439&bmUID=1090671796556&PRDREG
=null

Take a look at it.

Paul Aparycki
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>The process of shooting, developing and flatbed scanning Polaroid 55 film
>for digital B&W printing was described in depth by George de Wolfe in View
>Camera magazine in 2001(?). The back issues would be worth finding for
>anyone considering this procedure. http://www.viewcamera.com/

>George and others have done some beautiful work with this.

>Martin

Type 55 film (was LF Workshops?)

2005-08-29 by Paul Roark

I used Type 55 for a while, and have seriously considered using it again.
Some factors that have stopped me, so far, include that 55 has become rather
expensive on a per-shot basis (but cheaper than a darkroom or 22 mp large
sensor), it is not that easy to get a perfectly even "pull" when developing
the film, and the film does not lay very flat in those holders.  

Additionally, the flatbed scanners that we usually consider (i.e., the
affordable ones like Epson's) are at best half as "efficient" (sharp) as
good, dedicated film scanners, which are much less efficient than digital
cameras in terms of image quality per pixel.  What all this means is that
for a given sharpness level on the print, the pixel count of a
flatbed-scanned negative has to be many times the size of a good film
scanner file, which, in turn, has to be much larger than a direct digital
camera image.  I, personally, much prefer to deal with smaller (more
"efficient") files.

The alternative of a better 4x5 scanner might get expensive, and I, frankly,
don't know how much more one can pull from a Type 55 over what the best
current Epson flatbed can record.  I have not explored that issue very far.
I would be curious if there is any non-drum option for getting a 4x5 scan
that is as sharp as a 4000 dpi medium format scan from a good film scanner.
I have no doubt that a Type 55 scan on a "good" flatbed will be much less
grainy than a 100 ISO medium format scan, but I'm not sure the sharpness
will be equal.  (I again lament the demise of Tech Pan.)

However, for those without a darkroom (which could be my future in five
years given local real estate prices), it may be the best way to really
beautiful, very large prints.  It's a very intriguing possibility. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Martin
> Wesley
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 5:28 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was
> 
> The process of shooting, developing and flatbed scanning Polaroid 55 film
> for digital B&W printing was described in depth by George de Wolfe in View
> Camera magazine in 2001(?). The back issues would be worth finding for
> anyone considering this procedure. http://www.viewcamera.com/
> 
> George and others have done some beautiful work with this.
> 
> Martin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of skipc52
> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:09 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin
> <scott@a...> wrote: <snip>
> 
> >I'd likely dev the negs myself, and then scan the negs on a 4990
> flatbed
> > (not too pricey) and digi-print from there.  No room for a wet
> darkroom. Scott
> 
> Try Polaroid Type 55 film on a 4x5 LF. Shoot for either a neg
> orprint-not both-and
> scan on a flatbed scanner for b/w digital printing without a
> darkroom. Groovyborders if you
> so choose...skip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO
> OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF
> ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   _____
> 
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> 
> 
> 
> *	 Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> " on the web.
> 
> 
> *	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-
> unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Uns
> ubscribe>
> 
> 
> *	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 
> 
>   _____
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
> MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Type 55 film (was LF Workshops?)

2005-08-29 by Carl Schofield

I've only been shooting 4x5 for the last two years, but I use  
predominantly Polaroid type 55 for the negative.  Cost is comparable  
to tmax readyloads and since I no longer have a darkroom the type 55  
was better suited to my needs.  I think the negatives are beautiful,  
very fine grained, and similar to the old Panatomic X.  They scan  
easily on my Epson 3200 flat bed using Vuescan and since I don't  
print larger than 16x20, resolution (80 mb 16 bit gray files) is more  
than adequate.  I just hope type 55 doesn't disappear from the market  
too soon (like the Kodak B&W films have).  It doesn't store well so I  
can't easily hoard a supply for the future.

Carl
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Aug 29, 2005, at 1:40 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> I used Type 55 for a while, and have seriously considered using it  
> again.
> Some factors that have stopped me, so far, include that 55 has  
> become rather
> expensive on a per-shot basis (but cheaper than a darkroom or 22 mp  
> large
> sensor), it is not that easy to get a perfectly even "pull" when  
> developing
> the film, and the film does not lay very flat in those holders.
>
> Additionally, the flatbed scanners that we usually consider (i.e., the
> affordable ones like Epson's) are at best half as  
> "efficient" (sharp) as
> good, dedicated film scanners, which are much less efficient than  
> digital
> cameras in terms of image quality per pixel.  What all this means  
> is that
> for a given sharpness level on the print, the pixel count of a
> flatbed-scanned negative has to be many times the size of a good film
> scanner file, which, in turn, has to be much larger than a direct  
> digital
> camera image.  I, personally, much prefer to deal with smaller (more
> "efficient") files.
>
> The alternative of a better 4x5 scanner might get expensive, and I,  
> frankly,
> don't know how much more one can pull from a Type 55 over what the  
> best
> current Epson flatbed can record.  I have not explored that issue  
> very far.
> I would be curious if there is any non-drum option for getting a  
> 4x5 scan
> that is as sharp as a 4000 dpi medium format scan from a good film  
> scanner.
> I have no doubt that a Type 55 scan on a "good" flatbed will be  
> much less
> grainy than a 100 ISO medium format scan, but I'm not sure the  
> sharpness
> will be equal.  (I again lament the demise of Tech Pan.)
>
> However, for those without a darkroom (which could be my future in  
> five
> years given local real estate prices), it may be the best way to  
> really
> beautiful, very large prints.  It's a very intriguing possibility.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  
>> Martin
>> Wesley
>> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 5:28 AM
>> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was
>>
>> The process of shooting, developing and flatbed scanning Polaroid  
>> 55 film
>> for digital B&W printing was described in depth by George de Wolfe  
>> in View
>> Camera magazine in 2001(?). The back issues would be worth finding  
>> for
>> anyone considering this procedure. http://www.viewcamera.com/
>>
>> George and others have done some beautiful work with this.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of  
>> skipc52
>> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:09 PM
>> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was
>>
>>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott McLoughlin
>> <scott@a...> wrote: <snip>
>>
>>
>>> I'd likely dev the negs myself, and then scan the negs on a 4990
>>>
>> flatbed
>>
>>> (not too pricey) and digi-print from there.  No room for a wet
>>>
>> darkroom. Scott
>>
>> Try Polaroid Type 55 film on a 4x5 LF. Shoot for either a neg
>> orprint-not both-and
>> scan on a flatbed scanner for b/w digital printing without a
>> darkroom. Groovyborders if you
>> so choose...skip
>>
>
>

Re: Type 55 film (was LF Workshops?)

2005-08-29 by dlruckus

Paul,
I've seen it stated somewhere, ostensibly from Polaroid, that the
Type55 has resolution figures way up there, even approaching Tech pan.
Don't know if that is true or not from personal experience but it is
talked about in some LF groups.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:

> 
> The alternative of a better 4x5 scanner might get expensive, and I,
frankly,
> don't know how much more one can pull from a Type 55 over what the best
> current Epson flatbed can record.  I have not explored that issue
very far.
> I would be curious if there is any non-drum option for getting a 4x5
scan
> that is as sharp as a 4000 dpi medium format scan from a good film
scanner.
> I have no doubt that a Type 55 scan on a "good" flatbed will be much
less
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> grainy than a 100 ISO medium format scan, but I'm not sure the sharpness
> will be equal.  (I again lament the demise of Tech Pan.)
> 
> However, for those without a darkroom (which could be my future in five
> years given local real estate prices), it may be the best way to really
> beautiful, very large prints.  It's a very intriguing possibility. 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >

Re: Type 55 film (was LF Workshops?)

2005-08-30 by Carl Schofield

I almost forgot to mention the scanning back alternative for the 4x5
(if you have very deep 
pockets):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/better-light.shtml

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> 
wrote:
> I used Type 55 for a while, and have seriously considered using it
again.
> Some factors that have stopped me, so far, include that 55 has
become rather
> expensive on a per-shot basis (but cheaper than a darkroom or 22 mp
large
> sensor), it is not that easy to get a perfectly even "pull" when
developing
> the film, and the film does not lay very flat in those holders.  
> 
> Additionally, the flatbed scanners that we usually consider (i.e.,
the
> affordable ones like Epson's) are at best half as "efficient"
(sharp) as
> good, dedicated film scanners, which are much less efficient than
digital
> cameras in terms of image quality per pixel.  What all this means
is that
> for a given sharpness level on the print, the pixel count of a
> flatbed-scanned negative has to be many times the size of a good
film
> scanner file, which, in turn, has to be much larger than a direct
digital
> camera image.  I, personally, much prefer to deal with smaller (more
> "efficient") files.
> 
> The alternative of a better 4x5 scanner might get expensive, and I,
frankly,
> don't know how much more one can pull from a Type 55 over what the
best
> current Epson flatbed can record.  I have not explored that issue
very far.
> I would be curious if there is any non-drum option for getting a
4x5 scan
> that is as sharp as a 4000 dpi medium format scan from a good film
scanner.
> I have no doubt that a Type 55 scan on a "good" flatbed will be
much less
> grainy than a 100 ISO medium format scan, but I'm not sure the
sharpness
> will be equal.  (I again lament the demise of Tech Pan.)
> 
> However, for those without a darkroom (which could be my future in
five
> years given local real estate prices), it may be the best way to
really
> beautiful, very large prints.  It's a very intriguing possibility. 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Martin
> > Wesley
> > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 5:28 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was
> > 
> > The process of shooting, developing and flatbed scanning Polaroid
55 film
> > for digital B&W printing was described in depth by George de
Wolfe in View
> > Camera magazine in 2001(?). The back issues would be worth
finding for
> > anyone considering this procedure. http://www.viewcamera.com/
> > 
> > George and others have done some beautiful work with this.
> > 
> > Martin
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of skipc52
> > Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 6:09 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Scott
McLoughlin
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > <scott@a...> wrote: <snip>
> > 
> > >I'd likely dev the negs myself, and then scan the negs on a 4990
> > flatbed
> > > (not too pricey) and digi-print from there.  No room for a wet
> > darkroom. Scott
> > 
> > Try Polaroid Type 55 film on a 4x5 LF. Shoot for either a neg
> > orprint-not both-and
> > scan on a flatbed scanner for b/w digital printing without a
> > darkroom. Groovyborders if you
> > so choose...skip

Re: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was

2005-08-30 by Scott McLoughlin

On the negative vs. print and environmental hazard, pray tell more.

Scott

Paul Aparycki wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Something I do a lot when I shoot 4x5 for myself (most of the time I am
> using a roll back and agfapan25). The results on 55 are magic when you get
> it right. It has a beautiful tonal range, very, very fine razor sharp 
> grain,
> and while Skip didn't elaborate, the exposure for a good neg is not a good
> exposure for a print . . . Polaroid acknowledges this and addresses it in
> their data sheets. If you go this route, practice until you get a feel for
> the material and then pull the sheets without processing . . . do it later
> at home. Using their little sand bucket and trying to clear this stuff 
> while
> you are fighting off mountain lions, killer bees and williwaws is not 
> a good
> idea.
>
> Downside? It is a little expensive and it is delicate (which is why it is
> better to process in a confined area). It is also an enviromental hazard,
> but then so is the excess byproduct from computer manufacturing, so I 
> guess
> we are excused. (maybe we can get Christo to wrap an island with all those
> discarded monitors instead of pink sheets?).
>
> good luck
> Paul Aparycki
>
> >I'd likely dev the negs myself, and then scan the negs on a 4990
> flatbed
> > (not too pricey) and digi-print from there.  No room for a wet
> darkroom. Scott
>
> Try Polaroid Type 55 film on a 4x5 LF. Shoot for either a neg
> orprint-not both-and
> scan on a flatbed scanner for b/w digital printing without a
> darkroom. Groovyborders if you
> so choose...skip
>
>

Re: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was

2005-08-30 by Paul Aparycki

The link I furnished doesn't seem to want to function . . . please excuse
me, but I just cut and paste from a web forum . . . the link there works, so
. . . fire up google, enter in "George de Wolfe" + Polaroid, in the hits
that are returned, you want the one titled OzModel (it is second in my
search), then when the page comes up, just do a ctrl + f, for "de wolfe",
you will get the post and the link, hit the link and there you go. It is a
very good article . . . and any of you gearheads out there who wish to tell
me why my cut and paste didn't work, I would be more than willing to learn
something new . . . post away . . . list or private. Thanks

enjoy

Paul Aparycki

>Rather than sending the money to View Camera magazine, there is this
article
>(I am assuming it is the same) stashed away in the bowels of Polaroid's
site
>http://www.polaroid.com/global/printer_friendly.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845
5
>24441761262&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=282574488338439&bmUID=1090671796556&PRDRE
G
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>=null

>Take a look at it.

>Paul Aparycki


>The process of shooting, developing and flatbed scanning Polaroid 55 film
>for digital B&W printing was described in depth by George de Wolfe in View
>Camera magazine in 2001(?). The back issues would be worth finding for
>anyone considering this procedure. http://www.viewcamera.com/

>George and others have done some beautiful work with this.

>Martin

RE: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was

2005-08-30 by Martin Wesley

-----Original Message-----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Aparycki
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 5:43 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was


The link I furnished doesn't seem to want to function . . . please excuse
me, but I just cut and paste from a web forum . . .  

Paul,
 
Yahoo Groups posts are text and the text does not "wrap."  A hard line break
is inserted at the end of each line creating an error in URL's that extend
past the end of the line of text.
 
Martin


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: LF Workshops? was

2005-08-30 by BKPhoto@aol.com

Scott-

Exposure for the negative is roughly twice that for the print. You'll learn 
to evaluate the print for the negative with a little practice. Reciprocity for 
the negative is not the same for the print. The prints, by the way, can be 
stunning.

You can make the exposure for the negative and remove the film pack from the 
holder without processing. Mark the exposed packet, to avoid double exposing, 
and process everything when you return to the darkroom (or kitchen/bathroom).

Processing is very simple. Reinsert the packet into the Polaroid holder, flip 
the level to process, and pull. Depending on ambient temperature, development 
time is usually between 20-60 seconds. Peel apart, separate the film from the 
paper, and immerse immediately in a 18% sodium sulfite solution. You can use 
almost any container large enough to hold the film for clearing; Polaroid 
sells a plastic bucket with a nice insert. You'll see the negative begin to clear 
almost immediately. When cleared, you can simply wash and hang to dry.

Better yet, see if you can find a (rare) copy of the Ansel Adam's Polaroid 
book. The chapter on visualization is one of the best ever written on 
photographic practice.

One last thought: I'd be careful with the old Polaroid 4x5 scanners. You can 
probably do as well today with a new Epson or Microtek flatbed. You'll have 
firewire connectivity, better software, and technical support.



Bill Kennedy
Associate Professor of Photocommunications
St. Edward's University
512/448-8680


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Type 55 film (was LF Workshops?)

2005-08-30 by Ernst Dinkla

Carl Schofield wrote:

>I almost forgot to mention the scanning back alternative for the 4x5
>(if you have very deep 
>pockets):
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/better-light.shtml
>
>  
>
Wonder why a review like that is made. That test gives the scanback 
lousy competition. The film is scanned on a flatbed without wet 
mounting, the digital camera isn't even an MF back/camera that can fill 
in its lack of resolution with multiple half-a-pixel-shift takes.  His 
conclusion that the scanback could be better competition to the Canon 
DSLRs than an MF back isn't shared by the industry right now. The 
scanbacks aren't bad but they have a lot of limitations and a (too) high 
price. Art reproduction and panoramic takes + some odd product 
photography will probably be the market where scanbacks will stay for 
some time, then they become the Cirkuts of the future. Whether they 
actually will outlive the Cirkuts remains a question.

Ernst

www.pigment-print.com

Re: [Digital BW] Type 55 film (was LF Workshops?)

2005-08-31 by David Gabbé

> I've only been shooting 4x5 for the last two years, but I use  
> predominantly Polaroid type 55 for the negative.  Cost is comparable  
> to tmax readyloads and since I no longer have a darkroom the type 55  
> was better suited to my needs.  I think the negatives are beautiful,  
> very fine grained, and similar to the old Panatomic X.  They scan  

It is Panatomic X and Polaroid had to sue Kodak over it.  The T55 is
similar to ready loads in other ways.  You don't need to use the
chemical developer to process the negative.  The neg can be separated
from the pod and print by pulling the outside sleeve off.  Break along
the perferations and load in a Jobo drum or tray process.

I made a custom ground glass following the instructions in
PhotoTechniques and penciled in the approx. border area for the T55.

I started off scanning the negs wet mounted on the Epson 1600 and then
moved to drum scanning them w/a Pro version of the DPL software.  The
drum scan does justice to the film.

Ansel Adams wrote a book on polaroid films that contained extensive info
on T55.  I found a used copy years ago and is worth reading if you can
locate a copy.

> easily on my Epson 3200 flat bed using Vuescan and since I don't  
> print larger than 16x20, resolution (80 mb 16 bit gray files) is more  
> than adequate.  I just hope type 55 doesn't disappear from the market  
> too soon (like the Kodak B&W films have).  It doesn't store well so I  
> can't easily hoard a supply for the future.
> 
> Carl
> 
> 
> On Aug 29, 2005, at 1:40 PM, Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> > I used Type 55 for a while, and have seriously considered using it  
> > again.
> > Some factors that have stopped me, so far, include that 55 has  
> > become rather
> > expensive on a per-shot basis (but cheaper than a darkroom or 22 mp  
> > large
> > sensor), it is not that easy to get a perfectly even "pull" when  
> > developing
> > the film, and the film does not lay very flat in those holders.
> >

Dave G.
Artist in residence at <http://frame38.com>

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.