Graflex.org

t.r.sanford · Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:32 pm Post subject:

A quick review of currently available B&W materials suggests that there no longer are any sheetfilms faster than 400EI. I knew "Royal-X" was gone, but had hoped "T-Max P3200" would be offered in sheets. Seemingly not; nor is the Ilford superspeed emulsion. Am I wrong about this, or are we going back to the days of fuming with ammonia, latensification, and benzotriazole?

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

The issue likely is most people using LF today aren't in a rush. The only people I hear wondering about faster film is people shooting 8x10 or bigger. Even then it's to cut down any motion related problems. I'd wager most people using LF are either taking photos of things that don't move or are in studios with plenty of light. The market for fast LF must be small.

The funny thing is I keep looking for slower film to use with shutter less lenses-)

t.r.sanford · Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:29 am Post subject:

...which is another way of saying that people no longer use 4x5 equipment as "press" cameras! I can see why; but I have been thinking about the posts from Simplify about Environmental Portraits taken without a flashgun, and about Stilagrrl and her Polaroid "WinkLight," and recalling that something like "Isopan Rekord" at f:5.6 in a 4x5 camera might work very well in bright interiors with low contrast.

Ah, well, there's always wet collodion.

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

There was a story a few months back about someone using a 4x5 at US Senate hearings but that's about it I guess for press cameras being used for press use.

The 3200 speed Ilford film is only 1000 ISO I think. The Kodak I don't think is much better. While better then 400 speed films I'm not sure it's alot better then using a film that pushes well.

The combination of 400 speed film and a reasonable flash might provide all the light a person needs. The cheaper handle mount flashes have all the features needed. Weren't press cameras normally used with flashbulbs in the past?

Rangemaster · Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 1:36 am Post subject:

Well I guess we might as well get used to it, Kodak has announced an accerated decline of film and plans to lay even more people off in the US plants, due to the popularity of their digital and digial kiosks....

Hmmmm

Dave

_________________
Focus on the Picture, Not on the Glass.
Satin Snow(TM) Ground Glass

glennfromwy · Joined: 29 Nov 2001 Posts: 903 Location: S.W. Wyoming

When the light gets too low, I just fall asleep anyway, so I don't worry about anything faster than ASA 400.

_________________
Glenn

"Wyoming - Where everybody is somebody else's weirdo"

t.r.sanford · Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:20 am Post subject:

There is a certain amount of legendry associated with surreptitious photos made (often in courtrooms, once in an execution chamber) by available light with "Speed Graphics," and a whole lot of esoteric lore (peaking, I think, in the mid-1950s) on boosting effective film speed.

There remains "Diafine." I've never been fond of the negatives it produces, but it does allow you to use "Tri-X" at EI 1600 in situations without deep shadows. We may hope that Kodak's evident pride in "Tri-X" -- it seems to be the sole survivor among LF films with traditional grain structure -- will enable the company to withstand the whining of all the young securities analysts.

Top · Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:13 pm Post subject:

Ethol UFG will do the trick as well-an EI of 1200-1600 or so.
Top

Micah in NC · Joined: 26 Jun 2003 Posts: 94 Location: North Carolina

T.R.,

Unless you want enlargements, why not get a pack of Type 57 Polaroid film? I have taken very neat shots with the stuff and it's ASA 3000 speed (a true rating, as far as I know).

It's not awfully grainy (IMHO) since Polaroids are contact prints anyhow.

--Micah in NC

t.r.sanford · Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:04 pm Post subject:

I've used "Type 57" (and its precursor, "Type 47" rollfilm in a Polaroid "110"); and I'd do it again, if there were a need.

As noted above, it seems to me that the old available-light techniques might be useful to some of the contributors to this board, given their interests and the limitations of flash with pre-WWII equipment.

The Polaroid superspeed material was a marvel, when it was introduced (late '50s, as I recall). The problem, which you recognize, is that it yields a same-size print. If I wanted a just-under-4x5 print of a scene photographed with existing light, I'd photograph it with a 35mm. camera (e.g., Exakta "VXIIa" with f:2 "Biotar") and make a 3x enlargement!

Simplify · Joined: 12 Jul 2004 Posts: 43

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

t.r.sanford · Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:25 pm Post subject:

Whatever kind of equipment you use, it's a very good idea to have two of it ("sad experience teacheth me...")!

If each rangefinder is correctly adjusted for its lens, you also are in a very good position to compare the differences in apparent perspective between a normal and a somewhat wide lens. I think you'll find one better for some things, the the other preferable for other things.

Are you planning to use a flashmeter with bulb flash? Be sure to read the meter instructions before you do that; some flashmeters take a 1/125 sec. sample, and that won't work with the rather slow burn of a flashbulb. The old Wein "WP500" would read bulb flash, and some others do, too. But you may wind up resorting to guide numbers (eeek!)

Nick · Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 494

Sekonic has a great support forum on thier website. Ask today and they usually have an answer the next morning.

Simplify · Joined: 12 Jul 2004 Posts: 43

Thanks again! I think I will just go the old guide number route. I would not want to waste a bulb to take a reading. Those things are pretty expensive!

I have been quite spoiled with strobes and meters etc ... so this too will be a totally new experience for me. I've gone from a digital slr to a 1940's LF! This seems backwards but it takes a whole lot more knowledge about the technical aspects I think. The muscle between my ears could use a little exercise anyway!

Off to study guide numbers!