Large Format Camera on my balcony

Danny_SWE

Mu-43 All-Pro
One guy in the neighborhood is a photo-enthusiast and wanted to shoot an sunset shot from my balcony. He uses a Large Format Camera with 20x25 cm film (cost 160 SEK, about 17 Euro or 24 USD). So he came today and put it on my balcony with exposure time of about two hours (!). Really cool!! Here is the camera...

13830350604_7cd7502079_b.jpgCamera Obscura 02 by Zarako, on Flickr

13830019613_f1b1fe9fe5_b.jpgCamera Obscura 01 by Zarako, on Flickr

13830016793_7b8d0cb734_b.jpgCamera Obscura 03 by Zarako, on Flickr


and this is the view, aproximately. He has it closer to the edge and I think it captures wider than this. Will be cool to see the result. This is shot with my E-M5 and 12-60 at 60 seconds.

13830346874_41f7f60d4c_b.jpgCamera Obscura view by Zarako, on Flickr
 

Petrochemist

Mu-43 All-Pro
A camera obscura is a pinhole camera, this one has a lens so is not a camera obscura.
It's a nice large format monorail camera, 5"x4" is the smallest of the common sizes for large format camreas. (His certainly looks better than the one I've put together from parts)
It would be interesting to see a shot of the image his camera produces on the ground glass viewing plate - that will show extactly what FOV his lens produces.
 

Danny_SWE

Mu-43 All-Pro
A camera obscura is a pinhole camera, this one has a lens so is not a camera obscura.
It's a nice large format monorail camera, 5"x4" is the smallest of the common sizes for large format camreas. (His certainly looks better than the one I've put together from parts)
Thanks for correcting me. Changed that now, embarrasing mistake.

It would be interesting to see a shot of the image his camera produces on the ground glass viewing plate - that will show extactly what FOV his lens produces.
He said that I could get a copy of the photo later. And the photo is 1:1 the original size of the negative. 20x25cm so it will be quite big :)

It looks like a Linhof and bigger than a 5"x4".
Yes, it's 20x25cm, that's 10x8 inch. Big stuff this, but folded it's not too big camera. But all the equipment filled a photo back pack in the size of a large backpacker back for long expeditions :)
 

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
He said that I could get a copy of the photo later. And the photo is 1:1 the original size of the negative. 20x25cm so it will be quite big :)
Nice looking rig.

Be careful, it the large format bug bites it can be hard :)

If you end up going down that path BTZS tubes for developing black and white are well priced and make development much easier and consistent.

I develop in the bathroom.

Personally I went down the path of 4x5 cos then I can use a 120 roll back in 6x12 and use more or less the same lenses for both sheets and roll.

My rig
http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2010/03/toho-4x5-camera.html
 

Narnian

Nobody in particular ...
This looks more like a Sinar than a Linhof to me. Though I have not seen one for years.

i used several 4"x5" but ended up with 6x9 cm (2 1/4" x 3 1/4") view camera and field camera as a "micro" alternative. plus I could use 120 roll film which was cheaper and easier to work with than 4"x5".

I I almost bought an 8"x10" but did not want to only do contact prints and would not have enough $ (or room) for an enlarger
 

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Hi

just to be the devil
I I almost bought an 8"x10" but did not want to only do contact prints and would not have enough $ (or room) for an enlarger
even 600dpi scans of 8x10 on an Epson 700 are simply stunning ... if you have the RAM 1200DPI makes stunning prints that are outsourced to say a specialist in carbon ink printing.

go on ... you know you want it ;-)
 

Petrochemist

Mu-43 All-Pro
He said that I could get a copy of the photo later. And the photo is 1:1 the original size of the negative. 20x25cm so it will be quite big :)
I was thinking of a close-up shot of the glass screen with his camera's shutter open. A sort of through the viewfinder shot that wouldn't be anywhere near as high resolution as his shot but would be instantly available. Not a replacement for the copy print but additional to it.

20cm X 25cm is indeed 10"x8" (don't know what happened to my maths yesterday) so a bit more than 'quite big'. I certainly wouldn't want to carry round anything as big as that!
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
I was thinking of a close-up shot of the glass screen with his camera's shutter open. A sort of through the viewfinder shot that wouldn't be anywhere near as high resolution as his shot but would be instantly available. Not a replacement for the copy print but additional to it.

20cm X 25cm is indeed 10"x8" (don't know what happened to my maths yesterday) so a bit more than 'quite big'. I certainly wouldn't want to carry round anything as big as that!
We used to use Polaroid film to do just that (get an instant preview of the shot).
 

cmpatti

Mu-43 Veteran
I shot with 8x10 cameras (several of them) years ago, and you can take it from me that hauling a 35lb kit consisting of 8x10 camera, film holders (3 or 4 meaning you're limited to 6 or 8 shots), lenses, dark cloth and a very large tripod on a lengthy hike is no picnic. If you're not enlarging (which I didn't), the main attraction was the ability to contact print in various "alternative" processes. I tried platinum, cyanotype, van dyke, POP, and contact papers (e.g., Azo), along with others I'm probably forgetting. After the thrill of mixing chemicals wore off and digital matured, I didn't see the point, since there are few alt. process "looks" that are beyond the combined capabilities of digital capture and inkjet printing. (Tintype may be challenging, but you can outsource the printing.) While contact prints are reputed to have magical qualities, at 8x10 I really think I can get all the quality my eyes can see with mFT. In fact, most of the digital techniques used to copy the look of these old processes involve compromising the image in some way.
 

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
I shot with 8x10 cameras (several of them) years ago, and you can take it from me that hauling a 35lb kit consisting of 8x10 camera, film holders (3 or 4 meaning you're limited to 6 or 8 shots), lenses, dark cloth and a very large tripod on a lengthy hike is no picnic.
Brett Weston

Anything more than 500 yds from the car just isn't photogenic.
sums it up perfectly if you ask me.

although I've been known to be a maschoist ... and drag my stuff Km into rainforest. I do both ;-)

usage-environments.jpg


6663357-md.jpg


but the side of the road is often just as good
6584579-md.jpg


(or the side of the bush track where the 4x4 can go to)
6459500-md.jpg


While I mostly do stitching these days there are still times when nothing else but a single shot will get it.

Sometimes one wishes to control the focal plane (which LF makes easier)
7097501-md.jpg


But with a tilt adapter you can do it using legacy lenses with m4/3 too
http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2014/01/a-different-slant-on-things.html

:)
 

Danny_SWE

Mu-43 All-Pro
If 43rumors are correct Panasonic might have a light-field cam in patent :) would be cool

Sent from my Lenovo K910 using Tapatalk
 

OzRay

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
If 43rumors are correct Panasonic might have a light field cam in patent :) would be cool

Sent from my Lenovo K910 using Tapatalk
That's not a patent for a light, field-camera, but for a light-field camera sensor as in the Lytro camera, where you can set the focus point after taking the photo.
 

pellicle

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Hi
No they aren't. The 700/750 leave a lot of detail on the table compared to a drum scan.
Please note that I did not say the Epson is the best scanner, but if you do a 600dpi scan of the film and aren't stunned by tonals and textures I'll be surprised. Have you scanned 8x10 sheet negative? Secondly no one questions the ability of the epsons to produce right out to 1600 and some say 2000 DPI, its only beyond that you see differences to a leaf. Keep in mind that you just can't get a 10x8 into an imacon or similar high res scanner.
:)
 

m4/3boy

Mu-43 Veteran
I've owned and used the 4990,700,&750 scanners and none of them are able to fully resolve the detail on sheet film, 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10. Details are mush. Why would you want to scan at less than optimum?

I have no idea why you refer to an Imacon since as far as I know the Imacon can't scan sheet film.

BTW, its SPI not DPI.
 

barry13

Mu-43.com Editor
I've owned and used the 4990,700,&750 scanners and none of them are able to fully resolve the detail on sheet film, 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10. Details are mush. Why would you want to scan at less than optimum?
I've owned and driven a bunch of sports cars and none of them can go 267MPH like the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport can. Throttle response is mushy. Why would you want to drive at less than maximum possible speed?

Barry
 
Top