tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7637106711236849742012-02-16T09:04:09.153-08:00Just the humble ramblings of a large-format amateur . . .Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.comBlogger381100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-54940026675905133642008-12-04T06:20:00.000-08:002010-07-08T07:01:45.967-07:00

OK, this is a mysterious printing process at times, I've come to learn, subject to vagaries and variabilities that must plague even the most precise of individuals (of which I concede I am not). Do things exactly the same every time, and it seems you still end up with different looking prints. Not always, but sometimes. For inexplicable reason. It's something that flies hugely in the face of

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-50360483033840591502008-12-03T06:40:00.000-08:002008-12-03T11:37:07.282-08:00

. . . it seems, almost always causes problems, at least when it comes to cameras and film and making prints. Probably other things in life too, but that's a worry for someone else.The black speckling in this print was caused by the platinum/palladium emulsion on the paper, which was not quite 100 per cent dry when I brought negative and paper together.I've read how pt/pd emulsions need to be

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-36258189725545368332008-12-01T05:34:00.000-08:002009-01-02T05:52:48.467-08:00

I put eight sheets of film through my recently acquired 1902 Seneca Chautauqua this weekend — everything works as it should, it seems. The modified (see post below) film holders held the film, the shutter clicked, no light leaks, etc., what more is there on a camera like this?The camera is a breeze to carry around, it's lighter than my 20D! No movements, of course, basically just a 4x5

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-69369923906132160972008-11-28T06:52:00.000-08:002008-11-30T06:22:22.404-08:00

My recently acquired  Seneca Chautauqua 4x5 was built as a plate camera — glass plates. While the plates are 4x5 inches in dimension, the fact is they are also a great deal thicker than sheet film causing a couple of problems if you want to shoot anything other than glass plates. Which, as intriguing an idea as it sounds (there are still people who such things), is beyond my interest.I got three

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-61255443279699919312008-11-24T06:07:00.000-08:002008-11-24T09:07:57.520-08:00

I picked up recently what might be the smallest 4x5 camera I've ever seen, a 1902 Seneca Chautauqua fold-out camera. It has bellows, attached to a front lens board on a rail, which slides out from the body of the camera, much like an old folding Kodak Hawkeye, for those who have seen such a thing. On the front of the Seneca is a Wollensak 150 mm (ish) lens in front of a Seneca "Uno" shutter. It

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-16689967529336003112008-11-16T08:13:00.000-08:002008-11-20T19:57:03.252-08:00

When you cruise the Net in search of info or examples of pt/pd printing, you inevitably find a lot of glowing descriptions about the "wondrous beauty" of the process, prints so incredible they make silver and inkjet prints look silly.There is no doubt platinum and palladium prints have their own unique look — and beauty — but I'm not sure it is more  beautiful than silver or inkjet prints. Just

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-44660436941667026572008-11-15T18:04:00.000-08:002008-11-17T06:55:28.495-08:00

Part of the reason I wanted to try pt/pd printing was because I don't much like darkrooms. Too much gear, and way too restrictive. I always disliked making prints when I worked as a newspaper photographer. Printing with enlargers is a tedious process, that requires a fair bit of work and thinking. It's hard to pick up and leave when you're in the midst of making prints. With platinum/palladium

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-60001893087812977772008-11-11T06:35:00.001-08:002008-11-12T19:44:47.314-08:00

This is a photo I've scanned and printed (and hung on my wall) at 16x20. With today's tech (if I had access to such things), I could make a 30x40 inch print of it and not bat an eye. This platinum/palladium contact print, on the other hand, (just the centre piece of the whole 8x10 neg) is about 5x7. And while I like the photo printed big, I quite like it small as well.It's different to think of

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-18853901521148646912008-11-06T06:51:00.000-08:002008-11-07T06:25:39.208-08:00

Well, it's been a long summer away from the big camera — work, work, kids, work — that sort of thing. Also spent some time with the 20D shooting colour, which for me, anyway, is not big camera country. But the cool nights and threat of winter says B&W to me somehow, so back to the big film. I made another choice this summer as well. I never much enjoyed the process of scanning 8x10 negatives and

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-73211537567306989302008-05-19T14:41:00.000-07:002008-05-19T20:34:01.483-07:00

I've noticed sometimes, when I'm out with the big camera, I'm gripped by what can only be described as hesitation to take a picture for fear the pic is not "large-format worthy."My eye sees a scene and my first thought is to get the camera out, but then some other part of my brain kicks in and I start to wonder — is this really worth it? Is the scene worthy of the time, effort and expense of

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-33735317735343826822008-05-11T06:57:00.000-07:002008-05-13T08:52:39.731-07:00

OK, there isn't much of it, with 8x10, I've come to learn. The much larger format, with its inherent requirement for longer lenses, means depth of field is much more limited than with smaller formats — even 4x5 — a factor that makes some things a little trickier to shoot. I shot this photo first with my 20D, with the equivalent of about a 50mm lens. Even with the lens nearly wide open the depth

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-56034620577113134872008-05-10T06:50:00.000-07:002008-05-10T10:04:15.657-07:00

For a while now I've been fretting the sharpness of some of my pics, particularly ones made with with my 14- and 19-inch lenses (350 mm and 480 mm) which didn't quite seem as sharp as they should be. I wanted to figure out why.  Could be my aging eyes, of course, and a simple inability to get things focussed on the ground glass. Or it could be technique; I've discovered there are a great many

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-2660680374387185502008-05-09T08:57:00.000-07:002008-05-09T09:07:26.073-07:00

Finally, after what seemed an eternity of missed opportunity and failed attempts, I got the chance this week to sneak out for an excursion. Took a drive through one of the ranching areas of my part of the world, the Knutsford grasslands. The area is as rich with photographic potential as it is with history. The grasslands, poplar, aspen, pine and rolling hills often combine together in very

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-21520071727131169702008-04-19T20:03:00.000-07:002008-05-11T07:14:08.258-07:00

Well, I dared write about winter's retreat, and it seems winter didn't take kindly to that. Cold and snow roared through our area last night, plunging the mercury below zero (Celsius), and blanketing our hillsides once more in white. And while a part of me sighed with the unseasonable cold, another part of me quietly smiled, because there is little I like better than being out in the midst of a

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-10368063102245816172008-04-16T08:35:00.000-07:002008-04-16T08:52:48.837-07:00

Another pic from my jaunt around the frozen, but slowly unfreezing, lake this past weekend. I liked the patterns/lines created by the water and ice, for what they are worth.The pic was shot with my Turner Reich convertible, the 60- to 100-year-old brass lens I picked up recently. I used the 19-inch lens cell, although I note when focussed, even at infinity, the focal length with it is more like

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-31448366270973549212008-04-15T14:16:00.001-07:002008-04-15T20:09:30.098-07:00

Winter is in full retreat now, of that there is little doubt. Even on our high-altitude lakes, the ice is looking gray and thin, like it will soon give way and reveal open water once more.I walked the shoreline of one of our high-country lakes this past weekend; these stumps and branches emerging from the ice caught my eye. They remind me somehow of the skeletal remains of an ancient creature,

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-91434599209159666922008-04-12T19:59:00.000-07:002008-04-12T21:26:34.260-07:00

Quick, how do you wreck two large format photos, but only one sheet of film? How about exposing two scenes on one negative?How do you do that? Well, like this. Pick a scene that catches your eye, spend 15 minutes or so composing a scene, expose a frame, then pack up the whole kit to a new eye-catching location. Set up the camera, again, compose the second scene, then put the SAME film holder back

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-19218623413288816462008-04-12T11:23:00.000-07:002008-04-12T11:33:13.881-07:00

The Interior of B.C. has been pounded over the past few seasons by the worst epidemic of mountain pine beetle in recorded history. In my area, virtually all the mature lodgepole and ponderosa pine are dead.This great tree sits not far from house, and measures three feet in diameter at the base. It was a beautiful tree once, with a large canopy of thick needles. It dominated the small ridge it

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-45673153203987922842008-04-11T06:37:00.000-07:002008-04-11T07:05:44.808-07:00

I stumbled upon another little piece of camera history recently, which, despite my best efforts to the contrary, I could not resist. As a result, I added a very old Turner-Reich triple convertible lens to my kit. This lens, manufactured by the Gundlach Optical company, was built somewhere between 1900 and 1940. This one is in a shutter, however, an old but still very functional mechanical Ilex No

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-79765809372297724112008-04-08T19:55:00.001-07:002008-04-09T06:36:09.872-07:00

OK, I take back what I said two posts back. I just got back from a field trip, and the goal of one minute from photographic concept to execution with a camera like this one is ridiculous. Pure silly. I tip my hat to anyone who can achieve it, but I guarantee you, it won't be me. Anyone who is that good is a photographic savante, who probably drinks HC-110 for breakfast. One day I'm sure I will

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-38020893025988371252008-04-05T22:34:00.000-07:002008-04-08T20:56:45.413-07:00

I've always loved shooting flowers, wildflowers especially. Being I've been housebound (still knocked out by the flu), I decided to pretend I was crawling around a meadow somewhere. Set a small pot of these little guys, whatever they are, on the floor and went to work.The 8x10 is lovely for macro, with those big long bellows and a short lens. It's possible to get in close, much closer than I

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-50257153447979607612008-04-05T06:36:00.000-07:002008-04-06T08:53:47.675-07:00

Been mostly out of action this week, sidelined by work and a nasty flu bug. Also waiting for my next shipment of Efke 25 to arrive; it's somewhere between here and Los Angeles (Freestyle Photo). I have 25 sheets of Ilford HP5 to play with still, but like I said, there was all that work this week . . . and the flu bug.Did spend some time with the camera, however, just practicing. I read something

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-89944527668465339222008-03-30T04:26:00.000-07:002008-04-06T09:48:56.506-07:00

Well, I suspect we all have them from time to time, those trips that, in the end, just don't work out. The ones that maybe we wish we never took, the ones we hope cosmic forces would warn us about. My last outing falls in all three of those categories, becoming a sad little comedy of errors that left me with an injured Canon G9, a wounded ego and a dog with sore feet.I headed out to nearby ridge,

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-56786201249224012872008-03-28T03:24:00.000-07:002008-03-28T07:04:19.297-07:00

I have to admit, I'm blown away by the quality of detail 8x10 film captures and displays in print. It is much better than 4x5, to my eye, and blows out of the water what my Canon 20D and G9 digital cameras are capable of.This is the second of two sheets of film I exposed after a recent hike to a local waterfall. The falls itself is further up the creek bed, just around the corner. I don't like

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-59304215519406430842008-03-27T08:50:00.001-07:002008-03-27T12:21:37.413-07:00

Just because sometimes these things are fun to do, here's one more quick comparison between 8x10 ASA 25 film, scanned on an Epson V700 flatbed to 12x18 inches at 360 dpi, and an uninterpolated Canon G9 RAW file, converted to B&W. This time (different from last comparison) the files are viewed at 100 per cent — the actual pixels.The G9 file was sharpened in Lightroom (100, 1.0, 25, 0) and exported

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-68687416285525719812008-03-27T06:28:00.000-07:002008-03-30T14:38:50.540-07:00

Winter has been trying hard this year to keeps its grasp on us, but it can't deny any longer that the end is close. While the nights are still cold here, the days are growing longer and the sun more intense. Things are melting, whether winter wants it to or not.I hiked into the Peterson Creek waterfalls last evening, a nice little falls that drops about 10 metres. It freezes solid through the

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-91266366297386219092008-03-25T08:49:00.000-07:002008-03-25T09:01:04.407-07:00

Put the old brass lens on the camera for another go, this time with the #1 waterhouse stop in place, giving an aperture of about f/8 and a working aperture of about f/12 with 18 inches of bellows, which was required for this photo of my daughter watching a show. The larger aperture is clearly softer, with more diffusion, than with the #3 aperture disk used in "First pic."

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-6727253826667497352008-03-25T04:55:00.000-07:002008-03-25T16:08:38.383-07:00

OK, if you think dSLR sensor dust is nasty, 8x10 film by comparison seems a static-charged, dust-attracting super magnet (and 4x5 film isn't much different, only it's 1/4 the size). Every part of the process, from the film and the holders to the massive glass scanner bed seems determined to attract impressive quantities of dust, all of which, if it ends up in the final image, usually needs to be

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-25418643777746498372008-03-23T07:32:00.000-07:002008-03-25T15:34:29.300-07:00

I thought I'd give a quick glimpse at 8x10 film versus digital, for those who are interested in such things. This is a screen capture of two files; on the left a scan of the 8x10 negative of the carved initials (the whole frame can be seen in the previous post), on the right a Canon G9 RAW file, converted to B&W. Both files are image sized to comparable resolutions (the G9 inadvertently used a

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-23516130962554851192008-03-22T12:55:00.001-07:002008-03-25T07:06:50.383-07:00

Well, shots by the living room window are fine, but I bought this thing to be a field camera, so in the field it has to go. All packed up and ready to go, with all the little bits and pieces required, the "field" package weighs in at 36 pounds. Twice what my 4x5 kit weighed. Oh well, better living through photograpy and exercise.Took the camera to a piece of landscape near Kamloops I've wanted to

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-83292915134682505622008-03-22T06:47:00.001-07:002008-03-25T06:49:38.005-07:00

Well, very first pic out of the 8x10 (aside from two film tests of the side of my house). Quick pic of my wife, beside the (very dirty) living room window. Put the 100-year-old brass lens on the front, to see how it would do. I'm surprised at how sharp the pic looks, actually, because on the ground glass it looked a lot softer.I put in the #3 waterhouse aperture stop. At exactly one-inch in

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-27225618232983511372008-03-18T15:53:00.000-07:002008-03-18T15:59:22.775-07:00

The ground glass on my camera was in decent shape, but looked a little marked up in places, and a little dingy. I have no idea how old the glass might have been. I decided to replace it, and went with a new glass from an eBay store found here. Wow, what a difference! The new glass was markedly brighter, with better contrast. The corners were clipped perfectly.  A huge improvement, at a decent

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-21941262195393628002008-03-18T06:43:00.000-07:002008-03-25T05:38:51.639-07:00

The old black-and-white adage says, "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights," the understanding being that you can do a lot to move the highlights around with developing, but if shadow information isn't recorded on the film, it isn't going to be there. Empty film is black, and overexposure causes all sorts of other problems. Best to get the exposure for the low ranges nailed, and the

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-80349982961621744252008-03-16T15:03:00.000-07:002008-03-25T14:38:35.446-07:00

This post is designed to show more than anything I'm not determined in some sort of strange fashion to do everything photographic the hard way. Even the old guys took advantage of technology when they had it; where would Ansel have been without a spot meter? So when it came time to decide how to read the light, I chose a very modern option — a Canon G9. When I bought my G9 last year, I told the

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-76301935003801977392008-03-15T04:14:00.000-07:002008-03-25T08:58:27.414-07:00

Stuck the old brass lens on the camera yesterday, to take a look. Through the ground glass, the lens has a distinct soft focus look when wide open, but starts to sharpen up a great deal when the stops are added in. At wide open (by my calculations, about f /5.6 on this lens) it would be hard to use, it's pretty soft. The No. 3 aperture (about f/14) looks not too bad. The smallest aperture (about

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-25313973582068472182008-03-13T05:36:00.000-07:002008-03-25T15:31:07.618-07:00

Still waiting for all the bits and pieces to arrive, so I can get this thing out and try a photograph. The film holders showed up a day ago. Wow, they make an impression — 8x10 is big film. Speaking of which, getting film isn't much of a problem, as long as we accept we won't find it at the local London Drugs photo counter, or for that matter — in Canada.Limited selections of 8x10 film are

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-47071277897893000452008-03-11T05:43:00.000-07:002008-03-25T08:59:01.067-07:00

I've seen it described by some as the "poor man's Deardorff." Perhaps it is, for clearly, Agfa-Ansco field cameras don't fetch Deardorff prices. While a Deardorff 8x10 easily runs into the $1,500 to $1,800 range these days on eBay, these cameras typically sell for between $100 and $400, depending on condition and accessories. And conditions vary, it appears, a great deal. Perhaps because they are

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-763710671123684974.post-25135448934654591652008-03-10T19:52:00.000-07:002008-03-25T15:32:20.755-07:00

There is always something delightful about anticipation, and it was with great anticipation I waited for it to arrive. I saw it on eBay, and knew instantly I wanted it, an Agfa-Ansco 8x10 view camera, made of cherry with brass trim and controls. A week later, it showed up, packed in foam and plastic.It's a big camera, no doubt, weighing about 15 pounds. It shows its age, which, according to the

Robert Koopmansnoreply@blogger.com0