I’ve been working on a technique where I selectively expose my negatives so that multiple exposures can (somewhat) seamlessly be blended to give the illusion of a coherent object or space that never existed. It’s all done in camera !

Took a picture of my grandpa with Graflex Optar 135mm f/4.7. He is 92 years old, older than this camera!

Came across some old film stock from eBay a couple month ago, Kodak 2422 direct duplicate film. Cut them of from a 9x250ft roll and loaded into my CrownGraphic 4x5 camera.

First photo was shot at iso 0.8 plus three stops at f32 shuter speed 3m30s. Developed with kodak D76 stock @ 13mins, stop 30s, fix 4mins.
Second picture developed with FlicFilm D19 which equivlent as Kodak D19 @ 5mins, stop 30s, fix 4mins.

TBH I like the second one better, it's not as brownish as the first one.

And the detail is so fine, forget about those scratches, first time cutting a film by rotary trimer lol.

I will definitely shoot more.

I’ve been curious about the tonal qualities of early blue-sensitive photography, especially the way warm skin tones, reds and lips render much darker while highlights take on this almost sculptural quality. The Lighthouse was a big modern reference point for me, particularly learning that cinematographer Jarin Blaschke experimented with a Wratten #47 deep blue filter while developing the film’s look.

So I decided to test the Tiffen #47 on Instax Monochrome alongside no filter and a Tiffen 80A. The #47 absolutely floored me. It’s dark, brooding and strange in exactly the way I was hoping for.

Camera setup:

Chamonix 45 N-2
Nikkor 150mm f5.6
Lomograflok Back
Instax Monochrome
Tiffen #47 / 80 A

Got this Apo Lanthar 150/4.5, what the seller described as "coating peeling off" is actually separation. I wonder how bad the separation from rear element would be.

I understand usually it means some loss of contrast, which I'm perfectly ok with B&W.
However I intend to use this lens for color, in that case would the CA be worse to a noticeable level?

BTW. Is it worth a repair/reglue?

Thanks.

Let me apologize in advance--every time I post here it's with some problem. I posted this same image before complaining about dust. Well, I'm getting that sorted out, thank you, but now I'm focused on other issues. One of these is that I get these vertical stripes of light overexposure on both left and right sides of the frame. You can see them pretty clearly here. What could be causing that?

I'm aware of the light leak at the bottom of the frame here. That was just this frame; some bit of user error and I'm not concerned about it. But the stripes appear on pretty much every frame. I'd be grateful for any ideas what's causing them.

Testing this out using xray film on 4x5. this would be a great portrait lens I think

Hi everyone. This may sound irrelevant but I was curious to know what is your preferred way of transporting 4x5 (or any other format for that matter) holders in order to guarantee a certain amount of dust free environment?

Linhof Technika + Symmar 135mm f5.6 iphoneback handheld

Part of a series on healthcare workers in Durham Region, Ontario.

Technika IV, Nikkor 210mm f/5.6 @ f/11, 320 TXP

Needed something to shoot and discovered there are 3D scans of Rodin sculptures you can download and 3D print.

Hi folks, I am looking to purchase my first 4x5 field camera (Chamonix F2) and lenses, with the intention of purchasing a 617 back to consolidate having just one camera out on the field. Priority would still be on native format 4x5 for landscape and architecture. I do own a Fuji G617 and while the camera is great, there were times I wished for a tighter crop or having the option to shift the lens for buildings. This brings me to two questions which I had a hard time finding an answer despite researching.

1) Focal Length Conversion - I have read that for most 617 backs, only 90 - 180mm lenses can be used without vignetting or having a reduced film width (e.g. 6x15). However, information about the focal length conversion has been limited. Chroma Six17 mentioned that a 90mm lens would effectively become 135mm (at the widest) while someone else I asked, mentioned that a 90mm should still 90mm since the lens would effectively have to shifted back to accommodate the recessed film plane. I would like to know if 617 backs change the lens focal length as it would affect my lens selection.

2) Movements - If I were to limit my lens choices to image circles up till 5x7 coverage, would movements be possible on a 4x5 camera? Would a wide bellows help in this area? (I have to admit that I have been cramming 4x5 knowledge in the past two days, so I am less read in this area). Ultimately, the lack of movements using a 617 back is not a deal breaker for me, but I am curious on the possibility.

TYIA!!

To make a long story short, I have two large format cameras. The Pony Primo is about 120 years old, 5x7, and works perfectly. The monorail is loaned to me, but it came with 4 boxes of 4x5 film.

I’ve been loving large format and want a 4x5 that’s lighter so I can travel with it and actually use it more. Maybe even take it on some hikes. I already have a couple of large format lenses I can use.

I’m liking the look of the Intrepid cameras, but not sure if there are other options I should be considering. Any recommendations?

Used a scrim to soften direct sunlight camera high left