So....lets talk Large Format film....

Truman Prevatt said:

absquatulate said:

Hang on, before you sacrifice me at the altar of the digital gods, hear me out. I'm a committed Foveon shooter, I have 5 Foveon cameras, I will remain so, so put the daggers away...for now. I've been on a little journey re-discovering film, which I'm thoroughly enjoying, I've been to the confessional and the Vicar said it was ok. So anyway, obviously being a bit of a resolution freak, I started pondering over Large Format, I shoot medium format which I really enjoy, but I'm very much of the "do it while you can" mindset. I'm not retired and I'm healthy, so carrying gear is not an issue to me. I'm also very much enjoying the slower pace and deliberate shooting style of film. I'm used to Merrill write times so why wouldn't I be?

So here's where it's going, I did a little research on Large Format film, the cameras are not hugely expensive, but the rigs are cumbersome, however, to my delight, I stumbled upon a British start-up company, which is hand making lightweight 4x5 large format cameras, for the amazing price of £250. These cameras weigh 900g, which is impressive, and are fully functional. Obviously you need to factor in film backs and lenses, but they're not going to add too much in weight at all. So I'm going for it, got the green light from the missus, as long as I sell some other gear, which is fair enough, and I'm diving into the the LF pool. I know the limitations, I can do my own developing, I'll use my Merrills for digital conversion (See what I did there ;-) ), it's game on, anyone on here shot LF and any tips? Oh and here's the company I'm buying from, I have no affiliation but I strongly believe in supporting home manufacturing, I'm very pleased it's a British company doing this

https://intrepidcamera.co.uk/products/intrepid-camera

Click to expand...

You ned to spend some time on

http://www.largeformatphotography.info

You can do things with a large format camera and a good coverage lens that you cannot do with a fixed axis lens camera. The lens is the most important piece of the puzzle and a good 4x5 lens is expensive but worth it.

To get the full advantage of a large format camera you need to spend time learning the tilts and shifts and what they do. One way to do that without going through a lot of film is a Polaroid back and B&W Polaroid film.

Click to expand...

absquatulate said:

Hang on, before you sacrifice me at the altar of the digital gods, hear me out.

Click to expand...

Midwest said:

absquatulate said:

Hang on, before you sacrifice me at the altar of the digital gods, hear me out.

Click to expand...

Isn't there a Film Photography Review forum someplace?

Click to expand...

John Borrelli said:

If the OP is interested in a 150mm lens, here is a basic review. I used a 150mm Rodenstock Apo-sironar N lens. It was small, light, used 49mm filters, very sharp and provided an image circle large enough for movements (similar focal length to my DP2 M). The older Rodenstock 150mm Sironar lens was considered by insiders to be so close in performance to the newer APO version, you could get that one for less. The Rodenstock Apo Sironar S was the best version,light, larger image circle, sharper around the edges, (not really sharper in the center), more expensive. There was a line of lenses sold by Calumet called Caltar. This gets a little complicated but most modern Caltar lenses were rebadged Rodenstock lenses, but they tend to cost less than the Rodenstocks. (There was another line sold by Sinar that were also all or mostly Rodenstocks). Rodenstock made a less expensive line of lenses that were called geronars. These were the entry level line, they were simpler designs, less lens elements and less image circle, less expensive. The Apo-Sironars, for example, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, 210mm lenses, etc. were all plasmat designs I believe and were all excellent. Now Schneider, Nikon and Fuji also made modern multicoated lenses in these focal lengths and they were all excellent. Fuji and Schneider updated their lenses but Nikon’s 135, 150, 180 and 210mm lenses were not significantly updated. The Nikon 135mm may not be quite as good as the Rodenstock/Caltar or Schneider but sample variation will also be an issue. Lenses with f5.6 maximum apertures in the 150mm range were preferred by me, that is because looking at the groundglass, and focusing through the groundglass is an easier and more enjoyable experience. I tended to make images around sunset so the brighter lens was important. With darker lenses f8 and f9, I needed to setup an hour or two earlier and then wait, even with a good darkcloth and loupe, slower wide angles are tougher than longer lenses for viewing. Now at wider and longer focal lengths you pay a price for the brighter lens, the lenses become bigger and heavier, but for 135 and 150mm lenses these factors aren’t issues. The LF forum I have mentioned is a great resource, also Kerry L. Thalmann’s site and an LF lens test site called something like www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html I hope I am not overloading the OP with information, all the best, John

Click to expand...

Midwest said:

absquatulate said:

Hang on, before you sacrifice me at the altar of the digital gods, hear me out.

Click to expand...

Isn't there a Film Photography Review forum someplace?

Click to expand...

absquatulate said:

John Borrelli said:

If the OP is interested in a 150mm lens, here is a basic review. I used a 150mm Rodenstock Apo-sironar N lens. It was small, light, used 49mm filters, very sharp and provided an image circle large enough for movements (similar focal length to my DP2 M). The older Rodenstock 150mm Sironar lens was considered by insiders to be so close in performance to the newer APO version, you could get that one for less. The Rodenstock Apo Sironar S was the best version,light, larger image circle, sharper around the edges, (not really sharper in the center), more expensive. There was a line of lenses sold by Calumet called Caltar. This gets a little complicated but most modern Caltar lenses were rebadged Rodenstock lenses, but they tend to cost less than the Rodenstocks. (There was another line sold by Sinar that were also all or mostly Rodenstocks). Rodenstock made a less expensive line of lenses that were called geronars. These were the entry level line, they were simpler designs, less lens elements and less image circle, less expensive. The Apo-Sironars, for example, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, 210mm lenses, etc. were all plasmat designs I believe and were all excellent. Now Schneider, Nikon and Fuji also made modern multicoated lenses in these focal lengths and they were all excellent. Fuji and Schneider updated their lenses but Nikon’s 135, 150, 180 and 210mm lenses were not significantly updated. The Nikon 135mm may not be quite as good as the Rodenstock/Caltar or Schneider but sample variation will also be an issue. Lenses with f5.6 maximum apertures in the 150mm range were preferred by me, that is because looking at the groundglass, and focusing through the groundglass is an easier and more enjoyable experience. I tended to make images around sunset so the brighter lens was important. With darker lenses f8 and f9, I needed to setup an hour or two earlier and then wait, even with a good darkcloth and loupe, slower wide angles are tougher than longer lenses for viewing. Now at wider and longer focal lengths you pay a price for the brighter lens, the lenses become bigger and heavier, but for 135 and 150mm lenses these factors aren’t issues. The LF forum I have mentioned is a great resource, also Kerry L. Thalmann’s site and an LF lens test site called something like www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html I hope I am not overloading the OP with information, all the best, John

--
John Borrelli

Click to expand...

Thanks John, I've bookmarked this post, very useful. I have been looking at some Fuji lenses which are sold for good prices in Japan, my first lens will be 150mm, and I would also like a wider lens, something around 80-90mm would be ideal as I love the classic 135 format 28mm fov very much.

Click to expand...

John Borrelli said:

absquatulate said:

John Borrelli said:

If the OP is interested in a 150mm lens, here is a basic review. I used a 150mm Rodenstock Apo-sironar N lens. It was small, light, used 49mm filters, very sharp and provided an image circle large enough for movements (similar focal length to my DP2 M). The older Rodenstock 150mm Sironar lens was considered by insiders to be so close in performance to the newer APO version, you could get that one for less. The Rodenstock Apo Sironar S was the best version,light, larger image circle, sharper around the edges, (not really sharper in the center), more expensive. There was a line of lenses sold by Calumet called Caltar. This gets a little complicated but most modern Caltar lenses were rebadged Rodenstock lenses, but they tend to cost less than the Rodenstocks. (There was another line sold by Sinar that were also all or mostly Rodenstocks). Rodenstock made a less expensive line of lenses that were called geronars. These were the entry level line, they were simpler designs, less lens elements and less image circle, less expensive. The Apo-Sironars, for example, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, 210mm lenses, etc. were all plasmat designs I believe and were all excellent. Now Schneider, Nikon and Fuji also made modern multicoated lenses in these focal lengths and they were all excellent. Fuji and Schneider updated their lenses but Nikon’s 135, 150, 180 and 210mm lenses were not significantly updated. The Nikon 135mm may not be quite as good as the Rodenstock/Caltar or Schneider but sample variation will also be an issue. Lenses with f5.6 maximum apertures in the 150mm range were preferred by me, that is because looking at the groundglass, and focusing through the groundglass is an easier and more enjoyable experience. I tended to make images around sunset so the brighter lens was important. With darker lenses f8 and f9, I needed to setup an hour or two earlier and then wait, even with a good darkcloth and loupe, slower wide angles are tougher than longer lenses for viewing. Now at wider and longer focal lengths you pay a price for the brighter lens, the lenses become bigger and heavier, but for 135 and 150mm lenses these factors aren’t issues. The LF forum I have mentioned is a great resource, also Kerry L. Thalmann’s site and an LF lens test site called something like www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html I hope I am not overloading the OP with information, all the best, John

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

absquatulate said:

Sugasmune said:

Too bad the large format film is that expensive, around 250 euros per 50 sheet.

Click to expand...

I can get it way cheaper than that, I'm not sure where you're getting your prices from? you can get 50 sheets of fomapan 100 for less than £40, or 25 sheets of Ilford FP4 for £38.

Member said:

Now it depends when can you next time buy out another 50 sheet.

If you wait over 6 months with 2'th pack of 50 sheets, one would need new chemicals that are another 150-200 euros with hazardous posting fees via airplane.

Click to expand...

I can get 3.8 litres of D76 and some fixer for about £15 lol.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

Some of the film holders cost 600 euros, yes just 1 film holder with ultra large format.

Click to expand...

You're way out, I don't know where you live but I can get all the stuff I need massively cheaper than that.

Click to expand...

Truman Prevatt said:

absquatulate said:

Sugasmune said:

Too bad the large format film is that expensive, around 250 euros per 50 sheet.

Click to expand...

I can get it way cheaper than that, I'm not sure where you're getting your prices from? you can get 50 sheets of fomapan 100 for less than £40, or 25 sheets of Ilford FP4 for £38.

Truman Prevatt said:

Now it depends when can you next time buy out another 50 sheet.

If you wait over 6 months with 2'th pack of 50 sheets, one would need new chemicals that are another 150-200 euros with hazardous posting fees via airplane.

Click to expand...

I can get 3.8 litres of D76 and some fixer for about £15 lol.

Click to expand...

D76 is not a great developer for sheet film. I would stick with the tried and true HC100. Another place to get help and information and supplies and developers for large format is at http://stores.photoformulary.com

Click to expand...

Truman Prevatt said:

My preference on B&W film for LF is good old TriX. You cannot beat a thick emulsion film for latitude and dynamic range. TriX & HC110 dilution B - is hard to beat.

Click to expand...

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Some of the film holders cost 600 euros, yes just 1 film holder with ultra large format.

Click to expand...

You're way out, I don't know where you live but I can get all the stuff I need massively cheaper than that.

Click to expand...

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Click to expand...

Kendall Helmstetter Gelner said:

I totally applaud interesting photographic efforts like this, but I have to say I think you are seriously underestimating the weight of any decent 4x5 lenses!!!

I think a lot of people here would love to see the results, especially if you capture the negative with a Foveon... perhaps the 70mm? Or using a DP3M?

Click to expand...

absquatulate said:

John Borrelli said:

absquatulate said:

John Borrelli said:

If the OP is interested in a 150mm lens, here is a basic review. I used a 150mm Rodenstock Apo-sironar N lens. It was small, light, used 49mm filters, very sharp and provided an image circle large enough for movements (similar focal length to my DP2 M). The older Rodenstock 150mm Sironar lens was considered by insiders to be so close in performance to the newer APO version, you could get that one for less. The Rodenstock Apo Sironar S was the best version,light, larger image circle, sharper around the edges, (not really sharper in the center), more expensive. There was a line of lenses sold by Calumet called Caltar. This gets a little complicated but most modern Caltar lenses were rebadged Rodenstock lenses, but they tend to cost less than the Rodenstocks. (There was another line sold by Sinar that were also all or mostly Rodenstocks). Rodenstock made a less expensive line of lenses that were called geronars. These were the entry level line, they were simpler designs, less lens elements and less image circle, less expensive. The Apo-Sironars, for example, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, 210mm lenses, etc. were all plasmat designs I believe and were all excellent. Now Schneider, Nikon and Fuji also made modern multicoated lenses in these focal lengths and they were all excellent. Fuji and Schneider updated their lenses but Nikon’s 135, 150, 180 and 210mm lenses were not significantly updated. The Nikon 135mm may not be quite as good as the Rodenstock/Caltar or Schneider but sample variation will also be an issue. Lenses with f5.6 maximum apertures in the 150mm range were preferred by me, that is because looking at the groundglass, and focusing through the groundglass is an easier and more enjoyable experience. I tended to make images around sunset so the brighter lens was important. With darker lenses f8 and f9, I needed to setup an hour or two earlier and then wait, even with a good darkcloth and loupe, slower wide angles are tougher than longer lenses for viewing. Now at wider and longer focal lengths you pay a price for the brighter lens, the lenses become bigger and heavier, but for 135 and 150mm lenses these factors aren’t issues. The LF forum I have mentioned is a great resource, also Kerry L. Thalmann’s site and an LF lens test site called something like www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html I hope I am not overloading the OP with information, all the best, John

--
John Borrelli

Click to expand...

Thanks John, I've bookmarked this post, very useful. I have been looking at some Fuji lenses which are sold for good prices in Japan, my first lens will be 150mm, and I would also like a wider lens, something around 80-90mm would be ideal as I love the classic 135 format 28mm fov very much.

Click to expand...

In my opinion, the best of the fujis are the last series and they are reputed to be as good as any lens made. In the 125, 150, 180, 210mm focal lengths, this last series standardized on 67mm filter sizes, they had all black lens barrels and all black copal shutters. The smaller filter 150s are older but the 5.6 ones are still reported to be good. There was a compact Fuji 150 f6.3 I believe which was their economy lens but it had a smaller image circle (not as good for movements) and was single coated, but still sharp. The Fuji A 240mm MC f9 lens is Fuji’s gift to mankind. For 90mm f8 lenses people loved the nikon but I am sure a late model Fuji will also be excellent. Unfortunately all LF lens shutters are no longer made so be careful. All black Copal shutters were the latest copal shutters made. Fuji used Seiko shutters in some of their older lenses, repair places might not have any parts for those long discontinued shutters. Ilex shutters very old, Compur shutters would also be a repair concern. All the best, John

--
John Borrelli

Click to expand...

Thanks again John, I'll bear your comments in mind. I tend to buy stuff like this from reputable Japanese sellers, they tend to be honest and take pride in giving a good service, and their prices, even with customs duties tend to be good as well. Amazingly fast delivery as well considering the distance. I like Fuji lenses, the one on my Fuji GW690 MF rangefinder is superb.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

absquatulate said:

John Borrelli said:

absquatulate said:

John Borrelli said:

If the OP is interested in a 150mm lens, here is a basic review. I used a 150mm Rodenstock Apo-sironar N lens. It was small, light, used 49mm filters, very sharp and provided an image circle large enough for movements (similar focal length to my DP2 M). The older Rodenstock 150mm Sironar lens was considered by insiders to be so close in performance to the newer APO version, you could get that one for less. The Rodenstock Apo Sironar S was the best version,light, larger image circle, sharper around the edges, (not really sharper in the center), more expensive. There was a line of lenses sold by Calumet called Caltar. This gets a little complicated but most modern Caltar lenses were rebadged Rodenstock lenses, but they tend to cost less than the Rodenstocks. (There was another line sold by Sinar that were also all or mostly Rodenstocks). Rodenstock made a less expensive line of lenses that were called geronars. These were the entry level line, they were simpler designs, less lens elements and less image circle, less expensive. The Apo-Sironars, for example, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm, 210mm lenses, etc. were all plasmat designs I believe and were all excellent. Now Schneider, Nikon and Fuji also made modern multicoated lenses in these focal lengths and they were all excellent. Fuji and Schneider updated their lenses but Nikon’s 135, 150, 180 and 210mm lenses were not significantly updated. The Nikon 135mm may not be quite as good as the Rodenstock/Caltar or Schneider but sample variation will also be an issue. Lenses with f5.6 maximum apertures in the 150mm range were preferred by me, that is because looking at the groundglass, and focusing through the groundglass is an easier and more enjoyable experience. I tended to make images around sunset so the brighter lens was important. With darker lenses f8 and f9, I needed to setup an hour or two earlier and then wait, even with a good darkcloth and loupe, slower wide angles are tougher than longer lenses for viewing. Now at wider and longer focal lengths you pay a price for the brighter lens, the lenses become bigger and heavier, but for 135 and 150mm lenses these factors aren’t issues. The LF forum I have mentioned is a great resource, also Kerry L. Thalmann’s site and an LF lens test site called something like www.hevanet.com/cperez/results.html I hope I am not overloading the OP with information, all the best, John

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

absquatulate said:

Truman Prevatt said:

absquatulate said:

Sugasmune said:

Too bad the large format film is that expensive, around 250 euros per 50 sheet.

Click to expand...

I can get it way cheaper than that, I'm not sure where you're getting your prices from? you can get 50 sheets of fomapan 100 for less than £40, or 25 sheets of Ilford FP4 for £38.

Member said:

Now it depends when can you next time buy out another 50 sheet.

If you wait over 6 months with 2'th pack of 50 sheets, one would need new chemicals that are another 150-200 euros with hazardous posting fees via airplane.

Click to expand...

I can get 3.8 litres of D76 and some fixer for about £15 lol.

Click to expand...

D76 is not a great developer for sheet film. I would stick with the tried and true HC100. Another place to get help and information and supplies and developers for large format is at http://stores.photoformulary.com

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Member said:

My preference on B&W film for LF is good old TriX. You cannot beat a thick emulsion film for latitude and dynamic range. TriX & HC110 dilution B - is hard to beat.

Click to expand...

I'm trying Ilford Delta 400 at the moment, I can get that reasonably priced here and it's readily available, I prefer the look over Tri-X to be honest.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Some of the film holders cost 600 euros, yes just 1 film holder with ultra large format.

Click to expand...

You're way out, I don't know where you live but I can get all the stuff I need massively cheaper than that.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

MrImprovement said:

Since you are going to be practicing anyways, you may want to check into the use of Xray photo film, which can be very very inexpensive. Kodak, Agfa, and Fuji all make this - the LF photography site should have more info on this.

I think I calculated that a 4x5 B&W sheet could be as little as 12.5 cents USD ($0.125).

A guy using xray film, and results, here: http://www.wozaczynski.com/blog/?s=xray

Click to expand...

Truman Prevatt said:

Tubler grain films (TMax and Delta) are not near as forgiving as TriX or the old Fuji Neopan. Thick emulsion films are just more forgiving about exposure and hold highlights better than TMax and Delta.

Click to expand...

Truman Prevatt said:

absquatulate said:

Truman Prevatt said:

absquatulate said:

Sugasmune said:

Too bad the large format film is that expensive, around 250 euros per 50 sheet.

Click to expand...

I can get it way cheaper than that, I'm not sure where you're getting your prices from? you can get 50 sheets of fomapan 100 for less than £40, or 25 sheets of Ilford FP4 for £38.

Truman Prevatt said:

Now it depends when can you next time buy out another 50 sheet.

If you wait over 6 months with 2'th pack of 50 sheets, one would need new chemicals that are another 150-200 euros with hazardous posting fees via airplane.

Click to expand...

I can get 3.8 litres of D76 and some fixer for about £15 lol.

Click to expand...

D76 is not a great developer for sheet film. I would stick with the tried and true HC100. Another place to get help and information and supplies and developers for large format is at http://stores.photoformulary.com

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Truman Prevatt said:

My preference on B&W film for LF is good old TriX. You cannot beat a thick emulsion film for latitude and dynamic range. TriX & HC110 dilution B - is hard to beat.

Click to expand...

I'm trying Ilford Delta 400 at the moment, I can get that reasonably priced here and it's readily available, I prefer the look over Tri-X to be honest.

Click to expand...

Tubler grain films (TMax and Delta) are not near as forgiving as TriX or the old Fuji Neopan. Thick emulsion films are just more forgiving about exposure and hold highlights better than TMax and Delta.

Click to expand...

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Some of the film holders cost 600 euros, yes just 1 film holder with ultra large format.

Click to expand...

You're way out, I don't know where you live but I can get all the stuff I need massively cheaper than that.

Click to expand...

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Click to expand...

absquatulate said:

Truman Prevatt said:

absquatulate said:

Truman Prevatt said:

absquatulate said:

Sugasmune said:

Too bad the large format film is that expensive, around 250 euros per 50 sheet.

Click to expand...

I can get it way cheaper than that, I'm not sure where you're getting your prices from? you can get 50 sheets of fomapan 100 for less than £40, or 25 sheets of Ilford FP4 for £38.

Member said:

Now it depends when can you next time buy out another 50 sheet.

If you wait over 6 months with 2'th pack of 50 sheets, one would need new chemicals that are another 150-200 euros with hazardous posting fees via airplane.

Click to expand...

I can get 3.8 litres of D76 and some fixer for about £15 lol.

Click to expand...

D76 is not a great developer for sheet film. I would stick with the tried and true HC100. Another place to get help and information and supplies and developers for large format is at http://stores.photoformulary.com

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Member said:

My preference on B&W film for LF is good old TriX. You cannot beat a thick emulsion film for latitude and dynamic range. TriX & HC110 dilution B - is hard to beat.

Click to expand...

I'm trying Ilford Delta 400 at the moment, I can get that reasonably priced here and it's readily available, I prefer the look over Tri-X to be honest.

Click to expand...

Tubler grain films (TMax and Delta) are not near as forgiving as TriX or the old Fuji Neopan. Thick emulsion films are just more forgiving about exposure and hold highlights better than TMax and Delta.

Click to expand...

I'm going to experiment with development times with Ilford delta so I'll let you know on that one I've just discovered that Ilford delta is not so readily available for 4x5 so I'll probably be using Ilford HP5 instead for that.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Member said:

Some of the film holders cost 600 euros, yes just 1 film holder with ultra large format.

Click to expand...

You're way out, I don't know where you live but I can get all the stuff I need massively cheaper than that.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Truman Prevatt said:

absquatulate said:

Truman Prevatt said:

absquatulate said:

Truman Prevatt said:

absquatulate said:

Sugasmune said:

Too bad the large format film is that expensive, around 250 euros per 50 sheet.

Click to expand...

I can get it way cheaper than that, I'm not sure where you're getting your prices from? you can get 50 sheets of fomapan 100 for less than £40, or 25 sheets of Ilford FP4 for £38.

Truman Prevatt said:

Now it depends when can you next time buy out another 50 sheet.

If you wait over 6 months with 2'th pack of 50 sheets, one would need new chemicals that are another 150-200 euros with hazardous posting fees via airplane.

Click to expand...

I can get 3.8 litres of D76 and some fixer for about £15 lol.

Click to expand...

D76 is not a great developer for sheet film. I would stick with the tried and true HC100. Another place to get help and information and supplies and developers for large format is at http://stores.photoformulary.com

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Truman Prevatt said:

My preference on B&W film for LF is good old TriX. You cannot beat a thick emulsion film for latitude and dynamic range. TriX & HC110 dilution B - is hard to beat.

Click to expand...

I'm trying Ilford Delta 400 at the moment, I can get that reasonably priced here and it's readily available, I prefer the look over Tri-X to be honest.

Click to expand...

Tubler grain films (TMax and Delta) are not near as forgiving as TriX or the old Fuji Neopan. Thick emulsion films are just more forgiving about exposure and hold highlights better than TMax and Delta.

Click to expand...

I'm going to experiment with development times with Ilford delta so I'll let you know on that one I've just discovered that Ilford delta is not so readily available for 4x5 so I'll probably be using Ilford HP5 instead for that.

Click to expand...

HP 5 is a classic thick emulsion film very similar to TriX.

Click to expand...

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Some of the film holders cost 600 euros, yes just 1 film holder with ultra large format.

Click to expand...

You're way out, I don't know where you live but I can get all the stuff I need massively cheaper than that.

Click to expand...

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Truman
www.pbase.com/tprevatt

Click to expand...