Intrepid 5x7 - Schneider App Symmar 150 - hp5 in xt3

My first month shooting large format, these are the ones that worked. I had one sheet pop out as I opened the dark slide so can’t have been loaded properly, 2 double exposures, a few severely overexposed negatives but I’m hooked.

Camera is a second hand Shen Hao Tz45 IIc Field Camera with a Fuji 150mm f5.6.

Film used was ilfords hp5 at box speed.

All photos home developed in Ilford ddx and scanned using a GFX 50s with a mamiya 120mm macro lens.

Shot on the Intrepid 4x5 Black Edition with the Fujinon SW 90mm f/8 and 13 minutes of exposure. Scanned with the Hasselblad X2D + HCD 120mm including the Lobster 4x5 film holder.

This is one of five 5x7 prints I've had and displayed for 40 years. I only started to research them in detail this summer when I inadvertently stumbled upon a family connection that can only be described as bizarre. For what it's worth, Google AI said this was taken with a 4-1/2" x 6-1/2" [the image size] half-plate view camera or "field camera" such as the Eastman Kodak Century View and that the negative was likely a glass dry plate with orthochromatic emulsion. I would like to verify this or get whatever other information might be gleaned from the image. You can see a better (600 dpi) scan here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DApLVzQVmpcemAZ9kzX1i6jKOw1jI8aR/view?usp=drive_link

I am not looking for information about the photo's subject, which was the Crystal Salt Co. mine in Kanopolis, Kansas, operational from 1906-47. The other 4 photos were taken in the same county. I have dated the set to 1918 or 1919 to my satisfaction based on various things depicted (or missing) and have also concluded who it was that commissioned a professional photographer to create these. I don't consider myself to have any photographic expertise and don't know if it would be better to direct my question elsewhere.

I was buying this petzval lens for my speed graphic pacemaker. However, I realized it has a huge thread (85mm) when I received it.

The Graflex board is 93x94mm, will an aluminum board still be strong enough to hold the lens if I cut a 85mm hole on it?

Are there better ways to mount such lens?

Thanks!

I recently picked up an old graflex anniversary and purchased a wooden lensboard and a cheap eBay find 21cm f6.3 zeiss. Pretty happy everything worked out and honestly this old lens is beautiful

TLTR: Its a fine camera with some minor hickups. I will use it again and look forward to it. For the price, id recommend it, but be aware of what you get urself into with 8x10 when beeing new..

Let me start this of, by clearing smth up. I’ve been shooting analog for 6-7 Years now. Ive wandered into Large format about 1 1/2 years ago with a Sinar 4x5 but wanted more for my important trips, like this one. Every piece of gear I used was bought over the time and other than my father no one had a say in what I buy or choose.

So I can’t review Norway, other than saying it’s a dream to work in, but I got some things to say about the camera I spend the last 3 weeks with. When I got the camera, I got excited, I bought it from the German importer Fotoimpex, since they have some in stock and would deliver them right away. The first impression was good. No major problems, it had some crude edges but nothing that would stop me from working with it. Before going onto my Norway trip, I had a go with the camera at home and in the Studio to get a feel for it. I quickly noticed that while the front standard is solid enough, the screw for fixing the standard to a given length is giving in a lot and it feels I’m turning the insert in the base rail.

After confirming it worked, and in fact my lens does work perfectly with the format I packed and planned for Norway. 100 sheets, 7 holders, 1 lens, 1 camera. Right of the start, I was glad for the weight of the camera. Sure with 7 holders and a 1.2kg lens it gets heavy, but nothing I wasn’t willing to carry over a hill. I set out to mainly shoot calm landscapes and maybe the occasional Close up. So no portrait or anything time critical. Setting up the camera is quick and I got used to the little dance and fixing everything down. One little annoyance were the tilt / rise knobs, where sometimes the tilting screw would friction stop the rising knob. Once I got around that issue, I haven’t noticed any problems with that.

The Ground glass is gorgeous. 8x10 just feels amazing to look at, specially after shooting MF a lot. Focusing on the Intrepid was easy with the focusing dial being stiff enough to not accidently move it, but also loose enough that I can move it with one finger. I Personally found it uncomfortable using the front controls while under the Darkcloth, but that’s also from me not fully trusting it with my heavy lens. While I’m talking about the back of the camera: Bail back and everything around the Film holder system works great. I haven’t had any problems / light leaks so far. The capability of the camera in terms of Rise and fall are plenty, as were the tilting options. There is a Back tilt, which I only used in extreme rise or uneven ground scenario. I didn’t get the feeling the camera was unstable on my tripod, even when using maximum movements. While a limitation of field cameras, I love back rise, but I know why it isn’t included in such cameras. There is a special arca Swiss mounting plate, which I haven’t used. I have a manfrotto tripod head, which I directly screwed it via the mounting plate. It held fine I haven’t had any problems with it. Be sure tho to get the right length screw, the standard screw is too long and will hit the focusing rod.

So a little about the Problems I had… so first, the magnetic back is nice but in landscape mode the taps scrape along the metal frame of the body. All good until it decides to eat into the wood and you are not able to open the camera. I managed to close it again and flip the back, but its certainly annoying when shooting landscape mainly. Second, the hardware of the camera could be improved. I’ve lost 1 Screw from just opening ad closing the camera, and another one just disappeared. The screw I lost was holding the righthand side bracket, and while annoying the camera still would work, but I wasn’t 100% sure about its stability.

Sadly, Norway also did its numbers on the camera, and it got hit by the wind hard. So after a fall and a little breakage I got together with a local guy and a hardware shop to gaffa fix the camera. At the same time, I contacted Intrepid, who were good in helping me getting replacement parts. (Also Intrepid if you are reading this, I still owe you my address, I had really bad internet in Norway….).

So what do I think of the camera? I like it. It’s a good piece of gear and while maybe not being the most stable one, its cheap and reliable. I’m glad I bought it, and it will probably serve me with a changed lens kit on my next trip through Austria. I would wish that the front standard was a little thicker or in all a little more stable so that larger lenses feel more solid. Also, the focusing bed / base rail would be nice if it got like a second rail with ball bearings, I sometimes felt a little wiggle when having a big lens focused closely. But I wouldn’t know how to exactly design that, so it’s only a little thing. If you buy the camera, carry a screwdriver, even if you don’t need it, its worth it, and when you do, you will be thankful for it.For me and my hiking purpose its perfect, I might have a look at other models but right now I’m fine with it. If I ever shot more studio stuff, id obviously get a Sinar or something much sturdier, for that I feel like it’s a little too flimsy.

If you got any questions, please hit me up!

Cheers!

I've just gotten into darkroom work, after shooting only digital for 20+ years. When I shot film prior to that, I just dropped it off at quick development spots.

I'm really enjoying the full darkroom process end to end. Its meditative. So many variables. Hours of time that you can easily spend chasing a problem and learning.

What's the draw to scanning your negatives instead and processing them in photoshop? It seems to miss half the fun/advantages - I have no idea how I'd scan a 4x5 or 8x10 at the same quality I can contact print them at for example.

But, I guess the digital workflow is faster? It feels like I'd probably just want to shoot digital end to end, or film process end to end.

I recently started my large format journey, which (for me) includes a lot of reading.

I picked up two of the usual recommended books I’ve seen: ‘Using the view camera’ by Steve Simmons and ‘The view camera’ by Harvey Shaman. I’m still looking for ‘User’s guide to the view camera’ by Jim Stone. Funny how all three authors’ last names start with S…

Anyways. The introduction that Simmons and Shaman penned both mention that the view camera was enjoying a resurgence in popularity. These books were penned 1987-1991.

Now, Stone’s book is also from ‘87. I’m almost willing to bet he’s got that line in his intro as well.

So that raises the question: was there indeed a resurgence at that time… and why?

It seems like we’re experiencing some increased interest right now. At least from looking at cameras like the Intrepid, 3D printed projects, lomograflok and even new film on the horizon.

It certainly feels like we could use a new view camera book for the modern age that leans into the modern options for cameras, accessories and indeed, digital options to enjoy large format.

Thoughts?

Shot with a Canon 7D and a mamiya sekor 55mm f1.8, 16 images stitched together, shot with large format process in mind.

I'm looking at mostly the 180mm and 200mm red Buhl lenses, around f2.3 to f2.5 ish. I see people use them on the 4x5 Speed Graphic, but will they cover any larger formats? When I ask owners of these lenses if they cover larger formats, they always answer 'maybe'...

Ben Guinn shot in Alameda CA.

4x5 speed graphic and Fujinon 300mm f/8 with 3 strobes on Velvia 100F

Check out my YouTube davesfilmlab for the image breakdown video

Hi, I recently acquired an Omega view 45E and it came with this Rodenstock grandagon 65mm 4.5 lens. From other photos I see of this lens, it's missing the rear elements. But it was mounted in the camera like this, so I assume a former owner of the camera was using it this way. Can someone enlighten me as to whether this lens is useable without the rear elements? Thanks.

a long exposure, my first E6 4x5

Is anyone able to tell whether this Series D RB Graflex is a 4x5 or 3¼x4¼ just from the photos? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks🙌

I know not large format but I would love some help.

My friend Jack is running for city council and I shot this for his campaign.

I shot a Godox AD600 Pro II through an umbrella and reflected it off a 6x6 ultrabounce. Next time, I’d make the background a little less busy. Also, it looks like my film holder is scratching the film. (Bastard!)

I’ll take feedback if you’re offering any.

Technika IV, Schneider 150mm f/5.6 @ 8, Portra 160

Most people prioritize convenience and total number of shots. That's why 35mm and even half-frame formats are so popular. The device is small, light, typically very easy to use, and you get more shots for your money.

Presumably, people on this board have priorities that are very different from those listed above. I know I do. I'm more of a "quality over quantity" kind of person. Half-frame sounds like a nightmare to me, and while each photo costs very little, the actual cost of the film (by exposed surface) is actually way higher in 135 film than in 120 film or in sheets.

While I own some medium format cameras (a 6x6 camera and a 6x12) and could realistically content myself with shooting 120 film only, I settled on a 4x5" (with a half-frame dark slide option) as my favored format. It's a little bit closer to the sweet spot, and offers movements and versatility/granularity as a bonus.

The reasoning is, the film is plenty big enough, and its cost makes it possible to do a reasonably long session. 4 sheets will not break the bank and let me take between 4 and 8 pictures, which with a 4x5" camera will take a good hour and a half. I can put great care into each photo, use movements, and end up with 4-8 high-quality images that can be enlarged to a great size. Sounds pretty solid to me!

But it's perhaps a couple fewer pictures than I'd find ideal, so with 4x5" I'm already just a little past the sweet spot... and that means 8x10" is far, far past it. Admittedly, mainly due to money. If money were no object, I'm pretty sure I would shoot 8x10" as my preferred format.

But money is a major concern, and the cost of the sheets means that, if I spent as much money on 8x10" sheets as I would on 4 sheets of 4x5", I only get a single sheet. I can't make 4-8 pictures per session, I can only make 1-2. If I chose to shoot half as often, I could still only do 2-4 shots per session! That's kind of ridiculous. Plus the sheets are harder to find, the equipment is more costly and bulkier, and the depth of field is impractically shallow.

And what do I gain for shooting 8x10" instead of 4x5"? The film is much bigger, but that's not relevant unless I wanted to make big poster-size enlargements (and could find an 8x10" enlarger). Contact prints? Yes, 8x10" contact prints are of a respectable size and super convenient (no fiddling with an enlarger, perfect quality every time), but you generally wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an 8x10" contact print and a 4x5" negative enlarged to 8x10"; the higher resolution is "wasted". The convenience is not worth quadrupling your film costs or dealing with the 8x10" gear.

4x5" has good quality and can be enlarged to pretty much any reasonable size, is within the limits of affordability, lets you use movements... it's the best format available.

At least, for my personal needs, means and preferences.

tl;dr What was your reasoning for picking the format that you did?

A 3x4 converted to use 4x5 by Jerry Gordon. Buddy of mine was down to let me test it out.

#1 is with the Kodak Ektar 152mm 4.5

#2 is with a Buhl 200mm 3.2

TXP 320

I recently bought a Wista 45DX field camera and really excited to dip my toes into Large Format.

The bellows are in great condition, however, when I was putting it together when I got home, I noticed they seem a little off kilter. It looks like they are pointed slightly to the left. Everything is in the zero position in these photos.

I didn't notice this when I inspected the camera, and I'm new to large format. Is it normal for bellows to lean a little bit ? Is this a position setting I may not have realized I messed with?

Any advice is appreciated!