In Perspective, Fun: Going retro with film: 8x10 and direct to print 7 feet high!

[Asher Kelman]

Well, large can be fun. I have lusted after an 80 MP digital back but realized that my 5DII is so versatile for most of my needs and what I need large, I should do without stitching. So my return to film is now underway, without turning my back on digital. The difference is that I'll now try to get the components all in the picture in one go with the best lenses for the job.

So I have to be able to develop film! Well A&I is so near me, I started there but to my surprise, the cost was great for just a dozen or so negatives and contact prints. $500 a whack is painful. So I searched through the photography websites and discovered the Jobo processor and got the one with the strong motor but set up analog. Less bits to go wrong.

I thought this might be hardly used but was surprised to get delivery of a brand new CAP-2 From eBay!

The great thing is that is the version after 22,000 so it should have the stronger motor and latest circuit boards!

So now I need a lift and the various 3005 and 3063 tanks and I'm a prince!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Oh, I forgot to say that I have two ways of using the film camera! First I have the 8x10 camera and will use color and B&W film. Next, I'm bashing a hole in a wall between my office and my den to have a walk in Camera Obscura with a movable vacuum board for 72 inch lengths of 40 inch to 50" wide Cibachrome of Harman direct to positive paper; no negatives!

In the hole in the wall goes lens boards with a Nikkor 760 mm and then a 47.5 or 48" Artar type process lens. I take test picture with 8x20 Ilfochrome paper and then process these immediately on my Jobo processor. When its perfect, I pull down a length of Ilfochrome, put on the vacuum to get it flat and start to take life size pictures of subjects in the den! Anyway, that's my plan! Have to figure out making the vacuum board so I can check focus easily.

When it works right, I should be able to roll up the paper, pack in a tube then go to a commercial Ilfochrome lab for final processing. Voila! Well that's my idea!

I still have to build the vacuum easel, 8 foot wide by 7 foot high and paint my camera room black!

This is fun!

The great thing is there's nothing which loses value in this project except if I flood the place!

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

That all sounds fabulous! Keep us up-to-date.

I love the timer - is that a GraLab 300? Long time no see.

Will you be getting a scanner with a 50" mouth so we will be able to see your results? Or perhaps you will make a bracket to hold your 5DII up to the hole in the wall.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi, Asher,

That all sounds fabulous! Keep us up-to-date.

I love the timer - is that a GraLab 300? Long time no see.

Will you be getting a scanner with a 50" mouth so we will be able to see your results? Or perhaps you will make a bracket to hold your 5DII up to the hole in the wall.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi Doug,

The 8x10 prints I'll scan and share! The larger ones I'll have a digital copy as I'll synch a 5DII in the inside of the camera room focused on the vacuum easel with the 84" paper. That allows me to review each picture! The camera will be right close to the back of the 760 mm lens sticking into the Camara Obscura.

My scanner is a Topaz and I have to get in a tech to show me how to get it to work! However the bed only goes up to 16x20 or 20x24 in that region. Fine for the 8x10 work with the LF camera.

Asher

 

[Mark Hampton]

Oh, I forgot to say that I have two ways of using the film camera! First I have the 8x10 camera and will use color and B&W film. Next, I'm bashing a hole in a wall between my office and my den to have a walk in Camera Obscura with a movable vacuum board for 72 inch lengths of 40 inch to 50" wide Cibachrome of Harman direct to positive paper; no negatives!

In the hole in the wall goes lens boards with a Nikkor 760 mm and then a 47.5 or 48" Artar type process lens. I take test picture with 8x20 Ilfochrome paper and then process these immediately on my Jobo processor. When its perfect, I pull down a length of Ilfochrome, put on the vacuum to get it flat and start to take life size pictures of subjects in the den! Anyway, that's my plan! Have to figure out making the vacuum board so I can check focus easily.

When it works right, I should be able to roll up the paper, pack in a tube then go to a commercial Ilfochrome lab for final processing. Voila! Well that's my idea!

I still have to build the vacuum easel, 8 foot wide by 7 foot high and paint my camera room black!

This is fun!

The great thing is there's nothing which loses value in this project except if I flood the place!

Asher

Asher -

have a look at the work of Richard Learoyd -

i think this is simalar process - the results are beautiful. looking forward to finding out more about this proccess.

cheers

 

[Ruben Alfu]

Hi Asher,

No clue what a "movable vacuum board for 72 inch lengths of 40 inch to 50" wide Cibachrome of Harman direct to positive paper" is but sounds spectacular! Congratulations for your new acquisitions and best of luck with the project Asher!

Cheers,

Ruben

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

The 8x10 prints I'll scan and share! The larger ones I'll have a digital copy as I'll synch a 5DII in the inside of the camera room focused on the vacuum easel with the 84" paper. That allows me to review each picture! The camera will be right close to the back of the 760 mm lens sticking into the Camara Obscura.

Oh, that sounds neat. Something wonderfully recursive about a camera inside the camera of a camera.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher -

have a look at the work of Richard Learoyd -

i think this is simalar process - the results are beautiful. looking forward to finding out more about this proccess.

cheers

Mark,

I had a Tarsus moment when seeing Learoyd's exhibit at the Fraenkel gallery in San Francisco last month. I am writing a review. His work is so direct. No retouching at all. WYSIWYG! No negative either. The paper comes in huge rolls. One needs a vacuum board to get the paper flat.

Learoyd's work is so impressive, the nearest to reality I've experienced. His lighting skills work wonders at 32,000 Watt Seconds, (Joules)!

Asher

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Can't wait, especially if you're going to be doing contact prints, I've never seen 8X10 contact prints but they sound absolutely delightful!

 

[Mark Hampton]

Mark,

I had a Tarsus moment when seeing Learoyd's exhibit at the Fraenkel gallery in San Francisco last month. I am writing a review. His work is so direct. No retouching at all. WYSIWYG! No negative either. The paper comes in huge rolls. One needs a vacuum board to get the paper flat.

Learoyd's work is so impressive, the nearest to reality I've experienced. His lighting skills work wonders at 32,000 Watt Seconds, (Joules)!

Asher

Asher,

as close to photography as one gets ! I look forward to reading your review.

cheers

 

[Asher Kelman]

Can't wait, especially if you're going to be doing contact prints, I've never seen 8X10 contact prints but they sound absolutely delightful!

Ben,

When using the 8x10 camera with film, I'll scan at first since I'm set up for that. However I will also set up for contact printing so I can also do platinum prints.

Right now the main emphasis is to learn how to get perfect direct prints from out of the camera with Ilfochrome 8x10 paper processed in the Jobo 3005 expert drum, when it arrives! These are hard to get! Once I can do that reliably I'll put my 760 mmm lens in the office wall and set up a temp small vacuum easel and then process those prints in the Jobo and work out any issue there with the room as a camera. Meanwhile I'll build the giant vaccum easel for the huge rolls of Ilfochrome paper. I hate to think how much 1 roll will cost!! I know processing will be about $300-$400 per print. That's why I'll do 8x10 test prints on critical positions for the 72"x40" image.

There are a lot of lighting issue to be solved. The great thing about starting with an 8x10 camera is the the DOF of my PS945 at f5.6 will be roughly the DOF of the 760 mm at f22. (It should be the same ratio of focal lengths). However, I can take pictures with far less light!

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

I'll put my 760 mmm lens in the office wall . . .

I'm trying to figure out just how the focus equation is going to work.

If you want to do a 1:2 shot (image half the size of the subject), the "film"will need to be about 45" from the lens, and the subject about 90" from the lens.

Sounds doable.

For 1:1, both distances would need to be 60".

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi, Asher,



I'm trying to figure out just how the focus equation is going to work.

If you want to do a 1:2 shot (image half the size of the subject), the "film"will need to be about 45" from the lens, and the subject about 90" from the lens.

Sounds doable.

For 1:1, both distances would need to be 60".

Doug,

I'll be working at 1:1 and so that's double the focal length. If the focal length is correct, it will be very close to your 60" My camera will also use as 47.5 or 48" lens so for that, the distance at 1:1 will be 8ft!

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

I'll be working at 1:1 and so that's double the focal length. If the focal length is correct, it will be very close to your 60"

Well, yes, that was based on the focal length you mentioned (rounded a tiny bit).

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Ivan Garcia]

This is a wonderful project Asher.
The preparation and learning curve alone will keep you entertained for a few months. I am looking forwards to see the results of your endeavours. Perhaps you would consider creating a thread with a graphic diary so that we can all enjoy your progress.

 

[Mike Shimwell]

This is a wonderful project Asher.
The preparation and learning curve alone will keep you entertained for a few months. ... Perhaps you would consider creating a thread with a graphic diary so that we can all enjoy your progress.

Now that's a good idea. A sort of project blog in one place.

I look forward to watching your progress Asher.

Mike

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ivan and Mke,

This is the blog for the while unless we add blog software! Right now, I'm removing 10 years of papers, electronics and other things I "needed". Will get the air filtered as we have to be dust free and having total blackout shades, new floor and start to set up the wet darkroom at least to get 8x10 processing with film and paper from my Chamonix 8x10.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Calculating Dept of Field and COC

This subject is open for discussion, here. Any input and help will be appreciated.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Calculating Dept of Field and COC

This subject is open for discussion, here. Any input and help will be appreciated.

Thanks Bart & Doug for tackling the calculations.

So at about 14 feet we have approximately 10 inches DOF and considering observation from ~ 14 inches we have about 3/4 inch DOF. This is pretty hopeful. Looks like there will be no issue getting the subject in good focus and then the eyes will be perfect even close up.

So the lenses purchased so far are the 600 mm and 750mm Apo Germinars, the 760 mm Apo Nikkor and the 471/2" Red Dot Artar will go the SK Grimes to be fitted with adapters for each lens to allow a Packard ~ 5 inch Shutter to be slipped on any lens.

This is an exciting stage in the project.

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

For the benefit of onlookers who have not had the benefit of some of the background correspondence involved here, let me expand a little on the following concise observation by Asher (which relates to a way of looking at depth of field we do not generally encounter, and so may be a bit mystifying):

So at about 14 feet we have approximately 10 inches DOF and considering observation from ~ 14 inches we have about 3/4 inch DOF.

What is discussed here is the prospect of examining a "print" of a certain (large) size both from a distance of about 14 feet and also (for the same print) from a distance of about 14 inches.

The DOF calculations for one setup suggested by Asher for consideration give numbers that mean this:

• When viewing the print from a distance of 14 feet, for subject points lying about 5" in front of, and also 5" behind, the plane of ideal subject focus, the "blur figure" on the "print" caused by imperfect focus would, to the viewer, have an angular size about twice what the human eye can resolve (which we might judge to be "almost intrusive").

• When viewing the print from a distance of 14 inches, for subject points lying about 3/8" in front of, and also 3/8" behind, the plane of ideal subject focus, the "blur figure" on the "print" caused by imperfect focus would, to the viewer, have an angular size about twice what the human eye can resolve (which we might judge to be "almost intrusive").

One possible implication of that is this: If we wish the viewer of our large print to be able to view it from a distance of 14 inches, and when doing so not see the blurring from imperfect focus as "intrusive", then we should confine the important subject features within a range of about ±3/8" from the plane of perfect focus.

If we do so, then of course for the viewer of the print from a distance of 14 feet, the blurring for such features (and in fact many more) will be essentially imperceptible.

On the other hand, if we only wish the viewer of our large print to be able to view it from a distance of 14 feet, and when doing so not see the blurring from imperfect focus as "intrusive", then we need only confine the important subject features within a range of about ±5" from the plane of perfect focus.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Mark Hampton]

For the benefit of onlookers who have not had the benefit of some of the background correspondence involved here, let me expand a little on the following concise observation by Asher (which relates to a way of looking at depth of field we do not generally encounter, and so may be a bit mystifying):



What is discussed here is the prospect of examining a "print" of a certain (large) size both from a distance of about 14 feet and also (for the same print) from a distance of about 14 inches.

The DOF calculations for one setup suggested by Asher for consideration give numbers that mean this:

• When viewing the print from a distance of 14 feet, for subject points lying about 5" in front of, and also 5" behind, the plane of ideal subject focus, the "blur figure" on the "print" caused by imperfect focus would, to the viewer, have an angular size about twice what the human eye can resolve (which we might judge to be "almost intrusive").

• When viewing the print from a distance of 14 inches, for subject points lying about 3/8" in front of, and also 3/8" behind, the plane of ideal subject focus, the "blur figure" on the "print" caused by imperfect focus would, to the viewer, have an angular size about twice what the human eye can resolve (which we might judge to be "almost intrusive").

One possible implication of that is this: If we wish the viewer of our large print to be able to view it from a distance of 14 inches, and when doing so not see the blurring from imperfect focus as "intrusive", then we should confine the important subject features within a range of about ±3/8" from the plane of perfect focus.

If we do so, then of course for the viewer of the print from a distance of 14 feet, the blurring for such features (and in fact many more) will be essentially imperceptible.

On the other hand, if we only wish the viewer of our large print to be able to view it from a distance of 14 feet, and when doing so not see the blurring from imperfect focus as "intrusive", then we need only confine the important subject features within a range of about ±5" from the plane of perfect focus.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug,

Considering how the eye/mind seems to work in relation to vision being "in" focus is should be considered "mostly intrusive" -

stand infrount of a subject 14 feet away - put your arm out - extend your thumb - close one eye and look at the subject - the amount that is blocked out by your thumb x 2 is roughly the amount of focus that the foves provides at any one time.

just something to consider.

cheers

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Mark,

Considering how the eye/mind seems to work in relation to vision being "in" focus is should be considered "mostly intrusive" - . . .

I'm not sure I follow your point there. Could you elucidate a little?

. . .stand in front of a subject 14 feet away - put your arm out - extend your thumb - close one eye and look at the subject - the amount that is blocked out by your thumb x 2 is roughly the amount of focus that the foves provides at any one time.

just something to consider.

Indeed we usually consider the scope of the fovea centralis to be an included angle of about 2°. That is in fact about the subtense of the width of my thumb at a distance of about 25", about my reach.

Of course standing in front of a subject 14 feet away doesn't enter into that. What you say is equally true for a very distant subject.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Jim Galli]

Asher, a few years ago I went with Gustavo over to Franks Camera in Highland Park on Figueroa. The entire experience was one of the weirdest I can recall. It's a longshot, but at that time, there was a New Old Stock JOBO lift in the box in one of the piles of debris at the rear of the store. Better hurry. The roof will fall in soon, or Franks daughter will die and they'll send bulldozers to clean up the mess.

5715 N Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90042

Happy Hunting! Tell someone you're going there so they can identify the body in case of a disaster.

Thanks to waltarrrrr at Flickr

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks, Jim!

Always good to get help!

I'm now packing off lenses to be mounted on lens boards. Will use a Toyo Omega camera front standard and have an adapter for shorter, (<600mm) lenses from the 8x10, just for fun.

The camera obscura lenses will be the 750mm f9 Germinar and the 47 1/2" Red Dot Artar f15. Shutter, a Packard for now!

Asher

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

I'm now packing off lenses to be mounted on lens boards. Will use a Toyo Omega camera front standard and have an adapter for shorter, (<600mm) lenses from the 8x10, just for fun.

Do you mean the Toyo front standard will be mounted at the hole in the wall?

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi, Asher,

Do you mean the Toyo front standard will be mounted at the hole in the wall?

Exactly! One needs to hold the lens in an exact position otherwise getting the mage in focus s tough. With a standard like the Toyo Omega, there are geared controls for movements and that means that one can make adjustments and also know what adjustments have been made and the consequences, if any for focus. I'll need a bellows from the rear of the front standard to the hole in the wall.

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

Exactly! One needs to hold the lens in an exact position otherwise getting the mage in focus s tough. With a standard like the Toyo Omega, there are geared controls for movements and that means that one can make adjustments and also know what adjustments have been made and the consequences, if any for focus. I'll need a bellows from the rear of the front standard to the hole in the wall.

Oh, you mean the front standard and the bed.

Gotcha.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

I've decided on a Packard Shutter. A 5" diameter aperture will cover all my lenses. I found an old one, # 6, with bent blades. I'm sending it for new ones. It has flash synchro and I expect a shutter speed of ~ 1/25 second or so. I'll test it. It's driven by a little air piston.

Jim Galli is an expert using one and can also get 1/4 and 1/8th second by training himself while listening to the shutter of a Nikon SLR! His writing on The Packard Shutter is worth reading. It has a synchro contact!! For my work it will be fine as I can do flash or timed work using this simple shutter.

I've had a lift built for me for my Jobo processor and that's to get me going prints, up to 20" x24" . The larger ones go to a print house. Hopefully the drums and the lift will arrive by September 2cd and I'll take baby steps printing 4x5 Cibachrome paper and still life.

Meanwhile, I've connected an exhaust vent from the camera room to the air conditioning return, as the door will be closed and have a light curtain either side. So air might become hot and stale otherwise!

My two next jobs while waiting for my shutter and lenses to be mounted by SK Grimes are as follows:

1. I need a bag bellows from my Toyo to the wall. Will Thompson, my source of the Toyo is sending me a beat up bellows I'll use to build the giant one.

2. I need a vacuum board. Right now I'm hunting!

So that's where I'm up to.

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

I've decided on a Packard Shutter. A 5" diameter aperture will cover all my lenses. I found an old one with bent blades. I'm sending it for new ones. It has flash synchro and I expect a shutter speed of ~ 1/25 second or so. I'll test it. It's driven by a little air piston.

Do note that if this is a Packard Ideal No. 5 (the most common type) it has no inherent shutter speed - it in effect operates in the traditional "bulb" mode (assuming you close the vent hole on the bulb and keep it that way). The shutter time you get will depend on how long you hold the bulb squeezed.

Jim Galli suggests that times as short as 1/8 second are practical in this mode.

You can get the "time" mode by squeezing the bulb to start the exposure, then remove your finger from the vent hole before releasing the bulb. The shutter will stay open. At the end of the desired exposure time, squeeze the bulb with the vent open, cover the vent, and release the bulb. The "suction" will close the shutter.

The Packard Ideal No. 6 has a built-in alternative provision for an "instantaneous" mode, where a firm squeeze of the bulb will make the shutter open and then close - the open time depending on how vigorously you squeeze the bulb. About 1/25 sec is typical.

This is all explained here:

http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/Packard_Shutter.pdf

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi, Asher,


Do note that if this is a Packard Ideal No. 5 (the most common type) it has no inherent shutter speed - it in effect operates in the traditional "bulb" mode (assuming you close the vent hole on the bulb and keep it that way). The shutter time you get will depend on how long you hold the bulb squeezed.

Jim Galli suggests that times as short as 1/8 second are practical in this mode.

You can get the "time" mode by squeezing the bulb to start the exposure, then remove your finger from the vent hole before releasing the bulb. The shutter will stay open. At the end of the desired exposure time, squeeze the bulb with the vent open, cover the vent, and release the bulb. The "suction" will close the shutter.

The Packard Ideal No. 6 has a built-in alternative provision for an "instantaneous" mode, where a firm squeeze of the bulb will make the shutter open and then close - the open time depending on how vigorously you squeeze the bulb. About 1/25 sec is typical.

This is all explained here:

http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/Packard_Shutter.pdf

Best regards,

Doug

Doug,

It's a 5" Packard shutter, #6, with flash synchronization, LOL! (I've added the # 6 specification to my earlier post above for clarity), So I have a standard, (whatever that might be) shutter speed with the pin engaged, "instant. That shutter speed of somewhere between 1/15 to 1/30 sec. However, it should be repeatable +/- 10%.

I'll have a holder for Lee filters too.

Asher