Digital BW, The Print

Martin writes:

> I was fortunate enough to attend one of his last workshops. Four days in
San
> Juan Bautista to photograph the mission and town with Frank Talbot as
> co-instructor and Gordon Hutchings along for the fun of it. Lots of fond
> memories. He also did a "post vivo" of the workshop at his house and we
got
> the chance to show are prints. A very nice man and absolutely dedicated to
> his personal vision. His book "Light Years" is a must have those who love
> B&W landscape photography.

I had planned to do a workshop with Morley but, as you said, time has a way
of getting away from us and before ya know it. I have "Light Years" and it
remains one of my favorite photography books. I never tire of looking
through it!

> I know what you mean about the 8x10 contacts. Morley's were really superb.
> My own favorite print size was 11x14 for many years and moving up to that
> format was too much to undertake. The sheer weight of camera and film
> holders pretty much ties you to a car. I couldn't shoot 8x10 either since
> the cost of an 8x10 enlarger was impossible. Even 5x7 was prohibitive
> because of the enlarger expense. From scanning my 4x5 negs on the Howtek I
> am really amazed at the amount of detail on the film. I am pretty
convinced
> you would need to print it out at 30x40 to see all of it in the print. I
bet
> a 4000 dpi scan of an 8x10 neg would be really something!

I almost moved to 11x14 after seeing first-hand some of Brett Weston's ULF
(Ultra Large Format) contact prints and when RH Philips was making their
"flyweight" camera in this size. But, even with the lighter weight of the
Philips camera you're still looking at quite a mass of stuff to move about!
I toyed briefly with enlarging my 8x10 negs; I bought an Aristo 12x12
coldlight, fashioned a homemade neg holder that fit on the back of my
camera, built a base for holding everything together, and used my 300mm
G-Claron lens as an enlarging lens (ala AA.) I bought a wall mount metal
"easel" with magnets from Wisner. It all worked pretty well though perfect
alignment was nearly impossible! However, these large film formats provide
quite a bit of "fudge factor" for these things. I almost laugh now because
when Zone VI introduced their 8x10 enlarger I considered it...$3K to $4K
depending on the enlarging lens chosen. Considering what I've spent on
digital, now, that would have been an absolute bargin! <G> I bet the Howtek
scans are really nice. I've only ever used my Epson Expression 1680 for LF
because film scanners for this size are way outta reach for me; though deals
can probably be found on eBay. I can't imagine the sheer processing power
and memory requirements to handle a 4000 dpi 8x10 scan. My 1600 dpi 16-bit
gray scans are large enough!

> With digital printing in mind I think the real advantage of the 8x10 may
> simple be that it is much, much easier to compose on a bright 8x10 ground
> glass than the wimpy little 4x5 glass. My current thought, that I have not
> acted on, is to move up from 4x5 to 5x7. Two sheets should easily wet
mount
> on the Howtek and the increase in camera size and weight would not be as
> great as going up to 8x10. B&H is charging about $70 for 50 sheets of
TriX,
> about half of the 8x10 price. I like the proportions better too.

The 8x10 groundglass is like a TV screen! After using it for so many years I
can hardly see my 4x5! <G> I think you might like the 5x7. I, personally,
seem to be moving away from the squattier frames presented by 4x5, 8x10,
etc. Seems more and more I prefer the elongated formats of 35mm, 6x9, etc.
I've often thought of the 5x7 myself because the weight increase over 4x5 is
negligible and the surface area of the film is so much greater...somewhat
like comparing 6x4.5 to 6x7. 5x7 contacts are jewel-like and any higher end
flatbed scanner would handle these nicely. One of these days I'm going to
FTP a couple 8x10 image files to West Coast Imaging and see what a large
Piezo print looks like.

> In all honesty though I have done most of my work in the last few years
with
> the Pentax 67.

I've got a nice Pentax 67 system, too. Great camera. However, I always seem
to come back to weight vs. quality. If I'm going to lug the Pentax outfit, I
may as well take the 4x5. Besides...my Toho 4x5 is about half the weight of
the 67 body alone!

Regards,
Alan Huntley