Large Format 4x5 Flower Shoot | And Darkroom Printing [ Vista Field & HP5 ]

4x5 Large Format + Flowers + film...In this video, I tried something, which for me was an, entirely new thing. A Large Format flower shoot on 4x5 inch Ilford HP5 sheet film using my Wista Field 45 film camera. Usually, I am not a big floral photographer but I had this wonderful bouquet of flowers standing on my shelves and it totally inspired me to try out something new. I decided to shoot two different pictures one entirely with natural light and the other one entirely with artificial light. Sadly the one with natural light did not turn out as I wanted it to be so yeah...... Oh, yeah and I had to improvise on the red filter but that worked quite well. After seeing the results, I decided to print my favourite one in the darkroom.
If you want to support me check the links below!
www.buymeacoffee.com/RetroPixel Thank you so much :-)
Things I used:
- Affiliate Links-
Ilford HP5: ebay.us/2JwpCz
Wista Field 45: ebay.us/YsobSr
Sekonic Lightmeter: ebay.us/cENTqT
Ilford MG Art 300: ebay.us/cQh2aL
Lee Filters: ebay.us/miYC8p
Visit my websites and follow me on Instagram.
- Instagram-
/ dennisgelner
-Websites-
dennisgelner.com
retro-pixel.com
Music licensed from Artlist.io
#largeformat #4x5 #ilford #hp5 #filmisnotdead

[@allanhugh2044]

Looks pretty good, I realise that you had to compromise with the filter, but as you were using a gel filter did you consider cutting a small one and blu-tacking this on the rear element. The idea being you essentially eliminate flare from the hand held gel and therefore gain some inherent contrast on the negative. There are some negative aspects of putting a gel filter behind the rear element, but doing that will certainly make life easier than holding a Gel filter by hand. They also mean you don't move the front standard around with rough handling; 67mm filter thread? Colour heads are very accurate and while the grades may not be exact, there is really no such thing as an exact grade, they are all fluid; so to speak. The best thing is if you sit down and work your contrast grades out, you can easily and accurately increase or decrease your contrast grades in ¼ stops to your image. I find this to be a really handy feature. I liked your set-up, especially the black fill. Many people don't quite understand what they are missing by not using black reflection fill light. Dish/tray, rotary, or inversion developing of your film? I currently use the SP-445 tank from the USA.

[@RetroPixel_analog]

Hey, thank you for your constructive comment and your kind words! I already read about rear element filters in the past, but for some reason, it did not come into my mind in that situation😅. Thanks for the great reminder, something I will definitely try out in the future!!! As for the filter grades, I may be used the wrong words when I said, that I roughly choose a filtration of grade 3. Since I am aware that a colour head can work very precise. What I meant was more like "roughly a grade three, regarding the manual of the manufacturer". But as you just said, most of the time I just set a rough starting point and then work my way to the result that I like. It is a mixture of experience and trial and error. On some bad days more error than experience 😅. To answer your question. For the Sheet film, I use rotary development in an old JOBO CPA 2. I used FX 39 II for developing the negative. FX 39 II is my new developer of choice. Before that, I used Rodinal for nearly anything. I also plan on testing other developers (since I already own them) I just wait for the right moment. Maybe you have some good ideas regarding interesting developers? Again, thanks for your comment and greetings from Munich :-)

[@allanhugh2044]

@@RetroPixel_analog Interesting information, as for developers, what you are using is pretty much state of the art, so to speak. However as you are in München, perhaps you might like to pick up some Willi Beutler's magical developer Neofin, which I think is made by Tetenal, or was. I think FX-39 was designed by Crawley as a modern version of Neofin possibly an improvement of Neofin, but I don't really know. Whenever I'm in München I stay at my sister in-law's place in Germering, however travel to Europe is sort of out of the question for some time I would think, unfortunately by the time it becomes easier and affordable again, I'm probably going to be a bit too old to travel big time much more. I've tried quite a few film developers, but for the last 35 + years I have been mainly using D76 1:1 mixed from raw chemicals. I too used a Jobo CPE2 (first model) but after 32 or so years of very heavy use, it died. Very consistent 4x5" film developing, provided one only used 4 sheets per reel. As mentioned I now use the SP-445 tank, I have the original kick starter version, works brilliantly and approximately 460ml to 465ml of chemistry. I always mix 500ml and pour in up to the notch, makes for easier developer mixing. I too use HP5+ but my main choice of film is FP4+, wonderful tonal range. That said, have you looked at Bergger Pancro 400 as an alternative for some photography? it really does hold highlight and shadow detail to an amazing degree, compared to older conventional films like FP4+ and HP5+. it also comes in 50 sheet boxes, but it is not cheap. D76 1:1 for 17 minutes at 20ºC or variations of time and temperature up to around 26ºC in summer. Two speeds of emulsion is apparently the trick for this wonderful aspect of Bergger Pancro 400. I tried to remember the last time I used Rodinal, possibly over 40 years ago, nice developer for when travelling and developing film in toilets and bathrooms at night in my travels. I really would like to use the papers you are using, but water is quite an issue, so RC papers and for the last 30 something years, a Durst Printo paper processor. I also mix my own paper developer, simple and no wastage at all as one only mixes up exactly what one needs. Nice to talk to you, greetings from Melbourne. Addendum: your English is superb, both written and spoken.

[@RetroPixel_analog]

Thanks for your reply, let me first answer the travel part of your message. I understand that at the moment the situation worldwide makes it impossible for some people to travel. But I still think we should keep thinking positive. And I hope and believe that when the Covid-situation is over, you will be able to visit your sister in law and Europe in general again. And in case you do, definitely, let me know if you visit Munich. I would be very interested and happy in having a tee and a good conversation in person. I have to admit, that I never tried D76, but I hear a lot of people using it. Also, I quite often hear and read, that X-tol might be a good choice if one wants to have the least possible amount of grain in the pictures. But it is also said to be less sharp. Rodinal indeed is a very good developer for travelling and also has a great shelve live. I am also very curious to try Adox Atomal 49. As for FP4 I agree with you, it is a great film and I mean, that I have some sheets left in my fridge. Maybe time to use them. When it comes to Bergger Panchro 400, I have to admit, that I never tried it, because I thought that it is just some relabeled other brand. As far as I read, the 135 and 120 could be Orwo cine film, and the sheets could be manufactured by someone else. But as always, we will never really know that. Maybe I just give it a try, and if I like the results, I do not care too much about the label. Regarding what you said about using FB papers due to water problems. I also had that concern in the beginning, but then I found a video of a fellow photographer trying if it was really necessary to wash the paper in running water for 45 minutes. Since in my opinion, that is a pure waste of important resources, I wanted to know if there is a way to save some water. She proved, that it would be enough, to just tray wash it. This means putting the sheet into a tray (the ones you use for developing) of water. Leaving it in there for about 15 minutes, then move the tray (as you would do during development). After another 15-30 minutes renew the Water, since it can only take a certain amount of the chemicals. Repeat the process around 3-4 times. If needed add some hypo clear. could make the process a bit safer. This process uses a very low amount of water (in comparison to continuous washing) and is working fine for me. No signs of leftover chemicals in the paper so far. (I use this process for two years now) Oh and flipping over the print, every now and then, could also help. I always try to use the least amount of water possible. When developing films, I also never wash them in a continuous stream of water, instead, I use the "Ilford method". All the best Greeting from Munich. Dennis

[@michaelrivera2748]

Nicely done, would’ve loved to see the mistakes as well since we all make them. Great job!

[@RetroPixel_analog]

True thing ! next time i will also show the mistakes. This time in the darkroom it really worked at the first trial. but usually i also have to do some more test strips.