Wehman "Ultralight" 8x10 Field Camera

These days it seems like there is no shortage of new companies building 8x10 and other size field cameras, often with space-age materials and impressive specs (and impressive price). I bought my first 8x10 camera, a Gundlach built in 1899, about 4 years ago. It was cheap and came with a cool lens, and I shot nothing but x-ray film with it for a long time. Later on I found a Wista 8x10, made by Tachihara, that was a bit more versatile and easier to use - but it was still really heavy and the thin paper bellows made me worried when hiking, as an errant tree branch could puncture it and ruin the camera.

I started thinking about upgrading my camera but the expensive new production models, even used, were just not the right fit for me. They were also for the most part still quite heavy. So when I saw a Wehman 8x10 "ultralight" advertised, I was intrigued. Looking up the specs, I discovered it was about 7 pounds, plus another pound could be shaved off by removing the top "clamshell," reducing the total extension (which I rarely would use). My mind was made up. I bought it.

In-hand, I was really amazed by the simple and elegant design and the great look of the camera. In the field, it was the perfect blend of simple usage and versatility. I have read in several places that Wehman only made two of these "ultralight" models but I can not verify that. Either way, I think this is the last 8x10 camera I'll ever need.

Last weekend I took it for its first large hike (about 3 miles). It was easy to carry and didn't weigh me down, and being so light I could also use a slightly less heavy tripod without worry. I hardly broke a sweat carrying the load, with 4 lenses in my bag and 12 sheets of film in 6 holders.

I hiked at Langdale Park, which was closed for "repair" earlier this year - but a local conservation group was allowed access to paddle down the river and take out at Langdale Park, so I tagged along.

Here are the photos from that day. First are a few on Delta 100, developed in FX-39, using either my 210mm f/9 Graphic Kowa, 300mm f/9 Nikkor-M, 25cm f/4.7 Fujinar, or 90mm f/5.6 Schneider XL (cropped slightly):

I also tried out two photos on Efke IR820 AURA film. I have a big box of this I've never used. Here are those photos (duplicates of the above, as I wasn't sure the Wehman bellows were IR light-tight...luckily it is!):

Finally, I had one more sheet of Delta 100, so I took this photo of the WWALS group with that:

Now right before I took this last image, I had one bad thing happen - I slipped and fell pretty bad on some mud. The Wehman 8x10 took a dive and hit the ground hard too. Everything seemed okay, but then I discovered the nylon focus track had a few teeth go missing! I was dismayed, but I sent Mr. Wehman an email to see if he had parts. Amazingly, he responded later that day and offered to send a free replacement! What a great service and awesome guy! I just received the part today and installed it in just a few moments, and it's back to like-new condition (after I cleaned up the mud...).

I love this camera and can't wait to shoot it more!

Oh! One more thing. My friend Julie took this photo of me with the camera before I left:

Fast flooding of the Withlacoochee, Feb. 2016

I didn't think we had much rain last week, but nevertheless the Withlacoochee is way outside its banks and over 5 feet above flood stage. Yet again Valdosta is causing grief for Florida as the sewage treatment plant is discharging untreated water into the Withlacoochee.

I went to Langdale Park but the water from the river was all the way up near the entrance, barely a few hundred yards from the gate. Even with my wading boots I couldn't go far. I found a little side area I could explore and shot some with my new 8x10 camera (more about that at a later time).

I also decided to shoot a bit of x-ray film, as I hadn't shot it in quite a while. However, I had one extant sheet of Delta 100 from the last outing so I did a comparison shot. Very interesting result.

Here is my favorite shot of the day, on x-ray film:

This was shot with my 90mm XL on 8x10, but yes it had trouble covering. Actually, now that I think about it, I left the back barrel piece that can be removed on it so I might get a bit more coverage without that. Anyway, this crop is about 8.5 x 6.8 inches. I shot the Fuji HR-T film at an ISO of 100 and developed it in Rodinal 1:100 for about 7 minutes in cold solution (my darkroom has no heat and is very cold at the moment). Overall I really like the results.

The Delta 100 shot was an interesting comparison. Over all the contrast was higher, and I lost the shadows and highlights. This was partially my fault in developing. I was using a developer and time/dilution that was more appropriate for normal developing rather than rotary (I used a BTZS tube). So not the best test, but certainly interesting. Here that shot is:

One of the things about x-ray film that is different than normal film is the lack of a anti-halation layer. This causes slightly glowy highlights and slightly less resolution. Here is a small crop of x-ray film and the Delta 100 to show the differences:

There are some x-ray films that are more expensive that do have the AH layer. I use Fuji HR-T because it is really cheap. Generally it's not a big deal but still, if I'm especially worried about it I'll use normal film - though again, as you can see above, the contrast in this situation was better handled by the x-ray film, and more specifically, how I developed it. The most important thing here is to know your tools and materials, I suppose.

Here's a couple other photos from yesterday, all on the x-ray film - the first with my 210mm Graphic Kowa, the second with the 90mm XL again:

Testing a Bausch & Lomb 6" f/6.3 Metrogon on 8x10

The 6" (~153mm) Metrogon is one of those lenses that often comes up for discussion as it has a bit of a "mythos" about it. It was apparently used by the US Military for aerial photography, and is based off of (or identical to) the "Topogon" lens designed by Carl Zeiss (see my Nikkor 2.5cm f/4 review for more information on that design).

I thought a large-format topogon would be interesting, considering my small-format equivalent, so when I found one on eBay with a built-in shutter and on a lensboard made for my Wista 8x10, I splurged and bought it (though it was really pretty cheap).

The lens is quite a big and heavy beast and is quite striking with its extremely curved fishbowl-esque front and back elements:

I had some film to kill so I went out to try it on 8x10. I was quite pleased with how well the lens performed:

That last one was made with a 100mm Linhof slip-on filter made for my 75mm Biogon, which perfectly slips into the front element "hood" built into the lens. It made the tonality of the sky and trees much more as I envisioned it.

Overall I like the lens and it definitely works well as an in-between focal length longer than my 120mm Nikkor and shorter than my 210mm Kowa.

So how good is it? Well, the basic scans I did on these sheets were 180 megapixels or so total - 1500 DPI for the 8x10 sheet. Here is a crop of the first scan at 100% resolution, which would be equivalent to about a 12-foot print at typical monitor resolutions (96 DPI):

Not bad! Of course this isn't really anything special for an 8x10 negative, but still. Oh, just as an aside, all of these were taken at f/32.

Shooting 8x10 for Van Dyke Brown Negatives, Part 2

Last week I spent some time experimenting with a NuArc exposure unit in our printmaking lab and was able to make a couple of decent Van Dyke Brown prints.

I discovered that the shadow density on my negatives was a little high. I think the film I was using, being expired, had a bit more base fog than anticipated. That's okay as I was able to push through it for the most part. I also intensified the prints with some potassium dichromate.

Here are some digital images of the prints:

Shooting 8x10 for Van Dyke Brown Negatives, Part 1

I have on and off again experimented with alternative photographic processes, without a lot of success. I either didn't have the right negative density, or the UV exposure from the sun wasn't right, etc. However recently I found out we have a nice UV exposure unit for printmaking at the university I work for that I can use, which means I could eliminate some variables and hopefully make some decent prints.

In an effort to make good negatives first, I shot some this past weekend with my 8x10 and experimented with pyro developer. Staining developers such as Pyrocat are overwhelmingly suggested for alt processes due to their unique properties. I've given up Pyrocat as unreliable for my own uses years ago but I had been using Tanol recently, mostly out of curiosity and since it was relatively cheap.

I couldn't find any good film development recipes so I just experimented with 8 negatives to find the best development time and dilution, which I will document here.

I shot 8 negatives of ERA film, which from what I understand is either rebadged Ilford FP4+ or so close as to be indistinguishable. I shot it at an ISO of 64. I developed the negatives in Tanol diluted 2:2:100, which is a double-strength dilution, mostly in an effort to keep the development times down. I developed 2 negatives at a time in BTZS rotary tubes for 8 minutes, then 10 minutes, and finally 12 minutes. The 12 minute negatives were the most dense and looked good for typical printing. The 12 minute negatives looked nice for the needs of alt processes.

Pyro-developed negatives supposedly are good for making images that can be printed with various alt processes as well as typical silver printing and scanning. All of my negatives did indeed scan well, even one that was overexposed a little bit. The best negative I measured on a densitometer and the UV setting showed a density range of about 0.5 to 2.2, which I believe is just right for Van Dyke Browns.

I coated some paper and tried some test prints on the UV exposure unit and dialed in an exposure. Tomorrow I am printing a couple more that should be just right!

For now, here are some scans of the negatives (one was cropped slightly). All were either shot with my 210mm f/9 Graphic Kowa or Nikkor 120mm f/8:

 

 

8x20, almost

Last year I bought an interesting camera, a custom job that was assembled with various parts from a few different cameras but was fairly well put together - an 8x20 banquet camera.

If you've ever seen a really old wedding photo in an antique shop of the whole wedding party and family stretched out into a panorama, it was likely a 7x17, 8x20, or 12x20 image, often made directly with a huge camera. The camera I bought is built off of an old Korona with various parts mixed in.

The camera was not without faults. I found light-leaks and had major problems with the film holder. Right now the holder and back is out getting modified to work together properly.

I did test the camera a few times before and for the most part was completely dissatisfied with the results - but this was due to the film holder issue, not the format.

Anyway, I took one image last month to test the film holder out, and it was a complete disaster - there was a huge light-leak around the front standard. I taped up the edges though with Gorilla tape and now it's good to go. This was the terrible result, wasting a precious sheet of Efke PL 100:

Not to be dissuaded, I really wanted to shoot this image properly before this flooded area dried up. So I returned the next day with my 8x10 camera. I put the same lens on, composed the shot, and took two images back-to-back with some 8x10 x-ray film, with the lens first shifted all the way to the left and then all the way to the right. I also panned the camera right for the second shot to get a bit more coverage.

I then processed, bleached, and scanned the negatives, then finally stitched them together in Microsoft's Image Composite Editor. This gave me a "virtual" 8x20 shot (well technically it was closer to 7x17).

Here is the result:

The lens I used was a 305mm f/9 G-Claron - an older version known to be a copy of the "Dagor" design. This design throws a huge image circle at small stops and covers 8x20 with ease. It's quite a fantastic lens and I got it at a bargain price.

For fun, here's a tiny 100% crop of the dark dirt and roots sticking out of the water on the left:

Pretty good for less than $1 cost of film and a $150 lens that has some haze on the rear element!

I am looking forward to shooting real 8x20 sheets soon once I get my film holder back though!

I also took a few images while setting up the 8x20 camera with my F5, and Meagan shot some of me too:

Finally here is one more of me with the camera that Meagan took with her phone:

Waycross Thanksgiving 2014

Meagan and I went to Waycross to visit her family for Thanksgiving. I took a couple of shots with my 8x10 Wista and 250mm f/4.7 Fujinar lens. This lens is amazing on 8x10. It covers with some extra and is a nice focal length - not too short and not too long (it's similar to a 35mm lens on 135). It's also pretty sharp and fast - I think I could shoot all day with just this lens and be happy.

Here's the group shot on Delta 100, developed in FX-39 1:19 for 8.5 minutes. You can see me holding the bulb to trip the shutter.

I also had a sheet left over of CDU II film from some experimenting I was doing, so I tried it out here. CDU II is a duplicating film and is a tungsten E-6 film. So I put an 85B filter on it and shot it at ISO 3. Which is really slow! So I ended up using the lens at f/4.7 and 1/30 exposure I think it was:

Not bad, and my first E-6 8x10 development success! I have to do each sheet by hand in a rotary tube, in a water bath. It's tiresome (about 30 minutes each sheet for the whole process) but wow, 8x10 positive film!

I also brought my Fujica 690 along for some casual snapshots:

 

As I mentioned, I was experimenting with that CDU II film. Here was my first test, for posterity. It was too late in the evening so the blue light was too much for the tungsten film, even with an 85B filter, so I definitely in the future will be using it in nice warm sunlight: