* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

Photojournalism/Documentary Photography With Film?

We live in a photographic world that demands immediate results, especially for photojournalism/documentary photography which makes digital cameras more effective for these genres of photography due to their ability to transmit images almost immediately. I hope to one day become a photojournalist/documentary photographer, but I only use film and analogue cameras. This is not a film vs. digital debate concerning which is better, but rather a question concerning speed and practicality.

Thank you,

by jamusu at 2010-02-28 23:00:43 UTC | Bookmark | | Report spam→

It sounds like a film vs. digital debate to me.

by Barry Milyovsky | 01 Mar 2010 00:03 | lost in the, United States | | Report spam→
“photojournalism/documentary photography” is a VERY broad category. i don’t find “immediate” and “documentary” to be a relationship i encounter often.

by john d | 02 Mar 2010 22:03 | toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
I think he’s asking a practical question: how do I do it if I shoot film?

As one of the practitioners of shooting film on deadline, I’ll will offer up (as I have before here), the on-the-road, on deadline B+W film working method:

You need the following:

1 laptop computer
1 scanner, either 35mm like a Nikon Coolscan 4000/5000 or a cheap, lightweight flatbed if you’re doing medium/large format

2 × 4-reel steel tanks (8 reels total)
(Or for Medium format, a Patterson plastic tank with 3 120/220 reels, 6 120 or 3 220 at once)
8 x clothespins + 1 piece of string
1 x can opener
1 x changing bag
1 x thermometer

1 bottle or bags of your developer of choice, I use Kodak HC-110 concentrate, this is enough for 64 rolls of film, 1 5-liter powder bag of XTOL is good for 40 rolls, 1 gallon powder of D-76 is good for 32 rolls.
1 bottle rapid fixer or bags of powder fix
1 tiny bottle perma-wash, or the powder “hypo-clear”
1 tiny bottle photo-flo — this has to be liquid, but it can be so small that it passes TSA rules; if checked as I do with the above chemicals, in tripled-up plastic bags, then you’re OK

On assignment, I can develop film every night in motels, and have one-hour labs do those quickie-scans the next morning. You can transmit hundreds of machine-scans. Then, editors can give me the list of what they want high-res, and I make those scans on my Nikon Coolscan 4000, nice scans.

If you have a more pressing deadline you can just do a quick edit off the negatives and scan 5-15 of them each night and file as you go.

But I am playing more with digital for color — color negative for 35mm doesn’t really make much sense any more — and the high ASA performance with large aperture lenses at night is really good.

Even with color negatives I am scanning them on an Imacon scanner and getting digital C-prints made, rather than do traditional color printing in the darkroom. I mean, that color paper is RC anyway, no matter what.

Hope this helps!

by [former member] | 03 Mar 2010 00:03 (ed. Mar 3 2010) | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
great input Alan. i am secretly hoping that someone pumps out a competent and relatively portable 120 scanner one day.

by john d | 03 Mar 2010 00:03 | toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
Alan, this film stuff seems like an awful lot of time and effort to get a newspaper quality photo.

by Barry Milyovsky | 03 Mar 2010 00:03 | lost in the, United States | | Report spam→
Hmmm…where’s my Valium…must be here somewhere. And where is Jamusu?

by Gregory Sharko | 03 Mar 2010 01:03 | Brooklyn, New York, United States | | Report spam→
I think you hurt Jamusu’s feelings, Greg, and he went away to find an identity.

by Barry Milyovsky | 03 Mar 2010 03:03 | lost in the, United States | | Report spam→
barry, usually we’re talking about a magazine or web assignment, not a newspaper assignment requiring only one image. But if you’re getting a multi-page spread or multi-image web slideshow, then this puts you in business. As for quality, we’re talking high-res scans of 60+ MB, which is quite high-quality indeed short only of Imacon or drum.

john d:

cheap medium format desktop scanners:

Epson Perfection 4490 Photo Scanner $129.95
Dimensions (WxDxH): 10.7 × 18.7 × 4.5″ (272 × 475 × 113mm)
Weight: 9.1 lbs (4.1kg)

Canon CanoScan 8800F Flatbed Scanner $183.99
Dimensions (HxWxD): 10.7″ × 4.0″ × 18.9″ (272 × 102 × 481mm)
Weight: 9.2 lbs (4.2kg)

Epson Perfection V500 Flatbed Photo Scanner $187.99
Dimensions (WxDxH): 18.8 × 10.7 × 4.5″ (475 × 272 × 113mm)
Weight: 8.9 lbs (4kg)

These all do medium format at pretty high-quality and fit into a large backpack.

by [former member] | 03 Mar 2010 05:03 (ed. Mar 3 2010) | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
I use an Epson Perfection scanner (can’t give the exact specs or name as it’s not on hand at the moment) for scanning from medium format transparencies and 5×5 prints. Works pretty well for my needs, although I wouldn’t want to carry it around in a backpack!

by Nigel Amies | 03 Mar 2010 09:03 | Vientiane, Laos | | Report spam→
Alan, just as a matter of curiosity, how much space does all that require? Can you stick it all in one bag?

by Akaky | 03 Mar 2010 14:03 | New York , United States | | Report spam→
thanx alan,

i have a dedicated at home that i am pleased with but it is so big and heavy i might as well try and stuff a donkey in the suitcase.

i will have a look at the v500 though. i am rarely in a deadline situation however folks like to see what is going on and until now i have been packing a compact digital to oblige. damn highlight clipping is making me mad though!

by john d | 03 Mar 2010 15:03 | toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
The developing kit fits in one small six-pack size cooler bag. The kind that is padded for insulation, approximately 10″ × 6″ × 8″ — really small, in other words — the two 4-reel tanks with the reels inside of them go on the bottom, the changing bag, which you wrap around can opener, thermometer, clothespins, piece of string and small graduate for measuring chemicals, goes on top.

Separately, all the chemistry, especially if it’s mostly powder, fits inside a normal plastic shopping bag folded over a couple of times. You have to obtain 1-liter and 2-liter plastic bottles when you get to your destination, to make the working solutions. Usually I just walk around a parking lot and pick up a few empty Evian bottles or whatever.

So, how much space? One corner of a typical traveling backpack/suitcase. Not a lot of space at all.

The Canon 8800 scanner does fit easily in a backpack. But I usually just go with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 which fits into my Lowepro camera backpack, along with the computer, hard drives, two Leicas, a Canon 5d, a Rolleiflex, and a Widelux. Yes, this is heavy! But my longest lens is a 100mm usually (no huge zooms), and that backpack is really well designed to balance and cushion that weight comfortably. Besides, the only time you actually carry it is from where you give up your luggage cart at airport security, to the gate, and then when you land, from the gate to baggage claim where you get a cart and pick up your checked bags.

It’s a good idea to identify photo shops that still carry supplies at your destination. Most larger cities still have an outlet or two; they may be more expensive than B+H, but they’ll do in a pinch. Chances are they also do the machine-scans of a whole roll of film at reasonable price, like $5-7.

If you want to forgo all this but still shoot film, you may simply post here on Lightstalkers beforehand if there’s a film-using photographer or darkroom where you’re going, and make a rental arrangement to use their facilities. Of course this is a lot less reliable and mobile than bringing your own; it also ties you to a big-city “base.”

by [former member] | 03 Mar 2010 15:03 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
There are many variations on these set-ups, of course.
If you are just shooting medium format color, which is what a lot of photographers do now to supplement digital, then all you need is a flatbed scanner, because you will be lab dependent for color processing anyway. You could also use the Ilford XP-2 C-41 B+W film, which seems silly except that it really does yield pretty nice, true B+W, results.

by [former member] | 03 Mar 2010 15:03 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
For long term documentary projects, quality wise I’d personally go for film as nobody would need the image immediately after it has been shot.. not exactly breaking news.. Digital is just alot more practical when shooting stuff like news.. Depends on the genre of photojournalism really.

by Krishna Sriram | 03 Mar 2010 15:03 | Oxnard, United States | | Report spam→
This all seems to work nicely in your hotel room, but when really on the road, how do you power your scanner? And how well does the scanner handle travelling? I can imagine they brake easily.

As for the film / analogue part which started this post, I think you can live perfectly without digital. Especially since you’re already used to shooting (and perhaps developing) film.

by Bart Zwemmer | 03 Mar 2010 16:03 | Zandvoort, Netherlands | | Report spam→
bart, my system that assumes that you have access to running water, electricity, and communications:

1) you cannot develop film without water, lots of it
2) electricity for computers and scanners, as you note.
3) internet communications to file.

for #1, Polaroid once made instant 35mm slide films. Sadly, these films are long out of production. They certainly had some beautiful characteristics. You can, of course, develop film with only a few liters of water, but then it’s really not archival. Plus, if you are truly operating outdoors or in a car, dust becomes a major issue. So you need water; a real base. Hotel rooms anywhere you go, or somebody’s house where you’re a guest, you need this.

for #2, OK, say you’re in a remote village where there’s plenty of water but no power. If you are in your own vehicle or have access to one, you run everything off of your car batteries. Villages like this do tend to have gasoline generators too. If you’re well organized you can scan 10 pictures in 10 minutes.

for #3, of course there are satellite phones/modems if you’re out of range of cellular networks.

My Nikon scanner has traveled very well. Before I got the Lowepro backpack, I wrapped it in one of those airline blankets, inside a bag that also held books and documents.

You guys seem to forget that this what WE ALL DID before digital. Not that long ago. How quickly memories fade…

So just apply your common sense as to how to do it. It’s not that hard; doesn’t mean it is or isn’t for you. There was a question asked as to how to do it; this is how.

We used to develop C-41 with the Tetanal Press Kits; like I said, I personally don’t see the need to do this now. But it remains possible. Just substitute color for the B+W chemistry above.

by [former member] | 03 Mar 2010 20:03 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Alan, have you experienced trouble getting chemicals through airport security?

I guess it’s easier if you are using something like XTOL or D76 that comes in a factory sealed package from Kodak. Raw chemicals could be another story…

by Harry Lime | 03 Mar 2010 23:03 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Chemistry goes through checked luggage; never tried to carry on, so no problems. Liquids should be in doubled or tripled plastic bags secured with rubber bands, so any leakage or spillage will be minimal and contained.

Definitely, powder in factory-sealed packets is a good, compact, lightweight way to go.

by [former member] | 03 Mar 2010 23:03 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Changing bags, reels & canister, kitchen sinks or flushing toilets, figuring out how to dry without air dust sticking to the negs. Ahhh, that actually was quite fun, but why now in todays world would any documentary photog choose to use shooting time to go through a possible developing disaster? Much better results when you get back at a real lab/darkroom.

For years I would work under deadline having to quickly soup my film, organizing which rolls needed more or less developing time… and then some of those rare situation when in a hurry, I think of light links, contaminated chemicals. So, o k shoot the film, place the exposed rolls/sheets in a protective casing and wait to get back to a more ideal space and time.

by gary dwight miller | 04 Mar 2010 00:03 | Harrisburg, PA, United States | | Report spam→
That’s why I speak of having a real base, not kitchen sinks.
You will notice that most modern American motel rooms, or modern hotel rooms in most countries, are actually such a base:

1) They tend to be very clean, so dust is minimal.
2) the bathrooms almost always have no windows, so you just use the towels to block out light coming under the door. No real need for the changing bag.
3) The bathtubs often have that laundry drying line, so you don’t even need your string from which to hang your film to dry.
4) Many have blow-dryers if you’re in a hurry.

My system is designed for true archival B+W film processing in the field, in no way inferior to what I do right here in my darkroom at home. Because I run 8 rolls at a time, I am not sacrificing speed or efficiency either.

Where is your “possible developing disaster” going to happen any more than it will in a “real lab”?

I also do recommend finding out if there’s a lab in the city you’re going to that you can use…

by [former member] | 04 Mar 2010 01:03 (ed. Mar 4 2010) | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
a palm full of rodinal and a puddle

by Ed Leveckis | 04 Mar 2010 01:03 | New York, United States | | Report spam→
Yeah, I agree with when out-and-about, 1st make arrangements with a decent lab.

by gary dwight miller | 04 Mar 2010 03:03 | Harrisburg, PA, United States | | Report spam→
Dear Alan, thanks for elaborating.
It’s no my memory fading, but more that I grew up in the age of digital.
With some travels planned, I was just curious.

by Bart Zwemmer | 04 Mar 2010 08:03 | Zandvoort, Netherlands | | Report spam→
I imagine if you wanted to use film on-the-go like that, you would have a hell of a time getting those chemicals (or at least the quantities that you would need.) through customs. There’s a chance you’d be able to find them on the ground where-ever you’re headed, but I’d never count on that. Also, I have the Epson 4490 for 120 scanning – It’s alright, bit temperamental – But one thing for certain, I’d hate to lug that about with me. Carrying that along with a nice 120 kit and you’d be cursing yourself every time you hit an incline of more than 4 degrees.

by Grant Thistle | 04 Mar 2010 15:03 | Glasgow, Scotland., United Kingdom | | Report spam→
I am also one that appreciates shooting B&W film. When you need to shoot digital when traveiling – just use Markus Hartel’s film grain files: http://www.markushartel.com/tutorials/photoshop/real-film-grain-files.html Just paste the grain file into a new layer and set the blending mode to overlay, then adjust the opacity. I recommend starting with the Tri-X 1600. They are 12.1 MP for $3.99.

by Erik Annis | 04 Mar 2010 16:03 | | Report spam→
Grant, no way would you actually carry this on your back!
To reiterate, this is for setting up your “base” — or if you’re more mobile, have it in the trunk of your car — using hotels/homes as your temporary base each night.

I’ve never had a problem getting chemistry in my checked luggage flying into any country, and that’s a pretty long list of countries….the quantities you need are pretty small: if you want to stick to mostly powder, three packs of D-76, two packs of fixer, one pack of hypo-clear (all in their factory sealed packets) and that tiny bottle of photo-flo, this is enough to develop 96 rolls of film. And all of that chemistry in a plastic bag tucked in your luggage takes up very little space.

This is NOT a solution for backpacking, for bicycle trips, for embeds. For situations where you really should be able to carry everything on your back, then I actually do the following:

1 Hackintosh Dell Mini 9 computer
1 small external hard-drive
1 Canon 5d digital w/ 28mm + 50mm lenses
2 Leica w/ 28mm, 35mm, + 50mm lenses
1 Rolleiflex TLR OR 1 Widelux panoramic (not both, or, if both, forgo one of the Leicas)
30-40 rolls of film

2 changes of clothing+toothbrush+notebook

All of the above has a total weight of 20-30 lbs., not too bad at all. To go even lighter sometimes I forgo both Rolleiflex+Widelux and stick just to 35mm.

I am looking very seriously at the Micro 4/3 cameras in order to get rid of the 5D for the digital end…would reduce weight even more…

by [former member] | 04 Mar 2010 17:03 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Alan, have you test ran the Panasonic GF-1 yet? With the 20mm F1.7 it really is quite astonishing, and as far as I’m aware the plans are to extend the range of lenses astronomically over 2010/11.

by Grant Thistle | 04 Mar 2010 17:03 | Glasgow, Scotland., United Kingdom | | Report spam→
i am running about with a GF-1, 20mm and evf right now. it does indeed produce stunning raw files. i have some reservations in the “interface” department. the wheel on the back controlling both aperture or shutter and compensation is somewhat difficult to turn while the camera is up to my eye. i have to pause a second and focus on that particular task which could be a deal breaker. i am working quite a bit this coming week and will see if it is something i can get used to.

it sure beats hauling pentax 6×7′s about though.

by john d | 04 Mar 2010 18:03 | toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
“…I only use film and analogue cameras…”

How precious. You’d better have a trust fund that can support you.

by James Colburn | 04 Mar 2010 18:03 | McAllen, Texas, United States | | Report spam→
Actually, James, considering that even a used Canon 5D Mk I will still set you back $1000…and the new 5d Mk II is $2500, the argument can go the other way:

Used Nikon FM or Olympus OM can be had as cheap as $100, or, frankly, these days, even less or free from friends, relatives, etc. who are no longer using their film cameras.

It costs me roughly $5 to shoot a roll of film, $4 for the film and $1 for the chemicals. For $500 that’s 100 rolls of film which is a lot of images!

But the whole point was for this NOT to become a film vs. digital debate, and it seems that all some of you want to do is tease or make fun of anyone trying to shoot film quickly and cheaply. You, dear sirs, represent the “conventional wisdom.”

Which is well and good for you, nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to shoot film.

There were questions asked, and honest attempts to answer them. If somebody CHOOSES to shoot film and wants to do so on deadline and cheaply, this is HOW TO DO IT.

That’s all. Why consider that an outrageous or silly question?

Nobody cares how make your images, whether you use film, digital, Holga, Polaroid, WHATEVER. What your clients, viewers, and editors want are images that they like and can use. YOU develop whatever workflow it is that suits you, and get your work done in the way that you want. LS is a great resource for people asking for advice, tips, previous experiences. It should not be used to harass anyone on a thread that started out and developed as a practical how-to.

by [former member] | 04 Mar 2010 18:03 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
Jamusu, where are you? Hope you are taking notes. There will be a quiz. ;)

by Gregory Sharko | 04 Mar 2010 19:03 | Brooklyn, New York, United States | | Report spam→
>Chemistry goes through checked luggage; never tried to carry on, so no problems.
>Definitely, powder in factory-sealed packets is a good, compact, lightweight way to go.

I mix my main developer from scratch (Barry Thornton’s 2-bath), but these days if I’m flying I leave the raw chemicals at home, because I don’t want to end up in Gitmo. I’m not sure how you explain 2 lbs of white powders to a TSA employee.

Therefore I’ve been purchasing my raw chemicals on the road (once the flying is done), but often that’s easier said then done. If I can’t get what I need I’ll fall back on DD-X, D76 or Xtol. I’m pretty sure that I could also have a company ship me what I need.

I carry a similar set up to you:

Nikon 5000ED
MacBook Pro
External 2.5 drives
4 reel steel tank
135 and 120 reels
Film retriever
Changing bag
Measuring cup (!)
Digital scale
Fixer tester
I use sparkling water bottles for mixing chemicals and label them clearly.

2 x Leica M with 28/35/50
1 x Nikon F2 with Zeiss ZF 1.4/50, maybe an 85mm.

Sometimes a Rolleiflex 2.8 or XPAN with 45mm, but not too often.

I’m looking for a good small digital for color. The M9 would be perfect, but I would first have to rob a bank. Damn you Leica… My D700 is often too big, so I’m thinking about one of the small body Nikons or something similar. The M43 cameras are very tempting, but the lack of good manual focus and a viewfinder is a turnoff for me. Again, damn you Leica,

The stupid part is that I really don’t have to do this. I’m not a PJ, just a photographer, who still likes to shoot film.

by Harry Lime | 04 Mar 2010 19:03 (ed. Mar 4 2010) | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Not to hijack the thread, and I don’t need to be convinced of the viability of film…but anyone have any recent experiences of traveling with large format film?

I’ve been toying with the idea of doing some large-format work on the road but I have these nightmares of security agents wanting to open the boxes. I doubt they see that much 4×5 or 8×10 film so I worry they won’t know what it is.

by Noah Addis | 05 Mar 2010 02:03 | Madrid, Spain | | Report spam→
kinda hard to find the good B+W films these days, specially in my country …

by Karolus Naga | 05 Mar 2010 08:03 | Jogjakarta, Indonesia | | Report spam→
Noah – good question, am curious too – but I think if I were to fly with boxes of 4×5 I would also be hand carrying / getting a hand check on my 4×5 camera, and that might help matters.

by [former member] | 05 Mar 2010 14:03 | on the road, United States | | Report spam→
interesting question indeed Noah.

i am considering a move to 4×5 for some stuff as well. would love to hear folks thoughts.


by john d | 05 Mar 2010 14:03 | toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
James Colburn wrote:

““…I only use film and analogue cameras…””
“How precious. You’d better have a trust fund that can support you.”

Wow, how ignorant could you possibly get.

I did three magazine assignments this month, all three on film and it was happily accepted as an expense by each mag.

by Dan Bayer | 10 Mar 2010 00:03 | Colorado, United States | | Report spam→
Last time I flew with my lf camera, I had about 200 sheets of Tri X in about 4 boxes as carry on. Started off factory sealed but ended up secured with rubber bands and gaffer tape. No problems in Canada and I let it get hit about 6 or so times through the scanner. I double up on shots per holder so try and soup half the batch on the road for a number of reasons.

As an aside, when I flew back from Vancouver after the Olympics, the airport security screeners were asking everyone if they had film in their carry on and that it would be checked separately if there was. Thought that was considerate and a good sign of enlightened staff.

by Fred Lum | 10 Mar 2010 02:03 | Toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
Good to hear, thanks Fred.

I might have to dust off the old 8×10 for some upcoming work.

by Noah Addis | 12 Mar 2010 03:03 | Madrid, Spain | | Report spam→
hey Noah,

I flew with a 4×5 for that trip. An 8×10 would be a pain to fly with unless you had one of Richard Ritter’s 7lb cameras. I would definitely try to process the 8×10 film if I was anywhere I could get reliable water. A Simma tube and the chemistry as Alan uses.

by Fred Lum | 12 Mar 2010 03:03 | Toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
I only carry these:

3x leica m bodies
2x 35mm lens
50x 135 rolls of film

I have my full darkroom equipments in my home. even if I go in a remote areas I just wait to get home to develop all exposed films.

by Buck Pago | 12 Mar 2010 15:03 (ed. Mar 12 2010) | | Report spam→
With reference to film availability, does anyone know of a source in Kuala Lumpur. I’ll be making a stop there enroute to Bali next month without stopping in Bangkok – my usual source. I wrote a post on this earlier but it seems to have got lost.

by Nigel Amies | 13 Mar 2010 01:03 | Vientiane, Laos | | Report spam→
As much as I adore film, it simply isn’t practical in a PJ sense when weighed up against all the advantages of digital.

I also doubt that the simple fact of using film would make you any more sales as opposed to if you’d have shot on digital.


by Paul Riddell | 15 Mar 2010 10:03 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
Paul, this thread is NOT a film vs. digital debate. It is an arena to discuss practical ways to shooting film in the field and on deadline IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

Again, nobody is forcing you to do anything, and your tone of “Why bother, it simply isn’t practical” is precisely what the original poster wanted to avoid.

Clearly, whether it is practical for you or not, there are photographers for whom it IS practical, myself included, who are sharing the benefits (and limitations) of their experiences.

You will notice that nobody here is bashing digital or talking about its advantages or disadvantages — because digital isn’t relevant to this conversation — and the tired, gone-over-a-million-times argument you’ve just brought up again, THAT is what isn’t practical.

Nor are we speaking of whether or not any particular technique, style, or method would generate more sales. That, too, is another subject.

Let’s try to stay on topic: If you want to shoot film and want to know more about how to do it quickly and efficiently, here are some tips.

THAT’S ALL!!!!!!!!!

by [former member] | 15 Mar 2010 17:03 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→
I currently work as a TSA screener at the checkpoint. 3.4 oz limit of liquids, creams and gels so photo chemistry won’t make it thru the checkpoint in carry on. At least at our airport we handcheck film (Oakland, CA) Lots of potentially interesting photojournalism material regarding airport security, deployment of full body scanners, privacy rights etc.

Here’s a link to a story by journalist James Ridgeway: The Airport Scanner Scam. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam

(Sorry to get so far off subject.)
PS I shoot only film.

by Susan Hall | 17 Mar 2010 05:03 (ed. Mar 17 2010) | Cotati, CA, United States | | Report spam→
would anyone have recommendations for a 4×5 point and shoot type affair (the 4×5 talk got me itchin’)?

i have been looking at a grandview 4×5 as of late and was looking for other options.

is it possible to store exposed 4×5 sheets for periods of time (until one returns home) prior to development?

by john d | 17 Mar 2010 13:03 | toronto, Canada | | Report spam→
John D, you can look into the Razzle cameras, which are converted from old Polaroid cameras to shoot 4×5 film:




Frighteningly expensive are the Littman conversions:


A whole other set of options (not Polaroid conversion) would be:


Fotoman is out of business, but the info you need is still on their site and you can find a used camera out there if you look.


Gaoersi, like Fotoman, is a HK/China company making beautiful cameras.


Gowland is also “semi-retired” but you can see lots of info on that webpage and see how to proceed.

Both Gran View and Badger are out of business for too long for there to be any web presence now. But there’s plenty of discussion about them on the various large format forums.

Good luck!

by [former member] | 17 Mar 2010 17:03 | Brooklyn, United States | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


jamusu, jamusu
Barry Milyovsky, totally unprofessional Barry Milyovsky
totally unprofessional
(emperor of ice cream )
New York , United States
john d, retired hooligan john d
retired hooligan
(whats a tagline?)
Istanbul , Turkey
Gregory Sharko, photographer Gregory Sharko
Brooklyn, New York , United States ( JFK )
Nigel Amies, Photographer/writer Nigel Amies
[undisclosed location].
Akaky, Contemptible lout Akaky
Contemptible lout
New York , United States ( AAA )
Krishna Sriram, Documentary Photographer Krishna Sriram
Documentary Photographer
(Documentary Photographer)
Berlin , Germany ( TXL )
Bart Zwemmer, Photographer Bart Zwemmer
(You dont need eyes to see)
Tichilesti , Romania ( OTP )
Harry Lime, Photographer Harry Lime
[undisclosed location].
gary dwight miller, photographer gary dwight miller
(Available for Dessert)
Tra Vinh , Vietnam
Ed Leveckis, Ed Leveckis
New York , United States ( LGA )
Grant Thistle, Grant Thistle
Glasgow, Scotland. , United Kingdom
Erik Annis, Photographer Erik Annis
[undisclosed location].
James Colburn, Photographer/Photo Editor James Colburn
Photographer/Photo Editor
Omaha, Nebraska , United States ( OMA )
Noah Addis, Documentary Photographer Noah Addis
Documentary Photographer
Philadelphia , United States ( PHL )
Karolus Naga, Photographer Karolus Naga
Jogjakarta , Indonesia
Dan Bayer, Photographer Dan Bayer
(The Kodachrome Project)
Colorado , United States
Fred Lum, Photographer Fred Lum
Toronto , Canada ( YYZ )
Buck Pago, UNEMPLOYED Buck Pago
[undisclosed location].
Paul Riddell, Phtoographer Paul Riddell
London , United Kingdom
Susan Hall, Susan Hall
Cotati, Ca , United States ( SFO )


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven