Large format as a cure to wide angle corners

<p>Hmm. More research suggests that a 75mm might be appreciably better from a vignetting perspective without resorting to a centre filter. Maybe that <i>is</i> the way I should go. They seem rarer than the 65mm, for some reason. I may have underestimated the price difference, though - the one I spotted before was shutterless. Choices choices. (I think I've persuaded myself that 90mm is too long for me, so 75 is probably the limit.)</p>

<p>A lens without a shutter is no bargain--you will want a leaf shutter, not a focal plane shutter or Sinar shutter for field work. I wouldn't be quite as concerned about vignetting as you appear to be--it isn't that hard to correct for at a later stage most of the time. When I shot a lot of 4x5 chrome for interiors I would light the edges a stop brighter than the center, but I never used a center filter.<br>

As for the recessed board, you might not need one. Check the specs for the camera you are considering and see what the minimum extension is with a bag bellows--you might be in luck. One of the things I like about my Toyo 45G is the large opening in the Toyo recessed boards that make it possible to easily change settings. Other brands don't give you as much space, and require small fingers to make adjustments. A dentist's mirror and a small flashlight can be helpful for this if you wind up with a very high or low camera position.</p>

<p>Thanks, Andrew. The lens without a shutter was my failure to read the specs, rather than by design - otherwise, I'm really struggling to find a 75mm f/5.6 SA anywhere (although at least KEH have a center filter at a slightly more reasonable cost). I'm planning on scanning to digital, so I don't mind too much so long as I'm not throwing away all the film's dynamic range. The 65mm is now looking more tempting again, if only because it's actually possible to buy the thing.<br />

<br />

I finally (my google-fu must be off) found some specs for the Horseman 450LE I was considering: 60mm minimum extension with a 20mm recessed board, so I will be needing one. I suspect most monorails would be similar, though, since the swing support is going to need a bit of room.<br />

<br />

Fortunately, I have a dentist's mirror and a flash light. Finally I've come prepared!<br />

<br />

Thanks again for all the help, everyone.</p>

<p>Dear Andrew, I have been there and done that. <br>

When I began professionally shooting architecture I bought a Schneider 47mm XL for tight interiors. It just covers 4x5. I also shot a 65mm Fuji, 75 Schneider XL, 90mm Nikkor F8, Schneider 110 XL, etc. Carefully handled they all produced good results, with the 90 and 110 being the sharpest. The problem is physics, the wider the lens the more the light has to be bent, and the greater the correction and manufacturing precision required.<br>

Then I moved to 8x10, and using the 110 XL as a super wide angle the quality blew me away. Now we were talking about 80 square inches of film as opposed to about 20 in 4x5, and that makes a really dramatic difference. I have 40x50 inch prints in which you can bury your nose and see every little detail.<br>

Now most of my work for clients is done with a Nikon D800E with a similar set of lenses to yours, but also all the PCs. The architectural clients are happy with the results, but when I want to really see the detail I shoot the Nikon with a vertical and horizontal panning head from Really Right Stuff and stitch the images in Photoshop. The results can be every bit as dramatic as 8x10 film, and a lot easier in terms of time and effort. I have not thrown the 8x10 away as there are still images that work better in one capture, but I do not find myself using it nearly as much these days.<br>

The 4x5 gets all most no use today because while the quality of a single capture can exceed the Nikon single capture it does not offer near the quality jump of good stitching or 8x10.<br>

Looking back to my film days I wish I had skipped 4x5 and started with 8x10.<br>

Jim Scholz</p>

<p>Thanks, Jim. I started on my large format thoughts by wondering about 8x10, but was mostly persuaded that I'm unlikely to make enough enormous prints... the absence of Velvia in the larger formats is also a worry, since I'm mostly thinking landscapes. But you do a fine job of making me doubt myself! I'm generally a believer in deciding not to compromise once I've got past a certain point, and I admit that, once going to the inconvenience of large format, having done with it and going 8x10 does have some appeal. I don't think I can justify it, though - but maybe I'll be back in a year trying to work out who still makes 8x10 film.<br />

<br />

I've seen enough gigapixel stitched images to know that eventually any single capture format is going to give up; For many landscapes, I may get away without something like the pano-gimbal (although thanks for pointing me at it - I may at some point upgrade my Manfrotto 393, and this is an intriguing option) and rely on distance to make up for not rotating perfectly around the nodal point, although I do have a macro rail that I may be able to abuse in order to help a bit there. I'll brace myself for a combination of disappointment and a lot of stitching! (My PC lenses are off-brand and not all that good; I look enviously at the Canon 17mm, and have vague hopes that Nikon might update their T-S line-up and tempt me...)<br />

<br />

Anyway, crisis of confidence aside, cheers for the advice!</p>

<p>Lots of interesting advice above, but the original question was about wide-angle landscape photos.</p>

<p>This is my area of interest, and one of my solutions was: 6X12 format, 120 roll film, and a Mamiya 50mm press lens. The reasons for this combination was: ease of use (I have the 120 film developed by a commercial processor, then I scan the negs. into the computer) no distortion from a wide shot (the lens is a Biogon clone) and a relatively compact camera (a modified Mamiya Press body.)</p>

<p>High resolution prints to 24" X 36" are possible with this combination of components. See the "Salmon Falls" photo at <a href="http://www.XtermeDigitalPhotography.com">www.XtremeDigitalPhotography.com</a> Complete step-by-step instructions for building the canera are also available.</p>

<p>Thanks, John. Am I right in thinking that we're talking about <a href="http://home.uid.onemain.com/~jg1001986/extreme/extdigpho2.htm">this</a>?<br />

<br />

A very nice image (in as much as is visible on the internet, obviously). The corners look surprisingly un-stretched, for (if my maths is correct) the 135-format equivalent of 16mm lens - or possibly 21mm going from your angle of view figure (I guess allowing for 12x6 actually being a bit less than this; ah, sorry, I've now read the small print and I gather it's 106mm wide). Are you happy with the corners on the full-size version?</p>

<p>Andrew<br /> I shoot with a Shen Hao 4X5 using a couple of wider lenses. Most of my LF glass is Fuji and I have been very happy with the quality that I get. The widest lens that I have is the 75mm Fuji.</p>

<p>Fuji 75mm<br /> /> /> /> My one Non Fuji LF lens is a Nikkor 90 f/4.5. It is a little on the heavy side for my camera but I just could not resist.</p>

<p>So to get into the flow of shooting LF relax breath take your time do not rush into buying. Explore your options on lenses and camera bodies.</p>

<p>If you go the Drum scan route don't bother saving up for an Epson flatbed scanner. You will not be happy with the quality in comparison to a good Drum scan</p>

<p>I almost forgot. This is a nice site for LF informtation<br>

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php</p>

<p>Thanks, Michael. I'll admit that I'd been rushing because of the impending disappearance of some film stocks - but that's nothing that some freezer space can't fix for a bit...<br />

<br />

I'll look forward to my adventures. :-)</p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>I don't know if you're still following this thread but, in addition to buying pre-owned, there are a couple of other ways to save money on center filters. One is to carefully plan your lens kit(s) to allow sharing. The other is to choose lenses which have aftermarket center filters available. I bought genuine Schneider center filters but chose lenses that can share them. EXAMPLE: The 3B can be shared by the 58mm SAXL and 90mm SA f/8 or 90mm f/8 Nikkor-SW.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

<p>I just noticed that you're interested in 6x12cm format. If you prefer that over 4x5in (I do) and love extreme wide-angle (I do) then you may want to try a 38mm SAXL. Following is a list of my preference for a 6x12cm lens kit. Lens focal lengths are evenly spaced with 1.5x increments.</p>

<p>38mm SAXL<br>

58mm SAXL<br>

90mm f/8 Nikkor-SW<br>

135mm Fujinon-W (early version with writing on front)<br>

203mm Ektar<br>

300mm Fujinon-C</p>

<p>Oops, sorry about the delay. Away from my computer for a few weeks. Thanks for the feedback, Mike.<br />

<br />

I'm probably more interested in 5x4 than 6x12, partly because it's more of a quality jump (in film area) over my D800, but to be honest getting a high quality wide angle out of <i>any</i> format is my aim. I'll certainly investigate your suggestions - thank you!</p>

<p>If I wanted to shoot full-frame 4x5 (95x120mm) and never crop to 80x120mm or 60x120mm then my lens kit would look a bit different. The 110mm SSXL is overkill for 4x5 but it's an excellent lens and a good progression after the 72mm. A compendium shade will block excess coverage which will minimize lens flair.</p>

<p>47mm SAXL<br>

72mm SAXL<br>

110mm SSXL<br>

150mm Apo Sym<br>

203mm Ektar or 210mm Apo Sym<br>

300mm Fujinon-C</p>

 

<p>Thank you Mike. Though I may have to save up a bit!</p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>Apology for the delayed reply to your Oct. 19th post.</p>

<p>Yes, I am very satisfied with the quality of the 2'X3' print of "Salmon Falls." It was a hand-held shot with me standing in the middle of the stream to get it. The "circle of coverage" for most Mamiya press lenses is about 120mm, so the frame size of 56mm X 106mm is about the maximum. I have dozens of film camera and lenses, but if I only had to have one, the 6x12 with the 50mm lens is the one I would keep. I have several Super-Angulons and similar lenses, plus a center filter, but the Mamiya 50mm lens is the lens that gives me the most spectacular results.</p>

<p>It could be adapted to a 4x5 view camera, but would give an image of only 120mm diagonal, but within that limitation, the image would be excellent.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p><p>Thank you, John. (And likewise, apologies for the delay.) I'll definitely keep looking at that lens - especially if it turns up any cheaper than the last ones I saw. I may be forced to expand my medium format shooting (I currently only have a Pentax 645) by Fuji's discontinuation of 5x4 Velvia.</p></p>

I still shoot quite a bit of 4x5 professionally and for me, Kodak Portra color negative is the only film

worth considering for large format color. Once that is discontinued, I should have an approximate year's

supply and the processing lab (http://www.4photolab.com) will be able to process C41 for at least a

year as well. I doubt Kodak will discontinue it before 2015 given their movie film obligations but nothing

is certain. Realistically I expect to be able to shoot large format color until 2017.

 

Shooting chromes is worthless except for the fact that they look nice on a light table.

 

Of course smaller suppliers like Ilford should continue to provide reasonable black and white film for

many years afterwards as I expect there will be a small but steady demand capable of keeping a "right-

sized" business profitable for another generation. B&W is reasonable to process in a simple home

darkroom so my gear will not suddenly become worthless, but I am careful not to over-invest in

extravagant equipment.

 

After enjoying the experience of using many fine, exotic cameras that I wasn't able to afford back in the

1980s-90s - wonderful Linhofs and Arca-Swiss cameras - I have settled on a versatile, professional

quality kit built around a vintage Sinar Norma "system" camera. I also have a Crown Graphic for

handheld and dirty work. The older Sinar Norma is, IMHO, the best of the Sinar line, with a higher build

quality than their later F- and P-series (which are not bad at all.) I have owned a Horseman as well -

they work well and are partially compatible with the Sinars - but for their modest price difference, they

are a bit cruder and heavier. Also parts are not as common.

 

But as with any used camera, buy on condition of the actual camera. A mint Horseman is going to be

better than a beat-up Sinar ;-p

 

Wide angle lenses on a large format camera feel different than the equivalent angle of view on a small

format FX camera. While there are times you simply need the width to capture an entire room or

building for an assignment, most architectural photographers find that they do the vast majority of their

best photos with moderately wide lenses, with a fast, modern 90mm being the most popular lens

(roughly a 28mm on FX). These would include the late model Rodenstock Grandagon N 90/4.5 and

Schneider 90/5.6 XL lenses, neither of which are cheap even nowadays. Frankly I would start with

either of these and a 4x5 Norma kit, shoot for a while before attempting some super wide (and I would

opt for something like the modern Schneider 58XL if I were). I have also stitched two shots made with

the 90mm for excellent results, plus it saved me needing to get a fancy lens for limited use.

 

I would also get a 150-210mm "normal" lens for details and other subjects - these are common and

inexpensive. Look for lenses in late model all-black Copal shutters, these will be the latest and least

likely in need of a CLA. Avoid lenses that have been remounted into newer shutters (check serial

numbers and reputation of seller).

 

For most architectural subjects you are not using tilts, but perhaps a swing depending on your shooting

position. Most of all you use rise and fall. If you opt for a CamboWide type camera be sure it is a later

model with more movements.

 

Other items that will assist your large format venture are getting the heaviest, tallest, best tripod

possible. I use a Gitzo Giant #504 with the Sinar Pan-Tilt head, also the largest RRS tripod and I carry

an aluminum step ladder. Raising the camera solves many problems ;-p You also should definitely get

a Harrison Changing Tent for loading holders if you lack a darkroom, the tent keeps the changing bag

from touching everything and spreading dust. Toyo makes the best film holders, although common

Fidelity and Lisco holders in good condition are fine. A tilting Silvestri focusing loupe is nice, I prefer a

simple 7x Horseman loupe and do not use any fresnel over my ground glass. Your DSLR is probably

the best meter out there, once you gain some experience comparing it to your results - but the good

thing is that Portra is a tolerant film, getting to within a stop will be fine. A Pentax Digital Spotmeter is

the gold standard, you can easily figure the range of values in your scene with one. A polaroid 405 back

with the current Fuji Instant pack film is also important for testing (and learning). You can scan and get

useful professional results with skillful use of an Epson 4990-700-750 scanner, although you should

invest in some good drum scans of your best images to know what the limitations are.

 

The nice thing is that you can assemble most of this outfit for about the same price as a f/2.8 zoom

lens ;-p

 

If you think you might rather stitch digital I wouldn't fault you. A fun alternative that appeals to many

clients and can be very satisfying is to shoot some alternative views with something like a Noblex

612UX (the one that focuses and also has a 5mm upward shift). They are sharp in the corners.

 

Good luck and buy a lot of film to help keep Kodak going!

<p>Thanks for all the advice, Frank. While I'm sure I'll use large format for many purposes (no, I haven't bought a system yet - in my defence I've been out of the country on work...) my most immediate concern is regarding wide angles. View an image shot with a long lens from close enough to see the limits in my 36MP images and it'll be very distorted by the viewing perspective (sure, there are reasons to want to see detail, but it's not part of the original experience). With a wide angle, the image appears undistorted when viewed from very close; obviously this makes centre performance the highest priority, but if there's a print large enough to give the right angle of view from a comfortable viewing distance, the corners are going to be clearly visible from other positions. In other words, I'm not so fussed about building a complete large format system, though I'm sure I'd get a normal lens and moderate telephoto just for completeness (especially if I want to try for ultra shallow depth of field portraits), but for now landscapes are my priority.</p>

<p>As a personal preference, I'm not especially into architectural photography - I see its commercial benefit, but as an amateur (except for holiday snaps) I tend to see it as just riffing off the artistic design work done by the architect, much as I don't feel right about calling a photo that I may take of a statue "art". I don't necessarily have the same opinion of what others may do in this field, but I'm unlikely to take a LF camera out to do this myself. (I do have a couple of 35mm tilt-shift lenses.)</p>

<p>I see tilt as being my priority over shift - I appreciate I lose a little image quality by doing so, but I feel I can fix shift/rise in post, whereas fixing the focal plane (other than by stacking) is hard to do. Of course, if I'm setting up a large format camera anyway, I'll use it - it's just not my priority interest.</p>

<p>Regarding films, Velvia has a very specific spectral response which has been useful for some landscape and flower photography, giving results that I can't easily reproduce digitally (without selecting and painting portions of the scene) - so I've used it in 35mm and 645 even though I'm primarily a digital shooter. For less specific targets, including landscapes in general, I'm looking forward to Portra as well, having heard such good things about its dynamic range - if only because I don't trust my metering or filtering ability (also why I shoot digital in raw). Much as I love a large transparency (even 645 Velvia is amazing to look at compared with 135 film), I'm expecting to work mostly in digital; as for scans, I'm certainly thinking in terms of cheap drum scans.</p>

<p>I look forward to doing some mono shooting as well - Clearing Winter Storm is one of my favourite photos, so I'm not biased to colour, so I hope I'll not have an obsolete camera for a while. Besides, I can always combine shots through three filters and get back to colour...</p>

<p>Thanks for the system component suggestions - I'll go on researching, and look forward to taking the plunge in the new year. (I have, recently, upgraded my support system - TVC-34L, Arca D4, which should be plenty for a 5x4; I'll stash some Velvia soon before supplies dry up, then get on with shopping for a monorail.)</p>

<p>I'm very grateful for everyone's input; still learning!</p>

Re what monorail: i second Frank in that i will say i like my Sinars a lot. But though the Norma is a great camera, nothing beats the ease of use of the Sinar P (for "perfection" - often such a claim is just a claim. The Sinar P really is the perfect monorail.) It's so easy to set up any shot using a P that you really have to wonder why people bother with other cameras. ;-)<br><br>Despite the Ps once being very expensive, you can find good samples for not that much at all. I recently played chauffeur for someone who bought a complete set, two very good Sinar Ps, a healthy bunch of good lenses, shutters, backs (sheet and roll film), bellows, extensions rails, cases, meters, tripod heads, etc. etc, for the equivalent of $2000. That's what you get when people decide that using a monorail is too much work, rather use a Canon DSLR instead. ;-)<br>Normas are sought after not just because they are good cameras, but also because they have that classic look. As a result, they are not that cheap.<br><br>I don't use sheet film much these days, instead put 120 film through Sinar backs, shooting mostly 6x12 (harder to scan on the Nikon Coolscans - needs two passes and a stitch) and 6x9 with the Ps. To retain wide angle capability on the smaller formats, i use the Schneider 47 mm Super Angulon XL (with center filter). Great lens, though still rather pricey, even used.<br>Add a 75 mm, 150 mm and 210 mm (all rather common, and not expensive) and you can tackle just about anything on both 4x5" and smaller roll film formats.<br><br>Putting a DSLR behind a monrail is doable, but with limitations. Unless you get a lens that does not even cover the larger roll film formats, no lens will be wide enough. The extra camera will also add to the extension, and you will find that the monorail's standards need to be real close next to each other to retain focus on anything outside the close up range (they already need to be rather close when using a short lens without the extra depth of a DSLR with adapter), quite severely restricting the ability to use any movements.

<p>Thanks, Q.G. I'm now leaning towards saving up for a Sinar - I have to say that the mechanism appeals to me. The used market must flood <i>eventually</i>, surely? :-)</p>

The flood is in full flow, perhaps even starting to ebb already. Fresh Sinar P offerings appear on eBay almost daily.<br><br>The "best buys" are those that consist of complete sets, offered by people wanting to get rid of their complete LF equipment in one go, instead of having to sell each single piece separately. You can find such deals as the one i mentioned earlier: overcomplete sets for (relatively) little money. But probably not often on eBay. So keep an eye on local lists also.<br><br>There however are also many sellers (on eBay mostly) taking these thingies apart, selling each bit that comes off without having to use to hacksaws separately. Needless to say that if you want to assemble a complete camera that way, you'll easily spend as much on a single P camera (bank holder, basic rail, front standard, rear standard with focussing back/screen and bellows) as you would be able to get one of those complete "studio clearance" sets for.<br><br>You can also find "in between" buys (i.e. no such over-complete sets, but also more than single parts) for decent amounts of money without much trouble.

P.S.<br><br>The thing that is more difficult is figuring out an affordable way to insert what you produce using a Sinar (or any other LF camera) into a digital workflow. No 4x5" sensors (except perhaps for some built for astronomers and other "special users" who can easily pay the astronomical amount such a thing would cost from their well filled research budget). Scanbacks are still expensive (though almost affordable) and take a while to produce a single image. High quality scanners that take 4x5" film are rare and expensive. The Epson flatbed thingies that "do" sheet film are affordable, do work, but are not quite as good as we would want them to be.<br>That's why i use roll film, which i scan using Nikon scanners. Seems a waste: 6x12 or 6x9 on a LF camera. But having the possibility of camera movements is sometimes important. So even though we still do not have affordable 4x5" digital backs, long live the Sinar!

<p>RE: Hybrid workflow and equipment. I decided I'm not going to buy pricey equipment. I'll get a good Epson flatbed and small printer to do small stuff. If there are images that are worth spending money on then I'll have drum scans made and I'll edit the images. Then I'll have a lab I trust make the prints. I'll never have the work volume to justify expenditures for digital equipment that's outdated in a matter of months. I'm better off spending that money on sheet film. This is what makes sense for my tiny work volume and budget. Of course, if I had piles of spare cash then I'd have the best of the best.</p>

Does indeed make sense, Mike.<br>But what you must not think is that a good (!) scanner will be outdated in a matter of months. It, like a good lens, or a good film, will be as good in ten years time as it is now (if it survives to live that long, that is. I'm counting on it, using those Nikon thingies for at least that long. Having and keeping an OS on your computer that supports the driver for them is a bit harder). It's cheaper equipment, equipment that isn't as good as it must be, yet, that becomes outdated rather quickly.<br>Buying an Epson, though cheap, but not quite as good as you might want it to be, will - because of being relatively cheap - seduce you into buying the next also cheap but slightly improved model. After ten years, you may be on your third Epson model. Going that route may still be a bit cheaper than that as-good-as-it-gets expensive scanner that you did not get, but not by much. If it is cheaper at all.<br>And you will then still be on an Epson that could have been a bit better...So is "cheap" really the least expensive route?

<p>They only way to "sort of" future-proof hardware that may lose driver support before you want to dispose of it is to keep a spare computer with the latest release OS and drivers for that HW. The same is true for SW which loses OS support.</p>