GW670/GW690 III low resolution lenses

<p>Why the secrecy? I for one would like to know where this very important picture will be taken, the city where it will be processed and scanned, and why some chap has waited 50 years for such a picture.</p>

<p>Mr. Gottschalk...</p>

 

Secrecy? No, but we traditionally discuss photo related topics on Photonet. Personal stories unrelated to photography are better discussed on Oprah or the Dr. Phil show.

<p>Mr. Tanaka...</p>

<p>I wish I had access to a true drum scanner. The best I can do there locally, and where I can have all the photo services done in one place and a place that I trust, is a Scitex EverSmart Pro. They print with a Chromira ProLab on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. Furthermore, this outfit only processes E-6. Those are my limitations. I hope to have a bright EV15 day but will have to take the shot in whatever weather comes my way. </p>

<p>Your North Korea location is beautiful. I assume the lake is at some altitude where the light is pure and brighter than sea level. I wish my event was on the beach in Miami or Key West FL for the light. </p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

<p>Thomas</p>

<p>an experienced scientific photographer I know always takes 3 or 5 images of the same thing on his roll film (and even redundant sheets). He says its because if one gets damaged he always has a back up. If it is possible perhaps this strategy would be beneficial in your special situation?<br>

Also, there is a fellow on this site called Bruce Watson, in conversations with him I am confident that he will handle your film well. I believe he is in the USA too.</p>

<p>all the best on your expedition.</p>

<p>To go back to your original question . . . .It would probably be naive of me, considering all the technical data quoted, to ask whether you physically examined the lens. Older cameras, especially when unused, often have a fungal bloom on the lens which lowers contrast and resolution. You didn't dismiss this in your question. ... just a thought.<br>

</p>

<p>Mr. Osmotherly... </p>

<p>Not naive at all. But, yes I did examine the lens. I'm one of those clean freaks that start with a clean, clear lens. Every bit of light that hits the film has to go through the lens. I'm suppressed at the number of so-called Pros who shoot with dirty lenses, separations, fungus, coating scratches, etc. It is true that some lens problems don't show up much on the final result. But..I've seen "Pros" blame the person sitting for a portrait, or being filmed at a wedding for movement blur in a poor, unsharp result. It is hard to blame movement when the left cheek is if focus and the right cheek is soft, both cheeks being the exact same distance from the lens with a straight on shot. </p>

<p>Mr. Tanaka...</p>

<p>Yes, I intend on doing a lot of duplicating. My back-ups are going to have back-ups. I intend on testing my 4x5 film holders before I leave on the trip by putting film in them and leaving them in the sun an hour on a side. I'll then have them sent to Seattle for development and see if they are all blank as they should be. I will take several shots of the same thing using different film holders. After the shoot I will not have the second film souped until I have the first one back, etc. I'm also taking the GW690III and will duplicate the shots with it. I'd rather have the best I can get with the 690 than nothing! That film will not go into the processor with either of the other batches. </p>

<p>I'd like to do everything locally both for risk and amount of effort I can expend. We all tried to do this on the 50th anniversary and at least twice since. It did not work out. Back then I'd have had a lot of choices both locally and mail-away. There were even professional photographers back then who still shot large and medium format and I would have it hired out. I'm now in the position of having a rather short leash, time wise. I cannot be sure of being able to get it later on if this effort should fail. So, I will take minimum chances and will do the best I can there locally. Additionally a few of us live there locally and can follow up on the project if I cannot. </p>

<p>I've e-mailed with Bruce Watson and was going to send him the film for scanning when I thought the opportunity would come last year. I've had too much mail go astray recently to consider that in today's world. </p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

<p>isn't this all kind of a moot point? making a 30x40'' print with either the fuji or mamiya needs a 13.5-14.5x enlargement, respectively. post-processing those scans and standing back at viewing distance will make "good looking" prints, as long as there isn't a large format print right next to them. ;)</p>

<p>i'm hoping the new fuji's lens is as good as mamiya's, too. at that price, it better be!</p>

<p>Mr. or Mrs. Sasayama...</p>

<p>Moot point? Not really. I think the Mamiya 7II with the 80mm lens would do a 15x better than the Fuji GW690III/Fuji GW670III could do a 10x. Likewise a disposable 35mm with 800 speed film would be lucky to do a 5x. Furthermore I don't want to have the people who will get the prints to have to stand back from it. It is also principle with me. I would not give these fine people ANY less than my best effort. They did theirs.</p>

<p><br />Tom</p>

<p>This discussion doesn't seem to have touched very much on the following criteria:</p>

<p>1. Magnification ratio effect in printing from two different negative sizes (Fuji 6 x 9, versus the equivalent from Mamiya 7, or about 4.6 x 7 - note that I have not considered the real negative sizes here), and the positive effect on tonality of the smaller magnification required of the Fuji lens. </p>

<p>2. Contrast at resolutions cited. Are the Perez resolution figures simple resolutions at "X" contrast, or are they abstracted from MTF graphs? They may not really say too much.</p>

<p>I fully agree about the points regarding used lens condition, RF accuracy, and film flatness. Difficult to compare data when it is not sure everything has been controlled to the optimum values. </p>

<p>Perhaps best to take similar shots with Rolleiflex or Mamiya or Fuji, using same film and exposure and then compare 20 x 24 inch or other size prints made under same conditions with the same enlarger lens (print only part of 6 x 9 neg to assure you are not measuring enlarger lens well off axis where it is worse than in its more central 6 x 6 or 6 x 7 field).</p>

<p>I had one of the last GW690 IIIs to be produced. I was always happy with it. Most of the results went to stock and I rarely made prints, but coincidentally one of my customers has a 40 inch wide print he made from one of my Velvia transparancies. I have never bothered to look at it that closely, but today from a distance of about 8 inches I noted that 39 inches of the width of that print are perfect (most detail is in the middle). Half an inch at each side was a little soft - perfectly normal I suppose. I suspect there was considerable variation from lens to lens. The first GW690 III I received went back immediately. It had a 2 mm diameter air bubble in the middle of the lens! </p>

<p>Mr. Plumpton...</p>

<p>1. Because I would have used a 6x9, which has a 2:3 ratio, I would be cropping the sides to obtain the 3:4 ratio of a 30" by 40" print. Using either a 6x7 or 6x9, I would be using the full height of the image, and therefore could not take advantage of sideways tonality extension. Furthermore, I don't know that the lens is sharp enough to have captured the extra material that would make tonality extension a benefit. Certainly the relatively low resolution of the Fuji lens, if one was able to use full width, would be more of a detriment than could be gained through tonality extension. </p>

<p>2. Mr. Perez and I both use the USAF 1951 chart and read, not from a print, but directly from the film with microscopic magnification. We did use different film. I suspect his film may have superior edge sharpness to the one I used. The contrast on the chart between the blackness of the black and the whiteness of the white is supposedly made to USAF 1951 standards. I'm sure it is not 100%, but would be a relatively high percentage. To one's eye, it appears truly black and truly white. The rub comes where one decides how distinct the separation between the black and white lines must show up to be considered the final reading. That reading produces a number that is entered in a formula containing the distance between the chart and the nodal point of the lens and the length of the lens. After doing the math, one arrives at a line pairs/mm reading. </p>

<p>I did my best to reduce/eliminate effects of rangefinder accuracy and film flatness. The condition of the lenses and coatings were like new. </p>

<p>Mr. Perez did take similar shots on similar film with similar exposures on Rolleiflexes, Mamiyas, and a Fuji. I have done so on a Rolleiflex 2.8GX and of course the two Fujis I'm referring in this thread. I was not aware of Mr. Perez's results when I calculated my own. </p>

<p>Mr. Cunningham...</p>

<p>A 2 mm diameter air bubble in the middle of the lens? Yep, there sure is a fair amount of variation in Fuji lenses. You have to wonder who the inspector was. Perhaps they had just hired him away from Chrysler. Being more serious, I'd think in the days of computer-automated lens polishing, there would be less optical differences from lens to lens samples of the same lens. A bubble is an inspection error, but a 20% difference in resolution, sample to sample, seems like a pretty high variation to come out of computer-driven precision machinery. Maybe computers come in hung over on Monday also. </p>

<p>Tony, I wouldn't worry too much about a small air bubble. I noticed one in my 6 month old Leica 35mm Summicron in 1982 and returned it then to the Canadian factory for a replacement. Big mistake. It was apparently an exceptional lens nonetheless, and its replacement was less good at large prints than the bubbled one. </p>

<p>And Ctein, when he reviewed top (6 element and more) enlarger lenses a few decades back, found significant variations between three samples of the same lens from the majors (Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider).</p>

<p>It's not a problem for Fuji alone. Lens centering and assembly is a nightmare for various manufacturers. </p>

<p>A. Thomas,</p>

<p>Your point about magnification is valid if you are constrained to a 30 x 40 inch print size. Many cut photographic paper to their envisaged print aspect ratio. The 2:3 aspect ratio is that of most 35 mm cameras and a number of MF ones as well. No one says you have to print to the commercial paper size, but if you want a square image you can go advantageously for a 6 x 6 camera (or 8 x 10 inch large format) rather than a 6 x 7, 6 x 8 or 6 x 9 camera. If you want 2:3 aspect ratio, it is advantageous to go for 6 x 9 in the medium format film size. </p>

<p>If one or two Fuji 6 x 9 camera have less than perfect lens testing response, that hardly means others will also be the same (see the Ctein reference above, or his book on printing). Also true for lenses from many other manufacturers. Alas, we are not living in Utopia.</p>

<p>Mr. Plumpton...</p>

<p>I would prefere having a 30 x 45 (2:3) print but that size is not offered by the vendor. </p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>Mr. Burke,</p>

<p>I understand that limitation, but I think that you should print or have printed any size you want, as it is too confining to always accept arbitrarily imposed sizes. If I have a print made by a machine, I can print a bit smaller on the standard sheet and then cut to my preferred size. It is quite easy, even if not the most economical way to do it. In the darkroom (black and white), we always need extra material for test strips, so cutting down is no big deal.</p>

<p>Ultimately, though, the negative size is a matter of choice. Often I will choose a 6x6 machine rather than 6x7 or 6x9, because my subject suits the square format.</p>

<p>A.T.B.,<br /> You're wise to test things before you leave, rather than come back and be disappointed. You would also be wise to bring more than one camera and more than one format w/ you. I'm not sure whether you are shooting color or B&W, but your results w/ the Fuji 690 III are what I came up w/ my 670 III. Just not sharp enough and rather bland images. I later got a Fuji GS645s Wide and I and have been happy to see that the images were a lot better, but still require some work to get some punch to them. A hood helps, as would a polarizer. My experiment w/ a Mamiya 7 also did not work out, as the images, while sharp, looked like Nikon shots. D.O. Henning's shot above is a good example of this. Great photo, but definitely Nikonish. If you like that, then you're set.</p>

<p>I finally sent my Welta Weltur 6x6 folder w/ Tessar lens off to be CLA'd, and bought a Rolleiflex TLR w/ a Schneider Xenar lens. End of problem. Tack sharp photos w/ great tonality. But would these older designs hold up to printing 30 x 40? I've never done that so I'm not sure. I have blown the Fuji GS645s shots up to 26 x 35 (it's a 6x4.5 format) and all looked very good indeed. Here's a shot straight from the camera w/ no adjustments rather than downsizing. Yeah, it's tilted and needs spotting, but as I said it's straight out of the camera.</p>

<p>The other option, and the one I would use if I could afford it, would be to buy a Leica M7 and maybe an ASPH 35 lens. Again, not sure if they would go to your big sizes, but my experience w/ Leica glass has been better than anything else I've ever used.</p><div></div>

<p>Mr. Mareno...</p>

<p>Yes I will be mailing two cameras to my destination in advance. I've decided to use a 4x5 as the main camera and make back-ups on the better of the two Fiji GWs. I can still get a 20x30 from the Fuji if the 4x5 fails. Have you used the tag that I left earlier up above in this thread showing comparative results from folders?</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=730969">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=730969</a></p>

<p>My Welta Weltur 6x6 folder w/ Tessar was the worst of the bunch. I bought it rebuilt and sent it back to the rebuilder with a copy of the result thinking perhaps one of the elements had been reversed in the lens. He checked it out and said it was "fine" I liked the knob-on-bed rangefinder focusing (like using a mini Speed Graphic) but not enough to put up with the poor lens. 4"x4" prints, only a 2x enlargement, look worse than the disposable 35mm cameras. Even when looking at the film with the naked eye, it does not appear sharp. You can also see in the same group the results of a Schneider Xenar in a Rolleicord V (supposedly a good issue as far as that lens goes) which looks pretty good.</p>

<p>No on a Leica. I feel that a 30x40 is too much of a stretch for any 35mm lens with the current film while having the detail and tonality I want for this one shot. If I could use all of the 24mm height of 35mm film I'd need to put 177 line pairs/mm on the film. Maybe the discontinued film Techpan could give marginal results, and in B&W, not color. Even if the lens had the ability, 177 lp/mm is beyond any color reversal film of today.</p>

<p><br />Tom Burke</p>

<p>Steve, what the h*** is Nikonish? I hate Nikons. I am a Canonist if it has to be digital. The mentioned photo has a lot of contrast as I like it, is this Nikonish? Your photo however is in my eyes too dull, was this your purpose? What film did you use?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D.O. Henning's shot above is a good example of this. Great photo, but definitely Nikonish.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A.T.B, what a difference a week makes. You don't mail films, but you will mail your cameras?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've had too much mail go astray recently to consider that in today's world.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes I will be mailing two cameras to my destination in advance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A.T.B. It seems to me that you adress evrything very scientific. But where come all the pieces of fluff on your pictures from? If you use a 50 year old cam I will understand this but with the newer ones? Or is this the scan?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have you used the tag ... showing comparative results from folders?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Finally I would like to bring a name into the race that is mostly underestimated, if the people are only talking about Leicas. It is the Voigtländer Bessa with the excellent number of Voigtländer lenses. Not cheap, but reasonable. The lenses are interchangeable with Leica and vice versa. Also Zeiss will fit. You have 4 VF at choice.<br>

<img src="http://www.berlinhennig.de/photonet/_VL_0018.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>D. O. Hennig...</p>

<p>You say "A.T.B, what a difference a week makes. You don't mail films, but you will mail your cameras?".</p>

<p>That is right. If you read my previous posts you will note that I have one chance in about 55 years to get the shot. I am traveling cross country at some expense and in ill health to do so. I'd throw both the cameras in the trash along with about ten more if it meant not losing the exposed film. Furthermore I am mailing them to an old photographer friend who will give them a checkout before I leave home. If there is shipping loss or damage, I can then send another two. I have three 4x5s and two Fuji GW690IIIs (backup camera in case something happens at the shoot). If the second batch disappears, I'll buy a camera in town or have one overnighted from B&H.</p>

<p>You also say "A.T.B. It seems to me that you adress evrything very scientific. But where come all the pieces of fluff on your pictures from? If you use a 50 year old cam I will understand this but with the newer ones? Or is this the scan?".</p>

<p>It does not come from the old or new cameras which I scrupuiously keep clean, nor my scanner. It comes out of the old Noritsu developing machine. The gunk is embedded in the emulsion and came from the developing vats. All the other camera stores have closed their doors so I am left with one E-6 machine in town. Few rolls go through each week it and it is not maintained up to standards and cannot be maintained economically. The shots I posted were of little value and no value past the ability to see the relative clarity of the lens. I feel lucky to have anyplace to develop my film on the same day. The few times that I have had something to soup that was more important, they have one fellow in there who knows how to clean up the filters, float off the scum, etc. and not only do I get him to do that, but I run a junk roll through first to be sure there is little debris deposited on the film at that time.</p>

<p><br />I am using reversal film for my shoot because the lab that will do it is first class. They do not do negative film. I have not had a problem in the many years I have used them and they are the only place I would trust to process film that will be this valuable to me. AND, they will be doing one roll or sheet a day rather than all at once, just in case.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>You had the camera CLA'd? Lens tested, adjusted before this famous shoot? It might not be the camera's fault, it might need work.</p>

<p>Yes, agreed, my fuji GA645i's resolution is just so so compared with other MF.</p>

I have owned, and used, Hasselblad with 40/60/80 and 120mm optics, Bronica SQ's with 40/65/80 and 120mm, Linhof 23 with Schneider and Zeiss, Rolleiflex 2.8f with the Schneider lens and the Fuji GS69. I am even currently getting wonderful images from a Mamiya C220 +7 lenses and the Mamiya Press with 50/75/100 and 250mm optics. I have been pro 33 years but still pursue photography as a hobby...

 

Back in the day I printed my own work on a De Vere 5x4 wall mounted enlarger with the multihead fitted with Nikkor and Rodenstok enlarging lenses. I can report that the Fuji GS69 lens was up to their usual standard being very sharp and as is often the case with Japanese, high in contrast compared to the gentler tones of German optics. The Japanese often designed towards high resolution/contrast and the Germans liked even coverage and flatter field?

 

This came as no surprise from a company that has a monopoly on Japanese TV camera optics, their own highly regarded lenses for their current Xpro's digital and it has to be remembered it is Fuji who made the lenses for the Hasselblad HD series!!

 

But frankly if you are not getting sufficiently "sharp" pictures from any of the MF cameras I mentioned, it is unlikely to be the camera that is at fault?