michael_fox

Michael Briggs was correct - the question was with respect to LF lenses.

 

Thanks for everyone's contributions. I've ordered the books mentioned above and plan to curl up next to the fireplace on a cold night this fall for an "exciting" night of reading. :-) ZZZZZZZZ!

 

Michael

Thanks all, this has been informative.

 

Can you all provide your recommendations for a "reading list" of references that cover related subjects such as depth of field, hyperfocal, light fall-off from bellow extension, etc.

Thanks Michael. I hear you RE where on the lens not being significant. I guess my concern was when using a long, non-telephoto lens and a close subject, the bellows can extended far (could be 24" or so) and, therefore, depending on how close the subject is, could be a significant percentage of the distance in question. So lens nodal point vs. film plane could be a significant difference.

This seems to be a stupid question but I can't find the answer

anywhere.

 

When measuring such things as hyperfocal distance or near/far

distances related to depth of field, where is it measured from?

(The lens nodal point, the film plane...?)

 

Thanks,

Michael

All good points above. I'll just add a couple of thoughts.

 

Film: You mentioned Quick Loads. The last time I shot in the cold, it was MINUS 35 degrees Farenheit up in Banff, Canada. I was using Ready Loads. As I unfolded the page of "Exposed" stickers to place one on the sheet I had just exposed, all the stickers slid off into the snow. Didn't have Quick Loads so I don't know if their adhesive is different. But you may want to try to keep the stickers warm - at least inside your pack rather than an outside pocket. Throw one of those small heat packs in your pack (the kind that react to air and are meant to go into gloves or boots). That should keep your pack a little warmer than the surroundings.

 

Gloves: Good points above. I LOVE the Mountain Hardware lightweight gloves. They give excellent feel and I never need to take them off. I wear glove/mittens over the top which have individual glove fingers but a mitten end flap that can be pulled back, exposing the tips of the fingers (which have the lighter gloves on them). When you're done fiddling, flop the mitten part back over the end. You can stuff one of those heat packets in there if you wish.

 

Camera: I'm not familiar with the Graphic View. I have an Arca Swiss F-metric. I noticed that the geared movements became very stiff at 35 below. The rest of the time I was in Banff, the temperature was not that severe (10 below or so) and I didn't have any problems.

 

Feet: For me, this was a bigger problem than fingers. My toes became numb and at 35 degrees below zero, I figured this was dangerous and went inside. I've never tried Sorel boots but I'm told they're the best. I did use synthetic sock liners AND sythetic socks. Never had my feet get so cold before. You might also want to also have one of those small heat pads that are meant to stick in your boots.

 

Ground glass: Suprisingly, this wasn't much of a problem. I was sure not to breath while under the dark cloth. Someone has suggested bringing a snorkel, but I just couldn't bring myself to look that silly. Once, I did breath and there was an instant layer of frost on the ground glass. I used a credit card sized window scraper to easily remove it. You can find them at most car parts stores. If you use a real credit card, it's libel to crack.

 

Shutter: Fire the shutter several times just before you're ready to take the shot. I have a habit of doing this anyway. If you're concerned about the shutter not timing correctly, bracket. I didn't have any problem.

 

Michael

Thanks for both answers, guys. That clears it up. It also explains why the two readings are similar but not equal.

Can someone explain the difference between status A and status M

density? I know that status A is for things that will be directly

viewed, like transparencies or prints, and that status M is for

indirectly viewed items like negatives. But what is the difference

between the two? For example, are they weighting the various color

channels differently?

 

Thanks,

Michael

Steve,

 

I have an Arca Swiss 4x5 F-metric but it has the 4x5 standard in front. Still, this info may be useful. On my camera, the shade clamps on a rod which then is clamped by a clamp on the front standard. So, it's very easy to add and remove, should it be too tight around your 75mm.

 

The problem I have is actually seeing from the corners of the ground glass through the lens. Can't do it. Angle is too acute. So I have no way to tell if a particular positioning of the shade is vignetting or not. I've been meaning to make some test exposures while noting the position of the shade in order to see what vignettes and what doesn't but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Just a thought that you might want to check that on your own camera.

 

--Michael

I've got the leather bellows. I heard somewhere (probably here) that the synthetic one has lower internal reflectivity, thereby helping to preserve more contrast than the leather bellows. While it's certainly understandable that this would be easier to do with a synthetic material over the leather, I don't know if it is a significant enough difference to worry with.

 

BTW, the Arca catalog lists the following for 4x5 wide angle bellows:

 

Leather

-----------

Bellows extension = 20 cm

focus = 35-210 mm

 

Synthetic

-----------

Bellows extension = 20 cm

Focus = 35-180

 

Frankly, I don't know how they claim 35mm on the leather unless using a recessed lens board since the pleats in the leather get in the way. My shortest lens is 75mm and it works fine for that but I would think it might pinch at shorter focal lengths.

Thanks all for the informative responses!

My work may take me to Mumbai, India for several months. I've never

set foot in India before. If anyone has experience (Vishal?) with

photographing in this area, could you please provide any helpful info

regarding:

 

a) don't miss locations

b) regulations or other restrictions regarding photography

c) useful information sources

 

Thanks much,

Michael

Carlos,

I don't have the 110XL. I do have the leather WA bellows with a 4x5 F-metric. I have not tried the synthetic one. My choice of the leather bellows was based on needing to also use the long bellows (70cm) for long lenses like the 300 and 450 (non-tele). I only wanted to carry two bellows. So I wanted a WA bellows that would get close to the extension of the long bellows so I wouldn't need something in between.

 

The Arca catalog lists the leather bellows as good for 35-210mm while the synthetic one is listed as 35-180mm. The long bellows is listed as 240-600mm. I went with the leather one only because it's maximum extension came closer to the minimum extension of the long bellows.

 

In practice, I can actually use my leather WA bellows on my 240 (without much movement) but I usually don't. I usually switch over to the long bellows for 240+ and use the WA bellows for 180-. So, in practice, I could have gone with the sythetic bellows. It does look nice!

Ed, on my version "E", the version number is located inside the opening where you slide in the readyload sheet. Orient the holder vertically so that the red button is facing you and the text on the sticker is rightside up. Look at the far side of the opening at the top, approximately where the right end of the middel curved part reaches the right hand side flat part. You should see a letter inside a circle molded into the plastic.

George,

 

I recently considered the same question. In fact, I set out with the goal to see if I could switch to neg film from Velvia/Portra. I did some detailed testing and while my method was different from what Stephen mentions above, my results were consistent with what Stephen has enumerated.

 

At least for me, my concern was with the entire digital workflow - shoot the film, scan it with my Imacon 848 and then see what I can and can't recover in Photoshop. Therefore, my method was different from what Stephen did. I should mention that I limited my film choices for testing to those emulsions that are available in quick/readyloads since that what I'm using. Here's a summary of what I learned:

 

1) Interpreting the film: May people complain about the difficulty of interpreting a negative. Sure, there are those who have been reading negatives for a long time and can do it well. But I don't have their 10s of years of experience and I have difficulty doing it. So I have a second scanner - a flatbed Microtek that I now use to throw a whole PrintFile page on just to get a simple "contact print" (thanks to suggestion from Ralph Barker). I don't care that the plastic page creates distortion - just looking for a simple way to get some initial reactions to the shots. The Microtek has a pretty simple process to neutralize the orange mask so it does a reasonable job on first pass of making the negative look like what I shot. It's good enough for my initial evaluation purposes. So, 1st problem solved.

 

2) Scanning the film: Many people complain about how hard it is to scan color negs. The complaints tend to group around getting the colors right and the fact that the scanner noise is now in the highlights (the dark part of the negative) As I said, I have an Imacon 848. which does a very good job with deep shadows (cooled CCD) so I see very little (if any) noise in the highlights from a negative). I scan at 16bits/channel so I have more room for even more dramatic gamma or color shifts if necessary. The Imacon also has a pretty easy way to zero out the orange mask for a particular film type so I used shots of a Color Checker DC card to neutralize the setup and saved it. I found that some additional tweaking - beyond the auto stuff that Imacon has - was necessary to get the image very close to what I thought was dead on. I found the color accuracy to be far superior to Microtek but, considering the price of the Imacon, it darn sure better be, right?! Anyway, yes, it is more difficult to scan the negative - mostly because you don't have the positive to look at and compare to. But some good advanced work with shots of a color checker will get your scanner set up properly and I consider this problem solved. 2 down.

 

3) Dynamic range/lattitude: My testing didn't use a densitometer as Stephen did because a) I don't have one, and b) it didn't matter to me what the numerical values were if I couldn't get the information back through Photoshop corrections. So I based my evaluation of dynamic range on whether or not "reasonable" use of curves, levels gamma slider, etc. could recover the highlights or shadows to an "acceptable" level. Yes, lots of subjectivity here. In the over-exposures, I was looking to try to recover light colors (light pink, green, blue) and detail. In the under exposures, I was looking to try to recover dark colors (dark blues, purples) and detail. At a certain point, the colors that resulted from Photoshop corrections were just too blotchy. Again, that's a subjective measure, but I found there was a definite "knee in the curve" such that it was pretty clear when you reached the end. Even though it was subjective, I shot the same target under the same lighting conditions, and used the same evaluation criteria (often pulling up a window of an over-exposed transparency along side a second window of an over-exposed negative to compare). Therefore, the *relative* results are solid. Using this workflow-matched method, I reached approximately the same conclusion that Stephen reached with his densitometer readings. And oh, by the way, I'm NOT concerned with exposure lattitude in terms of how much error *I* introduce. I'm concerned with the brightness range in the scene so, for example, I could capture a scene with tremendous brightness range, even if a split ND would not work well (no simple sky line to work with). So 3rd point proven - Portra had WAY more lattitude - about 12 stops (from pure white to pure black) of usable information given my particular scanner.

 

4) Resolution: Many people told me that negative film doesn't have the same resolution as slide film. So I included an Edmund Scientific resolution target in my evaluation target shots. Since negative film is less contrasty, the initial appearance is lower resolution. However, if you adjust contrast up in Photoshop to where the slide film is, I could find no detectable difference in resolution. Again, I didn't use a microscope. I just looked at 100% in Photoshop. So, 4th problem solved - or doesn't really exist.

 

5) Grain: Here's the rub. I figure that my worst case enlargement factor is 6x. That is, take a 4x5 (which isn't really 4" x 5") and crop a little and then enlarge to 16 x 20 (or there abouts). Your needs may vary but I need 6x. Since I was doing my tests with 220 film (to save on film and development costs of the dozens and dozens of exposures) I did 6x enlargements of the 220 film which ended up being about 9" x 12". What I discovered is that I could see very definite grain in the Portra film vs. say, Provia. Now, some will say "well, duh! Provia is the least grainy color tranny film on the market - of course!" But again, my concern was whether or not the difference would matter *to me* given my workflow. I'm sad to report that it does. It bothers me. It looks sandy in the final print compared to what I'm used to.

 

So, for me, the end result is that I will now bring both films with me. I'll use the transparencies whenever the desired brightness range in the scene is capable of being captured by the film. I'll use the negative film when it can't.

The first time I saw a Reis was when I went shooting with Peter. It looked well made and easy/fast to use. I subsequently borrowed own to use for a day and I was hooked. Bought a J-100 and bag myself.

 

BTW, if you have a bogan geared 410 head and need a little lift collar to put in on the Reis (so the pitch axis knob clears), Steve Grimes made a beautiful black annodized collar.

I have two rev "E" holders. No problems so far.

Neil: Thanks. If it's not too much trouble, could you measure the inner width/height of your compendium?

 

Ellis: Thanks. I see the slots in the picture in the A-S catalog. However, this would put the filter back out into the same light that I'm trying to shade with the compendium. I'd prefer to avoid this if possible.

This question is for anyone using an Arca Swiss compendium 4x5 shade

with a Lee filter system or other square filter system:

 

I have ordered the A-S compendium shade in 4x5 but don't have it yet

and don't know it's dimensions. The Lee holder has the little spring

knob that sticks out pretty far. I'm wondering if this will snag on

the compedium "bellows" or if it will even fit at all. (Note, I do

have the Lee compendium shade but I'm not interested in using it

since it leaves an open area where the filter slots are -- that's why

I ordered the A-S shade.)

 

Can those with experience with this combination (A-S compendium/Lee

holder) please provide comments on their likes and dislikes about the

two working together? For example, how easy is it to add/remove the

Lee holder with the A-S compendium in place -- or vice-versa?

 

For others who have the A-S compendium shade with a different square

system (Hitech, Heliopan, ...) please also say what works and doesn't

or what you like and don't like about the two working together?

 

Thanks much

Jason:

 

I checked with one of His former assistants. Here's his response:

 

"Primarily the 8x10 was a wooden Agfa/Ansco with extension rails. He also used a metal Kodak Master View, that I happened to have bought from him. He used Kodak, Calumet and mostly Sinar 4x5�s. George Lauterstein has the Sinar, I think. Then of course there was the Hassy ( recently purchased by Imus of radio infamy) and the Contax 35mm that I think he gave Okeeffe."

 

I doubt that helps you with a selection of a current camera but it does answer your question.

Thanks for all the responses. I'm going to check out the A-S holder. In the mean time, I'll try a Spiderman lunchbox. Sorry, Wayne, no Barney!

I have an Arca Swiss 4x5 F-metric. I bought a new 70mm (long)

bellows for use with my 300mm and 450mm lenses. However, the center

of the bellows sags severely, creating vignetting. I checked the

Arca Swiss catalog and found part number 077000 called "Bellows

support". However this is shown in the Format conversions section

for an M-line camera so I don't know if it will work with the F-line.

 

Anyone else using the 70mm bellows and, if so, how to you cure the

sag problem?

Thanks for the suggestions, one and all.

 

I think I'll go with a reasonably priced flatbed scanner that will do 8x10 so I can throw a PrintFile page on there. Doesn't have to be a great scan - just fairly representative of the colors and tonalities.

 

The scanner will be cheaper than the viewer and I can use it for other purposes.

 

Thanks again to all.

Ralph, Yup! Whenever I can! But sometimes need the difference in contrast, saturation and exposure lattitude. Trying to match the simplicity of throwing it on the light table is another matter.

 

Brian, Yes, I do have the development done at a lab and I think you're right about it paying for itself in a reasonable timeframe. The cost of contact sheets is reasonable for 35mm with many images per page, and not tooooo bad for 6x6. But now that I'm moving into 4x5, it quickly gets rather pricey.

Gatorboard looks and feels like like heavy duty foamcore -- some foam sandwiched between two pieces of heavy poster board. I don't know the technical details of how it's different but, in appearance:

-- it is thicker - generally 1/2" or more -- or at least that's what I've seen. A quick search of the web revealed that it comes in 3/16" too.

-- the foam seems denser - if you press your fingernail into the edge it is harder to make a dent

-- the poster board (or whatever you call it) on each side of the sandwich, seems harder and thicker.

-- the gatorboard is much, much stiffer than foamcore

-- and, yes, I think it is more expensive

-- don't know about archival quality of gatorboard vs. foamcore

 

I certainly don't profess to be an expert, or even knowledgeable. I'm just now beginning to investigate this myself. This is just what the lab told me and Calypso is a pretty reputable place. The large (mural size) work hanging in their lobby on Gatorboard (with no frame or glass) includes Bill Atkinson, Charles Crammer, and others. They also did printing for Galen Rowell and have one of his pieces in the lobby but it is a smaller piece (20x30) framed and matted - not what the original questioner was asking.

 

Calypso offers other options as well, including mounting on acrylic. You could check their website (www.calypsoinc.com) for some ideas.

I'm considering a Videoptics viewer (www.videoptics.com) to allow me

to more easily view color negatives. Of course, I can view

composition and sharpness with a loupe. But it's difficult enough

for me to "see" the image past all the yellow mask and darn near

impossible for a non-photographer. Setting up the scanner to scan a

bunch of negs just for someone to say "I want that one" takes too

much time.

 

Does anyone have experience with the Videoptics viewers? If so,

which one and what do you think? Are there any better (and cheaper)

alternatives?