michael_fox

Thanks. I too have observed a marked improvement in professionalism at the check points since the TSA people showed up. Just haven't had a "film" experience with them yet.

Thanks for the answers/observations so far. Any comments on preference for scanning color negative film vs. color reversal film? I have heard that one is thicker (don't remember which but I presume the negative film due to the orange mask layer) and, therefore, may not get as critical a focus in the scanner as one may achieve with the other. According to experience, any truth to this ugly rumor?

I'm curious David. Are you carrying slower film (say, ASA 100)? If so, do they try to get you to have it x-rayed - even if it is sheet film? Do you have to tell them things like "I intend to push process to ASA 1600?"

I'd like to find out what people are using for color negative film in

4x5 for landscape. What LF color negative film do you use and why?

Also, is there an inherent advantage of reversal vs. negative film

when scanning (i.e. is one better than the other for some reason like

fewer layers of emultion)?

 

My preferences:

 

I prefer to use quick/readyloads for lower weight and because I'd

like to limit the number of things I have to deal with as I get into

LF -- I'm just not interested in dealing with loading film holders

right now, unless is can't be avoided. My final "product" is a

digital file for the web and a print (made digitally on an Epson and

on the LightJet). I usually do my own scans on an Imacon film

scanner but may occasionally will have them done on a lab's drum

scanner when I want even better resolution. I prefer to have the

film record things as faithfully as possible so that I can decide wht

I want to change later. Finally, I sometimes find myself wishing the

film could capture more dynamic range than it does.

 

Background/details:

 

I have been using Velvia and Provia reversal film in my Hasselblad

and Nikon F5. (Just blindly doing what everyone else seemed to be

doing.) I recently did a simple test of shooting a ramp of exposures

with grey card using the 35mm camera and Velvia, Provia, Ektachrome

and Ektachrome plus. Then I layed the film strips next to each other

on the light table. I was amazed to find out how green Velvia was

and how much the shadows blocked up more quickly compared to the

rest. Provia seemed to have a wider dynamic range with better shadow

detail but was slightly blue. Ektachrome (EPN and EPP) seemed to be

the most neutral. (This was using my eye under D5000 lighting - no

instrument). So I was thinking that if I stay with color reversal

film, I'll at least switch to Provia (better grain anyway) and maybe

to Ektachrome.

 

But now I'm wondering if it might make even more sense to move to

negative film. I understand the choices in quick/readyloads are

pretty limited (Portra VC, NPS, NPC). My understanding is that

Portra is not very saturated or contrasty (because it was designed

for portraits, I guess). Not sure about the Fuji options. So I'm

wondering which negative films people have found to be most pleasing

in the landscape environment and why.

Thanks for all the great feedback. I'm gonna give the Fujinon a whirl.

May we have a drum roll please...

 

I know that you are all waiting anxiously on Friday night for the results of my famous (infamous!) lens testing, round 2. Even those of you who thought I'm wasting my time are holding your breath to see if I will show myself to be the ultimate newbie ignoramous! So rather than have you toss and turn and loose sleep tonight, I figured I'd post the results right away.

 

Tested:

150 Schneider Apo Symmar

150 Rodenstock Apo Sironar N

 

Test components:

Kodak EPP Readyloads

Kodak Grey Cards

GretagMacbeth ColorChecker DC (the one with lots of patches)

GTI Soft-View Standard Transparency/Print Viewer

 

Test methodology:

Grey cards and ColorChecker placed under D5000 light to photograph

Exposure was 4 sec at f/22

Transparencies processed in one batch by NewLab in San Francisco

Transparencies scanned with Imacon 848 using same profile (which, by the way, is a little on the cool side)

(Remember, I'm interested in relative difference, not absolute color accuracy so the scanner and film color don't matter as long as they are the same for both shots.)

Photoshop 7.01 eyedropper tool used to compare RGB values in highlights, shadows and various color mid-tones

An example is attached.

 

Test 2 Results:

Initially, there were slight differences in the RGB values due to slight variation in hand-timed exposure. But a single curve adjustment (grab the middle and pull up a little on the darker one) to the composite RGB curve yeilded RGB values which were within +/- 1. Bottom line: no difference.

 

This made me curious about the previous test. So I scanned these in too. Remember, while the subjects varied in the first test, the lighting, subject, film, exposure, etc. for those lenses (210mm that time) were still the same for both lenses. These shots were also all at f/22 and, depending on which set-up it was, 2 - 4 seconds. For comparing these shots, I put the eyedropper tool on the white paper I placed in each shot with either an "R" or "S" on it. I also placed the eyedropper on different parts of the subject - same place for both shots.

 

Test 1 Results: again, after adjusting for slight differences in exposure by pulling the composite RGB curve up or down, the Rodenstock Blue values were consistely 5 (out of 255) less than the Blue values for Schneider (i.e. more yellow) -- a significant and visible difference. A second curves adjustment of the Blue channel (pull it up on the Rodenstock or down on the Schneider) easily brought the two images into line. I was able to detect no difference (+/-1 out of 255 for any given channel) elsewhere on the picture.

 

Conclusions:

1) Color differences between lenses of the same manufacturer can be significant enough to be visible to the eye in the final chrome. But because I don't know the history of the "yellow" lens, it could have been abused as described by one of the posts above.

2) Depending on the individual lens, color differences between different manufacturers may or may not be visible.

3) Where differences do exist, they are minor (5/255 = 2%)

4) Where differences do exist, they are easily corrected with a simple curves adjustment in Photoshop.

5) All the input from everyone above ("there is a difference", there isn't a difference", "it doesn't matter") was correct!

 

Thanks again for everyone's indulgence.<div></div>

I'm looking for a lens in the 240mm range for 4x5. Size and weight

are important as this will be carried in the field. Sharpness,

especially at infinity is very important. At this focal length, I

suspect that image circle will be plentiful for 4x5 regardless of

lens choice.

 

I have read Kerry Thalman's write-up which indicates the f/9 Fujinon

A to be an excellent lens for the purposes I propose but he didn't

indicate why this would be better than the Apo Ronar (although I

believe the Rodenstock is slightly heavier). A pro friend of mine

has suggested the f/9 Apo Ronar would be a better choice. I have no

access to either lens to try before buying so I'm looking for

experienced input here.

 

Has anyone had experience with both? If so, what does the balance

sheet (pluses and minuses) look like? Is the Fujinon "Apo"

corrected? If Kerry is listening, why the Fujinon over the Apo

Ronar? Thanks much.

I know that "thin" polarizers (usually with no front threads) are designed to overcome vignetting problems such as described above. Does anyone have experience with a particular polarizer that does NOT vignette when on top of a center filter on either the 47XL, 58XL or the 55 Apo?

Bob,

 

Every Photoshop book I'v read says that the Photoshop Unsharp Mask filter is, in fact, a simulation of the effect of the traditional wet darkroom unsharp mask technique. Since I don't use a wet darkroom, I don't know if that's true or not.

No LF shots yet due to waiting on camera to be delivered. (But I did check the chimney last week to make sure Santa will have no problems!)

 

Also, I'm not a pro, just a guy who's trying hard to improve. So, if you have any criticism or critique, I'm all ears. But please be gentle! :-)

 

http://www.mefox.org

 

I put these few shots together quickly using Photoshop web gallery - don't know how to use FrontPage yet. Most are "proofs" in that they are just SF or MF scans that were cropped, sharpened and stuck up there. The few with white borders are what I consider representative of my finished work.

How about center filters, followed by, say, a polarizer? Or a center filter followed by a Lee Filters adapter ring? Anyone doing this on either the 47XL or the 58XL? If so, did you have to use a particular polarizer or did you have to modify the Lee adapter ring?

Jorge,

 

... Heaven forbid if the reason the person is selling them is because the seller is going to buy new lenses from one of the other big 4!

Don't see it on the website but I've had excellent results by calling the contact number on their website and speaking to the LF application engineer - Steve Inglima at x252.

 

Telephone: (631) 761-5000

Fax: (631) 761-5090

Email: info@schneideroptics.com.

Mail:

Schneider Optics Inc.

285 Oser Ave

Hauppauge, NY 11788

Michael, thanks for the suggestion. Your post prompted me to think more about why this question keeps getting twisted and I think I see the problem here.

 

1) I original question was about picking a mixed-vendor set of lenses because of concerns of color differences between manufacturers. I did indeed find a difference (yes, based on a single sample) that seems to be in agreement with some individual observations and experience and testing that Calumet did - according to one post. Some responders agree that there is a difference but say it is not important. Other responders have said they have not noticed a difference. Bottom line - not a problem for anyone on the forum. That's good news!

 

2) Most responders said the differences in color due to other factors are greater than the differences between the lenses. I agree to that too. But that wasn't my question.

 

So, I think everyone is in violent agreement on two points!

 

The concern was about the mixture of the two situations. For example, in the early morning alpine glow, when the light is pink/magenta, and I decide to make two images with two different focal lengths, will one of my shots look pink/magenta while the other one looks more red due to extra yellow? Will it create more work for me to color correct that later, such that it would be easier to not mix vendors in the first place? These were the questions I set out to answer.

 

Many have answered that question directly based on their own experience and the consensus seems to be it's not going to be a big deal. (BTW, until I get MUCH better, the chances of me setting up an LF camera and getting off 2 different compositions in the same sunrise light are next to nil anyway! Not so with my trusted Hassy!)

 

So why did I start down this path? My question/concern was raised because a pro photog who I respect - both for his behind-the-camera ability and for his behind-the-PS-keyboard ability - told me to be careful of lens color. This photographer was not advocating buying all from any particular vendor. In fact he, like many on this forum, has said I can't go wrong with any of the big 4. He wasn't advocated buying all lenses from a single vendor either. However, he advised that before mixing, I should check out the color differences between the 4 vendors for myself in order to see if the situation bothered me or not. This same person told me that the color differences are non-linear and not readily fixed in Photoshop.

 

Obviously, this information and its source caused me to be more cautious about this topic than most of the rest of the forum seems to think is warranted. Regardless, that's why I started down this path. And, as I put in my previous post, I can sometimes be stubborn (at least according to my wife) so I'm going to do the one additional test - just to satisfy my own curiosity. Unfortunately, Michael, due to my schedule, I won't have the gear long enough to test the three lighting conditions that you suggest. But, as I mentioned above, I fully agree that the color differences between various daylight conditions will far exceed the color differences between the lenses.

 

Thanks much to everyone for all the facts, opinions, and, yes, even the rants. They all serve to keep me on my toes, question my own questions, and help me learn! This forum is a great resource.

Hey, Eugene, You named 3 on my list! )Can't find an Fujinons to rent around here and )

Bob, I must disagree with you. My test was looking for RELATIVE color difference, not abolute color accuracy. Reason? I want to assemble a set of lenses that work together as a "system" - with the same (or very similar) color throughout the set (if that's possible). Also, as several others have pointed out, the differences in film emulsion and daylight will affect the absolute color cast of the shot. Of course, I understand this. I just want to make sure that some of my lenses don't make that particular shot look one way and other lenses make it look another way.

 

Am I being too particular? Maybe... even probably... but I've come from a background of SF and MF where I didn't have to deal with differences between lens manufacturers. This is new to me so I'm going to check it out.

 

I didn't use gray cards in the first test because my interest was to see if there was a perceptable color difference with "real" subjects. I don't really care if there is a color difference on a gray card if I can't notice it in "real" situation. Therefore, since I mostly like landscape photography, I shot outdoors and took shots of trees and leaves and flowers, etc. (My backyard is rather small and uninteresting!)

 

My controls were the two other lenses that were tested in the same lighting with the same exposure, film, camera, position, etc., etc. Therefore, the color of the light doesn't matter - it was the same for all three lenses. The color of the film doesn't matter - same film for all three lenses, etc. The subject doesn't matter - it was the same for all three lenses.

 

In each case, regardless of whether the subject in a set of 3 exposures was a white flower or green grass, or rocks around a tree trunk or a gray, weathered statue, you can put all three color trannies for a given subject on the light table (with something covering the little R, S or N mark in the corner!) and pick the one that's more yellow than the other two and, with 100% reliability, it will be the one shot through the Sinar/Rodenstock lens. I actually had my wife look at them. She doesn't have any training or expertise in color correction so she initially gave them a quick glance and said they all looked the same. This is good because it tells me that most people won't recognize the difference. I then asked her to look closer and pick the one that is more yellow than the other two. 5 out of 5 times she picked the Rodenstock trannie as being more yellow. I then asked her to pick the one that was more yellow from the remaining two. She couldn't tell the difference between the Nikon and Schneider trannies.

 

Now, I never said that one was better than the other, just that they are different. It could be that the Rodenstock is providing accurate color while the Schneider and Nikkor are cooler. I don't know since I didn't do the tests you suggest.

 

But another poster also suggested this so when I test tomorrow, I will include a Kodak graycard and a GretagMacbeth Color Checker shot for each lens. I'll photograph and later view them under a GTI Soft-view standard transparency/print viewer (for controlled D5000 lighting). Again, this won't matter at all for the relative difference between the S & R lenses but it WILL allow me to see which seems to be more accurate in an absolute sense.

 

Finally, a couple of responders suggested that the color difference, even if noticable, won't matter if my end goal is a print (which it is). I hope that's true. However, as I mentioned in my original post, I've been told that the color differences are not linear and, therefore, are not easily corrected in Photoshop. So I will also test that.... see if I can make a single curves correction that will match the two images.

 

Heck, at the end of this, I may conclude (as some of you already have) that I've wasted my time. Hmmm, I spent time learning about LF lenses and lens color. In the process, I've rented a couple different cameras and played with movements and learned a bunch about using LF cameras and film holders and shutters and dark cloths, and.... When I'm done, one way or the other, I'll make an equipment selection that I like based on real, albeit limited, experience. I'll be more content with my decision because I made it form my own reasons. Then I'll be able to put the issue to rest and move on to the really fun part - making images. Waste of time? Nah.

 

So, the plot thickens.

 

I talked to the pro camera store where I rented the gear. The guy was surprised at the results since he too had told me that I wouldn't see a color difference. Then he checked and discovered that the Rodenstock was actually a Sinar (both brand names were on the lens so I guess they OEM from Rodenstock). He told me that Sinar buys the lenses from Rodenstock, disassembles them, and then does custom modifications that DO typically result in a warmer colored lens. Perhaps Bob S. knows something about this. Anyway, perhaps this is why my results differ from the general consensus of this forum: that color differences between the big 4, if any, will be negligible.

 

Just for grins, and because I'm really curious now, and because I'm particular about my color and, well, mostly because I'm just a stubborn SOB, I'm going to see this thing through. I have arranged to try another Schneider and Rodenstock ("pure" Rodenstock this time) in a different focal length to try my tests again. I'll pick it up tomorrow (Wednesday) and should have the trannies back on Friday. I'll let you know what I find.

 

BTW, J.O., if I do again find that there is a significant color different, all kidding aside, I don't have a densitometer but I will scan them in and look at the numbers. These, of course, won't be abolute values since the scanner is involved but this WILL provide the relative difference between the two.

Thanks Eugene. I believe I properly controlled the variables you mentioned. Film was all from a single box of EPP. Lighting was the same for each of the three shots in a set. I shot around noon so the light wasn't changing much/at all and sometimes I used the Schneider first, sometimes the Rodenstock, etc. Exposure was the same for all three shots in a set and I didn't move the camera during a set of 3 shots. I used a lens hood for each shot. Even if one of the shutters was a little off, I don't see how that would give a particular color cast. No color cast was evident in the Nikkor or Schneider lenses on the underexposed trannies.

 

Processing is one place where there could have been differences - don't know for sure. I hadn't thought of that. However, I just called the lab and asked them to check based on the sticker numbers for the job. They told me that all three sets of trannies went through within minutes of each other, perhaps on the same tray. At any rate, the guy said they had not changed chemicals during that time.

 

I guess my concern is that the color difference is so obvious on the light table that it bugs me. It is disappointing because I had several Rodenstocks in my "ideal" list. If I saw only minor differences like with the Nikon / Schneider color difference, I wouldn't care.

 

Hmmm. Perhaps there's just something wrong with this one lens. Especially since the warning that some people had given me previously was that Rodenstocks were cooler, not warmer.

I'd like to verify if my recent testing experience is in line with

the decades of real world experience of many of you on the forum.

 

As I think most of you are aware, I'm new to LF. I'm putting

together my shopping list for new LF lenses. Based on specs alone

(size, weight, sharpness, etc.), my "perfect" list ends up being a

mixture of lenses from the big 4 (well big three really since I can't

find info or rental Fujinon lenses).

 

So the next concern I had was color. Some have told me that the

different lens families exhibit different color characteristics. I

presume this is due to the different coating methodologies they use.

Some have told me that these will be noticable in prints and are not

easily correctable in Photoshop due to the specific non-linear

spectral response of the coatings. Others have told me that the

differences in lighting outdoors are more varied than the lens colors

so just mix and match. That makes sense too, unless you happen to be

taking shots of a given location and lighting with different lenses.

 

So my next step was to do some limited testing. I rented a

Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikkor. Schneider 210 Apo Symmar,

Rodenstock Apo Sironar-N and Nikkor 180 W. This was the closest

match I could find to rent.

 

I went out to my back yard and took pictures of nothing in

particular - a statue in the garden, a swing, some leaves under a

tree, etc. At each location, I set the camera in one place and

exposed a piece of Ektachrome 100 Plus for each of the three lenses.

(Refocusing each time, of course). But each of the 3 shots at a

given spot had the exact same camera location, same exposure, same

film. Each location was in different lighting. Some in total shade,

some in sunlight, some in bright contrast of sunlight and shade. All

shots were taken around noon.

 

Oh yes, and all shots within a set of 3 had the same mistakes. Most

sets of 3 were properly exposed. 2 sets of 3 were underexposed by

about a stop since I had my spot meter set wrong. (But I made the

same mistake for all three lenses in the set). Anyway, I just figure

that makes the test even better!

 

I had been told that the Rodenstocks were typically bluer and

exhibited higher contrast. So imagine my suprise when I discovered

that one of the shots in each of the sets was more yellow than the

other two and that it was always the Rodenstock lens. The color

rendition of the Nikon and Schneider looked very similar to me

although the Nikkor lens seems to be a very tiny bit more blue than

the Schneider.

 

I haven't measured them with any instrument, this is just what I see

on a light table. I also don't know which one is more correct in

color, although the Rodenstock did impart a slight yellow cast to a

white flower. I just rechecked the flowers and they're not yellow.

 

So, oh great fountains of knowledge: Did I get a lemon (ha, yellow,

that's funny) Rodenstock from the rental counter or is what I'm seing

a generally known color difference between manufacturers? Also,

what's been your experience with mixing lens manufacturers in

your "kit"?

Jorge,

 

I believe you are mixing up the two different concepts of "unsharp mask" and "layer masks".

 

Unsharp mask is a tool (called a "filter") in Photoshop which mimics the unsharp mask process used in the darkroom. The darkroom process was recently discussed on another thread in this forum. Unsharp mask is used to increase apparent sharpness and contrast in an image.

 

Layer masks may be used in Photoshop to hide part of a layer. As Ralph points out above, one way to blend two images is to put them on different layers. You can make the bottom layer show through by changing the opacity of the upper layer. This is not so different from the process you describe for preparing the shadows negative so it blends well with the highlight negative.

 

But if simply making one layer show through the other does not produce the desired result, you can apply a layer mask to one of the layers, so that it blocks that part of the layer from being seen. Of course, there are many ways to skin the cat, just like in the wet darkroom.

 

Bottom line, the two main issues with blending images seem to be registering them perfectly and controlling the blending. Same problems for wet or digital darkroom.

Ralph, I overheard a viewer of the Ansel Adams 100 year exhibit in SF say something to the effect of "well, I always thought he was a great photographer because he captured things at the right moment. I didn't realize he manipulated things so much. Maybe if I manipulated my pictures as much as he did..."

 

I grant you that changing the image (erasure tool, cloning out telephone poles, etc.) are more like animation (in my book) than photography.

 

On the one hand, wet darkroom folks use algorithms and heuristics to devise schemes of exposure and developing to manipulate the particles on the film. Then, given that "layer" of manipulation is done, they use other manipulation techniques, "layered" on top of the initial manipulations, like contrast masks and dodging and burning to further alter how the image is transfer from the negative to the paper.

 

On the other hand, digital darkroom folks use mathematical algorithms to accomplish the same manipulations.

 

Both artists are working to produce an image that represents what they saw and felt when they made the image. Both artists are manipulating the intervening steps in order to work within the limitations of the films and papers available to them. What makes one type of manipulation more "right" than another?

Thanks Jeffrey, but no thanks. I really just wanted an answer so I can get past the equipment purchase part and get to the making images part. Anyway, from the input above, it sounds like I *probably* won't need one for the 90mm but *probably* will need one for the 75mm.

Mike T: I read the URL. It says that angle of coverage and angle of view are different parameters. Unfortunately, it uses different frames of reference for the two parameters. Yes, for a given fixed position of the 4x5 film, the angle of view of any two 90mm lenses will be the same.

 

What the article doesn't cover is that the image circle is larger than the film. Therefore, the angle of view of the entire area of the image circle is wider on lenses that have wider angles of coverage.

 

However, now that I think about it, that has nothing to do with the problem you are reporting since you're using the 4x5 mask, thereby restricting the viewing area back to the fixed case. Therefore, consider my comment withdrawn.

Michael, yes, you're probably right. That is, angle of view is some function of coverage angle and focal length. I'm too lazy to do the trigonometry on this one to see if it works out to the exact problem reported (Nikkor 90mm/8 matches up with viewfinder 75mm). However, since lenses of a given focal length do vary in coverage angle, I would also expect them to vary in angle of view and to vary enough to make the multi-focus viewfinder not match up exactly to a particular lens.

Mike, is it possible that this is an angle of view problem? Many/most of the 90mm lenses out there seem to have a 100 degree angle of view. Yes, the newer XLs, etc. are wider - 110 degrees - but the "older" ones seem to be about 100 degrees. The Nikkor 90/8 SW has a 105 degree angle view. Most of the 75mm lenses seem to have a 105 degree angle of view. Therefore, it would not seem unreasonable for the viewer to see interpret what you see through your 90/8 SW as a 75mm lens? Does this make sense?