todd_west

Scott, tripod stability is dominated by three things. How well the camera is connected to the head, how solidly the tripod yoke connects to the legs, and how well the leg locks secure the leg. This doesn't matter too much with regards to wether or not the tripod will physcially be able to hold the camera off the ground, but it has a great deal to do with how much the tripod vibrates in response to photographers, wind, tripping shutters, and so on. The yoke connections on the 475 aren't bad, but the A100 is significantly better with regards to camera connection and leg locks and also has an edge on the yoke. I only have a 4x5, but my experience testing tripods with view cameras and also big 35mm glass is that it's very difficult to suppress high frequency vibrations in the heavier Bogens. With the exception of the C series, the Ries are significantly better in this regard.

 

So I'll put in a seventh vote for the Ries. If you absolutely can't swing it, try to pick up a Gitzo 1500 or 1410; Gitzo's leg locks are much better than the ones on aluminum Bogens and the stability is correspondingly better. The price on these pods is about the same as the 475 but, as other posters have already pointed out, your best investment over the long term is definitely the A100.

<p><i>The deer are in there, just tough to spot due to the cover.</i><p>

 

<p>Never said there weren't any.</p>

 

<p><i>Also, just for the record, there is no relationship between bird watching/photography at Sauvie Island and any airport.</i></p>

 

<p>A curious assertion, as the island often lies under the glide path for PDX and planes approaching from the east regularly make a 180 degree turn over the island, dropping a couple thousand feet in the process. Sauvie's farther out so the planes are higher and thus quieter than at Vancouver Lake, where I've seen flocks of cormorants be spooked by every other plane on some days, but it is noticeable. I'm surprised you haven't picked up on this, as during and immediately after the hunting season even non-game birds are jumpy (this is also obvious at places like Nestucca Bay, Ridgefield, Potholes, and Columbia NWR) and that tends to amplify their response to the aircraft.

For large animals, you should probably stick to Washington Park.

 

I used to live literally the other side of the creek from Tualitin Valley nature park and never found it very good for wildlife even at times when few people were around. Illegally smoking teenagers tended to be abundant, though.

 

I've found birds around Sauvie and Vancouver Lake to be pretty skittish and often hard to approach close enough for good photos with an 800mm lens, presumably due to all the aircraft in and out of Portland International. Oaks Bottom, across from Oaks Park, often has herons from the Ross Island heronry and egrets but distance is a problem there as well.

 

One generally sees more birds on the River S unit at Ridgefield, but they're often far away. I've come to prefer the Carty Unit. William Findley NWR can be pretty good once the trails open up after breeding season, but don't expect much except distant geese and the occasional raptor in winter. Ankeny NWR and the other NWR in the area are good for birding, but distance is again a problem for phography.

 

My most successful photographic encounters have tended to be farther north and not near Portland at all. Nisqually NWR is usually pretty good, and I've had a fair amount of luck shooting from a kayak at Deception Pass. Kakaying into Potholes Resivior once the summer birds have arrived works pretty well too. Birch Bay and Drayton Harbor up by Blaine are heavily used wintering grounds and the birds occasionally come in close enough to be photographable from shore.

 

Fir Island (Skagit Delta), Skagit River, and Columbia NWR are all good spots for birding, but not very good for photographing.

 

I've not been there, but you may want to try Willapa Bay or Gray's Harbor.

 

Generally, I find I get more use out of my 400 3.5 with a spotting scope converter than I do with a camera on the back of it.

I considered both Berelebach and Stabil, but couldn't find a good way to order one from the US back when I was looking for tripods. The Ries C series leaves something to be desired, so I ended up doing a side by side comparison of the Gitzo 1325 and the Ries H600. I found that with my equipment (Acratech Ultimate, 400 f/3.5, Bender 4x5) there was no real difference in stability between the two for long teles or 1:1 macro (if anything the Gitzo was maybe a touch better). The Gitzo cost less, is smaller, weighs about half as much, and is faster to set up, so it was an easy decision.

Just to offer a different viewpoint here, I use just one hood---a 77mm screw in folding rubber Hoya. 77mm is the same size as my chosen filter diameter (they're all standardized). I carry a couple of stepping rings for filters, so adding the hood on is trivial (even when not using filters). The hood folds back for use with wide angle lenses and you can also bend it around so that it points in the direction the camera's looking.

 

My widest is a 90 f/8 SA on 4x5, but there's probably enough margin in the hood it would work with a 90 SA XL (my other two are, incidentally, also a 150 and 240).

 

Not as thorough as a compendium shade, but less hassle, faster to work with, and faster to chuck in a pack in the field. I'd go batshit if I tried to use a system like Michael's.

 

> How do I know it will not vignette?

 

Look at the ground glass. If you don't see any vignetting, it's not vignetting. It really is that simple.

<p><i>1. What Viewing Distance, for critical judgement with unaided eyes*, would YOU say should be the standard? While you are at it, what is a "normal" distance?</i></p>

 

<p>I'm a slide shooter, so my critical judgement standard is a 5x loupe. That seems to be equivalent to being about six inches or so away from a 20x24 print; far enough to focus one's eyes without straining, but close enough for a good inspection. The 20x24 here isn't accidental; a 5x loupe on 4x5 ground glass is essentially WYSIWYG for a 20x24 print and I happen to like that size as a good compromise between a window like feeling and the more intimate feeling of a smaller print. My normal viewing distance is usually from the couch to wherever the print is hung. Five feet, ten feet, something like that.</p>

 

<p><i>2. How Much do you typically enlarge your prints? 4x5 to 8x10? 5x7 contact prints? 8x10 to 16x20?</i></p>

 

<p>4x5 to 20x24 and 35mm to 8x10 are my typical enlargements. I personally find an 8x enlargement ratio somewhat marginal with regards to "close inspection print quality" though my recent switch from an RMS 10 film to an RMS 7 will probably change that (I'm finding no real difference between the two at a 5x enlargement ratio). This is for Durst Lambda prints via postprocessed drum scans from a Heidelberg Tango; I'm a little more conservative with optical processes.</p>

You could buy something else, but why would you want to? My review is at <a href="http://www.rdrop.com/users/twest/photos/gear/tripods.html#Acratech-Ultimate">http://www.rdrop.com/users/twest/photos/gear/tripods.html#Acratech-Ultimate</a> and also discusses the trivial fix if the ballhead's somehow become misadjusted and isn't clamping tightly for you to be able to stand on the head without it moving.

Phillipe, the amount of illumination varies with the phase of the moon. That may be where your 2.5 stop difference is coming from.

<p><i>Have you ever thought of an idea for a camera modification?

</i><p>

 

I'm in the middle of designing one. It would be, umm, a collection of modifications and optimizations of a Bender 4x5, Canham DLC, Linhof Technikardan, Toho FC-45X, Toyo 45A, and a Winser Field, with input from a few other designs. Instead of saving up for lenses, I'm saving up for a milling machine. Does that count?

 

With regards to the Graphic, take a look at field cameras which implement back tilt. There's a variety of implementations using different pivot points and support shapes. I use monorails, but the differences mainly seem to be ones of aesthetics and convenient layout within the context of a given design, not in the usuability of the camera.

Ron, any real internal frame pack (Arctery'x, Gregory, Kelty, Mountainsmith, North Face, Osprey, and similar manufacturers) would be a good choice provided it fits you well. I personally despise the LowePro photography specific packs as they're not very useful for carrying much besides photo gear, even though they have an OK frame and suspension.

 

So you know where I'm coming from, I've been hauling camera gear around for close to 20 years now. I use a Mountainsmith Telemark and Frostfire II which I bought about 10 years ago (back when Mountainsmith was cheap). Both are internal frame packs with full suspensions. The Telemark has tens of thousands of miles on it, the Frostfire's well into the hundreds. Most of this distance is hiking and backpacking, but it also includes hefty amounts of skiing, bicycling, more technical things like scrambling, rock climbing, mountaineering, and various other stuff like snow camping, hiking from a kayak, and so on. I regularly carry some mixture of backcountry skis, poles, crampons, and ice axes in addition to around 15 pounds of camera gear, the 10 essentials, and whatever camping equipment I have (bivy sack, tent, sleeping back, stove, etc.). I usually wind up with a pack in the 30 to 45 pound range, but I've sometimes carried 55. (Kerry Thalmann regularly carried 65 with the the same kind of gear when he was shooting 8x10.)

 

So I'd like to think I have a bit of clue about this kind of thing.

 

Other posters have recommended various packs which work well for them. What hasn't been pointed out, and what I think is probably most important, is every manufacturer tailors their packs differently and different packs from the same manufacturer have different cuts as well as coming in different sizes. How each pack fits to your particular body depends on a lot of fine details. A good sales clerk will do a good job adjusting a pack properly, but that's not at all the same as having one which really fits well. In my experience it's not until you've got a couple hundred miles on it that you really know how well it works. Bring as much of the stuff you usually carry as you can to throw in packs you're trying out, add 10 or 20 pounds or so for good measure, and walk around in the store for as long as the clerks will let you. This'll ususally narrow the field down to a couple of packs which fit pretty well.

 

For example, even though I have two older Mountainsmiths, current Mountainsmiths don't fit me at all. I find Ospreys too wide, Keltys too short, and Gregorys just about perfect. I recently came close to buying a Gregory (my Telemark's almost worn out) and ended up walking around the store wearing a Gregory with another guy wearing an Osprey---he'd been wearing the Gregory while I was trying the Osprey and we struck up a conversation in handing the packs to each other---discussing the two packs. He liked just about everything I disliked about how the Osprey fit and I liked just about everything in the Gregory's cut that didn't work for him. When carrying a significant load, what matters is how well you fit the pack, and that's at least as personal as how well a bike seat fits your butt.

 

The more load carrying you do, the easier it is to find a good fit; there's no substitute for experience. For lighter loads, namely around 20 pounds or so and lighter, it's relatively easy to get away with a pack that doesn't fit all that well. The pack may well feel fine with this amount of weight, too. I find fit becomes much more sensitive at 30 pounds and up. Sometimes problems are obvious, as in Christopher's case, sometimes they're much more subtle. I once went through a stretch of months where my back was sore most of the time, particularly after sleeping, and usually worst in the middle of the week. I eventually figured out the problem was I'd added around 5 pounds to my usual load in my usual pack, which changed the waist harness's fit on the pelvis. Put my sacrum slightly out of whack and kept it from seating quite right, hence the sore back. I'm still not sure why it took two or three days after a weekend trip for things get the most uncomfortable.

 

Probably the only drawback of getting a real pack over a LowePro is you may have to be little more careful in loading the pack to keep camera gear safe. Most of the time it doesn't matter, but a good fall while skiing on ice can be pretty hard on lenses if they're on the impact side of the pack and aren't padded (yes, I figured this out the hard way). Shrug. That's what dark cloths and spare clothes are for. Granola works pretty good too. I've also come close to cracking a dark slide in a fall while scrambling; my extra film holders were right under the crampon patch and I ended up hitting the crampons on rock on the way down, pushing a crampon point into the film holder. No big deal, if your brain's turned on.

 

The one other thing I've found fiddly is the best place to put a tripod is through the compression straps on one side or the other of the pack (not in the back where the silly little tripod holder on the LowePros goes) which, depending on the size of the pack can make for a tight fit if you're carrying skis. In my case the yoke of my 1325 is wide enough I can fit the rear binding on the ski between the legs of the tripod and it's not a problem, but it would be a hassle with a 3021.

 

Witold, there doesn't seem to be much disagreement here. There's a strong camp for no change in exposure and one guy who's saying typical movements require no change in exposure and extreme movements require maybe as much as half a stop with most lenses. Typical variation in film chemistry and processing run to a third of a stop or so, yet nobody ever complains about it. Half a stop is not much bigger than a third of a stop.

<p><i>density of light on the film area is therefore quite dramatically reduced</i></p>

 

<p>Donald, I'm not quite sure what you mean by dramatic here. The component of light normal to the ground glass falls off a great deal, but the overall magnitude of the incident light falls off less rapidly. Hence the use of things like the Silvestri tilting loupe which look along the incident light path in order to compensate for the relatively directional scattering off the ground glass. My understanding is film is a far more diffuse scatterer than ground glass, so what matters with regards to exposure is the total incident magnitude, not the normal component. The area of an elipse is linear with the semimajor axis, but doing the full math on the optics to figure out the semimajor axis as a function of angle within the image cone would indeed be a huge pain. I've done some crude 1/(1+tan()) type approximations and get plots which loosely correspond to Schneider's illumination figures, so I just use Schneider's illumination graphs and compensate according to the rules of thumb I've described above. I don't have a densiometer and I don't shoot test charts, so it's not like I can prove what I'm doing is correct. But I regularly shoot at the edges of the image circle and get consistently good exposures on slide film, so it seems to work well enough.</p>

 

<p><i>Can you explain this in more detail? When does thin lens apply? What is thin lens?</i></p>

 

<p>I'd have to review my optics to give you a proper definition. As best I recall, thin lens is where the thickness of the lens is negligible compared to the distance between the lens and the focus plane and the distance between the lens and the imaged objects. As typical lenses are around 60mm long and the lens to image distance is on the order of 60 to 250mm, thin lens not really relevant to practical large format photography.</p>

 

<p><i>The answer is NO.</i></p>

 

<p>Jorge, I agree there's negligble change in exposure for negligible change in bellows draw. However, as Donald's pointed out, there's more going on with movements such as tilt and swing than the (usually) small changes in bellows draw which occur in designs with yaw.</p>

The method Charles describes is the de facto method for calibrating ground glass position when building view cameras by hand. As proposed, it's usually a one toothpick method, but things go much faster if you several of them to probe various points on the film plane all at once. I spent a couple hours doing this on the Bender I built and the first set of test shots of a brick wall (taken with a 150 5.6 wide open) came back tack sharp. I've been using the camera for over a year now and haven't had to tweak anything.

Interesting set of almost-but-not-quite-there answers. Well, OK, I can't make head or tails out Jorge's figures.

 

Typically, a lens has about one stop of fall off between on axis and the edge of the image circle at f/22. This varies based on how wide the lens's field of view is and the f stop. The wider the field of view, the larger the falloff. The wider open the lens is, the larger the falloff. (This is often incorrectly referred to as cos^4 falloff; cos^4 only applies where the thin lens approximation applies). Schnieder, in particular, does a pretty thorough job of specifying the illumination curve across the image cone.

 

This means there WILL be an exposure gradient across the film. If movements are minimal---no rise, no fall, no shift, no swing, no rear tilt, and only a few degrees of front tilt---the film intercepts the on axis portion of the image code and there's (usually) very little falloff at the corners of the image (assuming it's lens with decent coverage of a typical focal length; this tends to break down with lenses much shorter than 90mm). With extreme movements, like the 20 degrees of tilt with two or three inches of rise or fall I tend to use, the film ends up intercepting an area at the side of the image code. I'm almost always shooting around f/22, so there's a one stop exposure gradient across the film. In these situations I add something between half a stop and a stop to my exposure to compensate for the falloff. How much I add depends on where the falloff is and where the bright parts of the image are. If the worst falloff is in the dark parts, I'll usually add the full stop. If the image has pretty even illimination, I straddle the falloff so that the parts near the lens axis are overexposed by about half a stop and the parts way off axis are under by about half a stop.

 

So there's my rule of thumb. My lenses are a 90 f/8 Super Angulon, a 150 f/5.6 Fujinon W, and a 240 f/9 Fujinon A. I regularly end up shooting close to the limits of the image circle on all of them.

 

The first post about close up/macro photos and bellows draw is, IMO, misleading. More bellows draw widens the image circle, decreasing the amount of image cone the film intercepts and resulting in a more even exposure across the film. Sure you lose light from increased extension, but that's what two element diopters are for. ;~)

 

Tom is correct the only way to get more even illimination is to use a center filter. However, that's not as simple as it might sound. The optical path through the lens varies as a function of aperture, so even a center filter matched to the lens that it's on will undercorrect for apertures wider than that which it was designed for and overcorrect for apertures smaller than its design point.

 

I find straddling the falloff works fine for lenses as wide as my 90 f/8 Super Angulon at the apertures I shoot, as I'm usually within half a stop of the "ideal" exposure. If I had a 1.5 stop center filter, the exposure would still be off by around a third of a stop. Spending a few hundred dollars to get a sixth of a stop improvement in accuracy is a little silly.

 

If, on the other hand, I was shooting at the edges of something like a Super Angulon 72 XL, which has over two stops of falloff at f/22 a 1.5 stop center filter would probably pull the exposure error down from one stop (if you're straddling the falloff) to something more like a third of a stop. That's a big enough improvement it's worth having the filter, particularly if you're shooting contrasty film.

 

Other posters have also not mentioned which films they're using, which makes it even harder to figure out their experiences. If you're shooting neg film, a stop of falloff is obviously much less of an issue than if you're shooting a high contrast film like Velvia. Subject matter is also important too; a half stop error matters more in copy work than when taking a night shot where all that's visible is are the lights.

 

I usually use Agfa RSX II (a low contrast slide film) in general nature and lanscape photography and find a half stop exposure variation is no big deal. It's noticeable, but do you kinda have to be looking for it. I'm trying out Astia 100F at the moment, but don't have chromes back from the lab yet.

 

These are the two low contrast, neutral slide films currently

available. Given Agfa's made finding 4x5 sheets in the US just about

impossible I'm looking at switching to Astia 100F. Naturally, I've

gotten the data sheet out of Fuji, bought a box of 100F, and am in

the process of trying it out. But I'm also interested in hearing

what others who've used these two films think about how they compare.

<p><i>The hole saw will be a mess and overheat and warp or burr</i></p>

 

<p>Then fer crying out loud drop the RPM on yer drill. I did all three of my (plastic, Copal 0) lensboards with an arbor saw. No problems.</p>

<p><i>Calumet is selling RSX 4x5 for about $72 for 50 sheets.</i></p>

 

Where did you find it? 'cause the only thing their website lists under Film, Paper, and Chemicals->Film->Color Sheet->Agfa is a 135-36 of Scala 200. Which is neither color nor not sheet. A search on RSX turns up the usual 135 and 120, but no sheet film.

 

If I claim I'm in the UK rather than the US, then Traditional Photo->Camera Consumables->Colour Reversal Film - Sheet->Agfa does list RSX II 100. 67.12 pounds sterling ($108 US at the moment) for a 50 sheet box.

 

<p><i>I've been buying RSX-ll - 100 ISO from B&H for $64.95 for 50 sheets 4x5 for several years</i></p>

 

That's about the price I'd pay locally (at least if there was any film locally) but B&H stopped listing 4x5 RSX on their website sometime between a couple months ago and maybe six months ago. Perhaps I should check with Henry Posner about a special order; B&H should have more clout than a local camera shop.

 

<p><i>I bought out Midwest's remaining supply of 8x10 RSXII about a year ago and froze it ... all dated 5/ 2002</i><p>

 

Agfa claims they produce RSX II 100 in 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, and a couple other sizes. The problem is figuring out where to buy it; I emailed Agfa some time ago and have gotten no response.

I've had a box of RSX on order at my local dealer for four weeks, so

it's now about 2.5 weeks overdue and I can't get a straight answer on

when it'll show up. Could be months, for all I know. The situation

obviously leaves something to be desired, but Adorama, B&H, Badger

Graphics, Freestyle, and anybody else I've been able to think of

either don't carry it or have stopped carrying it, which leads me to

suspect Agfa's US distributor is out to lunch on sheet film (135 and

120 seem to be no problem).

 

Anyone know of a good source for Agfa RSX in 4x5? I'll switch to

E100G if forced to, but since it costs 1.5 times as much as RSX and

doesn't work as well for my needs I'd prefer not to.

<p><i>Yes, Agfa RSX is a grainy film. There's no way around it but using a different film.</i><p>

 

<p><i>I think the RSX II series isn't really that good a film as it has a lot of grain.</i><p>

 

<p>Depends on your lab's E-6 channel. Particularly in the US, many "pro" labs seem to have optimized their E-6 chemistry to for the properties of E100 and Provia. As Agfa's rack and tank specifications for AP44 are much tigher than E6 or CR56, this seems to degrade the quality of Precisa and RSX with regards to both grain and color balance. E100G and some of the recent 100Fs have characteristics much closer to RSX, so this may change.</p>

 

<p>In the meantime, two of the three labs I use turn out very grainy RSX slides. Third manages to run RSX with about as much grain as Provia 100F processed at either of the other two labs. All three make most of their money from professionals shooting Fuji, but the diffences in say, an overcast mid grey sky or green bokeh in a macro photo are quite obvious with a 5x loupe.</p>

Static and plexi are horrible. There are coatings which reduce the problem, but don't go there unless you have to.

 

20x24 and larger definitely starts to get heavy. Emily's comments about plaster lath walls are well taken. Sharp drills, multipoint hanging, and expansion bolts are a big help.

 

How do I frame? I buy 10 foot lengths of frame moulding and 32 x 40" sheets of 2mm green glass at a local frame shop (price is around $3.75 a foot for moulding, $8 a sheet for glass), along with frame hardware. 32 x 40" matboard and foamcore come from art stores, usually Utrecht. I cut the moulding to size with a mitre saw and cut the glass, mat board, and foamcore on a Logan Simplex 750. Print goes in with paper tape V hinges to the matboard. Mat, foamcore, and tape are all acid free. I've done 8x10 up to 24x30 prints this way.

 

For 20 x 24 and up I have problems with the print rippling. With regards to presentation, drymount is the way to go. However, it's not archival as there's no way to transfer the print to a different support. Also, in no way can I afford or justify the $5k+ a drymount press this size would cost; I keep meaning to look into iron on drymount but haven't gotten around to it.

 

I've looked into various types of glass. If you have a business license, it's not hard to get TruVue AR or museum grade glass from local distributors or places like M&M Distributors. However, that's going from cheap low iron, lime soda float glass to multicoated water glass and the price jumps from $8 a sheet to $125+ a sheet. Not something I can afford to frame with.

<p><i>So, in your opinion, what is the best deal on a 4x5 camera available?</i></p>

 

<p>Bender 4x5, if you're willing to put it together. Not in the same class as the Toho Shimo FC-45X, but a very capable, lightweight, inexpensive monorail you can beat the crap out of. Mine sees pretty much exclusively field used jammed into a backpack and has been through falls skiing and all manner of other abuse. <a href="http://www.benderphoto.com/">http://www.benderphoto.com/</a>, <a href="http://www.rdrop.com/users/twest/photos/gear/cameras.html#Bender-4x5">http://www.rdrop.com/users/twest/photos/gear/cameras.html#Bender-4x5</a>.</p>

I don't know, but 2k might not be too far out of line if it's at the same build quality as the 80-400 VR. If Nikon pulls out all the stops, I'd expect more like 4k. At least, that's around what gets from extraolating prices from the 400 f/3.5, various 500 f/4s, and the 200-400 f/4 AIS.

Simplest/cheapest way is two element, high diopter closeup lenses like Nikon's 4T and 6T or Canon's 250D---the MTF loss on these is comparable to a 1.4x TC, e.g. functionally zero, especially at the apertures needed beyond 1:1. A 6x7 roll film back or similar is handy as well; it makes the full frame enlargement ratios much more manageable since the film's only half the size of 4x5. A shorter lens will work too, but the diopters are nicer way of getting magnification since they don't cost light like extension does.

I use a Nikon scope converter regularly with my 400 f/3.5 and assorted TCs when birding. It's very nice to still be able to get good views of birds when they're too far away for binoculars or photography without having to lug around both long glass and a spotting scope. If the ground's steady and you've got a good tripod, it's not at all hard to get good viewing of, say, the pattern of a perching peregrine's chest feathers even with stacked TCs at 112x. I've been on boardwalks where people walking 50+ feet away have made good seeing at high magnification impossible due to vibration, however.

 

With say, the TC-300 and the scope converter chromatic aberration in the bokeh is pretty bad, but the in focus region is fine. The situation is better without TCs, but still not what I'd call great. Basically, it's a great gizmo, but don't expect to get quite the quality of a spotting scope priced comparable to your lens.

You can probably also find some wintering over around Fir Island in the Skagit delta. Along with 20,000+ snow geese.