todd_west

<p><i>So, I guess my first thought is, have you measured the contrast in the scenes you're trying to take?</i>

 

<p>Pre-polarizer, the snow's mainline is two to three EV up and the trees two to three EV down, so most of the image is in the four to six stop range. Overall detail in the snow and trees is fine and the prints are certainly acceptable as they are now. The problem is in getting highlight detail on fresh snow faces angled for optimum reflection while also holding enough shadow detail in shaded trees to keep them from blocking up close to the trunk. I'm being something of a perfectionist here in trying to keep really bright faces and really dark trunks from washing out.

 

<p><i>That's one hell of a lot of contrast.</i>

 

<p>Not really; it depends on how much of the toe and heel you're using. With a 4.1 Dmax and levelization, it's all accessible. I figure Ektachrome at 10^2 (6.5 stops), most Fujichrome at 10^2.25 (7.5 stops), and RSX at 10^2.5 (8.3 stops). Most neg films are well over 10^3 (>>10 stops). I don't know of any non-digital way to compress this into the <10^2 range of paper.

 

<p><i>interestingly that it's [RSX's] very prone to react badly to processing that's less than 100% fine tuned</i>

 

<p>Yes and no. Take a look at the E-6 and AP-44 datasheets sometime; AP-44 is essentially a precise specification of Kodak's preferred E-6 processing parameters so, in principle, AP-44 films should process well on just about any E-6 channel. That notwithstanding, there are about 2.5 labs in the pacific northwest which I've found process them well. The one I'm currently using has significant problems with Precisa, but seems to do slightly better with RSX than the other two. I've not had much success ferreting out proprietary process details, but most of the problems at good labs seem to stem from the labs tweaking their processes to compensate for the high blue and depressed green response of current Ektachrome and Fujichrome emulsions. Since RSX is well balanced to start with, doing this screws up its color balance.

 

<p>At any rate, I occasionally shoot E100S and Provia 100F as controls and have found the data sheets for slide films to be very accurate predictors of E-6 film behavior. Astia, in particular, would not be a good choice, as it has slightly less of a contrast range than 100F (the situation's similar with E100S and SW).

 

<p><i>I know this isn�t the theory, but polarisers often seem to me to have a slightly stronger ND effect in areas where there�s not much light or colour.</i>

 

<p>I'm inclined to disagree. I'd not thought of this before, but shadowed or dark areas on sunny days are lit by singly scattered light from the sky while highlights are lit by direct beam radiation. So the fraction of polarised radiation off a diffusely lit surface is higher than one with specular lighting and more of it will be rejected by the lin pol grate in front of the circular polarizer's quarter wave plate. I will look at this more the next chance I get and will try to borrow a linear polarizer to see if not having the phase shifter makes any difference.

 

<p><i>In this scenario I think cloudy or overcast light is the best option.</i>

 

<p>For controlling contrast I quite agree. Unfortunately, it also makes capturing the relief in surface contours such as flowlines, small sastrugi, incipient suncups, frost layers, and the like much harder as the light is not nearly as sculptural. This is where a lot of the life and interest in snow is for me. Clouds also dramatically drop the relief in icefalls, crevasses, seracs, and nieve penitentes.

 

<p>Fill flashing a line of trees several hundred feet away is kinda tricky, too.

 

<p><i>If it's going to be drum scanned and digitally printed anyway, expose a set of brackets</i>

 

<p>Or just shoot Portra and Photoshop for saturation, neutrality, and the rest. Much less work than stitching images together, even with an assisting image overlay plugin---I spend all day sitting in front of a computer and go outside to take pictures to get away from it. Besides, paying $5000+ for a Dmax 4+ scanner which can handle 4x5 or paying $40+/scan isn't high in the priority list---the Epson 2450 would be adequate for neg films and low Dmax slide films (<i>e.g.</i>, not RSX) but only has around half to quarter the resolution I'm looking for (and the 3600dpi follow on doesn't look to be available any time soon).

I have an E3 in my FM2, an E2 in my N90s, and a multigrid in my view camera. I wouldn't use anything but a grid for any kind of nature work, though it is probably most useful when leveling horizons and doing fairly exact rule of thirds kinds of things.

I've started working on this winter's project of shooting in the

snow. The subject matter is mainly evergeen trees and snow. I've

gotten the first round of slides back and, not surprisingly, the pos

film is having a hard time holding both the highlight detail in the

snow and shadow detail in the trees on sunny or lightly overcast days

(EV 14 or 15, ISO 100). Exposing for only highlight or only shadow

detail is not really an option; blown out snow with good trees or

blocked up trees with good snow both leave something to be desired

most of the time. I'm shooting RSX, which has the widest exposure

range of any E-6 (around 8.5 stops), and am already using a polarizer

to knock down the highlights as much as I can. Using an ND grad is

not feasible since snow and trees are mixed throughout the frames.

 

The only way I know to get more latitude is to switch to neg film.

Looking through photo.net, the preferred reversal film for this type

of photography seems to be Agfa Optima II; it has accurate color

rendition and the moderate saturation and contrast I look for in a

film for general nature work. What I'm seeing in the data sheets

supports this, so I'll be trying Optima 100 in 120 to see how it

does. Agfa has, however, discontinued Optima as a sheet film and I

would prefer to shoot 4x5 over 70mm. Unfortunately, the other 4x5

neg options are Portra and NPS, neither of which at all has the

qualities I'm looking for in a nature film.

 

My inclination is just to stick with RSX for 4x5 and go out and shoot

(probably with some Optima handy in a roll film back), but I thought

I'd put out a ping and see if anyone has any other ideas for dealing

with this situation.

 

Oh, and before someone points out the film doesn't matter because

anything which blows the dynamic range of film will blow the range of

a print, be aware the lab I use is now doing drum scans to a high end

Durst photoprinter as their standard print process, so compressing

film levels into what a print can handle is done more or less

automatically---I've already done test prints and gotten results

which are as good as what's on the RSX; the limitation's what I can

get onto film. Art Wolfe uses the same lab, so this shouldn't be a

surprise.

It's not a complete fix for chromatic aberration, but since you're scanning anyway it should be fairly easy to take the worst of the aberration out in Photoshop: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/chromatic.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/chromatic.shtml</a>.

Just grab a camera and look at the ground glass with a loupe at various amounts of swing and tilt. Much easier than reading off measurements on a camera's angle gauges and trying to apply some kind of table or a formula and use that to decide if the image will be "sharp enough", whatever that happens to mean.

 

By the way, it should be the semimajor axii of the ellipses go like (circle radius)(1 + tan(swing or tilt angle)), depending which rotational axis you're looking at. A doubling corresponds to 45 degrees of relative movement; a reasonable enough upper bound, though I've used more.

Even easier way: use a 1/8" sheet of black plastic and an arbor saw. IIRC, 1 5/16" is just about perfect for a Copal 0.

For a rather different take that's NOT in the archives (well, until now, anyway ;~) see, <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>.

I'm a Nikon user and our tilt/shift options are a bit less pricey than Canon's, but not as good. My solution? I bought a view camera. It was cheaper... and big film is much nicer than 135 for the kinds of shooting where there's time to set up movements.

 

I agree tilt would be hard to use at maximum efficiency without ground glass to loupe on. For the problems you describe, what you want is rise. Compare the movements and coverage of 35mm tilt/shift lenses to that of view camera wides available at half the price and you'll see why we're advocating real movements.

Why not just email Ries and ask them how to go about it? http://www.riestripod.com/

<i>The difference is minor though, perhaps a mm or two. Need I worry about that?</i>

 

<p>If you're really worried about it, use a mm or two of shift and rise/fall to get exact centering of the image. Just make sure all swings and tilts are zeroed. ;~) In practice, I can think of only one or two scientific applications where this would matter and those would require measurements of the machining precision of the standards and other parts too. For 99+% of photography, it's hard to imagine a case when any reasonable person would care. Besides, if ever is a problem, you can loosen up the lens and move it to the other side of the hole. Shrug.

One other thing which <b>might</b> an issue is deflection in the camera, head, or tripod. I have a Calumet C2 roll film holder and Bogen 3021. Even on a concrete slab, there's noticeable deflection of the focus plane due to the change in weight when I mimic insertion of the C2 by sitting it on top of the rear standard. I've done this on a number of tripods and heads and it's a non-negligible issue up to something like a Ries J100 with an Acratech Ultimate on a solid floor (and there may still be enough flex in the body alone to be a problem). Shoot on grass, carpet, <i>etc.</i> and it really helps to preload the camera while composing in order to get a composing deflection approximating that of the shooting deflection.

 

<p><i>You'll need a very accurate depth gauge to take that measurement.</i>

 

<p>Which is not hard to get, actually. I was able to get excellent registration of my Bender's ground glass using several toothpicks held to a ruler with rubber bands. Just array the toothpicks along the ruler so they cover the film plane and then walk the ruler back and forth over the ground glass and an opened film holder. After some up and down adjustment of the toothpicks, it rapidly becomes obvious how and where the registration is out. Depending on your camera, you may have to take more or less of it apart to do this.

<i>With the E100VS it seems like the transparencies get a slight overexposure at 2 Stops</i>

 

<p>Then use a reciprocity compensation of, say, 1 1/2 or 1 2/3 stops instead of 2 full stops.

I can confirm Paul's experience with needing 1/125 or better with a 400/3.5 lens and 2x converter on the 3021, but have the opposite reaction. Any tripod where one has to shoot triple digit shutter speeds to get sharp shots leaves something to be desired---a 400 f/3.5 is not that big. It has about the same wind signature as a 4x5, but with more mass and no flexible parts like bellows so it won't move as much.

 

I'm shooting with a 4x5 monorail on a 3021PRO at the moment (still saving up for a Gitzo 1325), and the 3021 is definitely not sturdy enough to shoot at 1:1 with a roll film back. It flexes enough to throw the plane of focus off quite noticeably. The 3021 is also quite prone to wind vibration---as I've noted before, I've been in situations where it's been unable to deliver sharp shots with only a 35mm body and 50mm lens.

 

As I've said before, I think the 3021 is marginally adequate for 4x5. It'll generally be OK in near ideal conditions and moderate to low magnifications, but leaves a lot to be desired. Older 3021s with the cam leg locks and triangular yokes are slightly better, but not by much.

 

Also, don't bother with removing the column and using the low angle adapter instead. The low angle adapter on the 3021PROs makes only minimal contact with the rest of the tripod and is this not very stable. It's probably a little bit better on the non pro versions, but probably not all that great.

 

I've seen the Davis & Sanfords and was not impressed. The 3036 weights a lot, but is still pretty prone to high frequency vibration. The 3036's center braces are a good idea, but so poorly made they don't do much. I also vote against the Ries C series tripods, as their leg locks are quite poorly made. The Tri-Loc H and and J series are pretty nice, but well above your budget.

 

The tripod you're looking for is the Gitzo G1340. Save up another $100.

$300 is not quite enough to do it well. Worthwhile options near that price point are the Gizto 1340 and Ries C100 or C600. Figure another $200 to 300 for a head capable of fully exploiting any of those tripods.

 

If your budget can't expand, the best option is probably Manfrotto/Bogen 3021 legs with a 3047 head, though I would rate that combination as adequate for 4x5 only in near ideal conditions (some will disagree with me on this, but bear in mind my assessments are based on shooting in weather where a 3021 has a hard time delivering sharp shots from a 35mm with 50mm lens).

In the roughly three months since my previous posting in this thread, <b>nobody</b> (besides Paul) has emailed me regarding any problem whatsoever with an Ultimate.

 

<p>In the mean time I've loaned my Ultimate to a couple photographer friends (both pretty serious—multiple medium format systems, moderately long glass, <i>etc.</i>) and they both liked it so much I had a hard time getting the head back!

 

<p><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>

Shrug. I've had modelately bad spots on a couple rolls of Agfa. An ISO 400 roll of Kodak that was ISO 400 on one half of each frame and about ISO 800 on the other half or, far more likely, got processed badly. A roll of Velvia that somehow managed to reciprocity shift yellow. That's out and out defects in or processing problems with only four or five rolls in 10+ years of shooting.

 

All my processing has been done in the US, where Agfa is uncommon enough even experienced clerks at major labs sometimes blink when they see it. I've found processing of Kodak and Fuji C41 and E6 emulsions to be both consistent and good across labs (so long as they're decent, anyway---this includes, Ilkka, non-Agfa processing in the same batch at Prolab). Agfa E6 handling varies widely from lab to lab (I've actually never shot any Agfa C41), as does black and white processing.

 

I've never made it a project to collect compelling evidence for the case, but my experience has been processing quality with less common films (e.g. anything besides Fuji and Kodak color films) pretty closely tracks how often the lab handles that kind of film.

Nick: see my <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=409212">neighbor to neighbor</a> comments.

 

<p>Ilkka: Think that if you want, but it's really not that simple.

If you use a focusing loupe, you'll probably also want to make sure it will handle the extra depth if you opt for 1/8.

The RSX emulsions are a tiny bit granier than Velvia or the E100 family but the color rendition is the usual Agfachrome what you see is just about what you get, rather than the obviously shifted palettes of Velvia or Ektachrome (if you're in the US though, finding a lab with a well tuned Agfa channel can be tricky). RSX is a little saturated for my tastes, but if you're shooting Velvia and VS, that won't be a problem. It's a bit less contrasty than those two, but it may not replace Provia for you.

It depends on what you want to do and how much you want to spend. Your questions are so wide I'm tempted to call trolling; spend some time reading the LF archives here, at www.largeformatphotography.info, and watching LF auctions on eBay. Then come back once you've got a better sense of what's out there---the number of opinions you'll get in response to this post is small compared to the amount of information already readily available.

It's a stretch to say I've hands on experience with either, but I've at least handled both lenses in stores. If the E's 180mm of coverage and simpler optics are acceptable, I see no strong reason not buy it as long as you're buying used in the $150 vicinity. If you're thinking of getting a new one, one might as well spend the extra $50 or so over the $250 new price to get a used 150 f/5.6 with greater coverage.

You may be confusing the slip on/push on cap size with filter diameter. My 90mm f/8.0 Super Angulon takes a 70mm front cap and a 57mm rear cap. Both caps are marked with diameters just like snap on/snap in caps and lenses are, though the lens takes 67mm front filters and has no rear filter thread.

I like the formless void effect---it's one of my favorite parts of kayaking after dark---so I'd personally be inclined to back off from the birds and have them floating in space when shooting from shore. For you, the best thing I can think of is get out on the marsh in a boat. There should be lots of interesting backgrounds along the shore; I've seldom had boring backdrop problems shooting birds from a kayak around Puget Sound, anyway.

 

You may also want to experiment with pushing way out into dusk when working from land. Long legged waders hold really still; I've been able to get good heron photographs with 10+ second exposures. If you don't have color correction filters, Agfa RSX 200 and Precisa are handy for this sort of thing as they reciprocity shift blue, which is essentially the correct color (caution: RSX 50 and 100 go yellow).

Harry, that's just about what I had in mind. I've already got parts for an extra Bender back. I take it you're using 2x2 and 2x3 backs, not the 4x5 -> 2x2 or 4x5 -> 2x3 step downs? How did you set the registration and light trap on the back? Just run the shims around outside the back's trap and tune their height?

Chris, let us know where and when you're headed out to shoot. Those us in town will come watch. This promises to be at least as entertaining as the time one of my photographer friends decided to shoot Columbia Gorge waterfalls in November. He ended up wading neck deep in streams while holding US$ 3000 of camera gear over his head.