billkantor

I baked Fuji Provia once for a full day in my car. Must have gotten to be at least 110 f inside. No noticable shift or degradation.

Oops. I meant to attribute that quote to Donald not Leonard. Apologies to both.

I'd also like to use negative film because of the wider exposure latitude but I don't for the reasons mentioned by Leonard:

 

"I prefer high contrast, fully saturated chrome for landscape work and negative tend to be at their worst in these two areas."

 

From what I can tell, this statement is true but I don't understand why (if you are going to scan and edit in PS) these deficiencies can't be corrected after the fact. Personally, I have not tried this so I can't comment on how well it would work. Maybe someone can explain that.

Ok folks. Thanks for all the suggestions. Thought some of you might want to know--in my research, I discovered that Robert White is able to get Lee filters to fit the Cokin x-pro size. I'll be sticking with the x-pro size to avoid any vignetting.

Thanks for the advice Edward. Are you using Graduated ND filters (soft or hard?) and do you have any comments about the color cast or quality of the x-pro GND filters?

Anyone have experience using graduated ND filters on an 155mm

Grandagon? I am in need of a filter system that will cover the 105mm

filter size and I'm concerned about using the Cokin x-Pro system.

Based on my research, the only filter alternative for this size

(105mm) ring is the Cokin x-pro series. I have read the threads here

about GNDF's and find that many rag on Cokin because they are not the

best quality--apparently they have (or at one time they had) a color

cast to them. My questions:

 

1.) I read one comment (~ in the year 2000) about Cokin fixing the

color cast problem. Can anyone confirm this?

 

2.) Assuming that I don't want to use the Cokin x-pro series, is

there an alternative that fits the full 105mm filter?

 

3.) If there is no 105mm+ alternative, could I try one of the other

100mm options (Lee, Hitech, Singh Ray) and using an adapter? If so,

would I be better to use 105 - 100mm step down ring and the filter

holder for the applicable 100mm filter or should I use the Cokin x-

Pro holder with say the Lee 4x6" filters and just mask the edges?

 

4.) Anyone tried putting the filters on the back elements of the

lens? (Kind of makes it hard to adjust them.)

 

5.) It seems to me that the wider the field of view, the more gradual

a transition I should use on the filter. I.e., I'd be better off

using a soft transition with the 155mm Grandagon than a hard

transition. Can anyone confirm this or make any specific

recommendations based on using the 155mm Grandagon?

 

It would be really nice to hear from someone who has used this lens

and tackled this problem.

 

Thanks,

Bill

Thanks Tim. I was looking for a linear Graduated ND filter, not a center filter. In any case the $1800 for a new one from B&H is beyond my budget.

155 Grandagon. I was lucky and got one inexpensively ~$600 on ebay last year. This is an awesome lens. Lots of coverage. Tack sharp. It has become my most frequently used lens for landscape work. Some people gripe about the weight of this lens. It is heavy. But, to me this is minor since, if you are doing 8x10, you have already conceded that point. My gripe is filters (very expensive). BTW, I thought about using a center filter but have done fine without it. I don't think you need one. I find the fall off is nice if you make sure to avoid any mechanical vignetting. I do this by looking through the GG corners and stopping down until the barrel stops vignetting--usually around f/32-45 depending upon the shifts/rise/tilts in play.

 

I would not give up this lens. Now, if anyone can tell me where to get a graduated ND filter that will cover this glass (105mm filter) I'll be a very happy camper.

I believe that--ignoring mechanical vignetting--the light fall-off is purely determined by the angle off center axis. This has nothing to do with the coverage or design of the lens. E.g., Two lenses of equivalent focal lengths (without mechanical vignetting) will, at a given point on the film plane, show the same fall-off. So, a larger image circle does not move the fall off farther out... The fall off will be the same within the common areas of coverage, but the lens with a bigger circle will have more fall-off at the edge of its coverage.

 

In your example, the 72mm lens will (at the corner of a 4x5 sheet of film) have more fall-off than the 75mm because the angle to the corner is greater for a 72 mm lens than for a 75 mm lens. Though, the difference would be very small.

 

Bottom line, I wouldn't worry about the fall-off. Image circle, weight, and other factors are more important. In practice, I have found that, if I avoid mechanical vignetting by using smaller apertures, the fall off is not objectionable. In most cases I actually like it. On my camera, the corners of the ground glass are cut out so I can make sure I don't have mechanical vignetting by looking at the light coming through the lens to the corners.

I have rarely had this problem on mine. I live in New England where we also get some humid seasons though probably not as bad as yours. I have noticed that one of my boards is a tight fit independent of the season and I think it is due to the lacquer. I've lived with it becuase it rarely sticks and I just remove it using the technique described above.

 

Are you aware that the boards have a direction to them? If you look at the board on edge, one edge is beveled. The beveled edge goes up into the part that receive the board first. I have noticed a tendecy to stick more when not put in this direction.

The 155mm Grandagon is one of the sharpest lenses I own. My personal favorite. It has lots of coverage but it's not unlimited. Weight is a factor... Very big and bulky. Filters are expensive and big to0--105 mm. Have to be careful about coverage limits when using a filter because it will mechanically vignette the edges. An alternative might be the 150mm Nikkor (I don't know the designation--think it is SW) which I understand has more coverage too. There does exist a 165 mm super angulon which (I believe) also has a bit more coverage than the 155 Grandagon. Similar in size and weight. As I understand it the 165 Angulon (not Super) will just barely cover 8x10 on axis at infinity. I have never used it but I think that the 210 Angulon (not Super) is a very nice and light alternative. Also not cheap. One just sold on ebay for over $800.

 

FYI, if you are comparing a Schieder Super Angulon to a Rodenstock Grandagon, here's my 2 cents... I own a 121 Super angulon and a 155 Grandagon. Hands down, the grandagon is sharper. Could be the samples or manufacturing dates but that is my experience. But then this is 8x10 work so it's not likely that the sharpness under a loop will make a bit of difference in a print.

 

Good luck.

Thought provoking question.

 

Personally, I separate the LF issue from the film question. I think there will always be demand for a camera with tilts/swings and superior (LF-like) resolution. If you accept this then the question becomes will we get a reasonable LF digital back before the reduced volume causes the price of film to rise prohibitively?

 

Personally, I�d love to see a 4x5 or even an 8x10 digital back. It would be a lot easier to skip the scan. But the technology has a long-long way to go before we get to an affordable 4x5 digital back. As I see it, the best digital technology today at several thousands of dollars is not yet as good as the resolution of a $500 35mm set up. I don�t even know where the physical limits are to improving the technology but if you project a 2x improvement in density every 2 years and (less frequently) an improvement in sensor size... Do the math. How long will it take before we have a back with 15 x the area of today�s state of the art sensor? In 8 years we get 16 times today�s density but the sensor size has to grow too. Then there are the weight and battery factors. I think the manufacturing limits for this and the market size are going to make this an unprofitable endeavor for a long while.

 

So will there be sufficient demand to support LF film manufacturing and processing? Yes. I think that the most likely scenario is that the price of film and processing will go up�but film won�t go away. I sure hope that�s the worst-case.

I think the real question you should be asking is do you want to go to 8x10? I'd suggest you try out an 8x10 Deardorff for a day. for me, it is a totally different experience from 4x5. I also own two Deardorffs--a 4x5 special and an 8x10. I find myself drawn to the 8x10 but I do see reasons to take the 4x5 if weight and distance from the car are an issue. Also, I'd agree with the comment, don't get the 8x10 to do 4x5 work. THe 4x5 back is probably useful for exposure checks with 4x5 Polariod or for film tests and occasionally for a long shot when the bellows draw on your 4x5 won't do. But don't expect this to be you main way of working. In any case the Deardorff is a fine camera. I can't compare it to your gear because I never used yours. But I can compare 4x5 to 8x10 and if you are not concerned about weight, go for it. Enjoy whichever way you decided.

The 12 and 14 inch Ektars are the only ones that will cover 8x10. If they are in good condition at $300 per lens this is a very good deal if all they need is a shutter CLA. The other focal lengths will have some value on ebay if you want to go that route. If you have to replace the shutters then maybe these are too expensive. If you can send them to Steve Grimes for an assessment, he'll let you know what it will cost.

 

I don't know about repairing these yourself. Every time I tried this I had to send it to a pro to fix what I screwed up. Lots of parts, not intuitively obvious what they do. Don't do the acetone dunk and don't try to oil it. Naptha is what Steve Grimes uses to selectively clean gummed parts. But he knows where to put the naptha. Best advice I can give-- send them to him.

 

The Ektars are excellent lenses and will produce super results even with enlargements. Contact printing... Go for it. The advice about the focal lengths is valid. 12 and 14 inches are not that far apart but if your going to do 8x10, sooner or later you will likely want both. If you find that these lenses don't appeal to your personal aesthetic then you can always sell them on ebay--probably for more than the $300 each.

 

Good luck and welcome to 8x10!

Very interesting this last comment. So how do you color match from your computer to the printer at a service bureau?

Stephen,

 

By my calculations, a 210mm lens on 4x10 format will have a 1/2 stop fall off at the corners of the film. This is due to the fact that the light is diverging from the lens nodal point and spreading out further at the corners than on the central axis. (It has longer to travel.)

 

This calculation assumes no mechanical vignetting and I'm not sure that I understand the effect of the telephoto iris placement issue discussed above. Maybe that makes it more. I don't think it can make it less. You may be getting some mechanical vignetting too depending upon the aperture you use.

 

Point is, I think you will always get some fall of at the corners of an image. The effect is most pronounced with wide-angle lenses for your format. The only solution for this that I know of is to use a center filter and avoid mechanical vignetting due to large apertures and lens shades.

</center>There. I think this should take care of the centering for those of us who prefer the left alignment.

Well, I suppose that no one answer is right here. Depends upon your eye, the subject matter, where you shoot... I shoot exclusively outdoor landscape. I own about 7 lenses but find myself drawn most frequently to the 155mm Grandagon for its wide angle of coverage. I believe that the lens has a 102 degree field of view and the angle of coverage on 8x10 diagonal is 91 degrees.

BTW, another apporach is to use a very negative film which has plenty of lattitude/dynamic range. I have tried this but have never been impressed with the quality of the prints I can get. On the other hand, I have seem some astonishing images produced using negative film, scanned, and printed on a fine-art giclee printer.

What film are you using? I find that a polarizer with Velvia can easily be overdone. It saturates the sky on a very saturated film. This double effect is surreal to me. This is one of the reasons I use Provia instead. But it is still possible to over do the polarizer. Sometimes you just have to reduce the temptation to set it at the max.

Scott,

 

Glad to see you are enjoying the world of LF photography. Your question seems to be about capturing the sky and the foreground. I have found the same problem. It is often difficult to get both and sometimes you just have to decide which is more important (a good spotmeter helps a lot to figure out where you will be keeping detail.) Here are some other things that help.

 

I use Fuji Provia--not as saturated as velvia but it has (by my tests) about full stop more dynamic range than Velvia. Sometimes an extra stop can do the trick. Although I have not done it yet (no scanner) I understand that you can kick up the saturation in Photoshop to get it to match Velvia if you want.

 

Use Fuji Astia. It has some additional range if you want to experiment. I seemed to get more--about a half to a full stop more than Provia as I recall in my test. But I have not shot it enough to give you personal results based on real world images. (I tested this a while ago on 4x5 but have not shot it since it is not available in 8x10--my format of choice.)

 

Make two exposures--one for the sky, one for the foreground--and merge them in Photoshop. I have not tried this but I have seen a writeup of the technique in Photoshop 6 Artistry. You can find the more recent edition on Amazon.com.

 

Use a graduated neutral density filter. I don't own one but have seen various discussions extolling their virtues. Personally, I think that this would be very hard to line up without seeing the line. But some have figured out the trick and have produced some astonishing images this way.

 

Good luck!

David,

 

Thanks for being the first. I suspect that this scanner will produce very impressive results but there's nothing like real scanns to compare. I'm looking forward to your post.

 

Bill

Thanks Ken, I checked out the achives here and the link and found others asking the same question here and one request for similar reviews on the link. But no responses. Maybe this item is shipping in very small quantities. In any case looks like we will have to wait for someone to offer up a review.

Morrey,

 

Do you have any experience using the glass carrier on larger than 4x5 transparencies. Any idea what effect the glass will have on resolution, and DMax or your overall satisfaction with the scanner.

 

Bill

Would love to hear from someone who has actual experience with the Microtek Artixscan 1800f. For your 4x5 work, I suspect that 1800 dpi (if it achieves that) will be more than adequate for most normal enlargement sizes. My question is the DMax. The spec on this scanner seems unreal at 4.8 and frankly I don't believe it. I'd love to hear from someone who has used this scanner. Also would love to hear if anyone can say what the effect of the glass carrier would be. I am planning on using this for 8x10 which requires the glass carrier.