dick roadnight cotswolds

What about the Marco Sinaron 5.6 300?

I have purchased one on these, thinking it would be suitable for flower photography with a 6 * 17 cm 160Mpx rapid scan back on a Sinar P2, or less so with a Sinar P3 and an MF CCD digiback.

I am contemplating purchasing a Schneider apo macro digitar for the P3

Haveing done some professional photography, I gave it up decades ago... due to the high price and low quality of prints.

Digital put me back in control, and I scan 6cm 120 film at 4000 -8,000 ppi giving 9,000 + pixels, so I can print at 600 or 720ppi on A2.

Digital is used as an excuse for low quality, and "they" try to "educate" picture buyers to accept rubbish - usually produced on a DSLR.

What do you call "Commercial photography"?

Unless you count wedding and portraiture, what I call serious photography needs camera movements and detail - so, if want medium format get a nice monorail and/or field camera with 66, 69, 612 and 617 backs.

A small proportion of the market appreciates movements, but a smaller (and decreasing) proportion of photographers can supply it.

Like Guy said, Velvia for low contrast scenes.

Velvia with a warming filter for overcast conditions (ideal for some buildings if the sun never shines on them).

Provia (or astia) for higher contrast scenes.

If you do the job prperly (and use a tripod) you will only need anything faster than 100 very rarely.

To get the correct perspective when viewing a print, you should adjust you viewing distance and position so that you have the same angle of view that the camera lens had - in all directions... up, down, sideways or whatever, especially if camera movements were used.

A good photograph looks like the view through an open window.

When a friend asked me what I thought of his new audion syste, I said it was like looking at a view through a frosted-glass window - but I could have said the same with reference to low-res digital C**P.

If you are using flash indoors for close-ups you have to go to a great deal of trouble to avoid black backgrounds.

Keep the background uncluttered and as far away as you can, and use as fast a shutter speed as you can.

Dark backgrounds and low-latitude (slow speed, fine grain) film/development would help. You would need stacks of flash power to get small enough apeture for DOF: the closer the flash to the subject, the darker the background (inverse square law).

Use Barn doors etc to avoid the lights lighting the background.

If it worked OK, they would not make the different condensors.

Look for a condensor on e-bay.

If no one else has tried it, I might try a 150 lens on the 250 condensor for yo to see how it works.

Are you near the UK South East Midlands?

I have a Novoflex with 400mm and 640mm lens heads, and I have been thinking of mounting the diaphram and lens head on my Sinar, mainly for use with the DigiBacks I hope to buy... giving movements for wildlife etc.

For use on a 24 x 36mm CCD the vingnetting problems does not occur, and, if you do not need movements the Digiflex would suffice.

If you have a MF camera with a focal plane shutter, an MF bellows and some primitive plumbing would do the job: I expect that the lens has ample coverage.

Lens shades I have encountered attach to the filer thread:

I bought a second hand bronica one the other day to use on my Sinar!

What MF kit have you got?

Do you need movements?

What do you shoot?

Do you need multishot?

Hasselblad is the most popolar mount for digibacks - I have the 555 ELD, which is specifically for digital.

The Sinar P3, IMHO, is the ideal MF camera for serious digital work including landscape, architecture and studio.

The Horseman Digiflex is Hasselblad magazine mount compatible, and Nikon lens compatible, for 24 x 36 mm CCDs.

Have a look at ProDig... there is a discussinon there now about DigiBacks.

Why do so many Americans buy LF when IMHO there are no buildings there worth photographing? � Landscape!

But yes I agree that a monorail with bag bellows and a £1,000 Schneider UWA would be the ideal set-up... but, can you not get some nice shots form other buildings or, as Manhattan is an Island, over the water, without needing a great deal of movement?

If you are trying to take some pictures to please yourself, or for a portfolio, you can avoid the problems rather than confront them: If a client commissions you to photograph a specific building that is a different... er... beverage.

Get on to the right side of the Atlantic, and team up with me.

OT

Bob:

When I had been married to the same woman for 18 years she did me a favour and left me� but I hope to get married again next summer.

Brian:

I thought that the "full frame" 645 digibacks (e.g. Fuji) were a long way short of full frame... perhaps this should be a topic for a separate thread.

Joe:

Glass plate negatives might be a great way of preventing the film flatness problem with UWA.

Guy

If you are comparing lenses, then comparing prints brings into play many other factors.

If you want to compare 35mm lenses with MF lenses, projecting the transparencies with good quality projections lenses would seem more logical.

If you do not have axial tilt, the best way is to estimate the tilt you need before you start focusing, using my Simplepflug technique:

Divide your focal length (e.g. 150) by 10 (e.g. 15)

Divide that by 2 (e.g. 7.5)

Divide this by the number of meters the lens is from the nearest point on the desired position of the Plane of Sharpest Focus (e.g. 2)

This gives you the tilt in degrees (e.g. 3.75)

Acutance IMO is a property of film, achieving enhanced edge detial by allowing a weak developer to work to exhaustion.

When I first used a Hasselblad, I thought that the best way to get a sharp 35mm slide was to take a pair of scissors to a Hasselblad slide.

You do not get the same effect when you move on to 5x4, and I find that, when I look at a good 4x5 transparency with a 10 times lupe, there is not as much detail per square cm.

I think that the Modular Transfer Function (MTF) is the official quantitative measure for comparing lenses.

Mike's suggestion of using a test target is good, but you need to check the alignment of the camera:

If things are not lined up OK then the taking lens might not give a sharp imag when you get one in the view finder.

Lay a ladder and/or a tape measure on the ground, use a tripod and focus on a point, and note which point: if the plane of sharpest focus is not at that point in the photograph, you know you have a problem, and you can see how far out it is.

When you know that the POSF is where you think it is, use the target test, which will tell you if it is parralel to the film plane,like it should be.

To be "blown away" by the quality of MF you may need to buy something with Zeiss lenses, or something with modern multi-coated lenes.

The biggest problem with Macro is DOF, so I would not contemplate it without movements.

I think the Nikkor 85 shift/tilt lens is a macro, but the ultimate kit might have been the Schneider macro digitars, but they work best wide open.

James:

Experience can be a disadvantage when it comes to assessing alternative methods, techniques and tools.

On an amateur LF forum thread about my 10m tripod they did not think it would be useful� but soon after, on the same forum, there was a thread on how much tripod elevation is required for getting the tops of buildings within the image circle with lens horizontal.

You posted:

�Everyone loves to quote from "Photographing Buildings Inside and

Out", inside there is a lovely photo of Big Mr. McGrath with his Sinar in the air at about a height of 12 feet, and he is shooting a one story ranch house.�

The original question was not specifically about city architectural photography, and my 10 meter tripod enables me to do the same, more safely and with one or two storey buildings, giving a view of the building in the context of its surroundings. This, of course works better with MF SLRs and monorails with DigiBacks, as you (if you can zone focus) can compose (using the CCTV camera on the SLR view finder, or the video viewfinder of the digiback) and shoot all in one operation. With LF you might wish to view the GG with the CCTV, and then lower the tripod and load film.

Hiring a construction lift achieves the same objective, at great expense � without the complication of having to operate the camera remotely.

Jason:

You posted:

�Got another building in the way? You COULD use a short lens and

some rise, OR you could knock down the building and stick the camera 30 feet in the air hanging from a small aluminium pipe.�

I try to avoid using very short lenses, and, even with a 47XL, you can run out of image circle in many shots of churches with high spires in small churchyards.

The high tripod lets you use less rise in the churchyard, or to move back and photograph over the churchyard wall, or over the building that was in the way.

I believe that you were agreeing with me that if you can get to a point level with a point half way up the building, you can keep the verticals vertical without using camera movements.

The Cheltenham club has an MF projector, which is never used.

We could do with an extra level for advanced photographers, where MF would be the norm: several members have MF cameras, but it is �not cricket� to use �expensive� equipment � we must all strive for mediocrity, and the judges usually ignore anything that looks as if it might have been taken with quality equipment.

If more of us asked about MF, this might change.

According to Wildi,

for a 75mm lens projection distance is 1.4 times the screen size

for a 150mm lens projection distance is 2.9 times the screen size

for a 250mm lens projection distance is 4.8 times the screen size

so you need a 150mm

250mm is great for a 2.5m screen in a big hall