dick roadnight cotswolds

The new mini-monorails like the Sinar p3, with DidiBacks, are making LF the domain of the amataure for most applications - but we do sometimes still need very high resolution when we cannot use 16 shot.

 

Landscapes often include trees moving in the wind, or people...

I would be prepared to spend real money on a 10 x 8 4,000 ppi scanner that I could use for a whole 35mm or 120 film, 4 617s, 2 54s etc. - does anyone make one?

If you had access to a digital camera with a close up lens, you could use it to get a low-res digital file of the 5 x 7 tranny into your computer.

 

You would get the worst of both worlds in that you would be limited by both the grain in the tranny and the resolution of the camera.

 

With a low end Digital SLR you would get a file good enough to upload to the web, but has anybody done it with a decent 16 shot digiback, (and Sinar p3) and with what result?

 

You might think that the Schneider Macro-Digitars would be ideal for this, but they are optimised for 1:4 to 4:1, or up to 6x9 for a 24 x 36mm CCD.

 

My Micro-Nikkor 200mm IF is OK for 1:1 to infinity, so it should be OK.

Joe:

 

I my Chepstow picturte, the left side is "streatched away from the centre" and you get this effect if parts of (a surface of) the subject are very different distances from the lens.

 

The way round this is to:

 

only use an ultra-wide angle (UWA) lens when you have to, or if you want distortion.

 

Have the whole subject (or each surface of the subject) the same distance from the lens.

I have 600mm f6 and 900mm f6.3 aerial lenses - what type of film transport did they use with these in aircraft?

 

I assume you could mount a process camera, converted to have movements, in the back of a Hercules?

Are you talking about lens (barrel of pincushion) distortion, perspective/keystoning or what?

 

This pic shows pincushion distortion and perspective, but keystoning I corrected by keeping the camera horizontal.

 

This was taken with the SA47 - I have left in the vingetted corners, so you can see I used all the 120 degree angle of view.<div></div>

I am (still) thinking about turning pro (again) and about to acquire a decent 24 x 36 mm digiback system that I can use with my Nikon lenses, Hasselblads and Sinars.

 

Decent full-frame 66 or 645 MF DigiBacks will, I think, be on the market soon at a reasonable price: when people realise this, the price of 2nd hand Hasselblads will recover - so buy Hasselblad now, and use film in the mean time.

 

There are so many people out there thinking that a few grand�s worth of digital makes them professional: I think that if you want to make the grade and keep your head above water, you need to be able to tackle the sort of assignment that the average part timer or amateur cannot... and that can cost £25-35k, as discussed recently on ProDig.

 

What do you think, Ellis and Art?

Try using the nice quick focusing set-up features of the Sinar system (with a 617 MD MF back) for a month or two - would five or ten pictures an hour be fast enough for you?

Struan:

 

>I also now have a 36" f6.3 from the RAF's Williamson camera,

 

>although as far as I can tell, mine was made by Dallmeyer under the

 

>same contract as the more common Wrays. I'd love to see how yours

 

>fits on its lensboard - I'm contemplating making a custom rail.

 

>attachment for mine to ensure rigidity and safeguard the camera

 

>standards.

 

You need a large lump of RHS, two rail clamps and an additional standard to hold the front of the lens.

 

If the lens board was in the middle of the lens, it would put less strain onm the lensboard, but you would need more bellows.

 

The rear element fills the lensboard.

The Epson stylus pro 9600 prints up to 44 inches wide - some one at Newbury has got one.

With the Flexbody you can do double exposures without removing the film back, but you still have to insert the slide, put on a lens cap or whatever, as there is no secondary shutter.

> Dick Roadnight, who has a strong back and a couple of lenses that test it, asked >about shutters for them. He indicated that Packard shutters, the obvious thing to use, >are too slow for his purposes.

 

Thank Dan,

 

I may use the lenses for MF, but 617!

 

I have a Hasselblad adaptor for my Sinar, and that would work if I bought a Hasselblad with a focal plane shutter!

 

I want flash sync at high speeds: For dance and theatre work, I could probably get away with 1/30, but focal plane shutters would work for landscapes.

 

Does anybody make LCD shutters?

You get the same problem with big (6inch) leaf shutters - but they work OK if you can persuade the performer/dancers or whoever to work in the dark... well 1/30 at f6 should not be a problem in a poorly lit dance studio or theatre, but... outdoor?

Like he says, ther is no quick and easy way to do double exposures, and none without touching the camera between exposures, even on the motorised models.

 

This is one of the earlier cases of equipment thinking it is cleverer that the operator!

Electric Pachard shutters are expencive and slow...

 

Does any body know where I can get an inexpencive electric/electronic shutter for big lenses:

 

6inch/150mm rear element

 

Wray 900mm/36inch f6.3

 

Can I mount a smaller shutter between the lens and the film without causing vingetting?

Ectra 24inch /600mm f6

On reading the Cappachino post above, I recall that you can acquire photosenthesising chemical, so you could make the paper light sensitive... and devolope it with coffee.

 

An inexpencive 10 X 8 (feet) camera!

Yes Julian:

 

A camera obscura would be ideal.

 

Fill the window with a lump of board,

 

insert a lens into it,

 

use your background system

 

hang sheets of white background paper against the wall

 

draw or paint the picture like the pre-chemical photographers!

If you want a nice inexpensive MF camera with a leaf shutter, try an old Zeiss Ikon folder � mine cost me £15.

 

When you can afford it, The Metz 70 MZ-5s are great for wireless remote: I use the fill wired to the camera, as master, and the slave hand held or wherever.

 

When you get a 503 or 555, you can use remote wireless TTL with the Metz system.

Hasselblads are very basic.

 

If you want a good simple MF SLR, get a Hasselblad.

 

If you want an inexpensive MF SLR, get an old Hasselblad.

Drilling and tapping one hole is easy - getting two the right distace appart and parallel is more difficult.

 

If you can make an adaptor (or a replacement for the top plate) if you get it wrong the first three times, you do not ruin your tripod head.

 

Cheap taps are a waste of time, and might break

 

if you are tapping into a blind hole you will need a taper tap and a plug tap,

 

Buy one or two taps the right size, not a cheap set.

 

you may need a thread gauge to identify the thread you need.

 

Lubricate the tap - it may stop it breaking.

 

Measure twice, drill once.

Scanning even a single MF transparency takes for ever:

 

What resolution do you want?

 

Illuminate the slide with a flash and diffuser and/or condensor or slide copier and use:

 

For best results, if you have or you can beg, borrow hire or acquire the kit, use the Eyelike Precision 11/42Mpixel back in 16 shot(or the square one that is 16 Megapixel in single shot) on a Sinar p3 with a Schneider Macro Digitar lens. The shift on the Sinar would make it easy to make selections (or correct perspective) using the whole CCD area.

 

Using the Eyelike on a Hasselblad 555 ELD and Macro-planar 120 would work, and you could use TTL flash with it, but with instant digital feed back that would not be necessary.

 

Using an Eyelike or similar on a Digiflex 2 with a Macro lenss would work.

 

If you do not need high resoloution a digital SLR with a macro lens, extention tubes, combination of lenses etc might give you adequate quality.

 

If you do not have a macro lens and a digital SLR, and you do have a medium format projector, you could try photographing the screen... but expect to correct the colour cast... let us know how you get on if you try it.

COF for COI and angle of coverage.

 

Schneider claim, for their Digitars, a coverage angle much smaller than what equates to the Circle of illumintaion, becasuse, outside that angle, the resolutiom (COF) is not up to the standard we have come to accept from them.

DOF depends on what COF is OK:

 

I think that the C330 has a "better" depth of field because, with optics like that, you tend to be less ambitious with the circle of confusion.

 

(I had one in the mid seventies.)

 

Schneider claim, for their Digitars, a coverage angle much smaller than what equates to the Circle of illumintaion, becasuse, outside that angle, the resolutiom (COF) is not up to the standard we have come to accept from them.

�Artistic� is usually a euphemism for blurred, used by people trying to sell 35mm pictures!

 

Most people consider that the maximum enlargement from film is about 10 times.

 

There are always those who waffle on about greater viewing distance for larger prints, so you can enlarge anything to any size� but, if you want people to be able to get up to a picture and appreciate detail, 10 times is the maximum.

 

Hasselblads (and other SLR systems) are snapshot cameras for fashion, wedding, sport and wildlife photographers, and my idea of commercial work involves using serious cameras with movements, which demand a slower approach, and render detail better through control of the plane of focus with the Scheimplug rule.

 

(A great deal of what gets written about Hasselblads is sour grapes from people who cannot afford them, but I have three, and four lenses.)

 

Few people use cameras with movements for pictures including people, due to the set-up time, but if you want the foreground, background or whatever in focus as well as the people, you will find it invaluable. Set-up time is minimised with the Sinar system.

 

If you will not be using a great deal of film, large format might be a cost-effective option worth considering, with or without roll film adaptors, or you could buy a Hasselblad system, and buy and additional body � a Flexbody � for the shorts where movements would help.

 

Then, of course, if you have £20k to £25k available you could invest in the ultimate digital system, using Digitar/Sinar/Eyelike when you need movements, and a Nikon lenses with Digiflex and Eyelike when you do not.

1/focal length is a rough guide, but, like acceptable focus, it depends on what circle of confusion you think is acceptable.

 

Using LF hand held today seems as practical and useful as cival war battle re-enactment - if you only want a 10 x 8 picture - why use a 5 x 4 camera...? grain-free panned sports photography?

 

If you need the freedom of hand-holding to follow the subject, you might be able to use a shutter-beam and an an electronic shutter on a tripod.

 

I used to use a 640mm lens @ 1/125, but that was 35mm, it was 640mm long, and has two pistol grips and a shoulder but, and I used it lying down like a rifle, or for birds in flight.