jim_roof

Your blurriness at small apertures is probably due to diffraction rather than not using MLU. I would avoid stopping down any more than f11 if it can be at all avoided. Every lens will degrade at f16-f22 due to this phenomenon.

I second Giampi's opine.

 

I ran a color lab for my business for 22 years and just shut it down to do all digital printing. Gone are the days of trying to do a color burn with a gelatin filter taped over a hole in a piece of cardboard. Gone are the days of completely giving up on selective color alterations and trying to just 'hit the middle' in color balance. Gone are the days of questionable repeatability.

 

I might spend a little time at my computer but once it's done... it's done and the results are far superior to anything done in a traditional color darkroom.

The 1DsMkII comes very close to the resolution I was getting out of my Pentax 6x7, but the reason I bought it was for the workflow.

 

I am willing to give up a bit of resolution in order to be able to solve other, more serious issues with my line of photography. I shoot architecture and 98% of my images never get enlarged bigger than 8.5x11. I have shot 4x5 for 23 years and printed my own RA4 C-prints (probably made close to 75,000 prints). Using a Pictrography 3500 printer I cannot tell the difference between prints made from 4x5 film and those made on the 1DsII. I have shot no film for 45 days. Everything I would have done on 4x5 has been done on the 1DsII and my clients are more complimentary of my work now than they were when I shot film.

 

Sure, medium format backs will give better resolution, but its resolution that would go unused and unappreciated by my clients.

 

If you are a good photographer and good with post processing then a FF DSLR will not stand in the way of getting work.

 

So, for me, the FF camera has taken the spot of a 4x5. I might have to get the 4x5 out next week because I have a client that insists upon 100meg scans. I am tempted to uprez since I see very little difference between an uprez'd sharp 48meg digital file and a scanned chrome at 100 megs. There is some to be sure, but not as much as you might think.

1Ds Mark II RAW files are about 14-16 megs each, maybe a 17 megger every now and then.

 

100 megs? Where did THAT come from? You only get close to 100 megs if you convert them and save them as 16 bit tiff files.

The 1Ds II can produce a native 11x17 double page spread at 300 dpi. That is a requirement, from what I understand, of some publishers/agencies.

David,

 

I also shoot architecture and just got a 1Ds MkII about 3 weeks ago. Generally I am blown away by the image quality which is equal to what 99% of my design clients request of me, ie., an 8x10 at either 300 or 400 dpi.

 

Just curious how much of your work is now generated on the 1DsII? I shot a job yesterday that a month ago would have been a 4x5 assignment and decided to use the 1DsII instead. It was a good thing since I ended up having to hike quite a distance to circumvent a fence.

 

Would you think that a 20x24 from a 1DsII would be easy to pick out of a lineup of 20x24's from a 4x5 at, say, 3 feet viewing distance? just curious as to your experience and thoughts.

Coming from a background of shooting architecture with a 4x5 and making my own color prints (RA-4 wet process), I am somewhat spoiled when it comes to sharpness.

 

With my 20D (8.2 mp) I am very comfortable going up to an 11x14 and made a few prints at 16x20, but these were starting to show weaknesses.

 

My 1Ds MkII (16.7 mp) has yet to make a really big print but I have printed cropped sections at what would have been a 20x30 (on my Fuji Pictrography 3500) and they are holding up very very well. Even viewed at arm's length the 20x30 looks pretty sharp. On a wall it would look fantastic.

I have had one of these for quite a while now and it is extremely useful in the field. I do have a couple of gripes to add to the discussion. Perhaps I am doing something wrong but here goes...

 

I do not like the file system for the P-2000. Regardless of how I choose to save the files from the card, I have to go 3 folders deep to get them later and, if I happen to dump a half a card, then later dump the entire card (with the first half still being on that card), the second dump is in a completely different directory and I have to cross-reference and/or drag and drop from numerous locations on the P-2000 to put together the ONE folder that holds my files on my PC and backup drives.

 

Admittedly, I have not messed around with creating albums. Is that the answer to keeping files nicely organized instead of knee-deep in stacks of directories?

I have shot images with my 1Ds MkII that have captured at least 9 stops in the CR2 raw file. It takes a little work in PS to incorporate all of that range however.

 

I think the 10 stop range in a good DSLR sensor is correct. The jpg's will never show it because they are interpreted from one pass on the internal raw file (and then the raw file is lost unless you save it). The ten stops are there. For a fact.

 

As for a monochrome DSLR, I suspect the numbers simply are not there to support one at a decent price point. For every 1000 DSLR shoppers there might be .05 sho want a monochrome camera. Consider the possibility that, for every 1000 DSLR shoppers, there may only be 100 who know what monochrome means...

I have taken shots with a 1Ds MkII where I know, for a fact, that I am getting 9 stops out of the RAW image file. It takes multiple imports of the file to get it into ONE image, but it is completely and repeatably doable. I am NOT talking about taking multiple exposures, I am talking about taking one CR2 file and importing it 'underexposed' for highlights, then importing it for mid-tones, then a third import for shadows with the 'exposure' cranked up 2-3 stops. The original image needs to be exposed as low ISO or noise will eat up the shadows, but I have done this, for a fact. Did it just last week for an architectural shoot.

 

Contrast this to the next best thing that I have used as far as contrast goes, Fuji NPS 4x5 sheet film, where I can pretty easily get 7 stops out of it when scanning the film. BTW, the rap on Fuji negs is flat contrast but that is a God-send for scanning. Fuji negs get at least 1 stop more shadow detail than Kodak's offerings.

 

I get just a tad better than 5 stops out of my 4x5 chromes, depending upon the color saturation of the highlights. If the highlights are in a saturated color then the meter can read 2 stops over and detail will remain. If the highlights are more neutral then there is maybe an extra half stop in the highlights.

 

Film guys will probably tell me I am off my rocker but I have been shooting architecture as a pro for 23 years using 4x5's and a Minolta Spotmeter so I know just what the heck I am talking about.<div></div>

Neil,

 

First, the positives about architectural shooting.

 

1. Low overhead

2. Plenty of subject matter for your first portfolio

3. A wide range of clientele ranging from the relatively easy-to-please general contractor to the impossible-to-make-happy interior design firm.

4. The chance to work with creative people who are appreciative of good photography - making the obvious assumption...

 

The downside.

 

1. Limited use of the photographs means lower fees than advertising

2. Many clients have no clue as to artistic issues and refuse to be educated.

3. Working under conditions at times that are clearly less than favorible in order to meet a deadline.

 

I have been shooting Architecture for a bit over 20 years in the SE. Rates have stagnated a bit but even in this slow economy my income is pretty much tied to my willingness to chase down new work.

 

There are always those who are fresh out of school and will charge 400-600/day but anyone who buys photography based upon price alone is someone you really don't want to work for anyway. I would say that in the Atlanta area rates run from 1000-1800/day roughly. It is possible to shoot for an Architect, contractor and developer/owner at the same time and increase your fees by about 50%. Now you are talking 1500-2700/day.

 

I have pretty much resigned myself to the lost revenue of print sales. I have tried to increase my fees to make up some of the difference but things will never be like they were 15 years ago when I was 50/50 in fees/print sales. Now its more like 90/10.

 

Good luck. Don't come to Atlanta...

 

www.jimroofcreative.com

I am in the process of repairing a badly separated Rodenstock Sironar and I have the doublets apart but cannot get the remaing cement to clean off of the optics. I have tried reheating in Oil to 450 degrees (that's how I got them apart to start with), soaking in various paint thinners containing methylene chloride, acetone etc.. Nothing has made a dent in the remaing cement.

 

<p>

 

Ideas?

Don't forget to decide which side of the darkslide you are going to

use for unexposed and which for exposed. Most holders' darkslides

have a black tab on one side and white on the other. I use white for

unexposed and black for exposed. Every now and then I will expose a

sheet then absent-mindedly stick the slide in exactly the same way I

removed it. I don't find out until I am ready to make a duplicate

exposure of the same shot - then the question hits... "Did I flip the

holder over to the other side?". Of course, logically there is no

good way to solve this. You can stop right there and get an exposure

and a clear sheet of film or re-expose both sheets and get a good

exposure and a double exposure. I guess it comes right down to this -

when the lab processes my film do I look like a bigger idiot by

having them process a blank sheet or a double exposure. I usually

opt for the double. At least that way I know I used up a little of

the chemistry I am paying for!

 

<p>

 

Additionally, if you plan to shoot both chromes and negs as I do

(architectural work and interiors) then buy enough holders to color

code them for negs/chromes. You'll spend more money but you'll be

more organized in handling your film.

Here's what I am talking about in the previous post.

 

<p>

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2005210301

You might try looking for a used HP IIIC scanner or another one of

the H series. But, before you buy one, get a hold of a used

transparency adapter for it. It illuminates a 8.5 x 11 area. I used

to have one but sold it on Ebay over 18 months ago when I got my Agfa

T2500 Duoscan.

 

<p>

 

If you are looking for a new scanner you might check out the new

Epson line. I understand that they have a flatbed w/transparency

adapter that runs about 1200.00 and is supposed to do about 3.5

dmax. I got a brochure for it some months back and the images on it

were beautiful and all scanned from chromes on their new scanner.

 

<p>

 

If you can find a used T2500 Duoscan and can afford it, get it. I

can scan four 4x5's at once to make proof sheets and the scans look

great... very close to what I see from the same chromes drum scanned.

One more thing I have noticed and maybe someone else has seen it

before. The area just around the cemented joint on the Super Angulon

looks pretty roughed up. The optical path is pristine, not a

scratch. But the areas that are 'frosted' near the cement joint look

like they have been chipped dozens of times. Again, these marks do

not extend into the polished surface but they do make for some

ugliness when viewing the lens from a cosmetic standpoint and could

be an issue if the lens was ever shot anything less than 2 stops

closed. Is there a way to carefully dull these little chipped spots

or is this normal for earlier Schneiders?

I recently picked up a cheap Sinar F2 in great shape that had three lenses thrown in - a 210 Caltar S-II (near mint), 135 Sironar f/5.6 (separation in both doublets) and, the lens of most interest right now... Schneider 90 f/8 Super Angulon (an older lens, balsam used for cement, I think. A different lens formula from the more current one I have - totally different formula). Here's the question -

 

<p>

 

All of the black paint had chipped off of the cemented pairs front and rear. I emailed Steve Grimes and he kindly responded with a quote to fix both lenses but, considering the fact that they are duplicates of what I have already I opted to play with them myself. I stripped the paint from the rear pair and almost immediately saw edge separation begin. I figured this lens would have been cemented with a more modern material but from the speed of separation my guess it was balsam. Once it became apparent that this would be an additional repair I went ahead and dunked the doublet into liquid paint thinner and the next morning the task of separating the elements and cleaning them up was finished - now ingenuity is needed - and advice/suggestions.

 

<p>

 

I plan to recement the elements myself but have yet to finalize a plan on how to either mechanically or optically center them. So far it seems the best mechaincal approach would be to use a square Sinar filter to extend the plane of the elements by placing the filter on the flat surfaces and carefully measuring the distance off of my workbench until all four corners are the same height. I would do this for the larger piece (resting in a hard rubber 'O' ring to keep it in place once leveled) and again once the smaller element is dropped into the new puddle of cement. The filter would rest on the very back of the small element and again, I could measure the corner's distance from the table and make adjustments until they all match. I might even rig a stand that has adjustable height screws that could serve to pre-arrange the alignment prior to cementing and serve as support as curing takes place (at room temperature for the precure).

 

<p>

 

Sound feasible? Or am I crazy for taking this on? Anyone here tried this before? Should I try something with a laser pointer?

 

<p>

 

Thanks for any and all ideas.

On the subject of the unsightly silver dots that appear in many older

Schneider lenses, I do not see how this could really affect image

quality as long as the spots are truly in the area where glass meets

metal. Surely no image-forming light passes through these areas and

while the dots do appear bright from the OUTSIDE of the lens I

suspect that that is due only to the loss of adhesion to the barrel

and therefore making a small reflective spot that has no affect on

transmitted light. As always, one should shield stray light as mush

as possible from optics. I could only imagine an image problem where

very intense light might bounce from the spot and somehow hit a

rearward facing element, conceivably lowering contrast.

 

<p>

 

BTW, I have a Rodenstock 210 that I must have stored too close to a

Schneider - it has a mild case of 'schneideritis'.

I have been shooting large format architecture (exteriors and

interiors) in the Atlanta area for just under 20 years and the best

thing I ever did was decide (about 12 years ago) to exclusively use a

1 degree spotmeter and when taking my film to the lab uttering these

two very scary words - "Process Normal".

 

<p>

 

I once shot an interiors job using incident readings (14 years ago)

and I still am haunted by the poor outcome of that assignment. The

only way to meter is with a spotmeter. I don't care how much light

is falling on a navy blue upholstered chair. I only want to know how

much light is bouncing OFF of that chair. Same goes for walls,

artwork, carpet... you name it.

 

<p>

 

I have always had good success making a 2 stop allowance for may

polarizers, but different brands so vary in density.