mike_mahoney

In addition to the camera and lenses, remember additional costs such

as meter, darkcloth, and film holders. You may also need a sturdier

tripod and head. The Toyo is by most accounts a fine camera, although

somewhat limited in it's movements with shorter lenses.

<p>

Your initial lens choice should be dictated by your past experience

with lenses in other formats - choose the LF equivalent of your

favorite focal lengths.

<p>

Depending on your shooting, you may find the Polaroid back

unnecessary.

Salt spray has cost me $300 in repair bills to a P67 some years ago,

and I know of others who have had similar problems.

<p>

Your LF camera does not have the sensitive electronics, but the

camera and lens will suffer if exposed to salt spray. I live on an

island, and the coastline is never far away, and even when you think

there is no spray, there is. Take a stroll with a pair of glasses at

what you think to be a safe distance, and look at the lenses after an

hour or so and you'll see what I mean.

<p>

Shoot with a longer lens if possible, or protect with plastic and UV

filter. That's an expensive piece of gear you have there, and no

point mucking it up if it's avoidable.

You're not likely to get much more from a digital camera as a meter

than you would a spot or ambient meter. The reasons are the latitude

differences, and the way the LCD shows the scene.

<p>

Depending on your film, you will likely have a fair difference in

what the camera can record or show on the LCD, and what your film

actually records. You could experiment with different combinations of

digital cameras and film until you found something suitable, but it

seems like a lot more work than simply knowing your film and meter.

<p>

As to the in camera histogram, it is very valuable to show what's

blown out for the digital camera, but that may not translate directly

to the film you're using. Hope this helps.

Film died for me some time ago .... my LF camera is on it's deathbed.

What I cant' do with digital and computer perspective correction is

very little. But then I'm a commercial photographer and cost and ease

of use are strong considerations for me. My best and most enjoyable

photographic moments were with a LF camera, and for many others on

this site and around the world. For that reason, and also for the

joys of printing your own work, film will live for others for quite

some time yet.

Richard has the idea, but I'm unsure of how you're going to get the

sepia toning with PS 5 without a computer.

<p>

There were several models which offered in camera sepia toning, and

along with a printer, you'd be in business. Make sure the camera is

of the DPOF class, which allows direct printing.

Lee, talk to your print shop first - they will tell you what scan

resolution and file type are required based on the print size and

quality you want.

<p>

There is no way to get a quality 20 X 24 from a 30MB file.

You could send me the camera for a free evaluation of the required

maintenance and suggested intervals.

<p>

This evaluation can often take three to five years, and would require

frequent use of the camera. Please send film as well, I have my own

holders and meter.

I don't think we've lost anything - if the image is the most

important thing.

<p>

I'm sure many of these Speed Graphic 40's and 50's shooters would

have traded their gear for a Nikon in a heartbeat because they were

result driven.

<p>

Yes, given the equipment limitations their shots by necessity had to

be better timed and considered and you have to admire them for that

but I wouldn't raise it to an art form.

Welcome to LF photography. You would set your lens to the widest

aperture to give a brighter groundglass image for initial focusing,

and recheck at the actual shooting aperture with a loupe and

darkcloth.

<p>

You can make the whole focus and movements thing as hard or easy as

you like ... Merklinger is certainly the hard way, perhaps made

easier with a masters degree in math, although his website used to

contain short video clips which are helpful.

<p>

Remember this little ditty .... " Focus on the far, tilt for the

near, then focus and tilt 'till all is clear ". In your example,

focus on the distant horizon, then tilt the lens panel foward, or the

film panel backward to acheive focus on the near object. Bottom line

is it isn't rocket science, and after a few hours behind the

groundglass actually seeing the effect of movements, you'll get the

hang of it. Others take a much more measured approach. Try simple

first, and if you're not happy with your results, change your

shooting method.

<p>

The Simmons book you have ordered is often mentioned as an excellent

source, as is Strobels " View Camera Technique "

<p>

Perhaps the most valuable LF resource is this forum ... the archives

are a goldmine of information, and the members helpful.

see http://www.imaging-resource.com/

<p>

very complete and current reviews. also links to other sites and

forums are there as well.

Kodak has been run by the accountants and their bottom line for many

years, and the firm goes wherever the profit is.

<p>

I for one would not miss them or their products one bit, in fact were

the yellow devil to quit the film business it would be good for the

remaining film companies, perhaps permitting them to expand their

product lines.

<p>

While they discontinued wonderful emulsions such as Ektar they put

R&D and massive marketing expenditures into their consumer 'Max'

films, along with digital consumer products. We should all be lucky

enough to dance on Kodaks' grave.

Funny stuff, probably a lesson learned - I ordered a lens overseas

and the eager customs staff actually unscrewed the rear element, and

the brass spacers fell out. Instead of trying to put it back together

they just threw it all back loose in the box !!!!

<p>

SK Grimes will put things right for you.

I absolutely enjoy every part of the LF image taking process -

setting up, leveling, focusing, looking at the GG, mucking around

with the movements, metering, setting the lens, etc. I've even grown

fond of the strange looks you get from some folks when you pop your

head out from under the darkcloth. The whole process is simply

enjoyable - like a vacation.

And increasingly LF is a process for me, not a result. And once you

look at an image on the GG, other viewing alternatives seem puny and

inadequate.

I've used a 90mm SA with the Discovery, and found the standard

bellows fine for most shooting. You're more likely to be limited by

lens coverage than bellows. The real concern would be using

rise/fall and shift in combination with tilt/swing. You will get

binding fairly quickly in that situation.

<p>

Having said that, the leather WA bellows is a joy - long enough to

cover the 30cm rail and short enough for WA lens use. You could leave

it on all the time. Too bad you can't buy a Discovery with the

leather WA bellows as the 'standard' bellows.

This may sound simplistic, but shoot a few test sheets with 100F and

use color balance and hue/saturation in PS to change or remove any

unwanted color casts.

<p>

With some practice and patience I've found very little that cannot be

color corrected in PS.

Just a quick additional word about incident metering - I'd suggest an

inexpensive incident used on every shot regardless of which final

metering method you use to arrive at your final exposure.

<p>

You will in time become very good at determining the correct exposure

based on the ambient light measured by the incident meter, regardless

of your subject reflectivity, luminence, or distance. I recall a

thread some time ago perhaps titled " the meter in your head " which

dealt with this.

<p>

I carry a Sekonic 398 incident only and have learned to use it in all

exposure conditions. An additional benefit is you learn to read and

understand light.

The Innu have over twenty words to describe snow, and each probably

would require different metering. As a start, eyeball the snow for

reflectivity - small frozen granules in bright sun add to the

required exposure - dry snow on a cloudy day requires less added

exposure and so on. And much depends on the effect you�re going

for, and the exposure range of the film you�re using.

<p>

Two alternatives to reflected metering of the snow would be to use

either an incident meter, or a gray card with a reflected meter. I

see snow four to six months a year, and generally use an incident

meter and would consider that to be your best metering choice,

followed by the gray card. If you have to meter the snow with a

reflected meter, 1 1/2 to 2 1/4 stops over is a good ballpark

starting range, but again much depends on the type of snow, the light

conditions, the type of film, and the effect you require.

<p>

The two hardest things to meter accurately without an incident meter

are coal mines and snow.

Finding a lab that consistently produces good results is not an easy

task. In fact, it�s one of the reasons I now use digital with

perspective correction in Photoshop for the majority of my commercial

work.

<p>

Sooner or later your lab WILL screw up - I�ve had film lost, received

the wrong film back, had processing errors of every conceivable

variety �. I�ve even had 120 film back with frames being scissor cut

well into the image.

<p>

Why does this happen ? Several reasons come to mind �. High staff

turnover, poor employee training and motivation, large volume of

work, and low wages. I�m sure you could find other reasons.

<p>

The problem you describe is a minor one - wait until they lose work

that you absolutely have to receive because your income and

livelihood depend on it. At that point you say � No more �.

<p>

I just completed a job with over 400 frames, the majority of which

have been stitched 20 to 30 at a time into a series of panoramic

movies for a clients web site. If even one of the frames is screwed

up you have to reshoot all 20 or 30 for that pano. Would I trust a

lab with that when I have a digital / Photoshop perspective control

alternative ? Not on your life. Not to mention the time and money

saved by shooting digital.

<p>

The best lab is your own - get a digital back for your LF camera, or

use computer perspective control with a digital SLR. Or explore

doing your own E6 - the sooner you can no longer depend on a lab, the

better.

Low end scanners will not always dissapoint, it depends on your final

output. I use a flatbed UMAX e3740 600dpi scanner fot all 4X5 scans

for web output or small print.

<p>

This sacnner bundle cost $150 Canadian, and that included PS 5.0 LE,

so the actual scanner cost about $65 U.S new. On well exposed

transparencies, it does an excellent job.

<p>

The thing to remember is a 4X5 transparency or neg has quite a lot of

information on it, and to scan at high dpi means huge file sizes,

much of which will be thrown away when you resize for final output.

<p>

Sure, if your final output is going to be larger prints, or critical

applications, a pricer flatbed will give you better bit depth and

higher DMax - and you may well need both - but depending on your

output, a low end scanner can do the job.

Cheap it ain't, and there are tons of Photoshop resources and forums

on the web for free - searchable and interactive.

Hard to say, but was there enough temperature difference to cause

condensation? Were the other chromes subjected to the same

temperature change? Test with an exposed sheet to see if condensation

forms under similar temperature change conditions. I've taken film

from the fridge, and shot within a few moments at room temperatures,

and hadn't noticed any condensation problems.

It would depend on the height of the structure you're shooting, and

your distance away from it. For taller buildings from a close

distance, you'll need more rise than a short building far away.

<p>

As another reply said, you'll most likely run out of adequate lens

coverage before camera limitations, but if you plan to shoot

skyscrapers from across the street, get the most movement you can

along with the lens with the most coverage.

<p>

For landscape work, your movement requirements will be modest -

you'll probably only end up using a small amount of front or rear

tilt with most shots.

BTZS tube style - check their website for more details. There are

also a number of threads in the archives on this subject, with many

good ideas.

Strobels� �View Camera Technique� offers good information on the

subject. The following two links offer interesting information:

<p>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/dof.htm

<p>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/dof2.htm

<p>

See also the rather lively discussion thread in the general forum on

that same site related to digital DOF, which evolved into a

generalized discussion about DOF and circles of confusion.

You could include two or three prints of your own ideas as well, and

the client may well be receptive to them, but "those that pay the

piper, call the tune"