nathanielpaust

I have the toyo loupe and I think it's great. I haven't used/heard of

the other loupe, but I wonder if a 6x loupe might be a little bit

much. The ground glass on my Canham DLC is pretty course and I wonder

if a higher power loupe would be usefull or if it would be limited by

the texture of the GG.

<p>

Of course, you may have a finer ground glass in which case more

magnification may be usefull.

I have a DLC45 and I think it's a wonderful camera. It is my first

(and probably last) large format camera. The only complaint about it

is that it could be a touch more rigid. However, for all my

complaining (and the complaining of others) I have never seen a

picture that was ruined by the slight flexibility. I've also carried

my camera on day hikes in Alaska and weight wasn't a problem.

<p>

Before buying my DLC, I rented a Toyo Field AII and it was nice too.

I really wanted the ability to back-focus on macro shots though.

<p>

Aas far as lenses, definitely look at the offerings from Fuji. In my

mind, most of the lenses from Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, and Fuji

will give you roughly the same image quality with small differences in

contrast, color, or that most indescribable... "feel". I got a used

Fujinon 180/5.6 W for a good price with my camera and I have no plans

to trade it in. (incidentaly, I was planning on getting a 150 and a

210, but have decided that the 180 is sufficient to replace both of

them. in 35mm my most used lenses were 24, 50 and 105 though).

<p>

Good luck with your purchases.

I'm planning on getting a 400mm class lens once my bank acount grows a

little bit. I've been looking at the Fuji 450C. It's slow f12.5 and

takes 52mm filters. It's also fairly cheap at $995 from Badger Graphics.

<p>

It might be worth looking into for you.

My dark cloth has velcro across the entire top edge on the black side.

Half way across it is hook type and the other half is loop type.

That way, I can hang the thing over my back and camera and then use

the velcro to bring the dark side together and block light from the

ground.

<p>

As far as cleaning goes, if you make both sides out of the same

material, you should just be able to throw it in the washing machine

if it gets dirty. I, however, went with black silk velvet on the

inside and white cotton twill on the outside so I'm not sure if I can

wash it. I figure that the little dirt marks on the white side show

that I actually use my camera instead of just pose around.

<p>

Nathaniel

When I first started using my 545i holder, I had a similar problem. It

turned out that I wasn't putting the holder all the way into my camera.

There's a little ridge that prevents the holder from sliding out

(normal film holders have it too) and I was stopping when it hit the

top of the camera instead of pushing the holder the 5 mm extra until it

was fully in the camera.

<p>

If that's not the problem, remember that the polaroid instructions

state that the recorded image is not centered on the ground glass and

is quite a bit smaller than the full 9x12 area. They suggest that you

mark your ground glass if you want exact framing.

Your main problem is just going to be getting enough light onto the

film. I'd try the Portra 400NC, it's worked great for me in portrait

situations before.

<p>

One other thing... assuming that you want to take pictures or stars or

any other unresolved (shows up as just a point on the film) source of

light, you need to use a lens with the largest possible front element.

Don't think that a 90mm/4.5 lens will give you sharper images than a

210/5.6. The 210 has a larger element and can capture more photons

thus giving you brighter star images. For extended objects (like the

moon), this is exactly backwards and the 4.5 lens will give you a

brighter moon picture since it is a stop faster. Most modern

telescopes (for research) have huge light collectings areas but small

focal ratios.. perhaps f18 or slower.

<p>

Nathaniel

Just to add to my question: I just dropped some film off at Boston

Photo and was a tad underimpressed. I'm really looking for a place

that has sorting tables and lightboxes and isn't just a hole in the

wall.

Over the last year, I've become very spoiled having Ivey Seright (in Seattle) a few blocks from my home.

<p>

Now, I'm living in Cambridge, MA, and I would like to find an excellent lab preferably in Cambridge. If there's nothing in Cambridge, the general Boston area would also work.

<p>

I shoot 35mm and 4x5, B&W and E-6.

<p>

Thanks,

Nathaniel

One quick note: Ivey Seright was recently purchased and changed

their name to Photobition Seattle. The kept the same equipment and

people though. The only thing that changed was the logo and the name.

<p>

I've given them far too much of my money, but at this point I would

not send my film to any other lab in the Seattle area.

I've really appreciated their printing in the past... I've had very

few complaints. Of course, it didn't hurt that I only lived a short

walk away and could walk over just to chat every once in a while.

<p>

I have to admit though that the largest 4x5 print that I've had them

make was only an 11x14 (type r print from astia). It was "nose

sharp" though... you could stick your nose up to it and almost see

desks inside the far away office buildings.

<p>

I'm still leaning towards the idea that you need to check the

transparency under more magnification. When you get up close to a

16x20 print, you're "not really" looking at a 16x20 print anymore.

Instead, you're looking at detail that wouldn't become visible at

normal viewing distance until you got to a much larger print. (I'm

not sure if this idea really makes sense, people can correct me if

I'm wrong.)

<p>

Maybe you should just drive down on Saturday. Remember, they close

at 1 on Saturdays though.

I've had a lot of work printed at Photobition, and they have always

been willing to look at and redo any work that I wasn't satisfied

with. You should probably just take it back and talk to them about

it. I've had them print 16x20 from a 6x7 slide that is sharp right

up to the point where your nose touches the print.

<p>

While you're at it, I'd walk next door to Glazers and "test" a 8x or

10x loupe. For big enlargements, I think that you need to examine

the original much more than you would for a smaller print simply

because you're magnifying so much more (although a 16x20 from 4x5 is

the same enlargment as a 4x6 from 35mm).

<p>

I'd like to know how things work out too, since Photobition does all

my printing.

WAIT!!! When they say 720x1440, they're generally referring to the x

and y resolutions of the scanner or printer. They're usually not the

same due to the design of the scanner or the printer. For example,

the horizontal resolution of a scanner is going to be determined by

the spacing of pixels in its ccd whereas the vertical resolution is

going to be determined by how accurate the motor which moves the

scanning ccd is.

<p>

For example, my epson can print at 720x1440. It prints at 1440 dpi

across the page and 720 dpi along the page. (although I probably

have these directions reversed).

<p>

Generally, with scanners, they will give you a separate number for

the interpolated resolution.

I'll just suggest my home town of Petersburg, Alaska. Unfortunately,

you can't drive there, but you might enjoy the ferry ride from

Seattle... it only takes 4 days.

<p>

Petersburg is a small (3500 residents) fishing town that is still

relatively untouched by the mass tourism that has engulfed so much of

Southeast Alaska. Downtown has the library, the bank, the drug store,

and both hardware stores on it... all in 4 blocks. Wrangell, Alaska,

is another similar town with even fewer people. It's the ferry stop

before you hit Petersburg.

<p>

If you want me to put you in touch with someone, just ask.

<p>

Nathaniel

I could be wrong, but my calculations suggest that it really doesn't

matter which focal length lens you use for doing close-up work. For

example, a 150mm lens will give you more DOF than a 210, but it will

have to be closer to the subject. In the end, you end up with exactly

the same DOF for a given f-stop.

<p>

The only way to get around it is to stop WAY down or use whatever tilts

and swings are possible with your setup

I'd carry them on and ask for a hand check. If the security people

won't do that, just run them through the carry-on x-ray machine...

they are fairly lower power and it would take quite a few zaps to

damage the film significantly. I've found that even in international

airports (Sydney, Australia) they'll hand check your film if you ask

nicely.

<p>

No matter what you do, _don't_ send the film in your luggage. The

machines that x-ray luggage are extremely powerfull and will ruin your

film with one zap.

<p>

Nathaniel

I'm guessing that this is a throwback to the days when enlarging lenses

might have had a lot of chromatic aberation (basically, the lens has a

different focal length for different wavelengths [colors] of light) and

people were printing on blue-sensitive paper.

<p>

Regular tungsten bulbs, of course, produce a lot of red light and not

too much blue so you might tend to focus for red and ignore the blue

fringes. By filtering away the red, you avoid the chromatic problem

and focus with the light the paper is actually recording.

<p>

Of course, your enlarging lens probably doesn't have a chromatic

problem and you're probably using paper that is sensitive to colors

other than just blue. So, just like everyone else said, you can just

ignore the filter.

<p>

Nathaniel

Cedric, your answer is Ivey Seright although they just changed their

name to Photobition. I started working with them when i was living in

Southeast Alaska and they do all of my 4x5 now. (I live in Seattle

these days.)

<p>

I've been less impressed by some of the other Seattle labs, but have

never had a problem with Ivey Seright's processing.

I moved up to LF in December and got the 545i holder. Every time I

think of it, I kick myself for not buyting the pro back. The timer

with its linked thermometer would be a very nice thing to have.

I'm fairly new to large format, but recently got a Canham DLC 4x5. To save money, I got a used Zeiss Jena 135/4.5 lens which I now consider a complete waste of money.

<p>

I've been planning on getting a Nikon 210/5.6 W but recently found a Fuji 180/5.6 for $450. The Fuji lens looks to be in good condition and is multicoated.

<p>

I have three questions:

1) Which focal length to people use more 210 or 180... is the difference really noticable? Can the 180 be used for head and shoulders portraiture without significant distortion?

2) Are there any specific problems with the Fuji large format lenses that I should look out for?

3) Is $450 a fair price for this lens?

<p>

Thanks