larry_huppert1

I believe the binocular viewer has ~2x magnification. If a 2x

loupe works for you, then the viewer should be all you need. My

eyes need more help than 2x.

The concept described seems related to how some vendors of color

management software use a standard scanner for building printer

device profiles (e.g. Monaco EzColor). I guess in this case, the

vendor is using the scanner as a poor man's colorimeter. If I

remember, the process does require you to scan the test chart with

all scanner controls turned off.

Calumet

I'm with Geoffrey on the ergonomic aspects of using Copal 0 based

lenses on recessed Linhof lensboards. I don't use needle nose

pliers, but I will use a pen or something else to push the aperture

lever and cock the shutter. You may also have trouble easily

attaching a flash sync cord without modification as there may not be

enough clearance depending on which particular recessed board your

using. The small flashlight idea is a good one. Also, a Copal Press

shutter won't fit. The 72XL is a great lens. It can take you where

others can't.

I use a Schneider SA-90mm 5.6 with the Lee wide angle adapter, and

haven't had any issues through the full range of movement. I'm not

sure if a standard adapter would also work. As the previous poster

suggested, if your ever going to stack other things on the front

(e.g. Lee lens shade or more filters), the wide angle adapter gives

you more margin.

Just an off-the-wall idea (a bit futuristic)...

 

<p>

 

If your going to be using the color meter in places where you'd

always have a computer (notebook) available, you could use one of the

newer hand held mouse-like spectrophotometers (e.g. Spectrocam) which

are commonly used in the process of building ICC color profiles for

computer gear. I'd guess a spectrophotometer should be able to

provide interesting information regarding discontinuous spectrum

light sources where color temp meters provide less than exact

information, as well as be useful for reading the colors of objects

your trying to photograph (e.g. for catalog shoots where color

matching is important). A number of pro photographers around here

are shooting digital on location with high-end backs, and typically

do bring a computer to the shoot so the premise isn't so far fetched.

 

<p>

 

For portability, I'd like to see the next generation Specrocam as USB

based, and have some PalmOS software available so you could use the

spectrophotometer off a Handspring Visor or other PalmOS USB based

hand held.

I second the Arca Swiss F line for architectural work. If you have

extra $, the metric version is very nice particularly the geared rise

and shift. The design allows lenses to at least 47mm to mount

without a recessed lens board. I've also found the built-in levels

to be extremely accurate.

Although it's not a wide format printer, does anyone have any

comments regarding the image quality, stability, gamut and color

quality of dye sub printers such as the Olympus P-400?

The Epson P2000 has been out for a while now. It uses the same

pigment inks as the larger P7500 and P9500 (although the larger

format printers use individual ink cartridges rather than the all-in-

one color cartridge of the P2000.

 

<p>

 

I believe there was some issue with either the papers or inks for the

Epson pigment printers as Epson was suppose to reformulate are re-

release some of these supplies for these printers.

 

<p>

 

Epson isn't the only one with pigment inks. They also exist for high-

end wide format inkjet printers from Roland, HP and others. Check

out www.wilhelm-research.com for info on the archieval nature of

inkjet prints with different papers and ink sets.

 

<p>

 

I saw matt prints from these Epson printers at PhotoExpo East.

Looked pretty nice, however there wasn't a glossy print in sight nor

a direct comparison with a photographic print. My guess is that

these printers aren't at their best on glossy paper stock. This is

something I want to check out in more detail. A number of people

have also reported problems with very noticable metamerism with the

Epson pigment inks.

 

<p>

 

From what I've heard, as an overall industry trend, the R&D money

being spent in color output technology is heavily skewed towards

inkjet technologies.

Do you really need to remove the bellows to do this? Does the

TK45s have a removeable back or a Graflock back? If so,

couldn't you place the front and rear standards close together,

remove the back and screw in the rear element?

 

<p>

 

The other issue with the 90XL is the front filter thread size. It's

bigger than the largest wide angle adapter from Lee in case your

a user of 4" filters. Lee makes a special foundation kit which

works with this lens (FK-100).

There is a lot of info about IR at:

http://www.cocam.co.uk/CoCamWS/Infrared/INFRARED.HTM

Scala scans well. You might consider obtaining prints from

Scala via a quality scan and digital printing. Several years ago I

had some Illfochome prints from Scala made. It's pretty difficult

to keep a slight color cast from being introduced by this process.

I'd bet the digital route will give better results. Other posts have

talked about good labs for scanning and digital printing.

I got the idea of nitrogen from the archieves which are part of this

site. After the initial outlay for a tank + regulator (~$130), getting

the tank refilled is *MUCH* less expensive than those Dust-Off

cans which seem to have about a dozen good shots in them

before the air pressure reduces to the point where the can isn't

useful. You also don't run the risk of having that white ick (the

propellant?) cover your stuff. I believe my tank is a 60 cubic ft

tank, and it will cost less than $15 to refill. From what others

have said, Nitrogen is one of the least expensive industrial

gases, and is suppose to be very dry and clean. I wasn't aware

that compressed Nitrogen was a significant health or safety risk.

Pete,

 

<p>

 

The problem was fixed without a filter. My gas supplier gave me

a regulator when I got this nitrogen tank. Last week I went back

to the gas dealer and we found the problem by switching out all

the components one by one. The old regulator somehow ended

up with gunk which mixed with the gas. Getting a new regulator

solved the problem. Just a proof point in the saying that you get

what you pay for. Now it works great, and it's wonderful having a

huge dust-off can without the noise of a compressor.

O.K. Inspite of best efforts, disasters can happen...

 

<p>

 

A problem with my compressed gas (nitrogen) setup which I use to dust off film prior to scanning left some small gobs of gunk on one of my transparencies. It appears to be an oily deposit. What is the best way to remove this gunk off of the transparencies?

 

<p>

 

I've since found the source of the problem, and corrected it. It happened to be a bad regulator which my gas supplier gave me.

Tried a Wista once, and returned it. Frame spacing was highly

inconsistent to the point where some consecutive frames touched each

other. Maybe it was a bad one, but from outside, it looked perfect.

 

<p>

 

The Horseman's I've used have always worked with high reliability and

no flaws.

Even if manufacturers made them for the rear, would you really

want to focus giving up ~2 stops of illumination on the GG?

Julio,

 

<p>

 

I agree with your analysis regarding the Lee system. You have

discovered one of the several weaknesses of this setup for large

format, and wide angle usage in particular. There have been

recent posts where people have given opinions about the need

for a shade. Because of what you've described, I've given up on

trying to use the Lee shades, and just use a foam core board or

the dark slide to shade my lenses. I would still prefer having the

option of using a shade. I had a recent shot ruined by flare even

though I remember being very careful using the darkslide to

shade the lens.

Glenn,

 

<p>

 

The reason why I'm interested in this is because I'm considering

an Arca 6x9 camera, and I already use a DLC. The Arca 6x9

cannot be adapted to either of the boards the DLC supports (the

Toyo board or the Linhoff compatible board), so the only

possible option to make the Arca board work with the DLC.

I'm curious if anyone has tried to make an Arca Swiss 110mm lensboard fit a Canham DLC 45. The native Canham lensboard is Toyo 110mm compatible. The smaller Arca Swiss lensboard is also 110mm, however the size is different by a small amount, and the light trap design is also different. I've heard that it can in fact work, but you might have to add some material to make it light tight. Also, assuming it can be made to work, will Arca Swiss recessed boards work in the DLC? Anyones experience with this problem would be helpful.

The folks at Repro Images in Vienna, VA seem to know what their

talking about. Their phone is 800-998-3873.

 

<p>

 

Overall, I'd guess that high quality scans has reduced the need for

duplicates for many people.

The Lee lens shade is NOT truely adjustable for movements. The shade

has a built-in "foundation kit" which snaps to any of the Lee adapter

rings. The shade cannot travel up, down, left or right relative to

the front of your lens. It is fixed dead center. If you do

movements, you must pull back the shade in the direction of the

movement to prevent vignetting. For example, if you have used rise,

then you must pull back the top of the shade. Pulling back the shade

has the effect of lessening the effectiveness of the shade. If you

use moderate to large movements, you must pull it back so far that it

isn't worth using.

 

<p>

 

If you use Lee style filters which require rotation (e.g. polarizer &

ND grads), the use of their shade is even more difficult,

particularly with wide angle lenses. My solution has been to stop

using the Lee shade entirely. Instead, I've taken to using a piece

of black foamcore to shield the lens from direct sun.

The Wista boards I've used also have the hole off-center. I also

once tried a Bromwell (Walker?) board, but didn't think it fit as

well as the Wista.

The ability of a lens shade to provide direct adjustment for

movements is a function of it's design. For example, the

Canham and Arca Swiss are camera mounted, and do not

adjust for movements. Linhof is camera mounted, and does

adjust for movements. Today, no one offers a lens mounted

shade which adjusts for movements, however such a design is

possible.

 

<p>

 

If I owned a camera brand who offered a shade which adjusted

for movements, I'd prefer that approach just because of that

capability.

The Prontor Professional is considered by some as better than Copal

Press shutters. I've heard that the internal mechanisms are very

good. Contrary to other posts, the expensive control box is not

required to use this shutter, however the control box makes it's use

easier. The control box lets you do things from the cable release

box which all of us normally do by reaching around and manually

adjusting a more pedestrian shutter such as a Copal Press (e.g. -

activating the preview lever, and I believe also previewing at the

selected aperture which is a cool feature for a press shutter). The

force required for tripping a Prontor shutter is much greater than a

Copal Press shutter. The control box cable release handles this

nicely, but you can also use any good industrial strength cable

release. You will struggle with wimpy cable releases with this

shutter. Needless to say, it's near impossible to trip a Prontor

Professional with any kind of low-pressure pneumatic cable release

currently known to the world.