lars ake vinberg

I paid $500 for one of my G's (older version) and $1200 for the other (completely like new, latest generation G but not GII).

 

One thing to watch out for: The older back has a bail arm that only lifts the top of the GG back out. The newer back has a bail arm that lifts the entire GG frame out so no force is needed when inserting a film holder.

 

A tip: If you get a 150 mm extension rail, both standards will exactly fit on the rail and you can pack the camera flat in a backpack. I pack mine in a LowePro SuperTrekker.

Don't forget that to fine-tune composition using an LF camera you can use shift and rise/fall. Use the ball head to level and aim the camera, then use movements for fine adjustments.

 

The B1 is nice, but it is important to keep the ball clean, otherwise it starts grabbing and locking up..

Steve,

 

The Cokin X-Pro series might work, they are 130x170 mm, roughly 5x7". I have a set of holders and filters that I started with for 8x10 but realized that they were too big for 8x10. I'd be happy to sell the system, please contact me off-list if you are interested.

 

Lars

I'd recommend that you take a look at Ebony SW23 and SW45 cameras.

Dark Matter -

 

Trolling this morning, are we?

What I find really interesting with the Gigapixl website is the whole analysis of how to achieve the target resolution, and the possible problem sources. The lens they designed seems to have impressive specs, and the tripod rigidity is just mind-blowing. The fact that the camera is a completely rigid fixed box is significant.

 

Sure, you can calculate theoretical information content based on film grain and lens MTF, but to in the field actually get more than a few hundred megapixels out of an 8x10 is no small feat.

 

No color film (that I know of) available today would be meaningful to scan at 12,000 ppi. Velvia 50 at 4000 ppi picks up a lot of grain. More reasonable for 8x10 would be 2000 ppi. If you doubt me, do a 4000 ppi scan, then downsample to 2000 ppi, overlay on the original and diff the layers. Probably almost all you will see is grain and noise (less noise for a drum scanner of course). This is a very critical test that will truly show what you gain by scanning at a higher resolution.

 

I doubt the Ansel Adams trust would let you drum-scan anything in its possession (I had the opportunity to meet one of the trustees a few weeks ago) but if you did I doubt you would be impressed in terms of resolution.

Don't speculate - find out for yourself:

 

Make a 16-bit scan.

Load it into Photoshop.

Duplicate the image.

Reduce the copy to 8-bit depth.

Select all, copy to clipboard.

Go back to original 16t-bit image.

Paste (into new layer).

Set blend mode to Difference.

Add a Levels layer and brighten to see details in the difference.

Do you see anything in the shadow areas of the image except noise?

 

Hope this helps,

 

- Lars

I use my 120 Digitar on 6x17 and 4x5. Coverage on 6x17 is just to the corners, no movements possible. I mostly shoot at f11 to f32 so most of the extreme sharpness gets lost. I did try it at 5.6 and 8 with impressive results. I have been told that outside the nominal image circle of 150 mm this lens is not flat field.

David,

 

You might want to consider the 85/1.4D for portrait as well, its out of focus rendering is superb and sharpness stopped down a stop or two is second to none.

Calypso Imaging in Santa Clara does E-6 at a favorable price and top quality. Not sure about negs though.

<p>As I have been waiting for a very long time for a refund from

Wisner for a returned product, I am now publishing an open letter to

Ron Wisner. It is my hope that Mr. Wisner will finally honor his

original commitment for a full refund of the purchase price.</p>

<p>My open letter to Mr. Wisner is published at my personal website.

Once the issue is resolved this letter will be redrawn from public

view. </p>

<a>http://www.vinberg.nu/pages/lettertowisner2005-07.htm</a>

 

<p>Lars ūe Vinberg</p>

Last friday I had my first public display of prints.

 

My 8x10 chromes were scanned on my Microtek 1800f at 900 dpi, corrected for contrast to bring out shadow detail, and sharpened slightly. Prints were made on an HP 130, at 16x20", then mounted on black foamcore.

 

The feedback I got from the show was quite positive, and I am quite pleased with the resultin prints.

 

I think 8x10 in a way is not so challenging for a flatbed scanner - the larger the original the less you have to enlarge. Shadow noise seems to always be a problem (though I have no experience with high-end flatbeds like Cre-Scitex), as well as flare from the large light source. But properly exposed film does very well.

I would evaluate each neg to decide on cropping, rather than have paper dimensions decide.

Now, you'd have have strong hands to do front tilt on an XPan? Tried with mine, doesn't seem to work that way.

 

Seriously though, I think it sounds like an intriguing idea... 24x84 wide format, cheap & available development... But the target market is small, plus the alternative 120 film cropped is just a little more expensive.

I drag my Toyo 810G around the world, works pretty well for me. With 8x10 the longer setup time of a monorail is quite acceptable - I don't shoot many sheets per day anyway. For smaller formats I find that I want to be more efficient, so I think I have a preference towards shorter setup time there.

Tubes or back will work well. One thing to look out for on the short-bed non-folders is to _not_ use full extension but rather to have minimize extension to ensure stability. The tubes as well as the extension back put a much higher torsional load on the bed.

 

I would recommend tubes, as they are cheaper, more compact, and lighter. My 180 Apo-Symmar sits on one 35mm tube - I plan to replace the 180 with a 210 Fujinon that I just purchased. The 210 will then be mounted on two 35mm tubes.

 

The disadvantage of using tubes on the SW23 (which has no back tilt/swing) is that front tilt/swing will shift the image.

I have a Gandolfi Variant 8x10 and a Toyo 810G monorail. I think the Variant is a great camera if you don't need lenses longer than 480 mm. The rear standard has asymmetric tilt, making the focusing sooo easy. It is also fantastic with short focal lengths, will easily and with no hassle focus my 47 mm Super Angulon. As with any 8x10, for wideangle use look into getting a better ground glass and a fresnel. Otherwise composing might be a bit of a transitional shock for you.

You mean like a full 8x10" 1800dpi scan? I could upload one if you tell me exactly what you are looking for.

For my 150XL with CF (slightly wider angle, 112mm thread, so possibly more demanding in terms of vignetting) I first got the Cokin XL system. It is a good filter system, but the filters are really thick and heavy.

After some measuring I figured out that the Lee system just might work. I got the largest slip-on holder for 115 mm outer diameter from Robert White - haven't seen it listed in the States - reduced it to one slot. Shooting vertical, no problem. Horizontal with FH vertical and no tilt/swing I get no vignetting. More than very slight tilt might show the edge of the film holder along the edge of the photograph so I try to compose with margins in this configuration.

 

If you use a screw-in adapter and a regular Lee holder you will likely run into problems, for minimal vignetting you need the slip-on type.

 

Or just tie the filter to the lens with a few rubber bands! Works in a pinch and is the best solution in terms of vignetting.

 

Overall, the Lee system has been a blessing over the Cokin X-Pro system, not for quality but weight and bulk. The X-Pro system is probably targeted towards the film industry. Furthermore, Cokin's selection of ND grads is a bit narrow and odd. Although Cokin does have an ND grad that is graduated over the whole height of the filter, I sometimes miss that with Lee.

 

And yes, with the 150XL I used screw-in color filter in the rear threads so one slot in front for the ND grad is all I need.

 

Attached photo shot with 150XL and two grads.<div></div>

For my 150XL with CF (slightly wider angle, 112mm thread, so possibly more demanding in terms of vignetting) I first got the Cokin XL system. It is a good filter system, but the filters are really thick and heavy.

 

After some measuring I figured out that the Lee system just might work. I got the largest slip-on holder for 115 mm outer diameter from Robert White - haven't seen it listed in the States - reduced it to one slot. Shooting vertical, no problem. Horizontal with FH vertical and no tilt/swing I get no vignetting. More than very slight tilt might show the edge of the film holder along the edge of the photograph so I try to compose with margins in this configuration.

 

If you use a screw-in adapter and a regular Lee holder you will likely run into problems, for minimal vignetting you need the slip-on type.

 

Or just tie the filter to the lens with a few rubber bands! Works in a pinch and is the best solution in terms of vignetting.

 

Overall, the Lee system has been a blessing over the Cokin X-Pro system, not for quality but weight and bulk. The X-Pro system is probably targeted towards the film industry. Furthermore, Cokin's selection of ND grads is a bit narrow and odd. Although Cokin does have an ND grad that is graduated over the whole height of the filter, I sometimes miss that with Lee.

Stability? Even if it is a lightweight frame, the bulk weight of the back and film holder might make the whole contraption a bit too unstable. Perhaps easier to extend the front using a chimney-like extension tube for lens board? Essentially the same problem though, except if your lens is lightweight. Or do like me, pick up a second-hand monorail on *bay, they are pretty cheap these days.

My Toyo 810G monorail is packed in a supertrekker backpack, together with lenses, filmholders, and other accessories. I pack the supertrekker in a large hard-shell Samsonite suitcase, together with tripod(s).

In Europe and Australia, forget about hand inspection (and be prepared to have anything beyond the carryon weight limit checked in at the gate).

 

I shipped some film to Australia using USPS EMS service, no problem.

 

For carry-on I put my film boxes in lead bags and run them through X-ray. Never a problem, but the fastest speed I use is ISO 100. The lead bag also protects against some the increased radiation at high altitude - some people say that this radiation is much more harmful for film than the carryon x-ray, although I have not been able to verify this statement. Plus, my padded lead bag looks kinda cool.

 

I have gone through the manual inspection procedure in the U.S. a few times - it is an enormous hassle, takes forever, is not worth the hassle.

My 240 Apo-Symmar (#3 shutter, 77mm filter) covers 8x10 and is sharp and contrasty. The Fuji 240/9 Fujinon-A has slightly larger image circle, could be a good choice for a 240. Compact in a #0 shutter, 52mm filters. Sironar-S 240 covers more than Apo-Symmar but is bigger and takes 86mm filters.

I use the current SuperTrekker II for my 8x10 monorail - this pack has a very good harness for heavy (55-70lbs) load. I was a bit surprised to read Scotts negative comments on the Supertrekker above, I guess experiences vary. The smaller trekkers are not very good for tall people as they will sitt too high on your back for the waistbelt to be functional. Try them out!