jerry2

Donald....

 

> You'd need an 80 mm lens to get the same image size as with the two lens example -- but you won't get identical images for the two eyes to view with the splitting arrangement.

 

So my question is, what fl lens with the Image splitter would produce the same two images as a dual 80mm lens set up?

 

> With an 80 mm on that very wide format, if it can cover the territory at all (unlikely unless you're using something akin to a Super-Angulon),

 

I was planning on use a Super Symmar XL 80mm, 226 mm Image circle, whereas the 6x12 format is only a 123 mm diagonal. This should work fine, right?

 

 

> you'll get images that are near the lens axis close to the dividing line, and well out in the edge of the lens coverage at the outer edges; you'll have significant keystoning, .

 

So few people pick up on this keystoning.... I am completely aware of such and planned to overcome this by a distortion correction program after the film has been scanned. This works wonders for this issue.

 

> I can get a pair of perfectly acceptable f/4.5 80mm triplet lenses in non-functioning folders (with bad bellows and needing CLA, for instance) for under $20 each at auction, and fabricate the dual lens board and septum, for less than the price of the stereo adapter you're talking about -- and then you might pay $1000 for the 80mm lens to cover 6x12.

 

Donald, you are very correct.... however, one issue that is hard to overcome is shutter sync. This is critical for me, and I struggle with getting two lenses to fire accurately to 1/500 th second. In addtion, you have to deal with getting two lenses that have fl's within 1/4% of each other. Not always easy. Also, you have to set two lenses each time, vs. the IS method with one lens. So as I see it, there is some drawbacks, but there is advantages also. The biggest drawbacks with the IS is the fact you can't stop down past f11 due to vignetting. But for this application, that is acceptable.

 

So in the end, I am not sure of your answer...will a single 80mm lens with an IS produce the same two images as dual 80mm lenses? All else being equal of course. Thanks, Bill

Bill, the Image splitter has been around for 100 years for stereo photography. I will try to attach an image to illustrate its purpose.

Dick, not sure what you mean by whole 35mm? Entire roll?

You did not mention a budget.... there is many scanners that meet this criteria.....

I keep beating myself up on this quandray...

 

If I use two 80 mm lenses on a lens board, (stereo photography) with

a 6 x 12 roll film back, with a septum to prevent light spillage.....

I will get two "almost" identical images on film, each approx 6x6.

 

Now, in the second example, if I keep the tripod at the exact same

position and I will use a single lens with an Image Splitter to

produce two 6x6 images on the 6x12 back. (of course the septum has

been removed) An Image Splitter is a mirrored device to produce dual

images through one lens. It contains two inboard and two outboard

mirrors to reproduce what two lenses would see. It project a left

and a right image onto the film.

 

Here is the question.... what fl lens would I need with

the Image Splitter to get the same images as the first example using

dual 80 mm lenses? Same images, I mean the exact same scene on each

6x6 piece of film.

 

My first instinct was I need a 160 mm lens? Then I

started to think, why wouldn't 80 mm lenses produce the same images?

Thank you all in advance.

Hugh, for starters you can get drum scans done less than $80... try infinite editions.com. One of the benefits of LF film is the fact you do not have to enlarge it as much vs. smaller formats, which enables you to use lower cost scanners. You did not mention what enlargement factor you are looking for. Nor did you mention the size fim you are trying to scan. Assuming you are shooting 4x5 and the enlargements you desire are not more than 5x, you can use a low price flat bed tranny scanner, or a film scanner. 1600 dpi scanners are not terribly expensive... in the $300 price range. The only major differences with drum scans is film grain, film scratches (eliminated by wet mounting) that show through.... and if the film has a lots of information burried in shadow detail, the lower end scanners can not grab all the shadow detail as vs, a drum scanner ...but all this can be overcome other ways.... for example, scan twice, once for the highlights and once for the shadows then blend the two in PS. As for grain and scratches, all this can be corrected in PS also... so don't think there is only one way to skin a cat. I owned a drum scanner for years and I could produce the same scans with cheaper scanners by utilizing good digital knowledge and tools.

 

However, beware...just because a scanner claims 1600 dpi, it does not neccessarily mean this is true. There is no policing of this industry, so makers tend to exaggerate. So I would try to read some of the web reviews of the scanners you would consider and see if anyone has run some resolution tests. The new Canon F9900 (don't hold me to the model number) is suppose to scan 3200 dpi in both directions, if so, this is a good scanner to look at. I think US retail is about $300 - $400. Hoope this helps...

David, I am not aware of the thread in question, I am not taking sdies, but there is some good points raised above. You also make some excellent points...which im my opinion is a source of deterioation of many forums. Lots of strong personalities, head strong people, who do not face each other in person.....it's a recipe for hostility sooner or later. I do notice though how some very experienced people have a very gentle demeanor, even when pushed. I praise them all, it's not easy! Almost no one likes getting attacked personaly, and once it starts, it seems there is no end to it. I have too have been attacked and find myseld wasting valuable time defending myself or better said, protecting my character.

 

You wrote....a lot of people here feel the need to be absolute experts a little too often and that we are all a little too ready to go to our guns when a little courtesy would do just fine.

 

I agree with this point very much. Many people suffer from, NIH, Not Invented Here Syndrome and quite often leads to the demise of a thread, not to mention how confusing the thread becomes. The other issue about these threads, and the one reason I gave up for awhile also is....it seems not everyone reads all the posts before theirs...which often creates confusion. Also, some posts somehow do not relate to the question.... Lots of things can go wrong in forums, and it's an open forum, so expect the worse and grab what you can! Anyway, welcome back!

Mike, lots of good suggestions above... I live here and can tell you my read on this.... I agree with the poster who wrote that he never took a good pix of the Grand Canyon, it's one of those places that is great to experience, but in 2d photography, its OK, but not great, specially considering you will only hit the tourist trap spots. I do have some great MF stereo images of the Grand Canyon.... but that is a different topic!

 

Anyway, here is my suggestion... first, film and processing can be had at Nevada Merchandising, (lab is next door) it's on Industrial road, directly behind I 15, near your hotel.... they stock everything. Less wasted time vs. running to Caseys...

 

Next, here is my suggestions on where to shoot. The only two fascinating shots on the strip is the Treasure Island Boat in the front, before activity begins, so you can set up...and mid day shot of the Bellagio water show... you need to shoot mid day, and preferably higher speed film, try 200 or 400, or just push Provia F 100 a full stop.

 

As for landscapes....

 

Grand Canyon - too far and too much distance between shots.

 

Sedona AZ - There is a few good shots, but you have to go in the back country to find them. The red rocks themselves are not fascinating. I have a ton I tossed, sort of like the Grand Canyon. Distance is too great, about 5 hrs each way. Nothing along the way to shoot.

 

Red Rock Canyon near Vegas - Lame, you won't be happy.

Mt. Charleston north of Vegas - nice weather, but lame, nothing great.

 

West - not a bad option... Death Valley, Bristlecone pines and if you really work fast, you can try to hit Sequoa National Park.... all 3 are fabulous for LF... I would stick with the first two, Sequoa is will eat up too much time..

 

East - From vegas, in 3 hrs you can be Zion National park... you can spend all your time there...but if not, an additional 1.5 hrs will have you at Bryce Canyon...two of the most spectacular LF spots to hit. If you want to see some great Zion LF photography, stop in the Fatali gallery right near the entrance of the park, near the Noodles restaurant. For the time you have alloted, this makes the most sense and you will surely get the best images. At Bryce, even the tourist stops offer spectacular views. At Zion, you have to travel by shuttle bus everywhere. I would get a book on Zion, pick the shots you want, then work smart. Hope this helps...

Todd.... you wrote....

 

cos^4 only applies where the thin lens approximation applies).

 

Can you explain this in more detail? When does thin lens apply? What is thin lens? Thanks

I am very curious what the real Image circle is on the 47mm and 80mm digitars. I wanted to buy them, but hesitated due to the listed image circle being a bit too small?

Mendel... I am not taking on the processing for enjoyment or for quality control.... I have limited places to get the film processed where I live. So for me, I am considering it only as a means to an end...I need film processed quickly, and I have no way to do it... But I am concerned about the toxicity issues. I know E6 has been around quite awhile, so its health track record, if poor, may have surfaced by now....hence my post...

I first mistakenly posted to the B&W processing, sorry for the repeat.

 

I am strongly considering doing E6 in my home studio with a JObo ATL

1500. I am interested in how toxic the chemical vapors are using

the 6 step process? How well ventilated does the area have to be?

In the process of using the chemicals, some will vaporize and

circulate through the house, even if an exhaust fan is used.... this

has me concerned as I have been known to be slightly chemicaly

sensitive. But I know there is many E6 home brew machines in use?

Any input?

I am strongly considering processing my own E6 in home stuido. Are

the chemicals used in the 6 step process considered toxic? Are the

vapors harmful? Is ventilation mandatory in small enviroment?

 

Thank you all in advance.

Some wonderful input... Unfortunately, all this tremendous difficulty to market your images.... falls under the category of supply vs. demand. That age old foundation of all businesses. I have been in many fields / industries in my life, and I beleive that fine art photoraphy is about the most crowded I have ever seen. When I say crowded, I use this term in relationship to the market demand. The supply vs. demand equation is "out of whack" for photographers. This is evidenced by gallery owners extreme standards and qualifications placed on new comers in the field.

 

The artfair circuit is not much better to get started. Although it's much easier than the gallery route. However, keep in mind, on the art fair circuit, there is a ton of competition and many shows are juried, so you have to pass the jury test first, before they will accept your $300 - $1200 entrance fee. When you factor travel time / expenses, hotels, food, set up costs, etc., this can become an expesnive endeavor also, your product needs to sell. However, if your good enough, and your work is presented properly for the market you cater to, and of course, is priced right, you can possibly make a living at this. But it certainly is not uncommon for people to barely make money while investing a ton of their time at these shows. For many, it's not all about the money, its about travel, meeting people, satisfaction of people liking your work, etc. It's a cold reality indeed, assuming making respectable profits is your motive.

 

I like the suggestions offered by others about starting with home shows, possibly selling on roadsides in the affluent areas, getting a few images local art type stores, etc. One of the most valuable pieces of data you need is...is the buying public willing to reach in their wallet to pay the prices you are asking for your work? Forget about what your friends and family say. After you get a handle on this, it may persuade or disuade you from investing further into marketing your work. Or as suggested, it may suggest you need to generate more good images before investing your time in marketing. It may also helpo identify your market niche.

 

I have been doing photography for many years... and I have followed many photographers journeys in trying to sell their images. Without getting into details, the results were bleak, including web sales, photography rarely sells well over the web, unless the images were first seen in person. When I say bleak, it's assuming one is trying to make a decent living from it. Even the successful photographers I see today, when you look at the time and money they have invested in their craft, the success they are experiencing would be considered marginal at best vs. other professtions, but as I mentioned before, for most photographers / artists it's not always about the money.

 

What I find interesting though, is where talented photographers turn after exhausting the concept of selling their prints. There seems to be an excellent market niche for talented landscape and wildlife shooters, which if done right, can yield a fast avenue to making a living in photography. PHOTO TOURS! Yep, I have watched many talented people convert all their energies from trying to sell prints, to offering photo tours. And almost every one has been greeted with success in a very short period of time. I am not reccomending this for you Alex, I am just sharing my experiences with the group.

 

It seems the market demand for photo tours has not exceeded the supply! This is considered a non saturated market, which is very hard to find, at least in the USA. Another indicator this market is still ripe, is the price these photographers get for the tours. Too much competition breeds low prices, and I have not yet seen this happen in the photo tour field. Whats the moral to this story here? There is more people willing to pay to participate in photography vs. people willing to buy others peoples work. I find it interesting that most of the people, who shell out $2k-$6k for a guided tour, will not spend $300 to buy another photographers print! This demonstrates just how many people love the process and the personal attachment to it, vs. just appreciating the end product - the print.

 

Michael Smith, I am curious, you are very knowledgeable in this area...can you tell us what you have done to market your work? I am assuming you have... how did your attempts work out? What type of photography do you do?

 

Bill

 

Expert drums? Vs. what? I thought they were the only ones that you can use? I don't know the product line very well...

I have no processing experience, but need a way to process film more

quickly. Jobo is running a nice promotion for the ATL 1500

processor, after rebates, about $2800. I plan to process a lot of

120/220 roll film and 4x5 sheets. Any comments about this processor?

Thank you in advance

James, does this Fuji pack film also work in the 545i holder? Does Fuji offer "instant films" that include negatives? I know Polaroid used to have one in B&W....thanks

Alan, I never thought of it this way... are you saying that all lenses follow the same Cos4 light fall off pattern? If so, can you elaborate on how you calculated that? Where did you get 28.5 degrees? If can be applied universally, then it seems like its a safer bet vs. reading the charts. I thought the light falloff was more of a function of the image circle size?

Ok, this makes sense... I actually knew this at one time, but after not reviewing these charts for years, senility set in. I still question the light fall off numbers for the 150 XL... it appears there is NO fall off on 4x5 with no movements, but reading the chart the radius method, it shows 20% falloff... maybe they are just conservative?

I am trying to understand the Schneider PDF files for the

Super Symar XL lenses, at www.schneideroptics.com

 

I can not make sense out of them... on the left side, y

axis, the graph shows relative illumination, from 0 to 100%. Makes

perfect sense. Then, on the horizontal, x axis, it displays * 100%,

which I always assumed was, % of the image circle.

 

Take for example the SSXL 150. It has an image circle of

almost 400mm. When shooting 4x5 with no movements, this lens

demonstrates NO light fall off on the 4x5 film! It makes sense, the

image circle is so huge. But if I read the chart, it shows on the

horizontal axis 40% of image height (40% of 400 mm = 160 mm approx

4x5 film diagonal) the chart shows approx a 50% to 60% light fall

off. That is about a full stop of light! There is no way this

happens in the real world....so how does one interpret these charts?

I am considering buying other Schneider lenses and am trying to

evaluage the light fall off, but based on this cross check, something

is wrong.

 

Thanks in advance for any input.

WOW, this guy had to dig really deep to find holes in digital....contrary to his initial statement, he was on a mission! He kept trying to be unbiased, but it was not possible. At this stage of digital, it will not obsolete darkrooms, however, it will conitually put a huge dent into darkrooms till they will one day be near extinct...at least for the printing portion. Even Cones B&W digital printing supercedes anything I have seen come from a darkroom. There is no reason why he should not continue with darkroom work, but if he wanted to be really honest, he should have let a digital guru offer the pros of digital in his article....

Dan, I plan to shoot 65 x 130 format, either on sheet film or hopefully 70mm film back. Why did you not mention the Nikor 210 mm AM macro lens? Yes, I have plenty of bellows, 1200mm. The reason for the longer fl is for sharper image... the wider the image the more issues the optics must overcome. (as a general rule)

 

Hogarth, the lenses I have now, without renting or buying is the Super Symar XL 150, Fuji 240A and Nikor 360W. Do either of these seem to fit the application better than the others?

 

Thanks

Bill

Lots of conflicting data in this area.

 

I plan to be photographing subjects which will appear 1/6th life

size on film, (1:6). Does this process require a macro lens or a

normal lens? Schneider states on their website, marco lenses should

be used 1:4 through 4:1. But optics experts sate otherwise...

 

An optics expert suggested this.... find a "standard" Macro

lens that works for normal photography (object at infinity) and can

be focussed to give good image quality for an object to image

magnification of 1/6. (meaning the subject size on film will be

1/6th life size)

 

Assuming I do need this macro lens, 250 - 300mm fl, with an image

circle of min. 160mm, which is the best lens in this category...

thanks in advance.

Hey Scott, your not crazy, I photographed Bison in the Tetons on 8x10! Of course, most of the time, I was in the safety of my motorhome. As others have mentioned, don't be fooled with their docile behavoir, it can change in an instant.... and remember, they can run 35 mph, whereas the fastest human in the world can only run 10 mph....and most fences are useless when 2000 lbs is in motion.

 

Several good suggetions on cameras, L like the Hobo idea a lot. However, I would prefer a very long lens, I used Nikor 1200mm on both 4x5 and 8x10. Distance is very important. As one other poster mentioned, the real problem is exposure. Their fur is like flocking paper used inside cameras to absorb light. Use a spot meter, or if you prefer, an incident meter, then open up an extra 1.5 stops, otherwise you have featureless fur.

 

Keep us posted and be careful

Canon has a new one that just got released, the Canoscan 9900 I beleive.... $399, 3200 opticl dpi. I am awaiting information.

Brian Ellis wrote..... You see these tables all over the place and I don't know of one specific one that is better than another. Just find one in a book or magazine article and try it to see how it works for you.

 

Brian, I wish I had the energy to type such a thorough explanation as you did in your post, very well done. I also agree that the chart or method should fit the needs of the task, not the visa versa.

 

I also agree with your position on Ellis's second post. Although I know Ellis surely understands all this, sometimes his posts seems as if they are contradicting themselves, but in reality, he is just presenting two different methods to use under different sets of circumstances. For newbies, this is sometimes confusing.

 

Ian, as many of these posters have suggested, the only "right" or most useful answer to your question revolves around exactly what you are trying to accomplish. For example, if your goal is super big enlargements, and you have the time to set up, I would reccomend either the Rodenstock Calc. method or my laser rangefinder / DOF table method, both are eqaully as good. Under such requirements the gg itself is not a sufficeint tool to meet your needs.

 

On the other end of the spectrum is..... if you are making contact prints or very small enlargements, say <3x, in such case, Ellis's first method is more than satisfactory.

 

So your approach to DOF, like most things in photography should be to work backwards from your desired end goal. This criteria determines the method (s) that will work best for you...and there certainy is no reason why you only need one method.

 

An alternative to DOF charts is a small programmable calc. these are very easy to use and quite convienent... there is several people listed on the LF homepage that offer free downloads in into programmable calculators or Palm Pilots etc. so all the work is done for ya.... (Bob Wheeler is one name that comes to mind) this is nice if your criteria is constantly changing, such as enlargement factor, lens fl's, etc. Otherwise you can be carrying many DOF charts which can be cumbersome at times.... The benefit of the Rodenstock cacl. is the distances of the near, far, and point of exact focus are figured out via the movement of the standards when focussed at each distance, so it accomplishes some of the leg work for you in the mathematics... hope this helps....