david4

Everytime a reader elects to post a new message, he is provided this

advisory: "In addition to the above photo.net search, search also the

largeformatphography.info." Isn't this a typo--shouldn't the referemce

be "largeformatphotography.info"? From time to time over the past

several months I have seen postings here alerting us to alternative

large format webpages. The backbiters who ridiculed this as

advertisement and unwelcome competition, akin to two car dealers in a

small town, appear to have overlooked photo.net's aim of serving the

large format commununity by providing links to other large format

websites. Their arguments have more holes in them than a Corelone at

an empty New Jersey turnpike toll house. In the marketplace of ideas,

let consumer choice prevail.

Architectural photography involves frequent use of marked lens rise. In flat bed cameras with limited rise, the equival;ent rise can bet attained by pointing front of camera upwards with lens and rear standard tilted forward (relative to the bed of the camera) to resume a vertical lens/film plane alignment. The bulkier, larger, more expensive 4 x 5 lenses typically offer the coverage needed to permit the use of substamtial lens rise. In landscape photography, the weight and bulk of such lenses is a disadvantage. Most landscape photographers prefer smaller lenses, despite the lesser coverage provided.

"Bob Salomon (who is a represenative of the US distributer for Linhof) says that a few lenses with 80 mm diameter rear cells still don't fit." I appreciate the responses but I still do not know which are the lenses that Bob Salomon had in mind. I am most interested in knowing whether the Schneider 5.6/210L is compatible. I have Schneider's 9.0/210 G-Claron but was thinking of "upgrading" to the 5.6/210L in the belief I could get improved resolution at f16 whereas the G-Claron has to be at f22 for maximum resolution.

The narrow front standard of the MT 2000 and TK45S obstructs entry of

the rear element of lenses with outer diameter > 80 mm. I am unsure

whether there is any problem using a lens with a 80 mm diameter rear

element mounted on standard 96 x 99 mm Linhof lens board (as

distinguished from a special order item that has the lens board hole

relocated). I would like to know whether or not any of the following

lenses--all with 80 mm diameter rear elements--are compatible or

incompatible with the standard lens board mounted to the MT2000 or

TK45S : Nikkor 8.0/120mm; 300/5.6W; 360/6.5; ED 600/9.0T; Rodenstock

Apo-Sironar-S 300/5.6; Apo-Sironar-S 360/6.8; Schneider Super Angulon

90XL/6.8 90; Apo-Symmar-S 300L/5.6; Apo-Symmar-S 210L/5.6. I did not

check other lenses. The data for rear element diameter can be found at

B&H website: large format>lenses with copal shutters>particular

lens>more info>specifications.Your input will be appreciated. Thanks.

You said you wanted a camera suitable for urban excursions as well as backpacking. That suggests a need for a camera with ample front rise, readily adaptable to wide angle lens favored by architects. The MT 2000 accepts 58 and 72 mm lenses without bag bellows but has limited rise. The Linhof TK45S requires a bag bellows for lenses of 115 mm focal length and less to ensure lens rise. It has ample rise and extension, but weighs over 7 lbs with standard and bag bellows. The MT 2000 weighs about 6 lbs and folds up to better preserve the bellows from abrasion. If weight is a major consideration, you may want to consider a 3-4 lb flat bed camera, even if it offers less rigidity. Famed photographer Jack Dykinga uses an Arca-Swiss FC 4 x 5 for day-walks and a light weight wooden flat bed camera (Wista?) in the 3-4 lb range for longer treks. Most of his shots are in the desert without trees or buildings requiring front rise. Colorado landscape photographer John Fielder prefers a clam-shell compact Linhof Technika for 1 to 2 week backpacking (I do not remember which model). Famed Black and white photographer John Schaeffer (?) of Carmel uses a Linhof TK45 or TK45S for architectural photography and a Linhof MT 2000 for the majority of his roadside landscape work. David Muench prefers the Technika type camera for much of his work, and perhaps now uses the Linhof MT 2000. He uses a wide variety of focal lengths, between 47 mm and up to at least 210 mm. He might also use a lighter wooden camera for some of his shots. All of the lenses you have listed can easily be used with any of the cameras you listed as under consideration. The small lensboard of the Linhof cameras reduces bulk and eases storage, but limits the size of the rear element øf lenses (< 80 mm diameter). For backpacking, most landscape photographers prefer light-weight compact lenses designed to cover only 4 x 5 or 5 x 7, with rear elements smaller than 80 mm. It is only photgraphers who have both 8 x 10 and 4 x 5 systems who are likely to share larger and much heavier lenses between the two cameras.

The LF cameras vary as to range over which a standard bellows can be used. For example, with the linhof TK45S, the standard bellows can accomodate lenses with focal lengths in the range of 120 to 495 mm, with a bag bellows required for lenses of shorter focal length. In contrast, the current Linhof Master Technika camera uses a single standard bellows for lenses as short as 35 mm (or thereabouts). The LF cameras vary as to suitability for architecture, i.e., the ability to raise or lower the lens, to preserve verticals without convergence. The LF cameras vary in bellows extension, a long bellows length = or > that 420 mm is an important feature if you intend to do close up 1:1 photography with a 210 mm lens. LF cameras vary in size of lens boards. The larger lens boards allow unlimited lens selection, includimg lenses designmed primarily for 8 x 10; the smaller lens boards may limit you to lens whose rear element is of a diameter no greater than 80 mm. Stability is a hot issue. Some buyers regret that they bought so and so camera because long exposures show effects of lenses movement or bellows vibration. Some cameras are free of of such criticism.

The Schneider Optics website has the modulation diagrams for both the

Apo-Symmar 210 and its replacement, the Apo Symmar L 210. Does this

data indicate that the replacement is inferior in performance?

I cannot imaging any need for yaw free movements in landscape photography. But the TK45S can provide such yaw free movements by tipping the camera on its side.

The MSDS says that Rodinal presents no inhalation hazard but requires skin protection. I am doubtful disposable latex gloves provide sufficient impermeability.

I assume that you will likely go back to color after taking these black and white portraits. You may find Polaroid 55 negative/print film a wise choice for the portraits. It is relatively hassle free and will not require much preparation. Once you have found the correct exposure to get the print you prefer, you need to open up the aperture by one f-stop and retake the image, because the ISO for the Polaroid print is one f stop faster than that for the Polaroid negative. The advantage of Polaroid is that you can easily make what adjustments are needed to give a proper exposure. Water can be used to clear and fix the negative, but optimum results are attained for a few dollars with a fixer suitable for Polaroid negatives (sodium sulfite?) This webpager has many articles on processing Polaroid negative film.

...

FP4 is also a good choice. I prefer it to Delta 100. For enlargements up to 16 x 20, FP4 is grainless. Digital processing can be used to attain greater resolution and photoshop adjustments. If you take your photograph in the shade, with the white hair lit by reflected light, the use of FP4 plus Pyro developer will provide a beautiful tone to white hair and fabulous acutance. You can see this tone and acutance of which I speak in Ansel Adam's book, The Negative, depicted in his photograph of the Aspens in the shadows whose trunks and leaves are lit by reflected light from clouds. Adams' negative was developed in Pyro. I recommend that you read Gordon Hutching's (Hutchinson?) book on Pyro or check the internet for developing FP4 with Pyro. Wearing impermeable gloves is a must to avoid toxic and perhaps lethal skin absorption. The speed that you assign to the film will vary depending upon what developer you select and whether your light meter gives a variant reading -- I have developed FP4 with Rodinal, HC110, Pyro, etc. Adams suggest that an illusion of envelopment of light can be attained by placing shadows at Zone V and then reducing development to hold back the highlights. I recommend that you read Adam's book, The Negative, as an introduction to black and white.

I replaced the bulky Gossen Pro with the lighter Pentax Digital spotmeter and then replaced the easy to use compact Pentax with the feature-ladened but heavier Sekonic 508. I thought the Sekonic would be more useful with an accessory that allowed me to measure light intensity on the ground glass and better control metering with an extended bellows for closeups. But the hassle was considerable and now I hardly ever use the ground glass accessory. The Sekonic allows a choice between incidence and reflective monitoring. I again rarely use the incidence meter and prefer the reflective spot metering. Because of these habits I would be better off with the lighter Pentax digital spotmeter. I have not seen the Sekonic 608. I am surprised no one mentioned it. It has features that the Sekonic 508 lacks. In choosing your light meter, I think you should give serious consideration to ease of use, compactness, and lightness, and whether you want and would likely use the extra features of the Sekonic 608.

My apologies to Bob for misspelling his surname. It is Salomon, not Salamon.

...

In researching information attributed to Bob Salomon, I came across this bit of Bob's advice, which I found personally to be enlightening: Sharpness may be affected by whether you misuse a focussing loupe. It is crucial that you remove the camera lens, place the loupe against the glass plate, and then adjust the focussing loupe until the grain on the ground glass is in focus. Error occurs if you were to focus on the back of the glass nearest the eye.

Answer to Question 2: Very few landscape photographers will trek with an 8 x 10 because of the added weight of the system (film holders, heavier tripod, etc.). One of those who does is Michale Fatali. You can see his images online. I suggest you search here for Bob Salamon's comments of April 15, 1999 regarding choice between 4 x 5, 5 x 7, and 8 x 10.

Answer to Question 3: For an individual portrait, the 240 to 300 mm lens for the 4 x 5 probably is most widely used. For pictures on valley floors where you want to capture the peaks and edges of cliffs rising 2000 to 3000 feet above the valley floor, you likely would need a 110 to 120 mm focal length lens with enough coverage to provide adequate lens rise. For near-far wide angle compositions, anything between 47 mm and 135 mm focal length might be your preference for use with a 4 x 5 camera. The wider the lens, the greater the recession and diminution of the distant objects. Architects most often choose the 65 mm to 90 mm lenses. Front filter size may affect your preference among the wide angle lenses and brands. I rid myself of a heavy 115 mm focal length lens for which I had to switch to a bag bellows and 82 mm front filter for a 135 mm focal length lenses with 49 mm front filter size for which a standard bellows allowed ample rise. For all-around utility, the 210 mm focal length is likely to be your favorite lens. The price variations among 210's likely reflects the variations in coverage rather than lens resolution quality. Check out the new f/5.6 210 mm Apo Symmar L at Badger Graphic Sales (available after January 1, 2003), Schneider's competition to Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S's 210 mm focal length lens, each with 75 degree coverage, but the Schneider requiring a larger front filter than does the Rodenstock.

Question 4: I think you should wait to check out the Shenhao 8 x 10 camera made of titanium and wood. Badger Graphic Sales is likely to be importing it about March 2003, if not before. There are images posted at this website. The estimated price is $1700 USA.

I appreciate the replies.

 

Bob has emphasized the same point he posted in March 2001, where he stated:

 

"Bear in mind:

 

"Most lenses were not designed to be used to photograph a flat piece of paper at close range.

 

"The results that you get are determined by:

 

a: film used

b: exposure

c: processing

d; lighting

e: contrast

f: atmospheric contaminants

g: loupe used

h: how tired or rested your eye is

 

 

"That means that these tests are at best non repeatable and at worse worthless.

 

"The proof of a lens's performance is not how it photographs a flat piece of paper - unless it is a process lens- but how it handles everyday photographic work.

 

"That is why camera and lens manufacturers stopped photographing flat pieces of paper decades ago and switched to a repeatable test - MTF "

I am hoping that someone who has owned the two lenses would tell me

whether he or she found that the resolution of the Apo Sironar W 210

mm 5.6 lens blows away that of the Apo Sironar S 210 mm 5.6 lens.

 

The question arose after I read Sinar's book, Basics and

Applications/Creative Large Format, p. 32, fig. 48. The book states

that the resolution of the wide angle Sinaron WS has much better

marginal sharpness than all-purpose lenses of the same focal length.

I previously supplied an answer in which I spoke of the Arca Swiss having an "asymmetrical" lens tilt feature. A reader questioned the accuracy of that description, in which he stated that the option was merely center axis tilt. My understanding is that Arca Swiss offers three options: base tilt, center axis tilt, and the "dynamic" tilt (asymmetrical) option.

 

Mark Tucker also asked about which three lenses would be "best," and later posted a list of the recommendations. No one mentioned the Schneider Apo-Symmar-L lenses that will replace the current Apo-Symmars, beginning January 2003. Accørding to the current issue of View Camera, Nov-Dec 2002, p. 48, the front element for the Apo-Symmar-L 120 mm focal length will have a front filter size 52 mm; the 150 mm focal length a 58 mm front filter size, the 180 mm focal length a 72 mm filter size, the 210 mm focal length a 77 mm filter size, and the 300 mm focal length a 105 mm filter size. The 135 mm focal length has been eliminated. I do not see how anyone can consider these varying front filter sizes convenient for landscape photographers. My personal preference is to choose lenses whose front filter size does not exceed 67 mm. For example, the 75 mm 4.5 Rodenstock, the 110 mm XL Schneider, the 180 mm Rodenstock Apo Sironar or current version of the Schneider 180 Apo-Symmar, the 240 mm Schneider G-Claron, could all be fitted with a 67 mm filter. A step ring could then be used for lenses with 49 mm front filter size.

Only the 4 x 5 Arca Swiss can be modified for 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 formats. Only the Arca Swiss can accept lenses whose rear element has a diameter exceeding 80 mm (the vast majority of 4 x 5 lenses have rear elements with a diameter less than or equal to 80 mm). Only the Arca Swiss can be fitted with an accessory that allows asymmetrical focusing (a significant advantage only in product focusing; far and near landscape focusing is extremely easy with the TK central axis lens tilt feature). The standard extension rail of the Arca Swiss is only 30 cm, wheras you can get 48 cm with the TK standard extension rail. Only the TK has a gauge for measuring extension (which aids calculating the compensation needed for close-up photography).

Schneider definitely has the cooler advertisements.

Compare the resolution and saturation of the advertisements of these

manufacturers. E.g., Rodenstock's image of the chain and collar vs

Schneider's image of the 110

Ansel Adams book, The Negative, has quite a number of B-W photographs

taken in the High Sierras. The book can assist you in making up your

mind what focal length lens you want. Adams is best known for his

artistry in showing the effects of light and shadow. His former

associate, Carmel photographer John Saxon, has a B-W book on Yosemite

Valley landscapes, where he gives lens focal length for each image. He

emphasizes pictures taken at twilight with diffuse flat lighting. He

seems to favor 210* focal lengths. Their styles differ considerably

from that of David Muench. Adams and Saxon hardly ever take a picture

where there is some object of interest in the foreground set off from

the far landscape. Muench favors wide-angles for the near-far

photographs. You asked about what focal lengths are more suitable for

roadside shooting -- I do not know. You may want to follow up by

looking at Tranquility Images website -- lots of roadside B-W images

of the Sierras........................................

For macro lens selection, I would recommend you talk to Bob Salomon

of HP Marketing. He has often commented on what lens is best for 1:1

images. He says that you will see a distinct improvement in

resolution and saturation in side by side comparison if you use what

the manufacturer markets as a macro lens (120 or 180 mm) than a

process lens, such as Apo-Ronar or Claron G, when taking images of

three dimensional objects; the process lens are optimized for copying

flat plane objects at 1:1. There is something else to consider. If

you are choosing between Rodenstock N and S series of lenses, he says

that the S series provides better resolution. For a universal lens

that is both compact and lightweight, capable of focus at infintiy

and closeups, the process lenses are very popular among field

photographers. The widest aperture f-stop is f9 among process lenses.

In the bulkier macro lenses, you can get a f5.6 that aids focusing in

dim light. For camera selection, I recommend you flip through the

latest View camera issue, in which Jack Dykinga (a famed

photographer) discusses the Arca Swiss and Wista. He favors the

approximate 3 lb Wista for expeditions and the 6 lb (est.) Arca-Swiss

for short trips. The Arca Swiss is to photography as Harvard is to

education.

View Camera used to have really a fine layout. An A+. That all

changed when they moved the headquarters to New Mexico. Now the

layout is just an A-. If this were a government bond, the downgrading

would merit a headline in the business section. New Mexico--so far

from Heaven and so near to Texas. Who said that--I don't recall. Jack

Dykinga has started as a regular contributor. That's great. I hear

View Camera will be getting articles by David Muench soon and I look

forward to that. I miss some of the former California contributors --

Gene Kennedy, St. John of Carmel, Gordon Hutchings, and Charles

Farmer. View Camera reminds me of Olympic coverage: the event, the

biography, and the advertising. View Camera is more about people than

tools. Steve Simmons is introducing us to an extended family related

by common interest rather than place name or surname. They're his

kin: people with a passion, commitment, and challenge. The

contributors interact with with their subject. You get a sense of

what jump started, lit up, and juiced them. The magazine has a

personality totally lacking in PDN, Shutterbug, or Phototechniques.

There is a fair amount of creativity and original art among the

contributors. Do you remember the edition where the photographer

wrote about putting lilies in water, partially freezing the

container, them backlighting the petals? Wow. The pluses and minuses

of alternatives in solving everyday problems are well presented. A

good example was the recent article comparing various color

transparency films in capturing greens and oranges. The editor seems

to know his readership well--the format has been basically the same

since the beginning, and I assume, enjoys an ever expanding

readership.

Asymmetrical axis lens tilt>Arca-Swiss M/Orbix ($$$$); Base lens

tilt>Standard Arca-Swiss FC ($$$); Center axis lens tilt> TK45S ($$).

Picture quality Orbix ++++, FC ++++, TK ++++, Wisner ++++, Hoffman

++++. Ease of Use: Orbix +++, FC +++, TK +++, Wisner ++. Durability of

camera body: Orbix +++, FC +++, TK +++, Wisner, ++. Stability of

Adjustments: Orbix +++; FC ++; TK ++, Wisner +. Upgradeability to

larger format: Arca Swiss + ($$$), TK -. US technical assistance: Arca

Swiss ??? TK: Uncle Bob ++++. Overall quality: Orbix ++++, AC ++++, TK

++++, Wisner ++. Front rise: Arca-Swiss ++ (without special part), TK

++++. Wear and tear: In all of these metal cameras, the bellow pleats

are exposed to wear and tear unless precautions are taken to prevent

abrasion. You need to keep hard objects (e.g., lensboard) away from

the bellows. You do not want camera rubbing back and forth as it is

being transported. You will be better off if someone demonstrates the

proper way to fold and unfold the TK bellows, and have you then show

that you can reproduce the

I thank you all. I liked all of your suggestions. ..................

View Camera magazine is my National Geographic. Back issues lie on the

shelves for years. I reread them from time to time. This week I read a

May/June 2001 View Camera issue at p. 62 where Steve Simmons wrote

that when doing N-1 or N-2 development, he much prefers Tri-X or HP5,

with PMK, saying that all other films are too flat in the mid-tones.

This is the first time I had ever read of a reason for preferring

Tri-X or HP5 other than increased film speed. For years I have been

using only FP4, virtually all developed with PMK. Shaken, not stirred,

in a small tank. Negatives prewashed. Every 30 seconds, agitation.

Seven to nine minutes development at 68 degrees. I have not tried HP5

or Tri-X. I know that I when make long exposures, either with FP4

rated 80 or 40, or Zone III placed on Zone IV or Zone V, using light

green filtration, of ferns, rocks, water, and foliage, and then

process N-1 or N-2, my prints have a flat, TMAX-100 look, when printed

on variable contrast paper. There is better contrast when I use graded

fiber base paper at grades II or III. I use the minus development to

counter the effects on the highlights associated wth prolonged

exposure. Is the flatness on variable contrast polyster paper due

mostly or solely to my zone placement and minus development, choice of

variable contrast polyester paper rather than fiberbase paper, or

should I switch to Tri-X/HP5? Would the use of some developer other

than PMK further enhance the local contrast and help avoid the

flatness that I find objectionable? Perhaps from your experience you

have found the optimum mixture of these variables and I would

appreciate your advice. I checked this website for advice on Tri-X and

HP5 and did not find anything addressing this issue. Ditto the web. In

Sexton's book, Listening to the Trees, he has an image of a burnt log

in a grove at Yosemite, taken with Tri-X, showing the local contrast

that I desire. He states that the image was printed on polycontrast

paper. That is my goal................