foraker

Bob, I assume what you are looking for is a front-loading day pack, rather than a multiple-day pack. Are you shooting 8x10 or 4x5? It would make a difference in the pack size. FWIW, here's my set up: I have a North Face technical climbing pack that I picked up at the North Face outlet in Berkeley. It's perfect for my 4x5 setup for the following reasons: (1) It's a front loader. (2) Better ergonomics than cheesy camera packs. (3) Lots of internal pockets with which to store things. (4) Being a technical climbing pack, it has an external webbing system on the back to strap things on, like a coil of rope or a snow-board: It's perfect for strapping my tripod onto the pack. (5) I keep the camera in one collapsible Arctic Zone cooler and my lenses and film holders in another. This is an almost perfect set up as the coolers provide padding and insulation for my camera stuff. They also have handles so I can just yank them out of the pack. I've gotten pretty efficient at using this setup. I can also yank them out and put everything on the ground without worrying about things getting diry. (6)The front-loading flap also unzips and reveals another large front-loaded pouch. This is where I keep things like my filter pack, various odds and ends, etc. (7) The multiple compression straps are also very useful when moving over rugged terrain. Find THOSE on a camera bag.

<p>

So, my advice would be to look for a technical climbing/skiing/snowboarding pack. They don't make mine anymore but perhaps one of the following:

<p>

<li>Mountainsmith Ghost<li>

Marmot Glissade or Shooting Star <li>

REI Talus <li>

Lowe Alpine Dru 35 <li>

Osprey Eclipse 32 or 42

Summary:

 

The author:<li>

1) Scanned a transmission step wedge with a Umax scanner.<li>

2) Computed a logarithmic relationship between pixel value and optical density.<li>

3) Used this relationship to convert pixels to optical density and then fit a straight line to them using the known optical densities of the step wedge i.e. measured optical density = slope*( known optical density ) + offset<li>

4) Showed that deviations between known and computed densities are in the range 0.01-0.03<li>

5) Showed how these relationships change with different gamma values.<li>

6) Examined the deviations in intensity across the scanner<li>

7) Examined the effect of white space (non-object pixels).

For those of you who are mathematically inclined, the link listed

below describes a study addressing the issue of using a Umax flatbed

scanner as a transmission densitometer.

 

http://www.itg.uiuc.edu/publications/techreports/98-004/

Too bad. The guy selling them replied that he was not careful enough in his wording and that, in fact, he meant film hangers and not film holders.....

Could be, Ted. Good answer. Obviously it's hot here. My brain didn't even think of that.... Either that, or I have a case of the shtoopids.

Anybody ever hear of someone making stainless steel film holders?

I found some but never heard of them being made from s.s....

So, is there a good method for testing for personal filter factors short of densitometry?

<pre>

Hi all, I was looking at the published filter factors for TMax 100

and was wondering if anyone had some values for the following

filters:

B+W 040 (Wratten #16)

B+W 041 (Wratten #22)

 

Just as a warning to those who think filtering through a meter is

sufficient, I did a test and metered through my Sekonic 508 with and

without a filter and, boy, I'll never meter through filters again.

 

This doesn't come as much of a surprise as the response of a filter

is a convolution of the spectrum of the source light with the

spectral response of the filter, the response of the meter, and the

response of the film....

</pre>

I use one of the Staticmaster brushes to load film and I can tell you that they do not fog film. I don't think you'd be able to sell something so radioactive on the market before the feds got wind of it and made you pull it.

 

Anyway, another key to nearly dust free negatives (I load in a Harrison pup tent) is to keep the negative facing down while brushing and inserting the dark slide. I very rarely have dust problems, at worst only a few that I can fix with spotting. I've used this technique in the high desert areas of the western US with little problem. Just remember, dust isn't immune to gravity....:-)

Dave,

In part, on (at least) two things:

1) What lenses do you already have?

2) What type of photography you prefer (wide angle, normal, tele).

 

My 150mm Sironar-S was the first lens that I bought and is my normal workhorse. Lightweight, great optics, and about like a 50mm lens in 35mm format.

Ellis,

No offense, but, just because the experiment doesn't have a hundred thousand dollar machine attached to it that goes "ping" doesn't mean it's not a valid scientific exercise. Some of the most elegant and fundamental experiments in all of science were done with what we would consider "kitchen utensils". I've seen the lightning experiments that the guys do at MIT (my grad school) and one could well consider that "advanced pranking around". You *could* be right, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

That said:

 

1) Given your lens choice, you should be able to calculate minimum depth of field for your lens/situation. That should help you minimize the effect of the screen.

2) You might put some computer screen anti-glare film over the microwave glass. It would help reduce glare and act as a neutral density filter.

Well, something must be selling because the gallery is in a downtown location and I can't see them being there very long given the rent/lease they must have to pay. It's the kind of thing that makes me think it might be worth selling my own stuff just to finance my trips and the occasional piece of equipment. Along these lines, it got me wondering about what sort of stuff to put on a rubber stamp that one could use to mark the back of the mounting board.....

Is there some sort of bizarre non-linear formula for how photographic

prints get priced in galleries? I was with my wife in a gallery this

morning and was appalled to find color photos no better than your

average goober on vacation might take priced at $350 -

$500....nothing bigger than 8x10.....

I'd say it's probably a strong function on how well your

knees/wallet/significant other are handling the strain (physical,

financial, separation).....:-)

Just to expand upon the compactness of my Ebony. It is similar to, say, a Wisner in that it has two focussing knobs: one to extend the front rails and one to extend the back rails (I can't remember the name of this design...triple rail? double rail?) Anyway, my RSW45 is MORE compact than my Wisner 4x5 and is half the weight. Even if the camera is slightly more bulky than a folded field camera I would still take the non-folding one given my several years of experience. They just set up a LOT easier (I always have a lens in place rather than not) and I don't have to unfold the bloody thing...a great benefit when racing the light in dodgy weather.

I have to agree with Scott on this one. I had a Wisner Technical for a few years and just sold if off to get a RSW45 from Robert White. The Ebony is definitely a better camera in terms of construction and I enjoy the non-folding aspect of it much better. Of course, I also like the fact that it is half the weight of my Wisner and able to handle wide angle lenses with ease. I, too, considered the RW45 for awhile but was convinced that a non-folding design was superior. Check them out.

Did the Russians ever make LF lenses? Given their propensity to make

Leica and Hasselblad knock-offs, I'm curious to know if they did

anything in the LF field. Also, my wife is Russian but she's too

young to know and doens't have the "photo bug".

Regarding the older lenses (eg. the Xenar's and Artons, etc), does anyone have an idea the years when they were made so as one might know when they found an early or late model lens?

Thanks for your help, everyone. I appreciate it. You've all given me some things to think about and ponder. :-)

I've been giving some thought to my 4x5 lens set and what I want to

do in the future. I've been shooting 4x5 for a couple of years now

and have a better sense of what I need. I'm hoping someone with more

experience can help me here because the solution may be that I find

some older lens rather than a modern one.

My current lens set is: 150mm and 80mm. Since I love wide angle work,

I'm also planning on getting a 58mm. I'd like to round this out with

a longer lens, somewhere in the range of 240 - 270 mm. I had a 300mm

for awhile but didn't use it all that often as it was too long so I'm

thinking a 240 is probably a better choice. It would probably be a

better choice for another reason: the bellows draw on my camera is

only 180mm. So, I could probably get a tele but I'd still have to get

an extended lensboard from Ebony. I'd also like to keep the thing

light and small (i.e. Copal 0 size shutters) and my filter set is

basically a bunch of 67mm's Any thoughts? (hah!)

I have a new RSW45 and I don't have any problems with either the titanium or the bellows.

I remember some years ago seeing an advertisement for an impact punch

that would put a tiny identifying mark on your valuables. I think the

mark was customizable. It was meant to put anti-theft markings on

things you didn't want to engrave by hand, etc. I have yet to find it

again. If anyone has info on this, please post it as I think many

would appreciate it (well, I would anyway).

I bought my Ebony camera from them and had nothing but a pleasant

experience. Great communication and prompt service. They have a

listing of estimated shipping costs.

It looks like I'll be morving to the Tampa/St. Pete area soon.

Can anyone give me a heads-up on good places to get 4x5 negs

developed? Are there any rental darkrooms in the area or maybe

some good darkroooms at local community colleges? Any LF clubs in the area? Thanks!

Matthew

Oddly, most of the time I am in the field people are pretty much fascinated by my camera and seem to love the idea of someone using what seems to them to be an antique. The worst advice that I've ever received has nothing tot do with LF so much as it does with photography in general, e.g.:

 

<p>

 

(1) The rule of thirds.

(2) A good b/w photograph must have tones from pitch black to solid white.

(3) Always place the darkest part of your photograph on zone 1.

(4) Exposing a negative past zone 10 is pointless

(5) Keep a $3 UV filter over your $1000 lens

(6) You need a camera with a lot of movements

(7) The heavier your tripod, the better it is.

(8) A $30 gadget is better than a free piece of cardboard that does the same thing.

(9) A backpack designed to haul cameras is worth the cost.

(10) Densitometry is a worthy exercise, not a pointless penance.