darron_spohn

I used RSX100 extensively on a trip two years ago, and liked it, but

have settled on Kodak E100S and Velvia as my primary landscape films.

RSX100 is beautiful stuff, and its color palette is probably closer to

reality than E100S and Velvia, but for the pictures I'm after these two

films do the job better. I like the saturated reds these films give me

when shooting at sunrise and sunset.

 

<p>

 

That doesn't mean RSX100 won't work for you, just that it is not my top

choice.

Garbage-in-garbage-out.

 

<p>

 

Even the LightJet 500 prints at only 300 dpi. You need to scan for the

final output size. (11x300)x(14x300)=3300x4200 pixels for an 11x14

print. Now divide the output pixels by the original size (4x5) to

determine your scanning requirement: 825x840.

 

<p>

 

However, counting pixels is sort of like looking at a car's engine to

determine its horsepower. Not all engines are created equal. A Ferrari

with a 3.5 liter engine may have more power than a Corvette with a 6

liter engine.

 

<p>

 

A drum scan at 5,000 dpi would be overkill for an 11x14 print from a

4x5 original. However, if you scan your 4x5 at 900 dpi on a Tango and

scan the same original on the Flextight Imacon at 900 dpi you will see

differences between the two when you open them in PhotoShop.

 

<p>

 

The drum scanner will give you better highlight and shadow detail, and

have less noise in the scanned image. You start with a better scan and

you get better output. If you are after darkroom quality you need to

start with a drum scan. Nothing else will match it, especially not a

flatbed scanner.

 

<p>

 

If you want 11x14 output you should start with a minimum 1800 dpi scan

of your 4x5 so you can scale it down in Photoshop. Starting with a

larger scan and scaling it down will sharpen the image and remove some

artifacts. (Always work on a copy of the original scan so you can go

back if you ruin it.)

 

<p>

 

If your requirements were not as stringent a cheaper scanner would do.

900 dpi is fine is all you want is a 4x5 print. You need higher

resolutions to make larger prints, hence the popularity of the Tango

drum scanner at service bureaus. The Imacon is a good scanner for the

price but will not give you as good a scan as the Tango. You do get

what you pay for here.

 

<p>The reason you need more than 900 dpi on the original scan is so you

can resize the image in PhotoShop. This in itself will get rid of some

problems such as dust, and also improves the grain. The Tango also has

the advantage of higher dMax, giving you better highlight and shadow

detail. Another advantage is that the oils used to coat the negative or

slide effectively remove scratches when scanning.

 

<p>For serious work you need to start with the best possible scan. As

much as I like my Umax PowerLook III it is only a proofing device. My

best images go to <a href="http://www.westcoastimaging.com">West Coast

Imaging</a> for drum scanning. They know what they're doing.

This is a test to see if HTML tags will work. If you see hypertext

links you will know they worked. If you see encoded HTML tags they

didn't work.

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.open.org/hughesa/darkroom/index.htm">Andy's Photo

Darkroom</a> has some excellent tips for building your own.

 

<p>

 

I wrote a series of articles for Black-and-White world on how I built a

commercial darkroom a couple of years ago. <a href="http://

www.photogs.com/bwworld/mistakes2.html">Part 2</a> has tips on

selecting an enlarger.

 

<p>

 

Tuan, if you read this I want you to know I'm still planning to write

that article you asked for on choosing a large format enlarger. We're

shipping our documentation to press today, and I'll be on vacation next

week. I promise I'll start on it as soon as I get back. No more 60-hour

weeks!

Even those of use who haven't bought Nikon equipment have suffered

through this with other manufacturers. I just waited one month to get

my Mitsubishi monitor repaired under warranty.

 

<p>

 

Nikon has been around for many decades, and many pros use nothing else.

They must be doing something right, other than building great cameras

and lenses, or their reputation would have tanked long ago.

Bruce makes an excellent point. The differences you'll see in your

photos from one brand to another are trivial. The important things are

ergonomics and customer service. How well does the camera's design fit

the way you want to work? How good is the manufacturer's service if

something breaks.

 

<p>

 

I have been very pleased with Canon's service in the past, but I was

enrolled in their professional services program. Some friends who shoot

Nikon have been very happy with them. I hope Bruce is right about

Minolta, because I just bought my son a used Maxxum 7000 with a 50mm

macro lens.

Take a photograph of a brick on the side of a building. Use a 35mm SLR,

a 50mm lens, a tripod, and a light meter. This was my first assignment

in college photography, and taught me more about light in three days

than the rest of the course did in three months.

What do you consider goo? The Agfa Duoscan is plenty capable of

capturing enough resolution off a 6x7 original to make an 11x14 print

at 300 dpi. I wouldn't want to send one of these files to a Lightjet

5000, but they are good enough for proofing your images and getting

them on your web site.

 

<p>

 

I just bought a Umax PowerLook III specifically for scanning 6x6 and

6x7 negatives and slides. I plan to purchase an Epson 3000 printer

soon so I can make my own 16x20 digital prints at home. The homemade

scans will serve for posting on the web and for proofing the images

before I spend the money on drums scans.

 

<p>

 

Do the results justify the larger format? You betcha. If you get your

35mm slides drum scanned, and know enough about PhotoShop, you can get

killer 16x20 prints out of 35mm, but the 6x6 originals will look

better at that size. For anything larger than 16x20 a 6x7 original

looks much better than a 35mm original. For scanning at home, using a

scanner I can afford (the Umax was pushing the budget), MF is much

better than 35mm.

James, I guess I shouldn't mention that I'm using a cheap Crown

Graphic 2x3 so I can save my money to buy a digital camera in a few

years and dispense with film forever, should I?

Well Richard, if you are a heretic then I'm a heretic too. I sold my

Busch Pressman 4x5 and recently acquired a 2x3 Crown Graphic. Why? I

found I was getting images with my medium format gear that I would

have missed with my 4x5, the 4x5 was too heavy and bulky for

backpacking, I got sick of dust spots, and my first experience with

Readyload backs was a total disaster.

 

<p>

 

To add to my heresy, I sold my darkroom equipment and am now doing all

my post-development work on a computer, including black-and-white

printing.

Don't dismiss the Crown Graphic cameras. They are lighter and smaller

than Speed Graphics. You'll lose some movements up front, and the

rotating back, but you can compensate for the movements with the drop

bed and for the back with the tripod hole on the side of the body.

 

<p>

 

The main drawbacks to the Busch Pressman cameras are weight and, well,

weight. I sold mine after hiking six miles at 10,000 feet with that

thing in my backpack.

 

<p>

 

As Dick said, spend your money on the lens. The camera is far less

important. None of these cameras is a waste of time, so be patient and

buy one that is in excellent condition.

That's a good point on the scanner, so let me explain how I plan to do

this. I'm getting a Umax PowerLook III scanner with transparency

adapter for proofing my images and getting them on the web. The Epson

printer is capable of high-end output, and Luminos has developed a

line of archival inks and papers for Epson printers.

 

<p>

 

After scanning the images on the Umax, I'll clean them up and crop

them in PhotoShop, output them on the Epson, and hang them on the wall

for a while. The images that still look good a few weeks later will

get sent out for scanning on a Tango drum scanner, and output to a

LightJet 5000 printer.

 

<p>

 

The trick here is to get my system set up so what I get out of the

Epson printer will match the LightJet as closely as possible. To that

end, I bought a color calibrator from ColorVision

(http://www.colorpartnership.com/). They sell calibrators for

Macintosh, Windows NT, and Silicon Graphics Unix computers. I bought

the $400 model on the theory that the software is the key. Using this

device, and their software, I can create my own profiles for my home

equipment, and use the LightJet profiles my service bureau provides.

 

<p>

 

Luminos is also working on a set of quad-tone inks for the Epson

printers, which should give black-and-white results close to the Iris

Giclee process. I'll see how they work when the quad-tone inks start

shipping.

We've had a few side discussions on digital in some threads lately,

and I've exchanged e-mails with several people on this forum regarding

digital imaging. I'm committed now. My beloved Beseler 4x5 enlarger

and EL Nikkor lenses belong to someone else. I took the plunge a

couple of weeks ago and bought a new computer. I have a scanner and a

new Epson 1200 printer on the way. I'd like to begin exchanging

experience with other digital printers on this forum.

 

<p>

 

Tuan has a Digital thread archive on this forum, so I don't think we

need a separate forum, but I wold like to trade ideas with other

serious photographers. Maybe we could post How-to tips here if we keep

the discussions somehow related to large format photography. I'm

shooting medium format these days, but just go a 2x3 Crown Graphic off

eBay. Is that close enough for this forum? Or will I be banished for

using roll film?

 

<p>

 

Back to the subject. We need to start some threads on digital imaging

related to large format shooting. My question today is:

 

<p>

 

What are your experiences with digital imaging, and what areas do you

believe you need the most help with?

</I>Let's hope this turns off the italics.

 

<p>Fred, yes, some of us large format types are getting into digital.

I just bought a new PowerMac G3/450, installed 512MB RAM, got a color

calibrator, and plan to scan some slides and black-and-white negatives

on a Tango drum scanner soon. One of my friends does this for a

living, and the prints he produces out of a LightJet 5000 printer are

amazing.

 

<p>We can discuss APO versus non-APO all day (and I'll defer to Bob's

expertise on the merits of the lenses) but very few people can afford

a darkroom good enough to match the quality digital has attained. I

know this is going to generate a lot of heat from people who haven't

tried digital, and some people are going to argue that the digital

output is only as good as the person perparing the image in PhotoShop.

That is true. But printing large color images (especially from slides)

is extremely difficult. Digital ensures consistent results, and

eliminates variables such as enlarger alignment.

 

<p>Maybe we should start a different thread on this topic, as I have

had several offline discussions around this in the last few months.

I'm eager to learn from people who are practicing digital printing,

and willing to share what knowledge I have as my skills grow.

 

<p>The most difficult part of going digital is learning PhotoShop, or

GIMP if you're a UNIX type. The key is getting a color calibrator and

setting up your ICC or ColorSynch profiles so your monitor matches

your prints. The good news is you can get an excellent color

calibrator for $400 these day

Although I haven't made a direct side-by-side comparison, I have used

many lenses over the years. My conclusion? The APO lenses are worth

the extra money only if you're making 16x20 or larger color prints.

Even then, the differences are extremely subtle if you stop down to a

middle aperture as you should. The slight difference will be visible

only at close viewing distances, and only if your enlarger is aligned

properly.

 

<p>

 

But then, with today's technology, if you're making large color prints

you're better off going digital.

I think Bob has it right, only you can decide if this camera is too heavy. Bob is unconcerned with the weight. I, however, would never consider buying a nine-pound camera. At least once per year (more often when work allows) I go backpacking high in the mountains. Last year I carried a Busch Pressman (seven pounds) on a six-mile hike at over 9,000 feet. Never again. I'll take my Minolta Autocord on that hike next time. By the three-mile mark I decided to drive past camp straight into the nearest town for a hot shower, a hot meal, and a soft bed. By the four-mile mark the $3,500 Rollei 2.8GX was looking like a bargain. By the five-mile mark I didn't care about anything except getting to my car.

 

<p>

 

If you're really a beginner in large format I would suggest you look for a good used field camera. You won't spend as much money as you would on a new camera, you can sell it at a small loss when you decide to upgrade, and after a few months you'll have a much better idea of what you want in a 4x5 camera. You can buy a good used Crown Graphic for $200-$300, or spend more on a newer camera.

This is too open-ended a question for anyone to give a definitive answer, but it all boils down to one thing anyway: buy the camera you feel comfortable with. Go to a store that sells professional gear, and have a salesman show you the features of the different models. Get them in your hands and use them. You'll be using this thing daily for a long time, so you want something you find intuitive. When the action is fast and furious you don't have time to stop and look at the dials to change settings.

 

<p>

 

I had the same question in 1985. I found an excellent store in San Antonio, and the choice came down to a Nikon F3 or Canon F1. I went with the Canon because I found it much easier to remove the lenses. A couple of my friends bought into the Nikon system, and a couple others bought Canon systems around the same time. We all used our cameras productively for 10 years or more, and we all got excellent results. None of us had problems with our sytems. We even traded gear a few times, just for grins, and still got excellent photos.

 

<p>

 

Canon, with the USM lenses, seems to have a bit of an edge over Nikon. Nikon's viewfinders are better. You can't lose with either system. What do I own, you ask? None of the above. I use an assortment of old medium format TLRs for landscape work. Yesterday I bought a used Minolta Maxxum 700 with 50mm macro lens for my son to use this summer as he travels the country with his grandparents.

 

<p>

 

Stick with one of the major brands (Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax) and you'll get a good system. Canon and Nikon have the best lens selections, which is a major consideration for someone as serious as you. However, if Minolta and Pentax make all the lenses you want, and you like the bodies more than Canon or Nikon, go for it.

 

<p>

 

You might also want to think about getting a used medium format TLR in addition to your 35mm gear. They are wonderful within their limitations. They don't have interchangeable lenses (except for the Mamiya C series), and you aren't going to shoot sports or macros with them. However, they are great for landscape work. Light, reliable, and the extra negative size makes a world of difference.

Your mileage will probably vary, but I have found that subtracting 30 seconds from the manufacturer's recommendation gets me in the ballpark with my Jobo. Check out the Photosource Developing Charts at http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~migol/photo/photosource.html.

Yes, it is possible. T-Max 100 demands consistent technique from initial exposure all the way through the wash cycle. How can you be sure the second test was overdeveloped and not overexposed? Did you shoot the same scene, with the same lighting, and the same exposure? If not, you have too many variables to know what is causing the problem.

 

<p>

 

Take heart, you can nail your T-Max expsoure/processing procedure without resorting to studio lights and a densitometer. Shoot three 12-exposure rolls of a gray card under controlled conditions. Make sure you meter carefully, bracket your exposures by one-half stop, and record all your exposures.

 

<p>

 

Process one roll at 6.5 minutes, one roll at 5.5 minutes and one roll at 4.5 minutes. Print contact sheets of each. One roll should have an exposure where the gray matches card at your camera's recommended exposure when the film base disappears on the contact sheet, assuming your light meter is working correctly. You now have a development time that will yield your expected results.

 

<p>

 

Make sure you monitor the temperature very carefully while processing. You might want to invest in a tempering box. At the very least, use a tempered water bath. You can build one with nothing more than a small plastic tub, a thermometer, and an aquarium heater.

 

<p>

 

You might also want to order some BW-2 developer from Photographer's Formulary. I get better results with it than with T-Max developer, but other people I respect get excellent results with T-Max, and some prefer D-76. You can find Photographer's Formulary at http://www.montana.com/formulary/Index.html.

 

<p>

 

Experiment a little, and don't be afraid to make mistakes.

This shouldn't be too difficult, though you've priced yourself out of new enlargers. Look around for a Beseler 45

series, Omega D series or something similar. Don't accept anything in less than excellent condition. Used enlargers

have terrible resale value, which is a good thing for those of use who don't want to pay new prices.

 

<p>

 

Enlarger design has also been incredibly stable over the years, so once you purchase a used Beseler 45 or Omega D

you can but new accessories such as cold light heads or dichroic color heads and just drop them in place. Don't

forget to budget for a lens. This is actually the most important part. You can start with an old single-coated lens

then move up to a newer lens as your budget and tastes demand.

 

<p>

 

Check out Seawood photo at http://www.seawood.com/ and click on the Inventory link. They usually have a good

selection of lenses in stock, and oftern have excellent 4x5 enlargers.

 

<p>

 

Be patient and look around. The deals are out there.

T-Max 100 in Photographer's Formulary BW-2 developer.

 

<p>

 

See what we meant when we said you'd have to test for yourself? We all have our favorite combinations and

techniques. The key is to get to know your tools, in this case the film/developer combination, so you can refine

your technique and predict what you'll see on paper before you trip the shutter.

 

<p>

 

One of my favorite black-and-white negatives I printed last year was on T-Max 100 developed in HC-110.

Beautiful highlight separation, rich detail in the blacks, smooth grays through the mid tones. Ah, but my absolute

favorite was T-Max 100 in BW-2. That's why I'm sticking with it.

 

<p>

 

I tried Delta 100 and didn't like the results. That does not mean John is giving you bad advice. It just means we have

different techniques and use different tools to reach a similar goal. I like the results I get with T-Max 100, and I'd

be willing to bet a few dollars that I'd like the results John gets with Delta 100.

 

<p>

 

Pick a film/developer combination from of the newer emulsions and developers, then go forth and shoot. You'll have

fun and learn a few things along the way. Don't stress about mistakes, they're part of the process.

I had a Pressman Model for about six months. It is an excellent camera, but far too heavy to carry on long hikes. If

you're using it near your car it will do fine. The only problem is finding lens boards as they were proprietary to

the Pressman series.

Try http://www.aristogrid.com/

Yes, you're asking too much from a smaller negative. I've used many films anf several formats over the last 15

years, and have printed more than 20,000 photos in that time. About this time last year one of my friends was just

getting interested in photography. I took him to Yosemite Valley one weekend and we spent two days shooting

side-by-side. I had a Mamiya C330 system and he was using a Minolta manual focus with Minolta prime lenses. We

both shot T-Max 100 and I developed all our negatives using Photographer's Formulary's T-Max developer. Even at

8x10 the differences in the formats are apparent. I printed them on my Beseler 4x5 enlarger using a Zone VI cold

light head and EL-Nikkor lenses.

 

<p>

 

You say you can't afford even a second-hand medium format system, but you might be surprised. I have three

Yashica Mat TLR camers and a Minolta Autocord. Total investment in all four is $800 US including repairs to two of

the Yashica Mats. If you look around you can find an excellent TLR for under $300 US.

 

<p>

 

Having said that, you can get excellent 11x14 enlargements from 35mm T-Max 100 if you use a tripod while

shooting. The prints won't show the smooth tonal gradations of a medium format negative, but you'll be pleased with

the results until you get a medium format camera and start comparing the results.

 

<p>

 

BTW, my friend, after seeing the difference between our prints, bought a Crown Graphic for $200 and an old

Schneider lens for $135. He's now hooked on 4x5 film.

>>Ansel wants you to do all the testing on this matter yourself. I don't want to.<<

 

<p>

 

Until you decide to test for yourself no amount of reading and advice from other people will help you use the Zone

System to improve your technique. If you want to get going in the right direction then you'll need to apply your own

brainpower and find out what works for you. Just because a specific technique works for me, or another

photographer on this forum, does not mean it will work for you. You could get 10 different suggestions here. All

would be correct for the person making the suggestion. So how are you going to choose the one which is correct for

you? By testing this matter yourself.