fw1

I use a Fujinon SW 90mm f/8 ; it is relatively small and light,

certainly when compared to a 90mm f/5.6 lense, gives adequate

movements for 4x5, doesn't need a centre filter (unlike certain older

lenses), and gives excellent results - 16x20 enlargements from Velvia

transparencies taken with this lense are very sharp. It would

certainly be interesting to compare it to a Nikkor, Schneider or

Rodenstock. I mainly use apertures between f/22 and f/45 ; there is

certainly a difference in depth of field, but I can't see diffraction

effects appearing at f/45 (then again, I'm not an expert on this). In

low light, it can however be difficult to focus at f/8, especially at

the edges of the groundglass because of the fresnel. A 4x loupe is a

real help in such circumstances.

Managed to check my references over the weekend - "Mount Williamson

from Manzanar" was taken with a 19" lense, i.e. about 480mm.

Roger ; when I first saw Ansel Adams' "Mount Williamson, from

Manzanur" several years ago, I automatically assumed that this was

taken with a wide angle lense, and was very surprised when I

discovered that this was taken with a 24" (i.e. 600mm) lense (I

think). The use of movements enables lenses to be used much more

creatively ; in 4x5 land, I often use a 300mm lense for near/far

shots just as you have described above, and it bears little relation

to its apparently equivalent 85mm focal length in 35mm.

What should I look for in a densitometer for use with B&W film (pyro & non-pyro developed) in order to calibrate development? I know nothing about the terminology of these things, and what features are essential, and what are not. Thanks

What I find most peculiar is how the electricity pylons and wires,

cars, flying birds and anglers manage to get onto my transparencies

when they were clearly not in the original scene that was

photographed.

I have just purchased a couple of boxes of this film in 4x5 sheets, and would appreciate comments from those who have used it (probably in 35mm or 120, as the sheets are only available in Japan). I was thinking of developing in Microphen, and rating at something like 640, or in D76, at a rating of something like 250 - 320. Any other ideas?

The lense choice is fundamental to thinking about 8x10, and has so

far prevented me from getting into this format. I think the Fujinon

600C would be one of the first lenses, as it would be similar to a

300mm on 4x5. The difficulty is that there is no relatively

inexpensive and light, wide coverage lense, in the 180mm - 210mm

range, that would be similar to the 90 - 110mm range in 4x5. I can't

see the point in getting a lense for 8x10 that doesn't have enough

image circle to permit a good range of movements. Even the (much

heavier) Nikkor W240 has a very similar image circle to the Fujinon

A240. I have seen and held the new Super-Symmar 210XL, which will

cover 11x14, but it is extremely heavy and not suitable for back-

packing. (I wouldn't want to take such an expensive lense up a

mountain anyway). So you're left with a conundrum, unless some of the

older lenses (Ektars, Dagors, etc.), which I'm not familiar with,

solve the problem. Anyone have any thoughts on these, and their

relative quality to the R/S/N/F lenses? It seems to me there is a

good opportunity for one of the four LF lense producers to come up

with something for 8x10 in the 180-210mm range.

The Nikkor SW120 f/8 is worth looking at ; an enormous image circle

(covers 8x10), very sharp and good value secondhand.

The choice of filter will depend upon the colours, and their

intensity, in the image. I would certainly want to have light yellow,

orange and light green filters. Depending on the colour of the

flowers and the foliage, red, a darker green and light blue

(especially if there is snow surrounding the plant) may also be

useful. A good guide to filters is in Ansel Adams' "The Negative",

which is possibly the best guide to black and white photography

available.

Jon ; I don't know about the availability of Fuji lenses in North

America, so my comments are limited to the Fujinon lenses I have

picked up in Japan. The main lense I use is an SW 90 f/8, which I use

most of the time ; it is easy to focus, is extremely sharp and

contrasty, and is lightweight in the field. I am also increasingly

using an SWD 65 f5.6, for which similar comments to the 90mm apply,

but is slightly more difficult to use (because I have an old Toyo

metal field, which requires the bed to be dropped and the front

standard to be tilted back to avoid vignetting). I have not used the

competing Rodenstock, Schneider or Nikkor lenses at these focal

lengths, but I would be surprised if their performance was

dramatically superior.

 

<p>

 

I also use a Fujinon 400T, and I am finding that I need to be very

careful with focus, camera shake and the wind with this lense, or the

results are less than sharp. This doesn't seem to happen with the

Nikkor 300mm f/9, so I would like to compare the performance of the

Fuji 400T with the Nikkor 360/500.

Thanks for the response ; I was also re-reading "The Negative" last

night, wondering why I hadn't bothered to do this before my trip, and

Adams' comments on photographing snow are, as usual, very helpful. In

particular, it's the first time I have seen how a blue filter might

be used in the field. The interesting thing is that most of the

accompanying illustrations show a fair proportion of grey snow!

 

<p>

 

The difficulty in my pictures is with a large triangular area of

shaded snow which was running (like a sand dune) away from the camera

to a river flowing across the picture, with the Hakuba mountains in

the background. The sun was low in the west, so this part of the snow

was in shade, with the other riverbank in full sunlight. The snow in

full sunlight will print as white, but the shaded snow will be,

probably, zone 5-ish. Probably because of the orange filter, this

shaded area has a lot of texture. Perhaps 30-40% more development

time would have pushed the shaded area to zone 6, but I think that

the snow in full sunlight would then have burnt out. I didn't

consider an N-1 at the time, partly because I was freezing after

having waded for half a mile through waist high snow to get to this

spot, and also because the metered range of light didn't seem to be

that great - possibly the specular highlights from the snow were so

bright that the metered range was distorted.

 

<p>

 

I think the selenium is a good idea, and if I can find some here I'll

give it a try. Fortunately I took several shots, with both 90 and 65

mm lenses.

Talk about post trip blues........developed about 20 sheets of TMax last night, after 3 days in the snowy mountains of northern Japan, and several negatives are clearly underexposed - i.e. the snow will be grey when printed. Now, I metered the snow carefully with a Pentax spotmeter, and placed its value on zone 7.5 or thereabouts, and also compensated 2 stops for the orange filter I was using to reduce the blueness of the light - what has happened, therefore, to give the exposure error? If the light is very bright, will this throw a meter reading off? What is the normal difference in stops between snow in full sunlight, and snow in shade?

Reading this thread, it is a relief to know I'm not alone in having

mixed results! One of my very best photos was taken only shortly

after I had bought an 4x5, and I put that down to a beginner's

concentration on doing everything technically right, and the fact

that, after a long period of intense work in my day job, a release

from that seemed to sharpen my vision. Good luck always helps, of

course! For several months after that period I found it difficult to

get images that came close to the early ones - it doesn't help that I

have to do my photography in fits and starts as I am not a

professional.

 

<p>

 

 

One of the things that interests me greatly is the uncertainty over

the final results, which several posters above have referred to. Only

this weekend, I took a picture of a tree stump surrounded by

evergreen plants and ferns which so far have survived the Japanese

winter. I knew that the stump was intrinsically interesting, but it

was only after looking at the negative that I realised that the wood

had naturally split in such a way as to reveal, or imply, several

Chinese characters - those for water, fire, rice and "big", all of

which contribute to the nature of the image. Does it really matter

that I had not seen this on the groundglass, but only when the

negative emerged from the tank?

Tom, I saw it at Gin-Ichi, which is near Ginza 1-chome. I would

certainly agree that that is one expensive camera! I think that

Deardorff's are fairly scarce on the ground in Japan - you just do

not come across used 4x5's or 8x10's Deardorffs like you do in USA.

Try www.graflex.org

 

<p>

 

Cheers

Tom, I also live in Japan, and I saw an 11x14 Deardorff for sale last

week in Tokyo (Ginza). Rather expensive, at Yen1.2million, though. I

do not know where you would find 11x14 film here, however.

Glenn ; Thanks, I understand what you're doing now. In about 50% of

my photographs, I can get the movements set in such a way that almost

everything of importance is in focus anyway, even at full aperture,

and then I would normally operate at f/16 or f/22, depending on

wind/shutter speed required etc. What you have described probably

applies in about 30% of my photos, where I cannot get both near and

far fully in focus, and I'll try this technique out. There is a third

category where I can get far and near in focus, but the middle ground

of the image stubbornly refuses to get sharp, as it is in a different

plane to the plane of focus. So far, I have simply relied on small

apertures, f/45 or f/64, to guesstimate my way through, with mixed

results. I'm now wondering if it would be better to get near and

middle in focus, and then stop down to f/22 or f/32 to get the far in

focus.

Glen - interesting response. Could you please elaborate on how you

compute your f-stop - i.e. how you convert 4/3 of the distance into

an f-stop equivalent?

For TMX100, I like Rodinal @ 1:50 dilution. I also agree with Mr

Mickelson ; I rate this film at anywhere between 32 and 160 depending

on the contrast in the image, and alter the development time

accordingly. But you need to work out the development times yourself

around your own working methods.

Gosh ; what a great response! I think I will try some contact prints

to begin with. Would it be sensible to try to find a secondhand

contact printer (they seem to appear reasonably frequently on ebay),

or could I use my existing slide viewing light table as a light

source, with the negative and paper firmly positioned on the light

table by something heavy (glass, perspex, etc)? Or would this be too

crude and difficult to control?

I've recently really got into black and white LF, after some time of using reversal film only. Prints from slides was easy - go to the lab! However this doesn't seem the best option with b&w, and unfortunately there is no way that I can put a 4x5 enlarger in my apartment, so what are the best options for getting a print from my negatives? Several posters have mentioned that they scan their negatives - am I right in assuming that software packages will then convert the scan into a positive image which can be printed to a reasonably high quality? If so, what options for scanning and printing would people recommend, and what costs generally apply? For example, the Nikon 4x5 scanner I have seen is incredibly expensive - is there a good, not too expensive scanner that will handle 4x5 (and ideally also 6x17), or is it best to pay a lab to do this?

 

<p>

 

ALternatively, would it be easier to find an old contact printer, and produce traditional wet prints? If so, how would I control contrast in the print, other than using some kind of mask?

Given your budget and photographic intentions, I think you should be

looking at a secondhand field camera, something like the Toyo that

you mention. I use one of the original Toyo metal fields, which was

not expensive, is easy to carry around in a backpack, and has much

(if not more in some respects) of the functionality of modern field

cameras. All field cameras are idiosyncratic in some way, and the key

is to get the right balance between ease of use, versatility,

complexity, strength, weight, durability and cost. A secondhand

camera would free up more money for lenses and other essential items.

I have managed to aquire several lenses since starting LF, but the

fact is I use two 90% of the time - a 90mm, and a 300mm. I may well

sell my other lenses as I am finding that having less equipment

significantly improves the visualisation process. (anyone interested

in a Fuji 65mm, Nikkor 150mm, Schneider 180mm or a Fuji 400T)? I

would also recommend a spot meter. Also, if you are going to be doing

mainly colour (my assumption), look at the Quickload system for film.

The only other major items I can think of now are tripod and filters,

but I've probably missed something.

One last thing - the movements on the camera do not control

perspective, they enable you to control where a plane of sharpness

will lie in the image. Only physically moving the camera to a

different location will alter the perspective of the image.

I shoot a lot of Quickload with one of the original Toyo metal

fields. What you have described could well be a light leak from the

camera back which hits the film as the envelope is pulled away. You

should check that the film holder is sitting true in the camera back,

and that the camera back is not warped and preventing a full light

tight seal between the holder and the back. Also check that you are

not inadvertently moving the back, and thereby introducing a light

leak, as you pull out the Quickload envelope.

Daniel ; try T-Max at 80ASA in Rodinal @ 1:50 for 13 minutes, for N

Just to add one more point - I did make sure I bought a good

thermometer, as temperature control is crucial with films such as T-

Max. Even so, the best thermometer was still relatively inexpensive.