upscan

Paul: As always you make perfect sense and raise excellent points.

Thanks, shall keep them in mind. One possibility that occurs as I

write is to cast some epoxy about 3mm thick onto the exterior of the

cap to provide reinforcement. This could be done by wrapping a ring

of polyethylene sheet or silicon coated release paper around the rim

(making another ring just a little higher than the highest point in

the cap)and pouring the epoxy on top of the cap just short of the rim

of the wrap. Epoxies are readily available in the DIY market, but

their adhesion to the cap is no sure thing and has to be tested.

Also, some of the DIY stuff can be brittle, than can be aleviated by

laying a cut out of glass fabric under the cast. The idea of $'000

worth of glass laying inadequately unprotected makes no sense. I

have to wonder about Lens manufacturers sense of value and self

respect. Once I had a large, expensive Chrysler wagon with a small

plastic electric seat control lever, probably 50 cents worth. It was

destined to break and it did. The repair cost $700 as the seat had to

be dissasembled completely to install a new one. Lenses with flimsy

protective caps have Murphy's laws written all over them. It is only

a matter of time.

Hi, I am 120km Northwest of Toronto. I shoot 4X5 and MF. Yes, in

Ontario there is more than Niagara Falls, we have stuff worth looking

at and photographing around Lake Superior, Killarney and the Soo. I

day-back-pack in those areas in the Fall. David if you ever like to

venture out there, keep my email address and get in touch.

Scott: Sorry, I do not know. You will see how perfectly it fits the

use from the photos that will be included. I just checked the Robert

White price for the Lee cases, astronomical!

Dan: trees attract lighting for a totally different reason. They

provide electrical contact with the ground which is what lighting

really seeks. Trees work in similar fashion as lighting arresters,

which also provide an electrical link to the ground. That is also

why golfers, -with their metal spiked shoes are also favoured by

lighting. Come to think of it, wearing golf shoes while you load film

may not be a bad way of draining static from your body. Before trying

it, though, get permission from your wife!

Armin: I wish my German was as good as your English. Your suggestion

re lens caps is appreciated. I weighed several caps, with

Rodenstock 's being so light and flimsy, 4.70 grams for a 60ID cap,

it does not take rocket science to make a better one. Lastly, a no

name cap of the same size weighed almost double (8.43 grams) This cap

is extremely rigid and strong, more than enough for excellent

protection. Paul: Polycarbonate, titanium, Kevlar and high strength

composite plastics from exotic fibers, etc are indeed excellent for

the purpose but technology is not a cure for greed, which is at heart

of the problem. Additionally, excellent, CHEAP NO-NAME caps do exist.

There, it is 'much ado about nothing'!

John: The answer is definitely yes. You can check this with a static

meter. Most plastics can generate large amounts of static when

rubbed. Some can generate several hundred volts. Wood does not

generate static becuse wood has a moisture content in most

environments that are fit for humans. Moisture dissipates static

electricity. Metals conduct static and do not store it. One way, the

best way of dealing with static is controlling the relative humidity

in the environment. Your basement is probably the best place to load

film holders because basements are generally more humid. In winter

it is important to maintain a relative humidity of at least 50% at

least while you load holders. Watch out for carpets and rubber soled

shoes. Those can help store static in your body which can be

discharged when loading holders damaging yout film. Do not wear

ties, these are specially bad for static, or synthetic fiber garments

on top or under. Cotton and leather soled shoes are best.

Jennifer: The Linhof Master Technika, which has a triple extension

bellows, with a 300mm lens has a focusing range somewhat limited at

the closer distances, say 8-10 feet and the bellows get pushed to

close to their limit. Yes, a 360 mm would give a larger image but

that would put an additional stretch on the bellows and reduce its

focusing even further. You may wonder why for landscapes you would

need closer focusing. Perspective for one thing and to isolate

distracting objects. The ApoRonar is an excellent lens at all

magnifications and the 300 is a good general compromise all things

considered. The Wisner (I think) only has double extension bellows.

To use longer lenses like the 300 you may need extension tubes. You

want to check that. The longest lens is not always a good thing, as

other postings have quite well stated.

Good luck.

Bob: Your Rodenstock lens cap weighs "5.6699046 g." in a postal

scale. WOW! Your scale weighs to SEVEN DECIMAL places such as used in

few analytical labs for supercritical applications, ....for the mail

room? really? If instead the seven decimals result from converting

ounces to grams, it is bad technical practice to write all that the

calculator can calculate, because it is misleading. OK you beat me,

my Swiss Mettler laboratory scale weighs only to 2 decimal places. Be

that as it may, this only proves that there is yet a third type of

Rodenstock cap or that they are not made to consistent standards. The

discrepancy can be settled easily by me sending you my Rodenstock

cap. You can weigh it and feel it, provided that if I am right, you

will give me a good and solid Rodenstock cap. I do not know how you

can do that, they don't really exist, do they? . Bob, from a long

experience in quality matters I can tell you it is bad business to

judge product quality according to complaints received or not

received. A good number of users do not complain, they just change

manufacturers. Others do not understand the cause of the failure or

do not know who to complain to, others yet don;t want to bother;

probably the same that do not return rebate stickers for real money!

Manufacturers that do CARE about Quality make the best product they

can that the market can tolerate. Another 8 cents to the selling

price of a lens would not make Rodenstock lenses uncompetitive. Makes

you wonder, if a manufacturer is willing to risk damage to the

customer's lens for the sake of 1.3 cents, (factory cost), how far

will it go when tempted by 25 cents pocketable money that the

customer may be less likely to notice that an up front lens cap?

Bob, this can not a be a complaint to you personally because I am in

Canada, but I have no doubt that if I went to the Canadian

distributor I'd get pretty much the same answer as you have

provided. Just curious, have you told Rodenstock about the

complaints you are having about the caps? PS: I just weighed a NO

NAME cap, 60mm. It weighed 8.34 grams. It is much much more solid

than Rodenstock's and will remain on the Rodenstock lens from now on.

Scott: The Lee pouches are good but not their cost. I found and

alternative case that has several advantages such as compactness

slightly greater rigidity and compactness than the Lee. They fit 4X6

filters, are zippered and lighter than CD plastic cases. You can put

about 9-10 filters with cloth partitions in between to prevent

filters from touching one another. I bought several of them from a

distributor and have more than I need so I will put the others for

sale in eBay soon.

GreyWolf: I know where the likes of you hunt for prey: there in the

Frozen North. 1) The snorkel makes much sense and is lighter and

smaller than Paul's binocular viewer. Failing that, how a

little 'antifreeze' in the form of a shot of Rum before the session?

For that to work, the concentration in the blood would probably hurt

you and your picture taking. Make sure you have a designated driver

too. 2) Carbon tripods. The glass transition temperature for the

epoxy resin matrix used in carbon fiber tripods is a well guarded,

not divulged trade secret as far as I know. And for good reason: Most

epoxies become extremely brittle at not too cold temperatures. I

would dread dropping one of those $1000 things on a sharp stone in

cold weather. 3) Cold hands: The plumbing tubing foam is great and

light, and the best way I know to make your tripod friendly to your

hands in cold weather. Many sizes are available. The foam is cheap

and easily replaced.

4) Cleaning ground glass after frost: a bit of isopropanol will

dissolve the icy film which can be wiped off with a dry cloth to

prevent re-condensation of moisture and more icing. I have not tried

it. If you carry 'the other antifreeze' that will do too but it may

leave a residue on the GG.

5) If all else fails, park your LF at home and take your Hasselblad.

That is what I do in the Frozen North where I too live.

New Years greetings to all!

In marketing, perception is reality, yes Bob. You have heard from

others now read my comment. The dammed Rodenstock caps are flimsy,

cheaply made. My cap for a 60mm ID fitting weighs exactly 4.70 grams.

Adding another 2.5 grams of plastic would make the cap's convex

surface much more sturdy. The extra cost of another 3 grams of

plastic at about $2.00 per pound for the resin would add to 1.3 cents

additional material cost per cap. Even at the generous mark ups of

this industry, that would probably translate to 8 cents more per

cap/lens. OK, Bob, tell Rodenstock marketers to make a decent cap,

and add the 8 cents to the selling price of each lens and stop making

a reputable optical manufacturer look cheap and greedy. You can help

the manufacturer better by listening to customers instead of

whitewashing their mistakes. For your info, a Schneider 58mm ID lens

cap weighs 7.06 grams and is much sturdier. You do not have to rely

on Novoflex specially ordered caps, get Schneiders.

David: before you get derailed into never never land by well

intentioned advice, make sure first that you have a focusing cloth

that fits tight around the camera and that you can close around you

to block all extraneous light. You'd be amazed at the difference that

blocking extraneous light makes. I use the Linhof's back's knobs as

pins for retaining the cloth, which has leather tabs with holes

corresponding to the knobs and elastic to make a tight fit. Second,

if you fiddle with the GG and fresnels, make sure you check the

calibration of the back again. Unfortunately the manual does not tell

you how to go about it but you will need a depth micrometer, a

perforated flat plate and a little common sense. Remember, to adjust

the screen you need to loosen the retaining screws. These are

fastened tightly to their sockets by the black lacquer used for the

purpose, so you need a drop of acetone to be able to soften the

lacquer and loosen the screws. Reflex attachments lose a substantial

amount of the incoming light which not all is reflected by the mirror

and reflex housings will as a result be always less bright than the

screen itself so these things are no solution at all.

dg: I have measured the film flatness of several brands of holders

using a depth micrometer and flat plate and statistics and here is a

summary of the results. 1) Lisco holders barely met the +/- 0.007"

Ansi Standard, -which judging by Sinar and Linhof's standards, is as

wide as the Bay Bridge, and two of 20 did not. 2) Fidelity seemed

similar to Lisco but all met the Ansi Standard. 3) Toyo all surpassed

the Ansi Standard, with deviations from flatness being about 0.002-

0.004. 3) Linhof: unfortunately I have only one holder. One side was

within +/- 0.001 from the Ansi Standard, the other 0.003" but both

sides were flat within the measuring capabilities of my method which

I estimate at +/-0.0005-0.001".

The above results are from memory as the statistical data lies buried

somewhere in a backup tape or lost after a virus did my computer in.

Sinar holders are guaranteed to +/- 0.001 also, Linhof's has as far

as I know discontinued making them. No wonder, they were very

expensive. The sum total of all of this is that Toyo holders though

not perfect, are probably the best currently available at a

reasonable price. It is amusing that LF photographers fret endlessly

about which lenses are sharpest and spend lots to get them, yet when

it comes to film holders they save a few bucks and buy the cheapest.

Beyond holders, make sure that your camera GG is properly calibrated.

You might be surprised!

If you do landscapes, David Muench's book "Plateau Light" is a mine

of information on the subject you raise. This book indicates the

lenses used. A great many of the pictures are taken with the 75mm

and a surprising many with the 47mm. Remember, he uses a Linhof

Technika 45.

Jonathan: I have used 5X, 6X, 7X and 10X loupes from Leitz, Horseman,

and Silvestri. The 10X, a Silvestri I find just perfect. Where the 7X

loupe did not give me as fine a definition of sharp focus, the

Silvestri does to perfection, and with it, the tiniest movement of

the cam on my Linhof Technika can be detected on the GG. This loupe

comes with an excellent reticle, -which I do not use. It has a

relatively large diamter and it is adequately long to keep the nose

off the GG. The maximum magnification loupe that is practical I

think is relative to the coarsness of the screen. With coarser

screens you may want to stay with lower magnifications. With the fine

screen I use on the Technika, the 10X's magnification is just right,

with coarser screens it might be too high. For viewing the whole GG I

have special prescription glasses and with those I can see the 4X5

screen at as high a magnification as feasible while viewing the whole

screen.

Howard: To prevent problems have available incandescent lights as

well as fluorescents. The fluorescents are essential for viewing

colour, assuming of course that you use fluorescents with the proper

spectrum. Several manufacturers make those but you will not find

those at Home Depot. Before handling sensitive material I would wait

at least ten minutes after the fluorescents have been turned off.

Some phosphors seem to keep on glowing for a very long time. Beware!

With so much said, a few short comments:

1) Steve, don't be intimidated by the ludites that do not want to see

more Digital stuff. They are probably the same ones that saw the

portent of doom in such modern amenities as "artificial ice". For

them you could have a few articles written by .....psychiatrists.

2) Don't limit articles to subject matter on the basis of equipment

cost. The misguided pragmatism of those who propose such is the road

to ignorance. A good magazine should open minds and be more than a

Sears catalogue.

3) The LF community has a large population of the color blind or the

pretentiously so. Humour them by all means, besides, it's cheaper.

But do publish more articles dealing with color. We humans were given

the great gift of a colourful world and the eyes to glory in it.

Yes, colour photography is artistically more difficult as the good

Ansel found out but that is no aliby for all the snobbery of the

colour blind.

to ALL at the LFF: Wonder why it is required for restaurant people

making food to wear a hat? Yeah! the same stuff that can get into

your food can also get into your film! The most basic requirement

for loading film in MNSHO (my not so humble opinion) is to always

wear a clean, dust-free hat.

I tried the previous model to the Ultra Spot 2 and found it the most

unergonomic and backward meter I ever used. As far as the logic is

concerned it is of the cow counting school, "count the legs and

divide by four" type. Zone system? for the birds...It has a good

viewfinder, it is easy to repair by technicians and that is about

all. Expensive? indeed but do not let that fool you. This meter will

be confined to oblivion now that Gossen has a "catch-up" meter to

Sekonic's.

Roland: Clarons are very sharp and contrasty at the centre of the

image but to have corner to corner sharpness you need a substantially

longer focal length, 270mm and above. Longer Clarons get large and

heavy. Ronars are very sharp and well corrected but because of the

smaller image circle you'd need at least 300mm to cover 4X5 at

infinity. Clarons are slightly more contrasty than Ronars (at the

centre) though not as uniformly corrected for all magnifications as

Ronars. Because of the size and weight, for landscapes where these

are important issues I'd pick a Ronar. The 300 is about right if you

have the bellows draw.

My deepest sympathy to our American friends for the terrible events

of September 11, 2001. We in Canada feel your pain and hope with you

that from this tragegy will emerge a better, safer world. The

graphic media brought these events to the homes of millions of people

around the world with the stark reality that defies abstraction.

Horrible as that was, it brought the human family closer to you and

your suffering. People everywhere lost something in the process

though never quite in the same measure as the victims and their

families. To them and all Americans go my sincere condolences and

prayers. To Mr. Chen, best wishes for a quick recovery.

Mike: Forget about all the dissertations about lenses! With MF the

film plane is determined from birth, and the only deviation will be

the result of the paper and film buckling. With LF cameras the film

plane position is determined by the camera construction, the way the

GG is installed and by the film holders. Additionally, one hopes that

the GG is also at the same position. One photographer that does

workshops always starts its students by calibrating cameras, which

invariably are off calibration. Holders also can vary

significantly. I have one Linhof holder that has perfectly flat

septums on both sides, even though there is a slight difference in

the film plane from one side to the other. I have measured many

other holders from several other brands, none measure up to this one

Linhof holder. Friends, when talking about film sharpness it's time

to give up 35mm and MF thinking habits and realize that the mechanics

are totally different. Forget about differences in optics for the

start and start with the basics. The needed measurements require a

depth micrometer and a perforated (for the micrometer probe) "flat"

aluminum plate. Not much to it except for patience and attention to

detail. Re-check your work and do statistics to avoid errors. With a

little thought you can figure out what has to be done. Check your GG,

then your holders and don't be surprised at the discrepancies.

Finally, do not skimp on holders. The cheapest plastic can ruin the

images from your space age glass. Remember when saving $20 on

holders how much you paid for the glass and how much it cost you to

get there. I can think of no photo expense that is cheaper than film

holders. With Linhof later model technikas the GG position can be

adjusted to within 0.001" by turning tiny screws. If you are lucky,

your camera also provides for adjustments. I personally would not

buy any LF camera that can't be adjusted.