howard_slavitt3

The Horseman is the best that I've ever heard of. For a brighter

screen you should contact Bill Maxwell (404) 244-0095; he'll custom

fit a fresnel that is very bright and contrasty.

Steve, my understanding from email communications I had with

Horseman is that the 360 mm Nikkor will fit on the 25 mm

extended board, but not on the 65 mm extended board. I believe

that the 400 mm Fuji T will fit on BOTH boards, but because of

the stability problems caused by the weight, Horseman only

recommended using the 400 mm Fuji I on the 25 mm extended

board. Hope that helps.

The aperture is the one set on your lens when you take the

reading. Pretty simple, huh? I had the same problem when I

first tried to use one.

For scanning, you should make sure your goals are clear as to what

you want out of a scanner. Why take a beautiful 4 x 5 and then scan

it on an under $1,000.00 (or under $5,000.00) scanner? Although the

cost quality equation with scanners is improving, scanners are

complicated machines with sophisticated software -- despite

the "specs" (which due to hype have become almost meaningless) you

will not get professional quality scans of 4 x 5 transparencies or

black and white negatives from a machine that's under $5,000.00, and

maybe not even at that price. I would look into the new

Microtek/Artix 4 x 5 scanner, that, last time I looked was selling

for about $6-7T. After that I would look at the Imacon's. If you

want top quality -- which I do -- you should probably just send you

great images to get scanned at West Coast Imaging for about $50.00

each for a 200 MB file. WCI does great work, IMO. NancyScans also

does excellent work, IMO.

I'm not aware of any 105 mm that will cover 4 x 5. As for 65 mm

lenses, the Horseman 65 mm f7 Super is an excellent lens for 6 cm x 9

cm format. There's a multicoated one (very rare) up for auction

right now on EBAY. I think the reserve is about $600.00, which is

not cheap, but for a multicoated 65 mm f7 for 6 x 9 that's as small

and nice as the Horseman, it's something to consider.

Zone VI modified Pentax Digital Spot Meters are still listed on the

Calumet web site.

There is a strong consensus among professionals that laptop monitors

cannot be reliably calibrated. Also, you will quickly want more than

256 mb of RAM. Whether it's a windows or a Mac machine, you should

look up the Color Partnership on the web and buy their hardware

calibrator and PhotoCal for $199 to calibrate your monitor. It's the

best value out there and is, IMHO, literally worth it's wait in gold.

When I tilt a very wide angle lens to obtain near-far focus (either a 58 mm or 65 mm in 6 cm x 9cm format; roughly equivalent to 75 mm or 90 mm in 4 x 5), the image is sometimes soft in the sides of the background, but still relatively sharp in the center of the background. What is causing this? Too much or too little tilt? Curl in the roll film back? Thanks.

Where did you get information on this lensboard? I corresponded with

Horseman Japan about 2 years ago for a lensboard that I believe is

the one you are describing but which is only in 1 piece, not two. I

actually bought and used that lensboard for awhile with a 300 mm f9

Nikkor and it worked well. It has about a 65 mm extension if I

remember correctly. It was quite expensive -- $250.00 or so through

Badger Graphics. I have since switched to a 240 mm APO Ronar (for 6

cm x 9cm format) on the somewhat shorter board you mentioned and

would consider selling you my super extended board (at a discount

from the new price) if you are interested. I would be surprised if

there is yet another Horseman lensboard that has two pieces like you

are describing. You may want to talk to Jeff at Badger Graphics

about it -- although he didn't have the catalogue number or

information on the board I got, I obtained that information directly

from Japan.

Wrong again. The 135 mm Sironar N has a 40.5 mm filter size and will

fit within the FA.

I'm thinking of using a Schneider "macro" lens, in particular, the 80 mm, as a wide angle lens for general landscape use for the 6 cm x 9 cm format. Schneider says the lens is optimized for between 1:4 and 4:1, but will it perform well at inifinity focus as well? I know that in 35mm format, the macro lenses are often used at infinity focus and perform very well. Would this be different with large format lenses? The reason why I want to use this lens is because it's very small, and, in particular, takes a 40.5mm filter, which means it will fit inside the body of my Horseman VH and really cut down on weight/size requirements when backpacking. Thanks in advance for your help.

If you're doing it for a client, who will pay you for the scans and

therefore cover some of the cost of the scanner, buy an Artix 1100

(about $1500 from buy.com or price.com, I can't remember which site I

saw it on). It has a separate transparency tray for film, a 3.7 DMAX,

and should give you excellent scans at 1000 dpi (plenty for 4 x 5). I

have the predecessor model, the Scamkaer 5 and it gives great quality

scans. I've explored the market for scanners extensively and have

compared output from many different ones; this is, IMHO, the one to

get. If you're going to be doing much scanning, you really should get

a hardware calibrator for your monitor (go to the Color Partnership

website; their product, Optical, is the industry standard and works

excellent with the calibrators they sell) -- the Artix 1100 comes with

a separate utility for building a custom color calibration profile for

the scanner and a Kodak 4" x 5" IT8 slide (the value of these two add

ons is approximately $200). If you have a calibrated monitor and

scanner, your scanners should be about a 95% match of the originals

before you do any corrections in Photos

I've used a Horseman VH 6cm x 9cm field camera for a couple of years

and love it. I'm planning several trips to third world countries in

the next few years and would prefer a camera that's quicker to set up

and take down for street scenes and/or just to feel less exposed and

vulnerable than I sometimes feel with my VH. After thinking about

investing in a Mamiya 7, I came around to thinking about getting a VHR

(with the built in rangefinder), which is less expensive and would

also still allow me to use the ground glass and tilts. Does anyone

with a VHR or a Linhoff with the built in rangefinder use the

rangefinder a lot? Have you traveled with this camera abroad? What has

been your experience about the accuracy of your camera's rangefinder?

Is there a particular focal length range in which it's more accurate?

At what f stops do you typically shoot with the rangefinder (f11? f16?

f22?) How quick and easy is it to use a field camera in the

rangefinder mode? Thanks in advance for your help. Howard

To follow up on the previous post, I've exposed well over a thousand

color slides using a roll film back and have never had a softness

problem due to film flatness problems. I typically enlarge my

initial proofs of good shots to about 5x and have done enlargements

up to 30" x 40".

Not only are their prices great, but Robert White offers probably the

best service I've ever gotten from any camera store. I've written

them many emails inquiring about new equipment being released

(scanners), cameras (the new Bronica 645 Rangefinder), pricing,

compatibility issues, and hard to find accessories, and in all

instances, they've tracked down information from the manufacturers

and gotten back to me. For any large purchase for which they can

save me money(and for which I'm willing to forego a U.S. warranty),

Robert White is my first choice.

I use the Heliopan equivalent for the same lens and it works great.

I bought mine from B&H.

Christiane, would you take the time to weight your Arca Swiss so that

we (I) can know the actual weight, which sometimes differs

significantly from the manufacturers' specs? Would you also please

let me know what your measured weight includes (i.e. does it include

an Arca Swiss QR plate, the roll film adapter back, etc.)? Thanks in

advance. Howard.

I use the 58 mm Schneider XL, 75 mm Grandagon f6.8, 135 APO Symmar

f5.6, and 240 Rodenstock f9 APO Ronar, multicoated version

(approximately 25 mm, 32 mm, 60 mm, and 105 mm equivalents in 35

mm). If I were to use only 3 lenses, I would exchange a 65 mm (the

Grandagon is better reputed than the Schneider equivalent in this

focal length) for the 58 mm and 75 mm. If you will sometimes want to

use 3 lenses, and sometimes 4, I would stay with the 58 mm and 75 mm,

and then just sometimes leave one or the other at home. I've tried

different combinations, including using a 150 mm and 300 mm in place

of the 135 mm and 240 mm, but like this combination the best.

This sounds odd. I have the VH, which is, I believe, virtually

identical to the ER-1. If you're doing everything right, then the

problem is probably you're ground glass/fresnel. Is there a fresnel

in your camera? It may have been installed incorrectly and throwing

off the focus plane.

Are you planning on shooting color or black and white? Slides or

negatives? With color slides you will definitely need a centerfilter

with the 6cm x 9 cm format. The 58 mm XL, same lens design, needs

one for 6cm x 9 cm color slides.

I meant to say that the cost per print on the Fuji Pictography is

relatively low $1-$2 per print I think. I'm always getting cutoff

when I respond using my Mac and Internet Explorer 4.5; so far the only

downside I've found from using a Mac.

I agree with the previous poster, that Darron is exaggerating your

needs. I have a Mac G3 (225 mhz processing power) with 512 MB of RAM;

it has a built in 4 Gig hard drive and I have another 8 Gig external

drive and a CD writer. It's more than adequate to be working with 200

MB scans and getting excellent 20" x 30" or 30" x 40" prints. As for

a scanner, for large format there's a new scanner out the Artix 1100

(there's also an Agfa branded model, I think called the "Hi D") for

about $2,000. I haven't seen its output, but it's the same scanner I

have (the Microtek Scanmaker 5) with a much improved DMAX. Based on

the scans I get from the Scanmaker 5, which are very very good, and

improving the DMAX is the one area I would most want improved, you

should be able to get GREAT prints up to at least 16" x 20" for 4" x

5". By comparison, I can print great prints up to 11" x 14" on a

Lightjet 5000 off of my scanner (using 6 x 9 originals), which, while

not quite as nice as scans from a Tango (I have those done too), are

just a step below in quality; not leagues apart. The DPI of the Artix

1100 is only 1000 dpi, but that should be more than adequate for

excellent 4" x 5" scans to allow you to print up to 16" x 20" or

larger at 80 dots per centimeter. Why 80 dpc? Because that's the

lowest recommended resolution for getting Lightjet 5000 prints. If

you have your own monitor calibrator and apply the profiles that the

major labs will give you for free, you can get 16" x 20" color prints

(or black and white prints) for $27 each from a Lightjet 5000. Not

cheap, but well worth it for the quality IMHO. If you want black and

white prints, you can get very good ones up to about 13" x 20" or so,

with the Epson 1200 or other similar Epsons using special sets of

black ink sets. I personally wouldn't plan on doing high quality

color prints at home, unless you do a real lot, because of color

calibration difficulties. Calibrating a printer is the hardest part

of developing a calibrated color system; even with an expensive (over

$1,000) measuring device. Calibrating your monitor and scanner is

quite easy (IMHO), but you should definitely plan on spending between

$400 and $600 for a hardware software monitor profiling/calibration

package from the Color Partnership (they're the best, IMHO). The

Artix 1100 comes with excellent scanner profiling software (at least

my Microtek Scanmaker 5 did and I'm pretty sure it's the same, or

slightly improved software), and even comes with a Kodak 4 x 5 IT8

calibration slide (normally the slide alone costs about $100). Many

other $2,000+ scanners also come with their own profiling software.

There are many other good scanners to consider as you get into the

$3,000 - $4,000 price range and above; one feature I personally would

be hard pressed to go without is glassless scanning; after having

compared the Microtek and several other scanners in the $2,000 or less

price range a year ago, I saw a significant difference between

glassless scanning (like the Microtek/Artix/Agfa) and scanners that

have flatbed glass interfering with the optical path. The Epsons are

great printers and for black and white I believe can be calibrated

relatively effectively. However, for calibrating them for color

prints, you need to start getting into issues like dry down time and

changes in print colors for several days after you print (before they

become "archival," and all this changes depending on which ink set and

paper you're using) and then pretty soon you'll be spending all of

your time calibrating your printer rather than making prints. Fuji

Pictography's are excellent color and black and white printers that

can be calibrated easily and give photographic (or near photographic;

I can't see the difference) output. They are expensive though -- for

the 4000 which will do up to 12" x 18" prints they're about $10,000, I

think (leasing is available), but the cost per print

Wow! That's a great price, $350 for an Epson 1200. Again though,

however, much trouble it is, you really need to try one out and see

all the mechanics involved, if at all possible, or buy it from

somehwere that yhou can return it if you're unhappy. Also it takes

quite a while to learn how to play with the setting on the scanner

software and then adjust the scan in Photoshop to get good output.

Expect to put in a lot of learning time with this whole process.

To clear up some misconceptions that were advanced in the previous

reply: All scanners do need sharpening, however, you want to sharpen

as little as possible. Sharpening increases local contrast. That

means you will have less subtle transitions between tones. For

example, I found that the Minolta Multi added too much automatic

sharpening that could not be controlled in scans. This created the

appearance of grain (digital noise) that was very objectionable.

Moreover, the better and original scan, the more responsive it is to

sharpening and the less you need to sharpen it. When you start with

a very "soft" scan, however much you try to sharpen it, it just

doesn't seem responsive. The Microtek/Agfa holders are great for 6cm

and 9 cm (in their price range; the Imacon holders look nicer; drum

scanners use oil mounting right to the drum which is even better) and

for 4 x 5". In either of these formats, they are IMHO the best buy

out there. I bought the Microtek for $1500 a year ago. It comes

with a great color calibration utility, including a 4 x 5 Kodak IT8

slide(usually costs around $100 just for the Kodak IT8 slide). The

color calibration utility is phenomenally effective. I would never

buy a scanner without a good one. Also, I would never use a scanner

without a well calibrated monitor. These additions will increase

your efficiency and enjoyment many fold. The UMAX/Sapphires are

reputed to be better in head to head competition with the

Agfa/Microtek scanners; better dpi, and according to at least one

review I read by Bruce Fraser, sharper. I didn't see it in the test

I ran. The problem with the UMAX/Lino Saphires is that they don't

have a separate bed for slides; therefore the slides sit on the

glass. This means you get Newton rings when scanning at high

magnifications. There are two work arounds to Newton rings. First

you can use Kami mounting fluid (like a drum scanner) and put the

slides right on the glass. This is very messy, time consuming, and

makes me nervous that it will affect the slide's longevity. The

second, more common work around is to use the slide holders that the

UMAX/Lino's come with. These elevate the slides slightly above the

glass to minimize Newton rings. This means that the slides are no

longer in perfect focus as the focus plane is the flatbed glass, not

above it. These scanners do not have autofocus, or adjustable focus

lenses. These are some of the tradeoffs involved and that you should

consider and explore.

I don't have 4 x 5 samples; I've only scanned a few 4 x 5s. 6 cm x

9cm sample scans are on my website: info@naturelandscape.com. About

half the scans were done with the Microtek; the other half with a

Tango drum scanner. For web purposes, I can't tell the difference.

I don't think looking at them on the web will give you a real good

idea anyways of what quality you can achieve. You really need to see

the machines in operation if you want to get a good sense of their

capabilities. I researched the issue for about 3 months. As soon as

I tried the scanners out myself (which I did with all 3 I mentinoed

above), the choice was easy. I strongly advise getting a scanner

that does not have any glass between the slide and the optics and

also one that has excellent film holders to hold the format that you

want mostly to scan. For this reason, if I was looking at scanning

mostly 6cm x 7cm I would be strongly tempted by the Lino Saphir Ultra

II (the Umax Powerlook III but with infinitely better software, or so

I understand) because it has nice 6 cm x 7 cm film holders, but no 6

cm x 9 cm film holders. Although there's glass in the optical path,

I think having nice film holders negates that problem.