robert_a._zeichner1

BOTH. I believe that at it's best, it's both an art and a craft. One might argue that because photographers don't "paint" the image onto the film or paper in some manual way, that it can't be art. I believe the process of selection is as much art as actual manual creation of picture elements. The photographic artist has a great free rein in lens selection, point of view, filtration, waiting for the right light, alteration of contrast range through zone system application and selection of taking aperture and shutter speed. In the darkroom, the photographer uses an entirely different set of tools. Through masking, paper grade selection, exposure, development proceedure and toning, to name a few, the artist can further manipulate the raw material into the finished product. All of these controls make up the craft of photography just as drawing, proper brush selection, knowledge and application of painting mediums and proper color mixing technique to name a few, make up the craft of painting. I think "seeing" is the real critical element in any art that is visual. All art involves mastering a set of tools. Authors and composers have to master tools. Sculpters have a set of tools to master. Yes, even the digital darkroom involves learning to use a set of tools. So, for that reason I maintain that there is an element of craft in all artistic endeavors. As to what is art? Well, that's another discussion. But, for me, art (whatever it is) is not much good without craft.

Steve, Ground glass/film plane coincidence is of paramount importance if one wants to get sharp results. There is a common misconception that shooting at small apertures will make up for this kind of error, but that is simply not true. The gg needs to be in just the right place for everything to work right. Film holders all have small amounts of error, but that is not surprising since they are relatively inexpensive pieces of plastic and aluminum. Most of them will pass the ANSI spec of +/- .007" for 4x5. If the gg is .007" shallow, a film holder with the opposite problem will position the film .014" from the ideal plane. This is why the gg needs to be perfect or as close to it as possible...so the average film holder will not place the film out of the accepted range of tolerance.

 

Now back to your camera. Suppose when new, your camera had a Fresnel brightening screen between the gg and the lens. Many cameras have been designed that way. The typical Fresnel is about .060" thick and because it behaves like a lens, it shifts the image passing throught it rearward by an amount roughly equal to 1/3 the thickness of the screen or about .020". The designers of the camera took all of this into account when machining the pads on which the viewing screen(s) are mounted. Now let's just say a former user didn't like Fresnels. Not everyone does, you know. So, they took it out and just replaced the gg without properly shimming it. That would put the gg .060" closer to the lens, (the thickness of the Fresnel that was removed) minus the .020" that the image was shifted rearward when the Fresnel was in place. That means the gg would need to be shimmed rearward by approximately .040" to put it correct plane. I just tested all of this theory, by the way, when I removed the Fresnel from my Graflock 4x5 reduction back on my Deardorff. I used my gg alignment test target to confirm proper position and after a couple of minor "adjustments" was able to achieve perfect results. The processed negatives matched what was seen on the gg exactly. (I left the camera set up on the target while I processed the film so I could make this comparison).

 

So, that is why it is important to know how your camera was originally designed with respect to the gg and also why a gg test with an appropriate target will confirm its position. When that's correct, you'll be ready to make meaningful lens comparisons. I'll email my article on gg alignment to you with instructions for building a test target.

The resolution performance of the lens can be masked by ground glass misalignment. Tell us more about your camera. Did you buy it new or used? Does it have a Fresnel brightening screen or not? If not, was it originally designed to have a such a screen. If yes, was it originally designed to not have such a screen? All of these things can be clues to whether or not the gg has been messed with. If it has, all bets are off on lens testing. I witnessed many LF users repeatedly trading lenses in search for a sharper one, only to later discover their gg was so far off, there was no hope of ever making a sharp negative.

I believe there are situations where you simply can't move a few paces closer (don't fall over the railing!). I also feel that if you are shooting large format it is partially because you appreciate the greater negative area and the resultant freedom from grain and the smaller magnification required to make a large print. So, cropping, while necessary in some instances, is not something I want to plan on doing if I can avoid it. In fact, what I have discovered is that smaller differences in lens focal lengths seem to make a bigger difference than I ever thought noticeable. I don't like hauling around glass that I won't use, but a 240, particularly that 240 is in my mind an indispensable lens. For 4x5 it has huge coverage which is great for architectural subjects. It's also a very sharp optic as well as small and convenient in that it takes the same 52mm filters many of my other lenses do. I'm not much of a short lens user, but I do seem to "see" in the 200mm to 380mm range. In that part of the focal length spectrum, I wouldn't think it overkill to have lenses an inch or an inch and a half apart! That doesn't mean I would pack all of them. I might keep a couple in the car so I could at least go back and get the perfect focal length for the subject I have stumbled upon. Just another view.

.001mm? That's a pretty nice trick considering that's about equivalent to 40 microns. With sandpaper and a a $30 Sears micrometer you did this? Where can I get some of this magic sandpaper?

Just caught this news in the local paper. Another famous and much

photographed subject makes its last stand.

 

http://www.nps.gov/yose/news/2003/tree0818.htm

The business of measuring depth of film holders is a complex and difficult procedure. First you have to deal with the issue of exactly how the holder fits into the camera back and what effect the cameras back springs have on the that holder. Then there is the issue of film thickness. You can't just measure the depth to the septum, because the film has thickness. The film rarely lies perfectly flat which brings up a third issue. If that weren't enough you must take into account the compliance of the film against the septum when touched with the depth gauges probe. What a film test does is to eliminate all those variables and provides a visual examination of the end result. If you leave the camera set up on the target, you can even complare the processed film with the image on the gg and judge very critically how close the two match. You'll never measure anything with a toothpick and a straight edge. These are not measuring devices and when used in the suggested manner in that article, they can mislead you. The ANSI spec for a 4x5 film holder is .197 +/- .007". Any measuring device you would use to confirm such dimensions should be able to resolve .0005" to provide any meaningful measurement. You can't do this with a toothpick! Using a collimator is another option, but again involved and expensive. A film test is cheap, relatively easy and is physical proof that all is well with your camera.

I authored the article previously mentioned and I'll be happy to email a scan of it to you later this evening. Essentially, it is a how to piece on making an inexpensive test target. It is a non-destructive test and will give you a very good idea if your gg is too shallow or too deep. Forget micrometers and such as doing actual measurements will require precision fixtures and dial depth gauges that are expensive to make if done properly. The only thing that matters is the results on film. The ViewCamera issue BTW is Nov./Dec. 1997.

In Ansel's Autobiography pp208, he mentions getting a postcard from Edward. "Dear Ansel, Charis and I are no longer one". That was in 1945. On 17, November of that same year, another card: "Dear Ansel, Thanks for writing. And I will be here for at least a while. You will never see Charis and Edward together on Wildcat Hill. Divorce. -E-" They exchange more writing and the sense I make of it was that Weston was deeply affected by the split. How can that not influence one's work in some way or another?

 

Just another angle.

It is a bit vexing at times. I usually sign in pencil below the mounted image and within the overmat. I don't think any two of my signatures look the same. On a recent project, I decided to print my name in very tiny letters and I'm almost tempted to continue that with all my prints. I try not to let any of this get me down though. A very sucessful photographer I know of signs his prints with great consistency and flare, but his prints on the other hand?

I have standardized on the Kodak f7.7 203mm Ektar as my normal lens. This has loads of coverage for 4x5, is very sharp and extremely lightweight as well. I can even store the lens on my folded Wisner Traditional and, if I reverse the lens board, on my Deardorff 5x7. Some recent closeups that required about 1/2 stop bellows extension compensation produced extremely sharp results for me. It's not the latest (mine is as old as I am), but it is single coated and has near apochromatic performance.

I second Brians suggestion about carrying faster film. I just got back from the Smoky Mts. a couple of weeks ago and if it's rainy or overcast as it was most of the time I was there, even with TMY rated at 240, I was needing to use some fairly long exposures. Also, many intersting areas are under a pretty lush canopy of trees which blocks out a good deal of light. I also vote for yellow or lt. green filters for foliage.

I believe we'd all like to get to the point where we can compose on the gg and end up with absolutely the best possible framing of what ever the particular subject is we are photographing. I don't believe anyones power of pre-visualization is so perfect however, that there won't be times we see things a bit differently and be able to make improvements in the darkroom. In the end, I don't feel this is a bad thing, because if we can further distill what we saw during exposure and come up with something better, we've succeeded in coming up with, well, something better. In doing so, we are actually training ourselves to see better the next time we are out making exposures. I also fail to see any sin in later realizing that there is yet another photograph within a photograph.

Southfield, Michigan. Just north of Detroit

In answer to the question of when I find the avialable movements on my wooden field cameras insufficient, I haven't gotten to that point as yet. But, keep in mind that my widest lens is 90mm and I most times use a 110mm lens as my lens of choice for architectural subjects. As far as the business of keeping things perfectly vertical, parallel or otherwise perfectly aligned, it is a bit more of a challenge I suppose with a field camera, but I carry a level with me as well as a folding trysquare. These are handy tools and cheap ones as well. When I do landscapes, I leave those at home and just trust my eyes. I guess it's a matter of what you are used to and how much trouble you're willing to endure to get the job done. As tools become extensions of your hands and your mind, you pretty soon adjust and do what's needed without much agonizing. Now if productivity was the chief concern and most of what I was doing was architectural work, I'd probably be working with a monorail of some type that has all the angle scales, DOF calculators, etc. incorporated in it. I'd probably never take it on a hike though.

Having more generous movements will be a requirement for architectural work. I've found that I can usually run out of image circle before I run out of movement on either my Wisner 45 Traditional or my Deardorff 45 S. The Deardorff has an advantage in that the lens panel can be raised or lowered without flexing the bellows, so as long as the rear of the lens fits well within the opening in the front standard, you can do most of your rise and fall without having to flex the bellows much. You can lean the front standard rearward, tilt and raise the standard so it is centered within the film and get it very close to the back of the camera. One feature it doesn't have is shift (sideways rise and fall). You can accomplish this by swinging the rear and front of the camera equal amounts and then pan the camera to re-aim. A bit of pain, but it can be done. The Wisner does have shift, but no independent rise and fall of the lens panel, so you have to raise or lower the entire front standard. Having removeable bellows though, it does allow you to attach a bag bellows. With both these cameras and any others that have front and rear tilts, you can increase your rise and fall by tilting the rear standard forward, then tilting the camera up to make the film plane vertical, then match the tilt of the front standard to also be vertical. How much you can do this will depend on lens focal length and bellows flexibility, but it can be a useful means to enhance a limited rise movement when using a camera that's deficient in that area.

 

I too, would recommend a used camera of the folding wooden field type. You will save a lot of money with which you can purchase used lenses. It will be lighter and fold more compactly.

I've loaded and unloaded dozens of film holders of various brands and vintages and have never had this problem. I suspect you might have an older style holder with a less obvious finger relief depression to get under the film. The latest Fidelity and Lisco holders all have a circular well that easily allows you to get your nail behind the film. Blowing on the film may inadvertently get saliva droplets on the emulsion. Maybe you could tap the closed holder back and forth to loosen it up? One thing I've come to the conclusion of when working in the dark with film holders is that the more relaxed and least distracted you are, the easier things go. Don't worry, be happy!

How about the creative flexibility of LF with the convenience of MF? You could consider a Horseman VR or Linhof baby Technica and have an almost limitless choice of lenses plus the ease of roll film. Lots of color choices in the 120 roll size. There may also be instances where you could benefit from handheld rangefinder use of such a camera. Add a few roll film backs and you can keep transparency, negative and B&W loaded and ready to go. Also, different aspect ratios, including 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9, which will feel like the 24mm x 36mm you are already used to! Just another idea.

John, A real sleeper is the Kodak f7.7 203mm Ektar. This lens will cover 5x7 which means lots of coverage for 4x5. It is an anastigmat and although a single coated lens, it has near apochromatic performance and makes absolutely wonderful B&W and color photographs. You should be able to pick one up for around $200-$300. It is also very compact and can be often folded into a wooden field camera such as the Wisner traditional.

Todd, As a former owner of the Horseman FA, I would highly recommned it to anyone needing a compact, rugged, folding metal technical camera. While it doesn't have the generous movements of my Wisner or Deardorff cameras, it is very durable. I've even dropped mine (in a canvas bag with camera wrapped with the focusing cloth) on rocks and it came through with absolutely no damage. I had a 65mm f7 Horseman lens on mine and it was mounted on a flat 80mm lens board. On the downside, as mentioned, limited movements, short bellows draw and tiny and expensive lens boards that will not acommodate larger shutters (which are typically what you need when using older graphic arts lenses, as I do). But, I do have to say that I made some wonderful negatives with mine and it was a pleasure to hike with. With the lens requirements you have, you should be satisfied. I would say the movements might be the only shortcoming for architectural work.

How about a tripod head and an umbrella holder? I wonder if there are any used Good Humor carts on ebay?

A couple of thoughts:

 

First, apparent sharpness is the product of resolution and contrast. Lenses with higher resolving power, but that lack good contrast often appear to be less sharp than average resolution lenses with good contrast. That kind of blows the theory of using the resolving power of lenses alone as a yardstick for sharpness.

 

Second, in order to achieve a given level of resolution on a negative, it is necessary to have film and glass with individual resolutions that are much higher. There are a couple of ways to calculate this, of which I offer one: The net resolution of any lens and film is equal to the product of the two divided by the sum of the two. That would mean that if you had a lens and film, each with resloving power of 100 lppm, the net resolution of the two would be no greater than 50 lppm. (100 x 100 = 10,000, which divided by 100 + 100 [200] = 50. Leonard, I believe you know the other formula which is a bit more generous in its results, but the point is the same: Film and glass with equal resolution results in something that is significantly lower in resolution.

 

When Kodak developed the orginal Technical Pan for aerial surveilance, Perkin Elmer was developing a lens capable of making the film useful! The 36" f3.5 9-element weighing 400 lbs. in its mount was the result. Resolved golf balls at an altitude of 40,000' from a U-2, railroad ties at 80,000'

I'm going to try this again. Here is a recent photo of me and some of my buddies.<div></div>

I use the 135 and the 150 and have had great results.

This looks to me like a standard 4x4 lens panel will fit. This is probably the most common size around. Graflex C board will probably work as will Wisner, Zone VI. You can find lots of used boards at camera shows for anywhere from a few bucks each to $15 or $20.