rob_rothman1

Have you considered one of the collapsible monorails such as the Technikardan? I've never used one (I'm a woody-phile myself), but they seem to be quite well made and well-designed and may well balance your need for lots of movements with that for portability.

To load sheet film, you don't really need a "darkroom"--all you need is a "dark room." As long as there is a room in your house that can be made completely dark and reasonably dust-free, you'll be fine. I use a bathroom; at night, I stuff towels around the window to block the small amount of light coming in around the shade. Before doing so, I vaccuum the room and run the shower on hot for a while to put some humdity in the air and get the dust to settle.

 

<p>

 

If this isn't possible, you can use a changing bag.

Ron, I hope that your prediction is wrong, but I fear that it is right. At the risk of being branded a Luddite, let me make the case for the continued existence of conventional photography.

 

<p>

 

First, insofar as the rapid development of technology entails continuing obsolescence of equipment, it is not necessarily a good thing. Traditionally, a camera (particularly a view camera) has been a lifetime investment. Once a photographer has settled on a setup with which he feels comfortable, he can forget about buying new gear and settle down to the more important business of making pictures. In the digital arena, this promises not to be true. Consider what has happened in the field of computers: almost before you buy a new machine, it is obsolete, not merely in the sense of not being state of the art, but obsolete in the sense of no longer being usable. One must devote a great deal of energy to learning about and buying new models, instead of using what one has.

 

<p>

 

Second, what is true for the machinery is even more true for the skills required to use it. If William Henry Jackson were to come back to life today, he could step behind the darkcloth of a modern view camera and feel right at home. While there have been huge technological strides in the areas of lenses and films--strides which have greatly improved the quality of the final product--the technology has been largely invisible to the photographer. Granted, when we start using a new film we have to get used to its tonal or color characteristics, but the basic photographic skills that we've learned over the years continue to serve us.

 

<p>

 

In the constantly changing digital world, this will likely not be the case. The rapidly changing technology means that we will have to spend a great deal of time and effort constantly relearning technique--time and effort which could be better spent applying our technical skills in the pursuit of art. Even in the world of conventional film, we've seen this happen with 35mm cameras: many of the new models seem to be designed so that one as to spend a lot of effort in learning camera-specific information (which button do I push?) instead of learning and applying skills of more universal application. And by the time one has learned to use a given model, it's already been replaced, so that one has to start from scratch learning the camera-specific information for the new model.

 

<p>

 

Finally, my real concern is not with the existence of digital photography, but with the potential non-existence of conventional materials. Consider what would have happened if, after Fox Talbot came along, manufacturers had stopped producing oil paints. The world would have been deprived of some good art (and some bad art too). Fortunately, that didn't happen. While the Winsor & Newtons of the world are smaller than the Kodaks and Fujis, they remain in business producing their materials for a limited market. The problem today is that the same companies which produce film are the ones which are moving into the digital arena. We can, therefore, to expect that they will continue to produce only the more profitable products. While digital photography can and should exist alongside conventional materials, I'd really hate to see it replace it.

Seeing all the hype in the press and advertising literature about this subject, I've been concerned about it's possible effect on the availability of conventional materials, particularly color. My sense is that, up till now, commercial photographers have been a very large market for large format color film. Because Kodak and Fuji have been able to sell so much to the commercial shooters, they keep these materials in production, which means that the materials are also available to amateurs such as myself. My concern has been that, as more and more commercial studios switch to digital, there will no longer be an adequate market for the manufacturers to keep conventional color materials in production. As one with absolutely no interest in digital work, this possibility frightens me.

 

<p>

 

The only reassuring thought is that film manufacturers have kept large format B&W materials in production, even though one would assume that the market for this (mostly non-commercial photographers) is probably not huge. I would like to think that they would do the same with color, but manufacturing costs for color are probably significantly higher.

 

<p>

 

Does anybody have any thoughts on this?

I don't have any experience with either of the two specific lenses you mention, but a factor to keep in mind is how easily your camera bellows will compress to handle the shorter lens. A few years ago, I was deciding on a "short" lens (my normal is a 210) and I ultimately decided to go for a 120. Although a 90mm was very appealing, with my camera (a Zone VI) it would have required me to use a bag bellows to get any meaningful movements. Since I already carry around what seems like too much stuff, I decided to give up the extra angle of view in order to avoid carrying yet another item. This may or may not be an issue for you, depending on your equipment and the kind of work you do, but its worth considering.

This isn't a large format question, but I'll take a chance and post it anyway:

 

<p>

 

I prefer to use a 3-way pan/tilt head for all of my work. Currently, I'm using a Bogen (Manfrotto)--I believe it's a model 3047. The problem is that this head--like all others I've seen--is designed for right-eyed photographers. With the head flipped to the side (to position a 35mm camera for a vertical), the protruding handle pokes me in the right eye when I look through the viewfinder with my left eye. I've switched the handles so that the shortest one is in the rear (rather than the longest, which is the normal configuration). This help a little, but not much.

 

<p>

 

Does anybody have any suggestions?

I think if you ask that question of 10 different photographers, you'll get 11 different answers. Because so much depends on personal preferences, I won't try to answer it. Instead, I'll point out some of the things to consider in order to make an informed choice.

 

<p>

 

First, the wood vs. metal issue: This is one which is almost entirely a matter of personal taste. Metal camera can have a higher degree of precision, and also may be more rugged. The primary appeal of wooden camera is aesthetic--the things just look beautiful, and, to woody-philes like myself, there is something appealing about using a low-tech tool which is little different than that used by the early masters.

 

<p>

 

An important factor to consider is the available movements. Just about all current field models have rise/fall, tilt and swing on the front and tilt and swing in the rear. Higher prices generally buy you additional movements, such as front shift and rear rise/fall. For landscape, you probably don't really need the extra movements; depending on the nature of your close-up work you may or may not have a use for them.

 

<p>

 

Another important factor is bellows extension, which could be a significant factor for close-up work. In order to achieve 1:1 on-film magnification, you need a bellows draw of twice the focal length of your lens. You also probably want a little extra leeway to allow for movements. If you're only going to shoot 6x7 on a 4x5 camera, this is less of an issue, since you'll be using proportionally shorter lenses. However, if you'll be doing 4x5 close-up work, you should carefully consider this issue and be sure to get a camera that will meet your needs.

 

<p>

 

Check out Stoebel--he has a list of all ofthe specifications for almost every view camera currently being manufactured. That should help you narrow your choice down to a few. Then, I would recommend seeing those few in person and handling them, to see which feels the most comfortable.

 

<p>

 

Good Luck.

Of those field camera which do offer axis tilts, many suffer from a basic design problem. Namely, the lock for the axis tilt also locks the rise/fall. The result is that when you want to raise or drop the lens, it's easy to add a small amount of tilt accidentally. I use a Zone VI camera, whch has this problem. Not only do I not use the axis tilt, but I wish the camera didn't have it at all, for this reason.

If all your work is "grand vistas", its at optical infinity, so you need to be able to extend your bellows to the focal length of the lens (210mm) to achieve focus. However, you probably want a couple of inches leeway to allow for camera movements. If your wide angle bellows can extend to 10" or a little more, you can probably handle this type of work; if not, you may have some difficulties.

 

<p>

 

If your work is not limited to distant scenics--for example, if, like me, you shoot the type of things that Eliot Porter used to call "intimate landscapes"--you probably want a bellows that can handle greater extension.

 

<p>

 

Since you've already got the wide angle bellows, why not stick with it a while and see if it handles what you need. You'll know soon enough if its limiting your work.

Using different degrees of compensation for different polarizer settings may be an unnecessary level of precision. I tend to add two stops whenever the polarizer is on the camera, regardless of just where it is set, and it seems to work fine.

The question of what type of head to use is largely a matter of personal preference. I've seen many fine photographers who use a ball head. However, my own feeling is that I have greater compositional control when I can adjust each axis of movement separately--which means a pan-tilt (3-way) head. Since you already have a ball head, why not try it for a while before investing in something else. You'll know soon enough whether you like it, or whether you wish you could adjust one axis without affecting the others.

I'm inclined to agree that its unlikely that either lens would be noticeably better than the other. As far as the price differential is concerned, the lower price on Nikkor mentioned above is based on current prices in the U.S. If you buy it at home, you might find that the Schneider products, which are from within the EU, are actually less expensive. I just don't know what the current prices are, but its worth looking into--don't assume that Nikkor is less expensive in Europe just because it is in the U.S.

I don't have any experience with this sort of thing, but I would think that any LED device or similar light source would have to be actually in contact with the film. Since the source would not be projected through a lens, I think you would just get a blur if its any distance away from the film. I would think that you'd also have to experiment a bit to find the proper exposure, but if the source is of constant brightness, once you've found the right exposure it should work as long as you stick with the same film.

I don't know the answer to your question, but two thoughts occur to me. First, since these are "test" shots anyway, why not just include a piece of paper, chalkboard, etc., somewhere in the scene on which you mark down the aperture in use? Second, have you tried contacting Fuji technical support? They might be able to answer your question as to codes.

Not having worked with this particular camera, I can't help with the camera-specific questions, but you should be aware of one general point. Stops in the vicinity of f8-f11 1/2 are almost unheard of in large format work. For one thing, you won't get a lot of depth of field at these stops--you lose approximately 4 stops worth of depth as compared to shooting 35mm with an equivalent lens. Second, most LF lenses have maximum apertures in the f5.6-f8 range, so you'd be shooting almost wide open (and hence not at the sharpest apertures). In 4x5, stops of f22 or so are about the maximum that is typically used; shooting at f45 is not at all uncommon. If you can't get enough light on your subject to shoot at smaller stops than f11 1/2, you might want to reconsider whether 4x5 is really the proper tool for the job.

I would add only two things to the above description. First, be VERY careful when unscrewing and replacing the rear lens element--the threads are extremely fine and can easily be damaged. Second, you might want to consider having a professional camera repairman do the job for you. While its not really difficult, the possibility of damaging the threads or (even worse) the internal glass surfaces has always made me nervous about doing this myself.

I haven't used the carbon fibre models, but my experience with Gitzos in general has not been good. The leg locks tend to freeze up and tear up your hands when you try to loosen or tighten them. In fairness, my Gitzo is an old one, and I've heard that they've since started using a different material for the internal bushings, which may be better. However, overall, I find the Bogen lever locks much easier to use.

I'm not sure that gaffer tape would be a good choice. The roll that I have (from Calumet) is black on the outside, but the inner (adhesive) side is light gray.

The last Calumet catalog I saw (which was probably within the last few months) still listed the modified meters.

One further thought on the issue of traveling with sheet film. You might want to consider using Readyload or Quickload film if the emulsion you want is available in that form. Its expensive, but it avoids the need to find a dark and dust-free environment to load and unload film, as well as the inconvenience of doing so. I tend to use conventional sheet film when I'm at home and use Quickload when I'm on a trip. When I'm on the road shooting a lot of film, its nice to be able to avoid loading film every night.

1:1 magnification is eminently doable in large format. However, once you start getting meaningfully closer than that, two factors start becoming a real problem. The first is the length of your bellows. If you use a 6" (150mm) lense, 12" of bellows draw will get you to life-size, but as your magnification gets larger the bellows draw that you need increases rapidly. I haven't done the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if the kind of magnifications you're talking about (filling the frame with something the size of a fingertip) could require a yard or more of bellows. That's certainly not doable with a Speed Graphic (or any other field camera, for that matter). While it may be theoretically possible with a modular monorail and lots of extensions, I suspect that it would be very cumbersome.

 

<p>

 

The second problem is depth of field. Since you've done 35mm macro work, you know the kinds of f-stops that you need to get any kind of depth when you're in close. In 4x5, after accounting for the fact that you need less enlargement to produce the same size print, you still need something like 4 more stops to produce equivalent depth of field.

 

<p>

 

As a result of these problems, I tend to pull out the 35mm when I want to photograph something smaller than about the size of a 4x5 sheet of film.

Wouldn't sticking shutter blades be more likely to slow down the speeds, resulting in overexposure? Before investing in either new shutters or repairs, I might run some tests to eliminate other possible causes (e.g., the meter). The first test that comes to mind is to make a few exposures in the 2-4 second range (long enough so that you're timing it manually rather than relying on the shutter, but not so long that reciprocity becomes a real issue). If you can't stop down enough to get these exposure times, try using a neutral-density filter. If you're still underexposed, you'll know that it's not the shutter that's the problem.

The position of the groundglass versus that of the actual film plane does indeed vary quite a bit. A couple of years ago, I took a large format workshop taught by Joe Englander. In connection with a discussion of various factors which can affect sharpness, Joe used a machinists's dial indicator to measure the GG position for all the camera being used in the workshop. It was quite surprising how much variation there was.

 

<p>

 

Basically, the technique which Joe used to measure this used a flat bar with a hole drilled through it, exactly perpendicular to the flat surface. The dial indicator was mounted on the bar so that its needle protruded through the hole. To zero the indicator, the whole assembly was placed up against a flat surface (such as a pane of window glass); this represented the position at which the needle was flush with the bar, and the dial was adjusted to read zero at this position. Having zeroed the dial indicator, the camera back was removed and the bar was held up against a flat surface of the camera back, with the needle touching the groundglass. The negative reading on the dial indicator thus measured the depth of the groundglass in relation to the reference surface. The same depth measurment was then taken with a film holder inserted. After accounting for the standard thickness of a sheet of film, the two depth measurements should, in theory, be the same--but they frequently were not.

 

<p>

 

Incidentally, in many cases, measurements also showed variations between the corners and the center of the groundglass.

Thanks. I'd like to learn a little more about the process of remounting a lens in a shutter. From what I've read, there's more to it than just threading the front and back elements in place; I understand that the job needs to be done by a technician, since it may entail making custom adaptors to ensure that the spacing is proper. Is this correct? Also, does the ballpark price that you mentioned cover the price of the shutter as well as the labor costs for remounting?

If you can't look at an actual camera back, see if you can find an illustration of one in a book. The way the leaf springs provide the necessary pressure is difficult to explain, but will be quite apparent when you see it.

 

<p>

 

Most of the cameras that I've seen do not use weatherstripping or any similar soft material to provide a light trap; they rely instead on pressure and a smooth mating surface. My guess is that a soft material could cause problems in focussing accuracy for a regular camera, since the exact position of the film would depend on the degree of compression of the material. However, this shouldn't be a problem for a pinhole, which has virtually infinite depth of focus.