steve_hamley1

<p>JD,</p>

<p>Without getting into the "film versus digital" war, there is at least one example that seems to specifically fit your question. It's depth of field.</p>

<p>If you're shooting an f:4 or f:4.5 lens on say 8x10 wide open, it's very difficult if not impossible to reproduce that effect of shallow DOF on smaller formats for an equivalent focal length, even 4x5. Reproducing the effect in MF or smaller formats (digital or film) will be impossible. You might check out some of Jim Galli's 8x10 portraits.</p>

<p>The converse is also true, you can get a large depth of field using smaller formats than is much less easily attained with larger formats using equivalent focal length lenses.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Steve</p>

You have 3 choices (at least in theory). 1. Repair the existing shutter. 2. Find another lens in a working Compur 00 and cannibalize the shutter, swapping the aperture scales if needed. 3. Have the lens mounted in a Copal 0 shutter by S.K. Grimes or Tim Sharkey.

The last option is the most expensive, so you'd likely put that $400 or so toward a good used replacement lens in working condition, which is why almost no one would do it. Option 1 would be the cheapest and easiest, have you tried contacting Carol Miller at Flutot's camera repair or S.K. grimes?

BTW, there is and has never been a Copal 00.

Cheers,

Steve

Don,

You might want to inquire at apug.org and the lfinfo forum also.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/

I understand you're in Knoxville as am I. I shoot 4x5, 8x10, and 8x20. I think we have a friend in common in Harley Ferguson.

Cheers,

Steve

Van Camper's comments are content related and different from the OP issues.

I understand VCs (Van Camper's, not View Camera) comments, but this is an issue faced by all periodicals and the famed Lenswork is no better in this respect IMO. I'm tired of brown pictures with the same tonality. In this respect, "View Camera" beats "Lenswork". Not to say that "lenswork" isn't as good or better WRT art, but the tone and contrast seem all the same to me.

Being "fresh" every month or two isn't easy and I'll give "View Camera" a wide berth in that respect.

Cheers,

Steve

"I will concede that just about all modern gear is probably at least twice as good as I what I buy; I'd like to point out that the modern gear is also twice as good as what Ansel Adams and Edward Weston used as well."

You're partially right, IMO. Weston and Adams used some low end stuff to be sure, including Weston's $5 rapid rectilinear that he did much of his 8x10 work with. He also mentions a 21 cm (210mm?) Zeiss Tessar that he was very happy with, and the 19" cell of the Turner Reich with which he was not so happy. None of the glass mentioned above is considered especially good or have cult followings today.

However, I've found that most older glass is quite good compared to modern offerings if properly cleaned and not damaged. Very few people are going to pay Adam Dau or John van Stelton $125 to clean a 60 year old 210mm Xenar that wll be worth the same $75 it was before cleaning. The old glass is generally lower in contrast than current offerings, which can be a good thing. I have an uncoated 180mm Berlin Dagor with crystal clear glass that I like to shoot with Velvia. Tames the contrast quite well.

Cheers,

Steve

Peter,

Maybe no difference in optics but a big difference in value/price. AFAIK, all the Gold Dagors I've seen were 80XXXX or 81XXXX serials.

Cheers,

Steve

Carol is just a super person to do business with. Other options are S.K. Grimes and Jon Van Stelton at Focalpoint.

Cheers,

Steve

Rodenstock Apo Sironar-S: IIRC optimized for 1:3 to infinity. Bob Salomon at HP Marketing can tell you for sure.

Cheers,

Steve

Set up time is not much of an issue in field photography IMO. Also, the lens you "store" on any camera is probably not the one you want unless you are a one-lens person.

Anyway, the set up time is usually small compared to finding the right composition, getting the swings and tilts correct, and waiting for light (nature photography). That's not to say I haven't arrived late many times and hurried to get the shot. If you're doing studio photography, the set up time really doesn't matter much.

Once you get used to it the set up time for a flat bed field camera is not an issue. And being able to store the lens on the camera is in general, not a good criterion for lens selection, one-lens travel outfits notwithstanding.

BTW, take a look at the Ebony RW45 - best bang for the buck IMO, and can use longer and shorter lenses than the Shen Hao, not that the Shen Hao isn't a great camera.

The camera you cite is an older model Arca-Swiss, and while a great camera, not all current A-S accessories fit it. Others will know more than I. The pictured camera also has only base tilts while other similar vintage models have base and center tilts on the front standard. Also, a dent on the lens ring means you can't use screw in filter adaptors (This lens used push-on filter adaptors which MIGHT still work with a dented rim. Screw in filter adaptors would have to be custom made after repairing the dent). And $47 shipping seems a bit high, although not entirely unreasonable. The shutter is off, so plan on adding at $50 - 100 for a shutter service, and $100 - 125 for glass cleaning for a lens of this vintage.

Cheers,

Steve

Bill,

I thought a 35mm frame was 24mm wide by 36mm long. 36mm wide would be about an inch and a half.

Steve

Lauren,

No. "Double anastigmat" means that each cell (front and rear) is an anastigmat. There are multiple glass/air configurations for an anastigmat.

The rule is to look at reflection in each cell independently as designs like Tessars are different in each cell. Strong reflections are a glass-air interface, and weak or "ghost" reflections are cement interfaces.

So, for a Dagor (6 elements/2 groups), you'll get two strong and two weak reflections for each cell, which is composed of 3 cemented elements. For an Artar (4/4 dialyte or 4 air-spaced elements), you'll get 4 strong and no weak reflections in each cell; each element will have 2 glass/air surfaces.

Cheers,

Steve

Excellent. Just went up and traded for tripods. Love the Gitzo GT 3540 XLS.

Steve

Ballhead:

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/items.asp?Cc=Ballhead55&iTpStatus=0&Tp=&Bc=

Tilt and pan, Gitzo 1570M, Bogen 410 (for lightweight, 10 lbs or so). also Bogen makes very heavy heads of various configurations capable of handling 8x10. Check out the website. Also Ries double tilt heads. Use on Ries legs of course.

In studio: Linhof (expensive, heavy, and strong), Majestic (cheap, heavy, and strong).

Ries A or J series: Looks like a million bucks, but not as light, stiff, easy to use, or portable as a Gitzo carbon fiber with the same characteristics. I traded a Ries A-series for a Gitzo 1548 with a 1570M head, and it hurt even though I had them side-by-side and the Gitzo clearly won. The comparison would be valid up for cameras of around 14-16 pounds or so. More pounds than that, you're on your own, but Bogen appears to make a modern tripod and head that will hold anything ever built.

Cheers,

Steve

Don't overlook the Kodak/Orbit/Calumet monorails which can be had in the $100-200 range (not the Calumet Cadet). Also, for a bit more but still less than $500 a good used Calumet/Cambo with the "goalpost" standards.

In LF, all lenses will fit all cameras provided the physical size is compatible with the camera and lens board. Lens boards are specific to specific cameras. The only thing you have to worry about is whether the lens has enough coverage to cover the format you're using.

if you're going to do alt processes, you might think about an 8x10 Kodak 2D in the $250-500 range, or a Calumet/Cambo 8x10 'rail. lenses will be slightly harder to find on the cheap but still quite do-able. Film of course will be about 4 times that of 4x5.

Steve

John,

Let's not get de-focused on your original question, sharp, wide angle, and no shutter. Sorry, you probably can't have all three as noted before. However, if you are willing to settle for two, consider the Schneider 80mm Super Symmar XL and the 110 mm Super Symmar XL. They meet all your criteria except shutter - which is a small cost in comparison to the glass - and they are flare resistant as well. I have both and recommend them.

Cheers,

Steve

Lauren,

A Goerz Dogmar? One, it isn't a wide angle, two it isn't coated much less multi-coated, and three its in a shutter.

Jason has it nailed. Get a good used big 4 lens in shutter.

Steve

Thomas,

With your clarification, I think we can reach the following consensus (I hope, no flame wars please):

Moving to 8x10 won't help unless the rest of your taking and post-exposure process is perfect or near perfect, digital or wet darkroom. Then it can help.

Trying to get a digital print to look like a wet darkroom print or the other way around is a convoluted and difficult process if it can be done at all. If you admire wet darkroom prints, go for it. No slam on digital.

8x10 portraiture is more than 4x more difficult than 4x5 due to DOF issues.

I think my advice is to perfect your process using 4x5 unless you just want to shoot 8x10 - personally I enjoy it - then move up in format. Or, if you want to go digital, use the very best equipment even if you have to hire drum scans and professional printing until you understand the look and the limitations of your own equipment.

Cheers and good luck,

Steve

http://www.skgrimes.com/compur/index.htm

Steve

Hate to be negative, but I think if you can't get what you want with 4x5 or even MF, simply switching to 8x10 won't work. AFAIK, tonal range is not affected by the size of film.

If you have a reasonably tolerant film, I'd try different lighting; it is all about light you know.

If you want to give 8x10 a shot, I'd get a decent cheap camera like a Kodak 2D (buy from a reputable dealer or person; a worn 8x10 with bad bellows will make you frustrated and your wallet thin) and a cheap old lens. Take a look at Jim Galli's page:

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/

Look at the light.

Steve

Paul,

Easy - 300 mm Nikkor M or Fuji C. Larger, faster, and likely cheaper would be a convertible Symmar or Symmar-S. Other good choices would be the Rodenstock Apo Sironar-N or the Caltar II-N (rebranded Rodenstock). Lots of good choices in this focal length.

Steve

Jason,

The list states the serials are for "American Optical" dagors; do the serials apply to Berlin Dagors?

Steve

Jeff,

That's not a retaining ring on an Ilex, it's a flange. It screws to the front of the board via the small holes in the flange. When mounted to the board as Ilex and the Great Yellow father intended, the shutter will work properly.

Steve

Cheers Ralph! I've done the same more times than I care to admit.

Steve

Try Robos instead of Robo.

Steve

J.V.,

Ilex shutters came with flanges, not retaining rings like Copals. You aren't really supposed to use the flange as a retaining ring although I have. Typically flanges are screwed to the front of the lensboard and the shutter screws into the flange.

So the board is bored for the flange, which usually has a lip on it, not the shutter.

Steve