darron_spohn1

Like John said, make sure they will provide the coverage you need. One

of my friends uses a Caltar II-E on a Crown Graphic 4x5. We printed a

bunch of his black and white in my darkroom and I never even thought

about his lens while we were working on his images. Didn't notice any

sharpenss or contrast problems. His 4x5 chromes looked pretty awesome

too, now that I think about it. I hope that my Caltar II-N is sharper

and contrastier, but you'd have to compare them side-by-side to notice

any difference. Might just be a good excuse for a photo trip in a few

weeks.

 

<p>If price is an issue don't be afraid of these lenses. They will

outperform old lenses, and come with the added benefits of a new

shutter and a warranty. Think of it this way, after all these months of

admiring Doug's images, I had forgotten he bought a budget lens until

you posted this question.

 

<p>I know you can't tell much from a web photo, but <a href="http://

www.best.com/~vought/images/sunsetelcap.html">this</a> 392k image may

help put your mind at ease.

Glenn, you started your experiment with a flawed method. If you want to

capture all the information the LightJet can output, you need to scan

to get a 300MB file. If you want to make a valid comparison of the

formats, you should scan each file at a resolution that will yield

300MB files. After downsampling the files to the desired output size,

you will see a bit more sharpness and more detail from the larger

original.

 

<p>

 

Two of my friends own a business specializing in scanning slides and

preparing them for LightJet output. Their clients include some of the

best landscape photographers in the world. I rented time on their Tango

drum scanner a few weeks ago and we discussed this very issue while we

were working. After doing this for the past six months since he got the

Tango, Rich has seen what different formats are capable of producing.

His opinion, based on examining the final output, is that larger

formats do give better prints, even though they are scanned to the same

file size as medium format.

 

<p>

 

My 6x7 slides required a bot more than 4100 pixels per inch to capture

300MB data. If we assume 4x5 film has the same resolution as 120 film,

and the lenses have the same resolving power, the larger area will

yield more details (think of veins in a leaf). When you prepare the

file in PhotoShop and apply a sharpening filter the greater detail will

result in a sharper print.

 

<p>

 

And as someone already pointed out, monitors are low resolution

devices. The correct way to definitively test this is to scan both

slides to 300MB and output them at 120 pixels/cm (304.8 dpi) which is

the LightJet's highest quality output.

 

<p>

 

All that being said, the differences among various original sizes are

much more subtle using digital methods than when using traditional

methods. Right now we're limited by the LightJet's output size

restriction, if you want to think of 50 inches by 50 inches as a

restriction.

 

<p>

 

I ordered a 4x5 camera last weekend. In a few months I'll go back and

scan some 4x5 slides. I might just try this experiment myself and see

what happens. I could slap a 6x9 back on the 4x5 and use my 135 and 210

Rodenstock lenses for the comparison. Which leads to another flaw in

this experiment. Medium format lenses have more resolving power than

large format lenses. Sigh. Does nayone have a Hassleblad or Rollei I

can borrow for a few months? Current models preferred.

I'd serioulsy reconsider the Sigma zoom lens. From reading the posts

on photo.net and other forums the quality control is spotty at best.

And third-party lens are notorius for not working with Canon EOS

bodies because Canon does not release the engineering specs to third

parties, which mean they have to reverse engineer the spes. This lens

may work fine with your Elan IIe, but not work at all in two years

when you decide to buy a new body and relegate the IIe to backup duty.

If the Canon 80-200 is out of your price range you should consider

getting a fixed lens instead, either the 135/2.8 or the 200/2.8

(better for sports).

 

<p>

 

Other than that, I'd suggest getting the 50/1.4 lens. It costs more

because it is built better and has better glass than the cheap 50/1.8.

Without knowing how you'll reproduce these shots it is

impossible to give you a recommendation, other than Dan's

admonishment to test for yourself.

 

<p>

 

I get excellent results using T-Max 100, and prefer E100S

over Velvia. I shoot T-Max and its rated speed but have

refined my development procedure to give me optimal results.

E100S at 80 ASA works for me, but may not suit you style.

 

<p>

 

I print my black-and-white with a cold light head. My color

work gets drum scanned anticipating digital output. This is

why I prefer a less contrasty film than Velvia. However, one

of my friends (who has a drum scanner in his office) gets

excellent results using Veliva.

 

<p>

 

It's all a matter of taste and style.

Or you can find them by browsing to http://

www.thecolorpartnership.com. I have one of their $400

calibrators and can vouch for it. I also vouch for the Mac

over a WinTel computer. Color calibration is essential even

when working in black-and-white.

The Zone VI Ultralight is a completely new design, done in-

house by Calumet. It is not related to the old Zone VI

camera. I was at a workshop a few months ago and one of

Calumet's reps had the Ultralight with him. If you're looking

for a wood camera this one is worth the money.

 

<p>

 

However, because you're new to LF and budget is a concern,

why not shop around for a used camera? You can save big

bucks, invest in lenses, and upgrade to a new camera in a few

years. Just a thought (and the way I'm going).

 

<p>

 

Speed Graphics, Super Graphics, and the like are easy to find

in excellent condition and hold their value well. You'll give

up some movements and gain some weight, but the savings could

be worthwhile.

Try the <a href="http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronica.html">Bronica

Classic Cameras</a> page. Then visit the <a href="http://db.photo.net/

bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Medium%20Format%20Digest">Medium Format

Digest</a> and browse the archives. Between these two sites you will

find all the information you need.

As Gary said, stay awaw from the Kiev. I had a Mamiya C330 ad three

lenses for a short time, sold them to buy some darkroom equipment, and

wish I still had the Mamiya system. If you want to try medium format

before spending too much money the Mamiya C330 is hard to beat. If you

want to spend a bit less and can live without interchangeable lenses,

pick up a Minolta Autocord. They have superb lenses and are easy to buy

for less than $200.

Peter's comments on the Beseler 23c are irrelevant to the Beseler 4x5

series. I've owned and used both, and used Omega D series. The Beseler

23c is an excellent B&W enlarger if you add a cold light head. The

dichroic head is useless. The Beseler 4x5 series is a completely

different enlarger.

 

<p>

 

All the enlargers you listed in your question are excellent. The D2 is

the oldest design, but they still work and accessories are atill

available. I prefer the Beselers but that my be because I learned how

to print on a 45 MCRX.

Pete, my point was "When you start using filters injudiciously, such as

stacking an intensifier and a polarizer in front of Velvia, they

becomes crutches..."

 

<p>

 

That is a lot different than using them as creative tools. Mike's

question was would that combination become too saturated? The answer is

yes.

 

<p>

 

Mike, stick with the Velvia and get out of bed early enough to leave

the intensifier in your bag. Use it judiciously and you'll get good

results. Use it in front of or behind your polarizer and you may as

well scan your slides and use a neon filter on PhotoShop.

 

<p>

 

And you're right, this is all a matter of personal opinion. Mine is as

valid as John Shaw's, but each opinion is only valid for our individual

goals and styles. BTW, what size film are you shooting?

Velvia does not need a filter. Many people refer to it as

"Disneychrome" because of its garish color palette. Stacking an

intensifier and a polarizer in fromt of Velvia wil only lead to

grotesquely oversaturated colors.

 

<p>

 

Which leads me to your proposl to use two filters. This is a mistake.

Filters are tools to help correct problems, such as using a warming

filter to balance the blue light in shdows during the day, or using a

polarizing filter to cut reflections or glare. When you start using

filters injudiciously, such as stacking an intensifier and a polarizer

in front of Velvia, they becomes crutches; ill-concived attempts to

make up for a lack of vision or the inability to get out of bed early

enough to catch the best light.

 

<p>

 

Leave the filters in your bag unless you have a specific need for the

polarizer. If you need the intensifier, well, you should have gotten

out of bed earlier.

Digital printing can be better than traditional printing if you start with a good enough scan. Then you

correct the colors in PhotoShop, crop and resize the image as desired. Apply an unsharp mask and save

at the desired output size and resolution. The key here is the output size and resolution. With a 5x7

original at this output size you are scanning and editing more information than the Lightjet can resolve.

As Bill said, the files are overkill. A 6x7 original scanned at 5000 dpi can capture all the information you

need for 22x30 reproduction.

 

<p>

 

Yes, you'll get more shadow and highlight detail from a 5x7 original than from a 6x7 original, but but by

going digital you can compensate for this while reducing the grain size and retaining the sharpness. This

is the tricky part, and takes a lot of experience to develop the judgment necessary to prepare the files

properly. Used wrongly, unsharp masking will cause digital artifacts in the highlights that will make your

skies turn mottled. Used correctly, unsharp masking will smooth the grain while sharpening the photo

when viewed, just like it does in traditional processes.

 

<p>

 

The differences in original film size are less apparent through digital processes than they are through

traditional processes. After viewing Lightjet output at Galen Rowell's gallery last week, and over the past

year at the Ansel Adams Gallery, I'm convinced the technology has arrived and the time to go digital is

now. It is the best way to retain complete creative control over your images without spending $25,000 on

a color darkroom. See the "Digital Imaging and High Quality Prints" thread on photo.net. There is a more

in-depth discussion of this technology therein.

 

<p>

 

I don't claim to be an expert on this, yet, but I'm getting there with the help of a friend who is an expert.

I've watched him working on files for Lightjet printing, and he's explained much of this to me when I could

get him to slow down enough that I can keep up. Give me six months and I'll be ready to teach other people

how to do this.

Michael your analysis holds true for a 400 dpi scan, but the drum scanning process captures images at

5000 dpi. As Bill Nordstrom pointed out, this is simply overkill for a 22x30 print from the Lightjet 5000

printer. In reality the skill of the person preparing the image is much more important than the size of the

original, all other things being equal. True, a larger original will yield more detail, but at 22x30 inches

reproduction those details will be lost. Using the current digital technology a 22x30 print from a 6x7

original is so close the same size print from a 5x7 that the two almost indistinguishable.

 

<p>

 

As the technology matures and output devices improve that will change, so I am not recommending

anyone abandon their large format equipment. Besides, there are already excellent digital backs for 4x5

cameras on the market. When those prices come down out of the stratosphere we will be able to bypass

the film stage and go straight from the camera to the computer.

This is a different technology and requires us to change how we think. In traditional printing we are

directly enlarging the original into a continuous tone reproduction. Using digital technology, we reproduce

the original image into a 300-400 dpi reproduction. The output resolution is fixed, and nothing you do in

PhotoShop will change that, it is simply the limit of the current reproduction technology. We need to

change our thinking to work backward from the final print to the output file to the original image. If you

start at the fixed resolution and do the math you'll see that the final print size determines the necessary

file size, which in turn gives you the requirements for the original image size.

 

<p>

 

The answer is yes, a 6x7 original will give a 22x30 print every bit as good as a 5x7 original using current

digital processes. Whether that is bad or good depends upon your point of view, and whether you've

already invested in a large format system or have your eyes open for a good used 6x7 system.

Five years seems a bit drastic for expected life of this film. I have some Ilford XP-1 I shot about 12-15

years ago and the negatives are still quite printable. I'd expect the new XP-2 and CN400 to last about as

long as any other C-41 film: about 25 years. This is only one reason I use T-Max 100 now. The other is so

I can process it myself and control the contrast.

I routinely process 35mm, 120 and 4x5 film and have never bothered making sure my tanks are full of

film. I use a CPE-2 Plus and whatever amount of chemistry the tanks need. The film comes out

consistent whether the reels are full or if I just have two sheets (or one roll) in the tank. The only

developer I'm aware of that varies with the amount of film in the tank is Kodak X-TOL, and Kodak provides

instructions for processing times with different amounts of film. If you are really worried about this you

can run shoot some test negatives and get densitometer readins, but I doubt you'll find more than

standard deviation from one processing run to the next.

There is also an active classified section at http://www.photo.net/photo/.

Click on the Classifieds link and look for the Large Format link.

Generally a 150mm lens will cover a wider area than a 135mm enlarging lens. This allows you to print a

4x5 negative full frame with less light fall off in the corners, especially at larger magnifications (16x20

vs. 8x10). I had a 135mm Raptar for about six months and sold it when I found a Nikkor 150/5.6 for

$375 mounted on a Beseler board. The Raptar was an excellent lens for the price, but not as sharp as the

Nikkor, and did not exhibit the smooth tonal gradations I get with the Nikkor, but I couldn't see the

differences unless comparing prints side-by-side.

 

<p>

 

I guess if you are only printing from the center of a 4x5 negative you could use a shorter lens, but then

why shoot 4x5? Raising the cold light in the housing causes vignetting in the corners of the projected

image on my Beseler 4x5 enlarger.

 

<p>

 

I'd stick with the major brand names for enlarging lenses: Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider. Be patient and

look around. Used enlarging lenses are relatively cheap. I found an old Schneider 150/9 lens last winter

for less than $100.

Calumet sells a Cambo Wide camera that accepts 6x12 roll film backs

and lenses from 47mm to 150mm. Pirces start at $2295 and go through

$3359 depending upon the lens. Check it out at

http://www.calumetphoto.com/.

You'll learn more with the "Adobe PhotoShop Classroom in a Book" than anywhere else. Adobe still offers these free with registration. Add as much RAM as you can afford, a couple of 9 GB fast-wide SCSI hard drives and six months from now you'll look back on all your mistakes and be ready to delve into "PhotoShop 5 Artistry" and "Real World PhotoShop 5."

 

<p>

 

Don't pay attention to the naysayers who cry poor print quality. They just don't know how to use PhotoShop. I've been using PhotoShop professionally for eight years, but had barely scratched the suface of its capabilities until this year. I've learned more about PhotoShop in the last eight months than I did in the previous eight years.

 

<p>

 

You'll need to work on huge scans and send them to high-end printers to get excellent quality. I typically work on 100 MB files for for outputting to a 35mm film recorder. My next projects will involve 300 MB files for LightJet 5000 prints. Paying $150 to see your work on 16x20 paper will force you to learn how to use PhotoShop properly.

http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~migol/photo/photosource.html

 

<p>

 

They have a huge chart of developers and films. The times listed are for 35mm but work well as starting points for

4x5 film as well. Just be sure to test with non-critical sheets before processing your important images, as

alway

All the previous suggestions are good, and will help you get into large format cheaply. When you want to make your

own enlargments look around for a good used enlarger. Beseler, Durst, Omega and Saunders all make excellent

enlargers and resale value is quite low. I bought a Beseler 4x5 enlarger in excellent condition last winter for

$600, including negative carriers from 35mm to 4x5. I added a used Nikkor 150/5.6 lens for $375 a few months

later. Take your time and look around. You'll find a bargai

About 12 years ago, because I didn't know any better, I regularly processed XP-1 in D-76. I still have some of the negatives, and have a print in my living room from one. It is beautiful. Don't know why it works, and I have no idea about archival properties developing film this way, but I have some very nice negatives.

My incidental kit is an old Yashica Mat TLR 120 camera, a Pentax Spotmeter V and a Bogen 3021s tripod. I use this because I go to the mountains every chance I get, and 35mm just doesn't cut it for landscapes. When I'm serious about my photos I pull out the 4x5.

 

<p>

 

Call me jaded, but after the 10-thousandth time of saying to myself "This would be an excellent photo if it were on a larger original," I shelved the 35mm gear and moved up.

Having owned the Tamron 28-200 LD zoom, I would recommend staying away from any of these lenses. They are slow, bulky, poorly constructed and not sharp enough to enlarge past 8x10. You get what you pay for with new equipment, and if you spend $300 on a do-everything lens you'll get a lens that does everything poorly and nothing well. Sigma lenses are so bad there is a web page dedicated to horror stories about them falling apart and Sigma's poor service policies. I can't find the URL right now, but you can use any search engine to get there.