emil_salek2

I use Nikkor 90/4.5 on my Wista VX and never needed to drop the bed.

Well, when I see all the venom spat on Fatali in this forum, I feel

sad and ashamed to be a part of the LF community. I am in the middle

of preparing a portfolio for some US galleries but am at this very

moment somewhat discouraged and disgusted.

 

<p>

 

I think we (with my friend Paul, well known in this forum) should

invite Michel Fatali to come to Switzerland for some time to get rid

of this howling. Fires are allowed here in most places. You bet he

would bring back some fine pictures.

 

<p>

 

I wish good light to all of you.

Sorry, please read "what we feel", not "what we fell", of course...

It is getting late here in Switzerland... If I had to handwrite it,

it would be rather sloppy...

Thank you Jim, it is nice to find a sister soul. No theory can

explain what we fell while looking at a perfectly sharp print or

transparency... I hope more people will share that heady experience

with us.

Hi Walter,

thank you for your nice and personal answer. I would personally

welcome more of this kind. I visited the site and will probably buy

the books. There are some high quality photographs there. Still to

your answer, I wonder how you could get such a sharp picture with a

250/5.6 Superachromat. My results with this lens and with the Tele-

Tessar F 4.0 as well were always rather disappointing in terms of

sharpness (I precise that I use a tripod and lock up the mirror and

wait, and use Velvia, before somebody advises me to do so. :0))

More generally, I thought these two days a bit more about the meaning

of the sharpness. Once I heard that people are speeding because it

gives them an impression to master the space. I would dare to say

that some other people are "sharping" as it can give them access to a

kind of magical appropriation (if not confiscation) of reality.

Funny, the verb "to capture" is often used in connection with

photography, and my AMHER dictionnary lists "confiscation"

and "capture", among other words, as synonoms of appropriation. As I

am writing these words, I am looking at some of my 16x20 prints made

from 4x5 Velvias and there is nothing to do, I am weirdly happy and

proud that I KNOW that they are real sharp. And I even cannot see it

from my place as my eyes are no more what they were 15 years ago. And

in the same time, I am not that unilateral, I made many quite

successfull pictures using vaselines, soft focus lenses (the Fujinon

250 SF is wonderful, I prefer it to Imagon) and center spot filters

(the B+W breed is also wonderful, and damn expensive), some of them

being so blurr that it was impossible to tell the subject and I liked

them very much, as I can like blurred pictures made by other

photographers, like Ernst Haas to name a great one. So, why am I so

slyly happy to know that these pictures are tack sharp?! (Please do

not worry, I am mentally sound... :o) )

Some other people that would share real personal experience about

their relation with the sharpness out there? Looking forward to read

from you! Thanks!

After having followed several rather philosophical threads, I dare to come up with my question that has been haunting me since a long time: Why are we so concerned, if not obsessed by a perfect sharpness of our photographs?

OOps!!!, I pressed a wrong button to launch the thread. Sorry for

that! Please diregard this question here.

After having followed several rather philosophical threads, I dare to

come with my question that has been haunting me since a long time:

Why are we so concerned, if not obsessed by a perfect sharpness of

our photographs?

Does someone still have in his/her files the reciprocity and CC correction tables for the discontinued Fuji RFP 50D film? While Kodak lists these characteristics even for older films, I cannot find what I need on the Fuji's site. When this film was discontinued I put these data sheets in such a safe place that I cannot find them anymore. Or was it my wife? :o)) Many thanks for your help.

I did not ask Paul to give me his lenses! I already have hem all! But

I see that Paul would like to involve me in the discussion. Well, I

am at this very moment bitching on my Calumet C1 because it has no

depth of field at the 2:1 ratio (like any 8x10 in general), which I

would badly need to shoot that beautiful close up that I can see on

my GG and I first have to get that shot before I come back here. I

also sometimes say that it is more important to practice than to talk.

Thank you, Matt, for your honest and lucid words. Compared to real

masters of the processus of pictorial expression like van Eyck, van

der Weyden or da Vinci, we cannot even hope to get there and achieve

such intensity, corrupted as we are by today's culture of instant

gratification. In this connection, what a shame that naive avidity to

name oneself "artist", while "artist" is not a self-proclamed status

but a recognition given by the(competent)peers, as somebody once

nicely said.

The APO Ronar is to my knowledge sharper than the Nikkor 360 T*ED,

which is however very good. My Nikkor 500 is significantly less sharp

than the 360, somewhat frustrating. The 720 T*ED is the worst of the

three. Although I use a heavy tripod with an additional support to

stabilise my Wista 4x5 with the long extension bed needed to use the

720, the 720 lacks sharpness so much that I stopped using it, or use

it only when I really have no other choice. The lack of sharpness

comes from the lens itself and not from wrong handling or diffracton.

It is unsharp on Velvia, with no movements, at all f-stops, at any

distance, by no wind and also at long exposure times. I seriously

intend to replace it by the Fujinon 600 C.

 

<p>

 

Paul Schilliger however showed me the results of some tests he made

and I was stunned by extremely bad results of all lenses tested at

f:45, Fujinon 450C included. All fine detail was melted by the

diffraction. Apo Ronar and Fujinon were the best, extremely sharp up

to f:32. I also use a Nikkor 450 M (which Paul did not test)with 8x10

and while it is very sharp up to f:32, it becomes real bad at f:45

and further. The difference is incredible.

BTW, using the front tilt with the 360 T*ED is somewhat tricky, but

you can get used to it.

I ordered a new bellows for my Gandolfi 8x10 by Camera Bellows about

6 months ago. They were very courteous and serviceable, made it in

about ten days and immediately shipped. The bellows is of excellent

quality and beautiful to touch and to look at. If I remember well, it

cost 150£. I do not know other bellows manufacturers but I think that

if I need another bellows I will return to CB. Please note that I

have no interest in CB and my only motivation to post this praise is

that I was very pleased with CB's service.

Wow, I did not expect so many answers so fast! Thank you very much!

We will perhaps find a solution together in a kind of Internet

brainstorming.

 

<p>

 

My first concrete step will be to have made a custom Linhof Technika

adapter to get rid of four heavy lensboards. I already found a

machinist that will do it for acceptable money. I will also seriously

look at the possibility to replace the plate that receives the lens

board. It seems to be an excellent idea but must be carefully

executed.

 

<p>

 

I also looked at the whole construction and it is true that some

parts cannot be much drilled. Some other however can easily be

drilled without a big risk to fragilize the camera. I think about the

front standard, the extension rail to some extent, the whole base and

the two boomerang-shaped pieces that hold the rear standard. I

presume that I will be able to do it myself using an appropriate

tool.

 

<p>

 

I also investigate the possibility to have some simple parts made of

titanium. A balance must of course be kept between the final result

and the cost of the operation. I heard that titanium is pretty

expensive, but I do not have any direct experience.

 

<p>

 

Replacing the rear frame by a wooden one seems to be an interesting

idea provided the bellows will fit. There are 8x10 rear frames

available on ebay from time to time. I am concerned by the light

leaks. Although I have not had any so far on the C1, I had some

important ones on another, brand new and much more sophisticated 8x10

camera. On the other hand, the seemingly primitive (but so beautiful

that I cannot resolve myself to take it to the field)Gandolfi 8x10,

which even doest not have any felt seals proved perfectly light tight

in bright sun.

 

<p>

 

My longest 8x10 lense is the Nikkor 450, so I would not need the

whole extension, but I cannot see how I could get rid of the

extension bed. I could perhaps cut off a half of it but I would like

to buy a Fujinon 600 mm later, so ....

 

<p>

 

I am not an engineer, so what I see as the most realistic and cost

effective but perhaps not the cleverest solution is to patiently

drill one little hole after another, and then to file or better mill

away all oversized and therefore unnecessary pices of metal on the

beast. I estimate that it should allow me to get rid of 10 -15% of

the weight, which would be a good start.

 

<p>

 

It would be beyond my means and motivation to rebuild the whole

camera, and I would not like to lose some of its movements, given

that I precisely like it because of them.

 

<p>

 

I am sure that the project will be an interesting experience and even

more with the help of yours. I will regularly keep you posted (but

please do not expect that I will do everything tomorrow)and will be

looking forward to read from you again.

Best regards

Emil

I have recently upgraded to 8x10. After having tried four cameras, it seems that I will stick to a Calumet C1, which seems to be able to gladly withstand the harsh conditions of my outdoor shooting. However, although I am not a person who usually complains about the weight of my equipment, I have to admit, sadly enough, that the C1 with the rest of the gear is really too heavy for joyfull backpacking in the Swiss Alps or similar locations, where the slopes to swallow in one day are higher than several Empire State Buildings one on the top of another. In despair, I am thinking about consulting a machinist and drilling (reasonably) large and (reasonably) spaced holes all over these over-sized metallic parts. Did anyone make a similar experience or heard about it?

I often used it for indoor macro work some years ago. I also used it

outdoors, particularly with a polarizing filter, but today I prefer

either the Sinar booster if I really need it or spot metering. The

main reason is that using the booster is very unpractical: one must

be very careful to correctly place the booster on the GG and

perfectly shield it from the light in the same time, which is not an

easy thing. this said, I obtained excellent results with that

technique.

Exact amount of compensation depends on the ground glass you have and

other factors, like lense's light fall-off. It is therefore not

possible to say whether 2.4 is correct or not. Be sure that you aim

your camera at an even and evenly illuminated surface, like a white

wall. The light must not be changing either. Palce the sensor really

perpendicularly to the GG and shield it as well as you can. You can

make a drawing of your GG and if it has a grid, you can write down a

compensation factor for each square (probably between +/- 0.1 and 0.3

f-stop)if you are patient enough. Do not forget to put all camera

movements to zero before calibrating. Try with several lenses to

verify constancy of your measurements.

As my friend Paul says above, I have in my freezer several boxes of

4x5 Velvia, RDP I, NSP 160, NLP 160, all expired in 1989 or 1991

latest. Some of these boxes are open and were and (will be) re-

frozen several times.

 

<p>

 

I recently made pictures on the Velvia sheets and they were perfect,

like on a fresh film. If I open a box, I tightly wrap it into a

plastic bag, which I close with a tight nod before freezing it again,

but that is all the care I devote to these films. It is perhaps

important to note that all my films are DEEP frozen and that my

freezer is always running at the maximum.

 

<p>

 

The RDP I however does not seem to like that treatment as much as the

Velvia does. Already back in 94, when I last made some shots on it,

colors seemed to fade out a bit. However, Paul just scanned some of

these pictures for me and they are still perfect after one of Paul's

secret color corrections. I also think that a 05 M cc(anyway advised

for by Fuji for that emulsion #)will greatly help.

 

<p>

 

Many photographers worry about the color shift in expired films,

while they never use any CC and LB filtration. To my experience, lack

of CC and LB corrections influences the result much more negatively

than the age of the film, particularly under certain conditions. When

I see people making pictures without filtering in open shadow under a

16 500 Kelvin sky, I do not think that a 05 M shift, due to the

expiration date, would make a big difference.

 

<p>

 

What I write here does not apply, of course, to films that are so old

or were so badly stored that their colorants are already deteriorated.