jonathan_smith2

I am going to be getting a new scanner for product photos and was

thinking of getting a photo quality one at the same time. Could

anyone tell me what to look for; what do the ratings for dynamic

range mean, for example. I would be scanning 8x10's so probably

wouldn't go higher than 600 dpi to avoid huge huge files; I probably

want to keep file size around 300-400 Mb. But what I would want to do

is scan things in, retouch them digitally, and send out for Lightjet

prints once in a while.

 

I read on some other posts that it's better to scan in negatives than

prints. Why is that? Are special methods required to backlight

negatives when scanning? What do you guys do?

 

Thanks a lot!

Hey, looks like the link to the photos takes you somewhere else. To see the tests, just paste this link into your browser:

 

 

 

http://www.musicstudents.com/test/

Well, my tests on how to handle shooting direct to print in the 8x10

camera has netted some results. I've posted some scans at:<br><br>

 

<a href="">http://www.musicstudents.com/test/</a>

 

<br><br>

 

These were shot at around 11 a.m. on a nice sunny day. The media was

Kodak Radiance III reversal paper, process R-3. It looks like film

speed is about asa 12 not including the filter factor. The two

warmest filters seem to need about a full stop of compensation, maybe

more.

<br><br>

 

I like the results with the 85C; the sky gets a little muddy with the

85B. A lot of people have liked the 85B however. I guess it's like

comparing Kodachrome and Ektachrome.

 

<br><br>

 

I guess that's the summer project; now to take some usable shots with

no typography in them!

I thought 8x10 might be a niche with few followers until I tried buying cameras and lenses on Ebay, and was always bid out at the last second by someone who wrote down the closing time and waited for the chance to ace me out. That hasn't happened anywhere else. Why also are there multi-year waiting lists for cameras; not just Wisner, but Phillips, Toyo, Wehman, etc.

 

I think there might be a backlash going on against all the digital everything - this type of photography has an honesty and grandeur that can't be reproduced by some pocket shooter, no matter how many megapixels.

I tried a digital camera, it's 1.1 million pixels, and it is a very handy tool for snapshots and such. I have ditched my 35mm stuff for it. I enjoyed the easy cropping, retouching, and saving film costs (to be replaced with battery costs). But, like I was with 35mm, I was disappointed with the quality.

 

I have a fair amount of photo experience, not professional but have done a lot in the past, and I always dreamed of getting an 8x10 view camera and getting the ultimate quality out of it. After experiencing digital, I invested in the 8x10 equipment and am so glad I did. I can sit and look at an ordinary photo forever because of the phenomenal detail. Plus I think the setup and "hassle" involved is more of a privilege for someone like me. I consider the shot carefully now, I don't bang off 15 exposures and walk away. I scout for them and plan them for days. To me the pictures I take now have so much more value.

 

Having said that, I do like a lot of things about the digital realm for storage, retouching and the like. I haven't yet seen a Lightjet print, but if it is good continuous tone quality I think it's a good way to go. I don't think you can replace the view camera, but I think you can replace the enlarger, safelights, trays, and yes, even hypo clearing agent.

 

I'm going to try scanning my photos for storage, and maybe for reprinting, retouching, shifting colors and the like. It is an easier way to go, if you can get a quality print out of it on the back end. I might try shooting paper negs and reversing them in the computer. We'll see. Whatever process you use, you'll find the possibilities are part of it and will influence the results.

I was thinking of purchasing a G-Claron because they seem to have wide coverage, and aren't too big or heavy, and I was wondering how their owners feel about them.

Yeah, it looks like the camera store was wrong - the lens aperture is

the smaller 34mm diameter. Thanks for the info on measuring the focal

length!

 

<p>

 

Jonathan

I recently ordered an APO Nikkor 360mm from a camera store, and got it today. The invoice says it's listed as a 360mm, but the front of the lens says 305mm. I held it up and measured the focal length; the image at infinity comes into focus 14" behind the front plane of the lens (360mm) and 12" behind the rear plane. My question is, do I have a 305mm lens, or a 360mm? Were the graphic arts lenses measured differently than ones used for LF photography?

How does everyone like the 360 APO Nikkor? Are movements really adequate for 8x10?

Yeah but you'd get tired of the subject matter eventually.

not too long ago there was a movie with Matthew Broderick and Meg

Ryan where they were spying on someone with a real camera obscura.

They rented an apartment across the alley and viewed the goings-on

upside-down.

For those of us fantasizing about ultra-large format, I thought I'd throw this out:

 

<p>

 

How about making a huge camera out of a van or truck, and mounting a giant sheet of film or paper on one of the walls? The rear window could have a lens mounted in it.

 

<p>

 

What do you think?

Right now I'm experimenting with the use of reversal paper; I'm

shooting 8x10 but you can get paper in mega-sizes.

 

<p>

 

I like it; I've exposed Kodak Radiance III at ASA 12; since it's

tungsten paper it's very blue, and I haven't nailed down the

filtration yet. I have several filters on order.

 

<p>

 

This is a good way to do color for a hobbyist (I don't mind that the

image is backwards) because it's easy and inexpensive. The paper is

about .75 per sheet and my lab is processing it for $1.25. If I can

get decently pleasing color with the filters, I'll be set.

 

<p>

 

That would be my suggestion is to learn to work with the reversal

paper.

Thanks for all the suggestions; the Toho ones sound interesting. I

read about the Bender 4x10 setup, but is there any consequence to

using the extreme top and bottom of the image circle? Or would it be

better, qualitywise, to use the centralmost 4x10. More movements and

such.

 

<p>

 

I appreciate all your responses.

Does anyone make 8x10 film holders that accomodate other film sizes such as 4x5 or 5x7 or 4x10?

 

<p>

 

It seems like an easy way to switch formats would be to have an 8x10 sized holder with the smaller film in the middle. Then you wouldn't have to have separate backs. Just compose on the big groundglass and slide in the proper film holder.

 

<p>

 

Does anyone make these?

Has anyone used drums as developing tanks for 8x10 sheet film? I ask because I'm not keen on the idea of continuous agitation for drums, and have been considering the use of PVC tubes. It just so happens that the light safe lids to 35mm developing tanks snaps tightly onto 3" PVC pipe. So I was thinking about making a tank from this PVC pipe, adding the light safe lid, and pouring chemicals in an out.

 

<p>

 

So I'm wondering who else processes in this way, with a drum but without machine agitation.

I got a Manfrotto by Bogen, it's big but not huge; and has these neat

clips that loosen the legs for you. You can position it in the air,

squeeze the clip, and the leg shoots down to the ground and bam,

you're in position.

 

<p>

 

I'm using it without a head as all the heads at the store were very

unstable. I can do all the positioning I need to by adjusting the

legs, and it's pretty solid.

Have you tried this with any photo paper? I would love to be able to

expose a sheet of photo paper in the camera and get a positive b&w

image.

 

<p>

 

Next time you get out your chemicals, any chance you could run a test

strip of exposed paper and see if you get an image?

I just did my first test with this. I wanted to try it because it

will take me some time to assemble black and white processing stuff

and I wanted to take some shots NOW! And I really like the idea for

color.

 

<p>

 

I exposed Kodak Radiance III at ASA 6, and that turned out a little

too light. Going for ASA 12 on next test.

 

<p>

 

After I figure out the ASA I'm going to deal with the filtration; but

I like the effect (it's tungsten paper) in daylight; everything is a

little blue and calm looking; greens are nice and saturated. I'm also

stoked because my lab offered to process it for $1.25 per sheet, so

I'm looking at under $2.00 per shot to shoot 8x10.

 

<p>

 

One disadvantage is the images are flopped, so you should shoot

nature shots where there's no typography. I may try to find some

shots of reflections in windows where the originals are backwards and

thus the prints will be right reading.

 

<p>

 

Anyway - no dust! Or very little.

 

<p>

 

I've also been thinking about making a fixed focus camera that would

have a mirror inside to flop the image.

 

<p>

 

But, yes, it does work and I'll let you know more. I may try some

night shots also.

Well, I finally took an exposure with the Wehman camera and it looks

fine; half second exposure and still a nice sharp image.

 

<p>

 

For those wanting to contact Bruce try: bruce.wehman@hs.utc.com

I purchased the Wehman 8x10 and like it a lot upon examining it. I

say that because I have yet to make an exposure with it since I'm

just getting into 8x10 and have had to deal with many issues, like

getting lenses and holders and other accessories. I'm taking my time

with these things, but I have done some test-run type setups and the

design really appeals to me. It looks like a military item more than

an old Deardorff aesthetically. Very practical and tough. It does

have geared focusing (rear) but otherwise is manual/friction based.

It is all quality made with boards made of phenolic resin rather than

wood, and quality metal knobs and framing. It folds up to be quite

small; only about 2 1/2" deep, and you can leave a small lens inside

(Nikkor 300mm f/9 for example). It does have a mind of its own when

folding it back up but you get used to that.

 

<p>

 

You can get pretty good movements although Bruce recommends a

monorail camera for things like architectural shots. You can put it

through rear swing and tilt if you want as well as front. The back is

removable for vertical or horizontal, and it has a nice easy to use

bail for the film holders. It seems to lock down quite solidly, you

do get some shake if you tap it but not from mild breeze. My first

exposures are going to be long ones so I'll let you know about the

results.

 

<p>

 

Mine was the last of his first run of cameras; his new ones have

incorporated some changes about which I'm not familiar. I would

imagine they would be good ones. I think Bruce has been great to deal

with; lots of (impartial) advice and has drilled lensboards for free

several months after the sale (I told you I've been taking my time

with this!)

 

<p>

 

All in all I'd check out the Wehman line and I think he'll send one

out as returnable if you don't like it. Since I got it I don't wish

for any other camera.