pierre_kervella3

Hi,

I am living in France, and I usually give my 4x5" sheets to a commercial lab in Paris.

They charge something like 4 Euros per sheet ($5), that I find really expensive,

especially when you have 100 films or more to process.

Do you know by chance of a low cost processing laboratory in Europe, as you can find

it in the US. A price of something like 2 Euros/sheet or less would be great !

Thank you,

Just as a remark: whether you are printing in a wet or digital darkroom, you can

always rotate slightly the projected/digital image relatively to the paper so that it

looks the best.

The frame will of course be reduced, but if the angle is small, then the slight

difference in framing may be acceptable. A good thing to do when in doubt is to leave

some extra room around your subject when shooting, so as to be able to rotate

without loss at the printing stage.

I have used the Quickchange holders with Portra (160VC and 400NC) and TMax (100

and 400), and they worked fine, though it is true that these films "feel" thinner than

the Fuji slide films. They have the same thickness, but not the same "stiffness" I

believe.

It should be reminded that the Quickchange holders are originally not intended to be

reloaded, but just given to the lab, and they recycled by Fuji. Multiple reloads tends to

make them loose after some time: the plastic shutter becomes scratched, the

septums become warped,...

Another consequence is that the septums edges become slightly loose, and while this

may be compensated by the stiffness of the Fuji slide films, for the Kodaks, it may

lead to a jam.

IMHO, the holders should be discarded after something like 20 reloads: just bring it

to the lab this one time to have them recycled :-). Has anyone pushed them further in

the number of reloads ?

A while ago, I have made a comparison of the previous Polaroid 45 scanner with the 2400 dpi Canon D2400UF flatbed, and you can find the sample scans at the adress:

http://elbereth.obspm.fr/~kervella/Scanners/

I don't know how the new Polaroid behaves compared to the old one, though, so this comparison may not be valid for the Ultra.

Cheers,

I recently travelled across Hawaii' Big Island on an HD Ultra Classic Electra

with my Ebony SW45, Gitzo carbon, accessories... and girlfriend ! We had a

wonderful trip photographing the beautiful landscapes of this island. We lliked

it so much that we did another tour on Oahu island with a HD Road King a few

days later. No kidding, this is really true ! When in France, we ride our Guzzi

California, also with all the LF equipment.

With respect to camera transportation, I believe a monorail is absolutely not

suited for a motorbike, except if you remove the standards from the rail. I am

not sure if you can do it with the Linhof Kardan. A solution would be to

transform one of the bike's case to receive the camera, maybe the top case.

But the monorail is likely to be too long to fit. Anyway, the motorbike cases

have the advantage of being extremely resistant in case of an accident.

Cheers,

Pierre.

Just a detail regarding the use of 16 bits/color instead of 8bits/color. It is true

that the printers accept almost only 8 bits/color pixels, but if you intend to

process the images before printing them, then 16 bits makes a lot of sense !

Even if the file size is larger...

As an example: you have a nice, very smooth blue sky on your transparency

going continuously from 'very dark/ blue to 'exactly middle' blue. Let's assume

it is the same blue as the 'B' of the 'RGB' filters of your scanner. Then, if you

scan it with 8bits/color, you will end up with 128 levels for your whole sky

tones. This is not enough... Moreover, if you want to lighten a little the tones,

you will end up with a very bad looking staircase effect.

The solution is to scan in 16 bits, getting the largest number of colors, do the

color and tone adjustments with the curves tool of your image processing

software, then convert it to 8 bits before saving and/or printing. My personal

choice is to save a 16 bits mostly raw version _and_ an 8 bits processed

version. This is not so much additional space on a DVD-R, and then I avoid

rescanning the original if I need to reprocess it.

BTW, I confirm that a 4x5" scan is ~290 Mb @ 2400 dpi with 8 bits/color, and

~580 Mb with 16 bits/color.

Just a little thoughts about the evolution of my interest for LF photography, to

get some impressions if this is a path followed by many others or not.

First, I think we all agree that LF photography takes a while and some tens (or

even hundreds) of film sheets to master its rather demanding technique. From

the camera movements to the film selection, exposure, processing, all this is a

complicated way of taking pictures. Just obvious facts... :-)

After having taken something like 500 LF photos (that's not so many, but it's

not my profession !), I feel really an evolution about the way I consider this

medium. For example, now I don't care at all which one is better between a

Grandagon and a Super Symmar XL, or which camera has five millimeters

more back rise...

But this was definetely the case when I started in LF ! Reading many threads

and papers, it was absolutely obvious that a SA was better than a SS XL, or

was it vice versa ? I felt somewhat overwhelmed by the (general?) need for

the best equipement, the sharpest lens,... But this leads nowhere in the end.

Ok, now I can say this because I have an Ebony camera and three sharp

lenses... but the truth is that the photos I took with my old Tachihara and my

then second hand Grandagon (all stolen...) are technically as good as the

ones I am taking now !

Today, what I feel much more important is to understand what makes the

photos by Adams, Muench, Dyckinga and other masters well... masters

photos. Technically they are almost all perfect, but there is something more.

My answer, but it is certainly not universal, is that it is the _subject_ for 80%,

and the technical craftmanship from the photographer and printer for 20%.

Choose the subject, and the technique is almost obvious, it is simply implied

by the first choice of what you put on the ground glass.

So, where is my point ? Well, I am not sure, but it could be that amassing a

very large and extensive knowledge on the technical side of photography is

just a first step. The next one is much larger, more difficult I believe. It is the

choice of the places, people or objects that have to fill the 20 square inches of

film with more than tiny blobs of dyes or grains of silver.

Have you been through such thoughts ? Have you found _your_ subject ? I

would be interested to know about your experiences :-).

Sorry Bill for the late answer: I use an Ebony SW45. It weights about the same

as a Tachihara (my previous camera, that was stolen in Santiago de Chile

unfortunately...)

Just as an example, my complete set (camera, 3 lenses, 24 sheets of film in

Quickchange holders, meter, carbon tripod, tripod head, bags,...) weights 18

lbs (8 kg). My "super light" set, with only one lens and 8 sheets is 14 lbs (6 kg).

I think this is very difficult to make something lighter in 4x5" format.

Hi David,

I would suggest that you consider the QuickChange system fom Fuji. It is a

very well designed device, holding 8 sheets of film per loader in septums, and

it is easily reloadable. I have never had a single light leak problem with it, and

the film flatness is simply superb (the film is pressed by a spring, and this

makes a huge difference for wide-angle lenses). Dust can be a problem, but

just as for regular holders. Personally, I am using this device exclusively for all

my photography (color slides and B&W negs mainly).

For more info:

http://www.f32.net/Services/Equipment/Accessories/quickchange.html

(I am not related to f32 ! :-))

Hello,

First, a little background on my large format photography "profile": I am using

my large format camera almost exclusively for travel photography, mostly

landscapes but also architecture. I always have with me a small format

Contax G1 to make those images that are either going away too quickly for

me to set the tripod, or those photos for which I am not sure they are "worth"

the cost of a LF slide.

So, my question is the following: is anyone using a digital SLR (such as the

Nikon D100 or Canon D60) in combination with a large format camera ?

I believe that the advantages can be great:

- no film to carry for the small format, therefore more space for the LF film...

and also almost no limit in terms of cost per picture + no scanning time

afterwards for small format images.

- the digital SLRs have the possibility to provide histograms of the intensities

their images, in addition to the values of each pixel. All of this is three colors,

giving also the light color temperature as a bonus... This should therefore the

absolute ultimate light meter ! Any comment ?

Cheers :-)

Pierre.

Hello,

In many postings and articles, it is said that the heaviest, biggest

tripod is the best for large format photography. There is a kind of

underlying assumption that a large camera needs a large

mechanical support.

Personnally, I am using a very lightweight carbon fiber tripod for

my Ebony SW45 (1127 from Gitzo), and I had never any problem

with stability that I would not have had with a bigger tripod. And I

apreciate a lot every pound saved by using this light tripod when

hiking or travelling. Its total weight is someting like 3 pounds,

including the magnesium head, about the same weight as the

camera.

Much to my surprise, I saw recently some photographs of Ansel

Adams (not the landscapes, but the photographer himself)

taking photos in the wilderness with an incredibly light wooden

tripod. The photo I specifically think about was on the cover of the

"Sierra" magazine for the 100 years of Adams, and is visible at

the adress:

http://www.anseladams.com/

(on the right of the title and on the cover of the book on the left)

there is also another small one there:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/

In my opinion, the bigger tripods are required when a higher

point of view is required, or when the camera is so large and

heavy (8x10 for instance) that a smaller one would just not hold

it.

I would be interested in your opinions about this subject.

Thank you very much for your answers. This forum is really a

mine of knowledge !

Following the advice of Aaron, I contacted Ebony directly, and

here is the answer from Ian Wilson (representative from Ebony, I

quote him here with his permission):

"(...) the remedy is simple: all Ebony cameras have two metal

baseplates, one on each side of the camera bed. The wooden

rails to which the front and back standards are attached slide

underneath these baseplates. The baseplates are attached to

the bed by small phillips screws, 4, 6 or 7 on each side,

depending on the model. If the front focus knob is stiff, loosen

the front two screws on each side (4 altogether) by a small

amount - a few degrees is usually all that is required. Similarly, if

the back focus knob is stiff, loosen the back four screws. On the

other hand if the focus knobs feel a bit loose, the same screws

need to be tightened slightly.

In case you were wondering, by the way, all wooden cameras

are liable to suffer from this problem, however Ebony are the

only cameras which allow the problem to be resolved so easily.

(...) In fact Ebony believe that the type of construction materials

they use, together with the way they are treated and the way they

are put together, make their cameras harder-wearing and better

suited to changing climatic conditions than all-metal cameras."

And about the use of silica dessicant:

"As far as care of the camera in humid conditions is concerned,

Ebony agrees that wiping moisture from the camera and placing

it overnight in an airtight bag with a sachet of silica crystals is a

good idea. Ebony also recommends rubbing the wooden parts

of their cameras with candlewax from time to time to improve

their water-resistance. "

I did not know this possibility on the Ebony camera to adjust the

pressure of the rail guides ! This changes a lot the problem...

With this possibility, I tend to agree with Ebony that their wooden

cameras are well suited to extreme weather, especially with a

carbon fiber tripod (I think in particular to deep cold). I would

certainly not exchange my Ebony for another camera ! :-)

Thanks again for your help !

Recently, I went for a trip to the hawaiian islands with my Ebony

SW45 field camera (made of ebony wood). The landscapes

were really beautiful, especially the rain forest and the volcano.

As expected, in the heights above Kona (Big Island), the weather

was extremely humid, and pretty warm (25-30 C degrees). In

these conditions, after one or two days, the camera focusing

became almost impossible with the front standard (very hard),

while it was still fine with the rear one.

I tried to lubricate the rail very slightly with silicon/teflon grease,

but this did not help much. The problem was that the camera did

not really dry up during the night. Nethertheless, I would have

expected that ebony would react better to high humidity weather

than other woods, but this is apparently not really true. Also, the

SW45 is a non-folding camera, probably less sensitive to this

effect than folding field cameras.

So my question is the following: would you know how to prevent

the "inflation" of wood with humidity ? Some kind of wax applied

before going to humid regions maybe ? Putting the camera in an

air-tight plastic bag after each exposure ? I was also thinking of

using an air dryer, but I fear it is not very efficient...

Thank you for your help :-)

Personally, I have switched to the Fuji Quickchange (QC)

holders (not Quickloads), that are a kind of Grafmatic but more

modern and very reliable. If you carry 50 holders for one day (I

am quite amazed by this number !), then this would reallly make

sense to go for this kind of holder.

They can be reloaded very easily with any kind of film you like,

and they are two times more compact than the corresponding

volume of standard holders. One QC holds 8 sheets. As another

benefit, the film flatness is much better than in a standard

holder, because the film is pressed from behind and not loose.

To carry them around, I found that the best is just a Zip-Loc bag

for each.

Hi Simon,

<p>

I would also advise you to take everything with you, including

sheet film, except maybe if you want to expose 1000 sheets, in

this case you can locate a dealer in the coutry you visit and pick it

there (weight, bulk, one less 'X-raying',...). Polaroid or sheet it

more related to the kind of photos you wayt to make.

<p>

There are good dealers of 4x5" film in every capital city of

Western Europe, in case of emergency. The point is you don't

want to waste your time hunting for film while you are on a trip.

Regarding price, I am paying my regular 10 sheets of Velvia ~22

Euros in Germany (with tax) and ~30 Euros in France (also with

tax) compared to $20 = 22 Euros at B&H (without tax).

<p>

Problems with pickpockets are the same in every big city, maybe

with a little higher rate in Southern Europe countries. When you

are shooting in Rome, take the same precautions as in NYC or

LA, and there will be no problem.

<p>

Avoid flashy bags (but this is a good advice for everywhere) and

consider your environment before shooting. You may not want to

attract too much attention in railway stations for example.

<p>

Good luck and good light :-)

<p>

Pierre

You will find very beautiful landscapes there... But be careful with

your camera, and if possible, insure it. There are many very poor

people in Bolivia and Peru. A too nice camera can cause envy, as this

may be worth 10 years of their income. My gear has just been stolen in

Santiago de Chile last week, so I speak from (bad) experience...

Always keep an eye on your stuff, especially in touristic places, even

when under the black cloth (which may be difficult).

<p>

Otherwise, I think there is no technical impossibility to go there

with a light 4x5 system, even without a car. I personnaly travelled

Chile up and down with mine without problem (and with nice results

:-)). Using LF while travelling by foot has a nice consequence: you

apreciate the sites for a longer time. But shooting in a crowd of

tourists is, in my opinion, impossible.

<p>

Good luck ! :-)

At the end of last week, a very bad experience happened to me: my Tachihara camera was stolen, together with my 3 Rodenstock lenses and other accessories (including a Sekonic L508 light meter). The story is that the bag (Samsonite brand) containing all these items was stolen from the back of the rental car I was driving in Santiago de Chile. One of the two bad guys pinched my rear tire, and while I was changing it, the other took the bag from the back of the car and ran away. They almost certainly won't even know how to open it, and maybe just sell it as an antiquity... If you ever find a used Tachihara for sale in South America (which is not that common...) please tell me !

<p>

Now the good part of the story, I am now looking for a new camera, and also lenses. I am thinking about an Ebony. As I am taking mostly landscapes (with some architecture), what would be the model recommended by the Ebony users present on this forum ? I am tempted by the 45S model, which is simple and lightweight, but the SV45U seems more capable in terms of movements.

<p>

Thank you for your help, and sorry for bothering you with such a sad story...

<p>

Pierre.

Hi John,

<p>

Maybe you should try to change the scanning resolution for an

exact multiple of the nominal resolution of your scanner. If the

scanner is sold for 1200 dpi, my advice would be to use only

300, 600 or 1200 dpi, and not 1000. The reson is that is the

requested resolution is not the one of the scanning CCD, the

scanner software has to interpolate it, and in my experience, the

result can be very strange...

<p>

This also applies to some printers: it is better not to send 203.5

dots/inch if the printer asks for 200.

Does anyone have informations about the future of the Polaroid

materials for LF photography after the company bankruptcy ?

<p>

More financial infos on:

http://biz.yahoo.com/n/p/prd.html

I have finally purchased this scanner and I did a number of tests on

the resolution and true Dmax of this device. The results are amazing!

You can find them at the adress:

<p>

http://elbereth.obspm.fr/~kervella/Scanners/index.htm

There is (to my knowledge) only one color negative 400 ISO available

in 4x5", the Kodak Portra 400NC. I have used it for star trails photos

and it works pretty well (really a lot of stars...). You may also want

to try black and white negative films (TMAX 400,...), as they have

relatively fine grains. Be careful with reciprocity failure though.

<p>

Slide film lacks dynamical range, and this _does_ matter, as most of

the meteors are faint and will be underexposed on the film. The best

the film can handle underexposure (i.e. has a wide dynamical range),

the best it will show meteors

The film holders of the D2400UF are in my opinion very well designed.

The film is not touching at all the scanner window, and I have never

seen Newton rings even on 4x5". I suppose this is one of the most

important parameters to have good quality scanning.

<p>

With my previous Epson Perfection 1200 Photo, the Newton rings were

really a nightmare, even with medium format film.

I have tried the Fuji Quickloads for a while, but I found it

inconvenient for the type of photography I am doing, i.e. travel

and landscape photography. Three reasons for that:

<p>

- the QL boxes take _a lot_ more space than the regular film

boxes and are much heavier. When I go for a 2 weeks trip where

I will expose 100 sheets of film, there is absolutely no question

that 2 boxes of 50 regular sheets are much more practical than 5

(huge) boxes of QL. Changing the films in the evening at the

hotel is very easy (and also pretty relaxing :-)) as I have a

changing bag that folds to the volume of a rolled T-shirt (brand:

Kaiser). I can even change films on location (never had a single

light leak, even in midday desert). I carry 6 regular holders, and

they allow easily a full day of autonomy wihout reloading.

<p>

- you have to use the Fuji QL holder. I used the Polaroid holder

and got light leaks. Therefore you need this special holder in

addition to the Polaroid (it you are taking Polaroids of course...). I

have read so many times that the Kodak holders are crap that I

tend to believe it also, but I never tried...

<p>

- price: I don't want to pay more for the same film and more bulk

:-).

If you intend to photograph landscapes, I am very pleased by my

Tachihara 4x5" camera. Previously, I have used a monorail camera (an

old Calumet), and in my opinion, this type of camera is absolutely not

suited for field photography: it is heavy, bulky and has a lot of

movements you never need (even for normal architectural photography).

<p>

On the contrary, the Tachihara (or other field cameras) is light,

cheap, and folds to a very compact package. Including all my

accessories (3 not specially light lenses, backpack, meter, holders,

carbon fiber tripod,...), I come to a grand total of less than 10kg.

Everything fits in a compact backpack, and this equipment has proved

very convenient for travel/landscape photography.