glenn_kroeger

Actually, original 45A's went through several iterations. Some of the first had a removable back that was not Graflok compatible, the gg frame was mounted on permanent leaf springs. Later, one could buy the 45A with removable back or the 45AR with revolving back. There were also some versions sold without fresnel and with a gg with painted rather than etched lines.

I use a 300 M-Nikkor on my 45AX. Works fine down to about 8 meters. No macro of course.

Darin:

 

I am not sure this is what you want, but:

 

Pro160NS is an updated version of NPS160 that has been available in Japan for about a year, and is slated to ship in the US, replacing NPS160, sometime this summer. It is finer grained (RMS 3 vs 4) and has been optimized for scanning.

 

Pro160NC has the same relationship to NPC160.

 

The non-pro versions will have some nonsensical names in the US, probably ending in "ia" like Portria?

 

The NL must be the long time exposure, tungsten balanced version.

 

Here is Fuji's press release from PMA.

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/PREventDetailPage.jsp?DBID=NEWS_825271&CAT_ID=-1007

I am going on a Caribbean cruise (not my idea!) and wonder about

bringing along my smaller LF outfit. While I will spend some time

snorkeling and sailing, I will have time on some islands (St. Thomas

and St. Johns, St. Maarten, Barbados, Antigua, St. Lucia and San

Juan, Puerto Rico) to do some photography. Will I have problems

using a tripod and taking my sweet time to photography scenics and

architecture?

The PictBridge protocol doesn't seem to address color, but act as a transport for PTP (Picture Transfer Protocol) data. Have to investigate that in the PIMA documents. Probably sRGB though.

Stuark K's answer is the correct solution. If you are using an LCD monitor, you can find the pixel pitch of the screen in the documentation. If not, you can just fiddle until you get it right. CS assumes a default screen resolution of 72 ppi which has NEVER been the actual screen resolution. Early Macs were 75 ppi and the original "standard" for PC's with CRT monitors was 96 ppi. But with the advent of multisyncing monitors, everyone was free to choose their favorite. With LCDs, the best results come from using the hardware resolution, which is usually higher than even 96 ppi. For example, a Dell 20" Ultrasharp LCD running at 1600x1200 has a pixel pitch of .255 mm which puts it at almost exactly 100 ppi.

 

So what is happening is that CS assumes you have 72 ppi and scales your image accordingly, but you actually have about 100 ppi, so your image is only about 3/4 as large as you want.

 

Change the preference and all will be well.

Not in particular order:

 

Dallas Divide, Colorado at peak aspen color in the fall

 

Snake River overlook at Grand Tetons at sunrise

 

Dolomites, Italy

 

Lauterbrunen Valley, Switzerland

 

Grand Canyon during a spring thunder storm

Tom:

 

Each hardware/software solution comes with its own gamma loader, and yes, it is critical that only one be run at startup... otherwise they fight!

I started with a 150 and 300 and found te 150 to be too normal so I went to a 120 and 180 pair. Then added a 75 on the wide end.

Ellis is right about CS.

 

If you are printing to a LightJet or Chromira, you can also let the printers RIP do the upsizing. I have been impressed by the Lightjets upsizing and have heard good things about the Chromira as well.

 

When printing to inkjets, it is best to use Photoshop to get to the ideal input ppi (eg. 360ppi for Epson 4000/7600/9600).

Mamiya has, so far, made it pretty clear that their digital back will only work on the LATEST versions of the 645AFD and RZ with digital bus connections. If that position holds, the pro TL won't do you any good with Mamiya. You will need to check out Leaf, Imacon, PhaseOne and Eyelike.

Michael:

 

When doing some resolution testing at 1:50, I found there was some shift in focus with fstop with a new Apo-Grandagon.

Well, you can't expect either lens to perform well at the edges at fstops wider than f/16... they are optimized for f/22. That said, you should probably check the accuracy of your groundglass positioning. Depth of focus is very shallow for wide angle lenses. This is best done optically, not with a micrometer. Finally, it has long been true that wide angle lenses have curvature of field and need "focus-in" which, in short, means they shouldn't be focused at infinity, but somewhat closer and infinity carried by DOF. This effect is less with modern lenses than in the past, but may not be totally absent from the XLs.

When asked in September, Fuji USA claimed not to know about these new films (despite postings on Fuji's worldwide site).

 

The only thing on the worldwide site continues to be the press release. No data sheets yet. The picture with the press release showed only 135 and 120 sizes, so it could still be quite a while before it shows up as sheet film.

I would like to use this back on a 2x3 graflock view camera to get

both 120 and 220 capability. While I know that RB backs fit, I want

to make sure I can trigger the power wind without an RB body? I

believe the "release lever" on the back of the back will trigger a

frame advance. Can anyone confirm that?

Nikkor 360T ED works. So will a Schneider 400 Apo-Tele Xenar C, but the #3 shutter and weight are about the limit for the front standard.

Fuji has NPS and NPC available in the US, but Reala (CS120) can also

be easily obtained. Any strong reasons to prefer one over the other

for wide-latitude landscape shots where the negs will be scanned?

Any Kodak films that give these a run in the grain/sharpness arena?

 

Thanks

Glenn

This issue has been debated endlessly. There are still those that insist that nothing shy of 30MP will equal 35mm scans, while others are enlarging 4MP files to 24x36 which most would agree stretches the limits of 35mm.

 

The answer lies in how the eye/brain system works. Simply put, you are designed to look at what is in the image, not what is missing. Your visual system does not look at an image and worry about what additional high frequency information should be in the interpolated pixels. You judge the image on the edge sharpness and tonal qualities of what's there. Digital wins on smooth, noiseless tones and if the image is sharpened correctly you see very clean sharp edges which you interpret as "sharpness".

 

If, you place the same image from scanned film next to the digital image, you can now make comparisons. There will be extra fine scale detail which you will now see as missing from the digital image. But, there will be grain which you are conditioned to interpret as a detriment to image quality.

 

So which will look better? Depends on your own eye/brain system and the image. For portrait work, or telephoto work such as wildlife work, you may prefer the digital. For wide angle scenics where detail in vegetation you may prefer film.

 

I shoot mostly MF and LF, and agree pretty much with David's numbers and sizes above. Scanned 4x5 at 24x30 is still pretty near perfection. But an 18x27 from a Canon 1DsMkII is pretty amazing.

 

Horses for courses!

I dislike the color palette of Provia 100F (I assume you mean the 100F series films). I carry two films, Astia 100F and Velvia 100F. I find the color palettes similar, and use the Astia for contrasty light and Velvia when lighting is flat.

Thomas:

 

Cathy's profiles or Dry Creek Photo (www.drycreekphoto.com). These folks know what they are doing and have the equipment to do it right. For $99 Dry Creek will do a new profile each month for a year.

Hugh:

 

What do you mean by "accurately"? It depends on what you want to do with your prints. I display mine in my house with halogen lighting, because I have to live in it and I don't want to live with 5500K lighting. If you like "daylight" in your home, then print for daylight and view in daylight.

 

When my prints are going to be displayed in an office or room, I always adjust the prints for the light under which they will be displayed.

Jonathan:

 

You just go ahead and think these things while the rest of us make and view spectacular images from digital sensors... I can assure you that a 16.7 MP camera produces images that surpass anything possible from 35mm film... so much so that we are finding that the very best 35mm lenses (Canon L, Zeiss Distagon, Leica) are not good enough in the corners and edges of the digital frame. And if you ever actually SEE an image from a 22MP MF back, printed at say 30x40", you will be floored.

Darin:

 

Linhof still makes the Rapid Rollex 23 which takes 120 film.

 

Go here:

 

http://www.linhof.com/english/index.html

Lynne:

 

One way to prevent this is to always handle a print with two hands and pick it up at diagonal corners, not two corners on one side... here is an illustrated version:

 

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/articles/printhandle.html

Richard:

 

If you mean to slide under the groundglass of a 6x9 international groundglass (where a cut film holder would go) the only option that I know of is the Linhof RapidRollex holder.