mark_tucker2

http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/ppmsc/00200/00259r.jpg

vs.

http://www.marktucker.com/photos/wigwam.jpg

Tim,

Eerie, huh? That JPG above is still the scene that you encounter

when you drive up to the place. Although I was fascinated by that

signage out front; now it makes sense that at one time they

housed gas pumps. The older photo was shot when it was in its

prime. I shot mine on Saturday, and the whole place was

boarded up for the winter; come back in March.

That entire town peaked in about 1956. It's got that special

"Route 66 sadness" to it now. At least hotel guys had creativity in

those days. Are we making progress in throwing up these

prepoured box motels now?

On a technical note, I shot that image with a SuperAngulon 75.

When I bought it from Jeff at Quality Camera, he said "You know,

the first thing those guys on Photo.Net are gonna say to you is

'Why didn't you buy the 72 with more coverage?'" I notice that to

get the mojo that I'm looking for, I've got that damn Ebony twisted

into a pretzel every single time. Now I see what he was talking

about; the 72's coverage has got Mark Tucker written all over it.

My next thing to do today is to call him and trade this 75 in on the

72. Live and learn, I guess. (Bring out the 105mm filters....)

-MT, http://www.marktucker.com

It's odd; I've been to that same place many times, and I always

remember that view being obscured by overhanging tree

branches. Maybe I'm wrong. But why all that freshly cut wood in

the bed of the truck; could that have something to do with it?

That's not smoke-stain-marks on those rocks, in the upper right

corner of the frame, correct? No, it couldn't be...

Actually, as I looked closer at that picture, you can see the edges

of the canvas backdrop. Where did you find a soundstage that

large, that would allow you to drive your truck in there?

I'm with Nigel; you've never been past the city limits...

-MT

I apologize if this has been covered many times, but a search

does not reveal it.

In short, does there exist an online web chart of the coverage

image circles of ALL brands of 4x5 lenses? IOW, could you just

look at this chart and see image circles of all 75mm WA lenses?

If it exists, I'd love to know the URL. Thank you in advance.

-MT, http://www.marktucker.com

I did a small road trip yesterday to shoot this 1950's motel of

teepees. When I left, I had a choice of that silly Bogen carbon

fiber, or my trustworthy Bogen 3051 body bag. It was a

no-brainer; I took the heavy one.

I wish there was a CF version of this 3051. There are SO many

advantages to this design; I'm amazed that everybody doesn't

use one. You can release each leg's "pitch" individually; you don't

have to unscrew leg sections; it's rock solid; it has a crank center

column. The only drag is that it's very heavy. (I use an NPC

ball/socket head on it).

I've looked and looked at CF tripods, and nothing holds a candle

to the design of this 3051. In terms of real use, in real conditions.

I'll never bend over and fight those screw legs ever again.

Attached photo.

Link: http://www.bogenphoto.com (3051)

MT

Speaking of DuraFlame logs (reference Fatali links above), I was

doing a job about ten years ago; a cover for a Christmas CD

cover for that flag-waving singer Lee Greenwood. We rented a

large empty mansion with a fireplace to shoot the job; it was on

the market to be sold. I'd never fooled with fake logs before, so I

bought four or five of them to get a roaring fire going for the

photograph. I lit them ALL; at once. (Wouldn't YOU put four or five

normal logs in a fireplace?)

Anyway, bad news. Never use more than one at a time. We

began shooting, and I noticed that the fire was getting brighter

and brighter. After several more minutes, the smoke from the

flames began to come out the front of the fireplace, and up the

wall. (Did I mention that the whole place was painted bright

white?)

Anyway, at some point, we just panicked and stopped the shoot.

I ran out back and looked for the first thing I could find to scoop

out some of the logs. I found a piece of Spanish tile from the

roof, went back in and scooped up one of the still-blazing

DuraFlame logs, and carried it across the freshly-waxed

hardwood floors, toward the front door.

As I approached the front door with the log, the door opened, and

in walk the realtor AND the owner of the home. It's been a long

time now, and with the therapy I've had, I've pretty much erased

the memories of the rest of the story.

I think we repainted the main room, and had an industrial

cleaning crew come through the house afterwards. That story, I

will remember til the day I die.

-MT

Tracy,

Is this do-able in 4x5 Polaroid? Type 55 mix and match with one

of the color 4x5 Polaroids?

The drag about that is that the original is so small. Even

scanning a positive 4x5 does not get me excited; 8x10 would be

the bare minimum. Compared to scanning the neg of T55PN, I

don't think the positive would hold a candle to the sharpness and

tonality of the negative.

But since you're going for that look, I could justify the 8x10

"chocolate", and then scanning the positive.

MT

Scott,

I was one of those "previous authors", and I find your post here

extremely fascinating. I subscribe to the cause-and-effect

mindset, and I'd very much be interested in any of those books

that you mention, if you have the author or title name. I would love

to read more of this.

--

I think my point in this was, unless you're a hard-core news

photographer, it's your creation -- change a lens; add a filter; pull

back a branch; burn and dodge; add some diffusion; print the

image large (or small); wait for sunrise; wait for fog; come back

tomorrow; shoot it on TMAX3200. It's your picture; it's your vision.

Yes, it's probably pushing your luck to whip out the chainsaw, but

I guess not on some level (conceptual versus reality).

If you're a news guy, then all this is moot. Don't go messing with

anything. (But you know they do, but that's another conversation).

All for now. I can't write any more, in anticipation of reading those

Fatali links! Don't you just love a little photo-drama every now and

then....?

-MT, http://www.marktucker.com/

This is the second harsh reference I've seen about this Fatali

guy. Do I dare ask what all the fuss is about? Crimes against

nature....?

As far as the original question; it's YOUR picture. You are the

boss. There is no inherent rule, and your karma is intact either

way. Just by choosing a 58mm over a 210mm to render a scene,

you're "altering" and making a choice. Just by sticking on a red

filter, or a polarizer, or burning down the sky, or dodging the

shadow area under the rock; all those are choices. Why would

you ask anybody permission?

Now, if you putting those fake 4x5 Photoshop borders on the

prints, NOW you are messing with your karma. Or a choice of a

bad shiny gold frame, coupled with a robin's egg blue mat;

your're REALLY pushing it now.

-MT, http://www.marktucker.com

GreyWolf,

I love your question. This, to me, is my undealt-with issue with

LF. I bought a Bogen carbon fiber demo from my local store, and

the weight is SO addicting, but the tripod itself is just crap.

Embarassingly so. But the lesson learned here is that carbon

fiber rocks. Especially with the Ebony.

I have this giant tripod, a Bogen one where you don't have to

release the individual leg releases; you just twist this thing that's

right at the top of the tripod, and the legs unlock. That design,

too, is addicting-- no bending over for each leg.

I would pay a grand or more for a tripod that married these two

designs -- carbon is a must, but there's got to be a better way

that the ind leg locks. With that big Bogen, you just twist the

release, and you can "walk it down" in any leg length you want. It

is so real-world-friendly.

but once you get a taste of carbon, there ain't no going back. I

just throw it in the truck and go. And with a quickplate head on it,

it's a good combo, if the design wasn't so chincy.

I will certainly watch this thread. I hope you find what you're after.

MT, http://www.marktucker.com

I have recently been bitten by the bug of LF portraiture too. I've

been buying (and returning) a lot of old lenses, due to all the

hype of their "magic qualities". At this point, I think a LOT of them

are highly overrated. I think a modern lens such as a 240 or 300

when shot wide open can look pretty amazing. Or, just take a

modern lens and put a Softar or something equivalent on it, and

you've got a $3000 Cooke lens. Yes, there might be subtle

differences, yes, but in my opinion they're very slight; it's easy to

get caught up in the hype.

If I got really serious about JUST doing portraits, I'd get a 4x5

SuperD. The main thing about shooting people is the

spontaneity; that's a hell of a lot more important that the

subtleties of the lens. The superD is an SLR so that means you

can watch the subject right up to the time of exposure; same

would be true of the twinlens GowlandFlex 4x5. Just remember:

it's about you and the subject, and your interaction; screw the

camera.

I just think you can end up spending all your time with

lensboards, and old lenses off of ebay, and flanges, and Steve

Grimes invoices all over your desk, in search of this magic

nirvana, and you still haven't shot a damn thing yet. All your

energy gets sucked into the camera, and some jerry-rig to make

it work. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying BE

CAREFUL of the hype and the time-suck issues. Once you go

down The Devil's Road, it's hard to come back; a lot of one-way

signs along the road.

Here's one of my tests with my 152 2.8 in a Copal3. Nice, but you

stilll gotta go thru that "Hold still, don't move!" things that's so

frustrating:

http://marktucker.com/temp/kitty.jpg

Just my opinion. Might not work for you.

-MT, http://www.marktucker.com/

i think there is one on photo.net classifieds. i agree, very rare.

and thus his price: $3250.

http://www.brewer-cantelmo.com

http://www.houseofportfolios.com

I would check out:

http://www.zoerk.com

Look for MFS system. It works with an enlarging lens and does

tilt, but obviously only front tilt; no back tilt.

-MT

I got a 45SU. Only because it was the only one in stock. I don't

even know what asymmetric movements are. I just wanted

something that would pop outta the bag quickly and jump onto

the tripod socket automatically. The 45Su is the only version that

does that.

The bellows are way nice. The way they work with wide wide

lenses. I love that it's a nonfolder; I just found this toploading

bag, and it easily drops right down in there. No sweat. The knobs

are large, easy to orient to without looking, when you're behind

the camera. Very second nature. It's lightweight. It's solid, even

when I've got it stretched out all the way. It folds up tiny.

I wish the gearing in the front standard felt a little smoother, but

everybody says field cameras act that way.

I'm also jonesing after the ArcaSwiss reflex viewer which allows

right side viewing, and has bellows to move around the hot spot.

In the meantime, I bought a see thru Cambo cheesey viewer

which i made a plate to mount it out of a type55 box and

ducttape. See photo uploaded as reference.

Paul Owen is right. There is this weird comfort knowing that you

don't ever have to get another camera. I'm sure LF film will be

discontinued long before this camera wears out.

This camera was obviously designed by a working

photographer.

-MT, http://www.marktucker.com<div></div>

<I>"I think the marketing theory here is that anyone

curmudgeonly enough to be shooting B&W in this day and age is

stubborn enough to load his own damn holders and most likely

has a darkroom to do it in."</i><P>

David,

Are we all dinosaurs already? I'm not ready to be put out to

pasture yet. It's like we're just going along, living our lives like

normal, with our own standards and our own love of

photography, and then, Whoosh!, here comes digital, and pulls

the rug out from under us all, and we get up one day, and

Everything is suddenly different.<P>

It really *did* seem like it happened overnight. (I went to two

large camera stores yesterday to buy a spanner wrench, and

both of them looked at me like I had three eyes, when I asked for

that tool). At that point, it *did* hit me; "Holy shit, everything *IS*

different; nobody even knows what a spanner wrench is, let

alone do they stock it any more." I sort of slinked out of the store,

feeling old and hunchbacked, while all the Christmas shoppers

stood three deep in line for the latest greatest digital snapper,

wiping the drool from their mouths.<P>

I looked in the rear view mirror on the way out of the parking lot,

and I swear to you, my beard really *was* a bit more grey...<P>

-MT<BR>

(sitting here scratching myself)

"p.s. what's the actual factual dimens of a 545 type 55 anyhow?

do they make type 55 for the 405?"

...

No, the 405 is only for 665; I just bought one on ebay last night.

They GREAT for shooting 665 in a 4x5.

Type 55 is slightly larger than normal sheet film. Enough to be a

hassle to scan. But the tonal range more than makes up for it.

And the immediacy.

Ellis, the lens is a Komura 152mm f2.8 lens, and I got it years

ago from Glenn Evans in Chicago:

http://www.glennview.com

And before you go calling him, I'm first in line for anything he gets

that's faster than f4. He must show me everything he sells first,

or else...

There's that f2 125 on ebay right now, but who know what stat

camera it came out of. and It's up to nine hundred dollars, and

it's only in a barrel! Please...

MT

Daniel,

My concern was more about these films "bowing" or "buckling"

somehow when they're in the holders. I wasn't much thinking

about the holders themselves being wrong. It almost makes you

want to choose a film that's thick and heavy, to possibly reduce

the bow.

But again, from all these responses, it doesn't seem like it's a

big deal. I'm newly back to 4x5, after years of 220, so all these

issues of LF are flooding back to me.

Was your comment about the spherical holder a joke? I

remember taking type 55 negatives and wadding them up and

then printing them when they unfolded, back in the wet darkroom

days. It made for some beautiful effects. Seriously.

I shot a picture for myself this afternoon with T55. The whole box

was ruined; the developer pod was defective in all of them but

one or two sheets, and left a giant void down the center of the

frame. Luckily I got one keeper frame. Made me reconsider the

QuickLoads, but it was weird today, looking at B&H choices in

both Fuji and Kodak ready/quick loads. Fuji showed NO b/w; and

Kodak only TMAX 100; no 400. And with Polaroids' reputation on

the rocks, makes me wonder about the future of BW LF.

All coffeed up and scanning,

MT

David,<P>

My God; it <i><b>is</b></I> complicated... I had no idea.<P>

Maybe I'll fall back on that old saying that always seems to work

in cases like this, "Uh, I don't know, why don't we just shoot a

Polaroid and see?"<P>

Thanks for that link. I'll read up on it. <P>

-MT

I am making some homemade lenses right now out of

magnifying glass, loupes, and about anything that looks

appealing.

I bought a new Copal #3 from Steve Grimes, and I'm duct-taping

the glass onto the shutter to test the various glass before I

commit.

I've never bought just a shutter alone before. It never occurred to

me that there would not be fstops marked on it. I'm trying to

devise a test to determine the speed of each of these

combinations of glass when mounted in this Copal3.

I thought about just shooting Polaroids til I nailed it, but then

you've got bellows draw and that always mysterious actual-ASA

of Polaroid as variables.

Is there any existing way to "assign" an fstop to a lens like this?

How do the real guys do it when they make a "real lens", like

Schneider or Rodenstock?

The advanced question is also: once you determined the max

fstop, how would you assign and mark each individual fstop

down the line?

Here's the test shot from one piece of glass today:

http://www.marktucker.com/photos/dove.jpg

Thanks in advance.

To Robert,

Yes, I shoot wide open for no depth most of the time. But where I

*do* focus, I want to be able to trust that it's sharp. I will do some

thorough tests with this Polaroid 545 back and check it.

Like this test that I did yesterday:

http://www.marktucker.com

the focus was only on the tip of the eyelashes. Can't really see it

in the JPG, but it's scary-beautiful in the hi-rez scan. The

eyelashes are 3D.

Nothing worse than getting film back and seeing that it

backfocused or frontfocused when shot wideopen.

Thank you all for the information.

MT

Ellis,

Thank you. I'll add a couple more:

"3.) Where did you find an f/2.8 view camera lens?"

None of your business! I protect my sources, and they take care

of me. (Insert smile icon here).

There's an F2 125 on ebay now, and the guy claims it's a view

lens, but it looks like a stat camera lens. The f2 though, certainly

got my attention. My rule: nothing slower than 2.8, and then

ducttape the fstop ring down solid!

"4.) I've had terrific success with film flatness using the Fuji

Quickload system (holder and packet)."

Can you shoot non-Fuji readyload style film in Fuji QL holders

without incident? TMAX 400 etc?

I'd probably be well advised to buy two of the Fuji holders, in

case I dropped one in the middle of a job.

When I was reading that guy's question about comparing MF to

LF, and people were listing all the potential negatives of LF, it

was again mentioned about tolerances of the film holders. I

wonder to what degree it actually is a factor?

I shoot entirely Type 55 right now. Plus, I generally always shoot

wide open (I'm kinda weird). So, given the inherent short DOF in

LF in general, and then you add shooting wide open (f2.8), I

wonder how that Polaroid neg is in that packet, in there flopping

around at different tolerances for every single sheet.

Are we talking that say, 2mm of play would have a very noticeable

effect on focus? Or would it be more?

And someday, if I ever shoot "real film", how much of an issue is

it for shooting wide open? And are there any brands of holders

that are rated better? (I heard a rumor that really one one

company manufactures all the holders, and then they rebrand

them later for sale).

If LF is known for such "incredible sharpness" and all the gear is

so precise, and people are looking at and obsessing over these

MTF charts, or whatever you call them, and yet the holders are

letting the film flop around all over the place, how could this be?

Are not the holders the Achilles Heel of LF?

Would ReadyLoad reduce those tolerances, even if they cost

more?

Sorry for seventeen questions in one post. I'm just trying to

resolve it.

-MT, http://www.marktucker.com

<I>"But then my vision is limited."</i> <P>

That about sums it up right there...