bill_taylor2

I just picked up 20 rolls of Pro 160c in 4 5-packs 120 format from Imageologists. ordered it Friday, it shipped Tuesday, arrived today.

They have 160s on the site as well, in 135, 120 and 4x5 formats, domestic and imported. The 4x5 is backordered. I didn't order the 135, so I don't know the availability. The site doesn't say, you have to call, or have them call you.

Looks like I have extra reason to get out and do some shooting this weekend!

<i>The final result (photo) is more important than the camera that shot it. </i>

<p>

That might be true in a theoretical sort of sense, but in the real world I live in, I'd like to know what people of greater and lesser experience than mine are doing with the equipment I have. I can look through the whole database for examples of subject matter and how it can be captured, but in the end execution is done with equipment, and what *I* have is what I need to understand.

<p>

First for comparison reasons, second for pointers in what can really be acheived, third for mistakes to watch out for. Studying handheld 35mm doesn't help me if I'm shooting with a tripod mounted 8x10. Photoshop enhancements aren't much use to me if I'm still learning to shoot film. The limits of film are different than digital, and wishing one was the other isn't very useful.

<p>

The path to a good final result is through learning the tools you have, not the tools someone else has. And the best OJT is gotten by finding and following good examples. Photo.net should try to make that easier.

I really like the Gallery, it always has some stunning photos that

are worth seeing and studying.

BUT

I'm still a throwback to good old Film photography. digital is fine,

I may go there some day, but so far - no.

So I'd like to see a searchable, sortable field on the gallery photos

that lets me filter for Digital, Small format, Medium format, and

Large format. That way, I can see not only the work of everyone, but

also the work of people using the same equipment I am using. As it

is, I have to open every photo to see the information in the

description.

Saturday night is a Lunar eclipse. from what the paper says, it

should be a total eclipse with a long duration of totality. So, all

you large format people, now is the time to REALLY practice your

skills. How to get a good landscape photo AND a shot of the

eclipsed moon in the same frame.*

Out here in the west, the eclipse will be in progress as the moon

rises at 5:06 PST. So that makes part of the framing job easier.

Plus, it is near sunset, so there should be plenty of light in the

foreground for more normal exposures. The bad news is they are

predicting rain early Saturday morning, and the clouds may not clear

off in time.

Searching Google for "Lunar Photography" shows there are quite a few

sites out there. The rule for the moon is still something

like "Sunny 16", but there are some many variations that it is nearly

incomprehensible. "Bracketing" figures into a lot of the exposure

instructions. And as I said before, having a well lit foreground

will make things even more interesting.

Happy shooting,

Bill

*Yes, I know you could cheat and double expose. But WE don't cheat,

do we...?

<i>I have a Calumet monorail. I usually carry the tripod in one hand and big-box case in the other. Its quite heavy with all the film holders, lenses, meters, etc. ...</i>

<p>

Steve, that is exctly the problem I am trying to get a good backpack to solve. I have a small two wheeled hand cart and it is fine for anything a few dozen yards from the car. But take it off paved roads or floors, and things get bad. I'd hate to try to wheel the thing half a mile up a trail to a good outlook spot (and then come back down...)

<p>

If someone made a packcloth solution to this problem, I'd be set. I'd rather not strap the case to my back. What I want is to just replace the heavy case with a pack of similar function.

<p>

Bill

<p>

ps. the general formula for estimating view angles is:<p>

2 * invTAN[(FilmDimension / 2) / LensFocal Length ]<p>

Watch the units of your answer (radians or degrees). The angle will be for whatever film orientation you feed into it (Horizontal, Vertical, or Diagonal). Do it for any film type and lens combination you care about, then compare to see which is similar. <p>

One of my goals with a good pack is to avoid having to break down the camera more than absolutely necessary. I'm using a Calumet/Cambo monorail. I don't want to take the standards off the rails in the field. It don't want to take the bellows off the standards. Ideally, I could find a location, drop the pack, plunk down the tripod, and mount the camera without any sub-assembly details.

I specified what amounts to a top loading design mostly because that is the way the camera case works now. The three compartments hold film, lenss, meters, etc., then the camera proper hangs down into the center setion of the case. This could certainly be adapted into a back loading design, but I didn't want to try too many changes from "normal" for Version 1 of the specs. In fact, when I was working with the Jansport Raineer, that is extactly what I was doing.

The reason for the rigid box I mentioned is simply that that is the section that will actually be supporting the rail, standards and bellows. It will be carrying a lot of weight, and foam filled cloth partitions will not do the job. the reason for the rigid back is the same, it needs to protect and support. Since this is likely going to be an external frame, none of this will be in contact with the wearer's back anyway.

I agree that a camelback would be nice, as well as pockets and stashes for trail necessities separate from photography. I suppose I was focussing only on the camera. But the hike should be a total experience, not just a monomaniacal quest for a photo.

bill

I've been looking a backpack I could live with for a long time.

First just for regular life hiking trips, and second for carrying the

camera out into the field. I haven't been happy with what I've seen

for the camera. The closest I've come was a Jansport I would have

had to heavily modify to get close.

<p>

Then I got an idea recently. If you can't find one, build it

yourself. OK, what should the specs be? That wasn't too tough, but

as with all things, it gets to be a long list when you get into the

details. And since I have no needle and thread skills, I need a

manufacturer. Which got me to LL Bean. A good quality company that

will be targeting roughly the same market of people that do LF

photography. So I wrote them a letter:

<p>

<i>

Custom internal or external frame backpacks.

<p>

Dear LL Bean,

I've just recently picked up a new hobby, large format photography.

Easy to do in studio, hard to do in the field with a large monorail

camera.

<p>

I've looked around, and never found a backpack for the camera that

I'm confortable with. For various reasons they just will not be

suitable for anything more than a half mile hike from the car. Lots

of companies make something that might work, but usually they are

either camera bag companies that just put big straps on the bag, or

backpack companies that are thinking about 35mm cameras.

<p>

So I thought about you. L.L. Bean has always at least been intersted

in looking at new ideas. What I'm thinking of is a backpack that

closely replicates the normal carrying case the camera comes in, but

with the other things that a good frame backpack would need.

<p>

What I have in mind is a top opening central section 19 - 22 inches

wide, 16 inches tall, and 11 inches deep. The key thing here is that

the central third of this compartment must be a rigid box, to protect

the camera. And the entire panel along the wearer's back should be

rigid as well, for the same reason.

<p>

Around the top, sides and bottom of this compartment should be the

usual compartments, webbing and loops a typical backpacker would need

for other supplies. At least two loops or a pocket is needed for the

camera tripod. And it would be nice if the backpack were stable

enough to stand up on its own with little propping.

<p>

OK, that was a long description. Now my question: can you provide

such a backpack? I know I'd be interested in buying one, and I

suspec there are others who would too. Maybe dozens, maybe hundreds,

I don't know, but it is a topic that comes up on the Large Format

forum on Photo.net often.

<p>

Thanks for reading this far.

<p>

Bill Taylor

<p>

</i>

I've gotten two letter back so far. Basically, "good idea, we don't

make one, we'll think about it and get back to you". OK, about what

I expected and fairly encouraging. At least I'll get one more

saying "no we aren't interested". Hopefully, it WON'T say that, but

I can live in fools paradise, for a few days anyway.

<p>

Bill Taylor

<p>

ps. Any other features a good pack should have? Realistic ones I

mean. The one I described above is really only about 3800 - 4000 ci,

so it isn't huge (yet), just oddly sized.

I know you are out there. I saw one of you at the Antelope Valley

wildflowers last spring. Where do you go, what do you shoot, who are

you?

Winter, such as it is, is coming, which means we'll be getting

weather again, as well as some little bit of fall colors in some of

the trees. Mountains, Deserts, Beaches, Islands, Cityscapes, what do

you folks do around here??

Bill Taylor

Lancaster

I use a two dark t-shirts doubled up. Put the neck hole around the ground glass.

Bill

For those of you that want to stock up on Plus-x, I found a cheap

source, but there is a hitch.

I just received a carton with 10 boxes of Plus-X, 100 sheets per box.

I found the supplier (Filmart.com) by typing "Plus-X sheet" into the

search engine at Froogle.com. It is a subsidiary of Google that

indexes e-commerce sites. Filmart was seling the film at $39.95 per

box, and when I asked about a quantity discount, I got one.

Comparable prices at B&H and Freestyle were $75 and $78. They gave

me three day UPS shipping, so it arrived in reasonable time.

The bad news is that the expiration is 01/2004. Three months from

now. I knew that before I bought it, they told me in email before

the purchase. It wasn't a surprise to me. Off to the freezer it

goes, and then comes out very slowly over the next decade or so. If

you are going to go there, they are closed this week, but their site

says they will reopen on Monday.

Plus-x is "good enough" for most of my needs, and I like the

traditional grain look over Tmax. I figure this will be my last big

B/w buy. At the rate film is evaporating, by the time I need more,

digital will have eaten the planet. If I'm really lucky, they will

have really good, really cheap 4x5 backs by then.

Bill Taylor

contained here is a three page MS Excel 97 spreadsheet for 35mm, 4x5 and 4x5 roll film back users in 6x12, 6x9, and 6x7. People using cameras built in those formats can probably use the sheets too, but they probably ought to check the assumptions. It gives the Hyperfocal distance and circle of confusion size for various negative size, f-stop, lens, and enlargement combinations.

You can customize the sheets to your own assumptions. I used 2 arc minutes as the best vision a viewer will have (you probably should not change that, it is an optical standard), 10 inches as the viewing distance, and 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, and 20x30 as the enlargement sizes.

You can change the lens focal lengths to your own preferences easily, but the f-stops are hard coded, you'll have to change each cell to pick other f numbers (f/16 - f/64).

The circle of confusion sizes are based on whatever the largest magnification to get that print size is. For example, a 6x12 cm negative enlarged to 20x30 inches could be 8.47x (a 20x40 final print) or 6.35x (a 15x30 final print). I chose 8.47x, to be sure the negative will be on the conservative side. Again, you can pick and choose to change that.

There is a little table of common black and white films in the lower right corner. The Lp/mm numbers are there for comparison to the circles/mm numbers for each enlargement size. It is a guide for what to expect, not a head to head recomendation.

I hope its useful to y'all,

Bill

<i>

I dont know why people like to make such a fuss over 'large prints with no grain'. It seems like overcomplicating something which is very simple</i><p>

It really isn't about grain. It is about discernable details. The grain of the film may very well figure into the artistic and technical merits of the image, but circles of confusion is about focus and perceived sharpness, not grain. Tri-X may appear less sharp than Tech Pan, but the "pure" image is irrespective of the film base it was shot on.<p>

Having said that, I do prefer lower grain to big, bumpy sandpaper images. But there are times when having grain is useful. For example, a large expanse of plain blue sky might be enhanced by a bit of grain texture. Depends on the picture. Certainly grain can be used to set a mood or imply a time period or obscure objectionable details. It depends...

<p>

bill

I was reading yet more on Circles of Confusion and Depth of Field

recently, and it occurred to me that a big part of the subject are a

few assumptions. First, from what distance from the print is a

critical observer likely to be inspecting it? And second, to what

extent is the print being enlarged?

As for distance, any number is a good one, since nothing is carved in

stone. For example, Kodak has decided that 14 inches is where most

people view 4x6 proof prints from. A "normal" distance to hold them

from your face. OK, that might be right. I tend to think a pro or

semi-pro or serious amateur or competition judge is going to get a

lot closer when inspecting a "fine art" print. So maybe 10 inches,

or even 8 or 6 is right. We know people even pull loupes out and

look for flaws, though I think this is extreme for simple display

situations.

As for enlargements, it matters when you do the math on what CoC you

should be calculating. If you are making 20 x 30 inch prints from

35mm film (21x), you need to be a lot more sensitive to sharpness

than when contact printing an 8 x 10. Supposedly the best eyes can

resolve 2 - 3 arc minutes of resolution (eagle eye Ace Pilots, for

example) So, in combination with viewing distance, degree of

enlargement tells you the smallest CoC you should have on the film.

I typically make 11 x 14 from 4x5, and pretty much from everything

else when I've decided to enlarge something. It is easy to mat and

frame, and looks nice on the walls here in the house. I reserve 16 x

20 for something really special, and those are rare (for me).

All of which leads me to this,

1. What Viewing Distance, for critical judgement with unaided eyes*,

would YOU say should be the standard? While you are at it, what is

a "normal" distance?

And

2. How Much do you typically enlarge your prints? 4x5 to 8x10? 5x7

contact prints? 8x10 to 16x20?

I'm working on yet another spreadsheet, and I'd like it to reflect

something like an approximation of "community standards".

Bill Taylor

* glasses count as Unaided, as long as they are only correcting back

to 20/20. Loupes and magnifying lenses are not "normal" viewing.

Well, since you've already taken it off, this answer comes a little late, but I'll give it anyway.

My Calumet came with an international back and it had a similar tab. Mine did not have a threaded hole however. The tab interfered with mounting certain kinds of full sized backs on the camera. After some invetigation, I took off the minimum needed to get those backs mounted and all was well. My experience since then has been that the tab was just a little bit of overengineering to ensure that film holders seat properly. I have no idea what the hole in yours is for.

I eventually did find a reflex rear viewer for the back. It turns out that they fit entirely over the ground glass, which has two retention clips (one is spring loaded). So removing the tab has no effect on using one, since the viewer comes off with the ground glass.

Good shooting,

Bill

I'm getting a heck of an education here guys. Thanks a lot!!

Some of this stuff is intuitive, and of course fiddling around with the camera will get you there eventually. But I've gotten a lot more tips (and a lot of further reading to do) in just these last few minutes than in my first few months of LF.

This would have been nice to know when I was sweating under the dark cloth this morning, trying to shoot a line of old box cars on a siding! Nice vertical lines on the sides of the cars, lots of horizontal lines converging into the distance, camera position low and off to one side. A definite challenge. Solved it by stopping down, but a definite technique would have been better.

Bill

Cambo makes, or made, two depths of recessed lens boards. Watch out for the difference. The old ones are about 1 inch, the new ones are about 1.25 inches. They are otherwise identical in fit with respect to the camera mounts.

Bill

I bought two prints recently, and the artist had a nice technique for naming and numbering. On the front was just the matted print. No names, numbers or anything. On the reverse was the artist's contact information, the print's name, and the sequence number (#6/50) and the series number (Series II) of the print.

This way the print does have a unique identifier, but you are not permanently limited in the ultimate number you can make. The buyer knows exactly where they stand in line, with earlier lower numbers being presumably better than later, higher ones. It gives the impression of being a limited edition, without actually being one. And with a little personal restraint on the photographer's part, each new Series (in the book trade this would be a new Printing or even new Edition) can be produced only once yearly, to lend a greater air of rarity to the prints. The photographer should be sure that all prints in a series are of like materials, composition, framing, exposure, processing, etc.

The prints I bought are not dated, but the date could be included in the Sequence and Series, e.g. "#7/100 - Series 2003", the way it is on $1 currency.

And many artists include a copyright stamp or statement in their name and contact information.

Bill

So I'm a hopeless savage by using spray adhesive to mount my RC prints to oversized foamcore? e.g. 11x14 RC print, Krylon Easy-Tac repositionable adhesive, and white 3/16 foam core board. I just did 14 of them for an exhibit, so this news is coming a bit late...

In the old days, I was told that good archival mounting involved two fix stages (for black and white), special care in washing, then strategic use of aluminum foil in separating the mount board from the frame and back board.

I'm hoping someone will fill in the real modern details for me and my fellow knuckledraggers.

Bill

I know I'm way late with this, but there is at least one company, Lab Safety, that will be happy to sell you clear or amber glass bottles in any size from 100ml to 1 gal. they also sell non-permeable plastic bottles (Nalgene) and plastic coated glass bottles, for those concerned about breakage. They ain't cheap, but they ain't bad either.

http://www.labsafety.com/home.htm, look under Products, then Labware, then Plasticware and Glassware. While you are here, you will find Balances, Scales, Beakers, and lots of other measuring devices that will work in your formulary kit.

Reversing the standards so the film is closer to the lens is a good idea. It works, but it forces the film to be in a vertical position. The back can't even be mounted horizontally with the rear stnadard reversed, let alone allow for the film to be inserted or removed.

I'd give more details on the camera, but I don't know them. The camera is functionally equivalent to a 45NX, but it doesn't look like one. It is a bit older, I'm guessing mid-70s to mid-80s. You can easily see how a few little things were refined before the current crop of Calumet cameras came out.

bill

I just got an old model Schneider SA 47mm lens! Very clean, works

fine. I want to mount it onto my Calumet 4x5 monorail camera (I'll

be shooting roll film with it, or maybe go for a Classic Vignette).

One problem: the front and rear standards won't get close enough

together. I can't get out to infinity. So I think I need a

lensboard with about .5 - 1 inch more depth, and probably more room

around the sides of the lens.

Any one have experience with getting a custom lensboard made? Any

pitfalls you want to share? Or better yet, do you have a spare

lensboard to share??

I've already fired off a letter to SK Grimes. You all recommended

them so highly I figured it is worth a shot.

Bill

ps. I wrote a note to Calumet customer service asking about this,

and the guy said he wasn't sure, because he only had a 65mm lens on

his camera. Gee, I wonder if there might have been an actual

technical manual lying around somewhere in the company for him to

check.

Why mm? It makes the units consistent and was easier than converting feet, inches and meters. Lazy? You bet. ;-)

I put commas in the chart, so just assume they are the decimal points and read it as meters, European style. For reasonable working distances from the camera, it works pretty well. If you are working at less than a meter, on a tabletop for example, mm should be OK for you too (if you have a tape measure handy).

Maybe Rev4 or 5 will have English Units added. Now that I have the table working it would be just a few more ...

bill

I just couldn't let it go. I've been working on this spreadsheet for

a while, I'm up to Rev3, and I think it is ready for prime time. I

put a previous version up here a few weeks ago. This one is

simplified and I think I've removed most of my fuzzy thinking.

It is easily customizable for your lenses, assuming you have Excel 97

or an equivalent spreadsheet program. The second page has a chart

for 35mm. All the film sizes are nominal, not actual (6x7 = 60mm x

70mm). If you want to customize that too, it is possible, but a

little more complicated.

One last thing, I tacked on a b/w film resolution table. Feel free

to add to and correct it.

Good Luck,

Bill Taylor

Everyone, thanks for all the responses. I don't suppose I really believed I would get the one and only true way to shoot IR, but I did get a good variety of techniques that worked for people.

My personal favorite is most like Huib's. I take the nominal ISO rating of the film, incident meter, then compensate for the filter factor. Then bracket +2,-2. I've tried metering through the filter and found that just got me consistently overexposed.

By the way, I've not used Kodak HSI 4x5. My whole experience, limited as it is, has been with Kodak HIE and recently with Maco 820 and Ilford SFX. I like the Maco product, it is just too darned slow once you take 3 stops off it.

I had pretty good lusck this past spring in a rocky canyon park. Lots of rocks, greenery in bloom, and whispy white clouds in a blue sky. Shot with a #29 filter, so a little extra IR effect was evident. No photos to share yet, but maybe soon.

Bill

ps. I saw some Hoya R72 filters going cheap on eBay recently, but none in the sizes I need.

I want to echo Neil Poulsen's answer. Get the Calumet exposure calculator. And to go one better, steal an idea from the Quick Disc too.

I went down to the hardware store and found a 2 inch diamater Stainless Steel washer, which just happens to be the same size as the Calumet focus target. Picked up some white and some orange spray paint too. Painted the washer, one color to each side.

Now I have the best of both worlds, the Calumet exposure ruler, and a nice round Quickdisc-like target that is easy to see on any background. Just lay it down in the scene, find the longest dimension with the ruler, and read off the exposure compensation.

The Quickdisc target is 2-7/8 inches. I looked for a washer that size, but couldn't find one. And I like Calumet's ruler better anyway, if only because it is durable plastic and not just paper, and it is a bit more compact.

The SS Washer alone was about $1. The Paint was about $9. If its worth doing, its worth Overdoing. ;-)

Bill