brian_ellis16

As to the camera, it sounds like you're a good candidate for a monorail (as opposed to a technical or field camera). That's good for you because most monorails were used in studios by pros and since almost all pros have gone digital there are a lot of used monorails on the market for very little money. Almost all, maybe all, have the Graflok or "international" back (as opposed to the spring backs found on some field cameras that will accept only the type of roll film holder that slides under the ground glass). I'd suggest going to www.largeformatphotography.info. There you'll find reviews of many different cameras, including some monorails, by actual users, not magazine writers. You should also do a little reading in a basic large format photography book. The best in my opinion is Leslie Stroebel's "View Camera Technique" but there are others, all are fine. Ansel Adams' book "The Camera" contains simple descriptions of the different types of LF cameras and their upsides and downsides. See if your local library has anything before buying a book. While it's easy to just let others make recommendations, in the long run you'll save money and be much happier if you do some independent research on your own.

 

I don't know enough about monorail cameras to even suggest a particular camera. I know (or think) that at the low end of the budget there are Calumets and Cambos, at the high end there are Sinars and Arca Swiss and in between there are Linhof, Toyo, and maybe Horseman. However, there are different models of all these brands and the older or stripped-down versions of even high-end brands like Sinar and Arca Swiss might be within your budget.

I have the same thing Pico has as shown in his picture "the whole thing" except that rather than the hammered silver look on his folding focusing hood mine is black (came from a Master Technika). However, on mine one of the spring latches is broken. I priced a fix from Marflex a couple years ago and the cost was about $50 for a replacement latch. Since I don't use the back I didn't bother. I'm not clear whether Pico is offering to sell his or not. If he is then you'd be better off buying his since you wouldn't have to bother with a Marflex repair. If he isn't and if you're interested in mine let me know and we can correspond by private email.

I use QTR and Ultrachrome inks in my 2200. Before that I used an Epson 1160 and a 1280, both with MIS b&w inks and Paul Roark's curves. I'm very happy with the 2200, UC inks, and QTR, I see no consistent obvious difference between the MIS inks in my earlier printers and UC inks in the 2200 with QTR (without QTR UC inks are a disaster for b&w printing in the 2200 IMHO). I do plan to buy a 3800 just for the ability to make larger prints than I can with the 2200 but not until Roy Harrington makes QTR available for the 3800 as he's planning to do but exactly when that will be is uncertain.

 

Unless you need the larger print capability of the 3800 I'd suggest trying QTR with your 2200 and see what you think. You can try it for free and if you like it you pay $50 to Roy. If not you've lost nothing except the time it takes to learn how to use it. You'll see that it has profiling capability but you don't need to become involved with that just to try it out.

 

As I'm sure you know, the Epson 2400 has an Advanced B&W mode. I don't have a 2400 so I can't speak from experience but I think there's a consensus within the digital black and white printing group that in the 2400 Advanced B&W wasn't as good as other methods of printing b&w (e.g. Piezography, MIS inks, RIPs, etc.). Maybe the Advanced B&W mode in the 3800 is such an improvement over that mode in the 2400 that RIPs, dedicated b&w inks, etc. are no longer ncessary. We'll have to wait and see until more 3800s are in use by more serious b&w printers. As of now I'm skeptical but open to being convinced otherwise.

You'll get lots of different answers (as you already have) because the answer to your question depends on what you mean by "very high quality." I became dissatisfied with prints larger than 6x9 from 35mm negatives many years ago. That's why I use 4x5 and 8x10 cameras. Others have different standards and are happy with their results from 35mm negatives. What you're photographing has some effect too. A 16x20 print of a street scene at night from a 35mm negative might work better than a landscape. But in general I agree with Beau, $200 - $800 scanners and "very high quality" 20x24 prints from 35mm negatives aren't a match made in heaven.

If the IV and V back will fit on the III then the hood should fit as well I would think though I don't know for sure. However, I agree with others, the hood is just a very expensive ground glass protector, as a substitute for a dark cloth it's pretty much useless. I don't know why Linhof used fabric instead of metal for the hood itself (as I understand Graflex did for some of their hoods). The hood could be a very nice accessory except for the fact that the fabric collapses unless you hold it open with one hand and when the hood occupies one hand you don't have enough hands left over to do everything else. And of course the fact that the hood fabric rots after a few years isn't too good either. But what do you expect? A new one only costs $500.

 

But if after reading this and the other messages you're still interested in a replacement hood, send me an email message, I have an extra that I'd be glad to sell for a very reasonable price.

I'd suggest you contact Richard Ritter (www.large4mat.com I think but if that's wrong then google). He likely can either fix your existing rod or make a new one for you. He added front tilt to my 2D for a very reasonable price.

I bought the academic version of PS6 when I was teaching and have since upgraded to CS (skipped 7) and then CS2 as a non-academic (no longer teaching).

"Depth of field won't throw a shot into focus when the focus is off by the thickness of the ground glass. The ANSI standard is +/-.007" -- that's seven thousandths of an inch.

I've shot with cameras where the registration was just ever-so-slightly off and gotten just this type of s**t happen -- out of focus. Fixing the registration fixed the problem, and it was never as far off as thickness of ground glass either."

 

Put a 150mm lens on your camera, focus on something say 30 feet away that has some room behind it. Then move the lens forward or backward by roughly the width of the ground glass to replicate the effect of incorrectly focusing because of the width of the ground glass. You'll see that while the object 30 feet away no longer is in focus, the entire scene didn't become one big blur. Something a relatively short distance in front of or behind the object in question will be in focus. Try the same thing with a 1:1 closeup from a foot away and the entire photograph will likely appear to be out of focus. It all depends on what and how you're photographing but it's certainly possible to have a ground glass that's improperly mounted and still get something somewhere in focus in some photographs.

 

Depth of field never brings anything into focus, only one plane can be "in focus." The appearance of "sharpness" or being "in focus" in things in front of or behind the plane of focus is created by depth of field (i.e. circles of confusion that are sufficiently small that they appear to our eyes to be points rather than circles and hence appear to be "in focus" even though they aren't). So it's obviously possible to have a ground glass that's a little off and still make objects appear to be "in focus" with adequate depth of field. In fact the only reason why anything that isn't in the plane of focus can ever appear to be in focus in the photograph is because of depth of field.

 

I don't know what ANSI standard you're referring to or what the consequences of flunking the standard are supposed to be but I'd be surprised to learn that if a ground glass isn't within 7/1000 of an inch of the ANSI standard the consequences are that nothing can ever be brought into focus using that ground glass so that every photograph made with it will be one big blur.

 

To get back to the original question, it's certainly possible that focusing problems can be caused by an improperly mounted ground glass. But the difficulty with that theory in this particular case is that if I understand his question correctly he said the problem only started about two weeks ago, before that everything was fine. Unless the ground glass has been changed in those two weeks I don't see how the ground glass could be causing his problem.

"What about a lightweight tripod for hiking? What would you all recommend then?"

 

Same suggestion I made above - for light weight, very reasonable cost, and apparent excellent build quality in tripod legs take a look at www.feisol.com and see what you think.

 

I've had many different tripod heads. I don't generally use a ball head for LF photography, given the weight of the cameras it's difficult to make fine changes in one direction without changing another direction. But I've owned an Arca Swiss B1 and presently own a Really Right Stuff BH Somethingorother, I forget the exact model designation. The B1 used to be the gold standard of tripod heads and had little competition. They're still excellent heads of course but IMHO too heavy. I think they're kind of like wood tripods - they used to be great back when all tripods and heads suitable for LF weighed quite a bit but today with the new light weight materials available it isn't necessary to carry a 10 pound tripod and a four pound head and still have excellent stability. Acra Tech and Really Right Stuff both make excellent light weight ball heads and there are plenty of light weight carbon fiber legs available from Feisol, Gitzo, Bogen, et al. The problem with them is that except for the Feisol they cost an arm and a leg. I own a Gitzo 1325 and it's an excellent tripod but it cost about $500 IIRC. The Feisol I recently bought cost about $200 and seems very comparable to the Gitzo (the rotating the collars are actually easier to use than the Gitzo). Take your pick.

You might check out Feisol tripods (www.feisol.com). I have one and have been very pleased with it - carbon fiber, light weight, includes a carrying case, soft pads on upper legs for cold weather and ease of carrying over your shoulder, and a hook from which to hang a bag or something else to add stability if you wish. Cost for the model I bought was $210 including shipping from Taiwan, arrived in about five days.

Judging from what it looks like in the picture it probably isn't worth anything but you could always put it on ebay and find out.

The III boards can't be but the IV and V can. The Technika III boards were a different size than the ones for the later model Technikas.

What do you mean by "F8 by the way?" The maximum aperture of the lens or the aperture at which you're making the photographs?

 

Is the same 150mm lens being used on the Toyo as well as the Horseman?

 

While an improperly installed ground glass can throw your focus off, something should be in focus, just not the thing on which you were focusing but something in front of or behind it instead. In fact if you're making the photograph at a more or less normal aperture for 4x5 (i.e. f16 and smaller) depth of field alone might be expected to bring the object on which you're focusing into apparent focus. While it's hard to say without seeing the photographs and knowing more about how you're making them (aperture used, tripod used, conditions under which you're photographing, is it a close up or not,etc.), if nothing at all in the photograph is in focus, subject to seeing the photographs I'd guess that your problems are attributable to something other than the ground glass, e.g. camera movement maybe or a bad lens (if you're not using the same lens on the Toyo). That seems especially true when you say your problem with the Horseman only started a couple weeks ago. Unless the ground glass was changed or replaced during those couple weeks, that would seem to make it highly unlikely that the ground glass is the problem.

"Overall, 8x10 contact is better than 8x10 projection is better than 4x5 projection."

 

That's a vast overgeneralization. I haven't made a projection 8x10 print from an 8x10 negative, I'm not even sure why anyone would do such a thing. But I've made many 8x10 contact prints from 8x10 negatives and many 8x10 projection prints from 4x5 negatives. If I put a group of say 30 on a table, some contact and some projection, I'd defy anyone to consistently be able to tell which was which.

If I remember the ebay listing for the Littman correctly, you have to pick it up in New York. So depending on where you're located, add at least another several hundred dollars to the . . .shall we say high . . . price. But I suppose another several hundred is pocket change when you're paying $4995 for the camera.

I used a Tachihara for amateur exterior architecture and it worked fine. Since the standard bellows on a Tachihara will compress enough to use a 65mm lens with very imited movements (but a little movement goes a long way with a 65mm lens)it probably would be adequate for many interiors as well. I'm sure it isn't something a professional architectural photographer would choose but I fancy myself a pretty decent exterior architectural photographer (don't know enough about artificial lighting or color balancing to do much with interiors) and the Tachihara worked for me. My Master Technika works well also though with it using lenses wider than 75mm is problematical.

The one that slides in like a normal film holder is sold by Calumet. As far as I know that's the only one made. They come in three sizes, 6x7, 6x9, and 6x12 (last time I looked). I used the 6x7 version and it worked fine. The spacing between frames wasn't always perfect but then it wasn't always perfect in my Pentax 67 camera either. I never actually lost a photograph because of overlap, it was just a matter of the spacing not being even. My only complaint was that it was complicated to load the film but then I didn't use mine very much. I think if I used it more often loading the film would have been easier. FWIW I much preferred that type holder to the international or "Graflok" type that require you to remove the ground glass frame because of the convenience and not having to worry about where to put your ground glass frame.

I don't know how many people are still doing this, I'm not but I did for quite a while. I thought that contact printing was a little over-rated. Not that it doesn't produce beautiful prints, just that it doesn't produce prints that are orders of magnitude better than a 4x5 enlarged 2x. Based on things I read about contact prints I was expecting my socks to be knocked off by my first few contact prints and they weren't. However, as someone else said, there are a lot of variables with your question. If someone used a mediocre lens on a misaligned enlarger, wasn't using a grain focuser, and wasn't very adept at dodging, burning, flashing, etc. their contact prints would probably look a lot better than their enlargements. In general I think it's much easier to make an excellent contact print than an excellent enlargement, assuming you start with a good negative.

I used a Mac at school for my photography courses and a PC at home for my non-school photography work. I didn't see any differences worth arguing about between them in terms of editing and printing photographs. Maybe there are graphic arts applications or some exotic type of work that would compel smeone to use one or the other but if you're an amateur or semi-amateur and your principal reason for using your new computer is photography I think either will do fine, at least they did for me.

I've used a Beattie and a Maxwell on my Master Technika. I've also used several BosScreens, original equipment fresnels on two Ebony cameras and on a Tachihara, an original equipment screen on a Technikardan (I think it was a plain ground glass, not a Fresnel), original equipment Deardorff ground glass and ground glass on several older cameras. The Maxwell has been the best of the bunch, BosScreen was next, the rest I wouldn't consider using again if I were buying a screen.

 

I bought a Satin Snow screen but didn't use it because it wasn't cut to the correct size for my Master Technika. When I complained the guy who runs the company claimed that Master Technika ground glass frames came in four or five different sizes and he hadn't known which size mine was (I don't think he's correct about the different sizes but even if he is, he hadn't asked me to measure my back or send him any particular information about my camera at the time I ordered the screen). We went round and round a few times and he finally agreed to refund the purchase price but only if I returned the screen. Since the price was only about $10 it didn't seem worth the time and trouble, plus the postage cost would have been almost equal to the refund, so I didn't bother. I wasn't impressed with him or his product but then I didn't actually use the screen. Most people who have used them seem to like them.

If by "archived" you mean preserved, and if your negatives were fixed and washed properly,they're already better "archived" than anything you'll do with a scanner.

You need to remember that while a shorter focal length lens can give greater magnification, that's greater magnification of more than was included in the scene with the longer lens unless you're able to extend the bellows a good bit farther than you did with your 150mm lens. In other words, simply switching from a 150mm lens to a 90mm lens won't necessarily allow you to fill the frame with the center flower because you may not be able to get the 90mm lens close enough to the flower to do that depending on your bellows extension. I suppose that's self-evident but thought I'd mention it just the same.

If you're printing text over the photograph then presumably the technical quality of the photograph isn't critical. So to lighten it I'd just go to Levels and adjust the sliders until it looks like what you want. You can lighten a photograph in many ways, and if you were making a 20x24 print to exhibit then you would take much more care than simply using Levels to make your adjustments. But I think Levels will be fine for your purpose and it's easy and simple to do.

Once I finish editing I convert the 16 bit tiff file to an 8 bit tiff file for storage (I don't save anything as a jpg). If you save in 16 bit, especially two or three copies of the same file plus a raw original, and even more especially if you save all the layers, you'll be using a massive amount of storage space. I'm not aware of any advantage to printing a 16 bit file as opposed to an 8 bit file. So whether you save in 8 or 16 bit is a matter of balancing the odds that you'll ever want to re-edit a file some day (in which case you'd save in 16 bit) vs the space such files, especially in multiple versions, take up. I almost never re-edit old images that I've saved. And even on the rare occasions when I do the changes are so minor that I don't think making them in 8 bit is a disaster.

 

How and how many copies you save depends to a large extent on your personality (some people want or need to be more obsessive about keeping copies of everything they've done than others), on how many photographs you typically make and want to save, on whether you're an amateur or a pro, on what kind of photographs you make, etc. etc. There is no single right way. See what works for you, see what you're comfortable doing and do it that way.

 

While I exhibit and sell a photograph here and there I don't make my living at it and I'm not under any illusions that my heirs will be fascinated by all my photographs. My only interest in saving files is because I might want or need to reprint some day. Since there's no advantage to printing a 16 bit file as opposed to an 8 bit file (at least none I know of), there's no real need for me to save in 16 bit and I like to cut down on the proliferation of CDs/DVDs/files on my external hard drive. For what it's worth, I save two copies of a file, one the final print, the other an unsharpened version of the final print (in case I want to later print in a different size and so would need to change the sharpening). I never save the original, I never save the layers. I keep one copy on DVDs and one on an external hard drive. Everything is in 8 bit. That works for me because if I should happen to lose a file I wouldn't like it but it wouldn't be a disaster either. It might work for you. Or something like what Dan suggests might work better. If so then do it that way.

Not that problem but with the latest batch of Moab Entrada Natural I ordered I can't get the paper to feed from the top of my Epson 2200 after successfully loading it that way for at least a couple years. I called Moab to see if there had been some change in the paper but was told there have been no significant changes. Nevertheless, I have four boxes of Entrada Natural sitting here that are basically unusable (it's hard for me to use the single-sheet back feed on the 2200 for reasons I won't go into here). Moab was recently acquired by another company and I'm wondering whether there hasn't been a change of some kind, maybe in production methods, that they aren't talking about.