sheldonnalos

<blockquote> <p>Can anyone tell me what the shot would look like if one had a 500W monolight with a battery pack and shot a subject under a harsh summer 12pm? So what's the difference towards a speedlight?</p> </blockquote> <p>This was done with a 400 watt second Elinchrom Quadra, at not quite full power. The modifier is pretty close (just out of frame) and it's a fairly efficient 27.5" parabolic deep octabox with only a single inner diffuser. It was late afternoon direct sun on a very hot day.</p> <p> <p>Here's another photo against bright sunlight from a different shoot, this time with a bit more watt seconds. This is a larger 53" octa with double diffusers, and was pulled back a good 8 feet from the subjects. It took the full 1100 watt seconds from an Elinchrom Ranger to light this.</p> <p>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/_DX_3970-Edit_zpsjlopqlc4.jpg</p> <p>As you can see, modifier efficiency and distance play a big part in how many watt seconds you need. </p>

<p>If you're not familiar with shooting strobe outdoors, then the main thing to consider is the strength of the ambient light that you are trying to shoot against. Once you know that and the sync speed of your camera then you can establish a baseline for what your shooting aperture is going to be. If you've got a camera with 1/250 sync then that's effectively almost a half stop more "power" for the strobe than a camera with a 1/180 sync. Then the next consideration is what modifier and what distance is the modifier at. I'd say that you can expect between f/5.6 and f/8 at ISO 100 from a mid-size softbox at normal portrait distances. You're not going to be able to do larger groups against strong sunlight through a big softbox, but with open shade or cloudy day or earlier in the day or later in the day, or with a hard reflector you'd be quite surprised at how flexible 250 watt seconds can be. </p> <p> </p>

<p>You can adjust the default on import into LR to be whatever you want it to be. Edit one of your sample RAW files to look how you'd prefer, then in the Develop tab under the Develop menu you choose "Set Default Settings". You can even take it one step further and adjust file defaults by what ISO they were shot at. I use that to control the amount of default noise reduction and sharpening on higher ISO photos, saving me the time of having to apply NR individually in most cases.</p>

<p>Thanks Bob, that info matches up with my prior posts. Of course, that's to be expected when I got all the info from your prior comments over the years. :)</p>

<p>Again, I wasn't discussing the APO Sironar-S lenses and I'm not confusing anything with Schneider lenses.</p> <p>The Sironar name is used on three different lenses lines (most recently referred to as N, S, and W) and all my comments are referring to the "primary" lens line which started with the name Sironar and worked it's way up to the most current APO Sironar-N. The APO Sironar-S lens is a recent addition and has no predecessors. There is no such thing as a "Sironar-S" lens. </p> <p>I've owned and shot with pretty much all of these different lenses and am well aware of the differences. </p>

<p>Check out this...</p> <p>http://www.indigo2photography.co.uk/</p> <p> </p>

<p>Dan, I'm not sure I see any paranoia or ignorance in any of the posts above. All the brochures you linked to are more modern and don't tell much about the history of the Sironar lens lineup.</p> <p>Some google searching will up other threads on the subject, many with posts from Bob Salomon. One point I should clarify is that the older Sironar lens was the convertible one, with a different design - you can see the shutter is marked as a convertible lens. Then came Sironar-N, then Sironar-N MC, then APO Sironar-N and the rebranded Caltar II-N, all of which are relatively similar. Sinar also sold a rebranded Sinaron-S lens which was the same.</p> <p>Yes, there are many other lenses that carry the Sironar designation, including the APO Sironar (same as the newer APO Sironar-W, also sold as Sinaron-WS) and the APO Sironar-S (also sold as a Sinaron SE, and which happens to be my personal favorite). None of these are what I was referring to, though.</p>

<p>This is a broad generalization, but I don't believe that there was any real substantive change in the Rodenstock lenses over the years, just the name.</p> <p>Sironar = Sironar-N = APO Sironar-N = Caltar II-N </p> <p>All are basically the same lens, and are excellent performers, I believe all are multicoated. There are some older convertible versions that are a different design but all the noncovertible lenses are generally the same. The Caltar II-N's are usuallly the cheapest. The 100mm Sironar won't be good for 4x5 since the coverage is too small. The 135/150/180/210 versions would be more appropriate choices. </p>

<p>If the prior photos are otherwise good, photoshop to knock out the backgrounds is probably not a bad idea and is certainly easier/faster.</p>

<p>Slight overexposure is generally better than slight underexposure. It will usually give you a better negative with either color neg or B&W film.</p>

<p>+1 to Gerry's recommendation, especially if you're on a budget.</p>

<p>Instead of a White Lightning, look at the Einstein which is a different product from the same manufacturer (Paul C Buff). The Einstein strobe is capable of going down to very low power settings, much lower than the Alien Bee or White Lightning.</p>

<p>What I see as the "look" of large format is a combination of 2 things. First, the bigger the format the shallower the depth of field, especially as you start focusing out to middle distances. Second, the larger the format the less you need to enlarge the negative so a lens will generally be sharper/more contrasty at the plane of focus. The combination of these two things gives a subject that can really pop out of the image in a visually striking way. It's why I shoot 8x10, strictly for the bigger format. The second "look" issue is the one of vintage lenses and the way that they render the image. There are endless options out there, depending on what you're after.</p> <p>I personally have one lens that is more "classic" in it's rendering (an older Dagor) and one lens that is newer (a Fuji 300mm f/5.6 in a Copal 3 shutter). Both have a sync port so I'm able to use strobes with either. Here are some example photos from 8x10 film, if you're interested in the "look". They are only 1000 pixels wide so it's not as apparent as it is on a bigger screen or in a nice print. My apologies that they're all family pics. :-) </p> <p>Modern Fuji lens with strobe, shot wide open at f/5.6.<br> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/KidsPortrait8x10_zps0fa34a21.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Old/cheap Ilex Paragon f/4.5 lens, wide open with ambient light. <br> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/IlexParagon_zps6d0b7916.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="799" /></p> <p>Modern Fuji lens, wide open at f/5.6 ambient light. </p> <p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Scan-140529-0001_zpsab79d76a.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>Modern 240mm Rodenstock, wide open at f/5.6 with strobe.<br> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/ElisePortrait_zpsacee4343.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="751" /></p> <p>Old Dagor lens, wide open at f/6.3, ambient light. <br> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Scan-140323-0001_zps949e2a4a.jpg" alt="" width="820" height="1000" /></p> <p>Old Dagor f/6.3 lens, with strobe.<br> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/Scan-140319-0001_zps10fe9531.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="810" /></p>

<p>Agree with you about dust being the bane of a large format shooters existence. I still think it's worth shooting LF for environmental portraiture -the "look" of large format is just darn cool. I've got a Hasselblad and it's great, but I like shooting environmental portraits with my 8x10 camera more. :) </p>

<p>For slightly wider than the 135, you've got a couple good options. Fuji makes a nice little 125mm f/5.6 which can be found used for a very reasonable price, under $200. That will be pretty close in field of view to your 50mm lens on 645. If you want wider, I'd look at the 90mm lenses... the two that Ellis mentioned above (Rodenstock 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon-N or Nikon 90mm f/4.5 SW) are excellent if a little bigger/heavier more expensive than the small 125mm lens.</p> <p>One thing I'd point out is that wider focal lengths like a 90mm start to be more difficult to compose and focus with. The ground glass is dimmer, focusing is harder to be precise with and they are just a bit tougher to use in real world conditions due to the way that the light projects at the ground glass at off angles making a hot spot. Not that you couldn't use them, I'd just personally much rather shoot semi-wide with a 125mm for portraits rather than a 90mm for convenience sake.</p> <p>If you went with a 125mm lens and liked slightly wider focal lengths I'd suggest a 125/180 two lens kit. If you went with a 90mm lens then maybe a 90/150 two lens kit. </p>

<p>Environmental portraits = no movements required. So just about any field camera will work. Personally I like the cosmetic appeal of a wood 4x5 field camera, if you're going to shoot large format and be "old fashioned" it's nice to have a camera that looks the part. Just about any wood field camera will do, but my short list would be a Chamonix or a Shen Hao. Chamonix is probably lighter/better for ease of traveling with, and half the weight of the Toyo you were looking at.</p> <p>For lenses, don't worry about buying something high end. The differences between a $200 lens and a $1000 lens are not easily visible with portraits and are not worth the extra money for your purposes. Look at modern lenses in Copal shutters, get something with a f/5.6 maximum aperture - shallow depth of field can be nice for portraits and depending on the light conditions it's nice to have the extra aperture speed. Avoid lenses with a Copal 3 shutter - they are huge/heavy. Look at lenses from Fuji/Nikon/Schneider/Rodenstock - all will work well for your purposes. Perhaps pick two lenses, one medium/wide and one slight telephoto. Personnally I'd go for a 135mm f/5.6 for a semi-wide environmental lens and a 210mm f/5.6 for a slightly tighter field of view. Both should be able to be purchased for around $200-300 each used. If I had my personal preferences I'd choose the Rodenstock APO Sironar N series for the budget concious, but like I said you won't go wrong choosing any of the lenses from the four major manufacturers.</p> <p>Hope this helps!</p>

<p>Interesting, hard to tell from the angle but it looks like the front element is larger than on my Fujinon-L, which is only a 67mm front filter diameter and doesn't flare out at all when it comes out of the shutter. Perhaps yours is an early Fuji plasmat design?</p> <p>However, I found this excerpt on Kerry Thalmann's fuji site, so perhaps this is what your lens is... </p> <p><em>I believe, but am not 100% certain that the S suffix merely meant the lens came in a shutter. That makes sense and could very well be true (back in the 1970s, Fuji produced a series of barrel mount tessar type large format lenses - the literature of the day refers to them simply as Fujinon with no series designation). Still, the use of this S suffix, both in the literature and on the lenses themselves, seems to be totally arbitrary and meaningless.</em></p>

<p>Can you post a picture of the lens? I've got the Fujinon-L 300mm lens and use it on 8x10, it's quite nice. Mine is clearly marked on the inside of the front ring though.</p>

<p>It's working fine for me.</p>

<p>I say if you're going to shoot large format, shoot LARGE format. I like B&W better than color anyway, at least for film. The size weight of an 4x5 kit is not that different than the weight of a 8x10 kit. Just carry fewer lenses/holders. No harm in selling the 4x5 if you don't use it. It's not getting any more valuable.</p> <p>As far as getting old... not much I can help with there. Stay active, exercise regularly, keep yourself engaged in shooting. If you have to, get a jogging stroller to haul around your camera gear. :-) </p>

<p>12" f/6.3 Dagor. It's old and a bit worn with some separation, but it still makes great pictures with a wonderful drawing style.</p>

<p>I have a simpler answer for you. On 8x10 the DOF will be too shallow. On 11x14 the DOF will be WAY too shallow. :-)</p> <p>I hope you have a WHOLE lot of strobe power. Don't forget that your ISO on tintypes is going to be incredibly low. I got to see a setup of someone who was doing daguerrotype portraits. He was using a beauty dish with a twin head strobe running 9600 watt seconds to make his exposures. </p> <p>There's a whole additional wrinkle that happens too when you start to shoot portraits with big formats... it starts to become a "macro" shot, since technically you are at 1:1 magnification when you shoot a tight headshot on 11x14. Add in the bellows factor for that, and you'll need another 2 stops of strobe power. You get a change in field of view too as you drift into that macro territory, the lens starts capturing a narrower and narrower field of view as you extend the bellows. </p> <p>It's a pretty big undertaking to dive right into both tintypes and very large formats at the same time. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Interesting thought experiment but perhaps disconnected from the more important questions involved in choosing what format size to shoot, especially with tintypes.</p>

<p>Why are you even looking at CoC's? Are you trying to get shallow DOF? Magnification and lens choice are going to be far bigger factors in the image than a theoretical CoC based on format size. Have you shot tintypes in smaller formats before? What exactly are you looking to take pictures of and what are you trying to accomplish? </p>

<p>http://www.elinchrom.com/data/download/110812_rangerquadra_multi-web.pdf</p> <p>It can be set in full stop, half stop, or tenth stop increments. Instructions in the manual above on how to change it. </p>