john_galuszka

<p>I just got a used Symmar 210mm lens in a Linhof shutter from an eBay seller. What are these two items.<br>

See attached photo: red arrow - button; green arrow - lever?</p>

<p>(Yes, that <strong>is</strong> a recessed lens board mounted in reverse!)</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>The advantage to 6X9 is that you don't need a darkroon full of sloshing chemicals; you mail the film to a processor, then scan the negatives and play with them in the computer. It's more economical to shoot roll film than 4X5.</p>

<p>The advantage of 4x5 is that you have a <em><strong>lot</strong> </em> of control over perspective, angles, etc.</p>

<p>Therefore: do both--get a 4x5 and use a 6X9 back. <strong>You get convenience and control!</strong> I just built a 6X15 panorama back for my 4X5 Calumet. Now I can go out and shoot a redwood tree without having to worry about the "fall-back" perspective problem. And I can do it easily and inexpensively. (My 4X5 enlarger thinks that it is related to "the Maytag repair man.")</p>

<p>I just tested the Symmar 210 and can say that the report I saw elsewhere about the field angle for the 370mm option being much less than 70 degrees is wrong!</p>

<p>I put the lens in an 8 X10. The lens is very bright for full coverage of the 4X5 negative size. Beyond a diagonal measurement of about 6.5" you can detect some light fall-off, and that increases as you get to the edge of the circle of coverage of about 290mm. (My measurements are approximates, not exact.) Conclusion: excellent for a 4X5; adequate for a 5X7, but might need a center ND filter for some situations.</p>

<p>The 370mm option (using only the rear element) gave very bright coverage over the full 8X10 ground glass. [All tests at f16 & infinity.] If the lens is 70 degrees in both optional focal lengths, then the circle of coverage for the 370mm would be about 530mm.</p>

<p>I did not test the 475mm option (front element only) because my camera doesn't extent that far out.</p>

<p>You should probably get similar results with the 180mm Summar.</p>

<p>If the 180 mm lens is the same design as the 210mm Symmar, then you can also shoot with the rear lens element removed, however, you'll have to calculate the f-stops manually. The 210mm lens = f5.6 with both elements; 370mm f12 rear element only; 475mm f16 front element only. However, I did see a note somewhere that said that the <strong>longer</strong> focal length gave a <strong>smaller</strong> circle of coverage. (That the field angle is much less that the 70 degrees of the lens at 210mm)</p>

<p>I can't confirm this because I just bought the 210mm lens, and it is still "in the mail." Does anyone know what the circle of coverage would be when used at 370mm or 475mm?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What you have is probably a newer version of the "extreme wide angle series IIIa f12.5" I have. The older lens is 159mm and has a circle of coverage of 396mm. Wollensak says: "has an angle of view of 90 degrees and gives good definition at full aperture; wiry sharpness when stopped down... stopped down ... then affords an angle of about 100 degrees."</p><div></div>

<p>Just a warning ...</p>

<p>Yes, today in Big Sur it looked like the LA Times photo, however, in a few days we could have driving rain, gale winds, high surf, mud slides blocking Highway One, phones out, no electricity, plus everyone trapped in place for a week and eating canned beans and stale bread.</p>

<p>On the other hand, my philosophy is <strong>the worse the weather, the better the photography!</strong></p>

<p>John @ Gorda Piedment, Big Sur</p>

<p>If you are going to use roll film ... consider ...</p>

<p>Some of the Mamiya press 6X9 cameras have bellows backs, so you get some perspective control (NO front adjustments; you get half of a view camera.) There is a ground glass back available for this camera to check focus. For wide angle, the 50mm lens is spectacular, but rare and expensive; the 65mm wide angle is more common and less expensive. This set-up is much more compact than a 4X5. I use the 50mm lens and a modified press camera for wilderness hiking. I also use a 4X5, but sometimes I miss a shot because it takes too long to set up the 4X5 ... the sun moves behind a cloud and changes the light, etc. whereas using the roll film camera is much faster.</p>

<p>RE: checking the focus</p>

<p>Here is a "trick" I use to calibrate the infinity setting for my home-built cameras. I point a bright spotlight at the camera (set up about 100 feet apart.) Block half the light bulb with aluminun foil or something similar. This gives you a sharp line on which to focus with the ground glass. </p>

<p>The air release described by Mr Ohlson is the simplist solution. If you need more than 20 feet of distance, use 1/4" agricultural drip line as an extension. (The O.D of the air release fittings and the I.D. of the drip line will give you a tight fit--just plug them together.) I have been using a 40' line for quite some time. (20' commercial air release + 20' of drip line.) Total cost: under $15.</p>

<p>Just a side comment:<br>

"But I can't switch emulsions for a different look, or ..."<br>

Actually, you can if you are shooting film, but scanning it for processing/clean-up/printing. My scanner has different built-in settings for various films. I shoot Fuji Reala, but sometimes I'll tell the scanner it is one of the Kodak films. You can get minor or major changes ... sometimes good, sometimes very bad ... with this trick.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 90mm f8 SA will work very well in 6X17 format. I am using one in a home-built 6X18--a stretched Mamiya press 6X9 film holder expanded to a 7" wide negative. However, in some situations you will need a center ND filter.</p>

<p>You should NOT be having any trouble using a 90mm SA for 6X12. The diagonal of your film is well within the specs for the lens. As someone above suggested: check the focus settings of your camera.</p>

<p>I am using a 90mm SA for 6X18 ... OK, that is at the outer limit of the lens, but it does work (center filter highly recommended, however.)</p>

<p>For 6X12 (actually 10.6cm wide) I am using a 50mm lens with great results, so even if you are shooting at a full 12cm wide the 90mm SA should more than suffice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Consider a Mamiya press with a bellows back.  (Less than $100 if you shop prudently at eBay.)  It is NOT as flexible as a view camera, but it does give you some perspective control.  This will give you an opportunity to learn about tilt and other factors.  You will also need a glass viewing  back (about $50) to see what you are shooting.  Start with the standard 90 or 100mm lens ($50 to $100.)  The 65mm wide lens is better for what you intend, but more expensive.  Since the camera uses 120 roll film, it is more convenient and less expensive than a 4X5.<br>

However,  once you get ready to work professionally, there will be no substitute for a view camera for perspective control, but that need not be cost-prohibitive either.  A lot of people are dumping their film equipment for digital.  The secret is to have the calmness to wait for a good deal.  I recently picked up a Calumet 4X5 body for $65, shipping including.  I built my own panorama 6X15 film back and a lens board, so I have a very flexible camera at a student-friendly cost.  (I built this to shoot the Big Sur redwood trees in my area.)</p>

<p>Caveat: I did spend a lot more for the lens and center filter, than I did for the camera, but you could start with a Wollensak Raptar type lens, and still get a lot of perspective control for not too much money.</p>

<p>Good luck with your projects!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Most of the above replies concern the combination of 90mm lens + 4X5 camera, however if you are thinking of going wider than that, then another factor comes into play: light illumination across the negative.  I have used a 90mm Super Angulon for 18cm wide negatives (custom built camera) and did not find  curvature distortion problems, but there was a lot of difference between the exposure at the center and the corner edges of the negative.  A center filter would probably be needed for anything wider than standard 4X5 (a 6x12 or 6x17 back attached to a view camera, for example.)  [[NOTE: 6X12 + center filter = maybe; 6X17 + center filter = a good idea; if sun in  photo near center, then definitely needed! -- see sample photo of Linus Pauling's ranch at www.XtremeDigitalPhotography.com.  --  note the cloud density/color at the center and at the corners.]]</p>

<p> </p>

Forgot to add:

 

You should be able to do this for maybe $500 to $600, and you'll get something like 30 to 72 megapixel images (depending on several factors: resolution quality of your lens, lines-per-inch that your film might give you, etc.)

 

I have tried a variety of films and found Fuji Reala (Speed 100) to give the best results for film-to-digital conversions.

Stitching together multiple shots is never as easy as shooting one shot, so for the easiest-to-use solution for the least money, I suggest:

 

a) get a 6X9 film camera with a good lens.

b) find a mail-away film processor for 120 film -- you don't want prints, just the negatives

c) get a scanner of 3200DPI or better (I use an Epson Perfection 3200 Photo.)

 

I use the a similar system (actually a 6X9 modified to 6X10.6cm plus a variety of custom panorama cameras) to make three foot wide panorama prints.

 

BTW, Briggs is right: mailing out film is less expensive than processing your own.

If money is an issue, check the Caltar/ilex wide 90mm. It has about the same specs. as the Super-Angulon 90mm, but usually goes 1/3 to 1/2 less on eBay One disadvantage: it is NOT threaded for filters ... but I posted an article about fixing this here a few months ago: http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00PIfV . (I have an Ilex and a S-A and both work fine for wide-angle photos.

Unfortunately, everyone is right ... you can't escape dust! I use a staticwisk brush, canned air, and gloves, and I still have some dust on the scanned negatives.

 

The answer is to go over everything at high magnification with Photoshop (or other graphics program.) Here is the technique:

==>use the clone tool; ==>set it to 80 or 90 percent transparent; ==>use a digital pad (Wacom or other brand,) not a mouse; ==>set pen pressure to 5% or less. With the above settings you can make very delicate changes to the flawed areas. All your flaws will disappear, but it will take time. If you are making large prints (I use a 7" wide negative to print a 3' wide panoramas [samples can be seen at www.XtremeDigitalPhotography.com]) then the effort will be worth the results.

 

A big print with absolutely no imperfections will amaze your buyers!

 

Good luck,

John

See my post:

"Filter threads on Ilex Caltar--FYI how-to"

 

(A month or two ago; don't have link; use search.)

 

Same problem; instructions on how to solve it.

This is very true: "there is no such thing as cheap 4x5 B&W film." However, there are alternatives.

 

Consider getting a roll film adapter to use 120 COLOR film; in Calumet 6x7 format you should be able to get one on eBay for less than $100; an Adapt-a-roll 6X9 should be even less expensive, but they are less common. Both will let you take advantage of the 4X5's tilt, swing, and other perspective adjustments, albeit with a smaller negative. Nevertheless, 120 B&W and/or color film would be much less expensive than 4X5, and if you are new to this, it will let you experiment without breaking the bank.

 

Once you become familiar to your camera and its potential, then you can move up to full 4X5.

 

Also, the 120 film means that you would NOT need a darkroom. Just sent the film out for developing to a commercial processor, then scan the negatives into your computer. I have been using Photosfast.com to process 120 film in 6X9 to 6X24 formats with good results.

 

More (free) information on these techniques is available at my site: www.XremeDigitalPhotography.com.

 

John

RE: biogon

 

FYI

 

The Mamiya press 50mm is reported to be a biogon clone. (Less expensive than a Ziess biogon.) This lens is intended for a 6X9, but I have used it on my 6X12 modified Mamia with very good results. I have noted that in some circumstances there is some light fall-off in the corners. I have a Schneider center filter, but haven't tried it yet to correct this. Nevertheless, I am very impressed with the results. I have 6X18 (90mm Super Angulon) and 6X24 (121mm Super Angulon) panorama cameras, but if I was forced to limit myself to one, I would use the 6X12 with the 50mm lens. 24"X36" prints from this camera are spectacular!

 

John

4X5 might be the wrong camera for what you want to do. Maybe one of the Russian swinging lens panorama cameras with 120 film might work. Horizont--I think 35mm and 120 film versions were made. However, there might be a lot of distortion because you are so close to your subject.

It is not often that I find myself disagreeing with something posted by Michael Briggs, but I think that film photography will be dead (or extremely expensive) in less than ten years.

 

Keep in mind that I am a guy who recently spent a third of a years' income on film cameras and equipment, and that I shoot a lot of film. Nevertheless, digital improves it's quality monthly, so it will pass film in the near future.

 

I am figuring that the film equipment I am now using will be superior to digital for the next five or six years--my film stuff is the equivalent to 200 megapixels--but in the future digital will rule the photographic world.

 

Therefore, at the moment--and for the next few years--film is superior to digital. After that ... ???

 

So, If you want the highest quality now, use film, but expect your film equipment to be obsolete in the not too distant future.

UPDATE:

 

Don't think about visiting now !!!!

 

We have three active fires. Hyw. 1 is closed. There is heavy smoke down into San Louis Obispo county. Fire and emergency people have priority over tourists for the next few weeks at the least.

 

We aren't getting sunsets, we are getting smoke sets!<div></div>

Mr. Galli is right -- focusing this dim lens is a problem, but here's a tip from someone else on this forum: have the subject point a bright flashlight at the camera; focus on the light; remove light; take photo.