todd_tiffan

To all - I saw and was wondering the same thing as West Coast Imaging

offers these prints. One factor that makes be balk is the price,

equal or more than what the best custom printers will charge for

traditional (from my limited experience anyway). Also there appears

to be a maximum size on these prints, maybe 20 some inches on one

dimention.

<p>

However ... one advantage of this process, and for all the digital

stuff, is that the dust isn't an issue. It's exceedingly difficult,

short of having a micro chip clean room set up, to get dust free

negatives, and the dust ALWAYS migrates to the place to where it can

do the most damage. I've had no experience with print spotting, but

suspect it is a last ditch, less than perfect, effort to save a print.

<p>

So I'm thinking these P. prints maybe worth checking out for my negs

that are flawed with dust.

<p>

And has anyone tried B&W printed onto fuji crystal archive via a

light jet printer? Would this be a viable option for the right image?

<p>

Regards,

<p>

T

Sandy - I heartily agree with Pete Andrew's senitments. Really sad

that we live in such a BS country (and that the rest are worse hardly

excuses our failings)where everyone is snorting out a buck to the

point where they're losing sleep over the possibility that somehow,

somewhere, somebody may be "wrongfully" making a few dollars off what

they think is there's. How times do you see worthless photos that

are copyrighted? This goes all the way to the top where no doubt we

have congressman (in the hip pockets of the entertainment industry)

who think it's not fair that an American can travel to their public

lands and enjoy it for free. The Nerve! How can Disney, et. al.,

compete against this? Gotta put a stop to this!

<p>

And the lawyers are partly to blame, but no more than the average

American who seems to highly value their services. And all this

propaganda about how the legal profession is essential for preserving

our freedoms is a lie. For every lawyer that is fighting for the

rights of the individual, there are ten who are working overtime for

corporatate America or the Feds trying to enslave us. Read Jerry

Spence and others if you doubt me, or better go down to the court

house, get a DUI, get hauled into court to how the system really

works.

<p>

I'd be willing to wager that this book will not make you rich, in

fact it's probably just a way for you to make the rent, not exploit

homeowners. That's the sad thing, anyone who would sue wants a piece

of the action, when in fact it's probably not going to be that much.

I have a friend who shoots for photo books and explained how little

the money is, especially when you consider that the person writing

the text receives far more, for much easier work (IMHO).

<p>

T

John - your AOL address failed. Where did you buy this wonder lens

and how much was it? Sounds like the whole line might have potential.

Just might help get the weight down to below 40 lbs.

<p>

T

I find the play time of Led Zeplin's "Stairway To Heaven" is just

about right for FP4 developed in ID11 undilluted stock. Try

"Archille's Last Stand" or the live version of "Free Bird" for HP5

with 1:1 ID11. For those dillute developers, "Alice's Resturant"

results in perfect negs every time. Paul Simon's "Kodachrome" works

for the fix step. Schmaltz pop like Brittany Spears or NSYNCH gives

poor results, ditto disco.

<p>

DC

This is really a comment, not a question. One thing to realize is that the USA market is where the BIG BUCKS are, so it shouldn't be a shock that we see high mark ups from the manufacturer's official USA distribution/marketting apparatus and it's suppoorting deealers. Additionally, price differentiation is an economic reality across all classes and types of consumer products. While I sense this Q&A forum mostly involves "starving artist" type photographers, some people out there do have LOTS of cash for gear. Keep in mind that not everyone is trying to jury-rig an 50-year-old piece of glass onto a 60 year-old-camera. Or put another way, why does Schneider USA charge $2279 (B&H markup price) for a Schneider 110mm XL? Because they (and B&H) can get it!

<p>

I also think much of the money issue boils down to priorites. While we all spend money on photography, we also spend it on other things. How many of us drop $50 on diner and a movie with a special someone, are driving expensive vehicles, live in more house/apt. than we "need," decide to create and care for babies, have nice furniture and stylish cloths, stay in hotels instead of camp out, ... etc? The answer is a lot of us. So it's not an issue of money per se, it's the priority we place on our photography vis-a-vis other areas of life.

<p>

Like for me, if it's a choice between a new Ethan Allen leather sofa, or a new lens and a sofa from the thrift store, it will be the latter every time. I'll eat Ramen noodles and even cut the beer budget to save for camera gear - it's that important!

<p>

Hope this helps!

<p>

T

I know some of you out there use color negative sheet film for landscapes. I was thinking it might be the ticket for high contrast situations or when I have to make each shot count (more lattitude than chromes) Fuji NPS seems to be popular, but what about the Kodak Portra VC 160? Or any other brands?

<p>

THe other thing I am concerned about is the reciprocity shifts during long exposures. I remember seeing the film data sheet for VPC and VHC and for multi-second exposures, it said NR, for Not Recommended.

Can you shoot today's color neg films at 2-20 seconds and still get decent color?

<p>

THX

<p>

T

It never fails when I'm using the 4x5 in a public place (which I try to avoid), someone comes up and asks, "What kind of a camera is that?"

Then if I don't want be rude, I have to give them a lenghty explanation, which sometimes has turned into a mini-workshop. So to quell the curious, I was thinking of printing up leaflets I could carry with me and hand out when I get questioned. They would explain a view camera and compare/contrast it with 35mm medium format. I'd even include a bibliography in case they wanted more info.

<p>

Has anyone ever done this? How do y'all handle the questions?

<p>

Just wondering.

<p>

T

I've been reading the response to the "What head for 4x5?" and have received some good advice on the side from some of you on this topic.

Now I'm sure the Arca Swill and Linhoffs are wonderful heads and all but a couple things have me concerned:

<p>

1) They aren't that light in weight and are designed to hold 8x10 camers on up. This seems to me like overkill if one is using a field camera weighing less that 5 lbs, kinda like buying a Mack truck for grocery shopping trips. If you're hiking or bakcpacking with the gear, the weight adds up all too quickly.

<p>

2) Also they are very expensive. For the price of some of these heads I could buy a new lense or about 350 sheets of velvia.

<p>

Isn't their a high quality, light wiehgt alternative designed for small 3x5 field cameras? Someone mentioned Kack Dykinga uses such and such brand ... well, I've seen pictures of John Fielder with his camera and I'll be darned if that Linhoff isn't sitting on what has to be a Bogen Super 3D head ( about $35), I can't imagine using this head but is stuff seems sharp. So I was wondering what else might be out there that can be recommended?

<p>

THX

<p>

T

This is a nontechnical question dealing more with the sociological aspects of LF photography.

<p>

I read this and other phot Q&A forums and am struck by the gender-biased nature of LF photography. It's not like I'm expecting to find my dream girl suddenly peering back at me through the GG, but I was wondering why so few women seem to be involved. Am I the only one who notices this?

<p>

Could it be the women are all busy loading sheetfilm holder and cleaning darkrooms while the menfolk are out shooting? Or is the equipment weight keeping them away. Or is it a cultural thing?

<p>

Just wondering.

<p>

T

THis is a comment, not an answer. While I too want to have the

sharpest lenses possible, I wonder if there isn't more to the total

photo story. Conjecture and personal expereince tells me even though

MF lenses may be sharper than LF ones (and in a lot of cases they

definately are), unless you use MF one two-dimensional subjects, or

subjects where only one area has to be sharp (maybe a protrait), the

lack of depth of field quickly compromises the sharpness edge. I've

seen near-far hassleblad and pentax images where the image isn't

sharp everywhere as it can be in LF. Using MF where you're forced to

utilize hyper focal distance focusing can result in nothing in the

picture being very sharp. Now LF seems to avoid these problems,

especially when the movements are used.

<p>

What I mean is that all things considered, the LF tends to be a

better tool for delivering quality prints than MF, regardless of

slightly inferior lenses. I'm talking about landscapes, which is all

I do; this probably isn't true for other applications.

<p>

I'd be interested in what subjects people are shooting where the MF

gives equal results for 16X20+ prints?

<p>

Also, while we all want to best equipment possible, there's a lot

more to the equation than just having sharp lenses. I see lots of

technically perfect shots taken with the best equipment, but they

lack any artistic quality, being merely what I call illustration, not

art. Seems like 99% of the effort is on getting the best equipment

and fine tuning development/printing and camera technique to

perfection, with where the camera is pointed being of a minimal

concern. If the sharpness is there and it's printed perfectly,

anyhting can be a good print/image - ridiculous, yet it's what I see

a lot of.

<p>

Todd

I'm thinking of getting a 270/300mm lense for 4x5. I was ready to settle on the G Claron but then did some checking on the Schneider web page. They say that the G Clarons are optimized for 1:1 reproduction (macro - close up work) but can be use for infinity focus if stopped down to F22+.

<p>

Does this mean the lense really doens't perform well at infinity focus as far as actually focusing sharply on a distant object and relys mainly on small aperature (F22+) depth of field to achieve sharpness? Intending to do only infinty focus work (no macro/table top) and being a stickler for sharpness, would I be better off getting a "regular" 270/300 lens, like the Nikon M or one of the Rodnestock/Scheider F5.6 lenses?

<p>

THX in advance,

<p>

Todd

Here are a few comments on the Thread Danny started on why his LF chromes are soft compared to the ones on smaller formats.

<p>

Lots of good responses, especially the ones that discussed practice rather than theory. The ideal situation where your subject exist on one plane, as in a lens test target, rarely occurs for me in my feeble attempts at landscape photography. I shot med. Format for several years and can tell you that you rarely ever shoot at f5.6, or even f8. Usually you're trying to max out DoF and using F22+ (you can't take a near-far shot w/o this if you have no movements. So I think the "ideal" resolution of med. format lenses is quickly compromised in practice (at least for my work). Of course the same is true for LF, But you have a bigger piece of film to help compensate AND the movements can make ALL the difference.

<p>

Todd

Driving down the highways in the summer on hot days one often sees a mirage against the pavement causued by the heat (never see it in winter). I was wondering if in extreme heat, there is a problem with "heat waves" softening focus? For example say you are shooting a canyon wall that is baking in the late afternoon sun (while you of course are in the shade).

<p>

A friend wants to go to Utah this July (nobody there, long days, consistent light) and I was wondering if the 100 + degree heat will cause problems with distant landscapes. Anybody have any expereince with this? Normally I go to Utah and Arizona in the spring or fall when it's much cooler.

<p>

THX

<p>

Todd

The last few Q&A forums have had discussions on groung glass/frenel screen focusing accuracy, with the comments indicating that this is a VERY tricky matter. Now I wonder about a couple of things:

<p>

1) Why haven't film holders been standardized to the point where, for cut sheet film holders at least, we'd have a uniform one-size-fits-all exact degree of tolerance in terms of how they seat in the camera? This way camera makers could make their designs more precise. We have a standard film size, standard ISO measurements, etc. From what I've read, I wonder if you can even trust the focus of a new camera straight out of the box!

<p>

2) So let's say that I'm way off base and there are legitimate reasons for the disparity of holder dimensions, my dumb question is what is the proper way to test if your focus is "on?" I ask because the camera I have came with the corners cut out of the GG (as if the corners of the picture are somehow unimportant - checking for vingetting? I don't think it's quite that simple). My idea was to replace the GG glass, but now I'm wondering if this will only cause more problems.

<p>

One test I thought of is to use my 210mm and focus it at about 2' from a newspaper hung on the wall and shoot at F5.6. If everything is sharp,my focus is OK (shouldn't be that much DoF at 5.6). Any Ideas?

<p>

THX in advance

<p>

Todd

Thanks for all of you how have given me advice in the past. It has been very helpful, e.g., I bought a Rodenstock 4X lupe after respondants advised that my 10X lupe was not the best; the 4X makes focusing much easier.

<p>

Another question: I read a lot about used lenses in this forum. Most comments relate to sharpness and generic coverage attributes. However, regarding specific coverage info, I don't see a lot. While I realize measurements of light and sharpness falloff in regards to "adequate" coverage are subjective, it would help to know if you're dealing with 200mm vs 300mm of coverage.

<p>

So when buying an older used lense for which no readily available specs exist, is there any way to get an idea of the coverage before buying?

<p>

Thx in advance.

<p>

T

I was thinking of getting a 270mm or 300mm lens for 4x5 and want to avoid the expense and weight of the F5.6 lenses. The Schnieder G-Clarons looked liked the ticket, but them I read that they are not multi-coated. Is this a concern for general landscape photography?

<p>

THX in advance

<p>

Todd

After reading past Q&As about developing B&W sheet film, I was wondering what volume of processing is required to make it cost effective vs. using a lab? Also the answers made it sound like it is VERY difficult to do it well. So I was wondering if good results could be obtained by using the same lab and adjusting your exposure techniques to their processing. Then there is the issue of commercial lab processing being compatible with optimum results for a given film (I suspect most labs use T-Max developer). Mostly I shoot B&W to test lenses and camera technique because much cheaper than E-6 films.

<p>

Todd

This may be a dumb question ... but here goes: To correct for the slight differences in color balance of chrome films, filters are often used, e.g., use an 81B to make Provia render more faithful colors. Ditto when the light is excessively blue.

<p>

If the end result is Ilfocrhome prints, is this really necessary; can't the same result be achieved in the printing process by similar filtration(This assumes you will print yourself and the color correction won't be left up to somebody else's interpretaion)?

<p>

THX

<p>

Todd

Sure using your camera as a meter will "work" so long as you know

what it's metering pattern is and adjust accordingly. I used a Canon

F-l, which has quite narrow semi-spot metering pattern, before I got

a Luna Pro SBC.

<p>

The others are correct, best to get a hand held meter, maybe a spot

meter is you're doing B&W. More precise and lighter than the Eos.

You could even get one that is also a flash meter, which could be

useful.

<p>

T

I forgot to mention that the Ries have very strudy spike feet and

also rubber tipped ones on the other end in case you're indoors. The

other nice feature about Ries (and others may be the same) is that

you simply loosen the leg lock knobs and the legs will extend

themselves via gravity, you don't have to pull them out - kinda slick.

<p>

T

I'm hardly an expert but have spent a fair amount of time shooting a

6x7 pentax form a tripod. Some important considerations:

<p>

1) If you are doing outdoor work, good metal spike feet are a must.

The midgit ones that bogen supplies don't look like they'd be worth

much. Their plastic aftermamrket ones fill me with distrust also.

You need feet that will gip solid on rock or ice.

<p>

2) IF yo are working in sandy areas like the beach, or desert area,

it really helps to have a model that you can take apart in the filed

to de-grit it occasionally. I've talked to Gitzo users who said their

tripods last about 3 years tops in S. Utah (where there's sand

EVERYWHERE). If you're in such an area, I'd avoid wood designs that

will fill with grit easily. Not only will they be sticky, but that

raspy noice of sand against wood really can get on your nerves.

<p>

I've had a Ries C100 and it has been exceptional. Very stable even

with out the Tri-lock gizmos of the J100s. THey make a backpack

model that folds smaller. It looks frail but I have yet to damage

mine, even after hauling it on some punishing hikes. I suppose if

you are very tall, and don't use a very high head, you might want to

consider something with a centerpost extension (which I think weakens

a tripod). I'm 6' 5" and use a bogen 3047 head and it's plenty tall

enough.

<p>

Good luck

<p>

T

I have decided to get back into 4x5 and am noticing how difficult it is to focu on the GG and the eye strain involved. I know that a lnese focuses on only one, and only one plane, but under the GG, I don't get the feeling of sharpness or depth of field that I did thru my 35mm and 6x7 viewfinder. I am using a cheap Peak 10X lupe and on a Zone VI (try not to laugh) field camera. A professional LF photographer told me I would have far less trouble with a 4 or 5x lupe and that it was worth getting a good one like a Schneider or Rodenstock.

<p>

Any thoughts on this from anybody.

<p>

THX

<p>

Todd

I want to get a lighter 4x5 field camera and have narrowed it down to the Wisner Expedition/Pocket Expedition or the Zone VI. I would prefer one which be easy to use with a 90mm and bag bellows. I hear raves about how pretty the Wisners are but I'm for more interested in value and how the thing takes pictures over how it looks.

<p>

Any one have any experience with the new Zone VI or the Wisners; any thoughts? Responses would be most appreciated.

<p>

THX

<p>

T

I would like to second the opinion on the limited lattitude of chrome

(slide) film like Velvia. It's nothing like shooting B&W. I shoot a

lot of chromes and can tell you that many times the film just can't

handle the brightness range of a scene. I'm constantly passing up

photos because the light isn't right for the film, 1/2 stop off and

you lose the shot. Usually the standard way to shoot chromes is to

base your exposure on the highlights, letting the shadows fall where

they may. The limitations are tolerated because the color is very

rich, much more so than that of print films (a good cibachrome print

is stunning), **AND** because the film presents an objective view of

a shot, making reporduction and printing less subjective.

<p>

You might want to try color print films which have a much wider

exposure lattitude and some have great color too. Getting the

results printed can be pot luck when it comes to color balance (like

making B&W prints, different labs will give you different looking

prints).

<p>

Good luck

<p>

T

I need to get a wide angle 4x5 lense to round out my outfit. I am considering the new Schnieder 110mm and maybe 75mm. But because of the expense, I may just get a 90mm. Lens will be used on a zone VI with bag bellows for landscapes.

<p>

I'd appreciate it if users of these focal lengths can tell me of any unique considerations/limitations invoved with them. Any complaints?

<p>

THX

<p>

T