big toys are better

Mass is the most important single component in resisting wind loads, but you obviously have to also consider the cross-section exposed to the wind, how resistant the construction materials are to deflection, and any leverage forces created by the height of the tripod. Personally, unless you are trapped in a studio and have your tripod mounted on wheels, I'd choose a heavy duty 4 section CF tripod with any of the heads you mentioned, even your current one since you aren't actually placing a heavy load on it. I generally place a heavy load (usually one of my camera bags) off the lowest part of the tripod's head so that there is a high degree of mass to dampen any vibrations or wind loads on the body and legs of the tripod, and also shield the camera as best I can when wind is an issue (covering it with a heavy dark cloth often helps to keep the bellows from buckling). Keep in mind that your new camera will have a greatly reduced cross-section for the wind to attack, so it will actually have much fewer problems. CF will also dampen vibrations better than metal, and if you are still concerned, put a thick pliable material such as a dense foam between camera and base to further dampen vibrations.

Mr. Cahn--

 

I won't dispute or criticize your suggestions and critiques (although personally I've only seen GOOD comments about the Shen-Hao from those that own them), but you should have learned from the legal problems of others that FULL DISCLOSURE of any conflicts of interests will protect both YOU and those that listen to you. You might actually have drummed up some business for yourself had you done so, but I suspect that you have instead only harmed yourself here.

 

Unfortunately for us all.

 

And my own advice for a "starter" camera is to test out a few options such as seen above, and then buy the very best choice you can afford. I'd also recommend a 5x7 field camera with 4x5 reducer back rather than 4x5 unless you are absolutely certain you'll never want to use 5x7 film or a 6x17 roll film back. Movements front and back are a godsend for serious workers, but so is light weight if you want to go far into the field with it. Lenses, filters and film holders ultimately create the actual image, so don't forget to budget for these and a quality tripod.

Ultimately it all boils down to actual coverage and what you will use it for. A 90mm or 115mm Grandagon, a 150mm G-Claron or a 180mm Symmar, is not designed for 8x10 but if you will always use it at a much closer focus than infinity (e.g. architectural closeups needing only limited movements), then the actual image circle at that focus setting may be adequate for your needs.

 

For practical use, a usable image circle of at least 325mm at f/16 seems to be the standard I see for establishing a lens as adequate for 8x10. However, many of the process style lenses like the G-Clarons have image circles that continue to grow with the aperture number, so as long as diffraction is not an issue, even the shorter G-Clarons like the 150mm may be quite useful for 8x10, especially when the focus is set much closer than infinity.

I think the answer to the last question is to decide just what it is you are looking for. The Cokin and similar filter systems are designed for using graduated filters, and I seem to recall that even B&W makes some graduated filters that can be used in the larger sliding frames.

 

On the other hand, a well planned repertoire of step-up adapters and circular filters that will cover the various lenses you own can be a much more cost effective solution for anything but the graduated filters, and if you need both, then the slider frame needs to go on last (but be careful doing so with wideangles lenses). And while I already have bits and pieces of the 3 Cokin systems for my own use, for most people having lenses with larger filter needs (100mm or less), I'd instead suggest standardizing on the brands using 4"/100mm frames since those filters seem the most widely available in both plastic and glass. However, Cokin has larger stuff as well (around 5" wide), and cinematographers often need even bigger stuff (i.e. from B&W etc), but you'll gag when you find out what these things cost.

FP-4+ may not be quite as fine grained as its predecessor, but especially in sheets is it a wonderful thing. I think I have noted before that when I want really fine grain I have other options, but the qualities of PF-4+ and Agfapan 100 make them superior in most situations, even for 35mm. I'll miss my APX sheet film when their stocks are finally depleted, but FP-4+ will do just fine when I need its capabilities.

 

Those finding that HC-110 doesn't quite cut it for fine grain at the highest dilutions might want to add back a bit of sodium sulfite to soften the grain edges and hold a bit more film speed without loosing the other advantages of dilution. And this is certainly applicable to true fine grained films like Pan-F+ and Efke 25, assuming you want a slightly softer effect in the grain pattern than what Rodinal would create. Of course, the Cookbook recommends doing the same with Rodinal, albeit with some other compromises as a consequence.

The 4x5 is the universal solution since you can still put roll film holders on it, but not larger sheet films on the 6x9. Buy a 6x9 only if roll film is going to be your primary choice, and never more than 6x9. The disadvantage to the 4x5 would be doing really short WA work on roll film, but the sheet film will definitely edge out roll film for quality.

 

Personally I'd actually look for a 5x7 (essentially same perspective as the 6x9) and it can take with little or no modification at least a 6cm x 17cm roll back and converts to 4x5 rather nicely. 5x7 B&W films are still easy to find and most of the longer 4x5 lens also work with 5x7 (usually any 180mm or longer, and many of the 90mm WA).

One thought on the highest dilutions of HC-110 to help reduce grain would be to add just a bit of sodium sulfite, much like the Cookbook suggests testing for diluted Rodinal. This would help preserve the developers, dissolve the silver grains a bit more and boost the film speed just a touch without destroying all of the good compensatory effects of high dilution.

I love FP-4+ and always have. Still my favorite all around film for all the formats I have used because it is sooooo flexible (although APX100 is right next to it in roll film and what's left of my 4x5 stocks).

 

There's no doubt in my mind that a lot of the "grain" in the posted image is due to pixel noise from enlarging a relatively low res scan. Can you do as high a resolution as you can (even if only in a small portion of the original) and then post some small clips of the more textured midtones so those can be analyzed. The bridge railing ought to be a good place for crisp details to analyze since it is static.

Shipping your expensive stuff in advance is a good idea (be sure it's well insured of course), and to ensure that you aren't challenged for having too big a camera bag when carrying it on, be sure to also check some luggage-- they REALLY hate to have to unload it. There are nice big places in First Class to store stuff if the Pilots really want.... :-)

Light drop-off is inevitable and as noted gets worse the wider the lens perspective, but its impact is also in part relative to the film and the amount of camera movement used (keepin in mind that your worst problems will ALWAYS be at infinity focus). Low contrast film and little camera movement will reduce your risks, and of course using a polarizer may well destroy the image if great care is not used.

 

It's always nice to avoid using a center filter, but if you are using Velvia or other contrasty film, and worse yet with a polarizer, you may find a filter greatly improves the final image. Or not.... :-)

Different films have different spectral sensitivities, with the Efke films being an excellent example a manufacturer having major differences in its "panchromatic" B&W films. You need to pay attention to these peculiarities when filtering your film.

 

Polarizers are universally useful (get the best you can afford-- it's especially worth it there because of its construction), but even the slight warming filters for color films can have what is arguably subtle but still useful effects on B&W films by essentially eliminating all UV and thus some of blueish atmospheric haze from the resulting image. Graduated filters like Cokin's are also very useful, whether colored or just gray in tone (but take really good care of them because they are plastic).

Another useful solution it to store the HC-110 bottle in a all metal can or glass bottle which will keep oxygen from leaching through the plastic (it does this very nicely which is why I never buy olive or other vegetable oils in plastic containers). If you have a source of pure nitrogen (I hear some of the "air" sprays are straight N2), spraying that in both before sealing would be even better, but I guarantee that a glass container around the plastic one will also help a lot. Aliquoting small volumes into equally small containers to that you have enough for several uses will also minimize exposure to the primary culprit-- oxygen. Normal air is usually about 80% Nitrogen and I seem to recall around 18% Oxygen, so keeping as much of the O2 away from the developing agent is a very good thing to do.

The more I use Rodinal for my fine grained stocks, and the more I hear about HC-110 for other things like the 200 speed films, Tri-X and HP-5+, the more I think these two liquids are just about all the film developers I'll ever need in my darkroom!

Another good use for Rodinal! Diluted at 1:100 or more and with little or no agitation, it will build up the shadows in preference to the highlights (perhaps the best instance of where this actually helps improve effective film speed) :). BTW, I believe Pan-F is a thin-emulsion film which in part explains why its reciprocity curve is rather fast and steep. Good for sharpness but not for a forgiving contrast range or exposure latitude.

One trick of oldtime portrait photographers was using orange or red filters to hide blemishes, but if that isn't an issue, a slight warming or the yellow-green ought to work well for light skins tones, and the unfiltered overexposure for dark skin tones is a good idea so that you get good detail in the skin (the amount depends on the circumstances but 1 full stop is a good starting point). However, you also need to keep these thoughts in mind when picking the clothing.

The Lee filters are 100mm if I recall correctly, so vignetting ought not be a problem for your lenses unless it is mounted too far away from the front element. That is why the question about a specialty "wide-angle" (thin) type adapter ring was asked. There are also mounting systems that hold the filter against the lens, adding a bit more coverage. Any vignetting if properly mounted may just reflect the end of the useful range of the lens.

The 6x7 version is quite common, so not so valuable. $75-$125 is probably a reasonable range.

If your 45C is to remain in a studio setting, then a heavier tripod and head will be advantageous. If you intend to lug it around, then the big Feisol is probably your most effective solution, albeit still needing a good heavy duty head on it. I use a Bogen 3057 for my LF cameras, but it may not be available anymore.

I think that one important point I'm hearing but isn't being well articulated is that great digital printing, especially for the larger prints, still finds a basis in good film, proper processing and high quality scanning of the original image, then to be printed in a high quality manner as well.

 

I love digital cameras and they can do most of what a 35mm film can do, but they still can't compare to larger film, especially for B&W.

 

And I can generally see the differences between the traditional gloss/semi-gloss silver gelatin print and a digital print, but matte prints and some of the older techniques are quite similar to high quality digital inkjet prints. With few exceptions, I think the inkjets are going to win out, and I sure hope that Cibachrome and high quality silver gelatin papers will survive.

Unless you don't ever want to work outside, buy a 5x7 field camera with 4x5 adapter back. 5x7 is a lovely format much like 35mm images but obviously holding the LF benefits, while 4x5 is the size that most specialty stuff like Polaroid and roll film holders are designed to work with. Field cameras are quite versatile, and a decent 4x5 rail camera is easy enough to add to the stable should you need it for architectural or product photography. If you ever decide you want to shoot on still bigger film, then 8x10 and ULF awaits you.

Ebony makes a very nice 6x9 view camera. While less expensive than the larger sheet film units, it is still quite costly, but it seems to be an ideal choice if you want to only use roll film backs and still have all the movements. I've run into one of these cameras in use out in the countryside of Maine, and its owner was quite pleased with the 6x9 and seldom used his larger sheet film cameras. In particular, very portable.

FWIW-- the Mamiya 6x7 SLRs (at least the RB67 series) had movement in the front standard to provide some additional DOF with all of the lenses though most useful with wide-angles. Specialized "Tilt&Shift" lenses for both MF and 35mm are available to do much more that the RB67, making their cameras somewhat comparable to view cameras with their movements. View cameras, especially rail systems, greatly increase these capabilities by allowing movements at both the front and rear standard, as well as a broader selection of lenses with which to control perspective. But the cost of this is a slow deliberative process, definitely not what you would have using Canon's wide-angle, normal and short telephoto T/S offerings for its 35mm SLRs.

Try this for Da Yi:

 

www.focus-dayi.com

Agreed. I find that mine doesn't cover quite as well as I'd like even at f/45 which I use with 5x7 with the focus racked out a bit. Your 4x10 would surely suffer more, but would be fine with the 210mm version. Pay attention to any focus shifts if you try.

FP-4+ is one of the finest films of all time, and worthy of your finest efforts. I've always preferred it to Plus-X although Verichrome Pan in sheets was reputed to be advantageous for those using the Zone System. FP-4+ is generally available in most film formats including some ULF sheet sizes, but it is definitely a favorite of mine for 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. My only other real serious interest is in the 25 speed Efke for sheets and rolls although I now am trying some of Freestyle's cheaper EDU sheet films for 8x10 (while they are still available). However, if you are shooting roll formats, I also very much like Pan-F+ and Agfapan 100, both with Rodinal as developer, although the Efke films are cheaper.

 

My advice is stick with the FP-4+ and not a lesser derivative.