erie_patsellis

<p>Tim,<br>

I would disagree about the quality issue, as a long time (20+ years) user of LF film, I recently purchased a Dicomed Field Pro scan back (early version of the Betterlight) for a project. On the few jobs I have shot so far, the dynamic range and detail far exceed film's capabilities. Many of the multi exposure effects that I would agonize over until I had film on the light box are practically fun again.</p>

<p>The dynamic range captured is far more than any chrome can capture, and while for repro work you typically only aim for 4-5 stops max, you can choose which 4 or 5 stops to hold (and variations) post capture.</p>

<p>While I am still firmly in the film camp for my personal work, as well as some commercial work, quality is an imprecise metric, for my work, I find LF digital far superior</p>

<p>Kelly, we must be the only people left with some of those antique prepress tools.</p>

<p>Am I just not seeing the $3 a sheet 8x10 color film? all I see is ~$100 for 10 sheets.</p>

<p>You really won't see much difference. The sequence was Original (non C), C lenses, KL lenses. In general contrast improves and resistance to flare increases. The 50 and 65 lenses do show some improvement, though if you can get one cheap enough the non C versions are more than adequate. I have been using C lenses (all but the 250 and 360, which are non c), for nearly a decade and have little want for anything better, they already outresolve my film and Dicomed scan back (6k x 6k)</p>

<p>It's not really 120 size, though many think that because it was popular on MF cameras, the film size is actually 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 and isn't all that much smaller than 4x5 in reality.</p>

<p>Your best bet would be fuji pack film (3 1/4 x4 1/4), cheap as can be, and readily available from nearly any Fuji retailer. I wouldn't place too much weight on what the Calumet guy said, opinions are like, well never mind, you get the idea.</p>

<p>Of course, if you have more than one or two, you may find it easier to light it properly and capture the image as desired, rather than "fix it in post".</p>

<p>Gerry, you really should be shot for that, 25 min from Jim's posting time to you jumping on then.</p>

<p>I just missed PM'ing Jim about those. Should you decide to sell them, I'd be interested in a body, wlf, back and the 50mm.</p>

<p>erie</p>

<p>It looks to me more like a CRT projection lens. Does it have any other markings?</p>

<p>I have two 21 1/4" Process Ektars, actually one is a plain Ektar, the other coated by B&J many years ago, both cover at least 16x20 with more movements than I can manage. Reportedly they cover 20x24 with ease.</p>

<p>good and cheap would be a Umax Powerlook III or any of the Powerlook family, with the transparency lid. I've used mine for years and it just works and works.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think you will be unable to source lenses with those apertures, quite frankly you are going to be so diffraction limited that it will become an excercise in frustration if any level of sharpness is required. I would reccommend you head over to Edmund Optic's website, as well as finding a few other optical suppliers and looking at coated achromats, you should be able to find a 125mm f.l. easily enough, the others may be more difficult.</p>

<p>At the least, ideally we need to know sensel pitch, expected final image size, magnification, etc. There are numerous lenses available that could meet your needs, but without knowing what lens resolution is required, ideal aperture, etc. we're just shooting in the dark.</p>

<p>My experience, as echoed in the second linked thread above, is that while there may be a "slight" difference, for my work I've never seen the benefit.<br>

I shoot both b&w and C41 flims, in a variety of settings from studio to location, portraiture to fine art landscape and, when properly shaded, a C or even most non C lenses are every bit the equal of my Hasselblad lenses. I've been using RB's going back over 25 years and not once have I (or a client) ever been disappointed by the image quality. The single biggest difference I have seen is in contrast, but properly shading a lens reduces the difference to negligible.<br>

If you're one of those photographers who must have the latest and greatest, or absolutely sharpest lens, by all means buy them, it's your money. In my opinion, for the price difference, I doubt the cost/benefit ratio justifies it, much like the Hassy C/CF lens lines. Many pros (myself included) continue to earn a living with the old, obsolete C lenses, I actually prefer the slightly lower contrast rendering that the older lenses gives you, for both analog b&w and digital color, it's a simple adjustment to increase contrast, all the while still retaining detail in deep shadows. I prefer to look at them as tools, much as a carpenter views a hammer, though in this case you might actually be able to use an RB as a hammer if needed.</p>

<p>besides needing more pressure, the throw is quite a bit longer on a DB shutter cable, ~30mm if I remember. My guess is that it doesn't fire the back until you've depressed the plunger all the way, and you won't be able to with a standard shutter.</p>

<p>well, you could look up the forumula, or the description on the Photographer's Formulary website.</p>

<p>If you have some Tech Pan, I have at least 3 pkgs of TD-3 sitting here.</p>

<p>erie</p>

<p>Hardware requirements are os9 and scsi. I've used my 4x5 studio kit on laptops on location as well as a dedicated G4 in the studio. Scsi adapters range from the built in scsi on a wallstreet to a PCMCIA Power Domain and Adaptec and ATTO Mac PCI cards. As long as OS9 supports it, it will work fine. Filters are TG1 for tungsten and AR1 for daylight, without the filters, you would need a hot mirror filter and about cc30 cyan for tungsten, just the hot mirror for daylight will get you in the ballpark. Besides the filters, make absolutely certain a power supply comes with it, while it's easy to fabricate the SCSI/power 37 pin cable, if you aren't comfortable with high quality soldering and electronic fab, best to not attempt.</p>

<p> The resolution of a scanback is deceiving, while the 4x5 Studio kit is only 9mp, due to the lack of an AA and Bayer pattern filter, uprezzing 2-3x is extremely workable and indistinguisable from a DLSR image from an image quality standpoint. I recently bought a Dicomed FieldPro (6000x7250) and will be looking to sell my PhaseOne at some point. If you have the right subject (still life, product work), adequate quantities of light (think multiKW tungsten or 400W HMI), they are capable of absolutely stunning image quality.</p>

<p>I agree with Michael (and well I should, I convinced him to look at the Kodak). As a working commercial/product shooter, there's some subjects that won't work with my scan back and Sinar. For those I use the SLR/N tethered.<br>

If you're not used to shooting (and metering for) chromes, or have the patience to learn how to properly expose, you'd do better to pass. With good lighting and exposure technique the Kodak will shine brightly, for those who are complacent, or would rather not learn (or relearn), it will bite you over and over.</p>

<p>The flag issue, IMHO, is overstated. If you're willing to spend 2 or 3 mins per lens you can easily overcome this with nothing more than a gray card and/or a piece of white card to find the proper lens correction adjustment.<br>

Granted, you can't meter with MF lenses, but it's not that big of an issue for the camera's target audience (studio and landscape shooters).</p>

<p>Vacuuming holders with a good vacuum that won't throw dust back in the air, making sure to get every nook and cranny, as well as pulling air through the light trap, wiping down the holder and darkslide with an antistatic dryer sheet and bagging holders has worked well for me.</p>

<p>I'd suggest two books, first, an earlier edition (unless you want more emphasis on the digital stuff) of Wildi's "The Hasselblad Manual" and second Nardin's "The Hasselblad System Compendium". Between those two, you will see what's been available, and what is suggested. Both can be had on Amazon for ~$10 each, IIRC. I have Wildi's second edition, works fine for the older 500 and 200 series cameras.</p>

<p>To do an EI determination properly, you need to use a densitometer to determine the proper exposure for a zone I exposure density of .1 over Film Base + Fog. So to properly determine EI you really need a transmission densitometer. Additionally, you determine your contrast index (CI) by varying development. Typical ideal CI is 1.2 for diffusion enlargers, and ~1.0 or so for condensor (From memory) Best bet would be to buy Ansel Adams series of 3 books and spend some time reading.<br>

My EI will be meaningless to anybody else, unless I expose and develop their film. The determination of EI accounts for metering differences, exposure and development variations.<br>

Depending on what film I'm using, I tend to place my shadows on Zone IV instead of III, as the newer films have a long, straight response curve (Tmax has an especially long straight line). Doing this lets you decide where your black point will be when printing, allowing you more flexibility to interpret the negative.</p>

<p>replenisher is great for massive pushes, however. I keep a bottle on hand just in case.</p>

<p>also check out inside analog photo radio podcasts and website, lots of good filmshooters there.</p>

<p> No disagreement about the resolution, it can work for some subjects and is horrid for others.</p>

<p>50mm, maybe. How critical is corner sharpness? since the RB is really an 8x8 camera, the 50 should cover 6x9. <br>

Honestly, with movements my need for really wide lenses is far less, I don't think I've used my 50 or 65 in several months. Lenses from 90mm+ cover 4x5 with a little wiggle room.</p>