jeffrey_scott

The way I understand depth of field(DOF) relative to focal legnth(FL) and aperture is that at a given aperture with a given FL the DOF is the same regardless of the film size. For example, take a 90mm lens at f16. The DOF will be the same whether the lens is a 90mm Summicron on a Leica or a 90mm Super Angulon on a 4x5 camera. What makes the apparent difference in DOF is the magnification of the final image. The 35mm negative will have to be enlarged 8x compared to only 2x for the 4x5 megative in order to make an 8x10 print from each. If you were to enlarge a 24mm x 36mm area of the 4x5 negative you will find that the DOF is the same on both of the negatives.

 

If you used f16 on a 50mm lens and then switched to a 100mm lens at the same aperture you would get 1/4th the DOF. Doubling the FL gives 1/4 the DOF just as halving the FL quadruples the DOF. All of this is irrespective of circles of confusion(COC) which is what one uses to decide what is sharp enough. At any chosen COC the relationship of DOF to aperture with any given FL stays intact.

 

So given a 50mm "normal" lens on a 35mm camera vs. a 150mm "normal" lens on a 4x5 camera, if you were at f16 on the 50mm lens you would need f45 on the 150mm lens to get the same DOF at the same magnification, assuming the two cameras were side by side photographing the same subject area. Remember, magnification is an important part of all this in order for it to make sense. The next time someone tells you that a 90mm lens for a 4x5 camera has a lot of DOF keep in mind that it is all relative to magnification of the final image.

I had the same issue with my 58XL lens. At first I ordered 67-82 step-up rings and 82mm filters but they still caused image cutoff. I finally succumbed to ordering the mildly expensive B+W EW series of filters which are designed for these XL lenses and they solved the problem. IF you were to buy a decent step-up ring and a B+W 82mm filter the cost may in fact end up being more than the EW filters alone. I had ordered the generic step-up rings from B & H Photo but they were pretty crappy, the threads bind easily and they felt like they were made of the cheapest metal around. The B+W step-up rings and the Heliopan step-up rings are very good but also very expensive. That is why it turned out that the B+W EW filters were worth the money they cost.

There is a lensboard made to accept a Copal 3 shutter for the Technikas from the IV on up from Linhof. Check the Badger website or ask Bob Salomon at HP Marketing.

Yes, but he is considering a lens for around $1000.00 (the Nikon) and he can get the Fuji 450/12 for less than that by a fair amount.

If I am not mistaken, and god knows someone will surely pipe in to correct any mistakes, the Fuji 450/12 has a bigger image circle than the Nikon 450/9.

I did just that several years ago, selling my Wista 45VX and getting a Horseman VH. For a while I was satisfied but the space and time saving versus the 4x5 was negligible at best so I went back to 4x5. The ability to shoot one sheet is an advantage along with the somewhat better image quality. Having to remove the ground glass and put it somewhere while using rollfilm backs is a nuisance. In addition the smaller lensboards of the Horseman somewhat limits your choice in lenses that can fit on them and through the opening in the front standard. The Horseman also has a rather limiting range of movements compared to most 4x5 cameras; granted you do not need as much to get the equivalent in 6x9 but the Horseman still does not have enough, ditto as to the bellows extension. Better you should keep your 4x5 camera, but then again you did not mention what 4x5 camera you are currently using.

Technically the things used to process film are called film hangers, but perhaps someone did make SS film holders!

Get the Reporter model, the Sport is too lightweight to be useful for large format use.

Well why didn't you say so in the first place, that should do it!!!

Chris,

 

Will the 210mm lens you have cover 8x10 with room for some movements? You may need to do some tilting and perhaps some rise/fall in combination with the tilts to correct perspective, meaning trying to get the head sizes from front to back to be similar in size, unless that is not important. That is why I was suggesting a different lens if that were possible. Using a 360 may not be wide enough for such a large group without enough distance between you and the group.

 

If you were in Cleveland, I know someone with a Cirkut camera, then all you would need to do is make a circle around the camera with the group and you could do a "classic" group shot!

The recessed lensboard #001016 I believe would give you more room for movement and in fact would probably move the nodal point closer to the actual pivot point of the front tilt, if I am not mistaken. Think about that, the nodal point for most lenses is actually near the center of the shutter and on a flat lens board the shutter is usually in front of the pivot for front tilt on most cameras; please correct me if I am wrong as this is only an assumption on my part.

Kelly,

 

I realize that Chris would probably need to get a scan in order to make a large print, I just do not think he was asking about # of pixels, etc. Whatever lab he goes to get the print done should know what to do as far as that goes, he just wants to know how to go about shooting the job in the first place.

 

Most likely an 8x10 neg would work best because it would have a longer tonal scale for an outdoor shot where Chris may not be able to light every person to his satisfaction. Seeing all the faces should not be a problem, my company photographed about 300 people with a Hasselblad from a balcony with the people looking up at us and it worked great for a 16x20 print; you could see the faces very well. What I think Chris may need however is a little wider lens than he has (the 360mm), perhaps a 240mm ( we used a 50mm on the Hassy with no distortion in the faces).

Kelly & Ken,

 

Where in the original question does Chris inquire about scanners and resolution and all that other drivel that has nothing to do with setting up a shot of 350 people?

I am curious Quentin, why you could not have gotten into large format with a wet darkroom? I do it every day and I too started with 35mm originally; actually I bypassed medium format and went for the brass ring and never looked back. Printing in a wet darkroom is an artform that I guess some do not feel "comfortable" with for some reason or other; do you have a safelight above your monitor so that you can bask in the isolation and quite solitude the wet darkroom provides for realizing art?

I have used many different types of grain focusers in my lab and have settled on the Microsight 25x grain focuser as being quite sharp and easy to focus with, plus they are reasonably priced to boot.

You will be amazed at how long your exposure times may get. It can easily become several minutes long, especially once you start using filters. Also, humidity can be a factor under the focusing cloth, fogging up the ground glass; not to mention the killer mosquitos that are abundant in such places. I usually find softer light to work better, as having spots of sunlight hitting branches and tree trunks can be visually distracting, Bruce Barnbaum calls this "Visual Pizza".

One thing you can do is use a water rinse between each step; this will not adversely affect any subsequent steps in the processing. I would not recommend washing the negs in the drum however, you want to make sure both sides of the film is washed fully.

Bob,

 

Will Linhof ever consider changing the backs of the 6x9 cameras to the international standard enabling the use of roll film holders other than Super Rollex holders? As much as Linhof would love to sell their very expensive RFH. A lot of folks out there who have Horseman, Graflex and other backs I am sure who would love to buy a Linhof but can't justify replacing their backs with Linhof backs.

I use the 3005 drum quite often and do not feel loading it wet makes sense since the emulsion is more vulnerable to damage while it is handled wet. I have no problem loading it; with practice it is very easy to load, easier than hangers thats for sure, but perhaps not quite as easy as "loading" a tray.

I too am a firm believer in the non-folding concept of the Ebony cameras, in my case a 45SU with asymetrical tilt and swing on the rear standard. It is a joy to use plus it has quadruple extension to enable the use of a 500mm telephoto lens. If you were to look for a camera for life and do not need to go longer than the above mentioned lens this one will go down to 38mm also with generous movements. I just got back this evening from photographing Squire's Castle at the North Chagrin Reservation in the Cleveland area and this camera with the 58mm SA XL lens is an ideal combination for architecture. Do see the Richard Sexton article on folding vs. non-folding cameras and also his article on the asymetrical movements, both on the Ebony website, and perhaps you will find the 45SU worth the price of admission!

I have been using Ethol UFG lately to process Tmax 100 in a 3010 drum and even with times as short as 3 minutes I get perfectly even results. I just make sure to put 1 liter of chemistry in no matter how many sheets are in the drum.

You haven't lived until you do what a customer of mine did years ago. He went on a backpacking trip to the Sierra Nevada mountains and shot a whole lot of holders in his 4x5. When he got home to unload the holders to give us the film for processing he found out that he never loaded them !!! Nice memories.

Pliobond cement seems to be the prefered cement at Marflex for doing bellows repairs.

Ellis,

 

How often do have to use a lot of shit doing your photography?

Eugene,

 

You are correct in what you say. I have owned or used most of the kinds of view cameras out there and every one is a compromise of some sort. However, in an e-mail to me from Julio I believe I have answered his question to his satisfaction. You're very welcome Julio.