hugh_brown

Ilfochrome is obviously regarded as archival quality photographic

paper. Is there archival quality digital paper? I know of FujiFlex.

Are there any other brands that print well of 120 film? What issues

do I need to be conscious of? Does it present comparably in terms of

appearance?

HUGH BROWN

I have just returned from a challenging week long trip in a remote

part of the Kimberley region of North Western Australia. On this

trip, I was shooting 120 Velvia in my Pentax 645N. The temperatures

were between 47 degrees and 50 degrees on most days (in other words,

the heat was intense). For those in the wrong part of the world, that

equates to WELL over the 100 degrees fahrenheit benchmark - well and

truly over that. Upon receiving my film back, approximately forty

percent of the film looked as though it had been light damaged: that

perhaps, light had gotten in to the edges of the film. The edges of

the damaged film were dark like someone had shot with their fingers

over the lense. Could that be heat damage? I have never had this

problem before with 120. Could the heat have caused the camera back

to expand and so let in light, or could the film itself have expanded

meaning that when it was wound at the end of the roll it constricted

as it cooled down meaning that the film became loose on the roll as a

result (thereby letting in light)? Would be really interested in

thoughts of those

who know about this problem or who have experienced something similar.

What strategies could be employed to circumvent this problem in high

temperatures where weight is a critical consideration on major hikes

like the one we undertook? An esky is not a viable solution (due to

the size and weight). Is it a problem for which there is no practical

answer?

HUGH BROWN

Gidday

Some four months ago, I purchased a Pentax 645N AF camera. I have

three prime lenses. I have been using manual focus as I shoot

primarily landscapes and have been using the hyperfocal markings for

the purpose of optimising depth of field. The challenge however, is

that when I look through the viewer, part of the field is blurred. I

have been ignoring that blur and taking two shots: one using the

hypeerfocal markings, and the other using the viewer as my guide. I

do not yet have a good loupe so am interested in whether I should be

trusting the hyperfocal markings or the viewer. Any assistance would

be most appreciated.

Best regards,

HUGH BROWN

Yes,

I would second that. I corresponded with them the other day and their service was excellent and prompt.

HUGH

Hello again all,

I have very much appreciated all your comments and time. I have been giving a lot of thought to this question still and have bitten the bullet and started trying to think about the answer logically and in an optical sense. Trouble is that it has been over ten years since I studied physics. Please hammer me if my hypothesis is garbage. I would appreciate disection of it to arrive at the right answer.

When light rays hit a lense that light is refracted and projected upside down onto the film. The refractive index, by memory, determines the focal length. Where the subject is some distance away (eg, one kilometre) the angle of incidence of rays coming from that subject will be less than the angle of incidence for rays coming from foreground objects. Therefore, the refracted rays of foreground objects will project much larger on the film because the angle of incidence is that much greater than the angle of incidence for distant objects. On this bais, there should be no difference between wide angle lenses for small, medium or large format so far as the degree of "perspective distortion" is concerned. Is this a remotely accurate hypothesis?

Best regards,

HUGH BROWN

Good morning again,

I just asked a question a minute ago. This is, to an extent related,

but a question to which I have not yet received a satisfactory answer

from verbal discussions with both professional and amateur

photographers. My technical knowledge is not great. Please excuse

that.

I am in the process of purchasing a medium format camera. One of the

reasons for that is that my wide angle 20 - 35 lense does not seem to

accurately capture what I see in wide landscape shots. That is,

everything is made to look significantly large in the front of the

frame, while everything in the rear of the frame looks smaller: much

smaller than what perspective should suggest. While that wide-angle

lense is good for close-up shots where you are very close to the

subject (eg, in gorges), it is not good for panoramic-type shots.

I am hoping that the medium format wide-angle (say, a 45mm lense

which, I understand, is equivalent to about a 28mm in 35mm format)

will provide a more accurate representation of the landscape

witnessed: that is, that the perspective will reflect the scene more

as the eye sees it. Is this an accurate hypothesis?

I would really appreciate any help that you can provide.

Best regards,

HUGH BROWN