nick_rowan

Sal,

Thanks for that useful info.

If you get this post, I have another question to ask (or anybody else can chime in too): do you know if, in general, shorter focal length lenses render a higher number of lines of resolution per millimeter than longer focal length lenses?

I was doing some research on the Ektar lens today and found on the website www.hevanet.com/cperez/cameras/ektar_list.html resolution figures for 4 Ektar lenses, ranging from 80mm to 207mm, all of which had significantly higher resolution figures than the ones Kelly Flanigan cited for the Fuji 450C. For example, the 207mm Kodak Ektar f/7.7 is quoted as having at f/16 and f/22 60/60/54 lines per mm (center/middle/edge). Kelly cites the Fuji 450C as having "only" 48/48/34 at f/16 and f/22. I would have thought just the opposite would be the case, given all that I have been told about lens performance getting "better" in the last 30 or 40 years. Or is the large difference in lines/mm between these two lenses attributable merely to the difference in focal lengths? I mean Kelly does mention after citing her numbers that they would indicate that the Fuji 450C is "as sharp as anything testing in this length", suggesting that focal length is possibly an extenuating factor with regard to resolution figures in general. If it's NOT a factor, then I am going to stop believing what people tell me about contemporary glass, and consider getting an Ektar!

I'm sorry if I may be dwelling all too heavily on lines/mm figures as criteria for evaluating lenses, but unfortunately I am one of those for whom interpreting MTF graphs is still an impossibility.

Anything you (or anybody else) could add to this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Jim,

Sorry, I neglected to answer your question.

I am currently using 8X10 Tri-X, and will try HP5+ as well.

I preferred the Tri-X to "t-grain" Ilford Delta 100, in terms of edge-effect, overall apparent sharpness, and tonality.

Kelly,

Can you please tell me where you got the lines-per-mm resolution figures for the Fuji 450C? (Do you also have it for apertures f/45 and f/64 on the Fuji 450C?)

Also, do you have such figures for the Rodenstock Sironar S lens line--as well as other Fuji lenses, such as the 300C and possibly its Plasmat line?

What a rapid, easy, and concise way of comparing "sharpness" of lenses! Just the kind of shorthand method (albeit admittedly incomplete by itself alone) I am looking for.

Jim,

You seem to be advocating the Fuji 450 dialyte quite strongly. In your first reply you wrote that "the 450 dialyte should be stunning on 8X10"; in your second reply you wrote that "I think I would take a hard look at the dialyte types. That Fujinon may be very hard to beat."

I am very apt to believe you. I too was "stunned" by the Fujinon 450C when I tried it recently on 8X10; it was extremely sharp and brilliant. I almost preferred it to the Sironar S design or "look".

But can you elaborate on why you think that it--the dialyte in general, as well as the Fuji dialyte specifically--might be as good as you say it is and as good as I think it is, especially how it MIGHT be BETTER than the Plasmat for my purposes, 8X10 portraits, enlarged 12x?

For one thing, I am shooting with an 8X10 Deardorff--and do not want to use a 480mm Plasmat if I can help it. I think it's simply too large and heavy for that type of camera. I DO want to employ slight front tilt to increase depth of field, and it's harder to work the front with such a large and heavy lens. I have tried 3 different focal lengths of Schneider Artar: 305mm, 360mm, and 480mm--and feel that while they are all sharp, I am somewhat disturbed by what I feel is their apparent shallowness of--or "differently apportioned"--depth of field, due, I can only conclude, to their being flat-field lenses--but I am not completely sure about that yet. To be sure, I have had two large format lens specialists echo my sentiment. The Fuji 450C seemed to have greater depth of field FROM FRONT TO BACK, as opposed to from side to side. Contrary to many portrait photographers, I like capacious depth of field, at least in the photos I am currently making.

Secondly, in addition to its shallower depth of field, I felt the 360mm was not quite long enough for my tastes, and that the 480mm was perhaps too long--so I think ideally I would like a 450mm or 420mm focal length. It matches more closely the 210mm focal length, my favorite portrait length, in 4x5. I am going to try a 420mm Apo-Ronar soon, but have some trepidations that it might yield the same shortage of front-to-back depth of field as the Artar. (By the way, I also felt the Artar was too "smooth" and "refined" looking, in spite of its blazingly sharp rendering of detail, but that's another issue entirely...) That leaves only the Fuji 450C--or Nikon 450M-- in terms of contemporary multi-coated lenses, as the only other possibility, at least as much as I am aware. The only downside to the Fuji, however, is that it is a f/12.5 lens, making it somewhat difficult to focus--at least quickly and easily--which is what I need to do in a portrait situation, although I often have my subjects planted in a stationery position.

Finally, I agree wholeheartedly that grain--and to some extent, shortfalls in sharpness--"disappears" at normal viewing distances of prints the size I am making. But I still would like the prints to be as sharp as possible; I do see differences, even at such long viewing distances--although they are admittedly smaller, less noticeable than viewing smaller, "regular" lap-size prints, for instance, one or two feet away.

Thanks to all who have responded so far.

I apologize for misidentifying the Fujinon 450C--and Rodenstock Geronar too--as

a Tessar design; I was only going on information supplied to me by a major photo

retailer for the Fuji design, and perhaps another post on this website for the

Geronar one--as both being Tessar.

Be that as it may, the crux of my question really was whether the Plasmat

design represented the "pinnacle" in current large-format lens designs, or

whether other designs--such as whatever the Fujinon 450C is (which I now learn

from your contributions is a "dialyte" or some such variation thereof), or other

"similar" designs, such as the Tessar--would perform just as well as the

Plasmat, under all the ways by which lenses are scientifically evaluated and

judged--such as sharpness, resolution, MTF curves, contrast, tonal sensitivity,

etc--understanding, of course, that such "scientific" forms of measurement are

ultimately subjective, in that they must meet up with personal or aesthetic

preferences. Sharpness/resolution/edge sharpness--however you want to

"define" it--was the spec. I was most interested in ascertaining, as I will be

making approx 12x mural prints from an 8x10 b/w negative. It sounds from

your replies that the Plasmat design is NOT necessarily "the best" lens in terms

of sharpness and overall image quality, but only that it has a larger circle of

coverage than most other lenses in its class--and that, for instance, therefore

that the Fujinon 450C and 300C, or Nikon 450M and 300M by comparison--would

yield pictures just as "good" or sharp under all the relevant criteria.

For those who use or prefer older (Tessar-design) lenses, such as the Ektar or

Apo-Lanthar (if that's its correct design identification), or any OTHER smaller (4

or 3-element) design of lens, would you maintain that these lenses too are just

as sharp as a CONTEMPORARY Plasmat, such as the Rodenstock Sironar S or

Schneider Apo-Symmar?

Or has large-format lens sharpness INCREASED/IMPROVED in the last 50, 40, 30

years?

Thank you.

I am interested in finding the highest quality lens within a focal length range

of 360mm to 480mm to shoot b/w portraits in an 8x10 format, as I hope to

make mural size enlargements (12x) from the negatives. For several years I

have been using Rodenstock Sironar S lenses (210mm mainly), which is a

PLASMAT design, to shoot 4x5 b/w portraits (making 24x enlargements), but

recently I tried out a Fuji 450C, which if I'm not mistaken, is a TESSAR design,

and felt there was a very different "feel" to the whole way space and volume

were conveyed, compared to the Plasmat-design Sironar.

My question is this: is the Tessar design inherently capable of making just as

high quality photographs as the Plasmat design? By "quality" I mean superior

sharpness, resolution, depth, luminosity, tonal gradation, and whatever other

categories photographic lenses are scientifically measured and judged by. Or is

the symmetrical Plasmat design considered to be the more "advanced" level in

the historical evolution of photograhic lens design?

I am aware of other current Tessar-design lenses, such as Schneider's Xenar

and Rodenstock's Geronar--but was under the impression (perhaps erroneously),

that although these are considered "good" lenses, they wouldn't be the best or

optimal choice for the most exacting requirements (Bob Salomon at Rodenstock,

for instance, has characterized their Geronar lens to me as a "student

lens")--especially in the case, for instance, where high degrees of enlargement

are involved, such as 12x or 24 in my situation. Am I right about that? Or would

the Fuji 450C or 300C, both "compact" designs, (or Nikon 450M or 300M for that

matter) deliver just as good results, used as a portrait lens in a studio setting,

at a 12x degree of enlargement, as say a Sironar S or Schneider Apo-Symmar

360mm or 300mm?

Thank you.

Thanks to all you responded, especially to Bob Salomon. I have a few follow-up

questions to what you, Bob, have written.

You wrote that the Apo-Ronar lens "not designed for 3 dimensional scenes from

1:5 to infinity and will not perform as well (as a Sironar S lens) for that

purpose".

Can you please explain to me in more detail EXACTLY HOW the Apo-Ronar will NOT

perform as well as the Sironar when being used to photograph 3-dimensional

objects? I mean, how will its "deficiency" under these shooting conditions be

borne out? Will the pictures be less sharp for instance? Aross the entire frame

or just at the edges? Poorer resolution? Will the performance of an Apo-Ronar

also really be NOTICEABLY poorer at say f/32 and f/45 than at f/22 as you

insist? And finally and most importantly, will the pictures of 3-d objects taken

with an Apo-Ronar and a Sironar LOOK DIFFERENT, look less "three-dimensional"

and "flatter" with the "flat field" lens than with the general purpose Plasmat

design, such that say portraits taken with a flat-field lens will look "bad" or

"strange", or "wrong" etc? Less depth of field? Please and describe and

characterize exactly how this above difference would be manifested

photographically?

I only ask this because for the longest time I have been unsatisfied with the

sharpness of my Sironar S and N lenses when used to photograph people

half-figure at relatively close distances of about 4 or feet away. For some time

I have entertained the possibility that a process lens, which is designed to excell

and be sharper at close distances than say a Sironar, might provide greater

sharpness. I shoot exclusively black-and-white 4x5 and 8x10 negative film, and

am making 24x enlargements from the 4x5 (and to a lesser extent, 12x ones

from the 8x10), so I need all the sharpness I can possibly extract, particulary

from the 4x5.

Alot of people have told me that they use the Apo-Ronar for shooting

infinity-based subjects in the field, such as for landscapes. In fact your own

Rodenstock literature of not more than 5 years ago (the copy of which

unfortunately I do not have before me at the moment, but which I will get)

exlicitly states in its description of the Apo-Ronar that this lens may outperform

a telephoto design in the field or something to that effect, suggesting that

Rodenstock itself considers the Apo-Ronar a lens suitable for phtographing

3-dimensional objects in the field.

I have also had people tell me that the Apo-Artar will be "too sharp" for

photographing people, turning them into "medical textbook examples", implying

that the Artar lens would be THE SHARPEST lens, even at portrait setting

shooting distances, and thus even sharper than say a Sironar S.

For that reason I now have in my possession several "late vintage" Schneider

Apo-Artar lenses, bought to hopefully achieve such superior effects. But none

of them are multi-coated, and I am partial to multi-coating for its greater

contrast and "punch" than single-coating (contrary to what some might say, I DO

see a difference between the two, between pictures taken with single and

multicoated lenses, even though sometimes the difference is slight), and hence,

that is why I was inquiring about the Apo-Ronar, which in its late stages of

production was multicoated.

Your reply to any or all of this would be most appreciated.

Thanks.

Does anyone know if Rodenstock ever made a "regular" non-DB Apo-Ronar lens in

a focal length of 420mm MULTICOATED?

Also does anyone know exactly how many years or which years Rodenstock made

its Apo-Ronar lenses with MULTICOATING?

I have already called Bob Solomon at Rodenstock and he didn't know.

Thanks.

Nick Rowan

Nick Rowan

michael, doug, and oren: forget my followup questions--i've figured

this out

Michael, Doug, and Oren,

<p>

Thank you all for replying.

<p>

I have a few more questions, if you have the time or are able to

answer:

<p>

1. Is amberlith ok to use instead of rubylith? The art supply store I

went to only carries amberlith. (I could see through the amberlith, but

maybe that's ok.)

<p>

2. Are both rubylith and amberlith LIGHTPROOF when placed on top of

a) variable contrast paper (in my case, Agfa)

and

b) exposed to the light of an Aristo cold head (for a 5-15 sec

exposure)

c) or do I have to use a regular household lightbulb (with say a

condenser enlarger)

<p>

3. The amberlith I looked at had one dark (orange) layer and one--what

appeared to be--"clear" layer beneath. When cutting out the mask,

should I cut all the way through both layers--or leave the "clear"

layer uncut, to have the light shine through that layer? If I leave

this "clear" layer uncut, will it diffuse the print in any way?

<p>

4. I know this sounds stupid, but should I place the mask of amberlith

or rubylith ABOVE or BELOW the sheet of glass? I would assume it

should be placed BELOW the glass. And if it is placed BELOW the glass,

should it be placed between the glass and the negative or between the

negative and the printing paper?

<p>

5. The amberlith I looked at was pretty thin and limp. What if I cut

out a frame of amberlith and mount that on top of a frame cut from a

piece of 8 x 10 photographic film, to provide a little more stiffness

and rigidity? Or what if I cut a piece of rubylith tape and mount that

to a frame cut from a piece of 8 x 10 photographic film?

I realize the relative paltriness of such questions at this hour, but:

<p>

Can someone please tell me the simplest way I can go about making 8x10 contact prints that will have about a one-quarter inch white border on all four sides--using a plate of glass to place on top of the negative and paper, and an enlarger as light source? The part I can't figure out is what to use to create the quarter-inch white border between the edge of the image and the edge of the paper, simply, quickly, accurately from one print to the next.

<p>

I have tried the Zone VI 8x10 contact print frame (ZN 7028) and there seems to be way too much play inside the frame to get accurate and easy borders from print to print. (In fact, I fail to see how evenly bordered prints can be made at all using this frame--at least quickly, easily, and consistently.)

<p>

I have tried using an 11x14 Saunders adjustable-blade enlarging easel and placing the 8x10 negative on top of an 8x10 sheet of printing paper and inserting both into the groove (where just printing paper normally is inserted for making enlargements) and then placing the 4 blades on top of the negative-paper sandwich and then placing a sheet of glass on top of the blades, but I don't think there is enough pressure coming down from the glass through the metal blades onto the negative and paper to create an optimally sharp print, as the blades are essentially preventing adequate impact from occuring between the layers.

I would like to convert an 8x10 camera to an 8x10 enlarger to make roughly 12x bw mural prints. For awhile, I had planned on using a cold-head (Aristo) as light source, but now I'm not so sure that is the way to go afterall. I want the 12x enlargements to be as sharp, crisp, and vivid as possible. Will I be able to achieve those characteristics with a cold-head, at that printing and resultant viewing distance, and size of magnification? I realize that a cold-head does distribute light evenly, decrease the chance of hotspots and the tonal polarization of "soot and chalk", and (at the risk of inciting controversy) perhaps lead to the likelihood of a "higher-quality" print, but will I be sacrificing crispness and possibly sharpness with a diffused light source such as a cold-head? Are the considerations of mural-printing different than those of smaller size printing, such that a condenser light-source is thought to be the standard or more sensible choice when it comes to making prints that size? Then again, if a condenser head would be better, is it even possible to mount condensers to the rear of a CONVERTED 8x10 HORIZONTAL camera-enlarger? Or is a condenser light source really only possible or practical in the context of a VERTICAL design enlarger--either by pivoting the head, when printing horizontally, as in the case of the Durst, or bouncing the light with a mirror, as in the case of the Omega? I also have heard that the heat from a 300 (and especially higher) watt bulb can be great, and requires forced ventilation (which may introduce complications), as well as causing the negative to possibly buckle during long exposures.

<p>

Who out there has made bw mural prints with an 8 x 10 enlarger--and especially a converted horizontal one--and if so, what type of light source did you use and which would you recommend?

<p>

Note: I am already well aware of Ansel Adams' exlanation of his 11x14 camera-enlarger conversion in his book The Print, so please don't just refer me to that. I am also aware of several major vertical-design 8x10 enlargers, and am more interested in this question as it relates to HORIZONTAL 8x10 enlargers, and especially to homebuilt or converted ones.

<p>

Thank you.

Correction: Tmax 100 11x14 69 box minimum, in 10 sheets per box, not 25

sheets per box

Thanks for everyone's input. I am getting the distinct feeling from

most of the replies--and from James Mickelson's in particular as well

as another person's off-site--that what I have contemplated may be

tantamount to trying to travel beyond the sound barrier, that 8x10 may

represent the outermost boundary of formats to stand enlargement, and

that I am asking for far too much trouble and headache by pondering the

prospect of going beyond that to enlarging 11 x 14. So be it--I was

just fishing around for possiblities as to how I might be able to

create the best large-scale b/w mural print as would be humanly

possible using traditional technology, and thought that possibly

increasing the negative size from 8x10 to 11x14 might provide that

palpable difference. But maybe, as Pete Andrews points out, the

difference in formats is not that great--and maybe that difference

would be even further contracted by shooting the 8x10 with T-grain

film, an interest and factor which I forgot to mention, incidentally,

in my original question. T-grain film, in 11x14 format as far I know--

after just speaking at length with Ilford and Kodak--is for all

practical intents and purposes, not feasibly available; Kodak makes T-

Max100 in 11x14, but it's available for purchase in bulk quantities of

a minimum of 69 boxes of 25 sheets each only. And maybe 8x10 in Delta

100 or T-Max 100 would equal the sharpness, resolution, and vividness

of 11 x 14 in a conventional 125 ASA or 400 ASA film anyway. In

addition to sharpness, I also would like the pictures to have a deep

focus or alot of depth of field with a normal or slightly-greater-than-

normal focal-length lens, and it sounds like that would simply be

patently impossible in the 11x14 format, about which David Goldfarb

says afterall that "short depth of field is just part of the idiom".

<p>

Not to base things only on what OTHERS have done, but I recently made a

list of all the "famous" or "name" large-format photographers of this

and the most recent (20th) century whose work I was aware of, and came

up with about 40 photographers who shot in 8x10--and only THREE who

shot in 11 x 14. It seems that, historically speaking, or at least

post-19th century, that most fine-art photographers viewed 8x10 as the

"top of the mountain", beyond which they did not consider venturing, at

least in earnest.

I am currently considering the possibility of moving from 8 x 10 to 11 x 14, with the interest in making not just contact prints but also mural enlargements by converting an 11 x 14 camera into a horizontal enlarger. Has anyone out there done this, enlarged 11 x 14 negatives, either by using a converted camera as 11 x 14 enlarger or by using an 11 x 14 enlarger readymade? If so, how difficult did you find it to convert a camera as such, and how difficult did you find it to make enlargements from 11 x 14 negatives in general, whichever of the two methods you chose? Basically speaking, I am wondering how much I would stand to gain, in terms of sharpness, resolution, vividness, etc., by moving from making 12x enlargements with 8x10 to making roughly 9x enlargements with 11 x 14.

<p>

I am also wondering how much more difficult it will be to photograph (subjects will be people mostly) with the 11 x 14 camera vs. an 8 x 10 camera.

<p>

Thank you.

Lyle,

<p>

Thank you very much for your extensive reply. It really helped me

better understand what may have happened. Despite the arrogant and

condescending calumny of Pete Andrews's response, I was NOT aware that

one mirror could wreak such acutance havoc across an entire picture

field. To be sure, I am still having trouble coming to grips with the

notion that a whole picture could become bathed in a kind of

maddeningly subtle blurriness--across whole AREAS (such as a person's

face) and NOT JUST ALONG EDGES, especially edges NOT directly facing or

adjacent to the mirror-- and in places within the picture where I

wouldn't have expected the mirror to have been able to bounce light TO.

I mean the subject in my photograph was laying with her back, afterall,

on top of the mirror and her head facing up to the camera, so, for

example I don't quite know how the center of her face (her nose, for

instance) could receive reflection from this perspective and

subsequently become blurred, but maybe the refracted light rays somehow

reached there... And as I just mentioned, all of this didn't just

amount to a breakdown of sharpness along edges, but across areas too...

Maybe the fact that these "areas" acted like different "geometric

planes" within the picture with respect to the light source and mirror,

that they in turn ended up reflecting or receiving reflected light in

the way that the edges did too...

<p>

Lyle, do you think that if I put a polarizing filter over the lens that

all of this VERY VERY SUBTLE GHOSTING and DOUBLENESS of LIGHT would be

eliminated COMPLETELY? I absolutely need for these pictures to be

razor sharp, as they will need to stand enlargement by a large factor,

from a 4 x 5 negative to mural size.

<p>

Also, is it possible to purchase SINGLE-coated mirrors in very large

sizes (4 ft x 5 ft), and if so, would that then cut down or completely

eliminate edge/area blurriness? Or would the reflection from just one

layer of mirror coating still wreak sharpness havoc?

I recently tried to photograph a person half-figure laying on top of a LARGE (4ft x 5 ft) mirror using a 4 x 5 camera, 210 Sironar S lens, and one 2040 Dynalite strobe head (undiffused, with reflector) as light source about 4 feet from subject, at a 45-degree angle in relation to camera, pointed down onto the person and mirror and experienced what I can only term a MAJOR ACUTANCE BREAKDOWN throughout the picture-- in other words, a major loss in edge sharpness or "ghosting" along the entire length of the frame surrounding the mirror, as well as along the edges of various objects that I had placed next to and around the mirror, which made the whole picture look as if there had been either camera or enlarger-shake during the shooting or printing, both of which did not occur.

<p>

Does anyone know if it is possible for light reflected/refracted from a mirror (or any other highly reflective surface for that matter) back into (and around, possibly) a camera lens, to cause such a loss of sharpness of various objects in various, discrete areas throughout a picture?

<p>

The whole photograph (8x10 print enlarged 2x from 4x5 BW neg) in fact looked REALLY REALLY BAD: mushy, "aqueous", maddeningly unsharp in various places throughout the frame; some parts were normal looking and sharp while other parts were fuzzy; there were fuzzy areas within sharp areas and sharp pockets next to fuzzy edges... Even the subject's face looked fuzzy--as if she had moved slightly during the exposure, which she hadn't...

<p>

I have racked my brain, wondering if such effects could have been caused by any other factor (including the lens, the camera, the film, the holder, the film processing, etc., etc. etc), but seem to have eliminated all variables, and yet I find it a little hard to believe that reflected light could cause such a degradation of sharpness.

<p>

Is this really possible?

<p>

Has anyone else ever encountered this in your picture-taking?

<p>

If so, is there any way to still take this type of a picture without incurring such a loss in sharpness? Dulling the mirror? Dulling the light?

<p>

Thank you.

Has anyone ever compared Rodenstock's Apo-Ronar MC with its Sironar S or N?

<p>

I am contemplating the purchase of a 300mm, 360mm, or 480mm lens for 8 x10 portraiture relatively close up (half-figure), and am wondering if there would be a difference in sharpness, contrast, resolution, overall picture quality, as well as aesthetic "look" between these two admittedly dissimliar lens types.

<p>

The Sironar S is Rodenstock's top-of-the-line general use lens, reputed to be among its sharpest, while the Apo-Ronar, a "process lens", is advertised as "world famous for extreme sharpness", particularly at 1:1.

<p>

Bob Solomon of HP Marketing has told me that the Apo-Ronar was never designed to render properly the volume and space of three-dimensional objects such as a human being--and is thus not the right lens for portraiture. Moreover, he maintains that, in spite of the process lens excelling at close shooting distances, at ratios of 1:4 or 1:5 (one-quarter or one-fifth life size, my taking ratio) the Sironar S will still outperform the Apo-Ronar on all counts, most notably in terms of sharpness.

<p>

Do you agree? Any thoughts?

Are there ANY differences whatsoever--in terms of either optical quality or specifications--between barrel lenses and the "same" lens that is sold by the manufacturer ready-made in a shutter?

<p>

Is there any risk in having a shutter added to a barrel lens--such as scratching the lens during the changeover "operation", winding up with a less-than-perfect positioning, or anything else?

<p>

If you could save a few hundred dollars buying a barrel lens and having a shutter added, over buying one pre-made in a shutter, would you always get the barrel?

<p>

Thank you.

Thanks to all who replied. Your feedback and suggestions were very

helpful.

James,

<p>

No rush--whenever you can find your Schneider lens catalog from the mid

or late 1970's I would be very interested in obtaining a copy of it, by

whatever means is easiest, email, fax, or mail; I can reimburse you for

photocopying and shipping. Thanks alot.

<p>

Nick

Does anyone have Schneider large format lens price lists from the years 1981-89? More than prices, I am interested in what focal lengths they made of certain lenses during this period.

<p>

I would also be interested in the same thing for the years circa 1974-78.

<p>

Thank you.

Who out there shoots portraits with their 8x10? What focal length lens do you regularly use or like to use?

<p>

I currently have the option of purchasing a 480mm lens for my 8x10 camera, but am wondering whether the focal length is too long. I would like to use the lens to shoot people half-figure, and have determined that at this size I am about 6 feet from my subject, with a bellows extension of about 25 inches. I have pretty long arms, but with this amount of bellows extended I was barely able to both look through the back of the camera AND adjust the front standard of the camera at the same time, to good effect. The camera's stability, with its front and rear standards extended within 5 inches of their maximum distance, was also somewhat compromised (the camera took about 5 seconds to settle after the dark slide was pulled). To be sure, I WOULD like to get a longer lens for shooting portraits than the standard 305mm I already have, but am wondering whether 480mm is simply TOO long for such purposes. How do 8x10 format portraitists use such long focal lengths--or even longer, for that matter--for shooting portraits comfortably and easily? Maybe they have an assistant, but I don't have a second person to work the front or back of the camera--and, to boot, would like to be able to focus and shoot pretty fast to catch people's expressions. Doubling the standard focal length in a 4x5 format from 150mm to 300mm, and using a 300mm lens to shoot portraits in 4x5 seems relatively easy, but applying the same principle to 8x10 seems alot more daunting if not perilous. Any suggestions? Opt for a shorter long lens or adapt to 480mm?

Can someone please tell me how I would go about checking whether the groundglass and film plane of my camera(s) are on the same level? Do I need a special and expensive tool to measure this?

<p>

And if I find out that the two are not along the same plane, how then do I go about to make them even?

<p>

Also, do new cameras need to be checked, as well as used ones?

<p>

Thank you.

Has anyone used the new Zone VI Ultralight 4 x 5 camera? If so, can you tell me what you think of it? Does the shedding of its weight by 2 lbs, from 6lbs to 4 lbs, in any way compromise the camera's stability, in any and all extensions or movements? How does it compare with its competition, such as the Wisner Expedition and Pocket Expedition, for example? Do you find it easy to use? Any major complaints, etc, etc...

<p>

I am adequately familiar with the OLD Zone VI 4 x 5, so please try to limit your responses to the Ultralight specifically.

<p>

Thanks.