lonoveracker

Thanks for the responses, opinions and links.

I had seen the Zone VI's on ebay, and didn't realize one of them was the Ultralight. That looks like a steal to me @ $550! I may consider that and still have Mr. Ritter take a look at rebuilding the one I have.

I anyone has any specs on the Ultralight, I'd love to see them. I can't find anything on the net. I'll do another search here after I post. I'd hate to assume that the bellows specs are the same as the one I have now.

The Canham, as well as others like the Ebony (at least the ones that have enough bellows) are simply just out of my price range.

George - thanks for the heads up on a 75mm. Fortunately, I believe the lens is ok - the shutter works and the glass was unharmed. On the other hand, it will never see another filter in front of it as the filter ring was dented.

Thanks again gents.

Lon

Greetings,

Bear with me as this is probably more of an exercise in sorting this out... but

I would like to get some thoughts and opinions. And just to let you know I've

searched the archives and read many, many threads... but sometimes it's nice to

get current opinions.

Here's the situation. I shattered my Zone VI 4x5 a couple of weeks ago in the

Sierra. Tripod fell over, camera/75mm attached... face first. Basically, all

the wood pieces that are used to attach the front and rear standards to the

base, and house the geared rails, etc. are toast. It's not the first time it

crashed to the ground, but previously wasn't as bad and I was able to put

humpty-dumpty back together again.

Anyway, I need another camera. I've had the Zone VI for on a year and a half

and have been generally satisfied with it. It's pretty bulky and heavy, but

dealt with it - just took it and 3 lenses backpacking (where I subsequently

destroyed it) but it's been doable.

I would like to pick up a used Wisner Expedition. Since it seems the Wisner

site has been down the last few days, I can't remember the exact specs. But if

I recall correctly the Tradition and Expedition listed min ext with normal

bellows was 58mm for the Trad and Exp (90mm for Tech Field.) I don't know the

specs on the Zone VI, but I'm sure they're close to the Tech Field? I have

been able to use the Zone VI and 75mm Nikkor without the bag bellows. Yup, I

must contort the camera, play the rise/tilt game and have limited movement...

but it does work and frankly with the 75mm, you don't need much more than a

hair of front tilt anyway.

QUESTION (finaly): I've read various opinions on the use of WA lenses on the

various Wisners. From anyone's practical experience, could the Wisner

Expedition be used with the 75mm equally or hopefully better than the Zone VI?

Although a convenience feature, I'm thinking the rear geared axis tilt would

also help with the 75mm, which might be the only time I would use that feature.

My other requirement is the long bellows. I've got the Nikkor 450 M, which is

prompting me to stay with Wisner, another Zone VI, or in my dreams, an Ebony.

How about these options:

1. Have the Zone VI rebuilt. I'm going to send the Zone VI to Mr. Ritter

anyway. Of course he will need to see the camera before quoting anything, but

he thinks it could be repaired.

It could be a couple hundred bucks, it could approach what I paid for it ($750)

I have no idea. Option 1. pay for the restoration

2. By used Wisner Expedition (Midwest has one right now for $1,689) Pay for

the rebuild of the Zone VI and sell it.

3. Pick up another Zone VI, keep the old for spare parts or rebuild/sell?

BTW, I'm not interested in a rail, metal or non-folding camera. It's a wood

thing I guess. Nothing like those comments in the field like, "how old is

that?" or "Did you know Ansel..." great converstation starters.

My apologies for the length of this "question." Just looking for some seasoned

opinions...

thanks,

Lon

Jon,

I was also in Yosemite this weekend and made numerous exposures in the snow. Years ago, I rigged a clamp and some old studio lighting rigs to be able to attach an umbrella to the tripod. It's worked great all these years, with one exception: wind. If it's blowing that hard, I'm not gonna let a gust of wind make the camera sail away.

For the rest of the gear, I carry a small piece of canvas that I use set my camera bag on (assuming the ground is either wet or snowy.) Large 35gal garbage bag covers the camera bag while on the ground. Usually it's directly under the tripod so the umbrella catches most of the moisture, but of course the umbrella is much higher and I still usually need the plastic bag. I'll also use a small kitchen garbage bag to place over the camera when I'm not shooting or focusing. I keep a handful of lens cloths for wiping down the camera, lens and glass for when some drops sneak in. I keep my film holders in ziplock bags in my photo vest when not near the car.

In fact, the best weather protector is the vehicle. At least with an SUV or minivan the opened tail gate is the perfect umbrella and your gear can stay nice and dry in the back. This weekend in Yosemite where it snowed nearly all day long, my subject matter was pretty much limited to oak trees and varying degrees of falling/blowing snow. This allowed to shoot mostly from the side of the road and I could use my vehicle as a shield. At the end of the day however, my photo vest and parka were soaking wet, but the gear remained dry.

Lon

Is it worth it? Only you can determine that, really. Research and read the previous references, then get yourself some equipment to start out, practice and go out and take some pictures. Once you've started you'll learn the process and see the results. You'll either love it, or you won't.

The best advice, from my own experience, is at some point make a conscious decision to make LF your priority and primary tool. For my first two years with LF I attempted to shoot both 35mm and 4x5. My tendancy was to shoot 35mm first, to make sure "I got the shot." Then I would move in with the 4x5. Subsequently, I was missing many 4x5 shots and would get frustrated easily trying to rush in capturing scenes in fleeting light. I almost quit LF. Once I internalized and made my priority the 4x5, I quickly became more comfortable, confident and I haven't looked back. 35mm is now an after-thought.

Just a suggestion, and I'm sure there are many different turning points for other folks.

Lon

Ever notice the images posted in "Top photos" are the best in the forum and deserve to be there? Like all else in life, if you have the best product available, it will rise to the top.

The alternative view for those who subscribe to it, would be to force everyone to be equal. The great thing about the "system" is that you have the "opportunity" for plenty of exposure, providing you have a product that will excel and rise to the the top.

As was suggested you might want to provide feedback to the moderators. I would venture to guess that if they created a "random" gallery, it would die on the vine and folks would migrate to the "top" images, thus re-inforcing the "rich get richer" conundrum..

Regards,

Lon

What this thread needs is some contribution from the original poster. Patrick, are you still there? Has this discussion helped you in any way? Or was it really just a way to spark another pointless debate on film vs. digital?<br><br>

Lon

Rick,

Thanks. I don't plan on messing with the video card settings until I find out what I can do with Spyder2 and the regular monitor controls. I hope to do this later today.

In the mean time, I still don't know how to open the NVIDIA control panel. Where is it located? I'm on WinXP.

Tx,

Lon

A couple of folks mentioned adjusting brightness in the video driver. <br><br>

Could one of you tell me how this is done?<br><br>

I also have the NVIDIA driver for my monitor (HP 19" LCD) AND I will be calibrating my monitor shortly with my Spyder2Pro Christmas present I bought myself. :-)

<br><br>

Thanks,

Lon

Larry, <BR>

I have a very similar methodolgy to Jon's. I think it's very difficult to organize by location, subject, season, etc. etc. You almost need to seperate that from file naming and organization. I actually have a separate database that tracks all the keywording and image information. I keep the file naming structure simple and as Jon does base on a calendar year.<BR><BR>

For example, I have a main directory "APhoto" (The "A" keeps it alphabetically at the top of the list...:-)<BR><BR>

Subfolders:<BR>

Orig(scans or Raw)<BR>

PSD (working files and PSD archiving)<BR>

Processed (web-ready images, print, etc.)<BR><BR>

Within those folders, there are further breakdowns for 35mm and 4x5<BR> others I'm sure would include DLSR or whatever.<BR><BR>

For the naming convention I developed a system that was derived from a computer manufacturers method for creating serial numbers. The first 2 digits signified the year of manufacture and the next 2 digits signified the week of manufacture. But to prevent customers to determine the age the computer, they thrown in a twist: The first 2 digits become the number of years since, say 1960... so if it was manufactured in 2002, the first 2 digits would be 42.<BR><BR>

I have a modified version of that where:<BR>

XXyyyy Where XX = number of years since 1970 and yyyy is 4-digit unique number for the image.<BR><BR>

Because the file name tells me the year I took the image, I don't need to create individual folders for each year.<BR><BR>

But to make all this work, you need a system/database or program to relate the file name with all the other info (location, subject, keywords, etc. etc.) I believe there are many photo filing systems out there you can use rather than designing and developing your own that could help.

<BR><BR>

But Jon ultimately gave the best advice by suggesting to start a methodology/system now for your new work and then over time, bring the old stuff in to the new system.<BR><BR>

Best of luck.... the only thing else I can say is that I'm glad I shoot LF so I only need to catalog hundreds of images in a year, not thousands or 10's of thousands.... :-)

<BR>

Lon

Patrick,

I've had similar things happen and I'm not quite 100% sure of the resolution, but this is what I think may be happening. Are you opening all the images in PS, then running the action from the action menu? If so, I can understand the files all be saving as the same name because that's what is in the action.

Alternatively, try this:

(I'm on a PC, but I'm sure a similar path for Mac)

1. create, name and start recording a new action

2. Perform all the necessary steps: open file, resize, file save-as, close the image, THEN stop the recording

3. Now create a "droplet": File>Automate>Create droplet

(name the droplet and note where you save it.}

I select the "Overide Action "open" commands" which I believe will save you from having to make an open selection for each image - because it's already in the action.

4. From Explorer, drag/copy the applet to the desktop

5. From Explorer again, navigate to the folder where all the

images you want to run the action on. Highlight all the images and

drag them right on top of the droplet that is now on the desktop.

If the action is properly created, it should open/activate PS and run through all the images. Each image should be saved with it's own unique name.

Give it a try and let us know if it works,

Regards,

Lon

Patrick,

I'd like to echo Brian's comments - and expand a little bit more with my own .02. You said a lot, yet I'm not sure if I'm clear what you're asking... Getting in to LF photography to take better pictures is, IMHO, not the right approach. If you have "yet to get stunning images on ...mf"... than LF won't change that. This may be out there, but photography is a bit like golf. Expensive, top end, custom fit clubs and $90 for a dozen top-end golf balls "may" make great golfers better, but they won't make the weekend hacker a scratch golfer. Same goes for photography in that respect - You can give a seasoned, published photo-pro a Nikon coolpix or a Canon Sureshot and they will find a way to make a great image. And if they've made a name for themselves, I'd be willing to bet folks would pay for a print too.

I've been a LF (4x5) shooter for about 15 years. I continue to shoot LF for many reasons, but mostly because I enjoy the process of searching, finding and capturing images. LF by default, slows you down; it's not a format that will "yield lots of shots." Having the ability to shoot tons of pictures doesn't, and most likely won't, yield better images.

If I had the money, I would love a top-end DSLR. There are many many times when light is changing fast or I don't have the right focal length that LF won't capture (or my ability to capture it.)

For now, I stick with my old trusty F4 for that purpose and my digital pt-n-shoot for capturing snaps along the way.

This was true for me and perhaps others, but for the 1st 2 years I attempted to shoot both LF and 35mm. It was a mistake that almost made me toss out the 4x5. Always catching the fading light with the 35mm to make sure I got the shot and then struggling to get something with the 4x5. Once I made the conscious decision to make 4x5 my first priority, I was ok - but it has to be a choice, and I learned from it. Anyway, you are correct in assuming that it will take a while to learn.

If you have marketing savy (I don't) then in general, the source of your captured images shouldn't matter a whole lot. Back "in the day", 4x5 trannies were quite impressive to an editor looking on a lightbox comparing similars in 35mm or MF. But I imagine today it's giving way to viewing everything on monitors and a scanned 4x5 doesn't quite have the edge when viewing similar images on a 72 dpi screen.

Having said all that (and I can ramble with the best of them) you need to make some choices... If you want a good library for stock images, then go for the high end digital. I'd certainly recommend trying LF to anyone, but it's not for everyone - it depends. :-)

Good luck,

Lon

Lana,<br><br>

I've learned PS (v7) on my own kind of on an "as needed" basis. What I mean is when I needed to learn something like selective sharpening or blending to suit a particular image, I went to the web and found some resources. One of them I've found is <br>

<a href="http://www.photoworkshop.com/">www.photoworkshop.com/</a><br>

Go to the "learning center" links on the left and select "Adobe training area" There are free video tutorials there from PS v7.0 up to CS2.<br>

Another good source is<br>

<a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/">luminous-landscape.com/</a>

<br>

Of course there's a gazillion sites on the web if you do some searching.

<br>

Lastly, I too would recommend taking a PhotoShop workshop. That's really the only way to get the hands on and have someone there to answer questions and explain things. I've yet to take one mostly because I never seem to have the money to do it.... another reason I don't have CS2. :-)

<br><br>

good luck,<br>

Lon

Mickey,

I've gone thru your exact scenario - taking family slides from the 50

s thru the 70's and putting them on DVD, complete with music, chapters, etc. I then sent them to my parents and siblings. It was a great hit and even more importantly a great way to preserve the family history - many of the slides my Dad took while in the service in the 50's were badly deteriorated.

Anyway, to your question. Here is an option that hasn't been mentioned yet. First of all, I have the Minolta/Konica Diimage Scan Elite 5400 II that I like very much. But the thought of scanning 1500 slides was daunting and not practical. What I ended up doing was projecting the slides on a screen (white wall, board, whatever) and then capturing them with my 5MP digital camera.

I spent time in PS fixing the bad ones and then created actions to streamline the ones that didn't need repair. Then on to a video editing program to create the "movie" on DVD.

Now I can hear many barfing and laughing.... but remember what Mickey's stated criteria is: " I don't plan on making many printouts from the scans, more for video production" If a slide show for a video production at monitor resolution is all you need, then the route I described will be much more convenient and save you a lot of time. Sure, you'll have PS work for color corrections, etc.... but we're not trying to make a 16x20" print either.

Just an idea Mike. Been there done that... and I had a lot of fun going thru the old slides. In fact I'm doing it again for my son: the first 18 years...

Good luck,

Lon

I had the same problem with the login I was sent.

Navigate to the link "forgot your password" and request a new one. As long as you were previously registered and the email address is correct, a new one will be sent within minutes.

I was then able to login with the new password, then changed it.

Hope that works

Lon

Kevin,

This is a very non-technical response, but I hope has some validity. Personally, I think you're better off shooting the night/light painting image first. The black or night areas of the scene will remain dark and only the light painting effects would be recorded (of course depending on how long your night exposure is) Then, secondly, shooting the sunrise image, the dark areas will get filled in by the sunlit areas. When I've tried this in the past (not very often), when you expose the daylight/sunrise image first, you may get a fogging effect after exposing the night image. In other words, you can't make a light/exposed piece of film go dark after the fact, but you can certainly re-expose a dark/unexposed part of the film again. Not sure if that makes sense, just my .02.

Lon

David,

Funny you should post this today... I'm receiving today, 3 boxes of the Provia 100F from this seller. It's probably the same lot as I believe they had numerous quantities. Of course it doesn't answer your question because I obviously haven't processed the film yet.

Actually, I just checked and I also had purchased Velvia 100F from this seller and the film processed fine and I believe had a exp date of 04-2006.

They ship via UPS Ground and it's taken 9 days to get the film, but otherwise, I had no problems.

Also purchased film from Helix camera and Hunts on eBay with no problems. Even shot some 12-2004 Velvia 50 and it was good too.

Hope this helps,

Lon

Louie,

Very well stated! Your comments echo my approach to photography, and in a sense is why I said I was a "feel" photographer. The camera, lens, film, adjustments, etc. are simply tools for capturing what you have stored in your head. And you're exactly right, the photograph starts long before you've started unpacking the gear.

Lon

Gary,

I certainly does "depend" on the situation, your experience, familiarity with equipment AND what are the conditions? ie. is the light fading fast, or will the light remain consistant for the next hour?

On the quick side, I could probably take a shot in about 10 minutes. This assumes many things, like a scene where you don't have any near/far points to worry about, simply compose and focus with no tilts/swings, check exposure and shoot.

On the normal side, at least 20 minutes and more likely towards the 40 minute range mentioned earlier.

A big factor in how long it might take, is what kind of photographer are you? I mention this because I am a "feel" photographer and not technical. What I mean by this is that I don't, and never have, calculated depth of field, or measured the lens to subject distance for closeups, etc. I use my old Nikon F4 as my light meter and meter a mid-tone and evaluate the scene for bright and dark areas and in many situations I'll even use the ole sunny 16 rule, which in the first situation on the quick side, cuts down on extra time having to meter the scene. Having said all that, it doesn't mean you can do all this without an understanding of the principals of focusing, planes of focus, apparent depth of focus or metering techniques like the Zone system and understanding the range of light a particular film has. I guess that's where the experience comes in to be able to quickly shoot a scene.

Lastly, IMHO, it's not how fast we can setup and make images, it's how efficient and SAFELY you can do it. I learned a valuable lesson not long ago (I think I posted this story before) when I had been in the habit of not putting the 4x5 away while moving from location to location. Rather than remove the lens, fold up the camera, etc., I left the tripod leaning against the car, and it came crashing down. Fortunatley, I was able to repair the camera and the lens was ok... but now I'm trying to force myself to take the time for putting away the lens, fold up and pack away the camera before moving to a new location.

Gary, what are you trying to determine? You think you take too long and you're wondering why? Or you go to fast and wondering what it is your not doing correctly? just curious.

Lon

Great topic and some common sense responses.

I go with "get both", along the lines of don't blow the wad on digital, split the difference with a nice LF setup. Others have mentioned, the LF/film setup will last you the rest of your life of creating images. Digital will too, but how many times will you have to "upgrade" to get the next megapixel upgrade. It's the one thing that boggles me.. every year or so, or even sooner, they've expanded the technology, stuff get's smaller, more sophisticated, and unless you keep up, your digital stuff will very quickly become outdated; just like our PC's/laptops are at best good for 3yrs. That LF lens made in 1950 remains the same.... And as long as there is a market demand for sheet film, we can still be shooting until our last days.

I've got a digital camera (not a dslr) too. It's always nice to have a camera ready for those spontaneous situations, family vacations etc.... and for taking photos of the Wista that's for sale on eBay... :-)

I used to do with 35mm/film what some are doing with digital today; go out and shoot 10 or 20 rolls of film and hope you got a few nice shots or fill up 5 2GB memory cards. Kills me to read in forums... "Was in Death Valley over the weekend and came home with 2,000 images..." What's the point? Maybe the LF guy only came away with 20 and only 2 are worth printing... but at least for me, the thought process, shot selection and overall experience makes 4x5/LF worth it.

Anyway, you've stirred up a good discussion and I imagine you'll have a little piece of both when all is said and done.

good luck,

Lon

Thanks for the responses.

The PhotoCraft I'm using is in Boulder, CO. Not sure if they're related. I don't think so.

I have used PrintFile in the past, I think even the 45-4B and think it was very tight fitting a sleeved transparency - if at all. However, I checked the Printfile website and found there is another one, 45-4HB. I sent them an email to find out the exact opening size and it's 4 1/4" x 5 1/4", which sounds perfect for negatives or transparencies in sleeves.

I think I'll order a pack today.

thanks all!

Lon

Not a particularly exciting topic....

I have my 4x5 color transparencies processed by PhotoCraft and have

them returned in sleeves. The sleeves are of course slightly bigger

than 4x5 inches.

I've been using a variety of brands of archival tranparency pages to

store my processed film - 4 to a sheet, and store in binders. The

only ones I found that had ample room to slide them in and out of

the pages was from Light Impressions. However, they no longer sell

the particular style. Most other brands are probably designed for

prints and really can only use them if I take the transparency out

of the sleeve, which I really, really don't like doing.

Anyway, can anyone recommend a source for slide pages that will work

without having to remove the sleeve?

Thanks in advance,

Lon

Manoj,

Of course one of the big advantages of LF is perspective control. When you have scenes with tall trees, building, etc., in most cases you want the rear standard vertical, or at least parallel to your subject to eliminate the vertical lines "bending" towards the center; a common and unattractive perspective with the smaller format like 35mm.

Having said that, it doesn't mean you always have the camera back exactly vertical. In fact, even in nature/landscape work you can get away with trees and other objects with some perspective loss, because most of the time you can't notice in nature. With many man-made things like buildings, bridges, structures, etc. it becomes more important.

I wanted to reply here because I also use a ball head and the problem is not whether or not you can tilt the camera, but with a ball head, if you want to adjust for horizontal, you can't do it independantly of the vertical. In other words, once you unlock the ball, you're in situation where you have to control every movement; up/down, back/forth, side/side, framing, etc. You then have to hold the camera steady in one hand and hope you can tighten the ball down with the other hand without moving the camera again. Let's say the horizon is tilted every so slightly and you want to correct it. Release the ball head and dangit, now the vertical is off.

For those reasons, I'm considering going to a 3-way pan/tilt head. I've always thought they were big and bulky, but they certainly solve the above problem and you can easily change just one dimension at a time.

Lon