audidudi

I just popped over to ebay to look at some Sinar F photos and found out that the rail is very similar in design to the rail used on my Toyo 23G and 45G cameras, including the ~10 degrees of horizontal adjustment capability. If the Sinar rail likwise measures 39mm in diameter, then in addition to any Sinar clamp alternatives, it may also be possible to use a Toyo 45G or 810G clamp, which are quite a bit shorter (less so in the case of the 810G clamp) and by the looks of it, possibly a bit lighter, too. These clamps do turn up on ebay occasionally and as it so happens, I have a spare one myself that I might be willing to sell...

 

Also, if you can live without the additional height adjustment and panning capability provided by your center post, you might want to try removing it altogether and experiment with the bolt-and-fender washer approach I suggested above. It will not only save you a bit more weight still -- an important consideration for those of us who use what are primarily studio cameras out in the field -- but improve the rigidity of your camera/tripod setup even further. It works for me, anyway!

Following up on Ken's comments, one of the things that I find makes the "headless" tripod setup work so well is to orient the camera upon it so that the rear leg is parallel to the lens axis and the other two legs are perpendicular to it.

 

This way, to level the tripod front-to-back, you only need to adjust the rear leg; to level it side-to-side, you only need to adjust one of the two side legs. If you need to point the camera up or down more than is possible using the rise/fall & tilt movements, you only have to adjust the rear leg. (And since my modified Toyo view camera uses a hollow rail, I can site through it to make sure the camera is parallel to walls, doors, etc. by moving the tripod around until the area I want to photograph is visible in the opening in the far end of the rail and in turn, centered in the opening at the near end of the rail. I find this approach works much better than trying to correct later using the camera's swing movements.)

 

Anyway, if your tripod is like mine, the only cost involved in experimenting with this is a 3/8" bolt and a pair of fender washers ... less than a buck at pretty much any hardware store.

That when it comes to prints, bigger is better.

Do you really need a ballhead? I found that, for most of my images, I'm able to get by without any head on the tripod at all. On those occasions when I do need to point the camera up or down, I can usually achieve this by using the rise/fall and tilt movements to point it where I want. This approach has not only saved me two pounds of weight but a few hundred dollars to boot!

FWIW, I mounted a Bronica PS80mm lens on my view camera and was able to take photos with it, albeit with only one shutter speed. To my surprise, the image circle was plenty large (it just about covered 6x9) but to make it truly useful, it would have been necessary to rig up some sort of electronic control for the shutter instead of being limited to the mechanical default speed. Although I could handle the mechanical aspects okay, I wasn't up to tackling the electronic aspects and dropped the project.

Bryan's comments about the Minolta are both correct, which is the reason why I recommend using Vuescan in place of the OEM software. The ability to do single-pass multi-sampling really helps with the shadow detail. I have no experience with the Nikon (yet) but find it interesting that it was seeing a handful of Bryan's prints a few years ago at the one Phoenix Camera Club meeting I attended that finally convinced me to buy a Minolta of my own...

<P>Although I'm hardly an expert in these matters, you may find some useful info in the <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/cameras/toyo/toyo-galvin-2x3.html">review</a> I wrote about my Toyo 23G and Galvin 2x3, both of which are medium-format view cameras.</P>

Michael, in my experience, GF works well for many images but sometimes, VFZoon, Irfanview or Fred Miranda's "stairstep" action will do a better job still.

I own this scanner and for the current price, recommend it highly. I also recommend that you buy a copy of Vuescan and use that instead of the OEM software to run it. I also recommend you scan at 16-bit, as the four extra bits of color depth really do help with some images.

 

As for print size, I shoot 6x6 and have been happy scanning at 1128ppi (I don't know where everyone got the idea it scans MF at 1410ppi) and using various programs to upres the image as necessary. The largest size I typically print at is 11.3" square using an Epson 1280 and I have no complaints about image quality at that size. Nor do the people who (sometimes) buy my prints, for what that's worth...

<P>Hmmm ... I shoot 6x6s with a Toyo 23G view camera. Does this mean my images aren't welcome here? I realize they're technically not "large format" but they <I>are</I> made with a view camera using movements...</P>

And I want to see a _color_ print made using the IP RIP. Like Peter, I'll be happy to cover shipping and media costs if anybody is willing to print one of my images.

Through trial and error, I've learned that I need to have _at least_ 10X the image size free on the hard drive where the Epson program is loaded, otherwise, a portion of the image may be cut off when it prints. I have never seen this documented by Epson anywhere but I have found it to be true of a friend's 7000 and 7600 as well as my 870 and 1270/1280. If all else fails, you might try freeing up some disk space and see whether that solves your cut-off problem.

Unfortunately, the license agreements that are included with many profiling packages sold here in the U.S. specifically prohibit their rental. As such, very few places are willing to add a monitor spyder to their rental inventory since it's of absolutely no use without the software to use it.

 

In my case, I'm lucky enough to have friends with spyders that I can borrow as needed but otherwise, unless things are different in the UK, my hunch is that you're out of luck.

Dimitri, if you look on the back of the lens, you'll see some metal pins sticking out. Moving one of these pins will fire the shutter; moving the other one (as I recall, it's in a slot and you'll have to slide it about 1/8 the way around the lens) will cock it.

 

As for the linkage I created, I cut slots through the rear lens cap so I could access these pins directly. I then epoxied the lens cap to a lens board for my view camera. When exposing film, I wrapped a small piece of black cloth around the lens assembly to prevent any light from leaking through the slots I'd cut. It worked but wasn't very convenient, and as you pointed out, the 1/500th default shutter speed was very limiting (even here, in bright, sunny Arizona!).

 

BTW, Rube Goldberg was a cartoonist/sculptur who created very elaborate, complex machines to accomplish simple, basic tasks.

Assuming that you can figure out how to attach the reversed lens to the body (perhaps gluing a 67mm Cokin A filter ring to a body cap and cutting a hole in the middle?), you can manually release the shutter at its default speed of 1/500th of a second. Back when I was making the transition from an SQ-Ai outfit to a view camera, I rigged up a linkage that allowed me to fire the shutter with the lens mounted on a view camera lensboard ... to my surprise, the 80mm lens covered a full 6x9 and if I could have figured out a way to control the shutter electronically while it was off the SQ-Ai body, I would have happily continued to use it despite its extra weight and bulk compared to a typical 80mm view camera lens/shutter setup.

 

Anyway, the bottom line is that what you've proposed IS possible but perhaps not very useful.

So, I guess the answer is that, for the price, the ACD is the way to go? I must admit that compared to the 15" NEC I had been using, the size of the ACD screen is quite a treat and now that my friend has offered to finance the purchase over a few months, making the decision to buy it is becoming easier...

A friend has just upgraded to a 24" Sony LCD monitor and is offering

me his 22" Apple Cinema Display, along with his video card and DVIator

(so it can used on a Windows box) for ~$1000. I've borrowed

everything so I can work with it for the next week or two but before I

make a final decision, I'm

curious if there are any alternatives in this price range, new or

used, that I should be considering as well, especially since editing

images in PS

will be its primary use. (And Yes, I know this monitor has

just been discontinued but I assume service will be available on it

for some time now so that isn't too great of a concern.)

Perhaps you shouldn't sell it as a "camera" but as a piece of art? As a camera, the fact that it's a one-off is likely to reduce its perceived value for all the reasons stated above and elsewhere, whereas as a piece of art, its one-off status is likely to increase its perceived value...

Factory refurbished Polaroid 45i scanners (the 2nd generation 2000ppi version) can be had for around $1200 and used ones can be had for less ... if you don't have a lot of dark shadow areas, they work fairly well but if you do, be prepared to deal with a lot of noise. As a plus, Vuescan will drive them although due to the scanner's design, it won't do multi-sample or multi-pass scans, which is one of the software's best features.

 

A friend has had one of these for about 18 months and I've used it on several occasions with success. However, he just replaced it with a used Imacon 4800 (the predecessor to the Precision series) and claims that it works much, much better.

I'm with Steve and a while ago, I deleted all of my photos for the same reason. Of course, since I'm a non-paying "freeloader," I don't feel I have much right to complain about photo.net's policies and practices...

My Toyo has a ground-glass with a 10mm grid etched into it and I use a machinist's rule (which is small and easy to carry with me in the field) to make sure the back standard is as close to parallel to the front standard as possible. I usually don't have any difficulty making the vertical lines be vertical (and Yes, I do sometimes use a bit of tilt to prevent the "mushrooming" effect) but the horizontal lines have proven to be a real problem for me.

 

While Ellis' mirror idea sounds interesting, I'm not sure how practical it will be in the field. Perhaps a small piece of highly polished aluminum or stainless steel might prove lighter and possibly more rugged?

Leonard, I've likewise noticed that many pros are, shall we say, a bit lack in this regard. Perhaps it's just a personal thing but I want to capture the images on film as perfectly as possible and keep the amount of post-exposure digital processing required to a minimum.

 

As for a sample of what I've shooting, here's an image I shot just recently...<div></div>

Along the same lines, I've been shooting a lot of brick and cinderblock walls straight on lately and am having considerable difficulty getting everything lined up perfectly square. The image always looks great on the ground glass but when I get the (color) film back from the lab, I too often find that the camera was pointed slightly off to one side or the other and the horizontal lines (mortar joints, etc.) aren't perfectly parallel to each other.

 

Obviously, the solution is to make sure the camera is pointed straight at the wall so my question is, Does anyone know any tricks that might make accomplishing this easier? I've tried Polaroids but they don't seem to have enough sharpness/resolution to always be helpful and I hate to spend all that extra money on what is essentially just hobby work.

 

I've also thought about using a laser rangefinder to measure the distance from the wall to each side of the rear standard but none of the ones I've found so far appear to have been optimized for shorter distances (typically less than 50' instead of 400 or 800 yards) or have fine enough resolution to make this approach work. And even if I used it measure selected points on each side of the image from a central point on the camera (which should multiply any error and make it easier to spot), I think I'd still need one that can measure accurately within a few inches instead the usual meter or half-meter. Any clues?

 

Of course, another option I've also considered is moving up to 8x10, which would make the image on the ground-glass larger and alignment errors presumably easier to see, but as I'm still recovering from the shock of increased film and processing costs as the result of my recent transition from exclusively 2x3 rollfilm to sometimes 4x5 sheet film, I'm neither mentally nor financially ready to take such a drastic step quite yet...

Geez, Sandy, $400 for framing a 32x40 sounds reasonable to you? I'm looking over the price lists from the local supplier I use (CMI Molding in Tempe, AZ) and they sell Bainbridge Artcare foamcore for $4.71/32x40 sheet in boxes of 25; TruVue Museum glass for $330/box of three 32x40 lites (Denglas in the same size/quantity is just $225)and 32x40 sheets of Bainbridge 8-ply Alpharag Artcare matboard for $19.20 ... figure one sheet each of the above, throw in $20 for miscellaneous supplies (which is a lot) and that still leaves ~$250 (~$20/ft) for the frame material. And with some shopping, I'll bet it's possible to find somewhat better prices still on all of the above ... assuming, of course, that it's really necessary to use such high-quality materials in the first place.

 

Personally, I'm reluctant to spend a lot on framing material because I have found frame choice to be very much a matter of personal taste on the part of buyers. I do use the Artcare foamcore and matboard (the marginal cost over lesser grades isn't all that great) but I use considerably less expensive glass (TruVue Conservation Clear at about $12/lite in boxes of six) and frame material (never more than ~$5/ft), and as such, I believe I could frame a 32x40 image quite presentably for well under $100, not including my time. (Of course, if the image has to be dry-mounted because of its size, I would have to farm that job out to someone else but I'll bet I can get it done for much less than $100.)

 

So, am I overlooking something here or am I just lucky to have a wholesale source for matting/framing supplies nearby?

A "mat" is what goes between the photo and the glass inside a frame; "matte" refers to non-glossy paper.