emil_ems1

Peter,

 

I use the oldest version of the Linhof finder, which is also the cheapest and, in my opinion, best.

 

Although I can agree with the view that 90mm can not be seen comfortably w glasses on, the rest of the focus lengths are quite easy to glance at.

 

What I did was let an optician put a correction lens in the inside of the black viewing piece that you screw into the viewer from the back. this cost me just a few dollars. Since then, using the finder is a lark.

 

When in the field, I carry the finder around my neck in a small camera carrying pouch. I hardly notice the pouch until I need the viewer. I use the viewer in three ways: (i) to check motives to find position and right focal length, (ii) on the view camera while setting the camera up, to ensure precise positioning; and (iii) on top of my Technica III when I do some free hand shooting.

 

This is a marvelous instrument, Peter, go for it if you can find it cheaply on ebay. The oldest version has a screw to adjust the focal length. Later versions (still not the present one) have a push button to slide for focal length adjustment. Those are more expensive and, actually, not as good as the oldest ones.

Jukka,

 

I found the color tint on your picture extremely pleasing. Did you use digital darkroom for this photo? If so, I would highly appreciate getting the settings for the subsequent duotone (or is it tritone) print.

Dan,

 

If your interest is mainly the MF Fisheye, why not consider buying an Arsat 30 mm fisheye together with a Kiew 88CM. These can be bought from Mike Fourman at about 600 USD together. I did so and am rather satisfied with the combination.

I second what Wayne just said about he Horseman holders. I own both a Horseman VHR 6x9 and a Century Graphic. None of my three Horeseman holders fits on the Graphic. On the other side, all Mamyia RB holders I have tried fit on the Graphic. Don't forget that there are also 6x6 and 4.5x6 Mamyia holders!!!

Ian,

 

The solution to your problem is not so much a depth of field TABLE, but rather a depth of field SCALE. Linhof is selling such a scale and others as well. I derived mine from Linhof's depth of field table and drew it on a small piece of paper (for the 4x5 and 6x9 format respectively). I use the scale in the following way:

 

1) I focus on the object farthest away I wish to keep in focus and mark the position of the lens on the bottom of the camera by tape.

 

2) I focus on the object nearest to me I wish to keep in focus. I then apply the scale to the distance between 1) and 2) (as seen on the bottom of the camera) to find out the minimum lens opening which would keep both positions in focus.

 

3) I put the final focus at exactly half of the distance between 1) and 2).

 

With this approach you don't need any distance scale on your camera and it works very quickly, I assure you. I apply it all the time on my Toyo Field 4x5. In practical terms, I focus 1) by sliding the lens board, keeping the focusing sled in alignment with the bed underneath. I focus 2) by turning the focusing knob. The distance between 1) and 2) can then be easily be observed by the distance the focusing sled has moved away from its alignment with the bed underneath.

I live in the Brussels area in Belgium. Although I have read a lot

about the digital darkroom, I have not yet acquired the necessary

equipment.

 

I usually take pictures in the 6x12 panorama format in b&w (Ilford

HP5+). I would like to get one of my pictures printed out as a poster

in format 50cm x 100cm. Frequent reading of messages on this site

indicates that I should have the negative scanned by a professional

drum scanning service at 3000 pixels per inch. I realise that

scanning b&w is not as easy as scanning color. Can anyone of the

readers of this site recommend a professional scanning and printing

service in the Brussels region that would be able to do a good job,

even letting me participate in the process? I would be prepared to

buy a good price for good service.

Curtis,

 

When looking at your picture of the wrinkles, I can tell you not to worry. I have exactly the same on my AII. The reason for those wrinkles is that you, or the owner before you, have used the maximum raise possible with a 90 mm lens mounted on a straight plate. I did the same. Since then, I have bought recessed lens plates for my 90 and 75 mm lenses. Now, in fact, the wrinkles help me, when using maximum raise, since with them the bellows are more flexible. Closing the camer is never a problem with those wrinkles. You can easily straighten them out by reachin inside through the front opening, once the lens board is removed.

 

I would not worry either about the resale value of the camera. After all, the important thing is to have reasonable raise for your wide angle lenses, even if that takes 100 or 200 USD off the money you could get for the camera when selling, instead of taking more pictures. This is a very robust and pleasant camera, Curtis, don't sell it, use it!

Glenn,

 

I have, like you, a Toyo 3.6x that becomes increasingly difficult for me to focus. Is it possible that the Horseman 6x long focuser would permit use w/o eyeglasses also for severe nearsighted people like me (-4 diopters)?

Gene,

 

I think the real problem you are facing is not the focusing, that can be done with a loupe, as explained by others on this thread, but rather the composing. At least this is where my problem lies with murky groundglasses.

 

To avoid the composing problem as much as possible, I preview the scene with a Linhof telescopic viewer (allowing me to view and frame the scene with the same focus length as the lens I am using) and then set up the camera at the exact spot and height at which I am viewing the scene.

 

With this approach, only some minor adjustments are necessary, once the camera is set up and I can concentrate on focusing. Only in rare cases do I have to reframe the camera, typically when tilting/swinging or raising the lens is in order.

Scott,

 

I also own a Toyo Field A II and, contrary to what the others on this thread are saying, I find infinity stops very useful.

 

I do a lot of free hand photography, usually with my old Linhof Technika. However, now and then I find myself in a situation, where I would need a 75 mm lens with some rise to capture an interesting building (where I cannot mount a tripod for some reason). In such cases, I use my Toyo handheld with a 75 mm mounted and the lens focused at infinity (or slightly closer). The focusing stops allow me to do this without having to define focus on the goundglass. Viewing is usually done with a Linhof finder mounted on top of the Toyo.

Mike,

 

I have two Linhof finders, an older as well as the latest model. My findings, when comparing the finder with the groundglass, is that the finders give a 10% too small image. Thus if I have a 150 lens on the camera, I put the finder on 135 mm which gives me the right picture.

 

If I use my old venerable Linhof in handheld shooting mode, I do not compensate and put the finder (being on the camera) on 150 mm. This saves me the trouble to compensate for finder misalignment when the motive is closer than infinity. Note that adjusting the finder to closer distances means that the camera is turned slightly upwards when shooting. This could give you trouble with converging lines. Keeping the finder always at infinity avoids this problem.

I just would like to add a few words to what John just told us. Please do not forget that some of us still make pictures with hand held cameras, such as, the Linhof Technika and the Graphics. For us, obviously, it is convenient to be able to attach the Readyload holder directly to the camera back without having to carry around a groundglass that will never be put to use. Thus, Kodak, to the fore and make us some holders that fit really tight!!!!!

Mark,

 

Thanks for your explanation. It is now clear that simple "nulling" is not practicable while scanning. Maybe the answer would be to just apply raw scanning of an unexposed negative and do the appropriate nulling in Photoshop. Is this being done by experienced photographers, you think?

Mark,

 

I read your explanations with great interest. In the middle of it somewhere you said something that makes sense to me, although I have not yet started to scan my negatives (I am still in the stage of looking for the right type of equipment). It is about "nulling" the orange colour of the negatives' base.

 

Why is it not possible, with any scanner, to just scan in an unexposed but developed frame, null the colour of the base and scan the remainder of the same film with this nulling as the basis? Why would we have to use profiles for the film in question, which at best could be only an average nulling for the film basis, disregarding inevitable variations in films and film processing, even for the same type of film; not to speak of negatives of films developed years ago.

I use the Toyo bellows focusing hood on my Toyo field 4x5 camera and am very satisfied with it. It has a small opening in the back large enough to look through it with both eyes, while eliminating external lights with my forehead. It also accepts easily the Toyo focusing loupe which has a length perfectly fitted to this focusing hood. In my view, this is the best possible solution for a light portable equipment. The small disadvantage of not being able to do precise focusing at the corners (unless you are near sighted as I am) can be diminished by using a Linhof Universal finder as accessory determinant.

When I discuss view cameras with my friend, the used camera dealer on Place Boniface in Brussels, he always uses the concept "Grand' Chambre".

Thanks, Paul, Tim and Brian, for your interesting responses. Somehow I think this site is the right place for the topic we are discussing. If digital sharpening, not necessarily through unsharp masking, could really get rid of losses in sharpness/resolution due to diffraction, we would have one of the few examples, where a digital darkroom would make a difference to traditional enlarging of large format negatives.

 

Brian, I tend to disagree with you concerning the effects of diffraction. In fact, I started this thread precisely because I was concerned about the quality of a traditional enlargement. It concerned a nice photo of the courtyard of Svea Hovrätt in Stockholm I had taken with my Linhof Technica and 90 mm Angulon about 20 years ago. Since the lens has a rather small angle of view, I could not tilt it, but was forced to use the smallest f-stop (45 I believe) to get everything in focus. I have always been very pleased with the outcome, until I recently enlarged the negative to 40x50 cm. Then I suddenly discovered that everything on the enlargement was slightly unsharp. Looking at the negative with a 10x loup confirmed this overall sharpness deficiency. The picture was taken with a tripod, so I did not shake the camera while taking it. Furthermore, other pictures, taken at f 22 did turn out quite sharp. So it must be due to diffraction.

 

Inspired by our discussion so far, I have given some thought to the kind of experiment one could design in order to find out, whether digital sharpening could remedy sharpness losses due to diffraction and also to the depth of field placement.

 

1. Use an ordinary lens resolution target as the object to photograph.

 

2. Determine the true focal length of the lens you use (should have f stops all the way down to 128, maybe a barrel lens for graphical purposes). Mark the bellows extension for focusing the lens at infinity.

 

3. Focus the lens on the hyperfocal distance at f 128.

 

4. Place the target on the near limit of the depth of field interval at f 128. Take picture

 

5. Focus lens so the target is in sharp focus. Take picture.

 

6. Open up lens to f 64. Take picture.

 

7. Do not move the target but refocus lens so that target is on near limit of depth of field interval at f 64 (far limit is now closer than infinity!). To be precise, determine the refocusing by calculating the necessary bellows extension. Take picture.

 

8. Open up lens to f 32. Refocus lens so that target is on near limit of depth of field interval at f 32. Take picture.

 

9. Refocus lens so that target is in sharp focus. Take picture.

 

10. Open up lens to f 16. Take picture.

 

11. Refocus lens so that target is on near limit of depth of field interval at f 16. Take picture

 

This will give us four pairs of photos, each pair with perfect focus and with focus on the near limit of depth of field for a given f-stop. Now scan in the pairs with a broadly used scanner, e.g., Epson 2460. Apply the best sharpening method you know of. Examine the results on screen in the largest possible enlargement. This would permit us to study to what degree the sharpening can compensate for losses in sharpness due to

 

(a) placing the motive on the near limit of depth of field

 

(b) diffraction at large f-stops.

 

Unfortunately, I don�t have the equipment to carry out this experiment. However, I would be very glad to see the results. Maybe we should send a copy of this thread to technical editors in a photographic journal, such as, Photo Techniques or Popular Photography. Or to you have another journal to propose? They have the equipment needed and would maybe be prepared to carry out the experiment to the benefit of us all.

 

Thanks again for your contributions to this thread.

Here comes a question to you experts who use a digital "darkroom",

scanning in large format negatives and treating the file in Photoshop

before printing.

 

A lot of us oldtimers have many times wished they could use very

small lens stops (f 64 and smaller) to get appropriate depth of field

in our photos, without loosing in overall sharpness due to

diffraction of light.

 

Without having worked in a digital darkroom, it seems to me that

unsharp masking in photoshop may get rid of at least part of this

loss in overall sharpness. After all, unsharp masking will intensify

the contrast differences between adjacent pixels and may just undo

the damage done by diffraction.

 

Has anyone on this site done some experimenting on this, using

increasingly smaller f-stops and trying to correct this with unsharp

masking or some other sharpening method? Is it possible to use

smaller stops than f 22 without loosing overall sharpness through

this method, whilst shooting in the 4x5 format? How small could one

go without starting to loose overall sharpness again, compared to an

f-stop of 22?

I do not yet own a photo printer but this thread has gotten me interested in buying one. After having read the above comments I think the new EPSON 2200 would be most appropriate for me. Just a couple of questions that I hope the participants on this thread would be able to answer:

 

Would it be possible for me to buy ImagePrint5 adapted for this printer? When I looked it up at the Cone Inkjetmall site, the programme was not offered for this machine.

 

Would it be necessary for me to buy it, considering the fact that the European version of the printer (the 2200) is shipped together with the GRAY BALANCER programme? The latter is supposed to help me achieve a perfect balancing of the printer so as to obtain perfectly neutral colors for black and white printing, a function that I would need.

 

Thankful for any comments you may be able to contribute.

Several contributors to this thread have articulated concerns with the weight of hand held field cameras. Although it is true that more weight makes the equipment more onerous to carry I would like to say that picture taking is not made more difficult by more weight, rather the opposite is true. Larger weight means larger mass and therefore (potentially) sharper pictures without vibration.

 

For those concerned with arm shaking whilst holding the heavy monsters, please note that a Linhof Technika, with Grafmatic attached, nestles nicely on your chest when looking through the attached Linhof finder, thus liberating your arms from stress when taking your picture. With this technique I have been able to take sharp pictures at 1/30 or even 1/15 (with normal lens).

Dear Matthew,

 

Thank you kindly for posting your drawings for your hand made dark cloth holder for the Linhofs. It is all clear to me. However, for the benefits of the other readers of this thread, permit me to add a suggestion:

 

I own a Toyo Field camera and have acquired for this camera its very useful accessory, the balloon focussing hood. This is essentially the wide angle bellows for the small Toyos, attached to a frame identical to the frame to which the ordinary Toyo folding focusing hood is attached.

 

This balloon focussing hood (I believe it can be inspected at Toyo's website) is very convenient insofar as it stays open without holding it with my fingers and permits me to view the full groundglass whilst keeping my forehead against the opening at a comfortable viewing distance. In addition, it permits me to focus with a (long) loupe on the groundglass (through the quadratic opening).

 

A very useful accessory for the Linhof would be to simply attach such a Toyo wide angle bellows to your frame and, voilà!!!!

Graeme,

 

I read your initial note with great interest, although not understanding all your theoretical and practical exercises. However, it seems to me that your method could explain some rules of thumb that practical photographers have suggested for best placing the plane of sharp focus.

 

The application I have in mind is the following. Picture a large mountain on the horizon and some interesting ground detail (stones, flowers) on the ground in front of the camera, as well further away from the camera. If the plane of sharp focus is laid along the ground, the upper half of the mountain will be unfocused. If the plane of sharp focus is laid along the mountain (that is, perpendicular to the lens), the ground leading into the picture, especially the foreground will be unfocused. Some helpful pedagogic landscape photographers have in such a situation proposed the following:

 

Tilt the lens forward so that the plane of sharp focus starts with the ground in the foreground of the picture and rises upwards towards approximately one half up the mountain.

 

The above rule of thumb would make sense to me if the following was true: the borders of depth of focus outside the field of sharp focus are curved. Closest to the camera, there is practically no depth of focus. As we move along the field of sharp focus into the picture and away from the camera, the borders of depth of focus curve away from the field of sharp focus at both sides of that field in a symmetrical fashion. Since the curvature increases with stopping down the lens, there should be a lens stop small enough to put both the top of the mountain and the ground further away from the camera into acceptable focus. Furthermore, that lens stop will be larger than the one used to get everything acceptably sharp, when placing the plane of sharp focus perpendicular to the lens at the hyperfocal distance.

 

It would be interesting to hear from you, whether this intuitive grasp of the focusing model is in compliance with your theory.

Matt,

 

You got me intrigued with your description of what I understand is a practical solution to an old Linhof problem. The Linhof viewing hood is practically unusable and your gadget may be perfect as a viewing hood. Would it be possible for you to place a photo of the arrangement on the forum. I think many Linhof Technikardan and Technika users would be very grateful.

David,

 

I use a more recent 90 mm Linhof Angulon on my Technika III with both 4x5 Polaroid 55 and with 6x12 roll film holder (Horseman). Now and then I blow up my polaroid negatives ten times. I am not able to see a marked difference in softness between corner and center for pictures taken without shift.

 

In my view, either your lens is a lemon, or your standards are misaligned.

Emile,

 

I use my MII mostly for occasions, where I need a really stable camera for telephotos with my 600 Fuji lens. I have a reducing back on which I can use either 4x5 filmholders or my 6x12 Horseman roll film holder. With this set-up, I get excellent pictures, since the front standard of the camera does not sack with the weight of the lens, as that of my Toyo A II does. In fact the latter is no longer parallel in back and front, due to my putting the 600 mm lens on the front standard, you really need a sturdy view camera with those heavy Fuji and Nikon Tele lenses.

 

Emil