albert_martinez

Larry,

<p>

Fuji Reala or a Kodak 25 type emulsion would be a nice start.

It boggles the mind why neither of the two offer something in the

50-100 iso range. I can't imagine there not being a market for such a

film. Hopefully they'll soon see the light-in color and highly

saturated........

<p>

Regards,

Albert

You can contact fuji by visiting:

<p>

http://www.pictures.fujifilm.com/contact/contact_form2.html

What's it going to take to get better print film

available for our 4x5's and 8x10's.

I recently called Fuji and posed the same question, their

response was "consumer demand, in the form of emails and phone calls"

He mentioned that all request are processed and logged.

Based on that, I propose that all of us who participate in this great site,make time everyday to call or email Fuji or Kodak, and express the need for a fine grain, high contrast and saturation print film.

I love Velvia, but slide film (imho) is a pain in the ass to print.

We need to start a grass movement of sorts to get these guys to recognize our slice of the big pie.

I welcome all thoughts on this matter.........

<p>

Thanks-Albert

I'm considering a range finder to help with dof measurements when I'm using my 4x5. Any thoughts or experiences would be appreciated.

Regards-Albert

I was wondering what type of 4x5 C-41 (print) film is available

for landscape photography? For Chrome-I use Velvia, but development

cost are higher. I'd apprectiate any thoughts.

Thanks again-Albert

I was recently considering the purchase of a Schneider 210 APO lens

when I noticed there was oil on the inner portion of the blades.

I was surprised by this because these lenses haven't been in production very long.I bought a boxed new version of the mentioned lens but if anyone has any idea on the cause of this I

would appreciate an explanation.

<p>

Thanks-Albert

I almost forgot to ask about film type, any preferences and why

would be appreciated. I was thinking of Fuji Astia, but could really

use all the speed I can get, so I am considering a faster film.

<p>

Thanks-Albert

Greetings,

<p>

I was recently asked to take a couple of picture

at a friends wedding with my 4x5. My first thought

was to use available shaded light, for lack of a better word.

It would be nice however to add a little fill flash

just in case a light shadow developes under their faces,

or to perhaps give the dress a bit more pop.

I thought of reflectors, but never having used them,

I thought of flash. Would something like a Sunpack

work, the kind you would mount on the flash shoe of your camera?

Their both aware I've never done this sort of thing before,

but I would nevertheless like to do the best I can, within of course

a reasonable budget.

<p>

Thanks again for your help,

<p>

Albert

Hello Again Grey,

<p>

I see were in another-less filling-taste great debates, again!

You've asked a perfectly legitimate question, and I believe everyone

here, including myself, are attempting to give thier objective

thoughts about something thats unfortunately, completely subjective.

<p>

My girlfriend and I enjoy spending time at Borders or Barnes and

Nobles after our customary Friday night out. And as usual, she reads

her girly magazines and publications while I'm pouring through

anything associated with photography, something quiet common,

I'm sure, with the participants of this site.

<p>

I'll cut to the chase. Practical Photography ran several articles

evaluating film. And I'll give you the winners but with one caveat,

you should make an attempt to get copies of these articles so

YOU could be the judge of what looks best to you. I agreed with

most of their decisions and found others to be a bit close to call.

<p>

In my opinion, I felt they did an outstanding job

of keeping everything as fair and equal as humanily possible.

The photographs, I failed to mention, were of a female model wearing

some what colorful clothing. Same model,clothing,lighting,processing,

yaid,yadi,yadi...

<p>

100 Speed Chrome.

Astia

Provia F, which would have been my choice, shows a subtle but obviuos

yellowish hue on the models face, it's only visible when you compare

it to the other films. Once again,in my opinion, proving the value

and merit of the test.

<p>

What's really funny about this, at least to me,

was that when Provia F first came out I shot a 120 roll of my

girfriend at the Huntington Library. When I reviewed the

transperancies I noticed the slight shift in color on my

girlfriend face but without having something to compare it with

it looked perfectly normal. So when the article came out and I

noticed the results, I had her look over the different pictures and

asked her to pick out which film she thought I used on her at the

library, her comment jokingly was " I hope it's not this one, my

complexion is yellow enough as it is" she's chinese!!! I couldn't

stop laughing, so she looked over the choices and picked the Astia,

because "she'll have a rosy look with the bad effects of the sun"

and what's my comment "sure why not". It's totally subjective folks!

<p>

The winner of the 100 speed neg film was no surprise, Reala.

I've had very good results when photographying woman with Reala,

if I shoot it at an extra stop over, it smooths out facial

imperfection quite nicely. Older woman, heck-anyone over

12 loves that look, it takes years off thier features.

My mom seems to think there's something magical about my equipment,

and her sons talents,let's not spoil the notion for her, so we'll

keep the secret among us.

I don't remember the winner of 200 speed chrome but Kodak Royal

gold took the honors for neg film.

<p>

400 speed slide film was a real surprise for me, Fuji 100/1000

MS something or other. I went to Fuji's site to look for the stuff

and found nothing along those lines, so I'll need to research this a

bit more. I do remember they were quite impressed with the stuff,

even at the slower speeds. If anyone has any knowledge, experience

using or info on the stuff by all means shoot me an email. Would

be kind of nice to be able to use one film at different speeds

for different applications.

So the moral of this very long dissertation on film is?

<p>

Let your girlfriend or boyfriend pick what they want to look like

and you'll forever be rewarded with fun photographic toys from all

the members of your naively content family, everyone wins.

<p>

The End.

Taste Great!!!!

A very tired,

Albert

<p>

Excuse the type o's, you may critique my spelling and grammer only

while I'm awake. Less Filling!!!

Hello Grey,

<p>

You'll be hard pressed to find a better sheet of 4x5 landscape film

than Velvia.

Every so often I need to remind myself of this fact by shooting other

films, the results are always disappointing. In my opinion,

no other film on the market pops like Velvia for landscapes. On a

recent trip to Utah I ran out of Velvia while backpacking,

so I used a holder that had some Provia F loaded. When I got back and

had the transperancies developed, I couldn't believe how dull

and colorless the Provia F looked compared to the Velvia.

<p>

My vote is for Velvia, it'hard to beat!!!!!

<p>

Albert

Hi Roger,

<p>

If evaluating lenses is your cup of tea, by all means visit

Chris Perez's web site http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/proposal.html

Chris was pretty much like the rest of us, tierd of all the hype and

nonsense. So he set out to sort out the hype from the nonsense and he

accomplished it with flying colors!! He'll even break down

cost/resolution(cost of one line per mm of resolution).

<p>

I'll give you an example, the Schneider 110 XL measured in at 80 l/mm

and he approximates the cost at 2300 new or 28.75 / line/mm. The

Rodenstock 150 mm APO Sironar S on the other hand is approx 750 new,

and measures 85 l/mm, bringing the cost of lines/mm to 8.80.

<p>

Aside from the fact that the focal lengths are different, Chris's

numbers would indicate that the Rodenstock is 1/3 the price of the

Schneider but yields an extra 5 l/mm, I'll let you be the judge.

<p>

I'll give you an idea of what your up against. I've been shooting

with my Toyo 4x5 for about a year now. During that year, my results

were for the most part mixed. So I bought a Rodenstock depth of field

calculator so I could better judge where I should be focusing

and what aperature to use. Rodestock claims I should place my

focus point at half the extension, your basically splitting the

difference between your near and far focused points, so I did as I was

told.

The results were for the most part rather soft, I didn't get

involved in large format photography to get softly focused images.

So I tried a third of the way in, I've read this in dozens of

publications and articles, the results were even worse!!

<p>

Frustrated, I grabbed my camera and headed for a football field.

I set three objects on the field.

One at ten feet, the second at 50ft, and the third was an object

approximately 200ft away.

My Rodenstock calculator gave me an f stop of 22, so I set it for 32

so there would be no question in my mind that I was running out

of depth of field.

When I focused at ten feet, the object at 50ft was soft and the object

and 200ft was out of focus.

Focusing at 50ft yielded very little change at ten but greatly

improved the objects at 50 and 200. Focusing at 2/3 of the way in

yielded very little change to the object at 10ft but the objects

at 50 and 200 dialed in really nice.

<p>

On a recent trip to Utah most of my images were of objects

as close as 20ft and the furthest at infinity. All

of the shots I took were focused at infinity or the furthest

point I could possibly see on the the ground glass.

They are to date, the best pictures I've taken

Where is all this going? Had I gone to the football field

much earlier, I would have avoided the crappy pictures

I took over the course of a year. Before you consider laying

out an outrageous amount of money for hype stop by

Chris Perez's site, then visit Harold Merklingers site at

http://fox.nstn.ca/~hmmerk/ for really inovatitive techniques

on focusing. Harold site alone will yield results that will

far surpass any differences you'll ever see on film between lenses.

If I've saved you half the hassles I've been through, then this letter

will have not been in vain. Good luck to you, and remember to do

your own testing. There are camera rental places that will

rent you Rodenstock and Schneider lenses if your still in doubt,

and by all means test them for yourself.

<p>

Albert

I'd like to start off by thanking those who shared Harold Merklingers

focusing techniques with me. While on vacation in Utah, I applied his techniques and found them to be very usefull and accurate.

I'm afraid however, his tilting techniques didn't quite click.

In all fairness to Mr Merklinger, I only read it once, casually on the way to Utah. I would prefer however, to poll the readers

of this fabulous site on what techniques you prefer.

<p>

With depth of field issues behind me, I'm open for suggestions

on Tilting techniques. For those of you who have never heard

of Harold Merlinger, you owe it to yourself to read what this

fascinating gentleman has to share. I welcome your thougths...

<p>

Thanks again.

Albert

The Set Up:

Toyo 4x5 Monorail, Bogen Tripod and Head, Rodenstock 150mm APO Sironar

N, Velvia 4x5 and 6x7 120 roll, Horseman Back.

Three objects.

One at 10ft

2nd 50ft

3rd 150ft approximation

<p>

Both standards are parallel and leveled, all items are on the same plane. I'll cut to the chase....

<p>

I focus far then near, the extension difference equal f22 + 1/2, 6 divisions on my Rodenstock calculator.

I set it to f32 for good measure.

The test consists of focusing:

<p>

1. 1/3 of the way in from the closest object (the object 10ft away)

two divisions to be exact.

2. 1/2 the distance, 3 divisions.

3. 2/3 of the way in or 4 divisions.

<p>

The results: Were Very Repeatable, not much of a shock there....

<p>

When I focused 1/3 of the way in, the object 50 ft away was in focus

but some what soft. The object approximately 150ft away was defenitely

soft.

<p>

1/2 of the way in, the equivalent of splitting the depth of field

in half, showed a slight softening on the item ten feet away but still

acceptable, and a noticable improvement of the object at 50ft and 150ft-not much of a surprise there either since your shifting the focus towards the objects at 50 and 150ft away.

<p>

2/3 of the way in was the real surprise for me. The foreground

was still clear enough to consider sharp and the objects at

50 & 150 really dialed in.

<p>

So where's this going? I've read the DOF charts by Schneider,been

on countless web sites ( Robert Wheeeler, Photo.net, Sinar, Chris

Perez's site- a real good one-I might add, really gets into the numbers and off the "name brand hype") and I really expected to see the testing favor the first 1/3 method since this is what I've always been told works. Of course you get the guys who swear the answers to all of your questions is on the GG,and I'll admit there is allot to be said for that method also but in all honesty folks can anyone really see a difference when stopped down to F22-32? I sure as heck can't!!!

So for those of you who are traveling down the same path I

was on, It's well worth your time and effort to experiment

for yourself. And If I were asked today where I set my focus

point I might very well say a 1/2 - 2/3's of the way in.

<p>

Any thoughts would be appreciated and considered,

just don't have me go blind staring at the GG at F32.

<p>

Albert

I've been seing a noticable change in the spacing between

photograph. Does anyone know whether there are any adjustment

that would cure this problem. Is film flatness an issue with these

devises. I was really tempted to purchase a Linhof

or Horseman but their very expensive, even used.

Should I invest the money for a Linhof or stick to the Graflex?

In term of film flatness, are there substantial differences between

the two to justify there sizable price difference?

<p>

Thanks for your thoughts,

Albert

Does anyone know where I could possibly find small bubble levels

for my front standard. They would be very similar to the ones I

have on the rear standard for leveling the ground glass.

<p>

I currently own a Toyo 45cx and would like to be able to insure the

front standard is parallel (perpendicular to the ground) like the the rear when I have the tripod angled down. The Toyo is not gear driven

so I usually guess by comparing it to the rear standard.

<p>

Any thought or comments would be appreciated.

Hello Jon,

<p>

The back your describing is used on a host of different cameras.

You'll first need to decide on the format. 6x7 is popular because

you can easily make 4x5 and 8x10 prints without cropping and you get

an extra 2 shots, 10 total, if I'm not mistaken, from a 120 roll.

I prefer the 6x9 format myself, you have the luxury of cropping, but

again, it's just a matter of preference and application.

<p>

Now the issue of cost. You'll need to decide how much your willing

to spend. Horseman is priced between Linhof and Toyo, Grafic is the

least expensive. I've had a 6x9 Grafic for years and have never

had any trouble. I respect and admire the engineering of the other

units but for a quarter of the price, you can get something that

works fine.

<p>

There is also a slide unit that allows the back to be positioned

away from the standard and comes with it's own ground glass.

I love shooting with my 4x5 but must admit there are times when

having ten shots in a roll comes in real handy. There are major cost

savings that will also more than justify the extra expense of the

back. I hope this helps-I'm new to this also.

The wealth of information on this site is astronomical, sure makes

things allot smoother for all concerned.

<p>

Take Care,

Albert

I've been shooting with my Toyo 4x5 for about a year now and I love it. Unfortunatley, some of us don't have mechanical depth of field calculators built in to our view cameras and that's where the frustrations begin.

<p>

I purchased Rodenstocks View Camera calculator, it helped some because your focusing on two points and it then chooses for you your optimal f/stop. I need more info!!!!

<p>

So, assuming the cameras level, tilt,swing,shift all set at 0 deg, and you just dropped your Rodenstock calculator in the lake, where

would you go from there? Should I give up and set everything to f45.

<p>

Rodenstock also claims you should set your focus point to

half the distance between to objects, instead of the first third I always assumed was correct.

If anyone out there has been through this stage in there photographic

journeys and could shed some light, or shall we say-some depth of field on the subject,I would truly appreciate it.

<p>

Thank you for your time,

<p>

Albert