frankz

I had a 4490 for a while, but dusted off the 8x10 camera and started playing again. I was doing the stich thing myself with 4x5 and finally got fed up and bought a 4990 to handle all.

 

A 4990 Epson will scan up to 8x10 negs, trans, and opaque.

I have and use both on a regular basis, and find the RB to be the more dependable of the two.

 

 

I haven't thrown the Hassy out into the yard yet only because of the Zeiss lenses - the Swedish camera itself I find to be a rather obnoxious and cantankerous piece of machinery; not just the 500cm but the entire V-series. In this regard, I prefer the Mamiya over the 'Blad.

I'm certain a lens as you want could be made, but aside from the obvious expense, the weight would tax the mechanics of most cameras to simply support a piece of glass this size.

 

 

I'm getting this mental picture of a front standard operated by hydraulics, rope and tent stakes and ...

I agree with Michael Briggs on this one - a lens that embodies all these qualities is somewhat againts the laws of nature.

 

A wide angle anything with decent resolution will be expensive unless it's such a rat you're afraid to touch it.

 

A Schneider with a minor amount of "Schneideritis" (cell separation around the edges, peculiar to Schneider, but present in other brands sometimes) may be cheaper than most offerings but not by much.

 

Be ready to invest in a Packard shutter. I believe they're still made and while not "cheap", surprisingly inexpensive. Flash sync is available.

 

Sometimes, loose front and rear cells are available but that requires you know the spacing between the two for mounting or, at least, be willing to experiment with this yourself.

 

Watch what you buy, however - some of the cheaper WAs are for a smaller format (i. e., Grayflex type cams) and won't cover a 4x5 negative without being racked out for a macro shot.

On this forum, see http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CAO9. I use this one with my Delta 100 and love the looks. Dilution "G" is a 1:119 ratio, but I'm just as likely to use a 1:63 mix if I feel the scene's contrast would benefit from it.

 

As for presoak - 3-5 minutes is a good guess.

8X10 and larger isn't an issue of simply taking a photograph - it's the capabilty of total control over your image, that is, assuming your camera has the necessary movements.

 

 

While all photography could be considered an art, all large format and especially the big stuff takes that art form to another level, and even though your fiddling with the most basic type of camera (LF), there's an entirely different way of thinking to be made a habit of.

 

 

Don't worry about 'Avedon, Penn and others' - regardless of how hard you try, you'll only be able to take photos like Thomas Canet; perhaps with a bit of their wisdom in the equation, but nontheless only like Thomas Canet.

 

 

Ask yourself if you're really willing to learn the operation of one of these beasts rather than "What can it do for me?". LF will do exactly what you tell it - no more, no less and take a lot of your time and money to do so.

 

That being said, I still remember when I picked up my first 8X10 transparency from the processor's place - I was in awe, and I still am. Well worth the trouble, IMHO.

Years ago, I bought a Toyo 45D. It wasn't modular, but it had a decent amount of extension, and would take a good photo if I took the time to do so. I saw one on fleaBay a day or two ago, the price of which at that time was around $200 and it's a full-motion camera, but definitely entry-level.

 

 

As the other gent said, the lenses are tranferrable - you'll buy them regardless of the camera you use and are the most important component of any system you assemble. You wouldn't spend $20k on stereo components then go to Radio Shack for your speakers - don't scrimp on your lenses.

I typically remove the GG and clip the 545 in place - I believe it's much less disturbing to the camera's adjustments.

scott ferris, Aug 27, 2007; 01:21 a.m

the main drooling differance for me between a canon and a hassy is the lenses...mmmm zeiss glass...*drool*

___________________________________

 

Scott, I'm with you. Personally, I find a Hassy a general pain, but I keep mine for that reason - the glass.

I agree with Steve get "The Camera", read, and then make up your mind.

 

If you still want to get into LF, my advice would be to get a 'minimalist' type camera - one of the older Calumets or a Omega 45D and a 180mm lens (this is what I had initially), read the book some more and play a lot; use B&W film as it's cheaper if you process in your sink. Color 4X5 can run $5 per shot(film + developing) and 8X10 can run $15, assuming you don't do your own processing. Don't spend a lot in this particular learning process - if you stick with it, you spend more than enough over the years to make up for any penny-pinching behavior up front. LF is a money pit of the first order, the second order being medium format.

 

Unless you're into self-abuse, don't go larger than 4X5 initially; a 5X7 cam would be fine but it's an oddball like a 16 guage shotgun - effective, but hard to find ammunition sometimes.

 

You'll find eventually that learning to take photos with this 'minimalist' camera and lens rig will teach you more than you could ever hope to learn with, say , a Hasselblad. Learn the LF cam and the only type camera that will ever give you troubles again is an automatic type. You'll forever be thinking in planes, even with a fixed-lens camera.

 

Eventually, you'll either throw rocks at the LF equipment or you'll not be able to get enough of it - there's not any middle ground. Depending on what you do with it, you may graduate to a larger format and more 'precise' equipment (I have a love/hate relationship with my Sinar P 8X10).

 

Again - Steve was right. Get "The Camera' and don't just read, but understand.

I ran into this problem some time ago - since you're building your own, you have many options that the factory boys don't allow you.

 

A Packard shutter is always a good answer for this problem provided you have enough room to mount one inside the bellows assy. If not, they can be mounted on the end of the lens but that looks rather funky, and while functional, sloppy. The Packards are available with flash sync and electric trips instead of the air bulbs and lines. I believe they're still made and are relatively inexpensive. Run "Packard Shutter" thru Google and see what you get.

 

Second option, though a bit more work, is to adapt your camera to use the Sinar Copal shutter. 8 Seconds to 1/60, about a 2.5 inch hole thru, and about 3/4 thick. It has provision for the Sinar DB lens mount (f-stop control) but you won't need it with the barrel lenses as most of them have irises. $200-$400 on flea bay. If you go this way, make sure you get the release cable with it - they're about $200 otherwise.

Cheap 55? You'll have better luck finding the Easter Bunny!

John - Sell it to me!

The fact that you're here asking questions should be a clue - don't use film of unknown quality until tested.

 

"Very important" demands fresh film. Period.

Complaining about film flatness in a Hasselblad is rather like trying to pick the fly poop out of the pepper. The backs are good - period. Sounds more like someone's advertising implication to me.

Leo:

 

Only an opinion of course, but if YOU believe the lenses do a satisfactory job (and you must since you haven't gotten rid of them), who cares?

 

The advertising and the "latest and greatest" is all a ploy to get you and your bucks to part company. Not in ALL cases, but usually all that's improved by these optics is the manufacturer's bottom line, as the use of friggin' plastics has become epidemic instead of the real metal they used to use for lens barrels.

 

Simply said - this is YOUR art. Do what pleases YOU, even if it does involve using a lens that not everybody rates highly. Artist become known because people like their perspectives, not because they cater to demand - that's what WalMart does.

 

Feed 'em a fish!

Much of a printed photo's appearance comes from the printer's work, not totally from the film/paper combination itself. The printer is probably the weakest link in the process, being the most subjective due to depending on someone else's eyes.

 

Personally, I've found that sending files (over the net) to the local grocery store after properly Photoshopping the digital file, whether it be from film or digital file from the outset, results in a print very close if not equal to the quality of a professional lab as long as the words "no color or density correction" are added in the special instruction box when sending the files.

 

Sure - all films will act a bit differently. I'd suggest digitizing some pics from various films and spend a few bucks experimenting.

Larry:

 

Yaw-free = One of the Sinar "P" or "X" type cameras.

 

Frank

I can't remember who it was, but a gent addressed this about a week ago - at least that's when I think I read it.

 

He said being outside and if windy leaves the paper slide and therefore, the attached film flapping in the breeze a bit causing a blur.

 

Were you outside?

In my area (Tulsa, Oklahoma), there's nary a soul left that processes 8 X 10

C41 anymore - only E6 by dip 'n' dunk with much cajoling.

 

Considering the purchase of some manner of Jobo equipment to process the film

(both C41 and E6).

 

Is there anyone out there who uses this equipment? Need a few opinions and

maybe some caveats before purchasing.

 

Please don't try to talk an stubborn, half-blind old man out of his 8 X 10 -

ain't gonna happen.

 

Thanks -

 

Frank

$75 - $125 is about right. That's what they seem to be going for used now.

 

Bought one a couple months back.

 

Frank

Sometimes, detailing one background can 'sound arrogant'.

 

I read Larry's post and really saw nothing 'wrong' with it - he's rather proud of what he does and that's a good thing. That's what keeps all of us going.

 

I almost responded to Larry in the positive last pm but now, I'm happy I didn't - like Larry's, it would have been somewhat prideful; pleased with the different directions life has taken me.

 

Frank

Red-eye is caused by having the flash too close to the lens axis.

 

Get the flash away by raising it above the cam and you'll be fine - 10-12 inches above seems about right.

While all of the mentioned flash units are very good equipment, one brand wasn't mentioned. Novatron.

 

They make a 240 w/s digital (so identified because of the low current/voltage in the pc line) with variable power that would be more than adequate with your mentioned equipment. I have one, and as the other gent said, have limited power in the modeling lights (100w). I got around that with my 240d by using a 75 watt halogen spot, a rather small bulb but a major increase in brightness.

 

If you decide to go this route, don't get the standard heads as they a major pain in the posterior because of their reflectors (one piece, on the head) Get the 'bare tube' type heads as they're more versatile and more stuff can be attached.

 

Downsides are non-color corrected flashtubes, always in synetrical mode (all power dialed in is routed equally to the heads) This can be somewhat modified by the -1 and -2 stop switches on the heads if those were the ones purchased. On this unit, only three head plugs are available, but additional dividing cords are available. Check it out.

 

A good light meter is an essential. Many digital, lcd readout types are available as are a few analog types (used) for less outlay. I use a Gossen Luna Pro F and wouldn't trade it for anything else.

 

If you get an older flash unit (higher pc voltage/current), remember that the higher power may inflict some damage to the 'contacts' in your 30D. I use a 30D also and while I'm not afraid of a direct connection with my 240D Novatron, I also have a Norman unit modified to accept Speedotron heads (800 w/s) and a 4803 Speedo unit. These I trigger with pocket wizards to minimize the possibilty of internal damage to the digital camera, but seldom use them with the digital equipment because that much power is not needed with the faster lenses and more open apertures likely to be used with portraits. They're usually used with my medium and large format equipment.

 

Good luck in your endeavor in the portraiture world.

Your answer will lie, as the other gent said, in lighting - go flatter; that is, a larger reflector closer to the camera but not on the camera/lens axis, and definitely not more than a 1.5:1 ratio (highlights to shadows).