jens_g.r._benthien

Airbus is using the metric as well as the imperial system, depending on the task. My neighbor is an engineer at Airbus, wings section. Everything is metric there. 120 film is 60 mm wide. I am not talking about the gate or net frame size which is close to a credit card size (54x85mm, same size as German standard business cards).

6x6 or 6x9 is not a poor metric approximation, it is exactly the film format. Simple as that. The imperial measurement covers only approximately the net area of the image. However, it is not a standard, because i.e. a Plaubel 69W does have a slightly smaller film gate than a Horseman 6x9 back or a Fuji GSW 690 III Professional. Did you ever think about the fact why NASA, the army, etc. use the metric system? It is a lot more precise!

If other people see the manipulated image from mihai and later meet the model in person, they will be shocked. Why not be authentic?

Could be, I don't have the Busch Pressman. A 65 mm from Rodenstock with a recessed lens board might work... shorter focal length lenses have too small image circles.

For a 4x5 it is a 75 mm. However, it will be too wide in most situations, so a 90 mm would fit your plans better. For the 75 mm you need a recessed lens board to use the movements, which I doubt will be available for that camera. Make sure you get a center filter for the lens as well, otherwise your light fall off to the edges will be around 2 f-stops.

I have the cameras and lenses. I am used to handle the equipment. I like film. No client would pay the extra for a digital back. I usually print at 120 x 80 cm for clients (roughly 3 x 4.5 foot) and larger. I don't need batteries except for the light meter. I don't need a laptop and memory cards. There are qualified experts in the lab who develop my film (slide and negative), so I don't have to mess with RAW converters. I can view my film on a light table or against a window without having to boot a computer. I can use my cameras in any climate. The lenses are distortion free. Nothing beats a rangefinder or a ground glass with an optical image. I can make images at night without having to wait for ages to let the camera remove the sensor noise. MF uses only the sweet spot of my LF lenses. My dedicated film scanner delivers breathtaking files. Storage of film is simpler than making copies from one HD to another every year. I can re-scan film if the software improves. I have an original which I can touch, not virtual pixel trash. I want to enjoy my life and profession. Hm, maybe there will be more reasons if I would think more about the topic...

In Europe you can get Haida glass filters with a graduated coating like the large format lens center filters a couple of years ago. Haida also offers filter holders for 100x150 filters, precisely made of aluminium. The Haida filters don't show any color shift, they don't distort, don't scratch. Resin filters are like a magnet for dust (Lee filters i.e.). I use the Haida filter holder and i.e. combine an ND 3.0 and a GND 0.9 filter without any visible color shift. OK, glass filters can break, but resin filters do scratch and attract dust like hell. Soft GND filters are perfect for wide angle lenses, hard GND filters are perfect for tele lenses. Never use a hard GND on a wide angle, unless you want to ruin your image...

<p>I have a lot (around 150) medium format slide films 8 years past expiration date. Fuji Provia 100F, Fuji Astia 100, Fuji Velvia 50 (the old version).<br> They have been stored in normal room temperature (20° C = 68° F), sealed in their original foil. <br> Because I turned to negative film, I didn't remember them until last week. So I took a Provia 100F, loaded my Plaubel 69w with it, made 8 shots and mailed the film next day to the lab. The results are fantastic.<br> However, keep in mind to have them developed as soon as you have exposed them. The longer you wait after exposure, the more color cast you will get. 3 years ago I've made the same test, but left the film in the camera for 3 weeks. No chance to filter the purple color cast which looked like purple clouds over all slides.<br> <img src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/108865744/forum/scan_160226_0001N.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Both manufacturers have what you want:<br> http://www.hartblei.com/lenses/lens_35mm.htm<br> http://www.zoerk.com</p>

<p>Yes: Until today there are only words. Weird explanations. Hot air.<br> As long as I don't see what Peter Lerman described, there is absolutely no evidence to believe it:</p> <blockquote> <p>I believe the only demonstration of "proof" would be to shoot the same, exact scene with two different lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>I want a scientific proof. No more, no less.</p>

<p>@Peter</p> <blockquote> <p>I believe the only demonstration of "proof" would be to shoot the same, exact scene with two different lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> That's exactly what I had asked for. But obviously nobody can or will do it. And as long as I actually don't see a direct comparison, I will stick to my statement and say it's all smoke and puff.</p>

<p>I've made this one with a modern multicoated EBC Fujinon lens. Kodak T-Max, 400 ISO, lab development (I don't develop any film, the people at the lab need some support):</p> <p><img src="https://beefoto.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/scan-090214-0001__02.jpg?w=1008" alt="" /></p> <p>Lots of details in the shadows. Many highlights. Sky. White walls.</p>

<p>+1</p>

<blockquote> <p>Decades of densitometry and optics experience with 'better shadow detail lenses'</p> </blockquote> <p>So there must be hundreds if not thousands of samples somewhere!</p> <p>I just want <strong>ONE SINGLE SAMPLE</strong> and comparison - which obvious nobody can or will present. Not even a link! That's hilarious.</p>

<p>If you guys talk about shadow enhanced lenses, you should at least be able to show some samples.</p> <p>As long as this won't happen, you are chasing a totally transparent unicorn. Smoke and puff.</p> <p>Maybe we should suggest the administrators to add the topic 'esoteric phenomena - no proof required' and have them move this thread to that section.</p>

<p>If you guys talk about shadow enhanced lenses, you should at least be able to show some samples.</p> <p>As long as this won't happen, you are chasing a totally transparent unicorn. Smoke and puff.</p> <p>Maybe we should suggest the administrators to add the topic 'esoteric phenomena - no proof required' and have them move this thread to that section.</p>

<p>Samples please.</p>

<p>Q.G.,<br> I am well aware of the effect Mr. Adams used by pre-exposing some film sheets.</p> <p>What I don't understand is 'non-image' light. Everything in front of the lens is 'image light', which comes from the scene. So where does the flare or glow or fog or whatever esoteric expression someone might use come from? Is it predictable? Is it controllable? Is it reproducible? Can I calculate it? How do I measure it? Can I see it? Can an exposure meter record it? Can anybody show me the same scene with A. a normal lens and B. with a shadow enhanced lens, developed side by side with the identical developer in the same tank?</p> <p>BTW, I've searched for 'shadow enhanced lens' at Rodenstock, Schneider, Cooke, Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, Canon, Olympus. Result: Zero.<br> I've searched for other combinations of the terms as well. Result: Zero.</p> <p>When I breathe onto the front lens element (artificial fog!) and expose the film, I get a soft image, but not enhanced shadows. When I pull some nylon gauze/mesh over the lens (thousands of tiny flares!), I get a soft image, but not enhanced shadows. When I point the camera to the sunset, I get a large flare with some lenses, but no enhanced shadows.</p> <p>As long as nobody can show a sample as mentioned above, it's smoke and puff. Something esoteric, negligible, and coincidental which only some enhanced people with enhanced eyesight will be able to notice at full moon. </p>

<p>Maybe I am too old to understand how a specific lens can offer better shadow detail.</p> <p>Do you have any samples?</p> <p>100% black is 100% black. 100% white is 100% white. A lab can push or pull in the development process. But a 8.0/90mm at f=11 will render the same image on the same film with the same density absolutely identical to a 5.6/90mm lens at f=11. None of them will turn the 100% black to a 95% or 50% black (=grey). </p> <p>Did I miss something over the last 40 years? Any fundamental change in the physics behind optics?</p>

<p>Maybe I am too old to understand how a specific lens can offer better shadow detail.</p> <p>Do you have any samples?</p> <p>100% black is 100% black. 100% white is 100% white. A lab can push or pull in the development process. But a 8.0/90mm at f=11 will render the same image on the same film with the same density absolutely identical to a 5.6/90mm lens at f=11. None of them will turn the 100% black to a 95% or 50% black (=grey). </p> <p>Did I miss something over the last 40 years? Any fundamental change in the physics behind optics?</p>

<p>If you use a glass which is etched too coarse or simply too much, the LS 9000 will start, perform the calibration and then stop with an error. I've experienced this effect with a replacement glass for my FH 869G.<br> <br> BTW, a manual for the FH 896S is here: http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nikonholder.html<br> <br> Sometimes it works, sometimes not.<br> <br> http://www.betterscanning.com used to have glass plates for the LS 9000, and scan science still offers them:<br> http://www.scanscience.com/Pages/MyScanner/A-FilmScanners/2-Nikon9K-8K.html<br> <br> You can even get Newton rings with the FH 869G holder, if the humidity in the room with the scanner is too high. Then just use a hair dryer and blow the film as well as the holder to dry and warm them up, then pull the film through a Kinetronics antistat vac cleaner and scan.<br> <br> As an alternative you can place your film sleeves for an hour onto an old light table (no LED) with a slightly warm surface. This will bend the film strip, so that only the top side will have contact to the AN glass.</p>

<p>Fuji GW 690 III and Fuji GSW 690 III plus a Sekonic L-608 or a Gossen Profisix plus a Gitzo tripod. If weight is of concern, just the Fuji GW 690 III and the Gossen.</p>

<p>Thank you Louis for the link, it is truly amazing and breathtaking.</p>

<p>NPC used to manufacture Polaroid backs for the Fuji 6x9 cameras (MF-23 Fuji), but the company is no longer on the market, and the Polaroid backs are hard to find these days. I'd say they pop up at ebay once per year.<br> http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/NPC<br> The instant film packs are still available: Fujifilm FP-100 C, glossy and silk, 10 exp. in Europe around 11 Euro per pack.</p>

<p>Sounds as if you believe that more mega pixels produce better photographic images...</p>