patrick_chase

If you're willing to go with 2 systems, then I'll third the recommendation of using 35 mm for closeups and long-lens work, and LF for landscapes and still-lifes. That is the approach I use.

 

Rgds,

 

Patrick

In response to Daniel Taylor;

 

Magnification is equivalent to (though not precisely defined as) the ratio of image dimensions to subject dimensions (linear dimensions, not areal)

 

In practical terms, this means that for a flat subject positioned at the plane of focus, a lens focussed to 1:1 magnification on 35 mm film captures 35 by 24 mm of that subject. By comparison, a lens focussed to 1:1 on 6x6 cm would capture 60 x 60 mm of such a subject. Thus, to fill the same fraction of the frame with any given (i.e. fixed-size) subject requires about twice as much magnification on MF as on 35 mm. That's all I was trying to communicate with my initial post - It's not exactly a revolutionary or difficult-to-understand concept, and it's why you don't see too many people doing insect photography or other high-magnification macro work with MF!

 

I suppoose you could argue that since the same physical film area is filled by a given subject in both formats you can simply crop down, but in that case you're defeating the point of working in a larger format.

35 mm is just about the only game in town for insects and other macro subjects.

 

While there are excellent 1:1 macro lenses for MF, it's important to remember that "1:1" means that the lens focusses down to cover a subject area equivalent to the film format, so 1:1 on MF is equivalent to 1:2 on 35 mm, which is probably inadequate for insects.

Pete Andrews wrote:

 

<p>

 

> Most scanners could, in fact, see a higher density, simply by

winding up the intensity of the lamp

 

<p>

 

This is untrue for most scanners, unless you're willing to allow the

CCD's analog output to saturate in mid- and light-tones. If you turn

up the lamp, then you'll simply end up shortening the integration time

(the amount of time between transfer gate signals) to stay under

saturation. Provided that the integration time was reasonably short to

begin with, this puts you right back where you started in terms of

maximum density.

Deviating a bit into scanner-land...

 

<p>

 

Pete Andrews' point (that Dmax for EPN is fairly low) is technically

correct, but from a practical standpoint I think that Paul

Schillinger's advice is still good: If you want to lighten, you would

do well to find a scanner with the widest dynamic range possible.

 

<p>

 

Although many scanners have rated Dmax well in excess of 3.3, very few

can actually extractl noise-free detail from something that dark. My

experience is that scanner Dmax ratings tend to be inflated by 0.5-1.0

units of density relative to what they can actually handle witho0ut

perceptible noise. If you really want to fetch all of the shadow

detail possible out of a piece of film with a Dmax of 3.3 or 3.76,

then a scanner with a rated Dmax of 4.2 would probably be the

appropriate tool for the job.

To Kurt Heintzelman: Scott is right. CF 13 simply changes the number of _manually_ selectable AF points. Automatic point selection is always a 45-point affair. This can be verified quite easily by putting the camera into automatic selection mode with CF13 enabled, and watching the ensuing light show...

Veering briefly O-T, and responding to Kurt Heintzelman:

 

The Canon ES-E1 software for the EOS-1v is now available - I got my copy the other day (my local store received 4 copies, and all were gone by mid-day).

Hi Keith;

 

The "park on the water" with pelicans all around described by a previous poster is La Jolla Cove. It's a mob scene on weekends and can be fairly crowded weekday evenings, but you can probably get some good shots by walking up the coast along the cliffs from there.

 

Up the coast a ways, the Torrey Pines nature reserve (between UCSD and Black's beach) offers opportunities galore. The sandstone cliffs react quite spectacularly to sunset, and the hang glides and parafoils at the glider port provide interesting subjects.

 

There'a also the zoo...

Hi Roger;

 

If you're shooting LF and you can get your exposures _reasonably_ close (within 2/3 to 1 stop of underexposure and, say, 1/3-stop of overexposure), then you might want to consider the following alternative to traditional exposure bracketing:

 

Expose two sheets of film of each scene at your best estimate of the correct exposure. When it comes time to develop, send one through and keep the other. Examine the first one, and then adjust development of the second as required to correct any exposure error (many labs which handle 4x5 will do pushes and pulls in 0.1-stop increments for a minimal premium). The key thing is that the two originals have to have initial exposures which are as nearly identical as possible for this to work.

 

The nice things about this approach are that it only costs you 2 sheets of each scene versus 3 or more for bracketing, and you don't have to pay for development of the second sheet if you get the exposure right to begin with (of course, you could do the same with bracket sets in LF).

 

Shooting LF in pairs has saved my hindside more times than I can coulnt, when I've sone stupid things like forgetting about that 2/3-stop reciprocity correction for Velvia at 8 seconds...

OK, no one else has commented so I'll take the bait: Who the heck makes a 400 f/4 prime for EOS?

 

I know of many 400/5.6's and a couple 400/2.8's, but the closest lenses I've ever seen to a 400/4 from _any_ manufacturer are the Nikkor 400/3.5, Nikkor 200-400/4, and the 300/2.8 of your choice with a 1.4X TC. Note that these options are all >= $3000 and >= 6 lbs...

 

Perhaps what you really have is a 400/5.6?

Hi Charles;

 

Strctly my own opinion, but the only reason I'd ever use 6x12 is if I had an ultra-wide lens like the 35 mm Rodenstock Grandagon that covered 6x12 but not 4x5. Even then, I'd think long and hard about shooting 4x5 sheet film and simnply cropping out the vignetted parts...

Hi Dick;

 

As previously noted, the limit switch simply puts an uncrossable "barrier" in the focus range, at about 1:4 magnification.

 

IMO the only time the limiter is useful is when you're using AF with distant subjects, in which case enabling the limiter prevents the lens from "hunting" through the lens' expansive macro range whenever it can't find focus (the round trip takes about 5 seconds with the limiter off, compared to a bit over a second with it on).

Just to clarify my previous response:

 

I only see a difference between the two bodies in the most difficult tracking situations (for example, tightly cropped upper-torso-only shots of oncoming cyclists - Even the 1v + 300/2.8IS combo can be pushed to the breaking point in that kind of situation...). For one-shot AF, every EOS body since the EOS 5/A2 has been more than adequate in my opinion, such that the differences aren't enough to be worth discussing.

I've had business dealings with a lot of individuals who speak native languages other than mine (including Japanese), and the vast majority of the time hesitation on their part means they're either making sure they understood exactly what you said or making sure that their intended answer isn't subject to misinterpretation. This apoplies whether the conversation is taking place in your native language or in theirs.

 

In other words, don't infer anything from the ancilliary details of verbal communication (timing, inflection, etc) if you're dealing with someone from a different culture. It'll always backfire on you!

 

-- P

Hi Gary;

 

I use both the EOS-3 and EOS-1v, both with PB-E2 and NP-E2. My telephotos are the 70-200/2.8L, 300/2.8L IS, and 300/4L.

 

Both cameras are very fast at focus tracking, particularly when a single AF point is selected. The biggest difference I've observed between the two is that the 1v tends to yield "steadier" shooting rates when tracking than does the 3: Where the 3's frame rate tends to vary wildly as a function of how fast the subject is moving, the 1v chugs along at a steady rate. Canon's technical literature attributes this to the addition of an idle period to the 1v's shooting sequence (giving AF drive some extra time to complete if necessary) and argues that this results in a higher success rate when tracking because the camera "knows" more precisely when the next exposure will occur at the time that it makes its AF prediction. My own experiments suggest that the 1v is indeed more accurate (higher % of keepers in difficult situations) than the 3.

 

One other note: Both cameras yield noticeably higher accuracy (less tendency to break lock and follow the background, etc) when tracking with one or more of the AF array's cross sensors. This is a problem for the 100-400IS, because it is slower than f/4 and therefore can'tuse the cross arrays on either body.

 

-- Patrick

Hi Daniel;

 

I'm curious about the difference you observed between MF and 4x5 originals: Is that with equivalent magnification for both (in which case the larger size of 4x5 means that the neg can be a bit less crisp and still deliver equivalent or superior quality in a final enlargement), or have you already compensated for the difference in original size?

 

My own experience is that my 4x5 chromes tend to be noticeably less sharp than my 35 mm work or than the MF work of others (I haven't taken the MF plunge) when viewed under equivalent magnification. The increased siuze of the 4x5 original is such that I nonetheless obtain better quality in a final print at any given enlargement size, so in that sense direct viewing of negs or chromes of different formats is misleading.

 

I attribute the relative unsharpness of my 4x5 originals to four factors (listed in order of importance):

 

1. Lack of film flatness and/or focus offsets, particularly when using Polaroid Type 55, Quickloads, and Readyloads.

 

2. Diffraction due to the smaller apertures typically employed in 4x5 work (this is somewhat tied to film-flatness issue...)

 

3. The superior design of some of the best MF lenses (most notably the newer Zeiss optics for the Contax 645 and Hassy)

 

4. The inherent compromise in center shaprness with any lens (regardless of quality) optimized to cover 4x5.

 

One other comment: In your specific case, I know that you use at least one Schneider XL lens (the 110). Those lenses have massive coverage, which means that if you aren't using a compendium hood there is a lot of flare-producing, contrast-degrading light bouncing around the interior of your camera. I noticed an immediate improvement in contrast when I started using a compendium hood with my Nikkor 90SW, and that lens has smaller coverage than your 110XL. In contrast, most MF and 35 mm lenses cover only their target film format and no more, as any disgruntled owner of the Hassy Flexbody will tell you... ;-)

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

Hi Bob;

 

It's probably bogus. Tim Fitzharris is quite [in]famous for his ability to "improve" his images by using filters, editing in Photoshop, sandwiching originals, or employing any other method he can lay his hands on. Like Cowan Stark, I received one of his technique books a while back. I still get a chuckle out of the lengths he went to to manipulate some of the images in there (it's worth noting that he does admit exactly what he did to each image in the book that I have)...

 

-- Patrick

An aside in repose to Robin Smith's posting:

 

In my experience, "natural" looking photographic images are a pretty elusive goal. You might occasionally get close if you shoot exclusively on EPN and the contrast range of your images happens to fall entirely within the film's range, but otherwise the fundamental differences between how the eye sees vs. how photographic emulsions (or CCDs, for that matter) respond to light will doom you to failure every time. If you shoot on something like Velvia or E100VS, then forget about it: I've NEVER seen a developed piece of either of those films that honestly looked like what I saw when I shot it (though IMO E100VS is often the less obviously "fake" of the two).

 

Some filters, such as graduated NDs, can actually bring the scene _closer_ to how the eye perceives it, by allowing the film to mimick the eye's ability to adapt to large differences in tonality within a scene. Similarly, there are cases (though not as many as amateurs often believe) where judicious use of a polarizer serves to make the final photograph look more like what the photographer saw than would otherwise be the case.

 

One aside on polarizers: Experiment with the angle. Full polarization will produce maximum saturation with reflective subjects such as water, but it also knocks a lot of the "life" out of the image. Very often, the best results are achieved with an intermediate level of polarization that leaves some reflectivity in the surface being photographed, but not so much as to wash out the colors. This balance can be very difficult to strike with wide-angles, though...

 

Finally, it's important to realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally prefer the images I create on more "neutral" films such as EPN, Astia, and Provia 100F, and I typically make minimal use of filtration (with the exception of center filters for my LF wide-angles, and the occasional warming or cooling filter). That having been said, if I were a pro I would shoot on Velvia and otherwise do whatever I had to to create the kinds of "punchy" images that the vast majority of the buying public seems to crave.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

In a previous post I wrote:

 

> Using Nikon's HS mode or Canon's FP mode will reduce usable range by 20-30%

 

What I posted was my somewhat hazy recollection. Just for kicks, I decided to test this more thoroughly today. I used an EOS 3 and 550EX, and used the body's flash exposure confirmation display to find the smallest aperture which still yielded a full exposure with a fixed subject (my living room wall) at various shutter speeds, with and without FP sync. Here are two data which tell the story:

 

At 1/200 (w/o FP mode), the smallest usable aperture was f/22

 

At 1/250 (w/ FP mode), the smallest usable aperture was f/10

 

For fill-in, going from 1/200 to 1/250 would enable you to open the aperture by 1/3 stop while maintaining correct ambient exposure. Because f/10 is 2-1/3 stops wider than f/22, the data above imply a 50% range loss (i.e. 2 full stops) from using FP sync, rather than the 20-30% I previously stated.

 

Sorry 'bout that!

 

-- Patrick

Hi Sam;

 

If you're trying for maximum fill-flash range, you'll always fare best by staying at the camera's maximum sync speed.

 

Going to higher shutter speeds and using Nikon's HS mode or Canon's FP mode will reduce usable range by 20-30% (i.e. as you move to higher shutter speeds, the GN decreases faster than the aperture).

 

-- Patrick

A correction to Sam Mahmoud's post: Film ISO speed is absolutely irrelevant when determining daytime fill flash range. All that matters is the flash GN and the camera's maximum sync speed.

 

In the case the A2 + EF300, the built-in flash would yield a rated GN at ISO 100 of 56 feet (because it would be zoomed to its longest setting) and the camera's max sync speed would be 1/200 sec. Assuming for the moment that you use ISO 100 film and that you're shooting in broad daylight, the resulting exposure would be 1/200 at f/11. The resulting flash range for full exposure would be ~5 feet (i.e. less than the minimum focussing distance of the lens, if it's a 300/4L non-IS). If you can accept a 2-stop exposure reduction for fill, then the range doubles to ~10 feet, which probably still isn't all that useful except maybe in an aviary.

 

To see why film speed is irrelevant, consider Velvia at ISO 50. Velvia reduces the GN of the flash to 40 feet (56*sqrt(100/50)). It also changes the sunny f/16 exposure at 1/200 sec (the camera's maximum sync speed) from f/11 to f/8. Dividing GN by aperture we obtain a range of 40/8 = 5 feet for a full exposure, which is exactly the same as we obtained for ISO 100 film.

 

To illustrate the principal even more clearly, consider what happens when you drop a 2-stop ND in front of the aforementioned lens (let's also assume that the film is still Velvia). The effective GN of the flash with ISO 50 film and 2 stops of ND is 20 feet, but the sunny-16 exposure at 1/200 is now f/4. The range for full exposure is therefore still unchanged at 20/4 = 5 feet. The fact that a lot of ND _must_ be used to achieve wide-open aperture in daylight with fill-flash (unless you're willing to pay the range penalty associated with high-speed modes like Canon's "FP sync") is why fill flash connoiseurs tend to lug such filters around in the first place.

 

An incidental point of this message is that dinky little built-in flashes are pretty much useless for fill-in, even if/when their light isn't blocked by the lens. My advice would be to strongly consider a used 430EZ or 540EZ, and a Better Beamer or similar fresnel device as well. Adding a 540EZ to your A2 gives you about 90% of the usable fill-flash range of Canon's top-of-the-line body/flash combo (EOS-1v with its 1/250 flash sync, plus 550EX) at vastly lower cost.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

Hi Neal;

 

Provia 100F is significantly lower in both contrast and saturation than Velvia. Fuji would have been closer to the truth if they'd named the stuff "Astia II" instead of "Provia F", because that's just about what it is for all proactical intents (OK, so it's not quite _that_ low in contrast and the flesh tones aren't quite as nice as Astia, but it's definitely in the same class).

 

For many scenes Provia F is the right pick, but if you're trying for dramatic colors and contrast (i.e. if you're not trying for a neutral rendition of the scene with realistic colors) it's not the best call. Velvia still has its place, which is why I keep a brick of each and a 50-sheet box of each (in 4x5) in the 'fridge!

 

-- Patrick

A comment to Sal:

 

<p>

 

Be VERY CAREFUL about how you measure timing accuracy at the faster

shutter speeds. The reason is because if you measure at small

apertures (i.e. looking only at light rays which pass through the

center of the shutter, then the shutter speed will appear to be slow

as you describe. If you measure at wider apertures (i.e. including

rays from the edges as well as the center) then the speed will appear

to be accurate or perhaps a bit fast.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

 

<p>

 

Patrick

One additional comment: My favorite testing method is to put a light

source on one side of the lens and a photocell on the other, and hook

an oscilloscope to the photocell. Focus an image of the light source

onto the photcell, and start shooting. The nice things about this

approach are that:

 

<p>

 

1. It's very easy to look at things like the variation in effective

shutter speed as a function of aperture (simply vary the aperture and

look at the changes in the waveform)

 

<p>

 

2. It only costs a few dollars (assuming that you can borrow an old

'scope from somewhere - You certainly don't need a fancy one for

looking at events as slow as shutters opening...)

 

<p>

 

-- Patrick

Hi Bill;

 

<p>

 

I think that a lot of the concerns people have about shutter accuracy

stem from the many older, used shutters on the market. I've tested my

new Copal shutters fairly extensively (using equipment lying around

here at work rather than the Calumet or a similar tool) and they're

all pretty close. They aren't to within 1/10 of a stop at the faster

s[eed, but they're all _well_ within 1/3...

 

<p>

 

-- Patrick