michael_chmilar

What is the color (colour) temperature of the light bulb (lightbulb)?

 

Which corrective filter should I use when photographing with the light bulb (lightbulb)?

Regarding obsolesence:

 

If you buy a scanner/printer/computer/whatever that does what you need now and for the future, then you don't need to worry about obsolesence. If the unit is replaced next year, but yours continues to meet your needs, then why should you care about the new one?

 

However, if the current unit you can afford is a compromise, then you need to think about it. The alternatives are: buy it, knowing you will replace it; wait until the technology meets your needs and budget; or, use a service bureau for your scanning/printing/whatever.

 

The service bureau option has a few strong points to recommend it: you are not making a large up-front cash outlay; you can move to "newer/better" technology as the bureau upgrades; the service bureau makes a number of competing technologies available to you (possibly at different price points), so you can try them out without much investment.

 

Once you have "tried out" different processes through the service bureau, and you have decided what you like, then you can start considering what equipment you might want to purchase. The results that you achieved through the service bureau will give you a reference point to evaluate your equipment purchases (ie. perhaps the "drum scan" is higher quality than you really need, so an Epson 3200 is sufficient).

 

Service bureaux exist that make Piezography prints, LightJet, Ultrachrome, drum scans, Imacon scans. They can even do the Photoshop work, if you just want to see what it is capable of before buying a computer and software.

 

If you really consider the technology "a nightmare to get a grasp on", the service bureau is a good way of slowly getting into it, instead of diving in cold and spending lots of cash.

The Super-Symmar XL 80mm f4.5 matches the field of view of 24mm on 35 quite well. It is also quite compact and light, within its category.

 

However, you might find it difficult and frustrating to start with such a wide lens as a beginner to 4x5 shooting. I have this same 80mm lens (it is the widest in my kit), and I find it to be more difficult to use than my other lenses.

 

Wide angle lenses, in general, have more of a "hot spot" effect when you are viewing the scene that is projected onto the ground glass. This makes it difficult to view the entire image at one time. When you move your head around, the hot spot follows the axis from the lens to your eyes.

 

You can attach a wide angle fresnel to even out the light a litle bit.

 

I would recommend starting with something no wider than a 110mm. Once you are comfortable with a longer lens, then you can consider 80mm and wider. (You might want to try using some lenses before you commit to purchasing.)

 

As to cameras, make sure that your camera choice suits your preference for wide-angle lenses. Some cameras require more work to set up with wider lenses (ie. drop beds and such). Some cameras are designed specifically for wide-angle use (but are not suited to lenses beyond the "normal" range). A wide-angle camera can shave off a few pounds of weight, since they do not extend very long. Finally, make sure the bellows will compress enough and still allow movements with wide lenses.

When I returned from a 14-week trip through Asia, I had 600 sheets of 4x5 Quickload E6 to process. (Some were backups and brackets. I ended up processing about 500 sheets.)

 

I decided to take them to the lab is small batches, for a few reasons:

 

1) In case I had some mechanical failure with any of my equipment, that I was not aware of. There are a few failure points: light leaks, lens/shutter failure, quickload holder failure, ....

 

2) Some of the film had been through airport (and bus terminal) xrays a few times. I was not too confident that xray machines in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, or Thailand were completely safe. Also, some film was sent home via post office (China) and FedEx. Although they assured me that the packages would not be xrayed, you can never be certain - policies can change. I am happy to report that there was no evidence of xray fogging (even with 4 or 5 exposures)!

 

3) Some film also lived in heat and humidity for many weeks. Again, no signs of damage.

 

4) In case the lab was having a bad day, and a batch was messed up. (A bad day could include things out of the lab's control, such as an earthquake.) Once again, the lab performed perfectly.

 

5) Weakening batteries in light meter could cause screwy exposure readings. (Again, no problem.)

 

6) So I could log the film into a computer database in batches.

 

The batch sizes were 30 to 50 sheets at a time.

 

I had sent bundles of film home at different points of the journey. I also picked up fresh film that was posted or FedEx'ed to me. So each bundle had undergone different shipping and travelling conditions.

 

For processing, I would usually take one "bundle" that had lived in the same conditions to the lab, as a batch. I would also include a few sheets from the next bundle, to test for xray/travel damage to that bundle.

 

Part of this strategy was to avoid paying to process film if it was ruined in transit (or by technical problems). The smaller part (since I trust my lab) was to reduce processing risks.

 

Note: This was not commercial work, with clients and deadlines, so I had the leisure to pursue this strategy.

 

In the end, if your work is important enough to you, it is worth taking some steps to minimize your risk.

The "pronunciation" humor is cross cultural.

 

Example:

 

In Mandarin Chinese, there are four ways to pronounce "chi" (rising tone, falling, rising and falling, flat). Each has a completely different meaning (two of them are: seven; and the "life force/essence"). They all sound the same to me, and my ability to pronounce them is even worse!

 

To a native Mandarin speaker, the four pronunciations are so distinct that he/she cannot comprehend that you would not hear the difference.

 

Do you not think that foreigners' pronunciation is a subject of humor in China? Or Japan, France, Russia, etc?

 

I think it is possible to understand and sympathize with a non-native speaker's pronunciation error, and also find it humorous. It just takes some perspective.

"New Apple G5 towers support upto 8GB of RAM. Of course the RAM will cost more than the computer."

 

Apple charges way too much for RAM. You should be able to get the RAM from a third-party for about 1/3 of what Apple is charging. (That's what I am planning to do - my G5 order has the minimum RAM option.)

 

For working with large images, lots of RAM is the most important factor for speed. Next in importance is the memory bus speed (ie. how fast can the CPU read and write the RAM). The size of the caches is important, but with large images, the caches will be blown frequently, so the system bus speed is more important. Raw CPU speed is less important than the speed of memory access.

 

Right now, the Intel P4 machines and Apple G4 max out at 2GB of RAM. The G5 and AMD64 (Opteron) support larger RAM spaces. Both also use the Hypertransport bus, which looks like the fastest available at 1GHz (and capable of going faster).

I can offer some ideas into why saying "match the 'chrome" may not yield good results.

 

Problems occur because the contrast range and color gamut on the chrome do not correspond directly to those on the print. The print is a reflective medium (ie. it reflects light) and the chrome is a transmissive medium (ie. light passes through it). Typically, the reflective medium has less range and gamut than the transmissive.

 

If you map the information in the chrome to the print in a mechanical way (by, say, mapping the brightest and darkest points, and then linearly scaling the information in between), you usually end up with a very "flat" and lifeless looking print. And it may still have out-of-gamut colors, which have to be translated into the print's gamut (or else they are just clipped).

 

To make a nicer looking print, you need to use a non-linear mapping of values from chrome to print. In effect, you will compress some tonal ranges in order to give space to other ranges. (In Photoshop, you use "Curves" to do this.) At this point, you are making subjective decisions about the final print. If you give control of these decisions to the service bureau, you might not get what you want.

 

While it is possible to try to replicate the overall feeling of the chrome, close inspection will always reveal some discrepancies. Sometimes the discrepancies are minor, but other times they are very noticable. It depends on the content of the image.

Mr. Barnbaum's essay is, for the most part, a pretty reasonable discussion of the differences between traditional and digital approaches.

 

I would point out, however, that while Barnbaum complains about the difficulty and inconvenience of traditional printing being "overstated", he then goes on to grossly "overstate" the problems associated with digital printing.

 

If you attenuate the importance of his digital complaints, I think his discussion is one of the more reasonable ones I've seen on this topic.

Gary, I would agree with Michael Alpert's advice. If you have reservations about the used camera in question, either wait until it has been fixed to your satisfaction, or pass on it.

 

Even the finest and highest-quality objects can be damaged by abuse.

I have only used an Ebony (SV45U), so I never thought the "three knob" arrangement was unusual. Do you mean to say that no other field cameras are designed this way? It seems like the only sensible solution that allows a large focussing range on a camera that folds up compactly.

As you can see from the answers, there are many different opinions.

 

What it comes down to is: which method are you most experienced and comfortable with?

 

If you use one method of metering frequently and regularly, you will develop a good "intuition" about what your meter tells you, and how to base your exposure on its reading. It might help to take notes (or have a good memory), so you can look at your results, and correlate them to the decisions you made in the field, so you can learn from your mistakes (and successes).

 

I have been using the same Pentax Spotmeter V for twenty five years, and I generally get the exposure I want. (And I occasionally blow it really badly, too.) I mostly have problems when I get "rusty" from not shooting any film for months.

After consuming enough beer (of high or low craftsmanship), a crappily performed song starts to sound okay. Have you ever been in a karaoke bar? Even a poor song, crappily performed, becomes entertaining.

I find that after drinking two or three bottles of "quality, handcrafted" beer, my taste and judgement are impaired enough that I can switch to any old cheap swill, and it doesn't matter.

 

Perhaps galleries should serve more alcoholic beverages. Sales would increase.

I have not had any "problems" with SS-XL 80mm. If you search the forum, you will find some complaints about softness, and other people saying that their 80mm is fine. Maybe Schneider had some quality control problems with early samples.... The general advice is that the 4.5 stop is just for viewing and focussing, and not for shooting.

 

I own the Ebony "wide angle fresnel", which I find very useful with the 80mm. It evens out the light coming from the ground glass (ie. reduces the "hot spot" effect). It is useful with any lens of 90mm or wider. It is useful, but not "essential", and some people prefer not use one. I would recommend trying the camera without a wa-fresnel first. If you find the hot spot really bothers you, then get the fresnel.

 

The wa-fresnel is meant to go on top of the ground glass, as far as I know.

 

If you examine your Ebony's focus frame assembly, you will see that there is a frosted plastic sheet, which has the grid lines etched on it. On top of the plastic sheet is plain glass sheet. The glass is held in place by a couple of spring clips that are screwed into the wooden frame. The wa-fresnel can be placed on top of the plain glass, or, preferably, sandwiched between the plastic and glass sheets. Placing between, in the field, is not very practical. I have purchased a second focus frame assembly (wooden frame, GG, and plain glass), and installed the fresnel (this is not a cheap option!). The focus frame is very easy to swap on the camera, and takes mere seconds.

 

While the wa-fresnel is useful for framing and composing a shot, I have found that it is difficult to do fine focussing through it, with a loupe. Sometimes, for final focussing, I will swap out the wa-fresnel.

 

The wa-fresnel is less useful with the 110mm lens. I prefer not to use the wa-fresnel with this lens. You definitely don't want the wa-fresnel in place when using a long lens!

 

My most used lenses are a 180 and the 110 (80-90% of shots). The 80mm is extremely useful when circumstances call for it (need a wide, wide view, or in close quarters). I also have a 300mm.

 

I have found that, if I don't check the corners and edges of the frame carefully, when using the 80mm, that unexpected objects (like a corner of my pack or a film box) "sneak" into the frame! I can only imagine how much more careful you have to be with a super-wide lens such as a 58mm!

I use the SS-XL 80 on an SV45U. I have the Ebony "universal" bellows, which looks like a standard bellows, but it becomes bag-like for a couple of inches at the lens end.

 

The universal bellows works well with the 80mm. It affords a reasonable amount of movement. The bag bellows would allow for more movement, and would probably be recommended for architectural work. For landscape, the universal bellows should be sufficient.

 

The universal bellows also allows for full extension, so you only need to carry one bellows.

 

I own a "standard" bellows as well. It barely works with the 80mm on a flat board. I find it difficult to crank the focus back, due to the bellows compression, and no movements are possible. I even find movements restricted using the 110mm lens with the standard bellows, compared to the universal one.

 

When I use the 80mm (on a flat board), I find it is quick and easy to tilt the front standard back a little using the base tilt, and then re-level the lens using the centre lens tilt. The bubble level on the front standard makes this efficient. Otherwise, I can't rack the focus back quite far enough for infinity focus.

I was convinced that a top-load backpack was not good for LF photography, until I tried this setup:

 

Pelican 1400 case: holds 4x5 field camera, lens shade clip, misc. tools.

 

Pelican 1450 case: holds four lenses (80, 110, 180, compact 300), quickload holder, viewing/focussing bellows, spotmeter, loupe, wide-angle fresnel, and odds and ends.

 

Dana Terraplane backpack: holds both cases, tripod (strapped outside),

film. Plenty of extra room for clothes, water, food, etc.

 

The Pelican cases go in and out of the pack quickly and smoothly. Once the cases are out, all the gear is nicely arranged and ready to use. The gear is extremely well-protected!

 

I was absolutely convinced that a top-load pack was no good, until I brought my gear (and the Pelican cases) to a store with knowledgeable sales staff (Adventure 16). I could unpack and pack my gear faster using the Pelicans in the Terraplane than any other pack allowed.

 

I certainly recommend taking all of your equipment with you into the store, so you can find the pack that will work for you. Plus, you can try carrying the stuff around to see how the pack fits. You can test how quickly you can work out of the pack.

From Wire Pass:

 

You start heading down a sandy wash. There is also a trail to the right of the wash, if you prefer. After ten or fifteen minutes, a steep rocky/sandy road branches off to the right. Shortly before the road, you pass through where a barbed wire fence breaks to cross the wash.

 

Start heading up the road. You should encounter a trail register very soon. Continue along the road. It goes gently uphill, then gently down until it meets another wash. You will probably see plenty of foot tracks in the sand. When the road meets the wash, you want to make a short jog along the wash, to your left, and then proceed straight up the slickrock (in the same direction as the road was taking you) through a sort of low "pass". From this point, you will be walking on the slickrock most of the way.

 

After you have reached the top of the slickrock pass, you will see a large, wide valley ahead. To the right, there are massive slickrock formations.

 

Proceed to your right, staying on the slickrock. There is no set path or track. Occasionally, you will cross sandy patches, which are likely to have foot prints. The basic goal for the next mile is to maintain the altitude you begin at (or a little higher), and walk along the side of the massive slickrock formation. There is a sort of "shoulder" to the formation, and you want to traverse along it. You will have to move up and down to avoid various obstacles, cliffs, and steep patches, but the route finding is pretty easy.

 

Eventually, the slickrock slope you are traversing curves off to the right, and you are at the beginning of a small valley. Ahead of you is another massive slickrock formation - the other side of the valley. The "Wave" is dead ahead. Head down and cross the valley. Head straight up the other side. There should be plenty of tracks in the sand to show you the way.

 

The most obvious landmark on the other side of the valley is a very long vertical crack that comes down from the top. The "Wave" is directly below the crack.

 

The "natural" route up the valley side takes you right into the "Wave".

 

Don't forget to explore around the area. There is plenty of other cool stuff, besides the "Wave".

Read this Schneider white paper:

 

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/white_papers/optics_for_digital_photography.pdf

 

It explains how a lens can have too much resolution and modulation for a digital sensor. The sensor subsamples the information presented to it by the lens. This results in aliasing.

 

The problem is not as significant with film, since the random grain structure of film trades the aliasing for noise, which is more acceptable.

 

To fix the problem for digital, there are a few solutions:

 

1) Increase the resolution of the sensor.

 

2) Make the sensor's sample points random, rather than a fixed grid.

 

3) Reduce the modulation of the lens at highest frequencies (effectively "dumbing down" the lens to match the sensor).

 

This makes me hesitant to consider using a lens optimized for digital sensors for film work. The design parameters are very different. Digital lens design attacks different problems which are not so important for film. (It also make me question using "film lenses" with a digital sensor.)

 

Film has some wonderful properties: if your lens is better than your film, noise is produced rather than aliasing. While noise is an artifact, it is less obnoxious than aliasing. If your lens is worse than your film, you are merely supersampling it, and no harm is done.

Here is how I think about it:

 

The film is for capturing information from the scene. When printing, you want to do something with that information to make an interesting picture.

 

If you fail to capture some information on the film, you cannot get it back. It is gone.

 

In the print, you manipulate the information you have available on the film. You may even choose to "throw away" some captured information (ie. let a shadow go black, to allow the rest of the print more contrast).

 

If you are able to truly pre-visualise the final print when you are in the field, then you can set your exposure and development to the exact parameters you need. Otherwise, it is a good idea to capture all of the information available to you, and sort it out while printing.

I use two focusing frames with an Ebony SV45U.

 

One has a wide-angle fresnel mounted on the viewer's side of the GG, and the other is "plain" (no fresnel). The Ebony permits easy and rapid swapping of the focusing frame.

 

I find that if I use the wide-angle fresnel with a normal to long lens, it is very difficult to see anything. (This combination is much worse than trying to use a wide lens without a fresnel.)

 

When using a wide lens (80mm), the fresnel provides a more even illumination of the the entire frame, which is useful for composition. I do find it more difficult to focus with a loupe on the fresnel, compared to a plain GG. If I am having a lot of difficulty focusing, I switch out the fresnel for the plain GG.

 

 

(I believe the Ebony GG (which is actually plastic) also has a mild fresnel built into it, which is on the lens side. This seems to work well for lenses 110mm and longer, but is not strong enough to be effective for wider lenses.)

The Ebony hood can be extended to about 7 inches. It is fairly flexible, so you can move

your eyes from side to side. This is useful for wide-angle lenses, which tend to have a

hot-spot.

 

To get total darkness, I cup both hands around the sides of my eyes, to seal the

opening.

 

I can usually focus with one hand while holding the hood to my eyes with the other.

Even with no hands on the hood, it shades the glass enough to see the image

reasonably well.

 

The barrel of my loupe is opaque black plastic. I usually snap the hood "shut" (ie.

completely collapsed) and put my loupe flat to the glass. This is usually sufficient.

Otherwise, I will use my hands to close off the glass a little more. If I want to check

focus at the extreme edges or corners, I remove the focus hood, as it gets in the way at

the edges.

 

If this does not sound "light tight" enough for you, you could also consider using the

Ebony focus hood with a small dark cloth (which would serve the same purpose as

cupping your hands around the sides of your eyes).

 

Attaching and removing the hood is a trivial operation.

 

The material for the focus bellows is the same type of leather as the main bellows. The

frame is wood. The construction is solid.

I have been using the Ebony focusing bellows for over a year. I don't bother to carry a darkcloth anymore!

Hmmmm. Most people have answered with stories of useful gear that they acquired very cheaply.

 

I'll go the other way (after all, the question is whether you got your money's worth): my Ebony SV45U.

 

While expensive, this camera is exceptionally well built, and well engineered! I have no regrets spending the money on it, and definitely consider it to be worth the price.

I use the G1227 with an Acratech ballhead and Ebony 4x5.

 

The centre column on the 1227 is quite rigid, and I will often extend it, unless conditions are extremely bad. I have not seen the geared version, but I would assume it's rigidity would be the same.

 

The Acratech head is great, and fairly lightweight.

I forget who said it, but there is the famous idea: "First you must learn all of the rules, and then you must forget them."

 

It is a good idea. In the short term, being obsessed by the rules will probably harm your creativity. In the long term, you might find that, when you are exploring a subject, a "rule" might come into play that helps you set up a better composition than you would choose without being aware of the rule.

 

I also think it is a good idea to study photos taken by other people. Personally, I especially try to seek out photos where I don't understand how they "work". I will look at them, and say, "Wow! that's a great photo, but why?" In the short term, you may think you are copying someone else's style, but in the long term, you have hopefully expanded your vision.

 

Finally, I have occasionally done this exercise out in the field: Pass by the "obvious" shots; wait until you see something that catches your interest, but you are baffled how to make an image of it; then, try to get an image that portrays what caught your eye in the first place. These are often the most rewarding (or most disappointing) shots from an outing.