michael_kadillak3

Bobs numbers are on the money as they are nearly identical to my set

compiled from Howard Bond (Jan/Feb 2001 Photo Techinques pg 54) and

Bruce Barnbaum ("The Art Of Photography" Second Edition pg 80).

Barnbaum feels that a N + 1/2 is the necessary adjustment.

Considering the age old axiom that the answer can only be as accurate

as the least accurate input, my objective is to get in the ballpark.

Should entensive reciprocity be something that you encounter

regularly in your photography, there is always the densitometer.....

 

<p>

 

The limited amount of correcting I have done for reciprocity using

the factor table listed by Bob with these factors seems to be fine.

Out of habit, I take anything Kodak says about these factors and the

darkroom with a grain of salt.

If you shoot regularly and have developed the skill necessary to

translate the distance from your eye and the perspective card to a

specific focal length lens, that will obviously be the best situation

from an economic and logical perspective.

 

<p>

 

I acquired both a 4x5 and a 5x7 Linhof viewfinder for several

personal reasons. 1) Because of my real job and a family, I shoot far

to infrequently to be accurate enough with the perspective card. I

would love to be making photographs every other day, but that is just

not in the cards. 2) I have a wide range of lenses to be able to

shoot with and 3) I want to make as sure as possible that where I

drop my tripod legs is where I will in fact make a photograph. In

other words, these devices save me valuable time getting to where I

need to be and 4) I found my viewfinders in great condition used and

at reasonable prices and they are an integral part of my pre-shot

routine. You can get along fine without them. The botom line is

determining if you will make enough use of one to justify a purchase.

If you do decide to get one, I would recommend used and prepare to

spend around $200+ for one in decent shape.

 

<p>

 

Cheers!

I decided to branch out a bit and try some color transparency film in the 8x10. Because I felt that the extra speed would be helpful, I went for a box of the Fuji Provia F 100. For those of you with experience with this film, will I need any special filtering to use this film outdoors? What are your opinions of this film in general for outdoor applications?

 

<p>

 

Thanks in advance

Not uncommon at all. For landscape and architecture your movements

will inherently be minimal. If the results are to your satisfaction,

the ability to rise, fall, tilt or swing no matter how modestly used

are the important condition. If you are not pushing your camera up

its limitations, you did your homework and bought the right camera

for you.

 

<p>

 

Good Luck

To bad you sold the 5x7. It is a fantastic format and film is

available. At B&H you can buy B&W 5x7 from Kodak (Plus x and Tri x)

and Ilford (FP4 and HP5) as well as Bergger. I have a freezer of T

Max 100 and 400, Ilford and Fuji Velvia. Badger usually has plenty of

5x7 in both B&W and color.

 

<p>

 

When it is gets newly stocked, you should buy it and stock pile a

bit, but so what. I want a consistent emulsion supply anyway. Dan

Smith, a great proponent of 5x7, was able to get Arista 5x7 to bring

both their 100 ASA and 400 ASA offerings. On another positive note,

Canham claims that they are selling as many 5x7 cameras as 4x5. This

will translate to more film usage and better film supplies. And if

you cannot tell, I am very much an optimist for the future of the

proportions of 5x7.

I completely agree with Kevin's previous posting. While I respect

your research and desire to translate the same ratios as you shoot

with 35mm, my experience turned out to be the exact opposite when I

turned to large format. I found that the way I shot 35mm was not even

close to how I have learned to visualize 5x7. They are two distinctly

different animals. With 35mm, you are nimble and quick with the shot.

With large format you find yourself being extremely patient and pre-

visualizing the optimal perspective. It is much more methodical and

time consuming with tremendous results. I would make the following

suggestion. Do yourself a favor. Don't get hung up on a specific

manufacturer or a specific focal length. All of the big four

(Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon and Fuji) make great plasmats. Purchase

the best combination of cost/coverage and size standard focal length

210mm lens and start shooting it to get a feel for the way to set up,

frame, focus, insert a film holder etc. That was the advice I got

from this forum starting out several years ago and it was very sound.

You can always get another lens and screw it on a board. Remember,

the focal length only increases or decreases the amount of the

coverage from the point where you drop your tripod. Working with a

single lens to start out forces you to get out your perspective card

or other framing device to learn where to drop the legs. I have seen

many a photographer carrying their complete camera on tripod with

lens still attached when they decided to move to a better shooting

point. Myself, my objective is to get it right the first time.

 

<p>

 

As for your decision to get the 5x7 metal Canham, you cannot go

wrong. The Canham takes a bit to get used to, but no camera is

perfect. I feel that it is one of the best combinations of light

weight and functionality. Good Luck

Pentax is based here in Colorado and when over there recently I asked

one of their tech guys the question as to why they do not do the Zone

VI modifications themselves and his response was that based upon the

number of inquiries they have received on the subject, only a very

small number of users are concerned enough about this subject to

bring it to their attention. The vast majority of other users in the

smaller photo formats and the movie industry continue to praise the

meter as it is currently manufactured and the results they regularly

obtain. From the manufacturers perspective, they are already doing

what they feel the market needs to keep the customers happy and their

costs down (and profits up). Anytime you make product changes, all

incremental costs need to be economically justified by incremental

sales. As a result, these meters will continue to be made and sold as

they are now. Those that can justify the additional expense of the

Zone VI modification no matter if they actually do the testing or

take Calumets word for the improvements, will do so. Others that feel

that the modification is money down the drain will use the meter in

its original form just fine. This is a situation where there is not a

right or a wrong answer, but an answer that is right for you, the

user based upon YOUR choice. Personally, I appreciated the spirit of

improvement that was represented by Zone VI that I feel is currently

missing from the palate of the large format user.

 

<p>

 

The bottom line is that if enough people continue to find

justification in sending their meters to get modified

If you had longer bellows or shot more macro work, I would recommend

the G-Claron based upon your previous work with the 150. However,

considering your current setup and the general applications at

greater than 1:10, I would go with the Nikon. The 300 mm M Nikon has

an image circle of 325mm at f22 so you will be nowhere near the edges

shooting what you describe. To look at this from another perspective,

comparing the Nikon next to what you already know the G-Claron can do

will provide you with a new contrast/tonality reference point. I have

seen negatives shot on the same subject from both the Nikon and the G-

Claron and I like the personality of the Nikon. But that is just me.

The small package is icing on the cake.

 

<p>

 

Good Luck

If you are going to be effectively learn and use the zone system,

start out by purchasing a transmission densitometer. You can find

them for $100 - $150 that work great. Relying on others to read the

negs for you is OK, but I found it both time consuming and

frustrating. Why play around with converting spotmeters when the real

thing can be had at reasonable costs?

Excellent idea. I have spent quite a bit if time in pursuit of such a

lens box and would be pleased at a solution. The slot for the lens

board to fit into would be great as a loose pack is very inefficient.

 

<p>

 

I solved my problem temporarily by purchasing a Pelican hard

shelled plastic case that I can fit my Canham metal 5x7 and three

lenses into. While it is great on the airplane and for short walks, it

is not for the medium to long hikes. I even ended up going to the

Container Store and trying to modify one of their small boxes. No

cigar. I would be very interested in participating in your efforts in

any way possible. Thanks

To answer Pete's question about coverage of the 450 Fuji, it is very

impressive. I have movements to spare on 8x10 and I bet this lens

would cover 11x14. Finding a camera in 5x7 that would allow me the

bellows to use the 450 Fuji was was one of the reasons that I decided

to go with the metal Canham 5x7. I agree with the previous posting on

the Nikon having smooth tonality, but when you want to shoot the

outdoors, the small compact shutters from either manufacturer just

simply can't be beat. I woud also include Robert White in England for

price comparison. He did me proud on a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod and

a Arca Swiss B1 ball head.

I have shot the 300mm Nikon M and the 450 Fuji C side by side on T-

Max 100 film and have found both lenses have considerable sharpness.

I would give the slight contrast edge to the Fuji, but that is just

my opinion. Based upon individual optimizations of these lenses at

each manufacturer, I found myself splitting hairs on this issue.

Compactness was a big issue for me. I find Nikon lenses to be the

best value on the market today and would have purchased their 450 M

if it was in a Copal #1 shutter. The 450 Fuji in the #1 shutter works

great for both 5x7 and 8x10 and it is light as a feather with

coverage to spare. But when it comes to reaching for the wallet, I

would go with the 300 Nikon. Fuji lenses are not nearly as readily

available and the price is reflective of that condition. I doubt that

you could justify the increased cost on actual improvement in images

between the two.

 

<p>

 

Good Luck

I have two elderly friends that were photographers their entire life

and they have various neurological disorders. One of the men has

paripheral neuropothy(?). Not sure what the other specific diagnosis

was. He lives in Germany. As a result, I do not put my hands in the

chemistry, as was so prevelant in years past and I am making sure

that I have a working venelation system in my new darkroom. My JOBO

has been a Godsend.

 

<p>

 

Sure makes you wonder what exposure to certain chemicals can do given

the right set of circumstances.

I had my wife sew me up a regular focusing cloth a while back and

like a previous respondent and after a challenging episode with the

wind, I decided to try out the 8x10 BTZS offering. Never went back to

the cloth. When I got the Canham metal 5x7, I felt that the 4x5 might

work but opted for the 5x7. For the nominal difference in size,

weight and cost comparing it to a 4x5 BTZS and putting the 5x7 on a

4x5 camera, the elastic seems perfectly acceptable. If you have a 5x7

to start, it is a no brainer. I say get the 5x7.

 

<p>

 

Good Luck.

We these backs are finally delivered, would someone that acquires one

please provide us with your impressions of it?

 

<p>

 

Cheers!

Anyone got their hands yet on the roll film back Keith Canham is making for their 5x7 cameras? I heard that several dealers are expecting them in soon. Comments on the design and would you recommend them?

 

<p>

 

Thanks

Wooden field cameras have been designed, produced and used for about

140 years. We as users have been very fortunate in the fact that we

can go classic (Wisner)or hybrid (Canham) with many other offerings

to select from in between. While maintaining the field concept, the

objective of the camera is to hold a sheet of film in a holder in the

correct plane, securely hold a lens safely and provide enough

movements to adjust perspective and fold down into a small package

capable of transporting it. Excessive features resulting from over

design only add unnecessarily to weight. From my perspective, the

field camera itself it at the pinnacle of efficiency. As a result, I

feel that the user is the entity that needs to by dynamic and strive

for improvement, not the camera.

I am considering 4x5 readyloads and wanted to check in with those that know what is available in holders and film selections. I see that Fuji offers a holder and I believe that I heard that Kodak has a new holder. Another concern I have is related to film plane accuracy and sharpness with the readyloads.

 

<p>

 

What films are available in B&W and color for the readyloads from Kodak and Fuji and how is the sharpness? Does one manufacturer have an advantage over the other and are the films interchangable in the others film holder?

 

<p>

 

Thanks in advance

Many thanks to all that took the time to respond. The free sharing of

experience is very valued on many subjects and that is what makes

this post work so well. I found all of the responses adding something

on the subject that I will take to the field and try out.

 

<p>

 

The post on a complete 360 degree shade particularly made sense. As a

result, I found a generic rubber wide angle and standard shade ($8 -

$15) that will allow me to screw the shade over my filter (or go

directly on to the threads on the lens)and reduce the sharp angles of

light into the edges of the lens surface that could wreck an image

without warning. I will have to be very carefull with the wide

angles. Many times I get so damn caught up into the composition,

exposure and the large format process that I forget to think about

that nasty word. Again, my sincere appreciation.

The subject of contrast and flare has gotten my attention recently. Is the utilization of lens hoods so common with 35mm and medium format worth considering in large format? Anyone out there with experience on this subject? My initial inclination is that the positive benefits of a lens hoods for large format photography is not considerable or the manufacturers would be pushing these acccessories. I use screw in filters and wondered if the two are compatible? Thanks in advance.

I would not recommend letting a general "which is better" question

get you get hung up on your decision. Both lenses are very high

quality from major manufacturers that stand behind their products and

I feel that you would be very pleased with either. Some other

considerations that I feel should come into play are size, weight,

cost, coverage (don't automatically discount coverage as you may opt

for a larger format down the road), prior experience and a consistent

filter diameter with other lenses you may use. I find the trade off

between coverage and weight the most critical as I have cherished my

lenses particularly in copal o and 1 shutters when I get into the

high country. Cost for me comes in third. Good Luck.

I have been racking my brain for a reason for the double image. The

only rational explaination I can come up with that has any logic

resulting in a slightly offset double image combined with a front

rise is if the lens is moving ever so slightly during the exposure

either around horizontal axis (around the side tension screws) or by

slipping down the side rails (both possibilities possibly due to

tension forces of the bellows caused by the rise and attenuated by

the shutter ?). I am grabbing at straws here, but I cannot justify

any actions by the shutter, phantom images or flare causing this

result on your chrome. Out of curosity, I would make your rise and

focus your image as you normally would and then set your exposure for

a second or so (or even T for that matter) and watch a particular

spot on the ground glass during the test exposure to see if you can

see any image shifting or other irregularities. Anyone else want to

give it a try?

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

 

<p>

 

Michael Kadillak

I purchased an Arca Swiss universal plate with a 1/4" screw for my B1 ball to mount on my Kodak Master 8x10 camera and discovered that the center mounting screw on the plate is to short to engage the threads on the base of the camera that are slightly recessed. I would assume that I need to contact Arca Swiss to find a longer base plate screw. Anyone have a phone number or a web site or any other solutions to this problem?

 

<p>

 

Many thanks

I have assembled a modest sized Pelican hard case that I use to protect my investment in a 5x7 camera and several lenses for general travel and am looking for a backpack that has a platform upon which to set my case and strap it to for long day hikes.

 

<p>

 

Many of the conventional external frame packs I am finding do not have such a platform and I know that the Forest Service for one used to use these to carry equipment into the back country. Any ideas?

 

<p>

 

Many thanks.

I don't understand how you could describe the CPP2 as tedious for

washing film. Man, I can change rinse water in that baby in a country

minute and it does not take many cycles to obtain a complete wash.

Saves on water and it is much quicker and far more effective than I

have found with other devices. Before I got the Jobo I used metal

film holders and hung the film in a print washer. And the other film

washers I have tried (the Zone VI) also require quite a bit of

maintenance IMHO. I would recommend that you spend your money on

images and extract your investment in the JOBO to its full extent.