bill_glickman

Currently the Yen is 133 to the dollar. A few years back, it

hit about 145. If the trend continues, and you have a lot of gear to

purchase, it might justify a trip to japan! BTW, does anyone know if

Canon 35mm lenses are just as competitively priced in Japan as Nikon?

Thats OK Ellis, even you are allowed a mistake once in awhile :-).

It sounds like Erik is on the right path... someone seems to have pre

made such a paint. It takes the guess work out. I would love to

find that source and just buy some. Erik, it looks like you tried to

post, but then we got nothing?

John, I am using it for grey point calibration for scanning. I want

a reference point of something in my image that has equal RGB

values. I tried the "match a chip method"....but I am unsure if the

outcome is equal amounts of RGB... how can I determine this? I felt

there must be some ready made product that is already "certified"

grey as one of the posters mentioned above...

Erik, I was very intereted in that paint, but could not find that

article on the link you provided?

Does anyone know a method, or where I can buy pure grey paint? Preferably around 12-25% in reflectivity? When I mean pure grey, I am referring to equal amounts of RG&B vlues. Is such a product made off the shelf?

Tuan wrote... I just don't see the weight of the batteries beating

that of film. Batteries don't seem to follow Moore's law.

 

<p>

 

This is very true, and its something I have overlooked in my

assesment of these digital backs being suitable for landscape

shooters. Battery weight / performance has not changed much in 150

years. There has always been a tremendous weight / size issue for

items, such as digital backs, that require many miliamp hours for

operations. For the serious backpacker, this might always be the

limiting factor. but for the shooter that stays within a few miles

of his car, this is not as much as an issue.

Best darkroom prints in Vegas is Allens on Industrial Rd.

james, those backs I discussed above were 6x6 backs... they were

matching 30x40" prints from 4x5...that was the mystery phenomenoa of

digital files from digital cameras vs. digital files from scanned

film.

Jorge, very sorry for the name typo.....

Your website was great before, now even better! Great work!

Jose... How about carrying lap top, batteries, batteries for

scanning back, cables to connect both? Does that sound any better?

No, not really, hence why I mentioned the fact these current

digital products are not very field friendly - yet. But in 5 years,

I think we will have a digital back about the size of 5 4x5 film

holders that include the LCD and storage device..in which you can

bring extra storage devices and batteries. This should make the

total load less than that of film holders. There will be a few extra

pounds. Then you get all the benefits of economics, seeing the image

on screen, no processing, no film cost, etc.

 

<p>

 

James.... Do we need better equipment and more pixels and more

expensive printing options to do what has been done for decades now

very well? Can the eye discern all these refinements? I'm starting to

think that this is overkill.

We don't need faster cars, more efficient cars, safer cars,

etc. But it's the nature of capitalism. Even if image quality does

not improve, there still seems to be many other advantages of

digital. The other issue I forgot to mention which will be a big

improvement over film is exposure latitude. 7 stops will be the

norm, much better than chrome film.

Howard, but keep in mind, although he does an excellent job of cherry

picking the shots to suit his long shutter speeds... you won't see

many traditional shots, such as waterfalls, etc. Well, at least if

you do, they will not have the look that we are all accustomed to.

 

<p>

 

One of the incredible mysterious of this digital phenomena is

the actual comparison of digital file size vs. analog files.

Conventional wisdom says that a digital camera must be able to

acheive the same size file as a scanner can pull from film, assuming

the scanner did not exceed the resolution of the film, for arguments

sake, 5 - 6k dpi. However, what has become a shock to me is that in

reality, this has not panned out. There are several digital, one

shot backs right now that can produce a 30x40" print with equal

quality than 4x5 scanned film. The small files, < 70mb are rezzed up

to the needed size, for example, a 30x40" print at 300 dpi on LF film

will be 316MB. With the proper rezzing software it seems these

digital files acheive near similar results than film at 30x40". It

is theorized that the digital back files have pixels much more

condusive to rezzing up vs. files acheived by scanning film. I have

consistently read these test done on everything from 35mm digital to

the MF one shot backs. The consensus seems overwhelming.

 

<p>

 

So I guess my point is, the technology seems to be very close

to where we need to be, assuming very few people are making prints

bigger than 30x40", and i am sure the next generation backs will

match 40x50" prints. So as I see it, the ultimate backs for LF

landscape shooters are about 2 or 3 generations away. First the

price needs to drop from the $25k average price now. I think $10k is

good price point. Next they need to become a bit more compact and

utilize smaller storage products. Then they need to be more rugged

for field use and be able to operate in a wide range of

temperatures. So this is where my 5 year guess came from...not so

much the sheer technology which is practically there for prints

30x40" and smaller, but rather all the issues most landscape shooters

are confronted with.

 

<p>

 

I have to admit, the idea of not buying film, storing film,

loading film holders, unloading film holders, processing risks and

cost, scanning costs etc. is very appealing to us film > digital

users of today. It seems nothing has changed in 180 years of

photography, images were taken the same basic way, lens, light tight

box and film. Now in a period of less than a decade the process is

being completely revolutionized. In my opinion, the digital

revolution will bring even more serious hobbiest and part time

professionals into the arena, as this generation loves everyting

computerized! As Bob Dylan says, Times are a changin....

Peter, once digital exceeds film in every way, image resolution,

color fidelity, exposure times, size and bulk.... then I think it

boils down to economics. For landscape shooters that use a one box

of film per year, it still would not make economic sense. But for

regular shooters, the cost of this digital system will be dwarfed by

the expense of buying film, processing film, scanning film (assuming

you are printing digital). In addtion, digital offers many other

advantages, such as the ability to see the actual shot on screen

before leaving the area and gauranteeing there will be no lost images

in the processing stage. Of course both are equally vulnerable to

actually loosing the film or hard drive. So if and when digital ever

acheives this stage of developement, I am sure it will grab a big

market share and leave film makers in a quandry about which films to

still produce.

 

<p>

 

The only question that remains is how many years away is this?

My guess is around 5. It could happen faster, but it seems most of

the chip makers are putting their recources in the larger markets

such as 35mm and MF systems. But like any other industry, once this

becomes saturated, makers look for new markets. Landscape LF shooter

will surely be last on their target list.

I agree with Glen. Although these scanning backs can record with

equal detail as film, the subject matter is very limited as exposure

times are in the 30 minute range... Most of us landscape shooters

struggle with the difference between 1/60th vs. 1/2 second.... so as

digital does have a ton of advantages, I feel the makers of these

products will not be rushing to make a high end 4x5 backs that will

shoot images in 1/60th of second. Therefore, I think film will be

around for quite awhile. The big market is studio shooters where

most subjects remain still. Kodaks back does shoot at rather fast

speeds but can't match 8x10 film for large prints..but falls between

MF and 4x5. Whether this trend continues remains to be seen as the

market starts shrinking real fast.... i.e. for users who requie

superb LF detail and fast shutter speeds.

Nevada Merchandising has the biggest selection...they are located

next door to Alans Photo lab who processes E6. Directly behind the

Mirage on Industrial Blvd. Also there is Caseys camera on Tropicana

who carrys 4x5 film. Be sure to call in advance as this is not

exactly a big LF town. Alans processing is a bit high, but they are

pretty good for E6. Speak to Barbara.. they offer same day E6.

Huw, thanks for being man enough to step up. That's kind of rare on

many of these lists, it usually just creates more flames. I

certainly can relate to the "state of mind" you were in when you

wrote it.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, this was a classic example how a simple concept can

elude so many people. Once I thought about what you wrote, a bell

went off in my head, Duhhhh.... sometimes in Photography this

happens to even the best. That is what's great about these forums,

whatever one person forgets others are quick to point out the answer

or the flaw in their thinking... thank God you jumped into this one

or it would have been a case of the blind leading the blind ! :-)

Huw, thank you for the insult. Sorry your answer did not register

with me before I made the post. I understand what you are saying and

it makes perfect sense, I was mistaken, but don't feel I deserved

such ridicule. Have you ever made a mistake in your life?

Bob, Noshir asked a very good question above. You did not answer his

question, but have been around long enough to maybe know the answer.

Can you elaborate on this?

 

<p>

 

Almost everyone can see from diagrams and drawings that wide

angle lenses require much more precision in film flatness and the

paralellness of the standards. But the question still remains, why

doen't any of the Depth of Focus formulas utilize the fl into the

formula? I have never seen any Depth of Focus formulas utilize fl as

a variable. Does anyone have a good answer for this?

 

<p>

 

I am sticking by my theory. The formula was originaly designed

for normal fl lenses. Longer lenses are are easier to work with than

normal lenses in this regard, so no reason to re write the formula.

But wide angle lenses require even greater precision than normal and

long lenses....and no one every bothered to figure out what the exact

relationship between fl and Depth of Foucus is, hence the formula

really only applies to normal and longer lenses...

Just making it perfectly clear since people have commented

incorrectly after Bob's correct response. There is two issues here,

Depth of Field and Depth of Focus. Depth of Field is what everyone

except Bob is talking about above. It is defined as the amount of

acceptable "out of focus" which can be tolerated in reference to the

point of exact focus, or the plane of sharp focus. This "out of

focus tolerance is defined by the Circle Of Confusion. (coc) This is

what 99% of people talk about and quite often confuse with Depth of

Focus.

 

<p>

 

However, Depth of Focus, is the opposite of the above, but

eqaully defines focus tolerances. Depth of Focus defines the amount

the film can be out of alignment vs. the acutal, or true film plane.

The film must be within this tolerance as defined below to maintain

the desired cc:

 

<p>

 

f stop * the allowable circle of confusion (used in the Depth of

Field calculation)

 

<p>

 

As you can see from the formula, Depth of Focus has no bearing

on the fl of a lens. The answer to this formula defines how much the

film can buckle or be out of alignment for any reason, in either

direction of the true film plane and still maintain the desire circle

of confusion on film. With improper film alignment or film buckle

Depth of Field is useless as Depth of Focus becomes the bottleneck to

the resolution acheived on the film.

 

<p>

 

So both Depth of's, are equally important to acheive the

resolution you desire on film. Howver, most people tend to only deal

with depth of field since the depth of focus is out of most peoples

control. Depth of Focus is also the achillies heel of most fast

lenses, they are often limited by film flatness, not the quality of

the lens.

 

<p>

 

Also effecting resolution on film is slew of other factors

such as moving subject, moving camera from wind, shutter vibration,

shutter speeds which spend a majority of their time opening and

closing in the light path which adds to diffraction, diffraction

limited f stops, lens and film resolving powers defined by the 1/R

formula in the Fuji Film handbook, miror slap...etc. It's almost

amazing anyone can ever get a sharp image!

 

<p>

 

to answer your other question.... In his review of the Walker

XL in the July/August 2000 issue of View Camera magazine, Roger Hicks

says that the camera makes it easier to get the front and rear

standards parallel. This is critical with wide angle lenses because

they have less depth of focus.

 

<p>

 

OK, what I think happened here is this... although the depth

of focus formula does not account for the fl of the lens, it seems

this is a bit of a shortcoming of the formula itself. Or possibly

the formula is only really designed for normal lenses and through the

years this disclaimer has beend dropped. Because the further the

lens is from the film plane, the more shallow the light angles

hitting the film. The closer the film plane is to the lens, as in

wide angle lenses, the greater the angles of light are approaching

the film. So, I do agree with what he is saying, but you are right

in that the formula does not account for it. The same is true using

the same fl lens and focussing at infinity vs. focussing very close

causing the 3x the bellows draw...you have friendly angles to work

with at 3x bellows draw, but no allowance in the formula for such.

Not all photographic formulas are all encompassing. Even Depth of

Field formula does not account for diffraction...it's something you

just need to know and apply it accordingly. Hope this helps...

There was a very intersting article about 2 years ago in framing

Magazine. It was all about longevity of framed prints. What I found

interesting was that these "acid free" backboards and mats actually

faired worse in testing with certain type prints vs. the acid type

mats and boards. Although there is a small vairance in ph between

acid free and non acid free, the key to success seemed to lie in

matching the print ph with the mat and back board ph. This prevents

the materials of one to seep into the other. I picked up this copy

of the magazine at the Jan. 2000 framing show in Vegas. Anyone

really intersted in this subject may want to track down that issue.

Nick, I use the Super symar 150 XL quite often on the 8x10. Plenty of

coverage. I use it for full frame, as well as with a half dark slide

(4x10) and the images are amazing...that lens is a gem for 8x10

format! A bit pricee, but check with RW or Badger.

Neil... I work with big files and can offer some insight...

 

<p>

 

First you have to deal with Mac vs. PC... I don't want to start a war

here, so my comments will be breif...both will work fine, there is

still a small % of the graphics users who beleive that Macs color

engine, Color Sync, is superior than Windows.

 

<p>

 

Monitor - The most important issue is screen size. If you plan to

use PS a lot, it is much more economical to use two monitors side by

side vs. one huge one. The larger the monitor, the more

disproptioniate the cost is... The top of the line CRT monitors is

still Barco, at about $5k, whereas the Mitsubishi line, or LaCie is

considered the next best and cost a whole lot less, < $2k. If you

use two monitors, only one needs to be an expensive one. In PS you

can put your palletes on the second smaller monitor. If you do

landscapes, the difference in these monitors is not an issue, whereas

if you do color matching work, like trying to produce Coke reds for

advertising work, then you may want to consider the more expensive

monitors. I personaly swtiched over to LCD's as they are much more

friendly to my eyes, they do NOT inflict the "sub concious flicker"

effects which cause headaches and fatigue. All CRT's are vulnerable

to this effect and effects many people after viewing them for 10

hours straight. New LCD's are close to the color capabilities and

Dmax of CRT's, but CRT's are still a bit superior in this area.

Almost all high end graphic card will suffice, this is never a

bottleneck in graphics... this issue becomes critical when doing 3d

modeling and gaming. If you are considering the two monitor

approach, then if you use a PC, they make dual head monitor cards to

drive two monitors. I beleive in Mac, you still need two graphics

cards.

 

<p>

 

PC, the new dual processors seem to speed things up a lot in PS. But

not double. Processing speed is usually not the bottleneck, its

memory! The rule of thumb is 4x the amount of your file sizes, so

if 250 MB is the norm, I would get atleast a Gig, or 1.5 gig to

prepare of future use. As for the type of memory... which ever type

runs the fastest in the machine you are buying

 

<p>

 

Hard Drive, get the fastest one made...accessing large files is very

time consuming. If you plan to store a lot of images on your hard

drive, you can fill 40 GB real fast! Consider a larger HD or a

second one... A fast CD burner will be mandatory... or if you want

to be bold, get a DVD burner...but the industry still needs to shake

out the format of choice for years to come. CD readers are on every

PC...

 

<p>

 

You should consider in your budget, how much you will spend on

your profiling package. As all the expesnive gear is useless with

out good profiles... this includes, monitor, scanner and printer. In

addtion to profiling, you should utilize monitor software package

that can keep your monitor calibrated. There is many packages on the

market.

Stephen, I too have considered consoladating my 4x5 and 810 systems

into one. What really got me interested in this arrangement was

Keith Canhams 5x7 metal MQ. The beauty in my eyes, you can attach

his new 6x17 back, (due out in a few months) and have everything you

need in one format, while not being that much larger than 4x5. Check

out the specs on the MQ 5x7. Of course, the only real pain is

cutting the film... but its a small price to pay for this smaller

field kit, specially if space is very critical on long hikes. I am

wondering at size prints you feel 4x5 becomes inadequate, or less

sharp then you would like?

I use the Fuji 600 C, Nikor 800T and 1200T. I agree with the

comments above...except, when there is no wind, the Nikors have

produced some exceptionaly sharp images for me. But many times I

beleive this can vary from lens to lens of the exact same type.

Daniel, well said....but the disturbing part is the fact most people

think their spot meters are calibrated to 18% grey, not 13%. 1/2 a

stop is a lot to be off. It seems more logical in todays world,

where we all use 18% grey cards, to have a spot meter calibrated to

the same, however this is not the case. I have confirmed this with

Sekonic (Mam USA) a few times. BTW, this is not limited to Sekonic,

supposedly most of the spot meters on the market are calibrated to

13%, not the 18% which many of us assumed. Of course, the worst part

is, its hard to find this in the manuals. Another mystery for us to

solve! Wonderful! I beleive Gossen is also 13%....