bill_glickman

Finally Fuji has introduced a film holder that holds packets of 8 pieces of 4x5 film, similar to the old 6 load film holder. It seems like a very ingenous design and will most likely keep the film flatter vs a conventional holder. You can use any film in the holder and what's really great is you only need one holder which you then insert your packets (8) of film into it! Great for field work and compact backpacks. RW site has extensive review and pix of it... scroll halfway down the page to read!

 

<p>

 

http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/accessories.htm

 

<p>

 

Has anyone tried this yet?

I am trying to determine the fastest and most econocmical method to

duplicate 6x7 color chromes? Is there a MF lens and back set-up which

is specifically designed for this? I have considered a film recorder,

however they are very expensive, $30k, and quite slow vs. firing a

shutter. (10 minutes per expsoure) I also have considered making a

digital file then going to a film recorder and print an 8x10 piece of

film...then contact dupe them to 8x10, then cut them up. I need to

have a set up that will allow fast duping of 100 of each chrome.

Thank you.

I am trying to determine the fastest and most econocmical method to duplicate 6x7 color chromes? Is there a MF lens and back set-up which is specifically designed for this? I have considered a film recorder, however they are very expensive, $30k, and quite slow vs. firing a shutter. (10 minutes per expsoure) I also have considered making a digital file then going to a film recorder and print an 8x10 piece of film...then contact dupe them to 8x10, then cut them up. I need to have a set up that will allow fast duping of 100 of each chrome. Thank you.

There is a new ball head called Areotech... looks very well made and

priced right...you can read review here...

 

<p>

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/arcatech.htm

Kerry, does this new Kodak product accept Fuji quickloads? I

thopught I remember reading this somewhere...

This question keeps poping up...and all of us are looking for an

inexpensive solution for long exposure. I agree that a simple count

will get you close enough, but it sure would be nice to have a simple

timer similar to the prontor but not be worth more than our

cameras. A great solution, which I never took the time to build, is

to have a Canon EOS remote control with timer and battery self

contained which would control a solenoid working the cable release.

It would cost under $100 and would be ideal for even longer

exposures, I think up to 5 + minutes. If someone goes through the

trouble of locating the right solenoid and perfects this, maybe they

will be kind enough to share it with the list....

B&H sells one ready made for like $15 that has a tape which has fl's

for 4x5 on one side and 8x10 on the other.... it works very well and

is much cheaper than those expensive viewfinders which are bulky vs.

a thin piece of cardboard..

Tom, the two numbers on a flatbed scanner represent the X & Y axis,

true optical capability....but even that you have to be careful

because makers tend to mix up the optical and interpolated

resolutions to gain a marketing advantage. It is quite normal for

flatbeds to scan higher optical across the axis which requires no

stepper motor. However, with drum scanners, this does not hold true

since there is only one scanning eye going through a rotating drum

which holds the image.

 

As for printing dpi, they are not to be confused with

scanning ppi, pixels per inch. A printers dpi, dots per inch, is an

indication of the number of dots the printer will lay down in both

directions....for example, Epson 1440x720 refers to 1440 dpi going

left and right, and 720 dpi going up and down...meaning the weak link

is always the paper handling capapbility.... Roland is the only ink

jet printer that prints true 1440 x 1440 dpi... in general, the more

dpi, the more resolution. However, there is many other tricks to

making a print look sharp including the number of ink colors, the

dithering pattern and ink/paper combination.

 

<p>

 

DPI and PPI are not equal, but quite often these terms are

mistanely intermingled. Most scanning software asks you what final

dpi you want, and it reverse calculates the amount of ppi required to

acheive such. So there is little need to determine ppi in todays

applications.

Mike, the reason I stated 200 - 250 dpi for the LJ and Chromeria is

because Bill Nordstrom told me he tested these extensively and that

no discernable difference could be seen above 200 dpi, he used 250 as

a max. upper end dpi.

Bob, it was my understanding that all the silicon chips used today in

reflective meters are calibrated to 13% grey. This 18% grey was a

figure that came about from Kodak in the early 1900's to simulate

NY's grey clouds and these grey cards have been produced ever since.

Here is a clip from the Luminous Landscape web site.... this guy is

very sharp...

 

<p>

 

A meter capable of taking incident light readings, like the Sekonic

L508 reviewed on these pages, features what looks like a half of a

golf-ball-sized hemisphere, usually on a swiveling support. To take

an exposure reading instead of pointing the meter at the subject, as

one does with in-camera and reflected meters, you instead place the

meter in the same light as the subject.

 

<p>

 

The hemisphere, or lumisphere as some call it, is designed as a 13%

gray object and thus provides a reading equivalent to that which you

would get if you took a reflected reading off a theoretically

perfectly integrated scene, or a Kodak 18% gray card. (It really

should be 13%, but don't ask!?)

 

<p>

 

The beauty of the incident metering approach is that you needn't

carry a large gray card around with you on location, and you don't

have to worry that your subject matter � whether because of its

colour or reflectance characteristics, will give an erroneous reading.

 

<p>

 

From what I have learned it seems all meters use this 13%

standard. The 18% card was also appreciated since it was 1/2 way

between white and black. The difference between 13% and 18% is

approx. 1/2 a stop, which is very significant with chrome film.

Assuming all this is true, then it does not make sense to use a grey

card in the field for exposure purposes unless you use a compensating

factor. But as one poster mentioned above, there is many other

reasons to not use this method.

 

<p>

 

Bob, since you have many industry conacts, maybe you can shed

some light on this 13% issue, as there seems to be no written

information from the makers of these meters.

JOhn....start with the final dpi required by the printer and work

backwards.... for example, LJ or Chromeria printers peaks out around

200 - 250 dpi. Ink jets are a bit more thirsty and require up to

300 - 360 dpi. A scan any larger than this would be exceeding the

printers capability, so just a waste, unles you have other uses for

the scan. Check with each type of printer you go to... Now to

calc. the files size.... use this simple formula...

 

<p>

 

In this example,

 

<p>

 

16x20" print

200 dpi

8 bit scan (you can scan up to 16 bit, but not much accepts it yet)

3 Channels, RGB

 

<p>

 

16x20x200x200*8/192,000*3 = 38 MB

 

<p>

 

So in this example, any thing over 38 MB is overkill and a waste of

space.

 

<p>

 

To calc. how much dpi you need to scan at to accomplish this, take

the enlargement factor (4x) x the end dpi, which is 200, or 800

dpi...this can be easily scanned at home with an expensive flatbed

scanner. Now if this was 35mm film, the dpi of the scanner would

need to be 16x200=3200 dpi, a much more expensive scanner...another

benefit of shooting larger 4x5 film. Hope this helps

Be careful using pull and pluck sold by companies like Pelican...it

works great for a little while, then gives way and everything crashes

into each other....

Light meters area skewed to 13% grey, not 18% grey. Why in the world

doesn't anyone make a 13% grey card? I was quite surprised to learn

this. You can confirm this with Mamiya USA, the Sekonic importer.

They offer a good book on this subject.

Bob, we all understand the roll an importer has. In lieu of the

services an importer provides, the manufacturer typically offers

large discounts on the product to compensate for their services.

This is how distributors around the world can compete on the same

playing field. (other than the mild fluctuations in the currency

exchange). This is evidenced in Canon and Nikon cameras, the prices

around the world are very competitive and most everyone in the USA

buys USA. Somehow this pricing / distribution system does NOT apply

to your product lines.

 

<p>

 

Also, I am interested in reading the test results of film

flatness, Linhof vs. Seagaul that Kerry requested above? Couldn't

you at least comment on it? If this was just your opinion, then

please advise us of such...it sure beats ignoring Kerry's fair

quesiton. I guess somethings will never change...

Kerry, in your opinion why is the discount USA price more than double

Badger's price? I am assuming Jeff is importing these as he does

many other products such as Rodenstock? I can see 30%, but 100%??

 

<p>

 

I know Bob always states the warranty issue. But on most

products, extended warranties, which usually cost more than the base

warranties, only cost about 10% of the purcahse price, not 150%. Any

ideas?

I agree with Chris above.... I have run these tests also, to check gg

and film alignment... if take a paper with small print, (you need to

experiment with the size based on the fl lens you are using) and have

60 lines of print... like, 11111 on the first line, 222222 on the

second line etc. Then you take that paper and put it on a slant

board, so that with the lens wide open, you only have one line in

focus and all other lines out of focus ( you need to experiment with

the slant angle) Note which line is in focus...take a shot wide open

and see if the same line is in focus on the film. This is good

indication of gg / film alignment, not as good as lasers, but a good

first test...

Tom, you raise an intersting point, and I think the posters addressed

your question very well.... I will say that some lenses do seem

inferior to others if compared side by side.... I own 11 new LF

lenses, and for some reason, I think the Nikor 450 M is bit soft and

lower contrast than all my other lenses. But if one did not compare

chromes side by side, they would not complain of this...

Kerry, it sure is nice to have someone else put Bobs responses in

perspective, I got tired of doing it! As I suggest to this list

several times, one should mention their affiliation with a given

product they are quoting facts and specs on. This way the poster

understands that the person writing the response has potential

financial gain if they follow their advise, recommendations or even

facts. I am not disputing your facts Bob, and I know you love to

confuse the issue to prove to the world that BOB is NEVER wrong, but

isn't it time in your life you start chillin out a bit? Learn to be

fair, state the good, the bad, and the ugly, PLEASE TAKE OFF YOUR

SALESMANS HAT AND BE ONE OF US IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE FAIRLY ON

THIS FORUM.

 

<p>

 

The poster was on a budget and was looking at 6x12 backs in the

$200 price range, even the discount price you offered is still 10x

higher than his budget... its fair to mention your stats, but be fair

and mention the price differential which you ARE very knowledgeable

of. Why is this so obvious to everyone else, but not you? Will you

ever change? Since I began witnessing your wrotten attitude towards

your potential customers, I have made it a policy to never buy

anything from your product line in the USA. I rather save 30 - 60%

and buy overseas where they actually appreciate their customers!

However, if and when your attitude changes, I and many others would

consider re visiting your USA vendors. You make your own bed Bob.

Mike, I would add the following points....

 

<p>

 

1. If your using a new Toyo Field and Toyo holders, I would not look

there for the problem. Toyo puts every camera thruogh a laser test

to assure gg / film alignment. If it is off, MAM usa will correct

this and check it if you beleive its a problem, assuming you are in

the USA. If it's happening with both lense, it obviously is not the

lenses...the chances of two bad new lenses is nill. You are shooting

the LF lenses at the desired f stops, so thats not an issue.

 

<p>

 

2. Maybe your expectations are too high? I shoot with the Toyo AII

and also the Mamiya7. In general MF lenses using modern glass will

clearly produce sharper chromes of EQUAL size. However, the

limitation of resolution to film is limited more so by the film, not

the lenses. So although MF lenses will deliver sharper chromes, and

higher contrast images to film, the difference is not significant

enough to make up the 2x larger 4x5 film. MF lenses would have to

deliver 2x the resolution "to film" to overcome the 4x5 2x size

advantage, this is impossible. The limitations of any camera system

is limited to the total system, as described in a formula in the back

for the Fuji handbook ...bottom line, even the best glass in the

world can not improve on-film resolution by more than 25% , i.e.

better than your LF lenses. This is also evidenced by C Perez tests

results of LF and MF glass.

 

<p>

 

3. I know this may sound obvious, but it was not addressed above. A

fair comparison would be to look at each image using an adjustable

loupe. Inspect each chrome at the same final size. This would

equate to a 4x loupe setting on the 4x5 chrome and a 8x loupe setting

on the MF chrome. Now you are looking apples to apples at the final

print size with the same loupe. If doing this experiment, the MF

looks sharper, its time to have your gg / film alignment checked.

If you were looking at both images at the same magnification, than

nothing is wrong! My M7 chromes blow away any LF chromes I shoot,

even with my Schneider SS XL's.

 

<p>

 

I think the best LF glass is inferior to the best MF glass.

LF lens designers probably felt there was no need to match the

sharpness since the film size more than overcame the small difference

in sharpness. But after reading a few threads on this board, it

seems this is changing as the new digital LF lenses seem to have MF

sharpness that can be used on LF film.. I think the image circles are

big enough for 4x5... maybe someone can comment on these lenses for

Mike. If not, you can re check the threads for the posts I am

referring to. Hope this is helpful!

Jorge, this is so true! When you look at the front of a view camera

book, you see the most contorted view camera. The uninformed find

that impressive, but the informed realize that no one could ever take

a picuture with that set up! There is no lenses that would even have

a big enough image circle to accomodate such extreme movements! I

guess their goal is to show off all the movements of the camera. In

my case, I advise people to never buy a camera that has a powerful

zero detent on the tilt, because so often I am trying set the front

lens board for 1 deg tilt and the lensboard keeps poping back to

zero...meaning the detent is so strong it covers -1,0,1 Deg. tilt!

Thats very annoying considering 1-2 deg. is the most common tilt

angle!

 

<p>

 

All this assumes 4x5 shooting, which normal uses 1/2 the fl

lenses that 8x10 uses. When shooting 8x10 with longer lenses for the

same composition, the tilt angles will double...for example if you

want the grass below you to be in focus, J=5ft, using a 600mm lens,

this would use a 600/5x5, or 24 deg tilt... That is still not as

extrememe as the book covers but quite a bit of tilt...

Thomas, I give you a lot of credit for your due dillignece on this

subject. Merklinger is brilliant, he better understands view camera

geometry than anyone alive today, the only problem is his ability to

communicate his knowledge in a book! That is too bad, because he

truly is a modern day pioneer in view camera movements. His addendum

that comes in the back of the book is more useful than the book

itself. I will summarize many points of his book that are not

clearly defined. I also think you should review Tuan's articles

also, as I find his methods very useful also.

 

<p>

 

1. Just because a camera has movements does not mean everything can

be in focus! Sometimes tilt is just not practical! There is view

camera math, which Merklinger is famous for and then there is

practical application in the field, which he does not offer much on,

except a bit in the addnedum. There is several problems you must be

aware of using lens tilt. First, tilting the lens eats up the image

circle, therefore the amount you can tilt is limited to the size of

the image circle of your lens - not what a calculation tells you to

use. Second, tilting the lens alters the angle of the plane of sharp

focus (PSF). In addition, compared to non tilt cameras, it reduces

the amount of DOF you have at the near point, provides the same DOF

at the point of exact focus and provides addtional DOF at the far

point - assuming the same f stop in both examples. The reason is

because of the cone shaped DOF that surrounds the PSF vs. the

paralell DOF on non tilt cameras.

 

<p>

 

2. Merklingers web site, linked on this home page, offers a great

visual video showing the relationship between the PSF and the tilt

angle. This quick time video is invaluable for mastering the concept

of lens tilt. The book just can not demonstrate this like the video

can. Seeing is understanding. I suggest you watch this, then

everything will fall into place using Merklingers simple rules.

 

<p>

 

To focus the camera, it requires 3 distinct pieces of data, tilt

angle, focus point and f stop. Here is how I accomplish each in the

field using Merklingers methods.. (this is after I determine I can

not get the scene into focus with out lens tilt. And of course this

is no gaurantee the scene will come into focus using tilt, only

certain types of scenes are well suited for lens tilt, the video will

make this obvious to anyone)

 

<p>

 

1. Tilt Angle. After deciding tilt is necessary, vs. box camera

focussing, Merklinger can run you through some serious high level

math to get to the tilt angle, however, after you wade through his

charts and formulas, I have found his simple formula of Tilt angle =

fl/(J*5) is all that is required. This simple formula will get you

the proper tilt angle within 95% of the long hand version. And as

one poster noted above, getting tilt angles to 1/10th of a degree is

useless since no camera can tilt to that accuracy anyway. All that

you need to visualize is how far below the lens the PSF will

intersect, i.e. (J, in ft.) Then do the math. So 10 ft J with a

150 ft lens is about a 3 deg tilt.

 

<p>

 

2. Focus point. Focus the camera until PSF, intersects the middle

of the tallest subject. (tallest item needs to be judged based on

the its distance from the camera and its height, when in doubt, pick

the closer item to the camera)

 

<p>

 

3. f stop. For this, it helps here to have a Hyperfocal chart for

your lenses which includes your desired cc you are trying to

maintain. To figure out what f stop will give you the added DOF

above and below the plane of sharp focus, simply measure out to the

hyperfocal distance (at your selected f stop) and the DOF will be J

ft above and J ft below the plane of sharp focus. If you want to

know the DOF at a different distance from the camera, say 1/2 the

Hyperfocal distance, then divide J by 1/2 also and apply it above and

below the PSF.

 

<p>

 

In some cases, it pays to have a laser rangefinder to know

the distances of objects in your scene. Of course you can also

attempt to set the f stop by merely stoping down and looking into the

gg, but this does not take all things into consideration such as

desired cc.

 

<p>

 

So this summarizes Merklingers methods for proper use of

lens tilt. With very little math, which you can do in your head and

the use of a Hyperfocal chart, (which should be carried anyway for

non-tilt focussing) your done! It's not perfect, but in less than a

minute you can be damn close to perfection.

 

<p>

 

This simplified procedure works in most all situations, however

it does not work when doing close up work or when using extreme lens

tilt, i.e. greater than 15 deg. (most lenses would be in the low

resolution of the image circle, or will have exhausted the image

circle at this point.) If you have a large image circle lens and

exceed 15 deg tilt, then you need to use the effective fl... But this

method above fits 95% of landscape scenes I encounter.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps!

 

 

Marcus, if you do attempt 4x5 and are choosing between the field and

monorail type...I can add only one thing.... I shoot with the Toyo

45AII and the Toyo VX125. The VX125 having a telescopic monorail

makes the set up and break down process way way faster. If you shoot

a lot, this sure is a nice feature...but you pay for it in camera

size. I agree with the above posters...put your money in the

sharpest lenses and the best film holders you can afford....

As per John H above, I agree, check out profile cities page, you will

find that LJ prints tend to be very strong in the blues...be careful

if you bring the image into PS and use a working space that is

smaller in the color range you want, since data clipping will occur

and then you are screwed...there is no getting back the clipped

data. For the LJ, use JHolmes Ektaspace in PS, it was specifically

designed for that printer...assuming you want to use the LJ.

Bill, need more information...are you using acatate front or just

taping the 4x5 to the drum? Does the film have clip marks on it

from processing? If so, is this where the air bubbles are? What is

the circumfrence of the drum?

Mark, if you are shooting 12x20, and you are going to Zion, you

definetly need to shoot at Bryce canon, its an additional 1.5 hrs,

but well worth it in that format... If you are interested in

used/vintage gear, caseys camera, next to the Liberace museus has

some neat items...