bill_glickman

The only downfall of this camera is that although you can use your

own lenses, you have to fit them in a custom board, I think made by

Art Pan. So you can not interchange them between your LF cameras

and the Pan camera unless you change the board each time. A great

Pan camera would be one that accepts standardized boards such as

Linhof or Toyo.... Then for LF shooters all that is required is the

camera body!

In addition to being a multiformat camera that can change format on

any given shot...it also offers gg focusing or rangefinder and is

also the only new MF stereo camera on the market! If the price

droped by 50% I would be interested in one! Obviosly someone is

buying them or he still would not be charging the same high prices

for over 2 years now! I know one guy who ordered one and he waited a

year and gave up waiting.... business must be good... It seems the

Germans, Swiss and the Japanese are the true innovators of camera

equipment.

When shooting LF with multiple pops of a flash, it is easy to determine with a spot flash meter, in multi mode, exactly how many pops of flash it takes to illuminate the subject sufficeintly for a given f stop. To prevent picture blur, I prefer to leave the lens open throughout all the pops. With recharge time of 7 seconds per flash, and 5 pops, that is an additional 27 seconds of ambient light the film will see not accounted for in the flash meter readings. How does one calculate the amount to cut back the multiple pops to account for all the ambient light hitting the film? Is there some value that can be assigned for an ambient EV reading of the existing light x the seconds open?

 

<p>

 

I realize I can use a black cloth over the lens between pops, but I prefer to leave the lens open. Thank you all in advance.

See when keith Canham will be releasing his 6x17 back for 5x7? Thanks

 

<p>

 

Bill

Sorin, just be careful, this can be like a drug, many before you fell

hard after their first look of 8x10 chromes... some have resorted to

eating Ramen noodles only for a year to save up to buy the right

lenses, some sell things they need for gear, etc.. :-)

Rule number 1 - Bob can't be wrong.

Rule number 2 - If Bob is wrong, see rule number 1.

 

<p>

 

Bob, all the posters raise very sensible points, instead of

fighting everyone, why not just state the facts in clearly defined

english - after you have confirmed it from the factory. Isn't it

obvious you confused us all? Please, have a little respect for some

of the extremely intelligent posters to this forum.

Nick, Julio and Rich have excellent points...I tried this myself and

spent a lot of money on expesnive instruments and still could not get

reliable information. The list of reasons are way to complex to try

to mention here. The cost of materials and my time was exhorbitant.

For a small fee, send the camera and film holders off to Mamiya USA,

assuming you are in the States, and let them do this for you. They

have all the lasers and are set up to accomplish this very difficult

task...I was upset I did not think of this first.... the slanted

ruler test is a great test to find out if you are in the ball park.

I did that test with a piece of slanted paper and used very tiny rows

of numbers and determined from the gg, the exact rows....they were

numbered differently all the way accross the page...that were in

focus and slightly out of focus, etc. I left the lens at the same f

stop and shot film...it was an excellent indicator...but

unfortunately can not be used for adjustments if it's off. Good

luck..

Armin, Is this film only available in the B&W? I thought they may

offer color also? Please advise, thank you.

Armin, the web site you listed is not translated in English. Would

you be so kind to describe to us what exactly Gigabitfilm is? It

sounds interesting? Is it available in the USA? Thank you

Paul... you wrote.. Another application for 16 bits image is in raw

scans. A 16 bits image can be saved as is and then converted in 8

bits RGB or CMYK without loss. Some scanners have this 16 bits HDR

feature.

 

<p>

 

My Howtek does scan at 16 bits per channel. But PS6 brings the

files down to 8 bit. I am unsure what you mean when you say a 16

bit file can be converted to 8 bit without loss? You are loosing

half the data in the transition? Maybe I did not understand what you

were saying?

Glen, your latest post certainly gave some indication that 8 bits /

channel may be the optimum number. Here is a quote from Jan Steinman

from another board, I am curious of your opinion to his response. I

am starting to beleive our eyes are the bottleneck if we exceed 8 bit

files...

 

<p>

 

I don't see ANY reason for printing a 16 bit file. Human eyes simply

aren't sensitive enough to detect such changes -- especially once

they've been compressed down to the ~2.0 Drange of reflective

material.

 

<p>

 

On the other hand, if you're archiving a file that will possibly

undergo multiple edits in the future, it makes sense to save as much

information as possible.

 

<p>

 

I believe printers will continue to be 8-bit devices for the

foreseeable future, and if they ever do become 16-bit devices, it

will be because cheap memory and fast processors have made 16-bits

the standard for storage, NOT because the output will be any better.

Hey guys some great input... so I guess I can narrow down my question

to seeing if there a difference between final output between 4 bit

files vs. 8 bit files. Although I would never use 4 bit files, not

even sure if I can make them, I would like to see if on a final print

there is any difference between 4 and 8 bit files. This would give

us some indication of wheter 8 bit files is overkill or maybe on the

edge of current printing technologies. Any input on this logic?

Thanks again!

Scott, the above poster is a great offer. It is hard to find someone

to introduce you to LF unless you are well connected in the photo

industry. I did rent equipment before I got into LF, and found it

very frustrating way to approach the field. For starters, the 8x10

kit I rented with film holders and all the necessities was $250 per

day! Considering it takes a while to get used to this equipment to

see if you really like it, it is not unusual to sink a lot of dough

into rental fees. It seems it is much easier to just by some used

equipment, low cost and try it for awhile...if you like it, then you

can always upgrade. 4x5 feild cameras are one of the best bargains

in photography...check out ebay or other used equipment sites. It

does take awhile to evaluate if LF is for you...i.e. the hassle of

lugging this heavy stuff, using slow lenses, long set ups, spot

meters, film holders, etc. all in exchange for a larger chrome. Of

course much of this answer is dependent on what your final print size

is to be. If you are prininting 16x20 or smaller, a good MF camera

can take you just as far...with the loss of movements of course. But

if you like to take your time and make master pieces vs. rapid firing

an auto camera...than do like I did, go from 35mm straight to 8x10!

I have never regretted the move, but I do also shoot a lot of 4x5.

And 4x5 is by far a much more practial format to use...and a lot more

cost effective.

Gary, the Fuji 240A is an amazing little lens. It covers 8x10 and is

eaully as sharp as the Super Symar XL's I own. The only drawback is

it f9. A bit hard to see for sunrises. It is one of the smalles LF

lenses I have ever seen. I use it equally on 4x5 and 8x10. Next to

my 150 XL, it is my most used lens. I beleive Fuji stoped making

these last year, but some new ones may still be around. I see them

used often. Jeff at Badger Graphics tracks this stuff, ask him for

new or used. Good luck...

I have struggled getting any good responses to this question... this forum seems to have some of the advanced minds in the photo world.. I am very interested in hearing any opinions on this....

 

<p>

 

Scanning 8x10 film creates huge files and many storage issues. I am trying to estimate the max. amount of data a "high end" digital printer can utilize to benefit the final print. Knowing this, it will prevent me from storing files excessively large with no current or possibly future benefit. (This relates to saving 8 bit files vs. 16 bit files only, not the size of the file determined by output dimensions)

 

<p>

 

I was curious if anyone has ever ran the following test on a "high end" digital printer. (Like the LJ 5000 or other very high end ink jet, such as 8 or 12 color printers)

 

<p>

 

Scan a perfect chrome in 16 bit, save file, then print the 16 bit file on "high end" digital printer.

 

<p>

 

Take the same file and open in Photoshop and use one of the tools, therefore the file would be compressed into an 8 bit file when saved...print this 8 bit file on the same printer and compare the results. (Use Ektaspace for your work space to eliminate data clipping)

 

<p>

 

Does anyone think (or know) the 16 bit file would create a better looking print? Or is it possible, even todays best printers are so inferior to this massive amount of data (8 or 16 bit file size), that the additional data 16 bit provides is completely wasted?

 

<p>

 

If there is no perceived difference in these prints using todays best

printers, I wonder if it's possible to try the same experiment comparing 4 bit and 8 bit files on a print. The benefit of knowing this information, would be to determine the optimum file size to work with (8bit vs. 16 bit) then we can make an educated guess on what size file will be obsolete or inferior in the near future.

 

<p>

 

Some peoples opinion is to always save the largest file size possible to accomodate the improved printers of the future. Of course this appeals to my common sense, however if current "high end printers" make equal prints between 4 bit and 8 bit files, I can see NO

reason to save 16 bit data now. It seems 8 bit files would be very

sufficient to accomodate the improved printers of the future.

 

<p>

 

It's my gut feeling, in the next 10 - 20 years, there will always be

limitations of printing papers. Considering todays digital printers already match darkroom quality, I doubt manufacturers will invest heavily into R&D to further the resolution of the papers and ink delivery systems. This seems logical considering the current "high end" digital printers output is nearing the capacity of the human eye.

 

<p>

 

Of course this discussions excludes saving files for other purposes other than printing to paper, such as film recorders, which have the capacity to record 10x - 20x more data than printing papers. Thank you all in advance.

Joe, at 15 ft, you only need 155mm of bellows draw, you should have

no problems focussing...it could be lack of light? Yes, the

standards require greater seperation as objects get closer, at

infinity an 150mm lens will use 150mm of bellows draw.

I am interested in hearing any input from users with experience with either Colorspans new Display Maker Esprit or the Series XII. I have heard mixed reviews and would appreicate any input. I plan to use it for archivable landscape prints...it appears their version of long life UV inks is the ultimate cross over point for longevity and vivid colors. Thank you in advance...

Bryan, although all the meters above will work fine, if you want

utopia in a spot meter, which causes the least inconveince in the

field, look for all information viewable through the viewfinder,

which rules out analog, EV readings, flash modes, 1 - 5 deg readings,

small in size, filter factors, time and f stop priority. These are

probably limited to Pentax digital, Sekonik 778, Gossen spot. You

will pay for these added features though... Robert White and Badger

Graphics usually has much better prices on these meters.

Wayne, that summed it all up! Nice job...

Grey, the base tilts are usually designed to be yaw free...yaw only

comes into play when using front tilt and swing simultaneously. If

the pivot point of the tilt is below the swing point, then the camera

is yaw free, and has base tilt. The benefit of this is, you do not

have to continual adjust one of the two movements when changing the

other. If the tilt point is just slightly above swing point, then

the camera is not yaw free, but still has base tilt. In landscape

shooting, Yaw is a very rare occurence, and in my opinon the loss of

axis or assymtrical tilts is not worth the benefits of yaw free.

 

<p>

 

Axis tilts are just that, they tilt on a given axis, some

cameras have fixed axis tilts which are usually at the center of the

lens, (hence the name lens axis tilt) which is ideal, while other

cameras such as Horseman L series has variable axis tilt, the user

slects at what axis the lens will be tilted from.

 

<p>

 

Doug, I am confused about what you write. I do understand that

rear tilt will alter the perspective, however, wont it also throw the

film way out of the plane of sharp focus? If you pointed the camera

downwards and kept the standards paralell, you would have converging

verticals, but the plane of sharp focus will be exactly on the film

plane. Now if you use rear tilt to rid the converging verticals, the

plane of sharp focus still lies paralell to the front standard, but

yet the back is tilted moving the film way out of the plane of sharp

focus. At the very center of the film it should be fine, but at the

top and bottom it would far exceed the allowance that Depth of Focus

would permit, regardless of the f stop shot at? Can you, or anyone

else, explain how this works? I see this written in view camera

books, but it never addresses how this focus shortcoming is

overcome? thanks

Amjad, I hate to answer your question with a question, but what

exactly is a glass negative? I have heard the term used before but

have no experience in this area. Thanks

Sol... I am not following your math. Here is what I come up with to

calc. the depth of focus at the film plane. f stop * cc * 2

 

<p>

 

So, at f45 * .042 cc (allows for 5x enlargement and still maintain 5

lpmm to print) = 1.9mm film play in either direction and still

maintain the desired cc. To accomodate 1mm of film buckle, you only

need to stop down to f22 to negate it. What formula are you using to

calculating the depth of focus at the film plane?

 

<p>

 

Your point is well taken though, film buckle is a risky part of

8x10 film. I often struggle with this, and try to keep my film

holders upright when loaded. I think when they lay flat for awhile,

the bottom film can buckle towards the dark slide but the top one

lays flat against the film holder middle.

 

<p>

 

Considering I always shoot 8x10 at f22 or higher, I have not had

focus issues relating to film buckle. If you are having problems, I

would first check gg / film alignment before thinking the buckle

would be worse than what you mentioned. 4x5 is much more reliable in

this area, my guess is it buckles way less than half vs. 8x10. I

will agree with the poster above, roll film backs can be very

vunlerable to this issue, specially if shot at wide apertures... i.e.

mainly used with MF lenses, not LF lenses.

Larry..you wrote... My guess is that these printers aren't at their

best on glossy paper stock.

 

<p>

 

This is very true.. and the pigmented inks in my experience

look even worse on high gloss vs. the dye based ink. The Epson 2000

as well as the Epson 1270 &870, which are not considered LF printers

have had their fair share of problems with color shifts. The 1270

and 870 are vulnerable to expsoure to ozone, while the 2000 can

sometimes produce a green shift based on the paper being used. These

problems are well documented on many web sites. Epson almost ignores

the problems and makes a few side comments on their web site, but

heavy users report otherwise on many independent web sites.

 

<p>

 

I think you are right as per R&D dollars...it seems to me, the

next windfall in this field is when UV inks can rival the full color

gammut of darkroom papers. I wonder how feasable this is, and how

long it will take for it to become reality?

Hey guys, what I am looking for is a LF (42") wide ink jet printer...

some of the ones mentioned above were very much smaller. I do no B&W

work.

 

<p>

 

There is a company in CT, I think, called IT, they refurbish Iris

printers and turn them into high end ink jets, anyone aware of them?

They are sending me samples next week...we shall see, I will report

back when I get them..

I have been quite impressed by dye based LF ink jet printers today. In my opinion their quality is almost equal to that of a good darkroom print..however, these printers use dye based inks. The problem with these inks is of course they fade very fast, less than 2 years on average, compared to 30+ years in the darkroom. The pigmented (UV) inks, which have very acceptable archivable life, seem to have a much smaller color gammut than their dye based cousins. This makes there prints look inferior vs. the dye based prints.

 

<p>

 

Digital prints made in the darkroom by a LJ5000 or a Chromera printer make excellent prints with tradional darkroom color gammut. However their cost and space requirements are extraordinary for the average user.

 

<p>

 

I have looked at archivable prints from Epson 9500 and HP5000. In my opinion they do look inferior to darkroom quality prints. Has anyone seen a LF archivable ink jet printer that can truly rival darkroom quality prints? I would be printing color landscapes. Any input is very much appreciated.