Lens test surprise

**Steve Gangi** · 1-Apr-2002, 22:36

I agree with Jorge. So long as your equipment is not badly smashed, it will work fine. You introduce more "slop" just in focusing/moving/tilting etc than any 1/1000 or even 1/10 of an inch tolerances in your film holders, camera back etc. Plus, using large format you probably stop down to f16/f22/f32 also. I'm still tickled that the Wollensak lens compares so well to other more expensive lenses. Don't fall into the trap that seems so common, some people will have you testing and measuring everything. Measure your films on a kilodollar densitometer, measure all your films with every lens/shutter combination, measure all your filmholders with micrometers, measure all your light meters against some calibrated standard (?), measure your developer with a pH meter, etc etc etc. You'd never have time to take any pictures. If you can focus on the groundglass and your pictures come out sharp, that's all it takes. If you take a meter reading and come out with a decent negative and print, that's all it takes. If you want to apply some tilt, the groundglass will tell you when it's right, you don't need cheat sheets and computers and Scheimpflug books - your eyeball is accurate if you trust it. Keep it simple and enjoyable.

**Gary Frost** · 2-Apr-2002, 13:18

You may have to adjust your scale a bit after you get the likes of a Sironar or XL lens. (either include values over 10, or shift them all down just a bit) ....That has been my experience anyway.

**ka yeung** · 4-Apr-2002, 21:30

After shooting large format professionally for 25 years, I considered I have mastered the technique of large format camera, recently starting to shoot with a 4x5 scanning back, what an eye opener, focusing error is more common than you think, images that look perfectly sharp on film can be soft in digital, every time you open an image in photoshop you are basically looking at the file with a microscope, no lupe can even compare, that why the manufacturer supply a focusing aid with the back. No more doubts with film flatness, focus shift when stopping down etc, the other things is I have to throw away my fresnel lens behind my ground glass, its just too vague.

**Jorge Gasteazoro** · 4-Apr-2002, 22:11

Hey Ka better yet, get a medium format and get rid of the LF, even better yet give it to me and I will make sure is vanished! As a matter of fact lets all call Kodak and Ilford and Bergger and tell them not to make film anymore, the LF digital back is here and we dont need that pesky terrible film.....and to please forward me ASAP a 12x20 back....

**Steve Gangi** · 6-Apr-2002, 11:53

If the image looks sharp on the film and print or at a *reasonable* magnification, isn't that good enough? I've read plenty about digital backs, and seen some results, and I still don't believe all the hype. What is the point of zooming in 100,000,000:1 (or whatever) in Photoshop or some other program? It serves no purpose. All you see is pixels.

**Pete Andrews** · 9-Apr-2002, 12:28

Hi Julio. I agree that the best designed holders around (short of the Sinar preci$ion ..... kerching!) are the Linhof ones. Why no-one else has produced a holder with a sprung pressure plate, I don't know. Beware those old Linhof holders though. The one I have has warped a little and is way beyond that 1 thou tolerance now. I came across another recently, old but unused, still in its cardboard package, and the plastic had shifted so much that even a quick glance showed it was way out of spec. Shame :-(

**Bob Salomon** · 9-Apr-2002, 13:16

Pete,

<Linhof ones. Why no-one else has produced a holder with a sprung pressure plate, I don't know.>

Those are NOT a pressure plate. Linhof Double Cut Sheet Holders were very precise but had no moving plate in them.

Linhof Double Cutfilm/Plate holders are the ones with the spring loaded plate and the ejector mechanism. The plate was not designed to be and did not act as a pressure plate. The plate adjusted the holder for the difference in thickness between a thick glass plat and a piece of sheet film (what would a pressure plate exert pressure upon in the middle of a sheet of film anyway)? These holders also had an ejector lever to ease the glass plate out of the holder so it would not scratch from a finger nail trying to pry it out. Fortunately it also ejected sheet film but was not made for sheet material.

While Linhof always enjoyed a very good reputation for film flatness and consistency with their Super Cutfilm Holders there is no gain in flatness or consistenancy by using the thicker, heavier and more expensive Linhof Double Cutfilm/Plate holders. All are now discontinued and out of production and out of stock.