A philosophical question about the # of lenses in your pack [Archive]

Heroique

29-Oct-2013, 00:27

Let's say you're hiking into one of your favorite landscapes – camera, lens, film in pack, tripod in hand, high confidence in tow.

You're in a great mood :D. The dawning day promises good light. You have all the time you need for shooting, plus more to spare. You haven't arrived yet, so it's too early to start looking for shots. But deep down, you know plenty of shots will be there. After all, a lot of care and consideration went into the number of lenses in your pack. Then a moment of pause. A curious question comes to mind. Will this choice of glass – this well-considered choice – really influence the number of compositions that will be possible for you to capture and take home?

Hiking on, two ideas, honed for simplicity, occur to you and seem to clash – yet you're aware that each idea has its supporters – and you grow curious about "which side" you're on, which idea makes more sense:

#1: There is a clear relationship between the number of focal lengths in my pack and the number of compositions that will be possible for me to capture.

#2: The number of compositions that will be possible for me to capture has no relationship to the number of focal lengths in my pack (i.e., one or more).

Just as you arrive at your location, your doubts give way to clarity. Good timing!

But tell us – what did you decide and why?

-----
Note: This might betray me as a #2 person, but I started writing this about my belief that a single lens kit, whether by choice or economic necessity, makes for a liberating field experience, not a restrictive one. ;^)

Ray Heath

29-Oct-2013, 01:02

#2

"Seeing" images comes before any other consideration. Equipment choice is the last consideration.

Vaughn

29-Oct-2013, 02:36

Also #2. There are an infinite number of possible images available at any time, anywhere (as Ray said -- it is just a matter of 'seeing' them). Using only one lens, one format, one film type, or any other "limiting' factors still leaves an infinite number of images available. Taking multiple lenses, multiple formats, different types of film, etc does not increase the number of possible images...it is still infinite. How one wishes to work determines the number of lenses, etc, one takes on one's hike.

I have never felt limited by having a one-lens kit...and photographed for over 25 years with only one lens per kit (moving from Rolleiflex to 4x5 to 5x7 to 8x10). For the last ten years I have added a few more lenses to the 8x10 kit, and have a few lenses for the 11x14 kit. The rate of the number of images I make remains about the same.

Regular Rod

29-Oct-2013, 02:54

Tim Meisburger

29-Oct-2013, 04:12

The number of images is directly proportional to the number of lenses, but probably infinite in every case.

Doremus Scudder

29-Oct-2013, 05:03

I'm definitely in camp 2.

For me, the subject and how I want to present it determine the framing and aspect ratio. I find the camera position which gives me the perspective I want and then, often with the aid of a viewing frame or filter, determine the framing I want. I use the closest focal length lens that includes all the image I want but does not crop any of it away. When printing, I simply crop to get the original composition I wanted.

I don't believe that the world comes in any particular "view" or aspect ratio. My composing of a photograph is about spaces and proportions that derive from, and accentuate, the subject itself and the particular emotions/concepts I am trying to communicate. I do try to use as much of the negative as possible, for quality reasons, but I have no compunction about cropping down to 6x7 cm, or shooting a panorama 6x12 or 5x12 on 4x5 inch film if that's what I want. I believe the "full-frame" mentality (and the black borders to prove it) is pretentious and artistically impoverished.

My lens kit(s), therefore, is designed to give me the greatest possibility to optimize quality (i.e., crop as little as possible) while still giving me both very wide and very narrow angles of view so I have the greatest potential for composing and framing. I would rather crop a bit than not get a shot, so, when in doubt about which lenses to take, I'll err on the side of too wide (I can always crop a 240mm image to 300mm, but not vice-versa).

My typical field kit for 4x5 (for long day hikes and backpacking) is 90mm f/8 Super Angulon, 135mm WF Ektar, 203mm Ektar and 300mm Nikkor M. If I have more room, or a partner willing to carry a lens or so along (which is most of the time) I'll include a 240mm Fujinon A as well. If I know I'll need a wider view (say in narrow canyons or close city environments) I'll leave the 300mm behind and take a 75mm instead. Then I usually leave the 90mm behind too and take a 100mm WF Ektar (75mm, 100mm, 135mm, 203mm 240mm). I usually always have lenses from 75mm to 450mm in the car, and can tailor the kit as needed for the anticipated subject matter.

That said, I end up shooting mostly with the 135mm, with the 90mm and the 203mm close behind, so these I would take if limited to only three lenses. Five lightweight lenses, however, does not place an undue weight burden on me, and that's the number I usually have with me.

Best,

Doremus

SergeiR

29-Oct-2013, 05:28

If you are trying to get things right in camera and dont like do portions/cropping/stitching - you are forced to use range of FL. If you are ok with those - you can do fine with single.

John Kasaian

29-Oct-2013, 06:18

#2 for me too.

Peter Lewin

29-Oct-2013, 06:35

I'm confused by some of the responses, which take the #2 position, but then continue to discuss choosing the appropriate focal length, implying that they are carrying more than one lens. My own view (what a pun!) is that while there are probably an infinite number of compositions which one can find independent of lens, some can only be captured if you have the appropriate focal length. Sometimes you simply cannot get far enough away from the subject to make the image you have in mind, so you need a wider lens. Conversely you may have an image in your mind which requires the compression of a longer lens. Bottom line, I "see" the images which resonate for me without regard to equipment, but I can only capture them if I have the appropriate equipment.

C_Remington

29-Oct-2013, 06:51

#2. Carry wide and you can always crop in the darkroom.

E. von Hoegh

29-Oct-2013, 07:34

#2. Carry wide and you can always crop in the darkroom.

No you can't 'always crop in the darkroom'. I make contact prints exclusively with 8x10; I compose to the corners and if the combination of lenses and framing with my feet won't give me a nice composition then I don't make that picture. I tend not to crop with smaller formats as well.

To answer Heroique's latest, I work with what I happen to have with me.

29-Oct-2013, 07:43

Time limits what is possible more than lenses. I think 1 lens can be extremely productive and create good results (as I can do with a rolleiflex). But it has to be the right tool. Like you likely wouldn't choose a longish lens for architecture.

With LF I tend to go out with two lenses; one soft and one sharp, similar focal lengths. It's like two parallel worlds.

DrTang

29-Oct-2013, 08:24

if possible - one 'finds' the shot first..places the tripod, then picks a lens that makes it happen

C_Remington

29-Oct-2013, 08:36

No you can't 'always crop in the darkroom'

I can. I have an 8x10 enlarger.

Greg Miller

29-Oct-2013, 08:44

if possible - one 'finds' the shot first..places the tripod, then picks a lens that makes it happen

Yes!

Shawn Dougherty

29-Oct-2013, 09:08

For me it is #1 though I could certainly make due with just one lens.

I carry 4 lenses with my 4x5 kit. 90, 150, 210, 300. Wide, normal, long, longer. I figure that if I can't do it with one of those it's a vision problem I'm having not an equipment problem. I worked a year long project with only a 210 lens, that really helped me learn to see and make due with what I had. I added additional focal lengths one at a time and really learned to use each before I added another.

Sometimes when I'm feeling like there should be a photograph but I cannot find one on the ground glass simply changing the lens will change what I am seeing far more than I would except and create relationships I would not have otherwise noticed.

However, when I'm feeling particularly spartan I take my Rolleiflex TLR. Sometimes I wish I had a different lens but I always find something to photograph...

MIke Sherck

29-Oct-2013, 09:22

#2. It doesn't matter how many lenses you're carrying if you can't see what to point them at.

Mike

Sean Chilibeck

29-Oct-2013, 10:32

It doesn't matter how many lenses you're carrying if you can't see what to point them at.

...That's when I realize I left the rear element lens cap on...

Leigh

29-Oct-2013, 11:01

If the lens is not wide enough to capture the image, you're not going to capture it.

Sure, you can take multiple shots and stitch them in a computer, but that's computer art, not photography.

If you really want to learn how lenses influence your artistic vision, shoot MF slides using a Rolleiflex
or other TLR with a fixed lens and no auxiliary attachments.

- Leigh

mdm

29-Oct-2013, 11:13

For me the number of photos made is inversely proportional to the number of lenses. More lenses less pictures. Even when I take 2, I usually use 1 95% of the time. The more lenses in the closet, the less photos you make. As a raw beginner with a 210 tessar on a 5x7 B&J I did more (and better) than I ever have since.

Vaughn

29-Oct-2013, 11:20

If you are trying to get things right in camera and dont like do portions/cropping/stitching - you are forced to use range of FL. If you are ok with those - you can do fine with single.

My experience has been 100% in the opposite direction, but of course it is not the only direction that is possible for photographers to go. I do not crop/stitch/dodge/burn. Just the way I work. My images are a synergy between Seeing, landscape, light, equipment, and process. Working with all these elements to create something that is greater than the sum of the parts.

Vaughn

StoneNYC

29-Oct-2013, 12:10

My experience has been 100% in the opposite direction, but of course it is not the only direction that is possible for photographers to go. I do not crop/stitch/dodge/burn. Just the way I work. My images are a synergy between Seeing, landscape, light, equipment, and process. Working with all these elements to create something that is greater than the sum of the parts.

Vaughn

I agree, I try to create the full image properly and not do any post work.

But I think everyone is missing the "big picture" which is, you can make infinite images with one lens at a given location, but .... How many GOOD images, and how many GREAT images can you truly make when limited to a single lens.

I try to at least have 2, a telephoto, and a wide.

You can ALMOST always back up to get a "normal" shot with a telephoto, but you can't really get a wide scene without a wide lens.

And again, what will make a great shot?

SergeiR

29-Oct-2013, 13:18

My experience has been 100% in the opposite direction, but of course it is not the only direction that is possible for photographers to go. I do not crop/stitch/dodge/burn. Just the way I work. My images are a synergy between Seeing, landscape, light, equipment, and process. Working with all these elements to create something that is greater than the sum of the parts.

Vaughn

Thing is - your eye doesnt see as camera. So sometime while you think that that lonely crooked tree 500 yards away looks awesome - it doesnt look quite right on camera. So you walk towards it.. but then you hitting lovely unpassable creek. Then what you do? Longer lens would allow you to get "closer". Cropping out would do so as well.

I.e i do not knock walking and seeing things with single angle. I often do so to challenge myself. But it doesnt mean there are cases when i am going "ohgoddammit... " B/c i hate cropping. With passion.

Bruce Watson

29-Oct-2013, 13:22

#2: The number of compositions that will be possible for me to capture has no relationship to the number of focal lengths in my pack (i.e., one or more)

Unlike most, I only have the single working lens kit -- I always take all of my lenses with me. All four. From 80mm to 240mm. I seldom use the 80; at least 90% of my work comes from the other three. But I always have all four with me. I used to use five, but I sold the 360mm because I only used it a few times in five or so years (and none of those were keepers); there was no point in keeping it.

Why do I carry the entire kit? So I can work just the opposite of the question you pose -- I don't think about my lens kit at all. That way my lens kit (indeed, all of my hardware) doesn't distract me. This leaves me free to try to open up my mind and see the visual possibilities all around me.

When I find a composition I like, I walk the area looking for the best perspective. When I find it, I put my backpack on the ground (or on the toes of my boots if it's wet), unstrap my tripod, then set it up right where I'm standing. Pull out and assemble the camera (5x4) onto the tripod. Only then do I pick the lens from the kit to capture the image I've got in my mind, and by then it's just an exercise in angle-of-view. I very seldom move the tripod once I've set it up; I've completely lost that "hold the camera to my face and compose with my feet" mentality of the old 35mm days. ;-)

I don't encourage nor discourage anyone else from working this way. Everyone has to find a workflow that works for them. This one is the one that works for me.

mmerig

29-Oct-2013, 13:43

Choice #1 is the logically true one, and the following has been alluded to in some earlier posts:

There is not an infinite number of images that can be taken with one focal length, or even with many focal lengths. For example, if one stands at a given spot on the ground, with one focal length available, all the potential compositions with a wider focal length are not possible. So on a simple, mathematical perspective, there is a clear relationship between the number of focal lengths and the number of possible compositions.

Most if not all LFF readers know how different focal lengths and camera positions produce different, unique images, but a reminder seemed in order. Also, a simplistic, literal mind-set is probably not the best one for artistic expression.

For what it's worth, I prefer making-do with less, and not being distracted by too many equipment choices. I rarely take more than three focal lengths with me -- often just 1 or 2 -- and usually see an image I like and then hope I have the right lens for it. That said, I would still choose #1 because it is true.

Vaughn

29-Oct-2013, 14:16

Thing is - your eye doesnt see as camera...

But with practice, our brains can. The lens/eye is just one part of the optical system.

Photographing the tree with a 300mm from a distance and photographing with a 90mm, moving closer and keeping the tree the same size on the film, yields two very different images as the relationship between the tree and the surrounding change dramatically, as does the shape of the tree itself changes. But then I rarely concentrate on things, rather on the light and form instead.

jcoldslabs

29-Oct-2013, 16:04

I'm a firm believer in the idea that working within limits facilitates (sometimes forces) creative expression, so I vote for #2.

Having said that, I own far more lenses than is reasonable, so I'm a walking contradiction.

Jonathan

Vaughn

29-Oct-2013, 16:10

Having said that, I own far more lenses than is reasonable, so I'm a walking contradiction.Jonathan

As long as you don't have so many lenses that you can't walk, I guess...:cool:

jcoldslabs

29-Oct-2013, 16:13

Vaughn, I'm taking the fifth on that one.

J.

Vaughn

29-Oct-2013, 16:15

If you got room for a fifth, you got room for a couple more lenses. And with that baddy, I'll sign-off!

sanking

29-Oct-2013, 16:27

If you got room for a fifth, you got room for a couple more lenses. And with that baddy, I'll sign-off!

Are we talking about lenses, the law, or whiskey?

Sandy

StoneNYC

29-Oct-2013, 16:35

Are we talking about lenses, the law, or whiskey?

Sandy

1/5th of whiskey, 1/5th of the law, or 1/5th a stop ;)

Michael Alpert

29-Oct-2013, 17:02

I think your question would benefit from a bit of restructuring. From the beginning of photography, everyone has known that there is a clear relationship between the number of focal lengths available and the number of compositions that are theoretically possible. So, as I understand it, the question that you are actually asking is: Why would anyone decide to arbitrarily restrict the number of available focal lengths (and, therefore, the number of theoretically possible compositions). Since art has everything to do with choosing limits, there are many good answers to this question.

Leigh

29-Oct-2013, 17:20

Why would anyone decide to arbitrarily restrict the number of available focal lengths
Exactly,

If one limits his photography to the studio, only shooting engagement rings, it would be possible to
define a set of lenses with only a few focal lengths that would meet every foreseeable requirement.

As soon as you step out the door, and confront subjects from lady bugs to sky scrapers, those
assumptions evaporate.

- Leigh

munz6869

29-Oct-2013, 17:29

I tend to 'think' all compositions in 135mm, and then when I can't get back far enough (or can, but I'd lose key elements), I go for the 65mm, and when things are too far away to be interesting, I go for the 300mm. That's all I bring along these days = easy (except for the weight of the 300mm, gasp).

Marc!

Lenny Eiger

29-Oct-2013, 19:07

If you look at the photo history books, you will notice that the folks in there, with a few very notable exceptions, used one lens and one camera for long periods of time. I use one lens 90% of the time. I have a longer one for those times when I see something and can't get close enough to it because of some obstacle. Otherwise, I use my feet. You can save yourself the embarrassment of looking thru a hole in a piece of cardboard by knowing what your lens will see when you put the camera down. The more you limit your lens choices, the more you will see.

Lenny

Daniel Stone

29-Oct-2013, 22:13

use what works

if you can't decide what you want to use, pick one lens and use it for 50 sheets of film. Nothing else. Force yourself to really learn the capabilities of that lens. What it can and can't do.

I carry 5 lenses(90,180,240,300,450) in my LF(5X7) kit. I know which one to use 90% of the time, and don't need to re-mount unless I feel I want to show/crop(in camera) something differently.
However, I'm not against cropping in post/printing after capture if I can't get it "just right" in-camera.

Same goes for MF, having options expands MY capabilities of how I want to shoot/compose. Everyone's different though.

-Dan

Vaughn

29-Oct-2013, 22:20

...everyone has known that there is a clear relationship between the number of focal lengths available and the number of compositions that are theoretically possible.

That has never been a clear assumption in photographic history, nor it is logical to assume there is such a relationship. If there are any limiting factors, it is time. Someone with only one lens can photograph and make images the entire time there is light available, as can someone with 6 lenses.

HT Finley

29-Oct-2013, 22:26

I put this kind of quandary out of my mind. I have a Horseman 8x10 with a 100 year old B&L in a Betax shutter, and a Tiltall. In other words, a Patton Tank on toothpicks. I can't carry it around, setting it up, scoping out camera angles and cropping. So I spray-glued together 2 sheets of white corrugated board at 90 degree angles for rigidity, set up my 8x10 pointed at the broadside of my house, and stuck masking tape to the house corresponding to the corners of the ground glass. Then I made a window in the cardboard corresponding to the pieces of tape as I held my new home-made frame out in both hands at arm's length. And I use that to scope out shots.If I see one, I walk back to the truck and drag that 40 tons of lead out, set up at where I was holding the frame, and shoot. Smartest photographic move I made in nearly 50 years since my first Instamatic.

DannL

29-Oct-2013, 22:38

I must admit that I'm perty much a one-lens type of feller. I have four view cameras and use one lens (focal length) for each. If and when I might change a lens it isn't to intentionally change focal lengths, but to change to glass that has a different character. I have no need for telephoto lenses, and I sure can't tolerate perspective distortion (wide-angle), especially in landscape, portraiture and still life. Lenses that provide a close-to-normal view for each format used is all I desire.

Darin Boville

29-Oct-2013, 23:07

My way of working has evolved over the years. I rarely if ever sort of wander about and look for interesting photos. Usually I've planned something out, shot tests, experimented with different ideas. So the lens (or lenses) is sort of locked in when the day comes to actually make the images. So it is nice to have more than one lens to allow for those options.

That said, it is rare that the choice of lens for me is the big factor--if I had just one lens I would just adjust the project to deal with it. It is a minor factor, not a critical one. There's a lot to be said about owning just a single lens, I think. An awful lot of people spend an awful lot of time dicking around with gear. Time might be better spent in other ways.

--Darin

jnantz

30-Oct-2013, 06:30

too many of anything (lenses, cameras &c ) is a distraction

Leigh

30-Oct-2013, 06:31

... everyone has known that there is a clear relationship between the number of focal lengths available and the number of compositions that are theoretically possible.

That has never been a clear assumption in photographic history, nor it is logical to assume there is such a relationship.
Might I suggest you study some laws of optics, like field of view?

Limiting onesself to a single lens on an interchangeable-lens camera makes as much sense as
driving a car with a one-speed transmission.

- Leigh

Leigh

30-Oct-2013, 06:37

too many of anything (lenses, cameras &c ) is a distraction
Only to an undisciplined mind.

- Leigh

StoneNYC

30-Oct-2013, 07:32

Only to an undisciplined mind.

- Leigh

He's just saying that because he has lots if gear he's trying to sell at reasonable prices and no one is buying it haha

jnantz

30-Oct-2013, 07:39

maybe leigh, but maybe not. ...

===

sorry stone, that's not what i am saying at all.
what i am suggesting is that if someone brings 50 lenses with them
on a photo-safari they will spend more time trying to find the perfect lens
to make the perfect exposure &c instead of relying on their eyes to see what is infront of them
with a limited number of lenses. the same goes with cameras. there are people that have
15 different cameras and when they have to grab one to go somewhere, they can't decide on which one to take
( with the 50 lenses ) so they take them all ... and then once they are "on site" they spend most of their time
trying to decide what camera and lens combo to use for which shot ... its kind of funny ..

it has nothing to do with a camera or lenses that i am selling.

StoneNYC

30-Oct-2013, 08:10

Vaughn

30-Oct-2013, 08:45

Might I suggest you study some laws of optics, like field of view?

Limiting onesself to a single lens on an interchangeable-lens camera makes as much sense as
driving a car with a one-speed transmission.

- Leigh

LOL! Laws of optics, field of views and car transmissions. We'll just have to disagree on that and leave it be. BTW -- some electric cars have one-speed transmissions.

StoneNYC

30-Oct-2013, 09:13

Some one speed transmission cars exist, they are variable and usually on a belt system ;)

Michael Alpert

30-Oct-2013, 10:16

That has never been a clear assumption in photographic history, nor it is logical to assume there is such a relationship. If there are any limiting factors, it is time. Someone with only one lens can photograph and make images the entire time there is light available, as can someone with 6 lenses.

Vaughn,

The original post asked a "philosophical" question. It was actually more of a psychological than a philosophical question, but that's okay. My "restructuring" of the question was meant to bring it further into the realm of philosophy. To explain: There are only so many points of view in a given situation (although that number of points of view may be infinite). If one were to look at a ground glass at every one of the those points, one would end up with x number of "compositions." If one used two lenses at each point, there would be twice as many "compositions" because the second focal length would frame the situation differently in each and every instance. So the question, as I understand it, really is, why do we limit ourselves with one lens or few lenses? There are practical answers to this question; but there are also aesthetic answers that, to my way of thinking, are more interesting.

Leigh

30-Oct-2013, 10:32

what i am suggesting is that if someone brings 50 lenses with them on a photo-safari they will spend more time trying to find the perfect lens to make the perfect exposure &c instead of relying on their eyes to see what is infront of them
That's certainly true... if the photographer doesn't know what he's doing.

I carry ~ 15 lenses in my 4x5 kit, every FL from 75mm to 360mm in 15/30/60mm increments.
Since I'm never far from the van, I don't have to carry the kit, although I can do so easily.

It's all a question of understanding your equipment.

I use certain focal lengths much more often than others. But I shoot chromes as well as b&w.

Your framing options with chromes are much more limited, especially when you want a very specific shot.

The other advantage of that large selection is that if a problem arises (jammed shutter, damaged optics), I
have a very similar lens I can use to still get roughly the same image as I had envisioned.

All of my color work for over 50 years has been chromes. I've never shot a color negative that I recall.
Shooting chromes imposes a lens discipline that doesn't exist with negatives/prints.

- Leigh

Kirk Gittings

30-Oct-2013, 10:47

Agreed Leigh. While I think it is better to begin with just a few lenses, an experienced photographer looks at a scene and knows which lens to grab. I get a little rusty with my LF equipment as I shoot a DSLR daily for a living, but my "lens sense" comes back to me quickly after a day or so when I pick up the VC again. I have pared down my lens kit over the years as I dumped 6x9 and only do 4x5 now. I got rid of my 47 and 65. Also I got rid of my 450 as I never used it. Of course as soon as I did I started seeing long images it would have been perfect for. That leaves me with a 90,120,150, 210 and 305. I would like to add a 75 now.

That's certainly true... if the photographer doesn't know what he's doing.

I carry ~ 15 lenses in my 4x5 kit, every FL from 75mm to 360mm in 15/30/60mm increments.
Since I'm never far from the van, I don't have to carry the kit, although I can do so easily.

It's all a question of understanding your equipment.

I use certain focal lengths much more often than others. But I shoot chromes as well as b&w.

Your framing options with chromes are much more limited, especially when you want a very specific shot.

The other advantage of that large selection is that if a problem arises (jammed shutter, damaged optics), I
have a very similar lens I can use to still get roughly the same image as I had envisioned.

All of my color work for over 50 years has been chromes. I've never shot a color negative that I recall.
Shooting chromes imposes a lens discipline that doesn't exist with negatives/prints.

- Leigh

Oren Grad

30-Oct-2013, 11:05

So, as I understand it, the question that you are actually asking is: Why would anyone decide to arbitrarily restrict the number of available focal lengths (and, therefore, the number of theoretically possible compositions). Since art has everything to do with choosing limits, there are many good answers to this question.

I've often gone through periods when I work with just a single lens. But that's not because I'm trying to shape my seeing. It's the other way around - there are periods when I find that I'm seeing in a certain way, and a particular FL or lens type fits that exactly. When that's the frame of mind I'm in, there's no point dragging around other stuff I'm not going to use; I have an overall bias toward carrying as compact, lightweight and simple a kit as possible, growing out of past experience of lugging too much equipment "just in case".

Conversely, when something changes in how I'm seeing or what I am trying to do, my choice of equipment changes too. For example, for a very long time I did walkaround small-format snapshooting exclusively with a single prime lens, typically semi-wide. But when I recently stumbled into documenting a wave of redevelopment around my neighborhood, I found myself reaching for a wide-angle zoom, simply to solve the technical problem of recording construction sites under widely varying constraints of site and street layout and available places to stand. Similarly, for the once-in-a-while when I'm doing that documentation with LF rather than a small hand-held camera, I've found myself taking along a wide or ultra-wide along with my usual semi-wide. But six months from now I might be doing something else entirely.

Jody_S

30-Oct-2013, 11:27

In answer to the original question: I am firmly in the #2 camp. I feel there is an infinite number of possible compositions to be found with any lens/film/camera combo, and if you find yourself wishing you had a different lens in your bag in some circumstance, it's because you are not looking through the lens you have. This does not apply if you are shooting something specific as a project, for a client, etc. I mean those of us who wander around at times looking for something to shoot.

I usually limit myself to 2 lenses when I go out, 2 because what if something happens to one and I am left lensless. Sometimes 3, if I have something in mind. It's not because I don't have a shelf full of lenses behind me, or that I'm too lazy to carry them.

Drew Wiley

30-Oct-2013, 11:29

I was never happier than when I only owned one camera and one lens. And it was probably my most creative era. Now I typically carry three, and usually they are
all longer than "normal". That's just how I see things. ... wear the shoe that fits. But sometimes I still only carry just one lens, mostly for small camera applications,
however. View lenses are relatively compact, so a couple extra aren't that big a deal. Too much stuff just gets distracting. The point of any given trip is to come
back with one or two really good shots that you're going to actually print. But the idea of just carrying a wide and cropping is about as silly a comment as one
frequently encounters. Even worse is, "just walk up closer"... Not only does the perspective change when you do that, but what if (and it's a rather common "if" in
my experience)... what if there's a six-thousand foot deep canyon in between, or even a poison oak patch?

Darin Boville

30-Oct-2013, 11:37

I carry ~ 15 lenses in my 4x5 kit, every FL from 75mm to 360mm in 15/30/60mm increments.
Since I'm never far from the van,...

First good chuckle of the day...

--Darin

Leigh

30-Oct-2013, 11:42

First good chuckle of the day...
I didn't realize my handicap was cause for jocularity.

- Leigh

Vaughn

30-Oct-2013, 11:53

Vaughn...So the question, as I understand it, really is, why do we limit ourselves with one lens or few lenses? There are practical answers to this question; but there are also aesthetic answers that, to my way of thinking, are more interesting.

So, I guess what I have been trying to get to all along is that using just one lens does not limit one's creativity, more than one lens does not expand one's creativity. That is not the job of the equipment.

Leigh

30-Oct-2013, 11:58

So, I guess what I have been trying to get to all along is that using just one lens does not limit one's creativity, more than one lens does not expand one's creativity. That is not the job of the equipment.
That's absolute nonsense.

I challenge you (or anyone) to paint a nice miniature scene on a fingernail with a paint roller.

It applies paint, so what's the problem?

- Leigh

Michael Alpert

30-Oct-2013, 12:09

I've often gone through periods when I work with just a single lens. . . . Conversely, when something changes in how I'm seeing or what I am trying to do, my choice of equipment changes too. . . . But six months from now I might be doing something else entirely.

I agree. A photograph is always about something, and that particular something makes a difference as to how a photographer works. But the mindset of the photographer is also at play here, so the subject, the something, is, ina sense, a response to the photographer's intention.

I also agree with Vaughn's statement that artistic choice is "not the job of the equipment."

I think the original post was asking us to articulate why we choose the equipment that we do. My answer is that the choice is intuitive, and that's the way I want it to be. If my choice of lens or lenses seems irrational (even to me), that doesn't bother me at all. The choice just needs to feel correct. If I made a mistake and end up with nothing to show for my effort, so be it. The choice might still not be a "mistake."

Kirk Gittings

30-Oct-2013, 12:09

Equipment can at best facilitate the physical expression of creativity IMHE. I buy equipment to help me express ideas not the other way around though I suppose one could work the other way. Equipment follows need. Otherwise I would have been broke financially and have a broken back to boot a long time ago......

Jim Galli

30-Oct-2013, 12:14

I thought religion and politics was outlawed from this forum. Are the mods asleep?? This whole discussion smacks of religious fervor. Political partisanism.

The real question is who gives a flying rip about any of these pictures? Answer: nobody.

2nd question; why, then, wouldn't you do exactly as you please with one lens one camera, or as George Eastman did, a small army of servants and a fleet of new Buicks to not only carry your stuff, but set up your sunshade and cook you dinner when you're done shooting and it's time for cocktails.

Oh, my 4X5 kit has eleven lenses in the backpack with the Cham, 3 of which give me options not only for focal length, but soft focus.

Oren Grad

30-Oct-2013, 12:28

My answer is that the choice is intuitive...If I made a mistake and end up with nothing to show for my effort, so be it. The choice might still not be a "mistake."

Yes!

Oren Grad

30-Oct-2013, 12:33

2nd question; why, then, wouldn't you do exactly as you please with one lens one camera, or as George Eastman did, a small army of servants and a fleet of new Buicks to not only carry your stuff, but set up your sunshade and cook you dinner when you're done shooting and it's time for cocktails.

As you gain experience you try different ways of working and eventually come to recognize your comfort zone - or maybe you intuitively gravitate toward a particular mode and find that you never need to look back. The "right" answer is whatever works for you, however you got there.

Jim Galli

30-Oct-2013, 12:37

As you gain experience you try different ways of working and eventually come to recognize your comfort zone - or maybe you intuitively gravitate toward a particular mode and find that you never need to look back. The "right" answer is whatever works for you, however you got there.

I'm gravitating towards Eastman's approach with the need to actually shoot anything before beginning cocktails diminishing. Alas, I haven't figured out how to make someone else pay for the servants and the Buicks.

Oren Grad

30-Oct-2013, 12:46

I'm gravitating towards Eastman's approach with the need to actually shoot anything before beginning cocktails diminishing.

Choice and timing of lubricant is up to you too. :)

John Bowen

30-Oct-2013, 12:55

At one of Michael Smith's Workshops a few year ago.....
MAS - you can never have enough lenses
Michael's assistant - that's easy for you to say, you don't have to carry them!!!!

While it's true there are infinite possibilities and one lens could suffice, I want to be able to make the image I want from where I want to make it. That makes multiple lenses necessary. I go with choice #1

Jim Galli

30-Oct-2013, 13:30

I was with a Barnbaum workshop on a breathtaking ledge of the Colorado Gorge with the 90 all set up to make the image that would have made my name a household word, when suddenly, who should step in front of me about 8 feet and one ledge away but Barnbaum himself. Did I throw Bruce into the abyssos and make my photo anyways?? No, I put the Fuji 450 on and made a better photo that hangs on my wall to this day. Thanks Bruce. Thanks Fuji.

At one of Michael Smith's Workshops a few year ago.....
MAS - you can never have enough lenses
Michael's assistant - that's easy for you to say, you don't have to carry them!!!!

While it's true there are infinite possibilities and one lens could suffice, I want to be able to make the image I want from where I want to make it. That makes multiple lenses necessary. I go with choice #1

Darin Boville

30-Oct-2013, 14:05

I didn't realize my handicap was cause for jocularity.

- Leigh

As you well know, Leigh, I know nothing about you. Until yesterday I thought you were a female, until you corrected me here on another post. It's not whatever handicap you have that is funny, it's your attitude that I find so amusing.

--Darin

Bill_1856

30-Oct-2013, 15:07

My Technika IV came as a factory package with 90 Angulon, 135 Xenotar, and 240 Symmar, of course all cammed and properly scaled. I soon added a 180 Symmar and 360 Tele-Xenar, with cams and scales. This is a pretty formidable armamentarium, and is supplemented by several other cammed and uncammed lenses, including a beautiful set of 120, 150, and 210mm coated Dagors. But the fact is that I rarely shoot with any of them, having pretty well given up on 4x5.
Instead I shoot 5x7 with only a 10" Caltar on a Kodak 2D.
The most beautiful images I've made have been on a Whole Plate Gandolfi with a 6.5x8.5 Centar Series 2, Which I believe is probably a Wollensak Rapid Rectilinear of about 11.5" focal length F:8 (convertible to 23"). The images are just wonderful!
In short, I believe that only one or two lenses are all that are really needed.

Drew Wiley

30-Oct-2013, 15:40

Jim - there would have been no need for that second lens if you were simply wearing a good boot on one foot!

al olson

30-Oct-2013, 16:29

In the fifties and early sixties we all did our photography with a single fixed focal length lens, a 50mm for the 35 and I had a 127mm on a Super Graphic. I bought the Super Graphic (plus strobe) because I was required to have a press camera to do work for the local newspaper (1958-1961 until I graduated from college).

At that time, buying another lens was an extravagant expense for most working photographers, so I am used to working with a single lens. I learned to position myself to get the best composition within its limitations. I still prefer to work this way.

While my kit now carries 90, 135, and 240 glass (not really very extreme, when I go up into the hills I usually work with a single lens, mostly the 135. However I find it useful at times to put one of the other lenses on my camera and work within that focal length for the day.

I enjoy the practice of viewing the composition within the constraints of the focal length mounted on my camera. Barring unexpected obstacles such as intervening 6000' canyons this has worked well for me. So put me down as #2.

jnantz

30-Oct-2013, 16:40

hi leigh

i agree with what you are saying to a certain extant,
but there are people who believe that lenses and chemistry and cameras
are silver bullets, and they forget that without the ability to know what you are doing
all the lenses in the world, and the best of equipment, esoteric developers and alternative processes
aren't really going to fix the problem.

yes knowing how to see, and knowing how lenses see is helpful, but if one is figuratively blind it won't help ...

john

That's certainly true... if the photographer doesn't know what he's doing.

I carry ~ 15 lenses in my 4x5 kit, every FL from 75mm to 360mm in 15/30/60mm increments.
Since I'm never far from the van, I don't have to carry the kit, although I can do so easily.

It's all a question of understanding your equipment.

- Leigh

Leigh

30-Oct-2013, 17:24

...it's your attitude that I find so amusing.
OK. I'll drink to that. :D

- Leigh

Leigh

30-Oct-2013, 17:29

there are people who believe that lenses and chemistry and cameras are silver bullets, and they forget that without the ability to know what you are doing all the lenses in the world, and the best of equipment, esoteric developers and alternative processes aren't really going to fix the problem.
I certainly agree with that.

Back when I was teaching photography, one assignment that ran through the entire course was to go out with one camera/lens/film and shoot an entire day with only that combination. Then the next week do the same, but with a different lens.

It's amazing how people can learn to "see" the world around them through the vignette of whatever lens they're using, once they learn how to do so.

It's not possible (IM-HO) to teach artistic vision. A person has it or does not. I'm an engineer, so I should know. ;-)

However, it is possible to train individuals to integrate their equipment into their vision, so they work within its limits and use its capabilities to full advantage.

-----

In any technical discipline you must understand the equipment you're using.

When you're driving, you sometimes make small course corrections, and sometimes hard left or right turns. Those maneuvers are just like lens focal lengths. You use what's appropriate to the circumstances and desired result.

- Leigh

jcoldslabs

30-Oct-2013, 18:49

In any technical discipline you must understand the equipment you're using.

I find the learning curve of each lens (it's tonal characteristics, rendering, field of view, contrast, sharpness, qualities wide open vs. stopped down, etc., etc.) takes me a while to sort out, and the longer a lens sits fallow the more rusty that knowledge gets. Sometimes a lens will sit idle for over a year and when I take it out again I have to reacquaint myself with its particulars which slows me down and impedes rather than aids the creative process.

By that measure there is a practical limit to how many lenses I can keep on active duty at any given time. Unfortunately, it does not require much mental fortitude to keep buying the damn things!

Jonathan

Merg Ross

30-Oct-2013, 20:56

It's not possible (IM-HO) to teach artistic vision. A person has it or does not. - Leigh

Leigh

30-Oct-2013, 21:03

I find the learning curve of each lens (it's tonal characteristics, rendering, field of view, contrast, sharpness, qualities wide open vs. stopped down, etc., etc.) takes me a while to sort out...
There certainly are differences in the results from different lenses.

I've minimized that variation by standardizing on a couple of lens product lines, to the exclusion of others.

All of my lenses from 135mm through 300mm are Rodenstock Apo-Sironar-S.
Most of the others are Nikkors (SW 65, 75 & 120, M 300 & 450, and W 360).
There's also a Fuji SWD 90 and SW 105.

Limiting the variability from one manufacturer and product line to another simplifies my life.

- Leigh

Drew Bedo

31-Oct-2013, 07:09

For me, weight is the controlling factor. I admit that I am continually seduced by gear. I am currently on the hunt for an extension ril for my Kodak 2D.

If I let myself go, I will pack a LowePro Magnum 35 shoulder bag with a 90, 150 and 210 along with 10 film holders. This has gotten heavier with each birthday. I have now gotten a 380mm telephoto that weighs about as much as the other three lenses (well it seems like it does). I can find a way to get it into the bag by eliminating 5 film holders.

We recently planned a trip to local scenic place and I packed a smaller bag with only the 150. How liberating!

Drew Wiley

31-Oct-2013, 09:06

The less complicated the better. Familiarity with your equip is the key, so you can work with it as spontaneously as possible. There's nothing like a view camera for
having something go wrong when you're panting for breath atop a twelve thousand foot pass, just hoping your entire camera doesn't become a kite, watching a
black lightning cloud slowly approach, trying to compose the shot on the groundglass, hoping you'll actually get two seconds without wind shake right when all the
clouds line up the way you want them, and still get out of there alive.... "another day at the office", a routine situation for me....no need to be futzing around with six different lenses trying to decide which is best. You want them to fit your personal vision like a well-worn shoe.

Doremus Scudder

1-Nov-2013, 02:32

I see an interesting division here: Some seem to "see" in a particular angle or angles of view, and choose lens focal lengths to match their "vision." These people tend to carry fewer lenses.

Others (like me) compose with a wider gamut of angles of view. These latter seem to like to carry a wide assortment of lenses, from wide to narrow angles of view, and choose the one that best fits their particular photograph at one particular time.

Many of these latter seem to find and compose images without setting up the camera, deciding on framing and composition even before setting up the tripod. They also seem to use a viewing frame as a compositional aid more than the former.

My ideal lens for 4x5 would be a 65mm-450mm zoom. Then I'd only have to carry one lens :) Since that's impractical, I carry the shortest and longest lenses I anticipate using for a particular outing and fill in the middle as weight restrictions dictate. I have a lot of small, lightweight lenses, so carrying four or five is not a heck of a lot of weight. For compositions in between focal lengths, I just shoot a bit wider and crop when printing.

Best,

Doremus

Leigh

1-Nov-2013, 02:59

My ideal lens for 4x5 would be a 65mm-450mm zoom.
That's exactly what I have in my 4x5 kit (actually 65 to 480).

Of course the zoom function is a bit cumbersome, involving as it does changing out lensboards. :D

I carry the shortest and longest lenses I anticipate using for a particular outing and fill in the middle as weight restrictions dictate.
All of my lenses are arranged in a single backpack, so no reason to adjust the selection:
103917

For compositions in between focal lengths, I just shoot a bit wider and crop when printing.
I think this highlights the main difference in shooting "philosophy"

I have shot chromes for many decades, that being my only color medium.

Shooting in an environment where the captured image is the final image, with no secondary operations available, drives one to use zoom lenses or multiple fixed FL lenses.

- Leigh

StoneNYC

1-Nov-2013, 07:50

That's exactly what I have in my 4x5 kit (actually 65 to 480).

Of course the zoom function is a bit cumbersome, involving as it does changing out lensboards. :D

All of my lenses are arranged in a single backpack, so no reason to adjust the selection:
103917

I think this highlights the main difference in shooting "philosophy"

I have shot chromes for many decades, that being my only color medium.

Shooting in an environment where the captured image is the final image, with no secondary operations available, drives one to use zoom lenses or multiple fixed FL lenses.

- Leigh

Why are "zoom" lenses impractical for LF? Aside from the idea that they wouldn't be "perfect" as primes at all focal lengths, I don't see why a locking lever couldn't be made at every 15mm or something so that once you found your focal length you lock the lens down and you're good to go?

Jim Galli

1-Nov-2013, 08:56

Why are "zoom" lenses impractical for LF? Aside from the idea that they wouldn't be "perfect" as primes at all focal lengths, I don't see why a locking lever couldn't be made at every 15mm or something so that once you found your focal length you lock the lens down and you're good to go?

Coverage. A zoom that would cover 4X5 would be big as a house and cost about as much.

Drew Wiley

1-Nov-2013, 11:18

And zooms have way too many air/glass interfaces. With view lenses you need a lot of extra coverage for movements, so unless you shade the lens very well,
the significant number of elements involved would equate to a lot of wasted light scattering around the bellows and affecting image quality, even with today's
multicoatings. But in any event, you'd probably need an extra tripod just to hold down the distal end of such a thing, if one were ever hypothetically made. I know
someone who can make you any lens you desire. No problem. But for something like this they'd probably ask half a million bucks, realistically. Just tell 'em your name
is NASA.

StoneNYC

1-Nov-2013, 11:39

Kodachrome25

1-Nov-2013, 11:53

The real question is who gives a flying rip about any of these pictures? Answer: nobody.

Not exactly, if you make a living in photography then the people who buy your photos care.

I am all over the map in terms of what I take out with me. I own 8 LF lenses, never carry all of them but on long trips will have them at my disposal in my camper. The thing I found with LF is that because it is always on a tripod for landscapes, I carry a couple more lenses than usual than I would with my Hasselblad. I will either carry 3 or 5 depending on the mission and weight limits.

I never go out thinking "Golly, I think I will just use my 135 today" because I don't see photographs like that. I see with my eyes first and then think about what the photo is about and then I start thinking about what lens to use, not before. And I never crop after the shot either, all in camera...so I *cheat* and use an iPhone app called "Viewfinder Pro" to confirm a lens choice on a desired composition before the camera even comes out, no different than using a card.

I had every intention of keeping my LF system to just three lenses and that was it. But because I see the world differently day to day, like backups of things and need to work from a tripod, I ended up with 8 and love it.

Leigh

1-Nov-2013, 12:02

Why are "zoom" lenses impractical for LF? Aside from the idea that they wouldn't be "perfect" as primes at all focal lengths
Three problems: size, weight, and cost

Given the enormous number of elements in a zoom lens (some Nikons for 35mm at 23 or more elements), the cost would be astronomical.

- Leigh

Drew Wiley

1-Nov-2013, 12:20

And that's exactly who I was referring to ... the astronomical folks down the street, who did in fact make the correction lenses for the Hubble, and presumably still
make custom lenses for NASA, the DEA, NSA, CIA, etc.... in other words, people who have a lot bigger budget than you or I, and ships and rockets to get their
equipment around, and not just a frayed old backpack.

jcoldslabs

1-Nov-2013, 12:27

A majority of photographs made these days are shot with cell phones, which means a majority of (non-LF) photographers shoot with one camera and one lens.

Jonathan

StoneNYC

1-Nov-2013, 12:36

A majority of photographs made these days are shot with cell phones, which means a majority of (non-LF) photographers shoot with one camera and one lens.

Jonathan

True, they do have "digital zoom" capability, which is a really stupid way of cropping an image before taking it instead if after lol

Leszek Vogt

1-Nov-2013, 12:36

Due to current choice I'm reduced to a singular view (very light backpack)....and this remains (at least for me) a limiting factor. In the ideal world I'd prefer a choice of four lenses 80/90, 120/150, 270/300's, and 400's (as per current view). I tend to see tighter images (tele)....and I've never been a fan of a "normal" lens (that one is easy to eliminate). Overall, however, I take a hint off particular subject/s that pretty much determines what would be in the pack (similar determination in FF digital).

Les

Leigh

1-Nov-2013, 12:37

a majority of (non-LF) photographers shoot with one camera and one lens.
I don't believe a cell phone qualifies as either a camera or a lens.

It just proves that the standard of quality for consumer images has dropped so far you can't even measure it.

- Leigh

StoneNYC

1-Nov-2013, 12:48

I don't believe a cell phone qualifies as either a camera or a lens.

It just proves that the standard of quality for consumer images has dropped so far you can't even measure it.

- Leigh

You've obviously never seen a print from a good quality cell image, the 8mp iPhone camera I have produces some amazingly crisp images at 11x17

I'm not saying it's comparable to film in texture / nuance quality, but it's certainly more capable than you'd expect, and the optics are actually very good, just small.

Jac@stafford.net

1-Nov-2013, 13:37

I don't believe a cell phone qualifies as either a camera or a lens.

- Leigh

I don't think it even qualifies as a phone.

Drew Wiley

1-Nov-2013, 13:57

StoneNYC

1-Nov-2013, 14:07

How well does that tilt/shift app work on your cell phone? Now don't get me wrong. I think the things are really fun and useful, especially when you can't find a suitably flat rock that skips well across the pond.

Actually there is a tilt shift app and it works really well sadly... There's also an app to make collodion images haha

103950
103951

Drew Wiley

1-Nov-2013, 15:11

How about an exercise app? ...

StoneNYC

1-Nov-2013, 15:42

How about an exercise app? ...

103963
103964

Hehe :)

StoneNYC

1-Nov-2013, 15:48

Drew Wiley

1-Nov-2013, 15:55

OK. I get it. Guess I could just use my calculator to figure that out. Let's see if a cell phone weighs 150g, but an 8x10 with Ries tripod kit weighs 38 kilograms,
how many more times does one have to bench press the cell phone to lose the same number of calories?

Wayne

1-Nov-2013, 16:15

I'm #2. Through habit and experience and a desire for this to be fun not work, I mostly "see" in only a couple of focal lengths, so I only need a couple of lenses.

StoneNYC

1-Nov-2013, 16:46

jcoldslabs

1-Nov-2013, 17:37

So far the discussion has centered on variations in focal length, but in my case a majority of my vintage lenses are in the "normal" range, say 135mm-180mm on 4x5 (and the equivalents for 5x7 and 8x10). For me the variation has more to do with lens type than FL: Petzval, rapid rectilinear, triplet, meniscus, dialyte, Dagor, Protar, Tessar, etc. I rarely pre-visualize in terms of wide angle or telephoto, but I do pre-visualize in terms of the visual signature of a given lens.

I suppose this is the exact opposite of Leigh's approach. :)

Jonathan

Randy

1-Nov-2013, 18:17

For me, due to my mental composition, to many choices hinder, or perhaps retard my picture taking experience. I know from many year of shooting that I not only enjoy my images more, but I also enjoy the time spent out in the field more - if I have only one lens with me. It is very hard for me to take my 8X10 camera out with only one lens. Same with 4X5, but it is very easy with my Rolleiflex.
When I took delivery of my Graflex RB Series D 4X5 a couple months ago, I did it with the intention of just using the 190mm that came on it. A couple weeks later I had two more lenses for it.

Old habits...

Larry Gebhardt

1-Nov-2013, 18:26

I'm firmly in the #1 camp and usually carry a set of three or four lenses. I use a Linhof zooming viewer (fancy version of a cardboard frame and a distance measuring string). I get setup where I like the view and relationship of the subjects. Then use the viewer to determine what the ideal focal length is for the scene. Finally setup the camera and tripod with the right lens. My normal setup is 90/135/200/300. I sometimes bring a 75 or a 450 with me, but I don't usually see compositions that call for them, so they stay home.

I have gone out with only one lens before, and invariably I find compositions that would be better with a different lens. It's nice to have the other lenses with me. But I use the two middle lenses for for about 70% of the shots, with the wide and the long lenses about 15% each.

A question for those of you who say to zoom with your feet: how to you account for relationships between multiple subjects in your image? Frequently there is one ideal camera position for an image, and you need to pick the right field of view to render just what you want from that location.

Leigh

1-Nov-2013, 20:00

You've obviously never seen a print from a good quality cell image
"Good quality cell image" is an oxymoron.

It depends entirely on one's definition of "good".

As I said earlier, the definition has degraded to the point where the term is no longer meaningful.

- Leigh

StoneNYC

1-Nov-2013, 20:10

"Good quality cell image" is an oxymoron.

It depends entirely on one's definition of "good".

As I said earlier, the definition has degraded to the point where the term is no longer meaningful.

- Leigh

Can I send you one? If you're in the US I'll ship you something, just as a challenge :)

David_Senesac

1-Nov-2013, 21:39

Given the nearly $6 cost of a 4x5 sheet of Provia plus developement, I usually only take a single shot of a strong scene, sometimes two, then move on. Almost never bracket. About 90% of my shots are with my 150mm Nikor normal lens in part because I have a bias of preferring a natural look so my vision is looking about at things from that perspective. However some landscape circumstances require wider angles in order to frame all important elements and narrower angles when important elements can only be framed so.

Kodachrome25

1-Nov-2013, 21:45

Shot 8 sheets since my last post, 4 with my 180/5.6 Apo Symmar, two with my Fuji 240A and two with my 350 Apo-Tele-Xenar....how many did ya'll shoot in that time?

Vaughn

1-Nov-2013, 22:52

Well, some of us have day jobs, but since my last post on this topic (Wednesday) I spent 7 hours with a floor sander (6pm to 1am) prepping the living room floor. Still need to do some touch-up sanding with a hand-held sander...hopefully get sealer and top coats on this weekend. Thursday night I spent with my girlfriend...I love her, but I also love her hot tub -- that floor sander was brutal! I am still closer to 59 than 60, but man, my back was wasted!

I was going to platinum print tonight, but my GF wore me out :cool: ...so tonight I went thru a huge stack of 2 1/4" negatives deciding which ones I want to platinum print tomorrow...along with some 8x10 and 4x10 negatives I developed Monday night. I'd like to squeeze in developing a few recent 11x14 negs this weekend, too. But no, no new negatives made since Wednesday. All the 4x10 and 8x10 negs were taken with my Fuji W 300/5.6. I did have a Fuji 250/6.7 in the pack, but I did not have a yellow nor orange filter for it, and the scenes called for it (Big-Leaf Maple leaves!).

The 11x14's were with the trusty 19" RD Artar, except for a portrait of one of my boys with a Suter Basle Aplanat B No.6 which is on loan to me (same focal length as the Artar.)

Me, my 11x14 and the Suter (in the backyard of my new place):

ic-racer

2-Nov-2013, 06:34

I always only carry a single lens. Photographs are created with the tools at hand. It is a naive, snapshooter concept that there is some magical 'right place, right time, right lens, right format, etc.' needed to produce a photograph.

jnantz

2-Nov-2013, 08:03

Coverage. A zoom that would cover 4X5 would be big as a house and cost about as much.

naaah, schneider could probably make a ultra modern and beautiful casket set ... for too much money, limited edition, comes in a gold engraved
ebony inlayed box ( or a rustic pine box to throw off the lens-bandits ). it wouldn't be a zoom, but you figure it would be only lens anyone would ever need to buy ...
9 or 10 modern coated cells on a modern shutter, piece of cake !
schneider made THE xxxL triple a few years ago and from what i remember reading everyone who used it was very happy with
even the converted focal lengths ...

ROL

2-Nov-2013, 08:50

I am still closer to 59 than 60...

Man, your age is showing. Nice legs (:D), but those Tevas (also the name of my black lab long gone since last century) are so 1980's. Chacos will get your closer to the new millennium, and stay on your feet in the river.

Jody_S

2-Nov-2013, 08:53

Ok I want to apologize to the OP for being so OT....

Since we are talking about carrying equipment... Although I use a real light meter, this "light meter" app is actually very handy...

103965

It would save some space in your bag, as well as pre-planning your times in certain light with THIS app "reciprocity timer" made by a LFFer...

103966

Version 2 coming soon. This one I use all the time!

I admit to using a smartphone-based lightmeter from time to time, as well as apps to do bellows extension factor calculations and depth-of-field. I will even duplicate a lf shot on the smartphone camera, because it's easier to email the result to my wife who is wondering why I'm not home yet. But I don't consider the result to be a 'photograph', it's a 'snapshot'. Although you could argue that snapshots are a subset of photographs.

And I'm not yet willing to leave the spotmeter at home in favor of an iPhone.

Vaughn

2-Nov-2013, 09:57

Man, your age is showing. Nice legs (:D), but those Tevas (also the name of my black lab long gone since last century) are so 1980's. Chacos will get your closer to the new millennium, and stay on your feet in the river.

So far, after many backpacking trips up Redwood Creek -- crossing the creek constantly -- the Tevas have stayed on my feet. And yes, I am known for wearing socks (white, but sometimes wool) with the Tevas in public, much to my teenagers' horror. But the soles are starting to crack...I might get another year or so out of them, so I'll look into Chacos when the time comes. On the backpack trips, I keep it to one lens (Caltar IIN 150/5.6) with the Gowland Pocketview -- to keep it light, and I only have one lensboard for that camera anyway.

I do have a partial casket set I could adapt to the camera -- a beautiful Zeiss Protarlinse VII...three lenses marked 35mm, 22mm and 29mm -- with a Compur shutter presently on a Speed Graphic board. I have never used them, but the notes that came with the set states I should be able to get focal lengths from 143mm to 305mm. I would just have to keep the notes with me to figure out the combinations and the resulting f stops (shutter's aperture is marked in millimeters). I suppose in use, I would get good with them, but the small Caltar 150mm is just so much simpler to use. It just stays on the camera, the camera/tripod over my shoulder (with a waterproof stuff sack over the camera to protect it from snagging on branches and from moisture), and the film holders and meter in a shoulder bag.

A scanned 4x5 carbon print from one of my Redwood Creek trips: