Considering 16x20 camera for landscapes, what lens ( Not Fine Art XXL ) [Archive]

Kodachrome25

2-Oct-2014, 12:34

I am looking at getting a 16x20 camera going in 1-3 years so I am trying to layout the costs. I have the prices in mind for the Chamonix 16x20 ( or 14x17) and a few holders but the lens is what is getting me. Schnieder has already discontinued the modern and super expensive XXL Fine Art series so what does that leave me for a good sharp landscape lens that will give me infinity and decent movements?

I am not really interested in soft focus or portrait work, just landscapes and for this particular project would prefer a lens that is roughly equal to something in-between a 35-50mm in 35mm format.

Like I said, I am just now getting to thinking about it so I have time to sort it out and create a budget so is there anything stellar for $2K or less?

Vaughn

2-Oct-2014, 12:48

I imagine that would be about a 600mm lens. But the 24" RD Artar may not cover, being basically a narrow-angled process lens.

I have a 600mm Apo-Ronar that I am looking to sell, but it is also a process lens (no shutter), it might cover, but I believe it is only really good up to 12x20. Also it is big and weighs a good amount! A 30" RD Artar might cover 16x20, but longer than you are looking for and we are starting to get the bellows way out there!

Good luck! PS -- you do not really need a "stellar" lens, as there will be no enlargement.

Andrew O'Neill

2-Oct-2014, 12:48

I do believe a Fujinon 600C will cover 16x20 and I think that's pretty close to normal focal length... I use it on my 14x17 with movements. You can probably still find one out there.

Larry Gebhardt

2-Oct-2014, 12:58

Kodachrome25

2-Oct-2014, 13:07

Thanks folks, I figured the Fuji 600 C & some process lenses might come up, a fuji just sold here not long ago. This is still a ways out, I have to figure out the other part of the equation, can I tray develop black and white reversal...:-)

sanking

2-Oct-2014, 17:54

What about the 450mm f/9 Nikon M? I've seen comments that it will cover 20x24 when stopped down to f/64, but I don't know its official coverage numbers. It would be about the right focal length on the 14x17. It's a very nice lens on smaller formats, but I have no experience with it on anything approaching 16x20.

The other one to come to mind is the Fuji 600mm f/11.5 C. It might not cover 16x20, but 14x17 should be doable with 620mm of coverage.

So far as I know the 450 f/9 Nikkor M is the only reasonable option for a lens with medium to normal angle coverage. There are some old Protar Series IV and/or V lens in 460mm - 480mm that might cover, but these lenses are very expensive and hard to focus at their maximum aperture of f/11 or f/18, and would cost way more than the 450 Nikkor.

I am pretty sure the 450 Nikkor M would work fine on 16X20. On 12X20 it covers with several inches of useful movements, and it even covers 20X24 well for contact printing with the lens stopped way down. Really a splendid lens, and one that would be my first choice of all possible lenses for any format between 11X14 and 16X20.

The 600 mm Fujinon C would also cover 20X24 stopped down, but I found it to be less sharp with this format on the corners than the 450mm M.

Sandy

jcoldslabs

2-Oct-2014, 20:14

I have an RD Gray No. 8 Periscope. It's a 21" (533mm) lens that covers 11x14 wide open and, if the literature is to be believed, 20x24 at small apertures. It is very sharp stopped down, but is an older rapid rectilinear design and not a modern plasmat if that's what you prefer. It is not very big or heavy which is easier on your camera's front standard, although you have to be willing to live with f/15 as your maximum aperture. I've only used mine with 8x10, however, and can't speak to the larger coverage with any certainty.

Sounds like you've got the budget for something more modern and in a shutter, but I thought I would mention this lens since it isn't often written about. There may be other RRs of the period in this FL--and Dagors, too--that would do equally well.

Jonathan

http://www.kolstad.us/ebay/Gray-Periscope.jpg

Jim Fitzgerald

2-Oct-2014, 20:39

I'll check the coverage of my 24' and 30" Artar on my soon to be finished 2024 camera. I'll take the reducing back off and check it on the 2024 GG. Give me some time as I am in the final stages of the build.

Hugo Zhang

2-Oct-2014, 20:41

I will throw in this lens when you order your 16x20 camera if it is not sold by then. :)

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?113616-FS-JLM-OPTICAL-Lens-of-540-5mm-f-10&p=1139338#post1139338

Daniel Stone

2-Oct-2014, 22:53

Dan(OP),
Why not shoot 8x10 and enlarge? You mentioned "tray develop b/w transparencies", is this your goal; backlit b/w transparencies?

-Dan

Tin Can

2-Oct-2014, 23:04

:)

I will throw in this lens when you order your 16x20 camera if it is not sold by then. :)

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?113616-FS-JLM-OPTICAL-Lens-of-540-5mm-f-10&p=1139338#post1139338

jack_hui

3-Oct-2014, 06:10

Fuji C600 can cover 20x24 wide open. 600mm is "standard focal length" for 1620

goamules

3-Oct-2014, 08:57

Because I like old glass, I'm thinking landscape meniscus. A large ROC, Waterbury, or others are fairly common. Also, you could get about a 14" convertable petzval (someone has to do the math, I'm just guestimating) such as a Wollensak Vesta, remove the front achromat, put it on the rear, and stop it down. That's a cheaper way to get a long, fairly wide lens that can be very sharp stopped down. Or the Gray Extreme Wide Angle, Protar VII, Wollensak EWA can be found somewhat cheaply. Even a 14" Dagor might cover stopped down.

I'm not giving you the exact focal lengths of the above to use. You'll have to do your own research. But these are tried and true wide angle solutions for landscapes.

tgtaylor

3-Oct-2014, 10:05

The 760mm Apo-Nikkor will cover 16x20 format and there are a couple on ebay right now.

Thomas

Kodachrome25

3-Oct-2014, 10:55

Thanks for the replies everyone, this will be truly helpful when I know I can do the other part of the equation in terms of image presentation. This is probably about two years out to be honest.

Drew Wiley

3-Oct-2014, 12:34

The Fuji 600 is frequently used on even 20x24, with what limitations I cannot say. Otherwise I'd look at a process Nikkor in the 600 to 760 range or beyond, which should have an ample image circle. That would at least give you a "normal" perspective.

tgtaylor

3-Oct-2014, 13:29

Yes, the 610 Apo-Nikkor will easily cover 16x20 and allow for generous movements. Nikon lists the image diagonal at 1,030mm or 40-1/2". You can still find this lens for vey good prices - I bought mine new in its box for $500 - and they can be mounted in an Ilex #5 shutter. According to Nikon, the 420, 455 and 480mm Apo-Nikkors will also cover that format: The image diagonal of the 420mm is 710mm or 28".

Thomas

Erik Larsen

3-Oct-2014, 14:20

Vaughn

3-Oct-2014, 18:39

Buy a lens when one comes up -- and then get a camera to match it!

Dan Fromm

3-Oct-2014, 20:34

Thomas, those specs are probably for 1-1 magnification not infinity I would think.

Right. See http://www.galerie-photo.com/apo-process-nikkors-en.html

Tin Can

3-Oct-2014, 20:53

Would the Ilex 5 mounting be front mount, as I would think center mount would be very difficult?

Yes, the 610 Apo-Nikkor will easily cover 16x20 and allow for generous movements. Nikon lists the image diagonal at 1,030mm or 40-1/2". You can still find this lens for vey good prices - I bought mine new in its box for $500 - and they can be mounted in an Ilex #5 shutter. According to Nikon, the 420, 455 and 480mm Apo-Nikkors will also cover that format: The image diagonal of the 420mm is 710mm or 28".

Thomas

William Whitaker

4-Oct-2014, 08:53

tgtaylor

4-Oct-2014, 09:21

Here's my 610 Apo-Nikkor mounted in an Ilex #5 shutter (Grimes) on a Toyo board:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5601/15251377139_17e9b88416_c.jpg

Nikon lists the image diagonal as 103cm at 1:1...64cm at 1:4....and 57cm at 1:10.

Thomas

jnantz

4-Oct-2014, 09:34

What Garrett said. Explore older convertible lenses.

Consider Reinhold Schable's Wollaston lenses (http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/ULF%20Lens.html). (Nobody's suggested that yet?) Even if you don't care for the look, it's an economical way to start while you wait for the big-money glass.

+1

i don't know what the coverage is on a 1a convertible but it is huge ( converted ) ..and even assembled
uncoverted it easily covers 11x14 ... from what i gather reinhold's lenses are a real treat to use and stopped down are pretty sharp ..

Geoffrey_5995

4-Oct-2014, 12:17

How about a Kodak 18" Wide Field Ektar? Works great on my 12x20 with movements, should cover 16x20.

Jim Fitzgerald

4-Oct-2014, 13:33

21 1/4" Ektanon. Great coverage and sharpness and cheap!

Steven Tribe

4-Oct-2014, 14:16

What Garrett said. Explore older convertible lenses.

+3 (or is it 4?

Not too sure about the suitability of the convertible RR's, but the Protar series VII (Half a series VIIa) would be good.

The really long Landscape meniscus lenses of 24" plus can be found - especialy if you look for other than Dallmeyer and the like.

Dan Fromm

4-Oct-2014, 14:21

Interesting. My handful of convertible lenses' single cells all have longer focal lengths but no more coverage than the complete lenses. What's wrong with my lenses? Why do y'all think that your convertibles' single cells aren't like mine?

Steven Tribe

4-Oct-2014, 15:15

Well, here is an example of increased coverage from using the single lens from a pair. The first combination/casket set from Darlot.

Note, that someone has corrected the improper use of "Rectilinear" in the table.

And soft focus people may find the adjustment of the barrel length description somewhat interesting!

Willie

4-Oct-2014, 17:57

Why not check out what Brett Weston and some others who shoot this and larger formats use?

angusparker

6-Oct-2014, 11:18

There is a Grimes mounted on Ilex 5 APO Nikkor 610mm f9 on the Bay right now. A bit pricey but I'm sure you could get it for less if you contacted the seller.

Carsten Wolff

6-Oct-2014, 23:12

I just sold a vintage W. Butcher & Sons casket set (18" to 30") for under $100. The long end covers 16x20" with ease, depending on your performance requirements.....(i.e. not in XXL territory). You could look for a ± 30" / 750mm + Achromatic doublet and try that. I think you'd be surprised how well that would work, stopped down, for that format.....we are talking contact printing here anyway, aren't we?

Steven Tribe

7-Oct-2014, 13:11

Something like this?

Using an incomplete casket set sounds like a good idea (pricewise), but these longer sets (like Carsten's) are not common.

Kodachrome25

10-Oct-2014, 11:41

we are talking contact printing here anyway, aren't we?

Possibly some contact printing but more importantly backlit black and white reversal as original art. If I can successfully tray process black and white sheet film using reversal process then I will consider putting a budget together for this for fiscal 2016.

Tin Can

10-Oct-2014, 12:47

Possibly some contact printing but more importantly backlit black and white reversal as original art. If I can successfully tray process black and white sheet film using reversal process then I will consider putting a budget together for this for fiscal 2016.

Last year a guy dropped into my darkroom and reversed some 11x14 B&W film. I watched and learned. It was fairly easy, the hard part was learning the counterintuitive density swaps. Perhaps you know all that.

The big LED tracer panels like I am using for enlarger lamps are very bright. Artograph's (http://www.artograph.com/light-boxes/lightpad-series/) are amazing.

Sounds interesting!

Kodachrome25

10-Oct-2014, 14:26

It could be spectacular if I can get enough D-Max in the final product. I am even considering 20x24 for maximum impact if I can find a good lens or two for it that will allow me to do both infinity with one and medium distance with the other. But..the bellows on the Chamonix 20x24 is limited to 920mm where as the 16x20 is 1,050mm. This is pretty big budget stuff though, $12,000 to $15,000 up front for the camera, holders, tripod, lenses and film.

I'll mess with some FP4 in 4x5 first and get a feel for the tonal range in reversal before I order up...if I am going to do anything larger than 4x5 it has *got* to yield a different final product for sure.

Kodachrome25

10-Oct-2014, 17:03

The 760mm Apo-Nikkor will cover 16x20 format and there are a couple on ebay right now.

Thomas

How are these process Nikkor's at infinity, what would work for 20x24 and what can one expect to pay to have someone put a shutter on it?

Ron McElroy

11-Oct-2014, 06:40

Kodachrome25

11-Oct-2014, 08:45

Perhaps you have already explored this, but a different approach to this project would be to drum scan 4x5 and then have continuous tone positives output.

Thanks, I appreciate the perspective but, I have not thought of it because I keep scanning and computers away from my artwork and in this case want to sell the pieces as originals not to be reproduced. It will take a couple years to sort this out, it has to be a complete show stopper in order to work.

cyrus

11-Oct-2014, 14:02

I have a 1070mm 42" Apo-Ronar and a 30" Apo-Germinar for sale

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOMDuT_orfQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_cQZ-iyOOk

tgtaylor

12-Oct-2014, 09:05

How are these process Nikkor's at infinity, what would work for 20x24 and what can one expect to pay to have someone put a shutter on it?

They are excellent at infinity - in fact Nikon recommends them for regular photography in addition to process: With their superb optical performance, these lens are suitable for use as general photographic lenses mounted on view cameras or studio cameras.

The focal length for a "normal" lens for 20x24 would be around 800mm. Nikon Process lens are available in 760, 890, 1210, and 1780mm FL's but I don't know if there is a shutter available for those FL's but a Packard shutter might work. I had my 610 mounted in an Ilex #5 shutter that I advertised for and bought in the forums for sale section for $230. SK Grimes mounted it for $400 and I paid him an addition $100 for a shutter CLA. I didn't think the shutter needed a CLA but he thought it did and I'm glad that I told him to go ahead. Other than deposition a spec of dust in the interior of the lens, Grimes did a superb job.

Thomas

Kodachrome25

13-Oct-2014, 14:08

Thanks Thomas...

So if "Normal" (4x5 = 150mm ) would be 800 for 20x24, would a 600 equal about a 135mm in 4x5 or wider than that?

Dan Fromm

13-Oct-2014, 15:29

KM, before you go berserk shopping for Apo Nikkors, especially a 610, read what Nikon thinks of them: http://www.galerie-photo.com/apo-process-nikkors-en.html

They don't think the 610 is suitable for 20x24.

So if "Normal" (4x5 = 150mm ) would be 800 for 20x24, would a 600 equal about a 135mm in 4x5 or wider than that?

Normal for 4x5 is 150 mm. Normal for 20x24 is 800 mm. 600/800 = 112.5/150

Oh, and by the way, you're speaking loosely when you say 600. There are two 600ish Apo Nikkors, the Tessar type 600/9 that covers 37º and the 610/9 dialyte type that covers 46º. A 610 that covers 20x24 has to cover 66º.

Kodachrome25

13-Oct-2014, 15:45

Dan, yep, just learning. Ideally I would use a lens that would cover with decent movements for landscapes a range in 4x5 terms of 125-140mm, a 760 Apo a Nikkor sounds like it might be a good place to start. I really only want one lens for my needs, longer than 800 and DOF and bellows limitations start creeping in, shorter than about 125mm in 4x5 terms and it might be a tad wide for an all-rounder.

I have decided on either a Ritter or more likely a Chamonix but the earliest this would happen is the end of 2016 since I figure it will take me that long to get a budget for it all and conduct a feasibility study of reversal images in 4x5 for a good year. I'll also likely contact print if I decide to go ahead with it, that will need to be sorted out as well....

tgtaylor

14-Oct-2014, 20:17

Thanks Thomas...

So if "Normal" (4x5 = 150mm ) would be 800 for 20x24, would a 600 equal about a 135mm in 4x5 or wider than that?

[(150mm (4x5) X (610mm (20x24))= 114.44mm (4x5)
800mm (20x24))]

So a 610mm Apo Nikkor on a 20x24 camera would be equivalent to a 114mm lens on a 4x5. If the image circle of the 610 covers 20x24, it will work as a moderately wide lens on the 20x24. Back in the 1860's images shot on mammoth plates (18x22) with lens that didn't cover the format were printed to disguise the vignette of the lens:

http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2000/watkins/yosemitefalls_full.htm

Thomas

Hugo Zhang

14-Oct-2014, 21:19

I don't think Nikkor 610 mm will cover 20x24. I do use the 760 mm on my 16x20 and I don't need a shutter since I use small aperture like f/90 with the lens cover.

ImSoNegative

15-Oct-2014, 15:58

Buy a lens when one comes up -- and then get a camera to match it!

Now that is the way I do things : )

Tin Can

15-Oct-2014, 16:05

Actually I think in these sizes, buy the film holders first...

Kodachrome25

15-Oct-2014, 21:25

Once I determine that I want to go through with it, I will seek out the most important part, the lens. Then when I have that, I will order a camera and 3-4 film holders. Until then, I need to sort out if reversal will work. That's going to take awhile...

Kodachrome25

16-Oct-2014, 01:48

Also, am I correct to assume a 450 Nikkor M on 16x20 would be on the wide side, like 28mm on 35 format and a 600mm would be equal to around a 40mm?

Kodachrome25

16-Oct-2014, 11:20

I think I am going to proceed with starting to gather items for 16x20 ( just bought a 16x20 contact frame). It seems that according to this chart (http://lensn2shutter.com/35mmchart.html), a Nikkor 610 F9 might be a good place to start, somewhere around 40-44mm in 35 format.

And I am doing this based on contact printing first and foremost, if the reversal thing works, great, if not, contact prints in 16x20 are nothing to sneeze at.

Dan Fromm

16-Oct-2014, 11:56

I think I am going to proceed with starting to gather items for 16x20 ( just bought a 16x20 contact frame). It seems that according to this chart, a Nikkor 610 F9 might be a good place to start, somewhere around 40-44mm in 35 format.

Chart? What chart? 16x20 wants a lens that covers at least 600 mm. Nikon claims that the 610/9 Apo Nikkor covers 518 mm. That's a little small for 16x20.

Tin Can

16-Oct-2014, 11:58

Chart? What chart? 16x20 wants a lens that covers at least 600 mm. Nikon claims that the 610/9 Apo Nikkor covers 518 mm. That's a little small for 16x20.

I use one on 11x14...

Kodachrome25

16-Oct-2014, 12:07

Chart? What chart? 16x20 wants a lens that covers at least 600 mm. Nikon claims that the 610/9 Apo Nikkor covers 518 mm. That's a little small for 16x20.

I forgot to put it in there, added.

Well, that is the purpose of this thread. Sandy King claims the 450 Nikkor M will easily cover 16x20 but it is wide on 16x20, like a 28-30mm lens on 35mm, not my first choice but certainly a wide second choice. What about a RD Artar 30"? Hugo claims he uses a Nikkor 760 on his 16x20 but that won't take a shutter.....which is obviously a *lot* easier to deal with on the lens price and infrastructure side, but....

How does one work with these ULF formats when no shutter is present without stopping down to within a stop of minimum aperture? I do use ND filters to get uber long exposures in daylight, so that might be an option as I know you can them in 95mm & 110mm thread.

There is a lot to this, the ideal FL being about a 500-600 but getting enough coverage, shutter, no shutter, Copal 3 maxing out at F16, Ilex #5 being as big as you can go, etc.

Hugo Zhang

16-Oct-2014, 13:36

450 Nikkor M and APO-Nikkor 610 mm are two different lenses, the former is designed to use on view cameras and has a large coverage and the latter is designed as a process lens, but can be used as a camera lens, with less coverage to my knowledge.

Dan Fromm

16-Oct-2014, 13:37

I forgot to put it in there, added.

That chart has nothing to do with actual lenses, is about comparing what focal lengths see across formats. It says nothing about Apo Nikkors' (or, for that matter, any other lenses') coverage.

Here http://sdrv.ms/1i4czGa is a link to a set of links to lens manufacturers' catalogs and such. If you want to know what the maker claims a lens covers use it. Some makers, for example Goerz with respect to Dagors, Berthiot with respect to all of their LF lenses, Boyer with respect to most of their LF lenses, exaggerate. Others, according to posters here but not always according to the makers' own MTF charts, claim less coverage than the lenses give.

My list of links includes a links to a sites that have shutters' specs. Study. Short version, the largest shutters that give timed exposures open to around 65 mm, have fastest speeds around 1/50. Packard shutters (factory's URL is in the list) open wider but don't have timed speeds. Many posters here say that with practice accurate enough speeds up to 1/25 can be got. And then there's the Copal-Sinar behind the lens shutter. A lens doesn't have to be in a shutter, it can be hung in front of the shutter or the shutter can be hung in front of it. FWIW, I hang a Compound #5 in front of a 900/10. If the shutter were mounted behind that lens its controls would be inaccessible.

Kodachrome25

16-Oct-2014, 13:44

Thanks. I think at this point I am going to concern my self less with trying to get an exact field of view and work more from the end of getting good coverage and try for in shutter.

Right now there is a Copal 3 mounted 30" Artar on eBay, I am wondering if that might not work to cover 16x20 at infinity. Jim Fitzgerald seems to use that one and the 24" version for his 14x17 / 20x24 combo...

I'm also beginning to think that the 450 Nikkor could be a good start after all as it is ready to go and covers the format, price not too outrageous.

Dan Fromm

16-Oct-2014, 13:49

Thanks. I think at this point I am going to concern my self less with trying to get an exact field of view and work more from the end of getting good coverage and try for in shutter.

That's nice. Use what I sent you. Hint 1: look at the 1951 Goerz catalog on cameraeccentric Hint 2: pay attention to the next-to-last paragraph

Kodachrome25

16-Oct-2014, 14:06

That's nice. Use what I sent you. Hint 1: look at the 1951 Goerz catalog on cameraeccentric Hint 2: pay attention to the next-to-last paragraph

I plan to, to also take my time, I downloaded it, what page on the catalog?

I might have come up with a different idea to arrive at a 16x20 black and white transparency as well. I am going to get a box of 4x5 Arista Ortho Litho and see how it fares for contact prints, I am looking for burly D-max for long term backlit display after all...

Dave Wooten

16-Oct-2014, 14:44

Back lit display, you can make impressive back lits from 4 x 5, color or black and white.

Kodachrome25

16-Oct-2014, 15:03

Back lit display, you can make impressive back lits from 4 x 5, color or black and white.

Of course, but I am talking 100% analog workflow in my own darkroom. While nice at normal viewing distances, Duratrans output is hardly in line with a contact print.

tgtaylor

16-Oct-2014, 15:56

Kodachrome25

16-Oct-2014, 17:03

You guys are having problems with the math. The Nikon catalogue says that the image diagonal at 1:10 is 570mm which won't cover 16x20 without vignette (you need 650mm). However the 610 will cover at 1:3 or 1:4 (690mm and 640mm rsp). To safely cover 16x20 at 1:10 you would need the 890mm f/11 which has a image diagonal of 750mm. The image diagonal of the 760mm is just a tad short at 640mm at 1:10.

Thanks for the input. I guess I am starting to get a little confused at how one goes about simply obtaining lenses of good optical quality that will produce a fine image in 16x20 at infinity with some form of shutter, Packard not objectionable. The only thing that speaks to me as a sure bet at the moment is the Nikkor 450 F9 M, Sandy speaks well of (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?116896-Considering-16x20-camera-for-landscapes-what-lens-(-Not-Fine-Art-XXL-)&p=1176195&viewfull=1#post1176195) it and it will at least get me started until a bit longer FL can be decided upon later.

Obviously people have been doing 16x20 landscapes for a long time, I'm sure I will get something in the 600-800 range down the road.

tgtaylor

17-Oct-2014, 10:12

According to the published specs http://homepages.tig.com.au/~cbird/nikkor/m.html#M450 the image circle on the 450M doesn't cover 16x20 and is actually less than the image diagonal of the Apo 610 at 1:10. But then Nikon has always been conservative in it's ratings. If it were me I would want to verify the coverage before making the plunge. Note also that a 450 on 16x20 would be equivalent to a 100mm on a 4x5 - which is, of course, a very useful FL for a wide angle photo.

When I was looking for a Nikkor 450M for my 8x10 I settled instead for a 480mm Apo-Ronar which, like the Nikkor, is an extremely sharp lens and gives a field of view identical with a 240mm on a 4x5 which proved very convenient from my point of view. However the IC of the Apo Ronar is ~400mm which is insufficient for 16x20.

Thomas

PS: Forum member Tracy Storer builds 20x24 cameras and maybe 16x20 as well. Maybe you could make a deal with him to shoot a sheet of 16x20 with a particular lens and send it to you. If that is feasible I could bring Tracy my 610 for such a test.

Thomas

tgtaylor

17-Oct-2014, 11:16

Actually you could shoot at infinity on 20x24 film and just measure.

Thomas

Dave Wooten

17-Oct-2014, 15:31

30 inch Artar in Copal Shutter on ebay now...go get it.

Kodachrome25

17-Oct-2014, 18:11

30 inch Artar in Copal Shutter on ebay now...go get it.

Had my eye on it all week, I'll see what it gets up to and bid if it seems right...

Corran

17-Oct-2014, 19:38

I have nothing to really contribute (except that the 450M is a great lens!) but I do hope to keep up with your project. I also want to say good luck!

I myself was experimenting with ideas for backlit transparencies for a project but due to logistics/time didn't. I will in the future. So I'm interested to see what you do. I found a plethora of interesting LED lights on eBay that seemed to be ready for simple "plug-and-play" installation into a frame. Run off batteries, etc.

tgtaylor

17-Oct-2014, 20:48

How does one work with these ULF formats when no shutter is present without stopping down to within a stop of minimum aperture?

By employing 'the old hat trick': Cover the front element of the lens with a dark hat and pull the dark slide. Then simultaneously uncover the lens and start your exposure time and upon completion simply cover the lens with your hat and replace the dark slide. I tried doing it using the lens cap instead of a hat but introduced camera vibration even though I had practiced for several minutes.

Thomas

Kodachrome25

17-Oct-2014, 21:07

By employing 'the old hat trick': Cover the front element of the lens with a dark hat and pull the dark slide. Then simultaneously uncover the lens and start your exposure time and upon completion simply cover the lens with your hat and replace the dark slide. I tried doing it using the lens cap instead of a hat but introduced camera vibration even though I had practiced for several minutes.

I had to do that while shooting with a Nikon 600 F4 plus a 2x converter shooting Kodachrome, it worked fine, ran double truck in a coffee table book.

I'm taking a break from all this, getting out with my existing gear to make photos I know I can print. I'm not sure if I am going through with ULF at this point....

But thanks for your help.

Steve Goldstein

18-Oct-2014, 14:43

As luck would have it I was given (thanks Glenn!) a 1973 Fujinon LF lens brochure today. In flipping through it I spotted three lenses that would actually cover 16x20, noted here for posterity.

300mm Fujinon-SW (720mm IC at f/22, 145mm filter, 3250 grams - be sure to eat your Wheaties!)

600mm Fujinon-A (840mm IC at f/22, 95mm filter, 1710 grams)

1200mm Fujinon-A (1120mm IC at f/22, 102mm filter, 2600 grams)

The stated format coverage for the 300mm SW is 18x22, for the others it's 20x24.

I once saw a 600mm Fujinon-A in the wild, mounted on a 20x24 camera at the View Camera conference held in Springfield, MA some years ago. Has anyone ever seen a 300SW or 1200A? My 1979 dealer price list says "price on request" for the 300SW and 600A, and doesn't even include the 1200A.

Kodachrome25

18-Oct-2014, 14:53

Thanks for posting this Steve, it adds value to the next time someone searches. I have a line on two 24" red dot Artar's in shutter, one in a Copal 3, the other in an Ilex 5. I know Hugo Zhang uses it on his 16x20 and says it is his most used lens, so it covers at infinity.

Tracy Storer

18-Oct-2014, 18:54

PS: Forum member Tracy Storer builds 20x24 cameras and maybe 16x20 as well. Maybe you could make a deal with him to shoot a sheet of 16x20 with a particular lens and send it to you. If that is feasible I could bring Tracy my 610 for such a test.
Thomas

Thomas, I'd love to do a side by side comparison of my 600 Apo Nikkor and your 610. One is a dialyte and the other a Tessar(or variant) on 20x24 sometime.

axs810

18-Oct-2014, 21:42

Kodachrome25 - I know this is a long ways down the road...but when you do start shooting 16x20 what kind of tripod set up do you plan to use?

edit/ EEK sorry I just realized this is the "Lenses and Lens Accessories" section....what about a 19" Dagor lens?

ic-racer

19-Oct-2014, 05:51

A little more info on the 300mm SW from KT ( it is the big one on the cover picture below) : http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?7455-wanted-fuji-300mm-f-9-sw-lens&p=18042&viewfull=1#post18042
123551

John Kasaian

19-Oct-2014, 07:54

Might I suggest a pin hole and a big box? Shoot photo paper or x-ray film just to get an idea of what the project will entail before spending large sums of $$. A "rehearsal" of sorts.

Kodachrome25

19-Oct-2014, 08:50

Did that a lot with both RA4 paper and litho film in 20x24 a few years ago with a friend's pinhole called the "Glory Hole". I'll get a Reis tripod or use a combo of my two heaviest of large metal tripods, one in particular could handle a good 30 pounds.

I have thought about getting a 24" Artar, building a box, getting some litho film and giving that a go, would just need to figure out how to test coverage with rise/fall or shift.

Might I suggest a pin hole and a big box? Shoot photo paper or x-ray film just to get an idea of what the project will entail before spending large sums of $$. A "rehearsal" of sorts.

axs810

19-Oct-2014, 09:00

You could even go cheaper and mount the lens in an open window and black everything out then take a chalkboard with a piece of paper and move it around to get your tests done.

Tin Can

19-Oct-2014, 09:31

You could even go cheaper and mount the lens in an open window and black everything out then take a chalkboard with a piece of paper and move it around to get your tests done.

I think more than one person here does exactly that.

I have 6" holes to the outside in my darkroom for camera obscura work, but it's a little crowded in here...

tgtaylor

19-Oct-2014, 10:26

Thomas, I'd love to do a side by side comparison of my 600 Apo Nikkor and your 610. One is a dialyte and the other a Tessar(or variant) on 20x24 sometime.

Sure thing Tracy. I sent you a PM. Just let me know when and where to bring the lens. It's mounted in an Ilex 5 shutter on a 158mm Toyo board.

Thomas

Kodachrome25

19-Oct-2014, 11:55

Sure thing Tracy. I sent you a PM. Just let me know when and where to bring the lens. It's mounted in an Ilex 5 shutter on a 158mm Toyo board.

Cool that you are doing that, check them out at infinity if inclined, it would be great to build a knowledge base of this stuff, it will help sell ULF gear.

mdm

19-Oct-2014, 16:11

karl french

19-Oct-2014, 16:21

"Its easy to get caught up in ulf enthusiasm but the fact is that you can make every type of ulf contact print (and transparency) better with a scanned 8x10 or smaller negative and a much less expensive inkjet printer."

Sorry, no.

Corran

19-Oct-2014, 16:22

Oh boy, here we go.

Unless anyone has some serious comparison prints it doesn't even matter what anyone thinks at this point.

Tin Can

19-Oct-2014, 16:40

Oh boy, here we go.

Unless anyone has some serious comparison prints it doesn't even matter what anyone thinks at this point.

Exactly, this discussion will go nowhere.

Maybe this and maybe that.

It just doesn't matter if your sword is sharper than mine. We are not fighting.

Lachlan 717

19-Oct-2014, 17:04

Its easy to get caught up in ulf enthusiasm but the fact is that you can make every type of ulf contact print (and transparency) better with a scanned 8x10 or smaller negative and a much less expensive inkjet printer. The compromises just get too big as the format size increases.
Its hard to get out of the door with a big heavy camera and there are very few frequently used ulf cameras out there.
Maybe you are one of those special people who will make it work for you.
I have a beautiful photo book in which the portrait subjects are laboriously photographed in india using a 7x17 camera, guess the print size, its smaller than that. Perhaps he sold some contact prints, not many. Does any buyer care that they are, not likely. Of course it was important to the photographer to do it that way and the motive was not to make a profit. More of a journey. Recreation from a stressful and high paying job. Moral of the story, real pro photographers with a profit motive dont do ulf. Michael Massia, for example, big prints shure, contact prints, obviously, contacts from an analog negative?

Couple of things:

I scan 7x17". These scans shit all over 8x10 and smaller scans. No compromise there at all. "The compromises just get too big as the format size increases". Seems to me that the compromises get too easy to make as the format size decreases...

Second, what source are you quoting when you write "...there are very few frequently used ulf cameras out there"? Seems to me that you're just making stuff up.

Third, did you also make up "real pro photographers with a profit motive dont [sic] do ulf? You might want to Google Clyde Butcher, Craig Tuffin, Sandy King and Darren Samuelson as a starting point to educate yourself on just how ridiculous your claim is.

Finally, your patronising crap "Maybe you are one of those special people who will make it work for you" is not welcome. Go troll somewhere else.

Kodachrome25

19-Oct-2014, 17:34

Its easy to get caught up in ulf enthusiasm but the fact is that you can make every type of ulf contact print (and transparency) better with a scanned 8x10 or smaller negative and a much less expensive inkjet printer. The compromises just get too big as the format size increases.
Its hard to get out of the door with a big heavy camera and there are very few frequently used ulf cameras out there.
Maybe you are one of those special people who will make it work for you.
I have a beautiful photo book in which the portrait subjects are laboriously photographed in india using a 7x17 camera, guess the print size, its smaller than that. Perhaps he sold some contact prints, not many. Does any buyer care that they are, not likely. Of course it was important to the photographer to do it that way and the motive was not to make a profit. More of a journey. Recreation from a stressful and high paying job. Moral of the story, real pro photographers with a profit motive dont do ulf. Michael Massia, for example, big prints shure, contact prints, obviously, contacts from an analog negative?

None of this really matters at the end of the day because we all want / have to live our lives in a manner that is being true to our selves. If I go forward with ULF and it feels right to me, then I will do like I always do when I enjoy my self and that is do the best work I can. After 25 years of earning a living with it, I just don't feel like having much to do with digital if at all possible....it feels right to do it the way I now do it.

Doing what feels right is important too....

Tin Can

19-Oct-2014, 17:38

Process is important.

All art is process.

All art is interpretive.

mdm

19-Oct-2014, 18:40

Seems Mr Butcher is running around with a Sony DSLR theese days, very active on facebook, Mr King, well ask him when last he printed from an analog negative, even a ulf analog negative, never herd of Darren Samuelson but Craig Tuffin seems awfuly enthusiastic about whole plate and if you want to make one of a kind ulf wet plate is there any other option. Take your heads out of the sand and look around. The world has moved. So have pro photographers. Hobby photographers like me, well mine sits in the cupboard a lot because I prefer 5x7 and whole plate. You have a right to prefer ulf but do you make your living from it?

Kodachrome25

19-Oct-2014, 18:56

The world has moved. So have pro photographers. Hobby photographers like me, well mine sits in the cupboard a lot because I prefer 5x7 and whole plate. You have a right to prefer ulf but do you make your living from it?

If I deem ULF a great tool then you can bet your rear end I will add it to my offerings and yes, make part of my living off of it.

I think you need to let this go, if you have nothing constructive to add from a technical standpoint then obviously me seeking out the right tools for my job is no concern of yours.

ImSoNegative

19-Oct-2014, 20:32

Butcher is running around with a sony DSLR? you must be kidding, wonder if he takes it into the swamp with him, maybe he tapes it to the back of his 8x10

tgtaylor

19-Oct-2014, 20:38

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust

Thomas

brandon13

19-Oct-2014, 20:44

Shooting different formats especially ULF changes the approach and the process. I don't believe shooting 4x5 is the same as 8x10 i shoot both very differently. I'm sure you could argue since they have the same aspect ratio just make digital negs of your 4x5 as 8x10 or even 16x20. I don't see it that way. Some people seem to think that It's somehow impractical, idealistic or even immature to shoot these ULF formats if they are not reaping higher gains. I have been shooting 11x14 wet plates for the last year and it has changed the way I shoot as well. I honestly believe that each format, size, aspect ratio etc. forces (in a good way) a different approach to the image maker and changes the final photograph. I plan on shooting 16x20 wet plates next year. I see no reason to discourage anyone wanting to try larger formats. Just my two cents.

http://brandonfernandez.com

Corran

19-Oct-2014, 21:20

Butcher is running around with a sony DSLR? you must be kidding, wonder if he takes it into the swamp with him, maybe he tapes it to the back of his 8x10

It's true. Well it's not a DSLR though.

Lachlan 717

19-Oct-2014, 21:29

It's true. Well it's not a DSLR though.

As well as his film stuff.

Of course, like justifying his spurious claims in he first post, MDM conveniently disregarded that. I doubt that you will, but take the time to look at his recent trip west, MDM. You'll see a whole lot of film being used.

Corran

19-Oct-2014, 21:33

Right, of course, just saying that it isn't a lie.

Lachlan 717

19-Oct-2014, 21:36

Right, of course, just saying that it isn't a lie.

Nothing you wrote, Corran. I was just filling in the significant blank that MDM left out.

mdm

19-Oct-2014, 23:36

And tell me fella, how much of that was ulf?
My point is that ulf takes a special commitment, not least financial.

As well as his film stuff.

Of course, like justifying his spurious claims in he first post, MDM conveniently disregarded that. I doubt that you will, but take the time to look at his recent trip west, MDM. You'll see a whole lot of film being used.

Lachlan 717

20-Oct-2014, 01:03

And tell me fella, how much of that was ulf?

How much was with a Sony, fella?

My point is that ulf takes a special commitment, not least financial.

Then why not just write that instead of the other inflammatory rubbish? They're good opinions and well made.

ic-racer

20-Oct-2014, 06:32

Since I get just as good results from my iPhone as my wife and her Sony digital, logic of this thread would dictate KODACHROME25 give up ULF and use an iPhone.

Actually I'd suggest obtaining the ULF camera and some lens you already have and start using it while looking for the ideal lens. For example taping 8x10 sheets (paper or film) to your ULF film holder to 'practice' moving, setting up and using the camera before exposing the big sheets. Post you positive experiences; put the naysayers to rest. Posting questions gives the impression of uncertainty in artistic direction (which is probably not the case.)