PDA

View Full Version : Alternatives to Travelwide ? > Linhof Technica Handheld Realistic ?



andrearicci
5-Feb-2016, 14:34
Dear All,
I have been checking the first pictures coming from the early batch of Travelwide users and found the sharpness level not good enough
Maybe this is due to the quality of the JPEGs uploaded on the forum, but this prompts me the need to raise the following question:
What else exists to shoot LF hand held ?
Is the Linhof M. technica hand held a realistic proposition ?

I am aware that I am proposing religious syncretism to an orthodox community, but is there anyone who wants to share his/her experience in using LF hand held ?

The obvious reference are press cameras in the 30's but I'd be interested to see published works made with an LF hand held. Judging from the results is, I guess, better than a discussion about principles. Equally interesting anything shot quicklywith an LF camera (you can replace quickly with un-orthodoxically, like placing the camera on the ground etc.).

Thanks for your understanding

Bob Salomon
5-Feb-2016, 14:39
If the Travelwide interested you then you might also check the long discontinued Linhof Technar system as well.

Kirk Gittings
5-Feb-2016, 15:15
Given a comparable quality lens and the TW setup properly, there is absolutely no reason to believe that a Technica would give sharper results. You are right-one should not try and sharpness based on web jpegs.

vinny
5-Feb-2016, 15:20
Wow. I hope you're not printing the 72dpi jpegs for your comparisons.

Tin Can
5-Feb-2016, 15:22
A much heavier camera could be more stable handheld. Could! A weakling like me may tremble and shake under the load.

Any camera can be made heavier. I leave a heavy QR plate on my TW, which also let's it sit on the table better.

But I mostly shoot it handheld with flashbulbs, gasp! Speed-light, or even a studio strobe. That makes images sharp also.

Jac@stafford.net
5-Feb-2016, 15:27
If we include the Super Technika vs TW then of course the advantage of an accurate coupled rangefinder is clear.

munz6869
5-Feb-2016, 16:43
I'm using a Linhof select lens (90mm Angulon) on my Travelwide... If you want critical sharpness, then you do all the things you normally do: use a faster film so you can use faster shutter speeds and smaller apertures, OR put the device on a tripod. I have used my Linhof Standard press handheld, and the only advantage I can find with that is that it's weight and shape give me more consistently level pictures. However, I'd much prefer the weight of the Travelwide slung around my neck over long walking distances. You almost forget it's there.

In printing - the Travelwide only seems unsharp to me when I've made unsharp photographs - it's not the camera per se!! (it's technique)

Marc!

Gadfly_1971
5-Feb-2016, 17:15
Honestly I haven't noticed a major difference in shots from my TW90 compared with shots from my Pacemaker Speed. What you're probably seeing is compression artifacts from the low resolution JPGs.

For what it is and what I can do with it (and the incredibly small price) I'm very happy with my TW90.

angusparker
5-Feb-2016, 19:28
Fotoman makes a fix cone 4x5 camera but it's really too heavy for hand held use. Chamonix used to make a rangefinder type 4x5.

Corran
5-Feb-2016, 22:30
There was a 6-page thread on this a while back. I even posted photos. I shoot a lot of handheld work with my Technika and various lenses.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?112262-Linhof-Technika-How-Practical-is-Hand-Holding&highlight=linhof

And the answer is yes, of course it's realistic, as it was designed that way! However, I can guarantee you the sharpness "issue" you see has nothing to do with the camera in question (I have a TW as well). Let's not forget the Linhof III could come with the same 90mm Angulon back in the day.

jbenedict
6-Feb-2016, 07:01
Millions of Speed and Crown Graphic users can't be wrong!

Alan Gales
6-Feb-2016, 10:17
Medium format? ;)

It's a lot easier to hold a Mamiya 7 steady than a Crown Graphic.

Bob Salomon
6-Feb-2016, 11:16
Millions of Speed and Crown Graphic users can't be wrong!

Millions? Really? Many would be much more accurate.

ic-racer
6-Feb-2016, 11:51
Large format films are not fast enough for sharp hand-held 4x5 and larger unless one uses a flash. Stabilizing gyro is also an alternative. Just because one can build a camera does not mean it will be useful.

Kirk Gittings
6-Feb-2016, 12:13
Large format films are not fast enough for sharp hand-held 4x5 and larger unless one uses a flash. Stabilizing gyro is also an alternative. Just because one can build a camera does not mean it will be useful.

That is what I believe too. My TW was never intended to be used handheld but as a quick grab 4X5 on a tripod when the subject or light does not allow enough time to set up a proper 4x5 VC.

Dan Fromm
6-Feb-2016, 12:16
Large format films are not fast enough for sharp hand-held 4x5 and larger unless one uses a flash. Stabilizing gyro is also an alternative. Just because one can build a camera does not mean it will be useful.

Interesting. What's the difference between shooting ISO 100 film in a handheld 35 mm camera and a 25 mm lens and shooting ISO 100 film in a handheld TW and a 90 mm lens? Yeah, I know, the TW is heavier so steadier.

cuypers1807
6-Feb-2016, 12:53
Large format films are not fast enough for sharp hand-held 4x5 and larger unless one uses a flash. Stabilizing gyro is also an alternative. Just because one can build a camera does not mean it will be useful.

I get sharp images from my Razzle 900 with a 150mm hand held. I find it becomes a problem under 1/125 sec. 1/60 is about as slow as I will go.

jbenedict
6-Feb-2016, 13:16
Millions? Really? Many would be much more accurate.

First Speed came out in 1917. Made in 4 sizes. Have no idea how many were made. Pretty sure that was more than one single user per camera. Millions is as accurate as anything

Bob Salomon
6-Feb-2016, 13:31
First Speed came out in 1917. Made in 4 sizes. Have no idea how many were made. Pretty sure that was more than one single user per camera. Millions is as accurate as anything

Not if you are looking at current users.

ic-racer
6-Feb-2016, 15:25
Interesting. What's the difference between shooting ISO 100 film in a handheld 35 mm camera and a 25 mm lens and shooting ISO 100 film in a handheld TW and a 90 mm lens? Yeah, I know, the TW is heavier so steadier.
The problem is that since the camera is so close to one's body, the heart beat and respirations will blur the image. You need to get the camera away from the body like this for optimum results. In fact I have already dismantled the roof platform on my station wagon...
146191

Alan Gales
6-Feb-2016, 15:59
The problem is that since the camera is so close to one's body, the heart beat and respirations will blur the image. You need to get the camera away from the body like this for optimum results. In fact I have already dismantled the roof platform on my station wagon...
146191

I can just picture that camera flipping over causing the pole to spin in the fellows hands which in turn causes him to drop the whole thing in the street. Not a pretty picture.

Dan Fromm
6-Feb-2016, 16:17
The problem is that since the camera is so close to one's body, the heart beat and respirations will blur the image. You need to get the camera away from the body like this for optimum results. In fact I have already dismantled the roof platform on my station wagon...
146191

Good joke. I chose the focal lengths I did because with them tremor will generate exactly the same effect. Are people who shoot 35 mm that much steadier than the doddering old men -- apologies to readers who aren't doddering, old, or men -- who shoot 4x5?

jbenedict
6-Feb-2016, 17:04
Not if you are looking at current users.

OK. I'll admit it. You won the argument. Feel better?

jbenedict
6-Feb-2016, 17:09
Large format films are not fast enough for sharp hand-held 4x5 and larger unless one uses a flash. Stabilizing gyro is also an alternative. Just because one can build a camera does not mean it will be useful.

35mm users push the poo out of Tri-X. I've heard of people who regularly use it at 1600 ISO. One thing they like is the way the boulders look when pushed like that. 4x5 certainly can be pushed and still have usable, sharp images. Push it to 1600 and, on an overcast day, use 500th at f8 or f 11. With sheet film, you certainly can push or pull based on the shutter speed and aperture you want to use.

Alan Gales
6-Feb-2016, 17:25
Are people who shoot 35 mm that much steadier than the doddering old men -- apologies to readers who aren't doddering, old, or men -- who shoot 4x5?

I guess a lot depends upon the photographer too. With my bad back I can no longer shoot 35mm consistently handheld below 1/125 of a second. When I was young I could do 1/30. Medium format is no problem at 1/125. I bought a Crown Graphic to try it out but I only used it on a tripod. There was no way I could hold it steady.

ic-racer
6-Feb-2016, 18:35
Realistically everyone has their own limits. I have used my Horseman 4x5in FA handheld but I can't do it (ie results are poor without flash). My limit is 6x9cm Horseman in sunlight. Even then, with magnification or enlargement, I almost alway wish I had used a tripod; unless the photographs are of people. Of course this is the Large Format forum and frequently it is fun to try to make things work, in spite of confounding technical difficulties.

Depending on the chosen dependent and independent variables, one can show just about whatever they want when it comes to depth of field, but let us consider two cameras with the same angle of view, same film emulsion and the same depth of field. One is 35mm and the other is 4x5", shooting on an overcast day without a tripod.

35mm camera settings are 1/125 at f8
4x5 camera settings are 1/8 at f22

Certainly compromises can be had and deciding which compromises are made will be a challenge even in the hands of the experienced LF user. i had a lot of fun exploring handheld large format, but in the end I carry a tripod to make the images I want.

Corran
6-Feb-2016, 18:46
Your numbers are wrong, the equivalent exposure to 1/125 and f/8 is 1/15 and f/22. I'll assume you are already shooting 400 ISO for your example but if not, that would be a way to increase the shutter speed.

Ultimately it depends on what one is doing and how they want to accomplish it. But is it doable? Absolutely, with reasonable consideration for how much light you have. In the same way, I sometimes wish I had a tripod for certain 35mm shots with slow film and not much light.

FWIW, most times I've shot handheld 4x5 it was at wider f/stops. If I'm shooting landscapes and want f/32 I'll use a tripod of course, but action/people are fine with wider stops if you don't mind limited DOF.

angusparker
6-Feb-2016, 18:59
For handheld, Medium Format using C41 excels and with a good MF scanner achieves results that are comparable to 4x5 B&W scanned with the Epson V750. Optical enlargement / contact printing would be another matter - but in a digital workflow MF is the way to go for handheld.

The Fuji GF670 (with meter) using Ilford XP2 is an excellent option to consider. You can use traditional B&W filters too.

Dan Fromm
6-Feb-2016, 19:50
I just read this discussion from the top. Two things leap out.

The OP isn't complaining about its own TW shots, its asking about TW shots posted on the 'net.

Early posts made it clear that shooting handheld shouldn't be a problem with the TW but most of the posts in the discussion blame the alleged faults on unsteadiness.

No one has pointed out that focusing may also be a problem. Guess focus and a helical with a generic ramp, as opposed to a ramp calibrated for the lens in use unless the owner went to the trouble, are alternative explanations of sharpness problems, if any, with the TW.

Are there in fact sharpness problems with the TW? As long as the helical's axis is perpendicular to the film plane, the helical's front is parallel to the film plane, and the shutter is attached properly a TW should be able to capture all the image quality the lens can deliver.

In other words, until testing proves otherwise don't blame the gear, blame the user. In this discussion, blame the OP for making what seem to be unsupported assertions.

AuditorOne
6-Feb-2016, 20:20
Interestingly my TW90 seems to provide results that are very good, even handheld. It did take a couple of tries to get the focus properly adjusted before I began to get satisfactory results.

If I want really sharp results that can be easily enlarged to very large sizes I don't use the TW handheld...or the Crown Graphic handheld...or the Linhoff handheld...or the...

I think you get the idea. If sharp 4x5 photographs are your goal then you should certainly go find a monorail or field camera and bolt it to a tripod.

Alan Gales
6-Feb-2016, 20:28
I always thought that there were three rules for sharp images. :)

Rule #1. Buy a tripod.

Rule #2. Use a tripod.

Rule #3. Repeat rule #2.


And no. I don't always follow rules 2 and 3 either.

Drew Bedo
7-Feb-2016, 07:04
I carry my TravelWide because it is light. I use it with a lightweight monopod and QR plate because I am not that steady anymore.

The monopos works well as a third leg (all right—a cane) and the TW clicks right on in a snap for a few shots.

Jac@stafford.net
7-Feb-2016, 09:05
No one has pointed out that focusing may also be a problem. Guess focus and a helical with a generic ramp, as opposed to a ramp calibrated for the lens in use unless the owner went to the trouble, are alternative explanations of sharpness problems, if any, with the TW.

The following might be too much trouble for some, but it worked for me with three zone focusing cameras: one 4x5 and two 6x9cm. I made a mount to put a Bosch GLR rangefinder (http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/productImages/300/4d/4ddef437-b22a-4f9c-b968-a4cf6a183b84_300.jpg) so that it's properly located at the camera's film plane. (The Bosch has various tripod locations and can be switched to use the appropriate plane.) I fussed about the actual markings on the helix until I realized they were correct. It is good to about 225 feet with stunning accuracy, certainly enough for most work. Downside: not for portraits because it is a bad idea to point the laser at an eye.

minesix66
7-Feb-2016, 09:30
The Globuscope 4x5 with the 65mm f8 works for me.

Drew Bedo
7-Feb-2016, 12:53
The Globuscope 4x5 with the 65mm f8 works for me.
How nice for you. Wish I had one. They only made a few though, and the last one I saw sold on-line for something like $800-$1000 I think, for the body only.

Most TW set-ups are for $300,maybe as much as $500, give-or-take, depending on lens, RF and optical viewfinder. I have just at $300 in my TW outfit.

The TW with a monopod or a table top tripod should work fine as a lightweight and mobile 4x5 rig..

andrearicci
8-Feb-2016, 11:06
Thanks everyone for the replies
I am under the impression that:
1) little exists to beat the travelwide
2) JPEGs do not represent well the qualities of the camera
3) Tripod matters

All fine and THANKS again to everyone but can someone actually point me to good pictures, (read publishable, sharp, even if not necessarily the work you would expect from Shore, Soth, or Polidori...?

Corran
8-Feb-2016, 11:22
Gosh, I'm just not sure what the issue here is. JPEGs are perfectly fine BTW, it's the forum upload and display which is abysmally small that causes most problems. Other issues may be the scanning and downrezzing, which some do not do optimally.

So here, I have uploaded a completely un-resized scan of an HP5+ negative, developed in SPUR HRX and shot handheld. (http://www.oceanstarproductions.com/photosharing/alabama-2525c.jpg) I just cropped a bit of dead space off the top, otherwise it's the full 3000 DPI scan from an excellent scanner. It could be sharper, but the Angulon is an old lens and I was shooting at f/32 handheld at 1/100. It would be perfectly sharp printed to a full spread in a magazine I think, though not at 30x40 inches certainly. I also did no sharpening. Any more questions?

Trimitsis
8-Feb-2016, 13:12
Cool image, Bryan! And definitely sharp...

Milton

Tin Can
8-Feb-2016, 13:16
Looks sharp to me, I even see the film scratch right middle from ship past tank barrel.

Which I like included btw.

Thanks for the link!

Corran
8-Feb-2016, 13:29
Thanks guys. It could definitely be sharper (with a tripod and better lens) but the reality is that is not always feasible. I honestly wonder whether or not the TW or my Linhof would be more stable handheld, but I usually use the Linhof with a 150mm lens, so it's a moot point.

Drew Bedo
8-Feb-2016, 19:31
My recollection is that in the days of 35mm film cameras, a good bit of thought went into developing the techniques of holding a camera when doing hand held photography. Ways of wrapping the strap around the wrists, bracing the camera against tht the body/forehead etc, and bracing the body were all written about and employed by active workers in the field. Rules of thumb regarding focal length, film speed and shutter speed were worked out to maximize sharpness.

Sure, nothing beats a tripod. Yet shooting 4x5 handheld can be done. That is what drove the conversion of Polaroid 110 series cameras to 4x5 in the receint past for fashion and street photography.

mdarnton
9-Feb-2016, 06:12
It's kind of silly to propose that hand held 4x5 can't shoot sharp images. Just look at virtually every news photo shot between 1910 and 1970 for counter examples. Look at Dorothea Lange's 4x5 Graflex FSA photos. Heck, there are thousands of examples on http://shorpy.com.

Tin Can
9-Feb-2016, 15:16
Flash does help. as does preset focus zone.

I think many news guys always used flash and preset focus in almost all conditions day or night.

I see it in old news reels.

Run up to the 7 foot mark and pop using the wire finder.

I am going to shoot TW X-Ray like that tonight. Look for it in X-Ray thread tomorrow.

Alan Gales
9-Feb-2016, 19:55
It's kind of silly to propose that hand held 4x5 can't shoot sharp images. Just look at virtually every news photo shot between 1910 and 1970 for counter examples. Look at Dorothea Lange's 4x5 Graflex FSA photos. Heck, there are thousands of examples on http://shorpy.com.

Of course it can be done. My argument is simply that medium format may end up being as sharp or sharper simply because it is easier to hold the camera steady then for some cameras like Crowns or Speeds. Also those 127 and 135 lenses were not the sharpest 4x5 lenses made. If I was shooting 4x5 handheld I think I would prefer using a Travelwide or converted Polaroid camera.

plywood
10-Feb-2016, 05:36
Well, I've been having trouble handholding the Travelwide 90 steady when using the included pinhole. Just can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. (And paper negatives at ISO 6)

Drew Bedo
11-Feb-2016, 05:55
Another $0.02 worth:

1. While pinhole images are in focus from here-to-eternity, they are not tack sharp.

2. I don't think any sensitive medium rated equivalent to ISO-6 will look sharp hand held with any equipment. And paper negatives are not as inherently sharp as other mediums. Tis was true in the Daguerreotype days too.

3. The TW with only the pin hole mounted is very light. This lack of mass will allow any physical tremor from the shooter's body to show up on film. This is true in firearms target shooting where rifles intended only for competition are more massive than any rifle intended for the field. The same applies to photography to some extent.

I carry my TW-90 (90/6.8 Angulon) in a shoulder bag and it is quick to get into action, but always look for something to lean against or brace it on . . .even a walking-stick/monopod.

plywood
11-Feb-2016, 06:47
Another $0.02 worth:

1. While pinhole images are in focus from here-to-eternity, they are not tack sharp.

2. I don't think any sensitive medium rated equivalent to ISO-6 will look sharp hand held with any equipment. And paper negatives are not as inherently sharp as other mediums. Tis was true in the Daguerreotype days too.

3. The TW with only the pin hole mounted is very light. This lack of mass will allow any physical tremor from the shooter's body to show up on film. This is true in firearms target shooting where rifles intended only for competition are more massive than any rifle intended for the field. The same applies to photography to some extent.

I carry my TW-90 (90/6.8 Angulon) in a shoulder bag and it is quick to get into action, but always look for something to lean against or brace it on . . .even a walking-stick/monopod.

My previous post was just a little (very little) joke Drew, of course I don't try handholding a TW90 with the pinhole. I really do shoot paper negatives though, with pinhole or a lens. Since I only contact print them the DOF and resolution requirements can be relaxed at bit.

barnacle
11-Feb-2016, 07:35
Well, I've been having trouble handholding the Travelwide 90 steady when using the included pinhole. Just can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. (And paper negatives at ISO 6)

I was wondering if I was the only person that got the joke...

Neil

Drew Bedo
12-Feb-2016, 10:09
OK guys, a nod is as good as a wink to a blind man. Sorry to have taken this too seriously. Yet this forum does get seriously meant questions from inexperienced new comers from time to time, that are way-ff base.

I choose to work from the n0-stupid-questions manual to avoid alienating new-comers to LF photography.

I, myself have a history of problems with speed bumps—but I am slowly getting over them. Before that I was addicted to Hoky-Poky—but now I have turned myself around.