PDA

View Full Version : 8X10 depth of field. How bad is it?



Rory Roopnarine
16-Sep-2005, 16:27
Hello friends. I live far away from camera civilization and I can't rent cameras/lenses before I buy them. So far, mainly thanks to you all, things have gone smoothly. I have an Arca-Swiss 4x5 with a Fujinon A 240/f9 lens that are super. I recently put in an order for the Arca upgrade to 8x10 and I am very uncertain as to the depth of field limitations with 8x10. I like to take pictures usually with a foreground object (rock or shrub) and the horizon etc. off in the distance - all in focus. Is it possible to obtain this with, say, a 150mm lens in 8x10? I have scoured the net for examples of 8x10 photographs. Unfortunately, the majority of the photographs seem sort of 'perspectively flattened'. The 3D look that smaller formats offer, including 4x5, whereby, for example, the viewer can believe that he or she is in the midst of a raging stream or looking down on a rock and into the distance simultaneously seems lacking in many 8x10 photographs I've seen (on the net). What could cause this? Is it that the longer lenses used in 8x10 flattens the perspective somewhat? Or is it that it can be achieved and photographers just choose a different way of rendering a scene in 8x10? Or is it due to inherent depth of field limitations? I hope you can decipher what I'm getting at. Even if not, I suppose I will find out for myself in a few months (it takes a long time for that kit to arrive!); I'm just hoping it won't be all bad news. Thank you for taking the time to read/reply. Kind regards, Rory.

David A. Goldfarb
16-Sep-2005, 17:08
I don't see any reason why you couldn't do a near/far composition in 8x10" just like with 4x5" other than perhaps that an 8x10" kit is more to carry, so maybe landscape shooters going into the backcountry where you can get really close to something photogenic and have something really photogenic in the background are using smaller formats. Also wide lenses that cover 8x10" and have room for those kinds of movements are correspondingly large and expensive in general (though there are some old style wideangle designs that cover 8x10 and are quite compact, like the 120mm/f:14 Berthiot Perigraphe and the old style 168mm ser. iii Dagor).

Just checking to see what I have conveniently scanned from 8x10" on my website, how's this one (lower corners are a bit outside the circle of good definition perhaps due to excessive lens movements, but overall I'm not unhappy with it)--

http://www.echonyc.com/~goldfarb/photo/ainah.jpg

Michael Kadillak
16-Sep-2005, 17:57
8x10 is technically no more difficult to work with than 4x5. Yes, you have 4 times the ground glass to "evaluate" for critical focus and composition and yes, you use lenses at smaller apertures to utilize but the benefits are in the final result.

For a 150mm lens to cover 8x10 it must be a considerable wide angle and as a result, the hyperfocal distances are much smaller. I would recommend reviewing the Schneider depth of field data for the 8x10 format below:

http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/depth_of_field_tables/

Judicious use of camera movements is a must with any view camera and clearly 8x10 is not unique in this regard. Take good field notes and proof everything that you shoot to learn from your experiences. When things break down, ask questions so you can learn from your success and failures and by all means, have fun.

Cheers!

Eric Leppanen
16-Sep-2005, 18:00
I've been shooting 8x10 for about a year now, after shooting 4x5 for the last four years. I don't feel 8x10 shots are any "flatter" than their 4x5 brethren, but obviously the reduced depth of field poses challenges to composition.

Depth of field is a function of focal length, and you should be able to apply the same rules of thumb from 4x5 to 8x10. For example, on 4x5 I found that 150mm was (barely) the longest focal length with which I could achieve near-to-far (i.e., five feet to infinity) compositions without resort to movements. When using tilt, on 4x5 300mm was roughly the longest focal length with which I could achieve near-to-far compositions. The same relationships hold for 8x10, only a 150mm lens is a wide angle lens (normal on 4x5), and a 300mm lens is a normal lens (moderately long on 4x5). You can eek out a bit more DOF on 8x10 using extra small f-stops (f/64, etc.), but this really kicks up lens diffraction and reduces the “sparkle” of the image.

Having said all that, I've become more adept at using movements or making minor compositional changes to conform to the capabilities of the format. Thus I've had no great sense of compositional loss with 8x10 versus 4x5. The only limitation I can't get around is with compositions where no movements are possible: I'm hosed if I need a lens longer than 150mm. For these cases I revert to a smaller format.

The joy of 8x10 is, when used properly, you can make contact prints or large enlargements that have to be seen to be believed. I sometimes felt enlargements with 4x5 were not quite what I wanted them to be. Now I feel my work is fully realized without compromise using 8x10.

So Rory, at least based on my experience (such as it is!).....it only gets better!

Bill_1856
16-Sep-2005, 18:18
Hyperfocal distance on a 150mm 4x5 lens at f:16 and a 300mm 8x10 lens at f:32 are both about 46 feet.

Ken Lee
16-Sep-2005, 18:27
One of Ansel Adams' better-known images is Mt. Williamson from Manzanar, Sierra Nevada, Califorina. It's a good example of the classic "near-far" composition to which you refer.



http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/tech/aamw.jpg



According to http://www.hctc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/mtwilliamson.html (http://www.hctc.commnet.edu/artmuseum/anseladams/details/mtwilliamson.html" target="_blank), the photo was made with an 8x10.

Eric Leppanen
16-Sep-2005, 18:52
According to "The Making of 40 Photographs", Adams' Mt. Williamson photograph was shot on 8x10 with his Cooke Series XV lens, whch he describes as "a 12 1/4 inch triple convertible with components of 19 and 23 inch focal lengths." He does not explicitly say which focal length was used, but if we infer from his wording that he used the 12 1/4, it would be equivalent to a 311mm lens.

Leonard Evens
16-Sep-2005, 19:11
The usual formula used for the hyperfocal distance is the square of the focal length divided by the product of the f-number and the diameter of the circle of confusion. You should use twice the circle of confusion for 8 x 10 than for 4 x 5 because you only have to enlarge half as much. To maintain the same angle of view, you have to double the focal length. That produces a factor of 4 in the numerator and a factor of 2 in the dnominator. If you keep the same relative aperture, the net effect is to double the hyperfocal distance. So you get less depth of field for the same angle of view and the same aperture. In particular, taking focal lengths 150 and 300 and cocs of 0.1 and 0.2 mm respectively, and relative aperture f/16 in both cases, you get

150^2/(16 x 0.1) = 14.0625 meters ~ 46 feet for the 4 x 5 case

and

300^2/(16 x .2) = 28.125 meters ~ 92 feet for the 8 x 10 case.

One way to think about this is that you have to stop down two additional stops to get the same depth of field with 8 x 10 as you would with 4 x 5 if the angle of view is the same, i.e., the 8 x 10 focal length is twice the 4 x 5 focal length. But you can also stop down two additional stops without encountering serious diffraction. So the total range of usable f-stops is the same. The problem is that since everything is shifted by two stops to smaller apertures, you have to compensate by using significantly slower shutter speeds if you don't want to sacrifice depth of field. That can be a problem if there is signficant subject movement.

Rory Roopnarine
16-Sep-2005, 19:24
Well, I'm somewhat relieved. By the way, that's a glorious photo David G.

I'll certainly have to test the theory that you can get a shot like the Mt. Wiliamson photograph by Ansel Adams with a 300mm lens! Well, 240mm specifically, although I see that camera movements may be a bit tight with the Fujinon A. Speaking of that Cooke lens, I see Robert White, UK is offering an 'improved' version. Anybody here try it out? Are there disadvantages to using this type of lens? Humm...so many questions. Thank you everybody.

Ken Lee
16-Sep-2005, 19:58
The 240 A was probably not designed for 8x10, but I have used mine for both 5x7 and 8x10 - especially for close work. (At infinity, lenses will give their smallest circles of coverage; at closer distances, coverage improves).



There are other lenses which provide wider circles of coverage than the 240, and which were designed as "wide-field" lenses for 8x10. Some are shorter than 240, so on 8x10 you can get a rather wide angle of view if you like. See this guide (http://largeformatphotography.info/lenses/" target="_blank) for some examples. Many older lenses will do just as well for your needs.



I use a 450 Fujinon C as my 240A-equivalent in 8x10. It takes the same size filters: 52mm. Hard to beat that: C stands for compact.



Hey, it's nice to hear from Professor Evans - making difficult things, much easier to grasp ,as always !

bglick
16-Sep-2005, 23:01
I did a spread sheet demonstrating the relative sharpness of different formats at different focus distances..... the results where incredible...... there is no perfect format. A few rules of thumb I would like to mention....

1. Enlargement factor is a major consideration, which will often dictate just how much difference you will see on the final print...

2. 810 for very near to far shots is not an ideal format as the defocus issues are too great, coupled with the fact diffraction is already the limiting factor.

3. The only exception to the above is, when you can tilt the front to lay the plane of sharp focus right accross the subject.... and to do this, you need huge image circle lenses (not many will work with a large degree of tilt) and you need a cooperative subject, such as a subject that is flat, such as grass field, or anything of equal height in the foreground.

4. Where does 8x10 excel? Infinity shots are untouchable by any format, specially when shot at f11 or f16.

5. The obvious cons exist..... huge size camera, film holders, lenses, expense, hard to find affordable high end scanners to scan film this large..

Most all (80%) of these shots are 8x10....but, without enlargements show, shortfalls are disguised.

www.pbase.com/bglick

Bill

robert_4927
17-Sep-2005, 09:21
Now what landscape photographer ever shoots at f11 or f16? Try f45 or f64...I might focus at f11 but I can't recall ever exposing a landscape that wide open.I might use f11 in studio with the old Verito to achieve soft focus. And as far as "cons" go, I'm sure you mean size and weight of the cameras and film holders. (As Grandpa use to say, " just stay on the porch" Why would I need a scanner? I suggest you take a look at some 16x20 or 20x24 contact prints made from in-camera negatives. If the weight and size is an issue then you don't want to enter the world of ULF. But to conduct tests at f11 and f16 don't even bring you into the ballpark as far as LF landscape photography is concerned. Now I might be old school but if I want a larger print I'll buy a bigger camera because I can't even spell enlargr.

bglick
17-Sep-2005, 12:43
> Now what landscape photographer ever shoots at f11 or f16? Try f45 or f64...I might focus at f11 but I can't recall ever exposing a landscape that wide open.

This landscape photographer shoots at f16 all the time with 8x10, as this landscape photograher limits the scenes shot with 8x10, so as they are NOT allowing diffraction to be the limiting factor. (Primarly scenes with no close subjects) I also try to use the f stop in which the lens was optimized for, so sometimes I will go to f22, But the Super Symar 150 XL at f16 still produces the best results on 8x10 in my opinion. I always use the ND center filter.

> Why would I need a scanner?

Some of us scan film before making prints, it's quite common today, as the images gain all the benefits of digital corrections. It's not mandatory, I was just raising the point.

> I suggest you take a look at some 16x20 or 20x24 contact prints made from in-camera negatives.

How does one make contact prints at these sizes starting with 8x10 film....if the original film is laid on top of the new film, the result would be 1:1, or a 8x10 contact print? Possibly you were referring to ULF contact prints.....

I have compared "true" contact prints from 8x10 to 20x24 vs. scanned film shot with 8x10 and sometimes 4x5. The contact prints were made with older LF lenses.... whereas the scanned shots all avoided diffraction limited f stops.... and so far, never once have I seen the scanned and printed images not beat the contact images, on a few occasions they match the contact prints.

Our esteemed contributor Chris Perez, has done the photographic community a great service by demonstrating on his web site just how remarkable the "sharpness" variable is amongst different lenses and formats. Thank you again Chris for all this diligent work and sharing it with us all, its most appreciated.

Large contact prints, like the 20x24 cameras or even 16x20 use very long fl lenses, usually quite old and the combination of older less sharp optics combined with the huge diffraction losses encountered, well it clearly limits the potential. Of course, I am mainly referring to sharpness and not other possible desireable characteristic of contact ULF prints.

> But to conduct tests at f11 and f16 don't even bring you into the ballpark as far as LF landscape photography is concerned.

OK, I am not conducting tests at f11 and 16, I do my normal 8x10 landscape photograhy at these f stops! And I will continue to, as it produces the results most everyone I have surveyed find the most appealing... Sure, I pay a price for this, many times I have to put the 8x10 camera to rest and use 6x9 or 4x5 instead as that is what the scene calls for. I work under the philosphy, use the format that best suits a scene you find desireable to record on film, hence why my 6x9, 4x5 and 8x10 stand ready at all times.....

Bill

Michael Kadillak
17-Sep-2005, 13:45
A good rule of thumb in the field is to only stop down as much as necessary. With 8x10 that means that f16 is not that abnormal an f stop selection given the right set of circumstances and it does not have to always be just an "infinity" photograph.

I must say that I do not even give the weight a second thought as the expansive ground glass is a marvel to work with and it is well worth the effort. With modern glass like the 450 M Nikon, the Schneider 305 and the 600mm Fuji you have massive coverage well beyond the movements on 8x10.

Have fun!

robert_4927
17-Sep-2005, 13:57
Bill , Of course I meant 16x20 and 20x24 contact prints shot with a 16x20 and a 20x24 camera. In 1932 there was a group formed by a few decent photographers called the f64 club. Now a couple of these hacks had names like Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham just to name a few. The reason they called it this was the fact that they favored making photographs in which everything was sharp. Now of course you have less lens diffraction at f16 than at f64 but you also have no depth of field. The adverse effects of light diffraction does not become an issue in a contact print until you start reaching f stops in the f128 range. (and then not always depending on the lens) The poster here asked how to achieve a near and far composition much like Adams' Mt Williamson. Suppose you tell him how to do that at f16 and achieve the depth of field needed for such a composition. I know nothing about photoshop so maybe you can increase depth of field in there. But I do know how to achieve it in the camera and it is not at f16. As far as older LF optics go I have some 8x20 images shot at f64 with a 30" red dot artar and a 355 g-claron that are so sharp they'll cut you like a straight razor. And guess what the images are as sharp in the foreground as they are in the background, avoiding what Rory is talking about that" flattened perspective". Now I'm sure you are well schooled in light diffraction. So I'm sure you will agree that no matter what lens you use adverse effects of light diffraction will increase anytime you stop down. But not to the point where you sacrifice image sharpness and definition to achieve the desired depth of field. Now you say that everyone you surveyed finds your f16 shots more appealing than say Ansels shots at f64. I would love to see some of this amazing work. Could you post some picks for us? I might be old school but I will give credit where credit is due. So if your images ( or technique) blow Ansels away I promise I'll start shooting all my landscapes at f16.

bglick
17-Sep-2005, 15:14
Robert......

> Bill , Of course I meant 16x20 and 20x24 contact prints shot with a 16x20 and a 20x24 camera. In 1932 there was a group formed by a few decent photographers called the f64 club. Now a couple of these hacks had names like Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Imogen Cunningham just to name a few.

Sure, i remember them.......

> The reason they called it this was the fact that they favored making photographs in which everything was sharp. Now of course you have less lens diffraction at f16 than at f64 but you also have no depth of field.

hence why I clearly defined the fact I only use 810 format when the scene allows me to....now if I only had one format camera with me (810), and no other formats, i would feel differently, as I would hate to pass on some scenes, so I would sacrifice on my sharpness criteria to capture the scene.

> The adverse effects of light diffraction does not become an issue in a contact print until you start reaching f stops in the f128 range. (and then not always depending on the lens)

Well, this is a relative issue.... as its all according to how much resolution the printing media can hold. Ctein in his first book demonstrated through "people testing" that added resolution in prints past 5 lp/mm, although can not be "resolved" as in B&W line patterns, they can be clearly be discerned and put into order of sharpness, all the way up to 30 lp/mm. I am not suggesting there is readily available media to resolve 30 lp/mm, other than film. But there is many high resolving papers and printing processes wheareas we can see these differences.

> The poster here asked how to achieve a near and far composition much like Adams' Mt Williamson. Suppose you tell him how to do that at f16 and achieve the depth of field needed for such a composition.

I understand, but I was responding to your points.....

> As far as older LF optics go I have some 8x20 images shot at f64 with a 30" red dot artar and a 355 g-claron that are so sharp they'll cut you like a straight razor.

Again, this is relative, it has to be compared to something else...... I have some of the sharpest LF lenses made, and even they don't hold a candle to mamiya 7 lenses.... the differences are huge. And as Chris's tests have demonstrated, most of the time, technology continues to trump yesteryears lens designs. But I do agree, even a lower quality optic that covers a massive format, and is shot without too much diffraction, focussed at some point where defocus of the near/far is not extreme, then it can outperform modern optics of smaller formats at equal final print sizes. But these cases are more the exception to the rule..... If I had it my way, I would only shoot infinity scenes with a 20x24 camera with a decent lens, at f11.... nothing would touch the sharpness. But not enough of those scenes to warrant the trouble, and there is no lenses that cover that format which are anywhere near sharp vs. todays more modern opics.

An interesting thing I learned in my years studying LF.... the ULF cameras of yesteryear were quite often using print media as the film, as the 16x20 was the final print size.... this was a near perfect system in its day. It was not till film was developed, or better said, till film became very high resolving, that the photographic community could take advantage of the benefits of shorter fl lenses....this continues today, all the way down to digital sensors that have 9mm diaganols! Therefore, high resolving film / digital sensors enable smaller format sizes, which enables the use and benefits from all the attributes of shorter fl lenses. So today, ULF benefits are very few vs. yesteryear. Soon, 810 wil fall into ULF category!

> And guess what the images are as sharp in the foreground as they are in the background,

It may appear this way, as many variables such as the viewers eyesight, magnification, etc. But if you focus somewhere between the near and far, the exact focus point MUST be sharper than the near / far...by a lot! If not, you have defied optics principles.

> So I'm sure you will agree that no matter what lens you use adverse effects of light diffraction will increase anytime you stop down. But not to the point where you sacrifice image sharpness and definition to achieve the desired depth of field.

Again, too many variables to comment.... how much DOF, how large of a format, what perspective is the lens, WA, Normal, Long, etc... this all effects whether anything was "sacrificed" , or possibly you have sacrificed too much.

> Now you say that everyone you surveyed finds your f16 shots more appealing than say Ansels shots at f64.

Did I say I compared my shots with Ansels? I don't think so?

> I would love to see some of this amazing work. Could you post some picks for us?

I posted the link above to some of my shots, most all of them are 8x10.....but the differences you would be looking for is not possible viewing small images on a PC monitor. But have a look and thanks for the kind words...

> I might be old school but I will give credit where credit is due. So if your images ( or technique) blow Ansels away I promise I'll start shooting all my landscapes at f16.

It's nice to see you are open minded! I think Mike summed up the response to this best... as a rule of thumb, you shoot as wide as the scene will permit, it's that simple, the wider atp. you shoot (within the constraints of near/far) the sharper the image, considering the same format. Sometimes this is not possible if you prefer not to have a blurred foreground / background, so you stop down and gain near / far sharpness at the expense of sharpness at the point of exact focus.....no free lunch, specially in LF photography, UNLESS you are shooting brick walls or infinity scenes!

robert_4927
17-Sep-2005, 16:04
Bill , Have a look at William Corey's web site. These images were shot with an old Kodak process lens and a 8x20 Korona using f90 and f128. You may find his work interesting to you.

Michael Kadillak
17-Sep-2005, 16:38
Robert:

I have been up to Boulder, Colorado and met with William Corey's (purchased an enlarger from him - great guy) and had a first chance opportunity to discuss and view his color 8x20 work in person. Yes, there are times when a particular photograph will NEED to be shot at F90, but not regularly. It all depends upon the visualization he desires to put on film and he is a master photographer in this regard. You can look over the online portfolio and tell which ones these would be. But remember that he is shooting 8x20 and F90 + on this format is not as optically degraded as it would be on 8x10. For the purposes of this discussion, lets not compare apples to oranges.

Cheers!

bglick
17-Sep-2005, 16:52
Thank you Mike......

And also, resolution is NOT the only effect people pursue, although it is quite common amongst LF shooters. Sometimes they desire the blurred effect vs. the sharp focus point, sometimes they desire the excellent color tonality of larger film as its not pushed as far during enlargements...in the case of Mr. Corey, I have communicated with him in the past, and one of the most compelling features of his big camera is the fact he loves the huge ground glass as an aid to composition. These are just some of the variables that make people choose certain formats, lenses, etc. With so many variables, it becomes obvious how generalized statements become misconstrued through out many of these threads. Hence why this forum is such a bounty of knowledge to help people decipher through the maze....

In my case, I am driven by the final print and max. amount of sharpness that can be delivered at a given print size....then I work backwards from there. But that's my idea of photography, others differ in what they desire, that is the beauty of the "artistic expression" aspect of photography.

Rory Roopnarine
17-Sep-2005, 21:31
When the 8x10 arrives in a few months I will certainly see for myself what is possible. Bill is right about not being able to fully appreciate the merits of the medium by looking at photographs on the net. Nevertheless, Bill's photos are a source of inspiration along with those of Lars Åke Vinberg at 8x10.se. If I may be so bold, I'd really like to see some more photos from Ken and Michael!

Thank you everybody for your input and the education. I will certainly let you know how it turns out!

robert_4927
18-Sep-2005, 05:39
Michael, I speak with William often and will be shooting with him in the near future. So I'll quote him. " I like to keep it simple; one camera, one lens, and one fstop ( I kind of like f128). I don't want to think out there, only feel." Now I'm sure some of his portriat work may have been shot at f16 but I'll ask him how many of his landscapes were shot at f16. I think I already know the answer but I'll ask anyway. Please explain to me how optical degradation changes by just removing a lens from an 8x20 camera to an 8x10. The lens' image circle would be the same. The lens doesn't know what camera it is on. I have shot with my 16 1/2" dagor on both my 8x10 and 8x20 using the same f64 and I don't see this optical degradation you are talking about. If anything there is more bokeh ( for lack of a better word) on the 8x20 images out near the edges than on the 8x10 because I'm using more of the image circle. I'm talking about lens resolution and depth of field here. I hardly consider that comparing apples to oranges. Bill I agree max resolution is not always desired . I shoot a lot of portraits with an old Verito. So at times I'm trying to achieve soft focus. But Rory asked how to achieve that near and far composition and no one has explained to him yet how to achieve this at f16. I'm not trying to be the devils advocate here . I think it is interesting and fascinating the differences in how many of us work. My methods are not ground in stone so I'm willing to try new ways. My comments are based on how I work and what works for me. In no way are they the only way. Such is the beauty of "artistic expression"

Ken Lee
18-Sep-2005, 06:32
All this talk of bokeh and depth of field has prompted me to go out and make some non-f/64 images this morning. We'll see how they turn out.

Michael Kadillak
18-Sep-2005, 06:43
Robert:

Page 147 of the 7th edition of Stroebel's View Camera Technique on the subject of "Circle of Confusion".

Cheers!

bglick
18-Sep-2005, 12:54
Robert...

> Please explain to me how optical degradation changes by just removing a lens from an 8x20 camera to an 8x10. The lens' image circle would be the same. The lens doesn't know what camera it is on.

Although you asked Mike this, I will offer my opinion.... of course you are right above.... however, Mike is emphazing not mixing apples and oranges.... meaning, if you switch from a larger format to a smaller format, and have the same composure, then obviously have a shorter fl lens. Other than the obvious, which is the outer parts of any image circle are always being less sharp then the sweet cetner area, the results would be similar, but the composition different, specially in the case you described whereas not only did the format change but so did the aspect ratio.

I understand you are not trying to be confrontational, and these forums are for airing out opinions, questions and styles, which is what we are doing. As for Rory's question, I felt it was answered by previous posters..... but to express my opinion on his main question...

> I like to take pictures usually with a foreground object (rock or shrub) and the horizon etc. off in the distance - all in focus.

Well, this is similar to wanting a super high performance car that gets 50 miles per gallon of gas! Some basic rules that are fixed....

1. Double format size = double fl. Longer fl can never add sharpness to an image (assuming lenses of equal optical performance) Longer fl lenses are much more vulnerable to camera shake and are inheriently less sharp (as a general rule). But you gain 2x the film size, assuming that extra gain in sharpness is not compromised by........

2. Double fl = double the f stop for same DOF = double the diffraction losses. Or better said, if in the zone which most LF lenses are used, you loose half the resolution in the process of holding onto the same DOF. In reality, this number is actually much worse, as it's not just the diffraction limited losses, its the application of 1/R to the lower resolving diffraction lens, not good if sharpness is your goal.

3. Double the f stop = 2 stop loss of shutterspeed. This is a no brainer... longer exposure times, more potential for subject blur, and in low light, possible film reciprocity issues.

So in general, if gaining a lot of DOF is your goal, going up in format size is not always advantageous if sharpness is your priority. Now, there is only one caveat, and that is, if the lens can be tilted. However, this only applies, as Jim Galvin explained in a previous thread, when the subject is a plane itself, such as a lake, flat grass, a flat mountain, etc. If you never saw the cone of focus for a tilted lens, be sure to view this picture on Merklingers site as it clearly shows the limitations and best applications for lens tilt. But keep in mind, the longer the fl lens, the more front tilt is required, which means the larger image circle which is required..... to the point where not many lenses have image circles big enough to chase the image crawling up the ground glass. So there is a "window" of potential gain in a short range of fl's, assuming you have the right lenses and the subject's geometric profile is cooperative.

If it was me, and I desired to record extreme near / far scenes, and wanted to shoot LF.... I would only shoot 6x9 on a view camera, or possibly 4x5, based on just how extreme the DOF is. This assumes, as your post stated, that sharpness is your most important criteria. With 4x5 and 6x9 you will have extreme DOF (vs. 810) and extreme tilt capabilities vs. 8x10. By violating these basic principles, sometimes your result is, just lugging heavier gear with no benefits, vs. carrying more types of gear of a smaller format, such as more lenses, film types, film holders, etc etc.

What many of us learn through the years, that bigger is not always better, this is a classic example of such. However, if you pursue this quest, then try tilting the scales in your favor and stick with very short fl lenses on the 8x10, such as the 150mm you mention, dead still subjects, (other than the times you want dreamy waterfalls), bright daylight, cooperative subject geometry, non-extreme near/far, and accurate focus technique. If you adhere to these principles and learn what types of scenes are NOT acceptable, you will have adapted a syle that works around your gear and your desired end result. Many people do this, as they only carry one camera.

As for the actual sharpness recorded.....before you possibly make the mistake like many of us, who get burried in math, only later to find out most of the DOF math is useless.... simply take your lenses and your formats and shoot some test shots of the same type scenes, with all things being equal and comapre the same size final prints...if you see no benefit at the size you desire to print out, then it's simply a "weight lifting" program you are adding to your photography :-) On the other hand, if you see huge gains in the final print, then you will feel justified lugging all this heavy stuff around. Much of this depends on how big you want the final prints to be. I don't know if money is an issue, but if it is, lots of issues with 810, cost is more than double for film and processing, and lots more for scanning. bracketing?

Which brings up, one other possible benefit for 8x10. If you plan to scan, and only use lower end flat beds, such as Epson 4990, then in my opinion, you will surely gain from the larger format, as the more magnified a subject, the easier it is to grab the detail from a scanner, specially the low end scanners.....it essential raises the scannner efficiency. So this may be something you want to consider also. And of course, how significant the money issue is, vs. how many exposures do you make a year. I hope this addresses your question better.... We applaud your courage!

robert_4927
18-Sep-2005, 19:16
Bill , Maybe I wasn't clear on how I work. I shoot 8x10, 8x20 and 14x17. I haven't used an enlarger in probably 5 yr. now so all my work is contact prints. I mainly print in pt/pd. So dealing with long exposures and film reciprocity is not an issue, I deal with it all the time. I don't get buried in the math because I use only a couple of lenses that I have used for years and know exactly how they react to almost any situation. My lenses are older optics because they seem to achieve the vision I want. These are a 14" blue dot Trigor, a 16 1/2" Dagor, a 30" red dot Artar and at times a 14 1/2" Verito in the studio. I find that the worlds sharpest lenses don't meet my requirements or my vision and these older optics seem to have a quality that I have not yet found in the newer optics. I have never claimed to be an optics expert I just know what works best for me. I don't know the first thing about photoshop or high end scanners because I don't need either . I love working with in camera negatives and printing in a hand coated platinum palladium medium. I have spent many years perfecting my process and thousands of hours and thousands of dollars but it is what best allows me to express myself and it is what I find the most gratifying. I haven't bracketed since I put the 35mm and the old Rolleiflex on the shelf. I probably shoot less negatives now than I ever have. I spend hours and at times days on one composition and my successful images seem to be more consistent in the past few years than they have ever been. I'll borrow a phrase from my friend William "I want to feel when I work , not think" So any technical knowledge about lens resolution or light diffraction never comes to mind. Sure I have read Leslie Stroebel's book front to back probably a couple of times. It is very informative and I learned alot from Leslie's text. But I know my equipment well enough and how to use it to achieve my vision that Stoebel's book is now a better paper weight than anything. I spend my time composing more than anything and the rest printing in what many think is a very difficult medium. To avoid starting a digital vs. analog debate let me just say this. If I need to use photoshop to repair or improve my in-camera image I feel, and it's only my opinion, that I have failed as a photographic artist. Now in no way would I recommend my methods to anyone. Photoshop is great for many people. It allows almost anyone with good computer skills the ability to produce very nice images and that is great for photography in general. It is just not gratifiying to me as an artist or a photographer. I love the challenge of producing excellent in-camera negatives without the recourse of knowing that if they are not perfect shoot it anyway and I can fix it in photoshop. I spent a couple of years with the one camera one lens and it did teach me a lot and I found during this time when you learn your camera and your lens there are not many scenes that are not acceptable. You can find a composition in just about any situation and format has nothing to do with it. I have been fortunate to have a master printer and a contributing author to Dick Arentz's book on pt/pd printing as a mentor over the past few years . My printing skills over the years has improved to the point where he has asked me to assist him in the printing of his new series. This may give you a little better understanding of how I work. Like I said, It's not for everyone

robert_4927
18-Sep-2005, 21:27
Bill, I think where we may be misunderstanding each other is what is accepatable to the eye. Take Adam's image of Mt. Williamson. Technically you are right on about resolution. But Rory asked how to achieve the near and far composition. Adams print for one is a contact print so there is no enlarging factor to consider when printing. Now of course if you look close enough you'll see that the far is no where near as sharp as the near. But is is more than sharp enough to be acceptable to the eye. He could not have achieved this at f16 and that is the point I was trying to make. In response to Mike's comment and reference to the Stroebel Bible. Of course the aspect ration changes when you change formats but that doesn't degrade the optics in the least. I love this forum just for the fact that it does refresh a lot of what I never use or even think about when I'm actually being creative and producing images.

bglick
18-Sep-2005, 22:56
Robert

> Bill , Maybe I wasn't clear on how I work.

My comments were only generalized, nothing relating your style.....

> I find that the worlds sharpest lenses don't meet my requirements or my vision and these older optics seem to have a quality that I have not yet found in the newer optics.

You have reached LF Nirvana! Congrats!

> I'll borrow a phrase from my friend William "I want to feel when I work , not think"

Although these "catch phrases" sure sound eloquent, however, there rarely, if ever, can be a disadvantage of having solid knowledge of the equipment you are working with. The process of shooting LF requires lots of thinking, unless your firing a simple shot at infinity. Lack of knowledge whether optics, gear usage, film characteristics, exposure methods, etc. is the easiest way to destroy the vision one desires to record. Having an idea of what you want is only part of the equation, knowing how to accomplish such comes from knowledge and experience, not from "feeling it". I only mention this as many newbies read these posts and I hate to see people be mislead by these types of statements.

> So any technical knowledge about lens resolution or light diffraction never comes to mind.

Without all these basic fundamental principles of photography, I would never have the ability to accomplish my desired goals.... the results would never happen from "feeling the camera" ... in your case, you have been using the same gear for so long, you have seen practically all the results that are possible with many different scenarios, so inheriently, you know what to do, and what not to do. For most others, who use lots of different gear through the years, different film, etc., this is not always possible. But I appluad your system that you perfected and enjoy.

> If I need to use photoshop to repair or improve my in-camera image I feel, and it's only my opinion, that I have failed as a photographic artist. Now in no way would I recommend my methods to anyone.

i feel this digital vs. darkroom issue seems to go from one huge extreme to another. Would you say you failed as an artist if a tiny bit of lens flare hit the film, which occured from the time you looked through the gg, till the time you made the exposure? I wouldn't call that failing. What if the film had a scratch from the manufacturer, and you recorded a fabulous image on it, but it will ruin a contact print, is this the artist failing? I could go on, but its sensless.... yes there is digital extremist, but there is also digital purist that perfer to make an image match the scene they saw, vs. the method the film/darkroom decided to record and print it. So in my view, quite often, the pure darkroom person is NOT the purist, as he presents images differently than the scene appeared. In this case, which artist is failing? Get my drift? It seems darkroom purist tend to think all digital photographers create totaly fake scenes, as the software surely has this power, but it does not have to be used like this.... a hammer can be used as a weapon, or it can put a nail in the wall - to hang art work, it's all according to how you use it.



> This may give you a little better understanding of how I work. Like I said, It's not for everyone

Again, I applaud your accomplishments and someday would love to see some of your work, and that is NOT being saracastic..... there is not many people making 20x24 contact prints in this day of age and I have only seen a few in my time.



> Adams print for one is a contact print so there is no enlarging factor to consider when printing. Now of course if you look close enough you'll see that the far is no where near as sharp as the near. But is is more than sharp enough to be acceptable to the eye.

All this is a mute point, as its impossible to draw these conclusions from lookin at a screen shot of a LF image.... more importantly, the answer usually lies in what the final print size is, and what the viewing distance will be....only then, can one see if near/far sharpness met the desired objective. hence why I suggested or Rory to test with his own gear and own printing methods at the desired size prints he plans to make.

> He could not have achieved this at f16 and that is the point I was trying to make.

And i never disputed this.... I clearly explained this in my previous post. With extreme DOF, if you desire high min standards for near and far sharpness, you compromise the rest of the image by stopping down and allowing diffraction to become the limiting factor throughout the entire composition. Nothing wrong with that, just mentioning the facts, simple as that.... or go to a smaller format!

robert_4927
19-Sep-2005, 03:25
Bill , To avoid being misunderstood by what I mean by" feeling it" allow me to explain. After twenty years behind the same camera and the same lens the basic fundamentals you are refering to become second nature. Things like lighting direction and the need to shade the lens to avoid flare are noticed before the camera ever gets to the tripod. No way am I suggesting that you need no knowledge to work in LF or ULF. By "feeling it" has nothing to do with "feeling the camera". By feeling it I'm refering to the feeling the composition. Like I said previously I know my lenses and my camera well enough and how they perform in about every situation. Do I sit there and think about diffraction-limited resolution when I'm composing or lines/mm at such and such a viewing distance? Of course not! After a few thousand negatives with the same camera, same lens, and same film I pretty much know how and what I'm composing and how to transfer that to the film. The fundamentals are second nature. I "feel" the composition not the camera.

robert_4927
19-Sep-2005, 03:42
Bill, As far as that scratch on that negative goes . Some of us still know how to use a spotting brush and water color pigments and soft lead pencils with amazing success. Like I said , photoshop is great it is just not for me. Keep up the great work and please continue to be such a great source of information for the younger photographers to which you refered. I wish I would have had a forum like this when I first started in photography. It would have helped with the learning curve tremendously. good light

robert_4927
19-Sep-2005, 04:29
I am currently working on a web site. I have finally somewhat conformed to modern day technology and a gallery of my work will be posted soon (I hope). I may have to call in some help on this one. I may have to break down and buy a cheap scanner to be able to change the images on the site from time to time. So I've got as far as purchasing a domain and that's at least a start for me. I look forward to sharing my work with others in the near future.