Bird Photography with LF

[pdmoylan]

As far as I know, Eliot Porter was the first (?) and perhaps only photographer who used 4x5 color film to photograph birds at the nest (though he moved to Hasselblad and 35mm later for this effort). Hoskin and other early Hasselblad nature photographers found MF more amenable to this task, though most shot B+W.

In early 2000 I reached out to Nikon to discuss use of T Lenses to photograph birds at the nest using a blind in upper Canada (Ellesmere Island). I was told that Plasmats (W series) would be better suited for closeup work and determined that the 360mm W as well as the 450mm F9M were insufficient focal length for this effort in natural light). There is also the issue of working apertures which means F11 - F22 with some front tilt.

I never contacted Schneider regarding their 800mm tele to see if this might be usable.

Given the imprecise variables I abandoned the effort.

Were there other photographers who tried this? Any notable results?

Other lens options (Rodenstock?)?

[John Layton]

There was a guy (by the name of Carmichael?) who made wonderful color photos of hummingbirds with his hasselblad. But to do this with LF?

I would think that either working from a blind, set up very close to a nest, and attempting to be really quiet as you work, or perhaps rigging up a remote trigger (simple long pneumatic release would do) could work. Then the only issue would be to determine a point of focus (maybe watch the birds awhile first to establish this), and a decent balance of aperture and shutter speed to get at least a little depth while keeping things from getting too blurry from movement.

Another ingredient which could be added would be a powerful flash head...with the proviso that it first be tripped experimentally to see if the birds could become accustomed to it. I do believe that the Carmichael guy utilized flash with many of his Hasselblad/hummingbird photos - as he was also aiming to freeze the rapid wingbeats.

[BrianShaw]

Given the low “frame rate” of LF it might be a very challenging exercise in decisive moment. But the results ciujj look s be spectacular.

[pdmoylan]

I think you are right, flash would be necessary even if using 400 speed color negative film. Shutter speeds of 1/8 or 1/4 of a second are doable as long as there is no movement. Hit rate would be very low, but a good result would be astonishing.

[xkaes]

Working remotely is impossible due to sheet film. Working very close to the bird/nest is impossible due to building a large blind so close.

The only option is working in a blind as close as possible -- which would not be that close -- so you need a long lens with a long bellows. Since this really would not be "macro" work, you don't need a "macro" lens. Working at a distance, telephotos should be fine -- but still very difficult.

For the type of bird photography I imagine, you need to work remotely with a motor-drive or digital camera -- which means not LF.

[Drew Wiley]

I've done a bit of it just for fun with the 8x10. Takes a lot of patience because the birds have to get to the point of ignoring your presence with that big gear. Sometimes, especially with mammals instead, it gets difficult to get the shot due to their sheer curiosity, coming too close. No way to make a living, that's for sure. I'm not a "bird photographer" anyway, but if I do see something interesting in that respect when I'm out with my 6X7 tele setup, I'll hazard that kind of shot. Sheet film is getting too expensive to goof around with. I've had better luck shooting wild mustangs with 4X5 and long lenses; but they spook real easily too, so moving around needs to be done very cautiously.

[interneg]

Apparently no one on here has heard of Richard and Cherry Kearton - or Eric Hosking...

[pdmoylan]

I spelled Hosking’s name incorrectly, but I don’t recall his use of LF color, MF color occasionally, but mostly B+W. I’ll check out the Keartons.

[interneg]

I spelled Hosking’s name incorrectly, but I don’t recall his use of LF color, MF color occasionally, but mostly B+W. I’ll check out the Keartons.

He was using 1/4 plate Kodachrome & Ektachrome. There's a picture somewhere (Alamy?) of his hide setup with 1/4 plate camera & strobes. That said, he seems to have moved quite rapidly from LF to 35mm in about the same time period that he began to attract an international reputation.

[pdmoylan]

So with a 720-800mm lens we are in the 200mm+ range in 35mm terms. Enough to be 10-15 feet from the subjects. We are talking shorebirds and maybe a gyrfalcon at say 20-25 feet. Maybe Snowy Owls and perhaps Arctic Fox. All static, still, sitting on the nest. You can’t focus on any moving subject.

The blind would be set up so that it was low to the ground to avoid shadows on the subject. Refocusing becomes a regular issue as one can’t depend on a constant plane of focus given a moving subject. I remember an Audubon photographer using 35mm film who obtained really beautiful images of Knots and other Shorebirds at the nest. Stephen Krasseman? He used a 400 Nikon lens if I recall. Thought I could do the same with LF.

Not impossible but ridiculously difficult.

[interneg]

Here's the Hosking 1/4 plate (https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-eric-hosking-sits-frame-bird-hide-with-his-high-33144733.html) & serious strobe setup.

Hasselblad made a lot of kit for full-scale remote operation of their cameras (for more profitable purposes than deep-pocketed birders - despite Victor Hasselblad's own ornithological interests) too.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, Eliot did it with comparatively slow film and far more antiquated equipment, and did it especially well; so it must be feasible today too.

[xkaes]

Not impossible but ridiculously difficult.

That's what they tried to tell Shackleton.

[Tin Can]

PDM

just go Big Bertha

https://graflexcamera.tumblr.com/post/619319555005808640/big-bertha

[r.e.]

In early 2000 I reached out to Nikon to discuss use of T Lenses to photograph birds at the nest using a blind in upper Canada (Ellesmere Island).

It would be quite something to photograph at Ellesmere. For those who haven't heard of it, it's an island in northern Canada that's about the size of Great Britain. I have a photograph of Ellesmere's Grise Fiord that's been beckoning for years.

I suspect that the difficulty of what people are talking about in this thread depends on the species. Leaving aside the pandemic, I'm about 25km (15mi) from a large colony of Atlantic Puffins during their breeding season. While it would take patience, I don't think that photographing individual Puffins, more likely a pair given their behaviour, with a 4x5 camera would be terribly difficult. I'd want a long cable release. It's possible to get quite close to them (they're a lot more concerned about gulls and eagles than about people), but a pair of binoculars might be handy. That said, it would be a lot easier with a 100MP medium format digital camera.

If you want to try it, Ellesmere is one of the places that Puffins go to breed in the summer :)

225944

[pdmoylan]

R e, perhaps you could experiment with the puffins? :) a new frontier! I would be interested in your experience

Ellesmere has been a dream since my mid 20s. I am not sure I would have the “endurance” now to complete the objective.
Arctic Dreams by Barry Lopez kindled it.

The choice of camera (technikardan?), lens (a real issue) and putting together an appropriate blind would have to be considered. We’re talking color film, maybe Portra 400? Maybe nikkor 600T, 800 Schneider?, maybe an APO Ronar 600mm or 800 f9? Focal lengths any shorter would likely stress the birds.

[Drew Wiley]

I got invited to go to Ellesmere on one of my nephew's expeditions, but the conditions with routine strong winds sounded like a non-starter LF wise. He and a friend did the first ascent direct of the NW tower of Aasgard - the highest and most technically difficult wall climb in the arctic ever. But there were literally weeks involved just getting there, since climbing season has to avoid both the depths of winter and the summer thaw with its falling rocks. In other words, the normal speedy way over frozen sea ice via snowmobile, or via boat after full thaw, was not an option in that case, only steadily slogging over snow with backpacks over 100 lbs apiece. Spending three months in the same pair of boots, unable to remove them even sleeping didn't appeal to me much either, nor going that long without bathing. But that was to a location a hundred miles or so inland, and not a coastal bird spot. Expensive to get to, regardless. I'd rather spend that kind of money on a more realistic trip to Iceland, if the opportunity arose.

[domaz]

LF does a lot of things well. Bird photography is not really one of them. You might be able to do it with a telephoto style lens, but it's just an exercise in "can I do this" without a good reason for "why should I do this".

[r.e.]

R e, perhaps you could experiment with the puffins? :) a new frontier! I would be interested in your experience

Ellesmere has been a dream since my mid 20s. I am not sure I would have the “endurance” now to complete the objective.
Arctic Dreams by Barry Lopez kindled it.

The choice of camera (technikardan?), lens (a real issue) and putting together an appropriate blind would have to be considered. We’re talking color film, maybe Portra 400? Maybe nikkor 600T, 800 Schneider?, maybe an APO Ronar 600mm or 800 f9? Focal lengths any shorter would likely stress the birds.

Puffins aren't very worried about people. If you're patient, it's possible to get, say, 6m (20') or so from one. A blind might help, but I don't think that it's essential. I don't think that there's any need for a long lens. I'd start by setting up the camera with a fairly short lens and zone focus.* You could set up the camera by a burrow where a pair is breeding, but there are other possibilities. During breeding season, there are a lot of Puffins in a small area. The colonies are on rocky promontories right on the Atlantic Ocean, so there's no vegetation in the way. Then I'd move back with a long cable release or electronic trigger (I'll defer to others on the latter) and maybe a pair of binoculars.

I hope to be in the area this summer, and now you've got me thinking about trying it :) As the photo in post #15 shows (credit: Wikipedia, Charles Sharp), Puffins are very cool looking birds.

If you're interested in visiting Newfoundland, there's quite a lot of information available about the province's Puffin colonies. The one that I'm talking about is in Trinity Bay.

* I have a 600mm lens that I could try this with, but I don't think that it would be necessary to use it. I'd try something much shorter. A lens in the 90mm to 110mm range might work just fine.

[Alan Gales]

Penguins stay still for periods of time. I shot some at the zoo with a 35mm camera. You could use a Crown or Speed Graphic so you don't have to use a tripod.

[Lachlan 717]

You can hammer in a nail with a brick, i guess...

In this day of 50meg+ digital sensors with 400mm f2.8 lenses on remotely controlled pan/tilt electronic slide mounts that can be triggered from 100m away and produce amazing images even at ISO3200, why on earth would you flagillate with a LF brick?

[r.e.]

You can hammer in a nail with a brick, i guess...

In this day of 50meg+ digital sensors with 400mm f2.8 lenses on remotely controlled pan/tilt electronic slide mounts that can be triggered from 100m away and produce amazing images even at ISO3200, why on earth would you flagillate with a LF brick?

I raised the same issue in post #15, second last sentence, but more neutrally. The way that you've put the question it pretty much raises the question of whether there's any point to large format altogether :)

@pdmoylan has me thinking about trying what's been discussed next summer. Why? See post #19. Curiosity, a bit of a challenge and enjoyment.

[Drew Wiley]

Why on earth would someone lug 75K worth of fussy MF digital or videography gear to the beach and leave it subject to salt spray for an entire week just for 10 seconds of documentary bird footage? But that's what they do. Seen it. I admire their patience, and often their completed work too. Somebody recently asked me about getting into that, and while it's certainly not my cup of tea like still images, I politely informed them that it probably takes a decade's worth of hard work to make a one-hour wildlife documentary. That might have been an understatement. I dunno. And remote triggering won't help a bit with lenses hazing up every five minutes under those salt spray conditions, or a Peregrine or Goshawk dive-bombing your protruding expensive lens with outstretched talons. Someone still has to be there routinely cleaning them. Seen all that too. And frankly, some of us prefer real film.

And frankly, a 4X5 long lens kit probably weighs less, and is even more portable, than the kind of even 35mm digital gear and expensive teles I see birders lugging around - a sack of solid bricks instead of a brick hollow in the middle, with a featherweight bellows in between. There is nothing lightwt or ergonomic about a 400/2.8 SLR tele. I'm not against big heavy teles - I was lugging two P67's with two teles uphill in my pack yesterday - one of those a bulky 300/4 lens, plus my 8x10 tripod as ideal support. And I'd rather bag one great wildlife shot with that setup than a thousand digitally. Call it a challenge or whatever. Want to make basketball easier? - either lower the hoop of make it bigger diameter. But then who would pay to see an NBA game? We each make our own rules. I'd be shooting color 8x10 if it weren't so difficult to get the printing paper I need at the present time. I did recently retrieve and old 8X10 chrome closeup of an active ladybug swarm. That was at least as difficult to compose and time right as any LF bird shot I can think of.

[r.e.]

One bird that I think could easily be photographed with a 4x5 is a Canada Jay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_jay), also known as a Gray Jay. They are fearless around people, especially once they get to know you. I've had wild Canada Jays eating out of my hand. When I get to my summer home and start offering the jays bread on my back deck, they soon return every morning at the same time. It's like an appointment :)

From Wikipedia: "Canada jays adapt to human activity in their territories and are known to approach humans for food, inspiring a list of colloquial names including "lumberjack", "camp robber", and "venison-hawk"."

Wikipedia photo credit, Cephas:

225949

[Two23]

Puffins aren't very worried about people. If you're patient, it's possible to get, say, 6m (20') or so from one. .


Last time wife & I were in Scotland we visited the Hebrides. One of the islands had a large colony of puffins. I was using an 85mm on my Nikon to photo them when one landed on my leg and sat there.


I have a few photography books from early 1900s, and one of them had a three page article about a photographer using 8x10 to photo birds. He used a 12 inch lens on a camera set up remotely. He'd trip the shutter with a string.


Kent in SD

[abruzzi]

If I were to try (my mother's husband is a hardcore birder, so I may at some time) I'd probably pick a spot where the birds are likely to congregate, prefocus, preset exposure get a 40 foot air release bulb, chair, and a long book, and see how many chapters it takes before the birds venture back to that spot. Then when a bird ventures into the pre-framed pre-focused zone, snap. It seems like a long wait and a low probability of success, but as long as I have something good to read, I can wait for hours.

[Jody_S]

So I guess I'm the only one here who has actually tried?

In my first lf attempt, late 90s, nobody told me about bellows factor so my chromes were seriously underexposed, but I did get a normal-looking shot of one of the tiny owls that have no fear of man, using a crown graphic with a convertible 150 Symmar on Velvia, hand-held flash for fill.

There are a handful of birds that will ignore you and allow you to walk right up to them, in some cases actually touch them (I once touched a 3-toed woodpecker, he ignored me and climbed about an inch higher on his tree). Never mind the puffins, you can take shots of gannets with a wide angle if you're patient (and not inside a national park with watchful rangers). Small owls as I mentioned, I don't remember which ones, there are maybe a dozen bird species in North America that you could reasonably expect to get a shot of with a lf camera.

[j.e.simmons]

Porter’s setup

[Lachlan 717]

There is nothing lightwt or ergonomic about a 400/2.8 SLR tele.

Just over 3.5kg for camera and lens (Nikon z7 II and new 400mm f2.8 - 380mm long). Hand holdable with IBIS. Built in 1.4x TC. Extra battery?

Deardorff 8x10” (body only) 5.5kg. Without lens. Without tripod. Without dark slides. Without dark cloth. Without light meter.

I’ll take the former option every day for anything moving…

[Tin Can]

I find my Z fc with Z lenses work very well, got some off brand too that China sells very cheap, still playing with the 7.5 fisheye

my legacy Nikon 200-500 is best on gimbal becomes 750

However the birds are dying, the bugs already gone in this formally wet buggy area

frogs gone or hiding

[Drew Wiley]

Well, Lachlan, that Z setup does indeed weigh just as much as my Phillips 8x10 with a typical lens on it, and twice as much as my Ebony 4x5. Of course, add holders and so forth. But additional individual compact LF lenses weigh FAR less apiece than tube construction teles, a weight savings which more than offsets a few film holders. And who SERIOUSLY shoots handheld anyway? Even sports photographers prefer to have at least some kind of monopod support despite fancy stabilization. Of course, the only way to get serious depth of field control with a long lens is via view camera tilt movements anyway, though recent tilt/shift smaller format lenses allow a little bit of that with less extreme focal lengths.

Different ballgame indeed. But it's a valid challenge to the notion that recent digital innovations are inherently superior. Then there always that eighty square inches of photon capture versus and inch and a half. What did you spend, and what will it be worth in a decade when the necessary software upgrades get behind? Hundred year old view camera lenses are still in use, even some of the cameras themselves. But I'm not against innovation. Just look at that trend Dick Phillips started when he cut that Dorff weight nearly in half without sacrificing stability, probably even improving it.

Different styles. I've got wildlife tucked away in big complex scenes waiting to be discovered by the patient viewer as yet another reward beyond the general composition. A wildlife magazine cover photographer wants the critter instantly right in your face. Different goals, different tools. I loved the way Porter eventually ended up weaving the critters into his general tapestry of color and composition.
Not the postcard method, but heck, it sure justified the larger gear.

[pdmoylan]

My conceptualization of LF bird photography starts as an outdoor still life at the bird’s nest or otherwise in its natural environment. I prefer natural light and enough DOF to provide a sense that most everything as reasonably possible is in focus. To realize this motion of the bird would have to be nill assuming very small apertures and slow shutter speeds.

My own examples are of a Canada Goose on a raised nest in a wetlands sitting quietly and of a woodcock frozen on its nest under some red osier dogwood branches. In each case the best light would be at lower light which would further challenge obtaining the sharpest image.

In each case flash could be introduced as fill or as Porter chose (out of necessity) using highly powered flash to stop action when using extraordinarily slow film (Asa 12).

Provided one does not flush/spook the bird on the nest, they frequently will sit tight rarely moving until the mate arrives with food or to change guard.

Using multiple flashes as did Porter requires quite a bit of experimentation and calculation as to powers, location and distance from the subject. There is also a need to consider lighting foreground and background to give the impression of only one light source. Introduce flash color output and polarizing filters and you have a veritable nightmare or more rationally, a problem to solve optimally.

[pdmoylan]

Generally it takes much time, patience and very slow maneuvering to get in position for the photograph via a blind. Longer FL lenses would be key to avoiding flushing the bird from the nest. Think one or more hours to get in position unless the bird is already acclimated which doesn’t always happen.

[Alan Klein]

4 pages of posts and no large-format pictures of birds! Medium format anyone?

[pdmoylan]

Alan, my examples noted above were on 35mm Kodachrome 25. Those experiences and again Kraseman's work with Red Knots, Ruddy Turnstone and others in the Arctic Circle got me to consider LF.

These shorebirds (Arctic Tern is another possible subject) tend to nest in the open on bare or sparsely vegetated ground.

As I mentioned in my opening post, I am not aware of COLOR work using LF to photograph birds other than Porter's. Porter was independently well off and obsessed with the subject.

Looking at what he accomplished with color LF: birds, landscapes, and then cutting-edge printing techniques, he is clearly undervalued compared to Ansel.

Portra 400 opens doors to reconsider this type of work once again it seems to me.

I would try it locally if I could find an appropriate subject, but living in the mid-Atlantic region, there would be few opportunities, knowing species nesting habits here. Very few nesting scenarios would be conducive to this type of work.

A month in the Arctic circle is just not feasible without a team, deep budget, and strong personalities willing to accept the challenging environment.

[r.e.]

I would try it locally if I could find an appropriate subject, but living in the mid-Atlantic region, there would be few opportunities, knowing species nesting habits here. Very few nesting scenarios would be conducive to this type of work.

A month in the Arctic circle is just not feasible without a team, deep budget, and strong personalities willing to accept the challenging environment.

Porter did a lot of his work on an island that his family owned, and it appears still owns, in Maine :)

[r.e.]

Looks like Porter started making 4x5 colour photographs of birds, using very low speed Kodachrome, around about 1940. I'd like to see some original prints. Looking at copies on the internet, my impression is that the technical achievement tends to be outweighed by the consequences of using flash. I like the black and white photographs more, as well as a few of the colour photographs. For me, the photos of birds at their nest work less well than others.

Black & White

225986


Parula Warbler (Maine, 1968)

225987


Blue-Throated Hummingbird
This print is owned by New York's MoMA. It may have been part of a show held in 1943.

225988

Porter and his Linhof

225989

[pdmoylan]

30+ years ago I similarly photographed Least Tern, Piping Plover, Killdeer and Oystercatcher on nest using blinds on Kodachrome film with a 400mm lens in each case.

All but the Killdeer are protected species now. With reduction of fallow fields, Killdeer nesting is much less frequent.

[pdmoylan]

Imagine the amount of film Porter went through to get one decent image of a moving bird on Asa 12 Kodachrome? Bird movements are not predictable and you are limited to one shot per each movement. He would have prefocused and likely stopped down to F45 to make sure all was in sharp focus. Not sure if he used triggering beams as did Stephen Dalton with his then cutting edge color images of frogs and insects in motion (terrarium). Btw, Dalton used Hasselblad and Leica macro lenses for his work, not 4x5 as far as I know.

Compared to today’s tech, Porter’s color bird images seems less appealing.

[Dan Fromm]

Re the mentions of using flash. I used to do a lot of closeup work out of doors. Flowers, fungi, insects. KM (ISO 25), Nikon SLR with 1/250 sync speed, small flashes, 105/2.5 MicroNikkor (usually) at f/13.5 - f/22 set (as small as f/45 effective). I cried when Kodachrome went away and I had no alternative but ISO 100 E6 (sorry, I can't abide Fuji's Velveeta). In many situations overpowering ambient light with flash required much too small effective apertures with ISO 100.

I moved up to 2x3 because 35 mm was too limiting. I could get good detail in the subject but not enough of the setting or enough of the setting but not enough detail in the subject. I used 2x3 Graphics, soon gave up. Too much subject movement (wind, usually) between focus, compose and shoot. Focusing frame not practical.

I tried shooting hummingbirds on a feeder in Lost Maples State Park in Texas with a 2x3 Graphic. Yes, with flash, at distances of 6 - 10 feet. Same problems.

I'm now shooting fish in aquaria with a D810, same old 105/2.8 MicroNikkor (yes, manual focus) and flash (darkened room, Vivitar 283s turned way down). Sometimes I get a good in focus shot, sometimes not. Modern digicams that automatically do multiple exposures for stacking seem a better solution for what I do, also for birds with good stalking ("don't get a longer lens, get closer") and a suitably long AF lens seem a better solution to the problem.

[pdmoylan]

Looking at Ken Lee’s web page on APO Ronars, mtfs of longer FLs show low contrast at working aperture’s, though aberations such as distortion, astigmatism and curvature of field look good if these calculated mtfs can be realized in reality.

I go back to the very expensive Schneider 800mm f12 apo tele Xenar as a better choice perhaps provided it can be used in closeup work. Nikon did not recommend the T series for this kind of work, so…

Any other choices? Did Fuji offer something longer than 600mm?

[xkaes]

Here's what you need for close-up bird (20 feet) photography:

Tokina 800mm f8 in the front and Vivitar Solid CAT 800mm f11 in the rear:

225992

Why waste a sheet of 4x5" film with my Fujinon T 600mm f12?

[BrianShaw]

Golly… you practically need a hunting license to wield that rig!

[xkaes]

Can you image it in large format?

[Randy]

From a few years ago, out my dinning room window - shot this on 8X10 X-ray film, probably about ISO 50-80 - Packard shutter, so about 1/25th second - I think the lens was a Congo 360mm:

https://www.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/iscrhx1yl1jcxcb/8x10_hummer2.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/d7yfcegrggwlsnc/8x10_hummer1.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/wp1edke8a6dvlo6/8x10_hummer4.jpg?raw=1

[xkaes]

I'm impressed.

All I got this morning was the rear end of a bluejay.

But "Tomorrow is another day".

[David Schaller]

I remember that Randy, and I’m super-impressed!

[Tin Can]

WOW!

I never saw it!

This is a winner with documentation!

AAA+++






From a few years ago, out my dinning room window - shot this on 8X10 X-ray film, probably about ISO 50-80 - Packard shutter, so about 1/25th second - I think the lens was a Congo 360mm:

https://www.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/iscrhx1yl1jcxcb/8x10_hummer2.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/d7yfcegrggwlsnc/8x10_hummer1.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/wp1edke8a6dvlo6/8x10_hummer4.jpg?raw=1

[Alan Klein]

Randy. What a sweet birdie. And a great shot and setup. Alan.

[Tin Can]

All this birding drove me to watch "Birding in North America" The Great Courses by The National Geographic

Fascinating as all the Great Courses are

not many birds here in a major Flyway...

no bugs either

[interneg]

...APO Ronars, mtfs of longer FLs show low contrast at working aperture’s, though aberations such as distortion, astigmatism and curvature of field look good

Given that they were designed for process work, a very flat-field, low/ no aberrations and very even sharpness across the field matter far more if you are dealing with half-tone dots & litho film than contrast.

[Drew Wiley]

According to his own statements, Porter often preferred older uncoated lenses for bird photography itself, for sake of lower contrast. But more modern multicoated Artars, Apo Ronars etc are definitely NOT low contrast lenses. And you are quite mistaken about process lenses, especially the more expensive ones, which can be very contrasty, and work well for all kinds of subjects and all kinds of flms, not just flat copy work indoors. Some sheer misconceptions here.

Porter first got Stieglitz's attention for his black and white bird nest n' eggs photos. Later in life, his black and white prints were often made from the red color separation negative borrowed from his color dye transfer set, so involved relatively high contrast developed Super XX film, with its own look when repurposed in that manner.

[pdmoylan]

I recall a photo of Reinhardt Wolfe taking color images of NYC using a 1000mm APO Ronar with 2 tripods and lots of bellows extensions (Sinar I believe). The taking magnifications for this project would between 1:3 to 1:10, so the added extension might make this untenable unless using telephoto models.

The longer FL Ronar mtfs are markedly lower than wider FLs. Also there are two versions of certain Ronars, with 4 and 6 element versions and different open aperture’s.

I can’t see why an older process lens or even a more modern Ronar would be preferable to a more modern APO tele if for no other reason than shorter bellows extension. I’ve always been impressed with the color output quality of the APO symmars and tele xenars, a step above older models. The real question is how well do the tele xenars perform at these higher magnifications. If not well, what’s the next best choice?

Regarding Porter’s use of lower contrast lenses for this work, his choice may have more to do with the high contrast created by the power and location of the flashes. For this type of work my choice would be longer FL APO symmars or APO Sironars and using umbrellas to reduce harsh flash light effects. Modern plasmat designs provide very good closeup performance. One could also consider 210-300mm macro lenses to optimize resolution.

[r.e.]

From a few years ago, out my dinning room window - shot this on 8X10 X-ray film, probably about ISO 50-80 - Packard shutter, so about 1/25th second - I think the lens was a Congo 360mm:

https://www.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/iscrhx1yl1jcxcb/8x10_hummer2.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/d7yfcegrggwlsnc/8x10_hummer1.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/wp1edke8a6dvlo6/8x10_hummer4.jpg?raw=1

Put the photos back up on dropbox :)

How far away would you estimate you were from the hummingbird?

[pdmoylan]

Some prefer single coated lenses for B+W work, but they wouldn’t be my choice for color closeups.

[interneg]

I recall a photo of Reinhardt Wolfe taking color images of NYC using a 1000mm APO Ronar with 2 tripods and lots of bellows extensions (Sinar I believe). The taking magnifications for this project would between 1:3 to 1:10, so the added extension might make this untenable unless using telephoto models.

The longer FL Ronar mtfs are markedly lower than wider FLs. Also there are two versions of certain Ronars, with 4 and 6 element versions and different open aperture’s.

I can’t see why an older process lens or even a more modern Ronar would be preferable to a more modern APO tele if for no other reason than shorter bellows extension. I’ve always been impressed with the color output quality of the APO symmars and tele xenars, a step above older models. The real question is how well do the tele xenars perform at these higher magnifications. If not well, what’s the next best choice?

Regarding Porter’s use of lower contrast lenses for this work, his choice may have more to do with the high contrast created by the power and location of the flashes. For this type of work my choice would be longer FL APO symmars or APO Sironars and using umbrellas to reduce harsh flash light effects. Modern plasmat designs provide very good closeup performance. One could also consider 210-300mm macro lenses to optimize resolution.

There's a difference between a lens being high resolving and very sharp. And a contrasty origination medium like transparency (most of which aren't super sharp compared to neg materials - they rely on the contrast to seem sharp) may appear to make up some of the difference - and the use of strobe wasn't just to freeze action, it was to try & fill shadows.

As for Porter, the chapter he wrote in Lustrum Press' 'Landscape Theory' states that he used (amongst others) a 210mm (He calls it an "8"") Schneider Repro-Claron (same deal as an Apo-Ronar or Apo-Nikkor or Artar/R.D. Artar) and a convertible uncoated "7 1/4" Protar" (probably a 7 1/8" VIIa - which had 13 3/4" and 11 1/2" components that Porter reported using separately) on 4x5".

[Bernice Loui]

APO ronar (single and multi-coated), APO artar (single coated), APO nikkor (_?_ coated) are NOT low contrast lenses. They are not only very low geometric distortion, uber resolution, very low in optical aberrations, they are the most preferred choice for longer than normal focal lengths for image making needs at f16 to f45. These APO process lenses are excellent from infinity to 1:1 life size. Tele-photo design view camera lenses are typically designed and optimized for infinity.

Having owned-used the 600/800/1200mm ED Tele-Nikkor years ago, these APO process lenses have better optical performance than the Tele-Nikkor. What these tele lens designs offer is less camera/bellows extension required for a given lens focal length allowing the camera and support system to be more manageable which is NO small advantage.

The belief APO process lenses are only good for flat copy work and such is absolutely False. That said, still have a 360mm & 500mm f5.5 Tele Xenar and 500mm f9.5 Tele-Congo which meets every view camera need for lenses like this. Their image results produced are more than good enough for this image making need, cannot be convince the last iteration of Schneider APO Xenar can or results in worthy image quality improvements over these older lens designs or APO process lenses as there are SO many other factors involved in how the finished image turns out. Yes, the collection of APO process lenses goes from 4" APO artar to 780mm f14 APO ronar all in barrel, used with the Sinar Shutter on a Sinar camera made up as needed.

The most significant challenge and difficulty for using these uber long focal length lenses on any view camera is stability and rigidity of the outfit. Trying to achieve this in a windy outdoor setting is packed with extreme difficulties, or why using uber long lens focal lengths in a view camera is not ideal in too many ways.

So yes, BIG fan of APO process lenses after using so many view camera lenses over so many decades of doing view camera stuff.

As for Bird and similar images, the outfit of choice remains a Canon 300mm f2.8 or longer Canon "L" series lens (Image stabilization can and does remarkable image improvements that are very real) on 35mm film or digital as they offer very real advantages no uber long lens focal length lens on a view camera could ever offer. This is much about applying the proper tool for a given need.


Bernice



Looking at Ken Lee’s web page on APO Ronars, mtfs of longer FLs show low contrast at working aperture’s, though aberations such as distortion, astigmatism and curvature of field look good if these calculated mtfs can be realized in reality.

I go back to the very expensive Schneider 800mm f12 apo tele Xenar as a better choice perhaps provided it can be used in closeup work. Nikon did not recommend the T series for this kind of work, so…

Any other choices? Did Fuji offer something longer than 600mm?

[Eric Woodbury]

226081

[Hans Berkhout]

See http://www.keithlogan.com/Keith_Logan/Photography/Photography.html

scroll down to Birds, 72 images

[Randy]

Put the photos back up on dropbox :)
How far away would you estimate you were from the hummingbird?
Not sure what you mean about dropbox - did I mess something up in my posting procedure?

As for the distance - I believe about 2 ft, give or take.

[r.e.]

Not sure what you mean about dropbox - did I mess something up in my posting procedure?

As for the distance - I believe about 2 ft, give or take.

That photograph is very encouraging. Thanks for the distance estimate. As I've said earlier in this thread, I'm not convinced that long lenses are necessary.

When I wrote yesterday's post, the dropbox links were there, but the photographs weren't visible :)

[Alan Klein]

See http://www.keithlogan.com/Keith_Logan/Photography/Photography.html

scroll down to Birds, 72 images

These are great, so close. How did you do that without frightening the birds away?

[Tin Can]

Big wind coming

Many birds chirping

glad birds arrived

finally

[Hans Berkhout]

These are great, so close. How did you do that without frightening the birds away?

My apologies Alan, I should have been more clear: the photographer is Keith Logan. I saw his amazing work many years ago, in the 90's or so:

http://www.keithlogan.com/Keith_Logan/Photography/Photography.html