150xl on 8x10 80xl on 4x5

[adrian tyler]

evening all...

i have a (once in a lifetime) project that is just screaming out to use an 8x10, however it's a little tricky, tight architectural spaces that require a lot of movement.

i am currently conversed in using the 80xl on 4x5 which gives me (according to the specs here) 35cm of front rise in portrait orientation. how does this compare with the 44cm of portrait front rise on the 150xl on 8x10?

i could stitch using the 110xl (on 4x5) the 210xl looks like it could hold it's own in 8x10 against a 110xl on 4x5, right?

also, in some cases, if using a 4x5 i'd need to break out the 58xl on this project, an equivolent in 8x10 for this lens format is out of the question, right?

thanks as always

adrian

[tim atherton]

well - the 110xl is supposed to cover - just - no real rise or fall I think

[adrian tyler]

nice one tim, i hadn't twiged that...

[Ralph Barker]

I'd have a couple of questions, Adrian. First, how are you planning on using the negs or trannies? (e.g. are you planning on scanning?) Second, do you have a bag bellows on the 8x10? My double-extension Tachi, for example, doesn't allow for a bag bellows, and I've found bellows compression more of a limitation that the coverage of the 150mm SS XL.

[Henry Ambrose]

Hey Adrian,

I've shot my 110 on 8x10 and it barely covers but not really - meaning that there is an image all over the film but its not sharp in the corners. Test if you want but I don't think the 110 will help you.

My Kodak Master View will focus short lenses real well and allow some movement. I don't know about your camera. As Ralph wrote there might be bellows constriction.

I'd think about renting the 150 and use it all you can then switch off to your "little" 4x5 when the big gun won't work.

Anyway 44mm of rise is lots better than none. You might be surprised that just "making it work" will be fine.

[Brian Ellis]

"i am currently conversed in using the 80xl on 4x5 which gives me (according to the specs here) 35cm of front rise in portrait orientation. how does this compare with the 44cm of portrait front rise on the 150xl on 8x10?."

Quite a lot more rise with the 80xl and 4x5. With 4x5 film in portrait position 35cm of rise is about 28% of the film area. 44cm on 8x10 film is only about 17.6%.

[adrian tyler]

I'd have a couple of questions, Adrian. First, how are you planning on using the negs or trannies? (e.g. are you planning on scanning?) Second, do you have a bag bellows on the 8x10? My double-extension Tachi, for example, doesn't allow for a bag bellows, and I've found bellows compression more of a limitation that the coverage of the 150mm SS XL.

ralph, film i suppose is the big question, but i'll be working in natural light and would lean towards 400nc, bellows is another point, i have a sinar f 8x10 and the 150 isn't going to focus without a bag bellows.

thanks

adrian

[Ted Harris]

Adrian, the 110XL will focus well on some cameras but not all as noted above. It should be fine on your Sinar with a bag bellows. It works fine on a Phillips Compact II but not so well on a Wista double extension.

[tim atherton]

I'd forgotten the Nikkor 120mm SW which is also supposed to cover - just

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=25110

[Marco Annaratone]

Adrian, the 110XL will focus well on some cameras but not all as noted above. It should be fine on your Sinar with a bag bellows. It works fine on a Phillips Compact II but not so well on a Wista double extension.

Ted,

that is quite interesting. I also have a Phillips Compact II and I can't use the SS 72mm XL on it to shoot 6x10 because --- even tilting the camera downwards --- the front rails and bed show up in the frame big time. (Maybe with a very deeply recessed lenboard, say 2 in deep, who knows ...)

Anyway, I also have the 110 XL but never tried it on the Phillips. Are you telling me that you can use it 'straight', i.e., without tilting the camera forward? Are you using it with a recessed lens board?

Thanks!

Cheers

[Ole Tjugen]

"i am currently conversed in using the 80xl on 4x5 which gives me (according to the specs here) 35cm of front rise in portrait orientation. how does this compare with the 44cm of portrait front rise on the 150xl on 8x10?."

Quite a lot more rise with the 80xl and 4x5. With 4x5 film in portrait position 35cm of rise is about 28% of the film area. 44cm on 8x10 film is only about 17.6%.

Millimeters, not centimeters I assume?

44cm on 8x10" in portrait position is 176% of the film area. 44mm, however, is 17.6%. :)

[Brian Ellis]

Millimeters, not centimeters I assume?

44cm on 8x10" in portrait position is 176% of the film area. 44mm, however, is 17.6%. :)

Damn the metric system anyway. : - ) Yes, I meant mms not cms, thanks for the correction.