PDA

View Full Version : Format Sizes...I'm going absolutely Crazy...HELP!!!!



audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 03:38
Ok...so it's 2:06am and no, I do not party (heck, I'm still young and uhh...)...well, I do not party and really, all night, all day, many weeks now, I have run through puzzles and mazes (sp), and traps, and failures, and CONFUSION! I now officially know I am crazy, but not in a bad way, grant everyone here on this forum that are all so extremely friendly and helpful. First off, thanks to all that have answered my threads/posts, and have simply been fantastic. I have to say that this group is about as sophisticated, spot on, creative, interesting, very kind, and what more can I say. I'm just happy that this forum exists because those days over on deja threads or other boards, it's arguments or crude sarcastic comments in some attempt to be uh smart? I'm not sure what it is exactly, but it's beyond my comprehension that people have to attempt to be "mindfully" smart with rude remarks. In fact, I have actually debated and been in an online playground argument with some of the most respected hi-end audio people ever to exist. I will not mention names, but it was amazing how I was able to get these people that are extremely well known in the industry (think the Beatles for music and how pretty much everyone but the Brittney Spears crowd has heard of them) to go from being so called polite, well mannered, and "mature/classy" to acting like 5 year olds crying over a toy one said was his and another said was theirs.

Anyhow...end of this ramble and cheers and happiness to everyone on the forum and I mean everyone!

Now to business...I am extremely "stuck". I have the Arca system. That's a no brainer for me. It's not Ole's Rolls Royce of cameras (he has the Carbon Fibre whatever it is that was built to be the best camera in the world, and most will consider it to be the most precision based camera ever built, but it is a fantastic system that is entirely modular, enabling creativity to take effect and make use of the rear standard to size any back of choice.

Soooo...gosh...any back of choice. Sounds easy doesn't it? I can have a 4X5 back...but that back is so heavy I prefer a wood based one to eliminate the weight factor. And well, in spite 4X5 is like a micro-screen to me after looking through whole plate glass many times over, I will indeed shoot 4X5 just for the sake of having about 300 sheets of it in my freezer!!! No point in letting it waist away when I can fire away just like a fast DSLR...yippee (only joking of course).

Now the HARD PART-What Back/S should I be going for.

I want this camera to be my all around camera to take with me worldwide and obviously hiking, but I concern myself with its ability to pack for journeys around the world. At the same time, most know it can be rather difficult to be considered a worldly traveling device and would advise the purchase of a seperate 4X5 and/or 5X7 w/4X5 back. But then we are talking about an $800 camera if I want to get even 1/4th the movements of the Arca, and we have to go with only 4X5 or find super light 5X7 w/4X5 back like the Nagaoka=limited on movements, but so cute;)...and oh so rare.

ORRRRRR....I can have built for me, for maybe even a little lower price, a Kerry Thalman inspired 5X7/5X8 w/4X5 reduction back for the Arca as my travel kit.

AND THEN...

Use all the rest of the formats as my, well, larger formats:)!

As many may well know, I love the whole plate stuff and I have tons of holders, very beautiful holders. Sure, old, but they are "very light" and they work perfectly. It gives me just over 6"'s by 8"'s of sheet to contact/scan/etc. But now I start to consider the wider formats or even ones like 7X11...wider formats meaning 4X10 (to be scanned), 5X12 (contacts and scanned), and even 7X17 (god forbid what the holders and finding a back for such a beast like this would cost).


I plan to do a lot of scan/print. But I also want to have the ability to contact print. I also like that with the larger sizes, especially 7X11, you have a substantial print right in front of your face after it has been lit and contacted...oh yes, developed of course prior to the contact print;).


With all this CRAZY ramble on, let me get to the basics here and simplify all I have written:

1) I want a compact travel based camera that can still give me large enough negatives. I have 5X7 in mind with a 4X5 back. However, it would be nice to have 5X8 as a consideration, though holder prices are up the wall...

2) I want to shoot larger formats for contact printing "though", I do debate, after all I have read about the scan and use of the new papers, that one can achieve a print that looks identical to a contact print. Hence, I question if even 5X7 with a 2X enlargement factor would do the job as my contact print or if I should be considering the larger sized backs for this work?

3) I love Panoramic. 5X12 looks fantastic and it would even enable me to "possibly" get away with using it as a travel kit. I know the Shen 5X12 back is VERY LIGHT and with a light wood and some light DDS holders, it would not be too difficult to pack it along with two holders. And then use a reduction back that is say, 5X7 or 5X8 or...etc. etc...

4) I have a TON of whole plate holders. This gives me a 6X8 image which is quite substantial to me in size. No, it's not a 7X11, but it's still very nice indeed. I have the back and holders, so I am perfectly set to shoot that format and split off the paper going 4X8 and 6X8 by cutting down aerial film or 8X10 E6.


I suppose...I need to leave this one up to the group. Feel free to ask any questions as I merely want to fall into some resolutions so I can get shooting with the Arca and not be limited with the old field cameras that are gorgeous, but not up to what I expect/demand in a camera like the Arca.

Thanks everyone for your help and even bits and pieces of your opinions would be very very very much appreciated.:D

cotdt
24-Feb-2008, 04:05
I'm glad I completed all my hi-end audio projects and am out of those forums! It's so much more relaxing taking pictures while listening to music, than fighting against the other audio guys over a new speaker driver or whether it's best to put the woofer in car doors or rear panels =)

Here's what advice I can give from my one year of intense existence in the large format realm. I do contact prints because I don't have a 4x5" enlarger and to save money over scans. They are not really any higher quality than an enlargment or a drum scan. The resolution and dynamic range on the original film far surpasses what the photographic paper can hold by orders of magnitude (16 lp/mm versus 50+ lp/mm). Unless you use some special kind of paper that nobody makes nowadays, contact prints on ordinary enlargement paper is nothing special. So I wouldn't focus too much on contact prints. You'll get the exact same results shooting 35mm film or from a DSLR and enlarging to 5x7". Some people dispute this but I've seen the comparison with my own eyes. Contact prints may be really detailed but so are the smaller formats when you are only enlarging to 5x7. If you want to make contact prints, why not 8x10" instead?

Technically the contact print still has more resolution than any inkjet printer, but you'll need a magnifying glass to see the difference. I did the math and estimate that an 8x10" contact print (or enlargement) can hold about 50MP of optical resolution. That means you're still only taking advantage of 10% of what is in the original film.

If you're scanning, then stick with 4x5 unless you really like the 5x7 aspect ratio. With 4x5, you get more movements which is the soul of the view camera. My 4x5" is so small I just keep it in my backpack. With 5x7, you'll get less DOF unless you stop down more. So you're looking at typically f/22 in 4x5" versus f/32 in 5x7" and if you do the math the resolution will be the same due to diffraction. So there is no resolution benefit to 5x7". With 4x5" you can actually get more resolution by using movements to maximize DOF and won't have to stop down as much. 5x7" is just a different aspect ratio, nothing more.

If you like panoramas there's the much more manageable 6x17 cm format. It's still quite big, though. Whenever I'm at the beach with my 4x5" camera, people go "what the heck is that?" they think i'm too poor to afford a digital camera so they feel sorry for me that i have to use a cheap view camera. Anything bigger than a 4x5" is simply too big to carry around with you, and will attract too much attention in public. people will ask so many questions you'll never be able to take any pictures.

Justin Cormack
24-Feb-2008, 04:40
If you are going to scan+print digitally you can use a smaller film size for the same output size. Digital printing methods are 200-300dpi, while scans are picking up detail at 1200 or 2400 dpi or more for good scans. So to print that you need to print at a minimum of 4 times the original neg size. So you may as well stick to 4x5 and 6x12/17 as your square and pano formats, unless you want to make really huge prints of course.

WP is only for contact printing.

John Bowen
24-Feb-2008, 05:36
re: 7x17 check out this auction on Ebay 110225278857

No, it isn't my listing, but it sure looks like a great value if the bidding doesn't go crazy.

Ken Lee
24-Feb-2008, 06:57
Don't stick to anything.

Frank Petronio
24-Feb-2008, 07:44
You've demonstrated that you are indeed crazy, which is useful in making me feel like I am a little more sane.

Seriously though, if I were you I'd stop dicking around with equipment and go shoot some pictures and put your abundant energies into the images. Use 4x5, 8x10, off the shelf gear... the rest is a distraction.

But maybe fiddling with camera equipment is the real hobby? I can appreciate that, but you might as well just go for it then... Sell the lenses, build more cameras ;-)

Mike Castles
24-Feb-2008, 08:05
Somehow, I understand how you feel. I shoot 7x11,8x10 and 5x7 - all with the same camera. But then 8x12 sure looks interesting...nope, have to stop that...but wait there is 11x14 - what a nice size to contact print.

It is easy to start the 'hey, that's a nice format' game..and IT WILL drive you crazy...I'm there. To be honest, the best advice is to shoot a boat load of film, in whatever format you have and pick up a back or camera when you can - if the format does not fit, then sell the camera, you should be able to get your money back on it.

But don't listen to me, after all I'm crazy too!!

David A. Goldfarb
24-Feb-2008, 08:30
I have to agree with Frank on this one.

Go out and take some pictures. It sounds like you have two great cameras. Don't buy another camera for one or two years. It's mainly a black box with a lens at one end and film at the other end, and all the other things are details.

If you find you're shooting a lot of 4x5" with wide lenses and cropping them to panoramic format, then think about a panoramic camera.

If you take the Arca on a couple of hikes and find that it's unmanageable, then read Kerry Thalmann's great article on equipment for backpacking and think about a different camera.

Ed Richards
24-Feb-2008, 08:51
Frank is right - do you want to be an equipment collector or a photographer? Several of us have been in the same place, and you have to decide. (Or consider Wellbutrin.)

Your key decision is whether you want to make contact prints. This is a personal decision. You do contacts because you like the process and like to run a darkroom - no one who sees you pictures will notice or care, except for a handful of other OCD LF photographers. If you have never run a darkroom and made contacts, then you might find it is a real PITA.

If you want be a good photographer, you have to take pictures. I have no idea about your background - if you are an acomplished digital or small format photographer, who has mastered printing and has a strong personal vision, you make different choices than if you are really just learning photography. If you are just learning, then there is only one choice:

Get a single 4x5 camera, get a single lens, probably 150-210, and go shoot a 1000 sheets or so to learn how to use the camera and how to make prints. Do not just shoot, make the best possible prints as well.

If you have money to burn, buy 500 sheets of 4x5 Polaroid before it is gone - there is no faster, more effective way to learn to shoot LF. Bring some readyloads with you, so you can shoot regular film if you get a good shot.

If you do not have money to burn, then shoot black and white and process it yourself. Then scan on a consumer scanner or set up a darkroom and get a 4x5 enlarger. Do not get into the scanner wars - if you are getting started, it will be years before you can make a good enough print that scanning matters that much. (Remember - you can always get better scans later.) If you want to shoot color and money is an issue, get a DSLR and forget LF until you have become a master printer and photographer with digital. Then you can go back to LF. Since you have to shoot a lot and print a lot to get any good at this, doing it in LF color is a rich person's game, unless you want to do it over a long period of time.

Ted Harris
24-Feb-2008, 09:27
Everybody is saying the same thing to you and others have said it in previous threads. If collecting the equipment is your main interest that is cool, there are lots of folks here that fall into that category. OTOH, if your primary interests is making the best images you can then get out there and do it. Question, with no malice meant at all, have you shot any LF film yet? I'm betting you have. If you have or as soon as you do, starting asking yourself all the questions you arae asking now but ask them in terms of how you can make your shooting experience easier/more enjoyable/more productive, etc. What parts of your kit or your approach do you think you want to change to make this a better experience for you. Same applies to where you are after you expose the film.

The point of all this is that you just don't know the answers to any of the questions you are asking and won't until you have tromped around with a camera for awhile, exposed some film, studied it, made some prints.

Nothing, absolutely nothing anyone else says at this point is going to have any relevance. Everyone is telling you the same thing.

Pete Roody
24-Feb-2008, 10:07
Joni Mithchell had a great lyric:

"Don't Think ... Just Dance"

For you, I would change it to:

"Don't Think... Just Shoot"

Gene McCluney
24-Feb-2008, 10:09
In audio equipment you spend hours, days, weeks and months arriving at a "system" that meets your desires, then your work is basically done. The hard part is done. You just listen to music then.

In photography the "hard part" is only beginning when you acquire the equipment. You will now work to get your skill built up in using the equipment. It is better if you don't have too many choices when you are learning, as they can complicate and confuse things. Start simple, and shoot lots of film. Make lots of prints. Share the images here or at APUG and get feedback.

Henry Ambrose
24-Feb-2008, 13:00
I have to admit that at times it looks like to me that you are in the camera business from all your transactions here.

So I suggest that you take as presented what Frank wrote and then what Gene wrote. Get rid of all the extra stuff. Keep a camera and a couple of lenses.

Then do this:

Promise yourself to not buy anything else until you've made 12 really good pictures. That'll keep you busy for a while. That's your new goal.

Or just admit you're a camera collector/buyer/accumulator.

sanking
24-Feb-2008, 13:02
Ok...so it's 2:06am and no, I do not party (heck, I'm still young and uhh...)...well, I do not party and really, all night, all day, many weeks now, I have run through puzzles and mazes (sp), and traps, and failures, and CONFUSION! I now officially know I am crazy, but not in a bad way, grant everyone here on this forum that are all so extremely friendly and helpful.

Audioexcels,

Forget the advice on cameras and quite listening to so much music. You need to get a copy of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius and concentrate on first principles, in this case what it is you really want to do. As MA wote to himself, "Always make a definition nor sketch of what presents itself to your mind, so you can see it stripped bare to its essential nature and identify it clearly, in whole and in all its parts . . ."


Sandy King

bglick
24-Feb-2008, 16:39
> So you're looking at typically f/22 in 4x5" versus f/32 in 5x7" and if you do the math the resolution will be the same due to diffraction. So there is no resolution benefit to 5x7".


I see this mistake perpetuated over and over.... your statement is incorrect. You would have been correct, if you stated the lens aerial resolution is reduced proportional to the jump up in format size, (assuming same DOF), as diffraction is a function of f stop, 1500/f. However, apt. diffraction is only one of two components that determines what gets resolved to film. The great leveler is 1/R, a well documented and quite accurate formula.

1(1/rl +1rf)

rl = lens aerial resolution in lp/mm

rf = film MTF in lp/mm at a given contrast ratio.

Using your example.... Velvia at 60 lp/mm

4x5

1500/22 = 68 lp/mm at the point of exact focus

1/(1/68 + 1/60) = 32 lp/mm resolved to film.


5x7

26 lp/mm resolved to film, at the point of exact focus.


8x10 (f45)

21 lp/mm resolved to film, at the point of exact focus.


For simplicity, lets compare 4x5 and 810. you must enlarge 4x5 2x to match 8x10, so 32 lp/mm / 2 = 16 lp/mm.... vs. 21 lp/mm for 810, 21/16 = 1.3x added resolution recorded for doubling format.

Granted it's not 2x, but its not equal either. However, this example assumes you are forced to stop down the larger format to equal the DOF. For infinity shots, and shooting flat subjects, this is not the case, and you "can" get the full 2x added resolution as you can shoot both at the same f stop. (all else being equal)


As for Mr. Audio.... I share your concerns....but like others have warned you... the "gear" issue is a very slippery slope that has sunk many people when it comes to LF photography. I think gear heads are naturally attracted to this medium. So be careful, cause often, there is no end to this struggle.


It seems from what you offer, 4x5 and 6x17 is a nice choice, I can't imagine you ever regretting it. But to this end, I would suggest Canhams 6x17 back on a view camera that supports one, such as Walkers and Keiths MCQ (maybe others?). The versatility of using the same lenses for both formats is quite a powerful combination packed in a reasonable sized package. Both mentioned 5x7's are small enough whereas if you wanted to shoot 4x5 with a reducing back, you are only paying a small size penalty for the 6x17 feature, and no need to carry extra lenses.....not so bad.

I also agree with a previous poster.... 4x5 is not only an optimal size due to apt. diffraction, but it also allows for greater movements, which really is what sets apart a view camera from a box camera.

cotdt
24-Feb-2008, 16:49
bglick, the resolution advantage of 5x7 and 8x10 still seems pretty minor under your calculations. But that 62 lp/mm figure for Velvia is actually based already using a lens. The actual resolution of Velvia as measured by Fuji is higher, is 160 lp/mm at 1:1000 contrast and 80 lp/mm at 1.6:1 contrast. Independant tests say 82 lp/mm for Velvia, so I would use that figure. In that case, the resolution advantage of 5x7 is even smaller. With 4x5 you can use movements. With my 90mm lens I often use only f/11 and get the entire landscape in perfect focus, even with a big nearby rock in the foreground. I won't be able to use movements at all with a 5x7. In fact, even without movements my lens would probably vignett on a 5x7.

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 17:03
4X5=very nice. I like it, but I have a very difficult time working with it vs. the larger sizes. For a flatbed (non-professional)=12X15" prints (maximum)...I can do this with a digital camera.

5X7=Love the ratio, and can see through the GG far differently than the tiny looking 4X5 glass. It has nearly 2X as much information on the film and can do 15X21" prints (much more substantial size than what a 4X5 can do). Consumer flatbed talking only regarding enlargement sizes here.

6X8=A nice aspect ratio to my eyes and can do 18X24" (again, quite a difference from 5X7 and a major difference from 4X5).

7X11=Very nice aspect ratio. Not sure if one can put this size film onto a flatbed?...but it would be a 21X33" print...a very substantial sized print vs. the 4X5 and really, any of the other formats.

And so on....

I have viewed a 4X5 polaroid many times over and there is something 3-dimenional that I cannot achieve with any other format, period. I do not know how to explain it. Even looking at the scans of the 35mm TechPan, you can see the flatness/2-d look of 35mm vs. even medium format film. MF film can have much more of the 3-D look that LF has, IMHO, but not quite the same. Maybe it is just my own eyes that sees this? Resolution wise, I agree about how difficult it is seeing resolution of say, a landscape shot with polaroid or contact 4X5 and even 5X7 film. But what strikes me more is the "effect" of dimensionality. Of course with enlarging the film, the resolution becomes a factor, as does the granularity of the film. One can even argue that you can see the difference even with a drum scan between 4X5 enlarged 2-3X vs. 5X7 or better yet, 8X10.

The reasons for my interest in the smaller formats from 4X5-5X7 is strictly for compactness and that my feeling is that 5X7 with almost 2X the surface area will demolish the 4X5 in a larger print size. It also provides the better aspect ratio, though 5X8 would be one I'd consider to be best over 5X7. It makes shooting E6 with 4X5 cheap, and shooting all b/w in 5X7 cheap too using aerial roll film.

The reasons for my interest in the larger sizes is for contact use "and" being able to take advantage of the medicore scanning capabilities of the consumer flatbeds to still get a nice sharp, a relatively large print.


I do agree with everyone that I need to figure out what specifically I want to shoot with and leave it at that. But that's the entire point of this thread. What one do I start with? I have seen enough 4X5 that I don't care to have that be the one I will use. It will be a minimum of 5X7 and possibly larger, especially given I have the ability to use multiple larger backs with the Arca.

Is it my eyes only that sees the beauty of a basically see-through kind of transparency/3-dimensionality with the contact print or am I dellusional?

I want to show a webshot. I know, I know...webshots...what can they ever say...well, this one is of the person's photo album and to me, that's much different than a scan/file/etc. and it shows this 3-D look I have seen in my own shooting experience and which I cannot replicate with any other format, though I need to shoot some MF to see how far that can go with the 3-D look.


http://flickr.com/photos/laurensimonutti/272758986/

The hair shot on the left literally looks like real hair cut and placed under glass or something.

Her portfolio for those interested, though I don't think her scanner is very good and/or she doesn't try too hard to scan them in well:

http://flickr.com/photos/laurensimonutti/



Older Shot:


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1333/642679832_c699078229.jpg




In sum, yet another long post, but...

1) I do like the concept of 5X7/8 with 4X5 reduction back. I also like the concept of 6X8 with 4X5 reduction back, though even with 6X8 (6.5X8.5 GG), it's much larger than 5X7.

2) I care much more about 3-dimensionality than resolution. So a scan to nice paper as my contact or darkroom contact is a definite.

3) At the same time, I do love the resolution, and do not feel 4X5 can give it like 5X7 or larger sizes. I'm sure many would argue against this, but this is my own opinion.

Given I only have the finances to have a consumer flatbed, 4X5 won't cut it if my goal is to keep the size down to 11X14. I will definitely need a larger than 4X5 size or I would have shot 4X5 much more and would have never stopped. It took me a short time to realize 4X5 is nice, but not good enough for me. However, for color, I can shoot 4X5 on the cheap and even cut down 8X10 on the cheap, and have fantastic looking 12X15/16's from 4X5 or if using color with 5X7/8, even larger prints that will look excellent.


For the record, I am an not a collector or seller or whatever...yes, I do buy/sell things a lot and not for the sake of business as I often lose money, but sometimes make money. In the end, I think I come out even with this part which is all I can ask for. I have none of my equipment on display and always keep it in the nice spare bedroom so it stays fresh. I do and do not understand the people with tons of equipment. I'm a minimalist in spite I continue to buy things on theory and mind based considerations of the format I will settle on. That's the only reason why I have this equipment in the for sale section...it's all in the air/theoretical stuff, though I must say the equipment, particularly the lenses, have all been so beautiful that I have collected and I truly wish I could keep them.

Cheers All!

bglick
24-Feb-2008, 17:06
> But that 62 lp/mm figure for Velvia is actually based already using a lens.

What else matters?


> The actual resolution of Velvia as measured by Fuji is higher, is 160 lp/mm at 1:1000 contrast and 80 lp/mm at 1.6:1 contrast.

I used 60 lp/mm to be conservative, as many nature scenes have very low contrast, such as green foliage, brown trees, mountains, etc. However, this is not relevant, as the relationship between the numbers don't change much.



> Independant tests say 82 lp/mm for Velvia, so I would use that figure.

you can use any film MTF value you want, 1/R will level it out, and still produce a very similar 1.3x factor, that was my point, you do gain resolution when you jump up in format size....even when you continue to stop down to provide equal DOF.



> In fact, even without movements my lens would probably vignett on a 5x7.


You just have the wrong lenses :-)... I certainly won't argue the many advantages of 4x5... but all my lenses cover 5x7 with plenty of movements...but thats because I geared up for larger formats. If I was only going to shoot 4x5, I would have bought smaller lenses as all that added coverage is a waste in both resolution and lens size/weight.

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 17:11
As for 4X5 and movements, how do you use a lens with extreme movements without flare occuring due to the shorter bellows? I was always curious about this question=short bellows or is it "larger" bellows that helps with lens flare? In other words, take a 5X7 cam and an 8X10 cam...5X7 has say, a 9X9 square for cutout. 8X10 has say, 13X13 for cutout...so the bellows width and height are very large compared to the 4X5 bellows.

Is flare only something to do with bellows "length" or also to do with the height/width relationship.

Totally off-topic question related to this thread, but we are already going off-topic with resolution discussions;).

BTW...with audio, it's neverending for most, and for some, you get to the point where there may exist a "different" sound (panel speaker vs. point source/box vs. point source dipole vs. horns vs...and you get the idea of how many different speakers one can have)...but you find a speaker that has the best compromise of them all unless you can afford multiple rooms with multiple speaker types;).

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 17:21
bglick, the resolution advantage of 5x7 and 8x10 still seems pretty minor under your calculations. But that 62 lp/mm figure for Velvia is actually based already using a lens. The actual resolution of Velvia as measured by Fuji is higher, is 160 lp/mm at 1:1000 contrast and 80 lp/mm at 1.6:1 contrast. Independant tests say 82 lp/mm for Velvia, so I would use that figure. In that case, the resolution advantage of 5x7 is even smaller. With 4x5 you can use movements. With my 90mm lens I often use only f/11 and get the entire landscape in perfect focus, even with a big nearby rock in the foreground. I won't be able to use movements at all with a 5x7. In fact, even without movements my lens would probably vignett on a 5x7.

A 110XL and Nikkor 120/8 can cover 8X10...that's 110mm's of extra IC on a 5X7. Think that's enough for 5X7 and using Velvia (they do have Velvia in 8X10 that can be cut to 5X7 or any size smaller than 8X10)? "Any" 90 aside from the 90XL on 45 will only give you a maximum of 78mm's of IC (the F4/4.5/5.6 lenses), far less than 110mm's of IC on 57.

cotdt
24-Feb-2008, 17:35
audioexcels, you should really get your film professionally scanned, they are so much better than the consumer scanners. not only the much higher resolution, but the better shadow detail and three dimensionality is amazing. like you say, if you're only going to make small prints, you can do that with your digital camera. for cheap black and white work, you're better off with an enlarger than scanning from a consumer scanner. you can do contact prints but eventually you'd want bigger.

i never get any flare with 4x5, no matter what lens i use. i've actually never seen a large format lens flare, like my 35mm zoom lenses do.


> You just have the wrong lenses :-)... I certainly won't argue the many advantages of 4x5... but all my lenses cover 5x7 with plenty of movements...but thats because I geared up for larger formats. If I was only going to shoot 4x5, I would have bought smaller lenses as all that added coverage is a waste in both resolution and lens size/weight.

Sadly, I have a low budget so lenses like the 110XL are not an option for me, and besides, I need to carry all the equipment in my backpack. Film is also expensive, especially Velvia. I can shoot hundreds of pictures in a one-day trip, so costs add up quickly and here 4x5 saves me a lot of money. To summarize:

1) 4x5 is smaller and cheaper. film, processing, lenses, holders, camera, assesories like flashes, etc.

2) 4x5 can use movements, whereas for 5x7, only a small selection of (very expensive) lenses can. i'm talking mostly about wide angle lenses.

3) If you're getting your film professionally scanned, 4x5 is the sweet spot in terms of resolution and practicality. bglick calculates 8x10 as only having 1.3x the resolution of 4x5. 8x10 is simply too big to bring to trips.

4) 4x5 ground glass is still quite a bit better than the small, choppy LiveView screens of digital cameras. You can match the focal length of your lens with a screen optimized for it, to get brighter and less grainy viewing.

5) 4x5 aspect ratio is perfect for enlarging to 8x10 paper! great for portraits.

David A. Goldfarb
24-Feb-2008, 17:35
As for 4X5 and movements, how do you use a lens with extreme movements without flare occuring due to the shorter bellows? I was always curious about this question=short bellows or is it "larger" bellows that helps with lens flare?

1--"Extreme movements" aren't that common except in still life photography. You might use a lot of front rise or shift for an architectural, but for portraits and landscapes, you don't need much movement.

2--Try it, and see if bellows flare is really a problem for you. You seem to be worrying about a problem that you haven't actually experienced.

3--Use a compendium shade to restrict the image circle to the minimum necessary, and you'll avoid the problem of bellows flare and will reduce internal lens flare.

4--An oversize bellows does help to reduce bellows flare, but it's only really a practical solution in the studio, since most people don't want to carry an oversize camera in the field.

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 18:03
Thanks David.

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 18:11
audioexcels, you should really get your film professionally scanned, they are so much better than the consumer scanners. not only the much higher resolution, but the better shadow detail and three dimensionality is amazing.

I agree. I imagine the clean file is wonderful to see. Let me ask you this one...why are there other formats if 4X5 can do it all? Why would people ever hike with an 8X10 Philips Compact or go around the world with such a large camera? I suppose the question is why would anyone use anything but 4X5 by virtue of your argument?

BTW, the 110XL is a very very light/compact lens IMHO...It's perfect for packing/travel trips.

Kuzano
24-Feb-2008, 18:28
Example. I bought a brand new Shen Hao a few years ago. Used it a few times and sold it for what I paid. Why? I met an old friend from school years, who is a 40 year Art History professor retired. All his life in academia he has been shooting large format in Colorado and the 4 corners area. He has an unbelievable archive of 4X5 negs and transparencies. I asked him if I could bring my two large cameras to him for advice on which one to keep.

One was a 3 pound (with lens) Calumet based on the Gowland Pocket... very small monorail with back tilt (thats all) and front rise, swing, shift, and tilt. The Shen Hoa was 6 pounds without the lens and a wondrous range of movements for a wood field camera. Obviously there are other difference in quality and setup procedures. The Shen locks down better than the Calumet, but the Calumet is imminently usable with a little patience and care.

Bottom line, my friend looked at the two cameras and told me to keep the Calumet. I asked why... His response. "Look, I know what you want to shoot. Why in the hell do you want to pack around all those movements?" he went on to tell me that movements for landscape and much other photography are highly over-rated. The Calumet has 95% of the most used movements, outside of studio work, if you know how to set up the camera properly.

The Shen Hao was $700 new from Badger with the folding door over the GG. The Calumet was $160 on eBay and appears unused. The money is not the decisive factor, but is good news. I saved enough to buy two good lenses on eBay in shutter.

It's so easy to get caught up in the "how many movements" does it have and pay by the movement.... The longer the list, the more money for the camera body.

Just another opinion.

Oh yes, and the Calumet also has a graflok back, so I can use the 6X12 and 6X17 addon backs that are available.

cotdt
24-Feb-2008, 18:30
BTW, the 110XL is a very very light/compact lens IMHO...It's perfect for packing/travel trips.

There's quite a big difference in size between the 90mm lens that I use and the 110XL:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/images/AngSchn1.jpg

In fact, my 4x5 camera would no longer fold with the 110XL attached.


Let me ask you this one...why are there other formats if 4X5 can do it all? Why would people ever hike with an 8X10 Philips Compact or go around the world with such a large camera? I suppose the question is why would anyone use anything but 4X5 by virtue of your argument?

Actually I've never actually seen anyone shoot an 8x10 camera in person, though I've met plenty of 4x5 professional photographers all over the place. 4x5 is still pretty common here in California, where you can even go to the shopping mall and see magazine photographers using such things on their tripods, 8x10 I bet is pretty rare. I'm guessing people shoot 8x10 for the contact prints. On the streets I see people selling 4x10 and 8x10 B&W contact prints for $60 each, and a lot of people buy them. In my opinion these contact prints are not even well made, but they sell like hotcakes anyway.

sanking
24-Feb-2008, 18:42
I agree. I imagine the clean file is wonderful to see.


Don't underestimate scanners like the V750. You can easily do up to 3X-4X with this scanner and I doubt many people could tell the difference on the print from a scan made with a much more expensive scanner, especially if it is an inkjet print. That is about 12X15" - 16X20" from a 4X5 negative, and 15X21" X 20X28" from 5X7. If you want larger prints than that for special images pay someone to do a scan for you on high end flatbed or drum scanner.

I use an Epson 4990 to scan some of my 5X7 negatives, and if the magnification is not greater than 3X-4X results are just as good in inkjet prints as from scans made with more expensive scanners. An Epson 4990 is capable of about 2000 ppi efffective resolution, which amounts to about 40 lines per mm. If you start with 40 lines per mm on your film, which is not hard to do with a 4X5 or 5X7 camera, doubling the size twice still leaves you with 10 lines per mm in the scan with an Epson 4990. 10 lines pe millimeter is more resolution than you can get from an inkjet printer.

Sandy King

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 19:28
Don't underestimate scanners like the V750. You can easily do up to 3X-4X with this scanner and I doubt many people could tell the difference on the print from a scan made with a much more expensive scanner, especially if it is an inkjet print. That is about 12X15" - 16X20" from a 4X5 negative, and 15X21" X 20X28" from 5X7. If you want larger prints than that for special images pay someone to do a scan for you on high end flatbed or drum scanner.

I use an Epson 4990 to scan some of my 5X7 negatives, and if the magnification is not greater than 3X-4X results are just as good in inkjet prints as from scans made with more expensive scanners. An Epson 4990 is capable of about 2000 ppi efffective resolution, which amounts to about 40 lines per mm. If you start with 40 lines per mm on your film, which is not hard to do with a 4X5 or 5X7 camera, doubling the size twice still leaves you with 10 lines per mm in the scan with an Epson 4990. 10 lines pe millimeter is more resolution than you can get from an inkjet printer.

Sandy King


Thanks Sandy. What's your own experience doing a 5X7 contact vs. using the Eversmart or Epson to do a 5X7 scan/post-process/inkjet? I know about the debate that has resulted in those that do not see a difference and those that do. With the new papers, it doesn't seem to matter and they are made to look identical to a contact, etc. etc. Just curious if you see that something special in the contact print or 1X enlargement that has a 3-D type put your and into the image feel?

It never seizes to amaze me that when looking at "art" work in galleries, the most amazing stuff still seems to come from these very old and big blowups in some random place like a local seafood restaurant where they have photos from late 1800's/early 1900's that are not so pinpoint sharp, but have this incredible life-like look to them, making these other prints done likely on smaller formats from whatever time period of 90's/2000's look like garbage...I mean, a poster sized print vs. 1/2 of that size looking not only sharper, but also taking you into the image is really impressive considering the major difference time periods (basically 100 years apart).

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 19:37
There's quite a big difference in size between the 90mm lens that I use and the 110XL:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/images/AngSchn1.jpg

In fact, my 4x5 camera would no longer fold with the 110XL attached.



Actually I've never actually seen anyone shoot an 8x10 camera in person, though I've met plenty of 4x5 professional photographers all over the place. 4x5 is still pretty common here in California, where you can even go to the shopping mall and see magazine photographers using such things on their tripods, 8x10 I bet is pretty rare. I'm guessing people shoot 8x10 for the contact prints. On the streets I see people selling 4x10 and 8x10 B&W contact prints for $60 each, and a lot of people buy them. In my opinion these contact prints are not even well made, but they sell like hotcakes anyway.

Hehehehehe:)...check back on my post on those contacts from 5X7 by Lauren Rabbit off Flickr. The one photos I linked to is the exact type of 3-D look I cannot put my finger on, but that hair on the left photo looks like it is stitting in a window of a shop and not a photo!!! I've simply never seen this "look" in anything but some 4X5 polaroid shots I have taken...well...not quite that amazing, obviously, but the same essential 3-D look I do not see with any other format I have shot with.

I'm curious if people buy those contact prints just because they say "contact print", etc...though they don't look so good;).

You can see the 110XL is a lens that certainly rocks that 90 out of the water, but in my world, if you want the 90XL out for a comparo, hehehehehe...watch out;) But remember, regardless of folding a camera or not, these lenses do not weight excessively much. The 90XL is a bit of a best, definitely. The 110XL is not. I can "easily" take along the 90XL/210mm Symmar S/and the Nikkor 300M and have with me a 4X5 reduction back for the 5X7/8 or 6X8 main back. The holders for the 6X8 back are very very light...not like a Fidelity or QL, but compared to them, they really are not that much heavier...more like "bulkier"...meaning, just gotta carry a larger bag. I bet I could put together a camera that can shoot 6X8, 4X8, and 4X5 all in one package for 20lbs max, and have an Arca Swiss for rigidity sakes...

I disagree with the person above about the tiny weighted camera in the field. It can do the job just fine, but I'd sacrifice 3lbs to have a weigh more sturdy camera with full yaw free control...

David A. Goldfarb
24-Feb-2008, 19:49
Oh yes, and the Calumet also has a graflok back, so I can use the 6X12 and 6X17 addon backs that are available.

I had a 4x5 Gowland PocketView (and still have an 8x10"), and I would be a bit wary of using heavy rollfilm backs on it. Maybe a lightweight 6x12, but the 6x17 expansion back might be a bit too much.

Ted Harris
24-Feb-2008, 19:50
It never seizes to amaze me that when looking at "art" work in galleries, the most amazing stuff still seems to come from these very old and big blowups in some random place like a local seafood restaurant where they have photos from late 1800's/early 1900's that are not so pinpoint sharp, but have this incredible life-like look to them, making these other prints done likely on smaller formats from whatever time period of 90's/2000's look like garbage...I mean, a poster sized print vs. 1/2 of that size looking not only sharper, but also taking you into the image is really impressive considering the major difference time periods (basically 100 years apart).

A lot of it is lighting. Whether it is natural light or studio lighting, knowing how to use it is what gives you the dimensionality you see. For example, Horst and Hurrell are two of the masters of using light. Look at their work. Most of the time, when working in the studio, I light the same way; that is using huge amounts of focused light from a combination of open strips, fresnels and elipsoidal spots (lekos). Im set up for a shoot ater this week right now and if everything is cranked to full power (which it seldom is) there are nearly 7000 watts available. This allows me to easily separate my subject from the background, etc. Techniques I learned doing club, film and theatrical lighting. Also keeps the models warm in New Hampshire in the winter :).

But, to sound like a broken record, you gotta get out and shoot. I've been at it for 50 years and I'm still learning, changing, adapting. I do it through reading and watching others, sure. But, mostly I do it by doing it.

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 20:00
there are nearly 7000 watts available. This allows me to easily separate my subject from the background, etc. Techniques I learned doing club, film and theatrical lighting. Also keeps the models warm in New Hampshire in the winter :).

But, to sound like a broken record, you gotta get out and shoot. I've been at it for 50 years and I'm still learning, changing, adapting. I do it through reading and watching others, sure. But, mostly I do it by doing it.

Uhhhh...I can see the entire town here exploding with your experiments;):):)!!!

Ted, did you ever venture into the larger formats and what did you discover in terms of the larger sizes vs. what you shoot with now (4X5 if I recall correctly)? I'm just puzzled by so many format sizes, but for all the arguments going "for" 4X5, it makes me wonder...and I know so many would counter-argue that they can see a difference between a 4X5 printed at 11X14 vs. an 8X10 shot printed at 11X14.

cotdt
24-Feb-2008, 20:36
I agree that lighting is a factor, but that does not explain how the same composition taken by an inferior camera does not look as three dimensional as the 4x5.


Hehehehehe:)...check back on my post on those contacts from 5X7 by Lauren Rabbit off Flickr. The one photos I linked to is the exact type of 3-D look I cannot put my finger on, but that hair on the left photo looks like it is stitting in a window of a shop and not a photo!!! I've simply never seen this "look" in anything but some 4X5 polaroid shots I have taken...well...not quite that amazing, obviously, but the same essential 3-D look I do not see with any other format I have shot with.

Those are excellent pics indeed. I think that 3D look comes from the texture and high microcontrast, besides the good composition. The texture is what immediately attracts my attention, and I think it would look even more 3D with a better scanner. I've also noticed that film looks more 3D than digital regardless of the resolution, probably due to the anti-aliasing filter in front of digital sensors that smooths out the fine edges. In turn, you have to apply sharpening which creates sharpening halos and messes up the out-of-focus regions.

Texture is everything. Here is a crop from a medium format digital back versus 4x5 drum scanned. Which is more 3D?

PhaseOne Digital Back:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-40/cc3.jpg

4x5 drum scan:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-40/cc4.jpg

As you can see, even the best in digital is like a cartoon in comparison to 4x5. In my opinion consumer scanners can make 4x5 look worse than digital but that is off-topic I guess.

Which looks more 3D?
http://photo.biondani.com/LF/4x5%20comp/105MP_4x5scan_2.png
http://photo.biondani.com/LF/4x5%20comp/005MP_digital_2.png

But even if resolution is not a factor when viewed web-size, the difference in 3D-ness is still there:

Nikon DSLR:
http://www.widerange.org/images/longs_d100_cropArea.jpg

4x5 Velvia:
http://www.widerange.org/images/longs_4x5_cropArea.jpg

Good luck selling the DSLR prints!

With B&W photography, that 3D look is crucial IMHO. Imagine if you grayed out the textures of this image in Photoshop:

http://www.onexposure.net/OEfullSize/12632-fullsize.jpg

Then the 3D look would be completely gone.

Shadow detail can also bring about three dimensionality. Here's one of my pictures taken at very high ISO 12800 (TriX 35mm, 50mm f/1.4). The resolution is probably not there but the shadow detail saved the image from going into the trash can:

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/2050/48246482xb8.jpg

I would sum the 3D look to: good composition, high resolution, high dynamic range, good local contrast. This is my theory and 4x5 fits all of these criteria. In my opinion, going any larger will no longer yield any benefits because it does not increase any of these factors over 4x5.

Ted Harris
24-Feb-2008, 20:42
LOL re experiments.

I've never shot larger than 8x10. I shot a good bit of 8x10 off and on over the years but it was never my favorite. Too much stuff to lug around. I still have an old 8x10 beater but it hasn't been out in three years. I shoot both 4x5 and 5x7 and find myself questioning 5x7 these days. With the scans I can do I really don't need anything larger than 4x5 most of the time. Hey, I just made a gorgeous 24x48 from a scanned 6x12 from a Noblex.

Some of my good friends, like John Bowen who posted above, shoot ULF and I do like the results, enjoy scanning for them, but its not for me. More importantly it's not usually the way to start with LF either. Learn the basics then consider if you really want to think bigger. There are drawbacks in addition to the size and weight. Fewer film emulsions, fewer lenses, etc.

Henry Ambrose
24-Feb-2008, 21:21
It might be time for an intervention, audioexcels.

You gotta show some of your own pictures - not just talk about the gear as if you've used it and know what it does. Which I think you haven't. I think you don't know from actual experience any of this stuff you're writing about.

To be a photographer you have to make photographs. Its not about how much stuff you own.

Show us some pictures. Your pictures.

Frank Petronio
24-Feb-2008, 22:09
The comment that "consumer flatbed scanned 4x5 is equal to a dSLR so why bother?" pretty much sums things up... it doesn't reflect real world experiences.

Even if you want to shoot larger formats, do yourself a favor, shoot some 4x5 any work the kinks out on the "tiny" film.

I can make "3-D" pictures w a 60 year old 35mm Leica and grainy film, it isn't the size that matters.

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 22:15
LOL re experiments.

I've never shot larger than 8x10. I shot a good bit of 8x10 off and on over the years but it was never my favorite. Too much stuff to lug around. I still have an old 8x10 beater but it hasn't been out in three years. I shoot both 4x5 and 5x7 and find myself questioning 5x7 these days. With the scans I can do I really don't need anything larger than 4x5 most of the time. Hey, I just made a gorgeous 24x48 from a scanned 6x12 from a Noblex.

Some of my good friends, like John Bowen who posted above, shoot ULF and I do like the results, enjoy scanning for them, but its not for me. More importantly it's not usually the way to start with LF either. Learn the basics then consider if you really want to think bigger. There are drawbacks in addition to the size and weight. Fewer film emulsions, fewer lenses, etc.

What about 5X7 is not worth shooting with? Just curious;).
BTW, I'm envious of your darn scanners...maybe I wouldn't be considering a larger sheet size.

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 22:31
The comment that "consumer flatbed scanned 4x5 is equal to a dSLR so why bother?" pretty much sums things up... it doesn't reflect real world experiences.

Even if you want to shoot larger formats, do yourself a favor, shoot some 4x5 any work the kinks out on the "tiny" film.

I can make "3-D" pictures w a 60 year old 35mm Leica and grainy film, it isn't the size that matters.

One shot looks flat to me and "every" shot from any Leica 35mm looks FLAT to me. Sorry that you disagree. I have plenty of Contax G shots both small and large and they have a flat look by comparison to the 45 Polaroids I have taken...not a bad thing, just a different look:

http://flickr.com/photos/laurensimonutti/944679354/
http://flickr.com/photos/joelaron/525918368/

Look at all the awards that second shot got on Flickr...you can guess the one I feel is "see-through" and the one that, in spite, has a lot more space and should be a lot more 3-D, look FLAT to me.

But again, these are web images and I'm sure there is a way for my perception/view on what I feel is flat 2-D and what is more 3-D/transparent.

In real life, I have yet to see anything even at the measly 4X5 contact size look anywhere near as 3-D as what I have shot with any SLR/Rangefinder/DSLR...I must not know how to take photographs...

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 22:45
It might be time for an intervention, audioexcels.

You gotta show some of your own pictures - not just talk about the gear as if you've used it and know what it does. Which I think you haven't. I think you don't know from actual experience any of this stuff you're writing about.

To be a photographer you have to make photographs. Its not about how much stuff you own.

Show us some pictures. Your pictures.

audioexcels
24-Feb-2008, 22:47
A few more;)...

bglick
24-Feb-2008, 22:54
Your concept of 3d might be completely different than what other people perceive. So I would beware of thinking everyone sees what you see.


In general, what gives us the sensation of depth, is depth cues. Considering a 2d print has no object deviation between our two eyes, you must rely on the other remaining depth cues our brain uses to assess depth. Such as...... large Field of view, i.e. larger prints vs. smaller prints, which creates an immersive effect, shadows, gradual near to far subjects, color transitions, high resolution, extreme 3d subjects (vs. tiered 2d subjects) and sometimes, when perfectly executed, bokeh of the far subjects, which is an immediate depth cue to our brain. This is the beauty of very fast lenses, such as the Canon 200mm f1.8, which has truly demonstrated how powerful the out-of-focus cue is for re creating depth. For LF, this can be simulated by shooting at f11 and focusing close.

bglick
24-Feb-2008, 23:00
I assume you posted these pix to demonstrate the 3d effect? I don't see it.... you are lacking most all the depth cues I mentioned previously, so no depth sensation triggered for me. It's very possible you might have a very imaginative brain and you can re-create depth in a 2d image better than most.... no sarcasm intended... people can often have unusual / extraordinary visual sensory abilities and often don't realize it.

audioexcels
25-Feb-2008, 00:18
I assume you posted these pix to demonstrate the 3d effect? I don't see it.... you are lacking most all the depth cues I mentioned previously, so no depth sensation triggered for me. It's very possible you might have a very imaginative brain and you can re-create depth in a 2d image better than most.... no sarcasm intended... people can often have unusual / extraordinary visual sensory abilities and often don't realize it.

No no...the photos I posted of my own, not being the best of shots as I have tons of film I never scanned in and these were basically just some toss outs from the bunch, were posted in response to Henry that said I am not a photographer. Whether or not these are good or bad shots is irrelevant to me. It was only in response to Henry's wanting to see some shots I have taken. Wish I had a scanner around to scan in some of the keeper shots in the bunch.

The two that I linked from Flickr, both black and white shots, one with the man at the pool table, the other looking into a bathroom are the ones I used as how I envision what 2D and 3D looks like to "me". The guy at the pool table has a 2D/Flat image look. Sure, there's a nice sense of space, but the image is flat across the plane. In the bathroom shot, the image gives me the sense that I can walk into that bathroom. I cannot walk into that room with the pool table, but I can walk into that bathroom. To me, this is "transparency" and what I would consider 3-dimensional, meaning, how we view the world around use is not two dimensional, but 3 dimensional...this is only my opinion regarding the two shots from flickr...

Lets look at "3-D" from a different perspective now, the one you described. This involves eliminating the objects from the background, cut and paste so to speak looking images...Reminds me of all those "magical" Leica threads and thread about lenses that give that 3-D look. Certainly, this is a form of 3-D, but I refer to is more as "pop". The biker in this photo demonstrates this popping effect using that nice 200mm F1.8 glass you spoke of:

http://flickr.com/photos/modu_li/1458022343/

See my photo attachment of a shot I took. Not exactly the same kind of dimensional effect as the biker above, but it does have some of that "pop" factor. Attached are two shots in color of this 3-D effect, but I did not eliminate enough to make it a true popping image. If you look closely enough at the white truck in the photo, question what exactly it is sitting on. To my eyes, it is almost like it is almost pasted onto very small sized rocks? Please view white truck in the small form as shown on the website as it seems to loose the effect when it is clicked on/enlarged.

Third photo attached is one for the group...when I scanned this in about 2 years ago, I tried very quickly to make it look like a photo from the 30's...Don't think I succeeded to well, but it's what it is;).

Last shot is just a simple shot of a creek/forest in Oregon.

Cheers!

chilihead
25-Feb-2008, 06:38
If you can't decide on your own what camera to buy, you can forget about deciding on what to make for an image.

Ted Harris
25-Feb-2008, 07:01
What about 5X7 is not worth shooting with? Just curious;).
BTW, I'm envious of your darn scanners...maybe I wouldn't be considering a larger sheet size.

I never said "5x7 is not worth shooting with. I said " I shoot both 4x5 and 5x7 and find myself questioning 5x7 these days." and that is a lot different than ow worth shooting with. I love the aspect ratio and the size. I dislike the limited availability of color film. The questions are all business questions .....

As for scanners, again they are business equipment and tools for me. It would seem to me that if you took the profits from all the equipment you sold, and set it aside for a few months, you would easily accumulate enough to buy a used,maybe even a new, high end scanner. Or, just saved your money and used it to buy a scanner instead of all the lenses and cameras that you are (I assume) buying for resale .....

audioexcels
25-Feb-2008, 08:41
I never said "5x7 is not worth shooting with. I said " I shoot both 4x5 and 5x7 and find myself questioning 5x7 these days." and that is a lot different than ow worth shooting with. I love the aspect ratio and the size. I dislike the limited availability of color film. The questions are all business questions .....

As for scanners, again they are business equipment and tools for me. It would seem to me that if you took the profits from all the equipment you sold, and set it aside for a few months, you would easily accumulate enough to buy a used,maybe even a new, high end scanner. Or, just saved your money and used it to buy a scanner instead of all the lenses and cameras that you are (I assume) buying for resale .....

I wish life was as easy as said-done with respect to "profit". After my wife and I take our trip for two months, I will be looking at about $4000 total in the bank. I could sell off my stereo system, but it took me 15 years to know what the absolute limits of compromise mean in audio. So that's a no go unless I was willing to let it go and attempt to make a living shooting photos. Of course the people above don't think I should be taking photos at all, though I am concluding the camera setup part of things which I am extremely grateful for.

Regarding buying/selling. You will find the ones with the lucky charm in them on the board. I am not part of this breed. Call it living and accepting the capitalist way of life vs. my feeling that I am stealing from people by living this type of life. It may sound stupid, but it is a large reason why I can and cannot make money doing business of some sort. In other words, if I want to accept the capitalist way of life and not consider others, I will make a killing in the stock market. I gave a stock to my dad that he got in a little higher than he could have, but it made him about 300K. He's no rich person, but it's the one stock that blew out any other stock he had ever played, and he has had some very good ones, including the company stock he worked for, Northrup Grumman. Anyhow, case in point, if I was out to buy/sell for a living, camera equipment would be a mediocre field to do so and the only real profitable way in doing so would be to roam around yard sales/flea markets/whatever these people do to make money, and sell this equipment (but I don't believe in "stealing" something someone has for $25 that is worth $2500). There's other areas for making money such as camera restoration, gimmicks like adapters, tripod plates, little things that the Asians have really capitalized on (camera accessories made in the 100000's). I do find the ads. in Craiglist of people wanting to buy old Leica/Zeiss/Hassleblad/etc. equipment. These are re-sellers and again, they are flea market ants that utilize the capitalist way of life to make money.

Sorry I mis-understood what you said regarding the 5X7 format and agree that if you have the luxury, which you do, to have all the fanciest scanners in the world at your fingertips, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to shoot 5X7 w/some exceptions of the different aspect ratio...

audioexcels
25-Feb-2008, 08:47
If you can't decide on your own what camera to buy, you can forget about deciding on what to make for an image.

So every camera you have purchased has had ZERO influence with relation to any other thing/person/etc. of life...is that right? Somehow the wonders of nature just placed a box in your hand and said, "hi, I take sheet film, and you are going to use me to take photos now. Just don't ask how to do it because I am easy enough to figure out!."

Kuzano
25-Feb-2008, 08:51
I had a 4x5 Gowland PocketView (and still have an 8x10"), and I would be a bit wary of using heavy rollfilm backs on it. Maybe a lightweight 6x12, but the 6x17 expansion back might be a bit too much.

Point well taken, and most of my use of roll back so far has been exclusively 6X9 roll film graflex back. Even then, in changing the back out, care must be taken to not move the focus points in the transition from GG to film holder. If I do panoramic, I will probably try one of the lighter plastic 6X12 backs. For 6X17, I use my Fuji G690bl and a panning tripod, take two shots, and stitch them in CS3.

I also am working on a plan to use the major components of the Pocket and replace the tiny monorail with a more substantial gear-focus rail. this will add 1/2 to 3/4 pounds to the overall weight. There are some great gear-focus rails already produced for 35mm bellows attachments. Pentax has one with two geared pads and the mount bracket, nylon bushed slides on a squarish rail with mm markings

David A. Goldfarb
25-Feb-2008, 09:22
I also am working on a plan to use the major components of the Pocket and replace the tiny monorail with a more substantial gear-focus rail. this will add 1/2 to 3/4 pounds to the overall weight. There are some great gear-focus rails already produced for 35mm bellows attachments. Pentax has one with two geared pads and the mount bracket, nylon bushed slides on a squarish rail with mm markings

SK Grimes does a geared focus conversion as a standard upgrade for the Gowland. If I'd decided to keep the Gowland, I would have gotten it. They used to have a page on their website showing this modification, but I couldn't find it. You could call them and ask about it.

Jim Noel
25-Feb-2008, 10:17
audioexcels,

You are not going crazy, you are just being infected with that wonderful disease which causes so many of us to work in a lot of formats. There is nothing like using teh right camera for the right job, regardless of what cotdt says, there is nothing in the digital world which even approaches a contact print from a large negative.

I regularly work with:
24x65 mm, 4x5, 5x7, 6x17, 8x10 and 7x17. On rare occasions I throw in 6x6 cm, 35 mm and 6x9 cm.

I hope I never recover.
Jim

Kuzano
25-Feb-2008, 12:55
SK Grimes does a geared focus conversion as a standard upgrade for the Gowland. If I'd decided to keep the Gowland, I would have gotten it. They used to have a page on their website showing this modification, but I couldn't find it. You could call them and ask about it.

Thank You... I will follow up on that. I'd rather take pictures than build cameras.

Lars