PDA

View Full Version : 4x5 or 8x10 not sure wich way to go/can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide open



Serge S
31-Mar-2012, 09:27
Hello

I've spent an inordinate amount of time reading posts and researching and am still not sure what to do.
My primary intention is to use the camera for portraits and I like selective focus which is what I like to do with the smaller formats I shoot. The look is different with an 8x10 in regard to the fall off. (Selective focus with a 300/5.6 with no distortion). So that is what drew me to the format. Than I looked at cost to purchase, shoot, weight, etc. My back is not the strongest so I am proceeding with caution:)

I'm wondering if I can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide open with a 300 5.6? What lens would I need to use in 4x5? It prob would not be the same as the tonality will differ, etc., but can I get close enough? My favorite focal length in 6x7 is 80mm for head and shoulders/ 80 in 2 1/4 and 50mm in 35mm). I would get a 210 in 4x5 as my only lens. In 8x10 I would get a 300 or slightly longer lens. I also like the idea of being able to use older vintage glass, that would be an option with the 8x10 mostly I think? Or at least for a better selection...I like to shoot head & shoulders. I like P. Roversi, Timothy Greenfield Sanders among many. I'm not looking for a clinical look or to be like them, but they do interesting work and inspire me.

In 8x10 I am considering a Sinar F2, Deardorff as I get find them used at a reasonable price point.
In 4x5... at field cameras: Wista DX, Wisner, Toyo 45A, Deardorff 4x5 Special

The trade offs for me. Is that I think the look of 8x10 is what I want, but at the expense of weight & mobility, film & processing expense. I like the idea of being able to do contacts (alternative processes) as well as scanning. I'm thinking a lot, and basically wonder if in the end maybe I'll get both formats...but I want to start with one and not go overboard either. I think I can handle the costs of the larger format as I would shoot less, but I would also learn less?

One last question, do you need more working distance form your model with 8x10 format vs with a 300mm vs a 150 in 4x5?

I'm in the predicament that there are a lot of paths possible. I've learned a lot from reading the board, but without actually shooting I'm in the dark, as ultimately it's a personal choice.

Thanks in advance,

Serge

John Kasaian
31-Mar-2012, 09:54
An old 8x10 Deardorff with a 14" Commercial Ektar works fine for me. YMMV :)
The learning curve with an 8x10 is easily reached because everything is bigger, heavier and more costly (like wood working where you quickly learn to measure twice and cut once ;) ) so I tend to go more slowly and contemplate more (certainly you can do that with any format, but shooting an 8x10 on a budget is more demanding in that respect)
As far as learning less, don't worry. Sheet film and perspecive controls behave the same regardless of format. If anything, 8x10 poses greater logistical challenges with landscapes, which I find is part of the fun. :D As far as wieght goes, and 8x10 'dorff is not a heavy camera in my book, but a fast lens that covers 8x10, a sturdy tripod that will handle an 8x10, and a stack of 8x10 film holders really packs on the pounds. A Gowland might be something to consider in that case.

Ben Syverson
31-Mar-2012, 09:57
Forget the cameras, forget the lenses... Paulo Roversi and TGS are all about the subject and lighting.

Neither of them seem to work wide open, so you can replicate the look with nearly any format. TGS works a lot with a Nikkor 450/9, closed down. 210mm is a good analogue in 4x5.

4x5 and 8x10 do differ in detail and tonality, but you probably won't detect it unless you're printing 30x40" or above.

IanG
31-Mar-2012, 10:09
You need to consider practicalities, I shoot both formats but there's no way I could work all day backpacking with a 10x8 camera, I can with a 5x4. It's for reasons like this many of us work with both formats and in the US (mainly) 7x5 which is a compromise in between.

Ian

Brian C. Miller
31-Mar-2012, 10:28
Welcome to the forum, Serge!

You can use a 300mm lens on a 4x5. The 300mm is approximately normal for an 8x10. For a 4x5, it's a long lens, and some 4x5 cameras may not have the bellows for it to be used ad portrait distances. You would need to buy a telephoto lens in that case, like a Schneider 360mm, which is common on the used market.

I also have back problems, and so I use my 8x10 cameras carefully. There's a number of forum threads about carrying a camera and accessories on a cart. I use a bicycle cart.

sully75
31-Mar-2012, 14:08
I'm pretty sure there are very few people who could tell from a regular to large enlargement whether a picture was taken on a 4x5 or 8x10. It's really not the camera here. You could definitely make a nicer contact print with the 8x10, and scanning is easier if your scanner is big enough. But as far as the "look" I don't think it's the last thing you need to worry about.

A basic fact though is that the same 300mm lens on an 8x10 will make a radically different kind of picture on a 4x5. I'm reasonably sure (someone please correct me) that the equivalent lens on 4x5 is a 150. Which are plentiful (there are a couple for sale right now, I believe).

sully75
31-Mar-2012, 14:12
PS it sounds like you are still figuring out the basic moves (as am I, perhaps a few steps ahead of you). I started with 5x7, with thoughts of making contacts. But currently I'm mostly gearing up to shoot 4x5. I would recommend you start the same, the mistakes are a lot cheaper, there is so much more available as far as tanks and development stuff. Lenses are cheaper and easier to find. 8x10 will always be there.

Currently I'm using my old beater 5x7 (a pretty crude but workable camera that I've done a lot of decent work with) and a much more modern 4x5 I just got. You might consider something similar, an older Kodak 2D 8x10 and some super technical 4x5. Frank would recomend a monorail, and they are very cheap and can produce amazing results. A field camera is going to be more expensive but substantially lighter.

The combination of a cheap 8x10 with one normal lens and a nice 4x5 kit with a few lenses might be cheaper than a full 8x10 kit with several lenses. Just a thought.

aluncrockford
31-Mar-2012, 14:29
If you are just starting off then I would suggest you invest in a 5x4 and a telephoto 270 or 360 ,if you cannot get one at your budget then a 240 or 210 will be perfectly ok, you will not get exactly the same effect as shooting on 10x8 but it will be close enough not to be to concerned and the lower film cost will give you the chance to test without being to concerned about the price, Having just bought a box of 20 sheets of10x8 160 NS for £255 , I would hesitate to advice going down the 10x8 path without a lot of practice with the smaller format

cosmicexplosion
31-Mar-2012, 21:01
i just did a days shooting on my 8x10 sinar, and i went to flick a few polaroids on my 4x5 sinar and ok it had a 90mm but it was quiet a shock how small the image was.

so if you like squinting get a 4x5, if you like to see what you are lookin at, git a 8x10.

i just got an old kodak 2d for 600 buckaroonies that is very light, and a cheap way to start.

Sergio Caetano
1-Apr-2012, 06:32
Bigger is better.

Jim Noel
1-Apr-2012, 06:40
If you really prefer the look of 35mm camera with a 50 mm lens, whichequatesto a 300mm on 8x10, then you would want a 150mm on 4x5. These are shorter than most people prefer. My personal preference is: 35mm> 100mm lens, 4x5> 300 mm lens, 8x10>600mm lens because they produce less distortion.

Ben Syverson
1-Apr-2012, 13:31
I find long lenses compress perspective too much... People's ears and necks get bigger, and past about 450mm in 8x10 it starts to look unflattering. 300mm is a very flattering portrait FL in 8x10

Jay DeFehr
1-Apr-2012, 13:54
Serge,

I think you're the only person who can answer your question. Since I never make huge prints, I never really need 8x10, and rarely 4x5. I shoot both formats occasionally for reasons that have nothing to do with necessity, or even artistic choices, but more likely because I have a film in one of those formats I want to test, or just for the fun of using the big cameras. Currently I'm shooting about 80% medium format, and making enlarged negatives for carbon printing. The added complexity of making enlarged negatives is more than compensated for by the efficiencies of shooting MF vs LF. This might not be true for others, but it is for me, and the way I work.

All the above being said, I shot 4x5 last night, and just finished processing the film, and it looks pretty great. I also shot a roll of MF, which coincidentally gives me the same number of exposures as the ten sheets of 4x5 I shot. I'm about to process the MF roll, and it will be interesting to compare results. It won't be a scientific comparison, since there were several differences between formats, but it might be interesting, all the same.

There's no comparison in the shooting of LF vs MF -- MF is fluid and effortless by comparison.

John NYC
1-Apr-2012, 14:21
I find long lenses compress perspective too much... People's ears and necks get bigger, and past about 450mm in 8x10 it starts to look unflattering. 300mm is a very flattering portrait FL in 8x10

That's an interesting observation. I like 85mm on full frame DSLR or 35mm film, but I also like 50mm, 35mm and even 28mm for environmental. I once used to shoot 135mm, but it feels too distant to me now. I have never yet noticed the ears and neck issue, but what I have noticed is a distinct flattening of the noise and cheek bones and a pie-faced tendency at 135mm on full frame DSLR/film.

On 8x10, I've only so far shot portraits at 360mm (about 50mm equivalent), and I think it is just perfect for that, although I think 300mm would be great as well.

John Kasaian
1-Apr-2012, 21:50
FWIW, the 8x10 lenses I'll reach for when it comes to portraits are either a 10" WF Ektar, 12" Dagor or a 14" Commercial Ektar. On a 4x5, the 162mm Wollensak Velostigmat and 5x7 a 13" Cooke Velostigmat series someing or other portrait lens.

genotypewriter
2-Apr-2012, 00:19
I'm wondering if I can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide open with a 300 5.6? What lens would I need to use in 4x5?

That would be a 150mm f/2.8. The closest you can get to that on a budget would be with a 175mm f/2.5 Aero Ektar:

http://www.flickriver.com/groups/aeroektar/pool/interesting/



It prob would not be the same as the tonality will differ, etc., but can I get close enough?

I wouldn't worry about that as experts can tell the difference between two 300/5.6 designs on 8x10 too. Also the tonality and "glow" and what not will make a difference depending on the size of the final reproduction. And 8x10 is not the end of it all... next to 20x24" it's lesser than 4x5 is to 8x10.

Ben Syverson
2-Apr-2012, 13:03
I once used to shoot 135mm, but it feels too distant to me now. I have never yet noticed the ears and neck issue, but what I have noticed is a distinct flattening of the noise and cheek bones and a pie-faced tendency at 135mm on full frame DSLR/film.
Yeah, to me 135mm feels "off." You can't stand that far away from someone and see them that clearly and closely, so it just looks unnatural. No one looks good through binoculars.

85mm is what it's like to look at someone a few seats from you at a dinner party. Closer, at conversational distance (Broadbent's term), 50mm gives a headshot, 35mm gives you chest-up, and 28mm is waist-up. They all can look very natural and intimate, but I think there's a real sweet spot at 50mm.

SergeiR
2-Apr-2012, 22:19
That would be a 150mm f/2.8. The closest you can get to that on a budget would be with a 175mm f/2.5 Aero Ektar:

http://www.flickriver.com/groups/aeroektar/pool/interesting/

Why use odd heavy chunk, when you can use 150mm 2.8 Xenotar, which is lighter and can go into compur shutter, beyound me, but ok...

Ben Syverson
3-Apr-2012, 15:54
Good luck finding that Xenotar...

Tony Karnezis
3-Apr-2012, 19:47
Welcome to the forum, Serge. Everything is a compromise, and it sounds like you've thought quite a bit about your decision. I think the answer to your first question--whether you can replicate the look of an 8x10 shot wide open with a 300/5.6--is clearly yes, but at what cost. I think Jim Galli (who has an extensive collection of vintage lenses) sums it up well.



Why 8X10?

Tonality and unique lens characteristics.

Tonality is simply brute force. More real estate of film to spread what the lens is doing around.

Lens characteristic. If you like shallow depth of field and lovely bokeh (look at my web pages and it will be obvious, I do) even the base line 300mm f5.6 that people sell all day long for less than the value of the shutter if they threw the lens elements away gives a depth and bokeh that you can only begin to approach by paying $2500 for an f2.8 Xenotar in 4X5. That threshold is just the jumping off spot. Beyond that there are antique soft focus lenses and old petzval's etc. that can just blow away anything you can do with a 4X5. D3, 5DII, Photoshop, don't make me laugh.

So, to sum up, tonality and style, and an endless quest of more pretty old glass and seeing what it can do.

I'm not well versed on vintage glass, but many lenses, regardless of the format they cover, aren't in shutters. This isn't necessarily an obstacle but can be a real plus--they're lighter and less expensive than their shuttered counterparts. Just use a combination of lighting, film choice and filtration that gives exposures longer than ~1/4 sec and use a hat, spare dark slide, etc for a shutter. Or you can use shutters that mount behind the lens like a Packard shutter or Sinar Copal shutter. If you have particular lenses that you'd like to acquire, make sure they'll fit the lens board of the camera you're considering.

As for cost limiting your learning, I don't think I learned less shooting medium format instead of 35mm, and I don't think it has to be the case that you will learn less shooting 8x10 over 4x5. You can cut your 8x10 film costs by buying Arista.edu film, out of date film or even X-ray film (which is dirt cheap compared to panchromatic 4x5 film).

The flip side is that most things in 8x10 are considerably heavier--cameras, film holders, tripods, lenses, etc. Your travel needs will obviously dictate how important that is to you. And if you're considering making digital negatives from 4x5 (or smaller), larger formats aren't necessary for contact printing/alternate processes.

I personally enjoy using 8x10 for still life, landscape and portraits because I find it easier to use than 4x5 (in most circumstances), and I like the results I get for reasons Jim Galli described. It's easy to compose and focus on a big ground glass, I'm not into digital negatives for making contact prints (yet), and I don't think I'll travel with it anymore. Whatever format you decide to use, buy good, inexpensive used gear. If you don't like it, you'll probably be able to sell it for what you paid. Remember that imperfect glass often has no effect on image quality, only on how light your wallet will become. Save your money for film and chemicals. Have fun!

SergeiR
3-Apr-2012, 20:22
Good luck finding that Xenotar...

Indeed more rare than Ektar, and certainly more pricy but not impossible to find.

genotypewriter
3-Apr-2012, 21:05
Why use odd heavy chunk, when you can use 150mm 2.8 Xenotar, which is lighter and can go into compur shutter, beyound me, but ok...

Doesn't sound like you've read the OP's original post. Things he said like "I looked at cost to purchase" and "without actually shooting I'm in the dark" should hint that dumping several thousands on a Xenotar 150 before ever having shot LF before is not a particularly smart move.

On the other hand, you can get excellent results on a budget with an Aero Ektar and a Speed Graphic. Have you seen how cheap they are and how easy to sell they are?

The Xenotar 150 was essentially my first LF lens too. And there's a part of me that regrets that move as when you start from 4x5, you naturally want to move on to 8x10. And on 8x10, you can more than replicate that look with a $300 300/5.6 lens.

SergeiR
3-Apr-2012, 21:21
Doesn't sound like you've read the OP's original post. Things he said like "I looked at cost to purchase" and "without actually shooting I'm in the dark" should hint that dumping several thousands on a Xenotar 150 before ever having shot LF before is not a particularly smart move.

On the other hand, you can get excellent results on a budget with an Aero Ektar and a Speed Graphic. Have you seen how cheap they are and how easy to sell they are?

The Xenotar 150 was essentially my first LF lens too. And there's a part of me that regrets that move as when you start from 4x5, you naturally want to move on to 8x10. And on 8x10, you can more than replicate that look with a $300 300/5.6 lens.

Well... I did read it.
And Aero's do go for 700$ now, b/c they are fast and re-sellers buying them for cheap and selling higher b/c of demand.. Of course if one is patient - there is possibility to get it for about 2-400. Same is true however for Xenotar. If one is patient - there is chance of getting it for less than couple thousands.

Anyway. Beside the point and stuff, b/c it doesn't matter how "fast" lens it - larger in format you go - different look you get, smoother transitions and more details. Overwise 50/0.95 would be giving looks fairly close to those lenses / formats on 35mm body, and its not. Not even when printed on 8x10 or so. Its not just about DOF :)

So while going for 8x10 with 300/5.6 is good and shiny, its cheaper to get along with whatever 210-250mm could be slapped on top of Speed Graphic and see how it goes - like look or not, like pace of work or not. Cheaper film-wise too.

But i do agree - natural progression is towards 8x10.. ;)

John NYC
3-Apr-2012, 22:24
On the other hand, you can get excellent results on a budget with an Aero Ektar and a Speed Graphic. Have you seen how cheap they are and how easy to sell they are?

The Xenotar 150 was essentially my first LF lens too. And there's a part of me that regrets that move as when you start from 4x5, you naturally want to move on to 8x10. And on 8x10, you can more than replicate that look with a $300 300/5.6 lens.

Of course, after one has seen the 300mm f/5.6 on 8x10, one will naturally want a Kodak Commercial Ektar 14 in. f/6.3 next for an even further step in that direction.

Then I guess it goes totally backwards to brass lenses, but that is not my thing.

Regarding the Aero Ektars, I personally would not want a lens that is radioactive in my house.

turtle
3-Apr-2012, 22:31
The other issue is that a 300mm 5.6 will generally perform much better at f5.6 than a 150mm 2.8 will wide open. When enlarging 5x4 to 20x24 you will likely see the deficiencies in resolution of such a lens wide open if the subject matter has detail to show.

This all seems to conclude that replicating the look on 5x4 is very difficult and that shooting on 5x4 with a longer lens - circa 210mm - might be better than the literal translation of a 150mm.

I would go so far as to recommend 5x7. Much smaller and easier to handle than 8x10, but noticeably larger than 4x5 and with a real tonality boost even on sub-20x24 prints. You could then slap a 300mm 5.6 lens on that and IMHO get an even better portrait angle of view than the same lens on 8x10 (300mm on 5x7 being the same as 210mm on 5x4- prob the most common portraits focal length). Alternatively, a 240mm f5.6 plasmat, which can be found for $350 or less, will give an ever so slightly long of normal look more akin to the 360mm/14" (which is many people's favourite on 8x10).

5x7 cameras weigh only a touch more than 5x4, but lots less than 8x10. Holders are cheaper and so is film.

genotypewriter
4-Apr-2012, 02:40
Well... I did read it.
And Aero's do go for 700$ now, b/c they are fast and re-sellers buying them for cheap and selling higher b/c of demand.. Of course if one is patient - there is possibility to get it for about 2-400. Same is true however for Xenotar. If one is patient - there is chance of getting it for less than couple thousands.

Here's a list of Aero Ektars sold recently on the auction site:

2nd Apr: 153/2.5 sold for $451.95
24th Mar: 178/2.5 sold for $611
22nd Feb: 178/2.5 + aerial camera sold for $515.00
19th Feb: 178/2.5 sold for $426.40
5th Feb: 178/2.5 sold for $388.07



Regarding the Aero Ektars, I personally would not want a lens that is radioactive in my house.

It's not that bad actually. As long as you don't keep it under your bed it's fine :)



The other issue is that a 300mm 5.6 will generally perform much better at f5.6 than a 150mm 2.8 will wide open. When enlarging 5x4 to 20x24 you will likely see the deficiencies in resolution of such a lens wide open if the subject matter has detail to show.

True but the Xenotar 150 combo is a bit of an exception, at least lens-wise... it's a lot cleaner and sharper wide open than my 8x10 Fuji 300/5.6 wide open:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/6806479707

The only thing getting in the way of resolution is the film grain.

With that said... still, larger the format, the better... as long as you don't have to carry it :D

SergeiR
4-Apr-2012, 05:42
Here's a list of Aero Ektars sold recently on the auction site:
24th Mar: 178/2.5 sold for $611
22nd Feb: 178/2.5 + aerial camera sold for $515.00
19th Feb: 178/2.5 sold for $426.40
5th Feb: 178/2.5 sold for $388.07

see? The do go up as soon as people wake up after New Year ;)
In all seriousness - i tried it last year, failed miserably to find one, but kept seeing ones that gone for like 200$ (here on forum too) and on auctions they were in area of 400-700.. So i gave up. And at that moment i have found Xenotar ;) And yep - if cells are positioned right (said person who didnt tighten rear one right after cleaning, and have found it only after session or two) - its pretty sweet even opened wide (and scanned with cheapo HP scanner)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7043/7025528881_c33df736ee_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/7025528881/)
Self portrait (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/7025528881/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

But 5x7 or 8x10 obviously will be better, b/c media size is larger, so less enlarging required for final image and more details getting recorded --> better light/shadow transitions. Weight/film flattness/cost aside. Thats why i have couple of 8x10 covering lenses sitting, waiting.. planning revolution to overthrow 4x5 cameras from me closet..

ashlee52
4-Apr-2012, 11:48
To the original poster... you will achieve the extremely limited depth of field similar to a 300mm f5.6 on 8x10 by using a 150mm f2.8 or f3.5 on 4x5, a 80mm f 2.0 or 2.8 on medium format , or a 50mm f1.4 on 35 mm. Certainly if you want limited depth of field you can get even more using longer lenses in any of these formats. Probably more important is how each format treats tonality (bigger is smoother) and how any particular camera affects the subject and photographer/subject interaction. One of the real joys in using big cameras is that the pictures are carefully considered and the subject tends to participate rather than just smile a big toothy smirk. One could probably make some very good images hiding a digital point and shoot in the inside of a Deardorff.

I would say that it matters quite a lot what experience you already have shooting fully manual film cameras and doing your own developing and printing. Anything larger than 4x5 is a very taxing process even to assemble all the equipment you need. It is often useful to simplify a new adventure.

John NYC
4-Apr-2012, 12:30
It's not that bad actually. As long as you don't keep it under your bed it's fine :)


I would not say that with such surety. Radiation is cumulative. So if you have had or will have other exposures fro other sources, it could be more significant. Also, some people react differently to differing levels.

I would definitely not want one of these in my house, personally.

SergeiR
4-Apr-2012, 13:06
I would not say that with such surety. Radiation is cumulative. So if you have had or will have other exposures fro other sources, it could be more significant. Also, some people react differently to differing levels.

I would definitely not want one of these in my house, personally.

You might get more than that from flying on airplane , but generally speaking you right - constant exposure is not a good thing.. Can start mutate or worse. And it can be next generation who gets it, unfortunately.

John NYC
4-Apr-2012, 14:45
You might get more than that from flying on airplane , but generally speaking you right - constant exposure is not a good thing.. Can start mutate or worse. And it can be next generation who gets it, unfortunately.

If one has 18 CAT scans in ones life, they have now shown that is a risk. Cancer patients often get a cat scan every couple of months for years. Add to that airplanes, airplane scanners, X-rays, and god knows what else will happen to a person by the time they are 50 or so and well it ain't worth it to me to add to the pile. Besides those lenses are a fad... One hit wonders, to make a pop music analogy.

Corran
4-Apr-2012, 17:17
If you go ahead and search the internet you'll find an article about the AE that pretty much discounts the radiation as trivial. Short of living with it in your pocket it's not going to do anything!

I've got two in my house right now, building a couple cameras. They are unique lenses that are very interesting to me. Still doesn't look like a Schneider 300/5.6 on 8x10.

Tony Karnezis
4-Apr-2012, 18:39
I don't mean to perpetuate the tangent this thread is taking, but my friend was worried about taking road trips and sleeping in his van close to ULF lenses containing radioactive glass. I arranged for his lenses to be tested by the Director of Radiation Safety at the university at which I work.

IIRC, the radiation exposure you would receive after staring directly into the glass for an hour from ~6 inches away was similar to that you would receive during an hour of commercial air travel. The metal barrels shielded the radiation considerably. The ground glass would probably provide additional shielding while composing as well. In short, the Director told my friend that he should simply limit his close contact with the glass. My friend was reassured.

Tony Karnezis
4-Apr-2012, 18:56
Back on topic: if you're leaning towards 8x10, someone just posted a Rodenstock 300/5.6 for $300.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?89299-FS-Rodenstock-Sironar-300m-f-5-6-bargain-lens

John NYC
4-Apr-2012, 19:20
If you go ahead and search the internet you'll find an article about the AE that pretty much discounts the radiation as trivial. Short of living with it in your pocket it's not going to do anything!


I know exactly how much radiation comes from it.

genotypewriter
4-Apr-2012, 21:51
I would not say that with such surety. Radiation is cumulative. So if you have had or will have other exposures fro other sources, it could be more significant. Also, some people react differently to differing levels.

I would definitely not want one of these in my house, personally.


I know exactly how much radiation comes from it.

I recently had the physics department of the university that I work in run some tests on my 12" Aero Ektar in isolation with significant shielding from background radiation. This was using a calibrated, permanently installed alpha, beta, gamma and x-ray measuring device in a shielded room over an extended period of time. Simulations have also been performed to measure the absorption rates. So it's not done by holding some dude's pocket-sized ebay Geiger counter to the lens and looking at the reading. We've got the results and are in the process of writing a paper on it (the physics folks are doing most of the work so how soon it comes out is a bit beyond my control).

The results indicate that it's not worth worrying about. The alpha and beta can be stopped very easily and the gamma is not bad as long as distance is increased... worrying about the radiation will do more harm than the radiation itself!

But it's still radiation... the less of it you get, the not bad it is :) It's like driving and speed. The slower you go, the fewer the chances of fatalities in accidents... so is the best thing to do not travel by vehicles at all? :)

Tony Karnezis
4-Apr-2012, 22:03
The results indicate that it's not worth worrying about. The alpha and beta can be stopped very easily and the gamma is not bad as long as distance is increased... worrying about the radiation will do more harm than the radiation itself!

The only thing I might worry about is bremsstrahlung from betas hitting a dense brass barrel.


But it's still radiation... the less of it you get, the not bad it is :)

Prudent advice.

Tony Karnezis
4-Apr-2012, 22:04
So, Serge. I'm curious how your thoughts evolving on the topic of 4x5 vs. 8x10.

John NYC
4-Apr-2012, 22:25
The results indicate that it's not worth worrying about. The alpha and beta can be stopped very easily and the gamma is not bad as long as distance is increased... worrying about the radiation will do more harm than the radiation itself!


I am not going to argue with you or Corran about what is safe and what is not. You know why? You two are just theorizing about radiation. I am a person who has a permanent serious health problem directly due to radiation levels/sources that were deemed to be "safe" by all manner of experts.

Tony Karnezis
4-Apr-2012, 22:37
I'm sorry to hear that, John. I don't want to come across as casual about radiation. I simply wanted to put the radiation emitted by lenses in perspective by comparing it to other exposures we willingly and perhaps naively accept as "safe." The more we have learned, the less radiation the medical field uses for imaging procedures. There was a time when X rays were deemed safe by "experts" and used for everything from acne treatment to even sizing your feet in a shoe store. Times have gladly changed, but perhaps not soon enough for you.

John NYC
4-Apr-2012, 23:02
I'm sorry to hear that, John. I don't want to come across as casual about radiation. I simply wanted to put the radiation emitted by lenses in perspective by comparing it to other exposures we willingly and perhaps naively accept as "safe." The more we have learned, the less radiation the medical field uses for imaging procedures. There was a time when X rays were deemed safe by "experts" and used for everything from acne treatment to even sizing your feet in a shoe store. Times have gladly changed, but perhaps not soon enough for you.

Thanks, but I am not talking ages ago. You guys in the medical field (I see you are) still have a long way to go to understand the ramifications of what you all do.

John Kasaian
4-Apr-2012, 23:34
I used to have an aero ektar and I took it to the nuclear imaging lab at the hospital where i used to work to have it checked out. The radiation from that particular lens was scarcely above "background" radiation and over 6" away it was indistinguishable from the background radiation using the equipment that lab had (nor, IIRC were there any emissions from the rear cell) The type of radiation wasn't one of the bad kinds---but of course that can change during the course of time---so I kept it in a box I made from "wonderboard"--a cement impregnated fiber glass building material--until I eventually sold it.
It was an interesting investigation and if I ever have another lens made with lanthium glass cells, I'd go back and ask them to check it out for me (there was no charge as the lab techs really curious about that old lens!)

genotypewriter
5-Apr-2012, 16:43
I am not going to argue with you or Corran about what is safe and what is not. You know why? You two are just theorizing about radiation. I am a person who has a permanent serious health problem directly due to radiation levels/sources that were deemed to be "safe" by all manner of experts.

Not happy to hear about the health problems, John. Sadly, that's the reality of things... how things like radiation affects us is very personal, at the end of the day.




I used to have an aero ektar and I took it to the nuclear imaging lab at the hospital where i used to work to have it checked out. The radiation from that particular lens was scarcely above "background" radiation and over 6" away it was indistinguishable from the background radiation using the equipment that lab had (nor, IIRC were there any emissions from the rear cell) The type of radiation wasn't one of the bad kinds---but of course that can change during the course of time---so I kept it in a box I made from "wonderboard"--a cement impregnated fiber glass building material--until I eventually sold it.
It was an interesting investigation and if I ever have another lens made with lanthium glass cells, I'd go back and ask them to check it out for me (there was no charge as the lab techs really curious about that old lens!)

Do you mean 6 feet? Because that's sort of what I got. The peak levels were in lower wavelength gamma. I don't want to quote numbers just yet.

John Kasaian
5-Apr-2012, 18:36
Not happy to hear about the health problems, John. Sadly, that's the reality of things... how things like radiation affects us is very personal, at the end of the day.





Do you mean 6 feet? Because that's sort of what I got. The peak levels were in lower wavelength gamma. I don't want to quote numbers just yet.
Nope. It was 6 inches on my particular lens.

SergeiR
5-Apr-2012, 18:51
Well... my younger brother (ok.. cousin for you, folks from States), died at age of 13. Last 3 months of his life he spent in bath, full of painkillers, b/c his spinal brain bit was slowly disintegrating and there was no cure for this. All b/c his father went and worked under presumably "safe" radiation levels, as contractor, to make some money before second kid to be started.. So, if there is someone in next house that gives up waves of whatever radiation level - i really really wish this person would see eyes of 13 year old kid dying for no reason..

Thats why i am saying that it might be next generation to pay. And i do plan to have kid or two more, so - i am steering away from that stuff as much as i can.

genotypewriter
5-Apr-2012, 20:22
Well... my younger brother (ok.. cousin for you, folks from States), died at age of 13. Last 3 months of his life he spent in bath, full of painkillers, b/c his spinal brain bit was slowly disintegrating and there was no cure for this. All b/c his father went and worked under presumably "safe" radiation levels, as contractor, to make some money before second kid to be started.. So, if there is someone in next house that gives up waves of whatever radiation level - i really really wish this person would see eyes of 13 year old kid dying for no reason..

Thats why i am saying that it might be next generation to pay. And i do plan to have kid or two more, so - i am steering away from that stuff as much as i can.

That is a sad story and an eye-opener of a sort.

Now I got to look more in to radiation's long term effects on the sperm generation and quality.

Thanks for sharing and sorry to hear about your loss.

Serge S
6-Apr-2012, 21:21
Thank you for the excellent suggestions and advice. It was very helpful and appreciated!

After giving it more thought, I think I will go for a compromise solution and get a 5x7 with a 4x5 back, so that I can try a larger format with a bit less bulk with the same camera. This way I can get started and see where things lead. I really prefer the 4x5 aspect ratio best, so I can upgrade to 8X10 if I like the look of the 5x7.
I spent a lot of time looking at more portraits on the site and find the 8x10 portraits more appealing.
I think to take full advantage of 8x10 I would set up a space to use it at home, where I can keep it set up. I would still use it in the field, but I can't see myself getting too far afield with it on my own without getting an assistant:) Things really start to add up when all the paraphernalia is taken into account.

I was thinking of renting, but I'm not sure I'd get a got enough of a feel for things in a short period of time.

I'll keep you posted on my developments.

Thanks again,

Serge

goamules
7-Apr-2012, 06:30
You'll probably like 5x7 a lot. It's big enough to really see the ground glass, and the film, when you can find it, is cheaper.

jeroldharter
7-Apr-2012, 08:03
5x7 would be a nice format, but which camera at which price?

If you are trying to keep your options open, weight down, and re-sale price up, then consider a Ritter 8x10 with reducing backs of whatever size you like. You would have some bulk relative to smaller formats but about the same weight.

You could use 8x10 at home, 5x7 out of the car, and 4x5 backpacking for example.

John Kasaian
10-Apr-2012, 18:49
A lot of the older 4x5 cameras were 4x5s! All you need is the 5x7 back. Check out Agfa Anscos, B&Js, etc... two formats for the price of one!

Luke79
14-Apr-2012, 05:56
Great thread and great information, im really new to this topic,

but is there a way to use old "non shutter" lenses on 8x10 with some kind of focal plane shutter like on the speed graphic,

are there cameras having focal plane shutters? I think not? sorry for my questions but would like to know!
only thing i have seen , self made paper card shutters holding in front of the lens, are there other possibilities

Luke

cosmicexplosion
14-Apr-2012, 06:11
well if your exposure is 1 second and over it seem pretty easy to do it your self, i always get unstuck at 1/1000th

but really, people use hats for eg. so i reckon you could rig some thing up. a lens cap or maybe a spring loaded lens cap.

i have never done it.

John Kasaian
14-Apr-2012, 07:54
FWIW, I would think the lens would have more to do with the "wide open" look than the format, but then I could be full of beans.

BetterSense
4-Aug-2013, 17:18
You are not full of beans. Fundamentally, camera format is irrelevant to DOF. Entire internets of not-quite-incorrect forum posts could be eliminated if people would know the barest bit of thin-lens optics theory. But I guess that's asking too much of photographers.

For a given composition, the only technical variable that can have any effect on the DOF is the diameter, D, of the lens opening (for a constant definition of print sharpness, which is so obvious that it does not need mentioned).

(Queue dozens more not-quite-incorrect, overly convoluted arguments about how I am wrong)

Drew Bedo
4-Aug-2013, 18:49
Nothing beats shooting and developing a lot of negatives. Work it out with an 8x10 that can accept a 4x5 reducing back. You will be able to see what the difference is using the samwe lenses.

Don't get caught up in looking for THE ONE solution to your project. Try something and then try another thing. Photogrsaphy is not an end . . .its a journy (some might say its a &$%*-ing pilgramage)

Leigh
4-Aug-2013, 20:28
Disregarding the fact that John's post is a year and a half old...

The lens has no idea what size film is behind it.

If you take a shot on 8x10, you will have an image.
If you then cut a 4x5 area from that 8x10, you will have a different image.
If you then cut a 6x6 area from that 4x5, you will have a different image.
If you then cut a 24x36 area from that 6x6, you will have a different image.

Has any aspect of the rendered image changed in those four pieces of film? Of course not.
Depth of field will be absolutely identical on the film.

The effect will be more or less obvious on a final print depending on the enlargement factor.

- Leigh