PDA

View Full Version : 8 x 10" camera for architecture photography



nottired
2-Nov-2012, 17:13
Hi all,

I'm thinking about expanding my photo kit with a 8 x 10" camera for architecture photography.
Two most important things important for me would be:

-modularity- a possibility to switch to 4 x 5" format would be nice
-most importantly- I am looking for best results possible in terms of sharpness and resolution (I own a Scanmate 11000 scanner and would like to squeeze as much as I can from slide film- at least that's the idea)

Very briefly:
I think it boils down to two possibilites- Sinar P2 with 8 x 10 extension kit or Arca Swiss Monolith. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I buy a Monolith 8 x 10 camera, I can buy another bellows + 4 x 5 rear standard and I'll have a 4 x 5 camera, is that correct? It's hard to get any info on the web and before I make up my mind I don't want to nag the dealer.
Of course buying into Arca would be much, MUCH more expensive- no 2nd hand market and everything is very expensive..

On the other hand, if I buy a used Sinar P2 8 x 10, will it meet all these strict requirements regarding film flatness to make it all worth the effort? I am after highest image quality possible and I would like to produce xxx mp files from 8 x 10 scans / be able to print really big.

Am I missing any system worth considering, taking into account what is my priority?

Also I'd appreciate your thoughts on the systems and of course suggestions for different systems.

Frank Petronio
2-Nov-2012, 18:22
A Sinar is going to hold the film just as flat and parallel as the Arca or anything else. It also exists in the real world at reasonable prices and you can pick up lens boards, bellows, shades, rails for peanuts on eBay. You can also get it serviced and aligned, and find replacement parts if you should ever use it enough to cause wear.

If you are really concerned about film flatness, a $2.79 roll of Scotch double-sided tape will be better than anything this side of a battery-powered vacuum holder.

The Arca Monolith might be more massive, I've never seen it in 8x10, there certainly aren't very many out there and those that were made probably stayed in the studio. If I wanted the absolutely most stable 8x10 ever made I'd probably go for a late model 8x10 Linhof monorail - they are the best build quality of all and absolute tanks.

But more than any other factor? A really solid tripod and head, the biggest #5-series Gitzo at the least.

John O'Connell
2-Nov-2012, 18:49
I am not in the new Arca Swiss or new Sinar tax bracket, but I have investigated the used options in these cameras in 8x10.

Architecture on an 8x10 monorail means that you'll want to be very careful about how much direct rise you can get. I was within a nanosecond of getting a used Sinar F2 8x10 before I checked out the front rise, and decided that it would be inadequate without a rare, expensive Sinar do-hickey. Maybe the P2 and the Monolith are different than the "field" monorails I looked at, but my recollection was that I'd be better off with a 4x5 monorail for architecture.

C. D. Keth
2-Nov-2012, 18:52
I am not in the new Arca Swiss or new Sinar tax bracket, but I have investigated the used options in these cameras in 8x10.

Architecture on an 8x10 monorail means that you'll want to be very careful about how much direct rise you can get. I was within a nanosecond of getting a used Sinar F2 8x10 before I checked out the front rise, and decided that it would be inadequate without a rare, expensive Sinar do-hickey. Maybe the P2 and the Monolith are different than the "field" monorails I looked at, but my recollection was that I'd be better off with a 4x5 monorail for architecture.

Remember you can always get more rise by tilting up and then plumbing off the standards. If you rough it in like that, you can fine tune the composition with the regular rise and fall and you'll still have the precision you need.

Peter De Smidt
2-Nov-2012, 19:12
I've worked with both a Sinar P 8x10 and an Arca M, the latter briefly at a studio I used to work for. In addition to what Frank said, correctly in my view, I preferred working with the Sinar, but that could be due to familiarity. Both are terrific cameras, as long as you have someone else to carry them.

Ari
2-Nov-2012, 19:16
I had the Toyo 810G monorail for a while.
It had full (and I mean full) movements, part of a modular system, precise, rock-solid, and had plenty of cheap parts on eBay and elsewhere.
If I remember correctly, front rise was 60mm, or something crazy; same for rear rise.
Get a solid tripod and head, and it's as good as anything out there.

John Kasaian
2-Nov-2012, 19:38
I use Deardorf V8 with a 250mm 10" WF Ektar for architecture. It was good enough for Hedrick-Blessing. Just sayin'

Daniel Stone
2-Nov-2012, 20:03
Unless you're planning to make mural prints of interiors or exteriors, I'd seriously consider just shooting 4x5... I'm working on some 4x5 drum scans at the moment that I did this past week of some EPN(90's era film technology, nothing like modern Provia or E100G for tight grain). But I've really considered just finishing up my 8x10 stockpile of color film, but after just shooting 4x5... I also own a drum scanner, and those PMT's really dig deep into a piece of film to get every part of it... I'm a stickler for high quality, and unless you're going 30x40 or larger, I'd just use 4x5.

YMMV though, just my opinion.

Dan

Kirk Gittings
2-Nov-2012, 20:56
Its hard to make recomendations without more specifics. What is the end product and how is it going to be used? For example if this is for commercial purposes 8x10 is total overkill.

Frank Petronio
2-Nov-2012, 23:36
There is also a trade off, point of diminishing returns with 4x5 versus 8x10 in that you run up against the depth of field of field wall quicker the larger you go. And every link in chain needs to be first class... Price modern 8x10 lenses yet? That 150XL won't go for cheap even once they stop making 8x10 chrome film. Oh wait, they pretty much already did... If you can find it fresh, be prepared to pay over $30 per sheet.

I think even the well-heeled art star photographers have mostly settled on 8x10 color neg or dropped to 4x5 or digital. Shooting chromes doesn't get them any advantage, it usually requires more lighting and prep time to get the color balance and range exactly right. And you can bet they have to bracket!

vinny
3-Nov-2012, 01:40
Frank, only amateurs bracket. REMEMBER?
I didn't think it would take long for someone to talk this guy out of 8x10. Fuji 8x10 chrome is about $13/sheet right now. We don't know if he shoots 4x5 now or not, prolly not. Everyone wants to make HUGE prints these days and 8x10 IS the way to go but you guys are to frickin' old to carry the equipment! ha.

mortensen
3-Nov-2012, 03:42
I have been pondering a set up to meet the exact same requirements - and the drum scanner just landed on my desk. My considerations (with price as a concern) boiled down to either a 'bastard' Arca or this Shen-Hao (yes, I really mean it - a chinese woodie):
https://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3146

... for the 'bastard' arca, read here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?92311-a-possible-bastard-ARCA-8x10&highlight=bastard+arca

mortensen
3-Nov-2012, 03:47
btw, our good friend Sze Tsung Leong uses an Arca F-metric 8x10 with a cube head.... $10 grand?!?
http://adamwiseman.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Sze-Tsung/G0000Jwc2ip5JJkA/I00005BKmIuPacU0

Frank Petronio
3-Nov-2012, 04:45
So you got a free $300 drum scanner and now you rationalize a $3000-plus camera and all the $$$$ shooting expenses?

I'm just going to get myself banned for talking US politics if I keep going about the logic of that... but the cost of the camera, even an expensive one, is peanuts compared to actually operating it effectively.

georgl
3-Nov-2012, 05:01
You can also get a Linhof Kardan GTL which might be the most sturdy studio camera. But Arca or Sinar (P2) might be just as good. I've tested Shen Hao on Photokina, sorry but you get what you pay for...

Under real-world conditions most decent cameras are sturdy enough as long it's not too windy...

Precise alignment of the screen and holders are more important, you can use adhesive film (3M?) to ensure film flatnnes - works perfectly.

With a good lens (Sironar-S, Symmar XL) @f22 (decent DoF with architecture) and good film (slide film is impressive, Portra has incredible DR) and decent technique you get it all - excellent 2000ppi drum scans are possible although it's not the most convenient kind photography...

Former Member 27732
3-Nov-2012, 05:03
....then there are those who just love using 8x10 chromes and want to get in a few pics before the curtain comes down!

gliderbee
3-Nov-2012, 05:42
I had the Toyo 810G monorail for a while.
It had full (and I mean full) movements, part of a modular system, precise, rock-solid, and had plenty of cheap parts on eBay and elsewhere.
If I remember correctly, front rise was 60mm, or something crazy; same for rear rise.
Get a solid tripod and head, and it's as good as anything out there.

+1
I still have mine, and two 5x7 Toyo G. The only real difference between the different Toyo's are the bellows and back standards. Great system.

Stefan

mortensen
3-Nov-2012, 08:47
So you got a free $300 drum scanner and now you rationalize a $3000-plus camera and all the $$$$ shooting expenses?

I'm just going to get myself banned for talking US politics if I keep going about the logic of that... but the cost of the camera, even an expensive one, is peanuts compared to actually operating it effectively.

oh nononono.... I'm certainly not on the way into 8x10 - I just said that I recently thought about a setup with similar requirements. As stated in the other thread (rail->field), I am extremely happy with my TK45 + TechV setup. Speaking of the drum scanner, I actually thought about sending you something as personal as an email regarding the good ol' 'modern drum scanner'-thread. You are probably the most cost-benefit-tuned of us in here and there seems to be great value in those old machines. But, I'll wait and keep my fingers crossed until the little beauty is actually giving me scans...

nottired
3-Nov-2012, 08:49
Thank you all for contributing! Many good thoughts shared here..
Kirk, as for specifics- I want to print huge and I mean HUGE (2x2,5m or bigger). I am picky when it comes to technical aspect of image quality, that's why I'm thinking about taking the film + drum scan route.
I previously shot with DSLRs, MF film, MF digital and some limited experience MFDB + tech camera.
I also considered MFDB + tech camera, but it doesn't make much sense for me- very limited movements given the image circles of digial lenses, high cost (at least for me, if I count how much I'll spend on film- it won't be high volumes after some learning).

I know that the route I'm taking is not very convenient or pleasant (despite shooting itself which of course is pleasant with a large format camera), but for best results possible I guess there's no way around..

Going back to the subject of Arca / Sinar, I guess Arca Swiss approach is a bit more straightforward for me- a guy with limited LF experience. Sinar seems to be a bit less simplistic / more complex design and because of that less accessible.. maybe I'm wrong?
I think I'd rather have Arca, but initial cost of everything doesn't encourage me.. on the other hand, Sinar system goes for peanuts comparing to Arca, 2nd-hand market is great, you can get pretty much everything you need.
Two questions regarding Arca:
1. Can you buy a M-monolith 4x5 (or 6x9) and buy additional parts (carriers, bellows) to make it a "100%" 8x10 camera (same movements as Monolith 8x10) or does the rear and front standards of Monolith 8 x 10 differ somehow?
2. Lens plates.. can you somehow use, say, Sinar lensplates? Arca swiss retail prices for LF lenses or the cost of mounting a LF lens on Arca board are insane, as everything Arca- I think I'd like to settle for used (but mint) lenses.

To sum up, I'd like to buy Arca 8x10 but I can't justify the cost, so I'm thinking about getting used Monolith and buy parts to be able to convert it to 8x10. Any thoughts on that?

Frank Petronio
3-Nov-2012, 09:35
I don't see how a Sinar P2 and an Arca-Swiss Monolith are all that different other than some relatively cosmetic industrial design decisions? The Sinar can be set up to be extremely precise and rigid, to a finer degree than you can accurately focus. The Arca may have some advantages but I've never been clear as to what they could be... other than it looks really cool.

If you have not shot large format film yet, perhaps you should start with a 4x5 to learn how to use it before spending so much money on an 8x10? You can still rent Sinars in major cities or directly from certain professional photographers. That might be the best way to learn if it is even worthwhile. With the savings in film you could probably buy a car....

Arca-Swiss cameras are well designed and made but simply finding one to buy, especially a rare version like the 8x10 Monolith, much less the expansion parts, could take years and be very expensive... for very little gain since both the Sinars and top-end Linhofs are completely geared cameras as well.

Finally, gearing is nice but hardly necessary, once you use a camera you'll understand that it isn't as much value as you might think. Arca does make the F-line with the Orbix mechanism, which gives you geared tilt and swing - which are the two movements where you actually benefit from the gearing. Having rise and shift geared is kind of a waste of money since you tend to use them as gross movements.

Peter De Smidt
3-Nov-2012, 10:26
With the cost of the systems you're talking about, I'd get a Sinar P2. IMO it's a little bit easier to use than the Arca, but both are terrific. (The asymmetric tilts and swings on the Sinar are especially helpful for someone without a lot of view camera experience.) Now use the camera. Evaluate. If you decide that a different camera would be better because of reasons x, y, and z, then you can sell the Sinar for little loss. If, on the other hand, the Sinar works out well for you, which it should, then you've saved a boatload of money.

nottired
3-Nov-2012, 11:43
Frank- yes, that's exactly why I would like to start with 4 x 5 and expand it to 8 x 10 when I feel comfortable with the system / don't make many stupid mistakes. That's why modularity was one of my priorities- also I won't ALWAYS need 8 x 10 and sometimes portability might be more important than film real estate.
I'm a bit lost / overwhelmed by arsenal of accessories, peripherals and tiny bits available for Sinar P system. It's mind boggling..and to be honest- confusing. Arca is clean and simple, both design-wise and how the system/lineup of accessories built around it. I had a chance to play with M line 2 digital and it was a joy to use it.
I think I will have to settle for a Sinar P2, taking into account the cost it's much more sensible solution and I can't argue with that.
Peter- yes, I agree with everything you pointed out.
Good suggestions guys, thanks.

Peter De Smidt
3-Nov-2012, 12:03
And you can always run possible purchases by us. A number of us have years of experience using Sinars. And while I don't have a Sinar camera now, I do have a fair amount of accessories.

But...if you really want Arca, then do it. For architecture you really need to ask yourself if you'd need an M instead of an F. Frankly, for any kind of location work I prefer an F. I borrowed one once for about a year. Using it was a joy. (But so is using a Sinar P) On our M at the studio, it was possible to switch out bellows frames/backs between the M and an F with no problem, including 8x10, 4x5, and 6x9, but the cameras we had were fairly old, as in from the early 1990s. I don't know where you're located, but Rod Klukas, Jeff Taugner at Badger Graphic Sales, and...I'm blanking on the name of the gentleman at Precision Camera Works...all of them are very good Arca resources.

Btw., Arca has tons of accessories, at least they have them listed in their catalog, but they can be difficult and expensive to track down, and it can take forever to get a rare part from the factory.

Frank Petronio
3-Nov-2012, 12:14
I think it is funny that he considers a P2 "settling"! It's like settling for an Audi or BMW....

Jonathan Barlow
3-Nov-2012, 13:18
You can buy a mint Sinar P2 8x10 for around $1500 in the US these days.

Peter De Smidt
3-Nov-2012, 13:27
I think it is funny that he considers a P2 "settling"! It's like settling for an Audi or BMW....

Absolutely! The Sinar P2 is my favorite camera to use, if I don't have to carry it anywhere. That said, if he thinks he's "settling", then no matter how good the camera, he'll become dissatisfied with it. At this point the issue is entirely about his perceptions and not the actual usability of the camera.

adam satushek
3-Nov-2012, 14:00
Yeah, I would absolutly to have a Sinar P2's, a 4x5 and an 8x10! I certanly wouldnt think of them as settling. Looking at a Sinar Bron catalogue from 2005 it looks like a P2 4x5 ran for $9,181.25, and the P2 8x10 was $13,574.25! Its amazing that these cameras were so much new and you can now find a P2 8x10 for about $1500, but I certianly do not believe this is a reflection on their qualiy at all. I assume there awesome prices on the used market is simply because there are so many out there becaust it seems that Sinar may have been the prefered system by many studios. Im sure Arcas are sweet too (never used one) but I certianly cannot understand the idea of 'settling' on a P2. Im sure I would love to have an Arca, but would prefer to spend less on Sinars and then put the extra money into Rodenstock apo-Sironar-S's.

Leonard Evens
3-Nov-2012, 14:02
Could you explain why you think 8 x 10 would be superior to 4 x 5 for architectural photography? It is true that you might get marginally better resolution for the same size print, at least if you are only taking pictures of flat facades. But if the subject has any serious extension in a third dimension, depth of field will become an issue sooner for 8 x 10 than for 4 x 5. Also, your lenses will be more expensive and selection of lenses with reasonable size image circles less.

I don't make wall size prints, and my budget is limited, so I am happy with 4 x 5 for architectural photography.. I often use my Rodenstock f/4.5 75 mm Grandagon-N, and it is possible to buy other simillar wide angle lenses for 4 x 5. I would be severely limited in what I could do, in urban architecture, without such a lens, because of the difficulty of getting far enough back from a subject building. I assume that there is a 150 mm lens that covers 8 x 10 format which allows some movement, but, if,so, I haven't been able to find an example.

John NYC
3-Nov-2012, 14:20
Take it from me... If you really want to print as huge as you say you do (assuming color? Optical or scan?), I would start first figuring out the logistics of that for the area you live in. Price it out. See if can actually get a print like that done and mounted the way you want. Traditional framing beyond a certain size becomes a really expensive proposition, and a logistical nightmare for moving it around. Face mounted stuff has a certain look and I am not sure the benefits of 8x10 are so apparent once you put a piece of thick plexiglas in front of a print.

The absolute best architecture large prints I have seen were done with 4x5 and stitched. Obviously that is not an option if you are doing a lot of long exposure city scape night shots like I was doing.

Leonard Evens
3-Nov-2012, 14:47
Take it from me... If you really want to print as huge as you say you do (assuming color? Optical or scan?), I would start first figuring out the logistics of that for the area you live in. Price it out. See if can actually get a print like that done and mounted the way you want. Traditional framing beyond a certain size becomes a really expensive proposition, and a logistical nightmare for moving it around. Face mounted stuff has a certain look and I am not sure the benefits of 8x10 are so apparent once you put a piece of thick plexiglas in front of a print.

The absolute best architecture large prints I have seen were done with 4x5 and stitched. Obviously that is not an option if you are doing a lot of long exposure city scape night shots like I was doing.

Stitching of course gives you the advantage of a larger format without the problems. I've used stitching to encompass a long facade of a building which was going to be torn down. I couldn't get any further back than across a city street, and I needed to stitch two images made with my 75 mm lens. The two images were pointed to opposite sides and I used some swing in each case to focus on the facade. Of course, I am sure I could have gotten higher resolution if I had had a sufficiently short focal length lens. But I don't think such a lens exists either for 4 x 5 or for 8 x 10.

nottired
3-Nov-2012, 15:01
Yeah, 'settling for P2' may actually sounded funny.. :) Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate neatly designed cameras (not only cameras) and I'm sure P2 is superb camera. I just happened to play with Arca Swiss first and I loved it for it's simplicity. Well, it was M line 2, which has no tilt / swing in rear standard, so it's literally simple. I am sure I will grow up to love and appreciate Sinar as well.
By the way, as for pricing- where can you get a P2 8x10 for $1500? Ebay listings usually go for more. Also, I'd be looking for a P2 in Europe as I'm based in Europe- here P2 8x10 is definitely more than $1500 at ebay. I would definitely want to settle for a mint condition P2. Any suggestions where should I be looking for one in Europe other than ebay?

Leonard - you anwsered your question yourself- I want to be able to make wall size prints :). For the sole reason of being able to print big at reasonable PPI. Regarding the DOF-, for instance, Thomas Birke (http://www.birke.net/) shoots his city landscapes with a 8 x 10 and although I haven't seen any of his gallery expositions, it seems he pretty much nails everything in focus- and many of his shots have a lot of expanding 3rd dimension before your eyes. I thought that camera movements make it possible to control depth of field quite freely, even with 8 x 10 format? How much of a problem will it be? I'd appreciate it if you elaborate.. I was aware that there *might* be a DOF problem and as I have no experience with 8x10 yet, I don't know the magnitude of this problem.

Frank Petronio
3-Nov-2012, 15:04
If you need further Sinar rationalization there is this video of Gregory Crewdson using an 8x10 P2 with a full-on movie crew: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vB3hsbAXIk&feature=fvwrel (Note the large tripod he is using - that's more important than the camera I think....)

But, just to put it in perspective, my nemesis, Edward Burtynsky, used to shoot 8x10 but dropped down to 4x5 (Linhof Technika) with the best modern lenses, claiming it was better for a variety of reasons, from depth of field, to faster shutter speeds (less wind), etc. He hardly prints small.

nottired
3-Nov-2012, 15:20
I always admired Burtynsky and Andreas Gursky. Speaking of the latter... I have yet to see if there is a studio with diasec printing option available in my area. I would be scanning and printing digitally, I have a befriended DTP agency which can print big and it's quite affordable (they do all kind of stuff and are not afraid of any task)- fortunately I live in a big city so printing / moving the prints from DTP to my studio won't be a huge problem. I understand that the logistics are of importance when it comes to that kind of formats but I have it sorted out I think. Well, despite the Diasec which I'd probably like to use in some cases after seeing Gursky work in person.

I thought about stitching 4 x 5, but I know I'll shoot at night a lot so it would be very troublesome / impossible.

As for tripods, Gitzo carbon systematic series 5 + arca Cube / Manfrotto 405 is ok for 8 x 10? I had a manfrotto 400 geared head but sold it, it's impossible to lug this brick around..
I'm happy to hear your suggestions regarding tripod / head.

Frank Petronio
3-Nov-2012, 15:30
An Arca Cube is on the too light side for a heavy 8x10. Not a fan of Manfrotto quality. With a Sinar you can use double rail clamps and a bar to provide more rigidity. The Sinar Pan Tilt Head is a perfect match for Sinar. With an Arca perhaps the Z2 is their strongest head. Foba also makes a very solid and expensive head. If possible, you can even use two tripods, sandbags, and scaffolding....

This would be the ultimate if you had a Linhof, I saw one and it is the absolute most solid camera head I've seen but it is dedicated to a modern Linhof monorail:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/31380-REG/Linhof_003668_90mm_Leveling_Pan_Tilt_Head.html

with these legs:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/31648-REG/Linhof_003323_Heavy_Duty_Pro_Tripod.html

I think their weight ratings are too conservative, there is no standard reference so tripod manufacturers are inconsistent.

I haven't tested this but you could make an argument for putting a lighter camera, like a Chamonix, on top of a heavy, solid tripod and getting sharper photos than putting a heavy camera on top of a lighter tripod ;-)

nottired
3-Nov-2012, 15:42
Yes, shaky tripod issues are a well known issue for me as I used to shoot with high mp digibacks.
I didn't know about the Sinar pan tilt head, thanks for showing it to me. As I understand, combined with a monorail Sinar camera, it is pretty much a 3-axis head?
What is my best option if I need a mobile tripod? At least for now I'd have to settle for a mobile solution- a thing I can move around with.

Peter De Smidt
3-Nov-2012, 15:49
For use on hard surfaces, I used my 8x10 Sinar P with a Gitzo Series 5 aluminum tripod and Sinar Pan/tilt head. The only advantage of carbon fiber is that it's lighter to carry. As Frank says, though, there's reason to think that a heavy tripod is an advantage, at least once it's in place. I had the sinar bar for use with two rail clamps. It didn't really help anything in my situation.

premortho
3-Nov-2012, 15:52
Well, realistically, I think you will be happiest with a monorail. There are lots of monorails, some excellant, some very good. The Sinar is the only pretty much affordable excellent ones out there. And lots of accessories available on e-bay. I reccomend you buy one, get a killer tripod for it, maybe a
sinar tripod head. Shoot 100 B&W's to learn the camera, and how to use it's movements. When you've got all that down pat, do your color shots.

mortensen
3-Nov-2012, 15:54
But, just to put it in perspective, my nemesis, Edward Burtynsky...

... Just to keep my comments off topic, how is he your nemesis? I am genuinely interested!

John NYC
3-Nov-2012, 16:10
Frank- yes, that's exactly why I would like to start with 4 x 5 and expand it to 8 x 10 when I feel comfortable with the system / don't make many stupid mistakes. That's why modularity was one of my priorities- also I won't ALWAYS need 8 x 10 and sometimes portability might be more important than film real estate.

Looking back, I would rather have a separate camera for 4x5 myself.

Frank Petronio
3-Nov-2012, 16:14
... Just to keep my comments off topic, how is he your nemesis? I am genuinely interested!

He shot the same quarry I did, after I sent out posters many years ago. I say it in jest because kudos to him for marketing his work so well.

To John's point, a Sinar F2 is only $500 used so why not start there? The parts will accessorize an 8x10 P2 later, or at this level of shooting you'd probably want a spare anyway.

r.e.
3-Nov-2012, 16:14
But, just to put it in perspective, my nemesis, Edward Burtynsky, used to shoot 8x10 but dropped down to 4x5 (Linhof Technika) with the best modern lenses, claiming it was better for a variety of reasons, from depth of field, to faster shutter speeds (less wind), etc. He hardly prints small.

Hi Frank, I think that Burtynsky's reasons were more pedestrian.

I had an opportunity to discuss this question with him in conjunction with his Manufactured Landscapes show at the National Gallery of Canada. He said that he was moving from a Phillips 8x10 to 4x5 and I asked him why. His answer was that he was doing more and more international travel and that the bulk and weight of 8x10 gear and related paraphernalia was becoming a hassle. I remember him saying that he was about to go to China, and wanting to lighten his gear in relation to air travel, and that he was using ladders a lot (I think you can see that in the ship carcass photographs) and that 8x10 was just becoming a bit much. This was a one on one discussion, not Burtynsky responding to a question in a public forum.

As you know, he has since moved from 4x5 to digital for a good deal of his work.

mortensen
3-Nov-2012, 16:53
... interesting.
- I want ladders, too :D

ps, Frank: that man has shot almost every quarry and open mine on the planet by now.

vinny
3-Nov-2012, 17:06
Dude, at this point your comments and lack of exp shooting LF at night make me say this:
Spend $200 on a used monorail, field camera, any light tight box you can stick a 90mm 4.5 or 5.6 on and go shoot a box of film in daylight. Then try it at night. Stop you lenses down a stop or two and see how easy it ISN'T to focus/compose a shot. Either you'll dig it or quickly come to the conclusion that so many guys often do; "why'd I just drop $5k on all this shit that doesn't suit my style."

Noah A
3-Nov-2012, 19:58
I ditched 8x10 for 4x5 for some of the reasons mentioned already in this thread. The equipment is large and very difficult to travel internationally with. Heck, carrying on a few boxes of film use up all of your carryon allowance.

When it comes to shooting, depth of field is a very real concern. Thomas Birke often seems to shoot from elevated positions, in that case depth of field will be less of a problem. But it will be a big problem if you shoot closer scenes. You'll be shooting at smaller apertures and slower shutter speeds, making subject movment more evident, as well as camera vibration. You also may be limited by the selection of lenses with large enough image circles to shoot architecture and urban landscape. Have you actually seen, in person, how large a 155mm or 200mm Grandagon is? Of course I'm assuming you can find one. The SSXL's are a bit smaller but they're still large and expensive, and require large, expensive center filters.

I've been shooting 4x5 (with a Linhof Technikardan 45S and MT2000) with modern lenses and Portra 160. I've made very large prints and I've been very satisfied with the quality of the prints. Even if I had an unlimited budget (for film, processing, assistants, excess baggage fees, etc.), I'm still not sure if I'd bother with 8x10.

If, however, you really want to give it a go, the Arca F-metric 8x10 is a brilliant camera and it would be my first choice. I used one for a while and it's relatively lightweight and compact, but very rigid. It's fast to set up and really transparent to work with, it's one of those cameras that gets out of the way and just lets you do your job. I really don't think the M-line is required or even beneficial for field work.

Jonathan Barlow
3-Nov-2012, 21:11
Yeah, 'settling for P2' may actually sounded funny.. :) Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate neatly designed cameras (not only cameras) and I'm sure P2 is superb camera. I just happened to play with Arca Swiss first and I loved it for it's simplicity. Well, it was M line 2, which has no tilt / swing in rear standard, so it's literally simple. I am sure I will grow up to love and appreciate Sinar as well.
By the way, as for pricing- where can you get a P2 8x10 for $1500? Ebay listings usually go for more. Also, I'd be looking for a P2 in Europe as I'm based in Europe- here P2 8x10 is definitely more than $1500 at ebay. I would definitely want to settle for a mint condition P2. Any suggestions where should I be looking for one in Europe other than ebay?



The last Sinar P2 8x10s that I tracked on eBay sold for: $1,000 (good condition, auction starting bid of $1,000 with one bid), $1,500 (mint condition, asking $1,750, best offer of $1,500), and $1,650 (good condition, auction, with 4x5 back & bellows).

John Kasaian
3-Nov-2012, 21:19
Dude, at this point your comments and lack of exp shooting LF at night make me say this:
Spend $200 on a used monorail, field camera, any light tight box you can stick a 90mm 4.5 or 5.6 on and go shoot a box of film in daylight. Then try it at night. Stop you lenses down a stop or two and see how easy it ISN'T to focus/compose a shot. Either you'll dig it or quickly come to the conclusion that so many guys often do; "why'd I just drop $5k on all this shit that doesn't suit my style."
I agree entirely.

mortensen
4-Nov-2012, 02:02
... comparing huge prints from two of the masters, Gursky certainly has the edge over Sze Tsung Leong - Gursky's are even larger than the enormous print I saw by Sze last summer.
Sze Tsung Leong shoots 8x10 and enlarges in the darkroom. Gursky shoots 4x5 (and digital) and often stitches. Digital workflow, of course.

On the other hand, you should check out Tim's great camera comparison. IIRC, his conclusion was that - under perfect conditions - 8x10 was able to reveal almost double the resolution of 4x5. While you're at it, why not go 11x14? ;)
Massimo Vitali shoots it...

nottired
4-Nov-2012, 03:59
As far as I know, Andreas Gursky started off with 5x7, as all students from Hilla and Bernd Becher (that was their 'golden ratio' format) not 4x5 :)
I can't go past 8 x 10 limit because of the size of drum in my Scanmate 11000. 8 x 10 will already be a bit tough to mount, 11 x 14 would be unmountable at all.. It's a bummer the drum is so small in Scanmates.
On the sidenote, Massimo Vitali is another photographer I admire :)

mortensen
4-Nov-2012, 06:08
... gursky and his 4x5 Technikardan in 2007/8/something:
http://blog.zeit.de/zeitmagazin/files/2011/03/Andreas-Gursky-bei-der-Arbeit-540x303.jpg

His North Korean Arirang shots was taken with similar equipment... looks darn good in size XXXL!

John NYC
4-Nov-2012, 09:11
You might as well buy this now...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=96142

... As they don't come up that often.

I owned one for a while for 8x10. Great lens if you need wide. You will need a center filter for color at night especially.

(No connection to seller.)

John NYC
4-Nov-2012, 09:20
Gursky also seems to use two LF cameras in his stitching process. So you might need to figure out what he is doing here, too.

http://www.quora.com/What-cameras-does-Andreas-Gursky-use

mortensen
4-Nov-2012, 09:41
haha :) ... have read the article from 032c mag that is referred to. The thing about two different focal lengths escapes me, though. But setting up two Linhof TK's - each with full lateral back shift employed in each direction - would let him shoot 5x8 or 4x10 in 'one shot'. I am guessing he has assistants to load the film and cock the shutters ;)

Frank Petronio
4-Nov-2012, 10:13
haha :) ... have read the article from 032c mag that is referred to. The thing about two different focal lengths escapes me, though. But setting up two Linhof TK's - each with full lateral back shift employed in each direction - would let him shoot 5x8 or 4x10 in 'one shot'. I am guessing he has assistants to load the film and cock the shutters ;)

That is interesting to me as well, perhaps a new thread is called for? But I have no clue as to how or why he would do this!

nottired
4-Nov-2012, 11:31
Hmm I wonder why would he do such a thing. He has been using strong digital postprocessing for years now so I wonder why wouldn't he simply take two images with the same camera and stitch.. his work is so dramatically digitally altered anyway, that any issues like people movement etc is not a problem at all.

Coming back to the subject- yes, basing on my research I will be getting 3 lenses for now: Apo-Symmar 5.6/300 L, Super-Symmar 5.6/150 XL and Apo-Tele-Xenar 12/800 a bit later. For my needs I'll probably shoot mostly with 150 XL.

Thanks for letting me know about Super-Symmar! I found one myself but this way I have a backup option.
I guess it's all settled then. Sinar P2 (4x5 + 8x10 extention kit) + 3 lenses, Sinar Pan/tilt head.. the last thing I need to figure out is a tripod.
So I'm open to your suggestions guys- super sturdy and stable tripod option but possibly lightweight.. I still don't know if Gitzo series 5 is acceptable?
And many thanks for all of your contribution, it really helped me a lot and you pointed out some things I haven't yet considered. I'm a bit worried now by DOF matter, I thought it wouldn't be too much of a problem but I guess I was wrong.. still a few things to figure out so I hope I can count on your insight, which is always very appreciated.

C. D. Keth
4-Nov-2012, 11:39
Since you're interested in architecture, I would skip straightto a gitzo giant studex. I got one not too long ago and I really love it. I can to pullups from it (I weight about 190lbs) and get a lens height of about 11 feet.

nottired
4-Nov-2012, 11:44
I had that monster, but to be honest I found it a bit too heavy for outdoors. I sold it a month ago, maybe it was a bad move.. but my impression was that it won't be stable enough for 8x10- I used it with a digiback and to my surprise I found it a bit unreliable- it reacts to all the ground shakes. In a city, with cars driving by, this tripod reflected all the possible mini-ground shakes from the environment when it was set on brick/concrete street. It may be unfair judgmenet though because I always used it with a centre geared column and a Manfrotto 400 head- maybe it would perform better without the column / with a different head. But my major concern was weight- combining these three made the tripod really heavy, even for a short walk (and I want to be able to move around at least few km with my equipment).
I think carbon tripods may be better because they tend to dampen these small ground shakes, not to mention the weight factor. But are they solid/tough enough.. that's a different question.

Frank Petronio
4-Nov-2012, 11:55
There was a Gitzo Giant in Carbon Fiber but it's debatable whether it is still available. But regardless, you will appreciate the height. I suspect that if the Aluminum giant gave you vibration then you need sandbags more than CF.

I use a CF tripod too and while I understand that it should be more damp, on a hard surface like concrete sidewalks the rigidity of it will transmit vibration to the camera as well as the metal tripod. You may do better to experiment with a rubber or Sorbothane industrial workplace mat or different types of tripod feet (rubber versus spikes).

You could try a wooden Ries tripod as well.

This guy has lots of exotic, expensive stuff that might work: http://www.glennview.com. He's a cranky old bastard but knows what's what.

Perhaps some cinematographers might chime in? Although their tripods are solid, they do not go tall. Note that Crewdson used a scaffold.

It's been a pleasure spending your money, virtually. Personally I think you have too damn much of it and you should fly me over for private lessons ;-p

C. D. Keth
4-Nov-2012, 12:00
I had that monster, but to be honest I found it a bit too heavy for outdoors...I think carbon tripods may be better because they tend to dampen these small ground shakes, not to mention the weight factor. But are they solid/tough enough.. that's a different question.

Completely understandable. I don't carry the studex more than a mile and even then my shoulder is getting tired. I would go wood before I would go CF for your main sticks if you're worried about vibration. Everybody says CF dampens vibration but I can make the legs of a CF tripod vibrate like a tuning fork if I tap in just the right spot. Wood won't do that, at least not to the same degree.

One trick you can use to dampen vibration is to make a little device of parachute cord. Once you're set up, it ties around each leg at about the middle point and extends to the middle of the legs. You then hang something from it, placing a bit of sideways stress to each leg. It needn't be anything really heavy.

Frank Petronio
4-Nov-2012, 12:03
If weight is a concern... well this is the wrong thing to be doing.

Several of the gentlemen here who shoot 8x10 or larger use converted baby strollers to transport their gear. I use a folding cart myself since I often am moving lights too.

C. D. Keth
4-Nov-2012, 12:09
Perhaps some cinematographers might chime in? Although their tripods are solid, they do not go tall. Note that Crewdson used a scaffold.

The usual sticks we use, the heavy duty ones shown here (http://www.ronfordbaker.co.uk/tripods.html) by Ronford Baker go up to around 7 feet high at the lens. Weight capacity is way, way more than one would need to worry about with an 8x10 camera. If we need to go higher than that, we start going on other devices like a dolly with height extensions, a crane of some sort, a scissor lift, or scaffolding. You would need to have an adapter plate machined because the crown is a mitchell standard crown, about 7 inches round with a keyway. Do notice the weight. Cine camera support gets pretty heavy since it rides around on a truck or a camera cart and isn't often carried very far.

Frank Petronio
4-Nov-2012, 12:14
Oh I know, I am just thinking that if he is complaining about a #5 Gitzo not being enough then something is wrong or he has a unique case.

C. D. Keth
4-Nov-2012, 12:18
Oh I know, I am just thinking that if he is complaining about a #5 Gitzo not being enough then something is wrong or he has a unique case.

Never know when somebody has something unique planned. The ronford baker sticks can double as a pretty good barstool when there's not a camera on.

nottired
4-Nov-2012, 12:43
Well, I just don't have a pleasant memories of the times I used a Giant Studex- I used it probably 15-20 times outdoors, many times I had to re-take the images from my digiback after examining them on a laptop. The back was 39mp, so not the most demanding back out there (although rather demanding, as these small bricks tend to demand a lot of attention when you use them). BUT- I was using it with a geared column and a Manfrotto 400 head (which, I agree, is not the most rigit and tough head out there, althought it being a huge brick of steel suggests otherwise). I'll probably try renting a Series 5 CF tripod and give it a try once I have everything else.

Another question- Prontor professional 1S shutter- I have no experience of using these, looking at it's specification it is a huge step forward from Copal.. Can I ask your opinion about these shutters?

Peter De Smidt
4-Nov-2012, 12:50
Wanting an Arca M or Sinar P2 8x10, and then complaining about the weight of the tripod....That's hilarious.

Seriously, rent or buy a Sinar F2 or Arca F 4x5. Work with it awhile. Then decide if you need 8x10, and, if so, seriously consider whether an F-line Sinar or Arca 8x10 wouldn't be a good choice.

nottired
4-Nov-2012, 13:09
Giant studex + geared column + 400 head + heavy duty bag was 13,5 kg. I know because I just sold it and had it weighed. The camera and lenses will double that. So yes, +/- 6-7 kg makes a big difference if you want to walk around with this. What exactly is hilarious about this?

4 x 5 is too small for my needs and I know that not becase 'I think so' but because of my conscious decision / how I envision my work. I am taking a different approach and I know I will benefit from larger format.
If I was to go with 4 x 5, it's not a far fetch from some stitching with 39 mp digiback on a tech cam, so the whole switch wouldn't much make sense for me.

r.e.
4-Nov-2012, 13:24
I am about as non-Luddite as one can get, but I purchased a Ries tripod and head and love it. But if you are traveling by air, given current baggage constraints the standard legs are a problem. I have, like and have no problem packing, for airline purposes, a carbon fiber Gitzo 1325 (don't know the current model name).

I'm currently in Sicily, with an 8x10 Arca, and the Gitzo rather than the Ries due to those requirements. Ries does make a tripod that breaks down into a shorter length than their standard models, but I don't know anything about it or whether stability is compromised.

John NYC
4-Nov-2012, 14:02
By the way, assuming you are not, from what you have said, shooting from platforms at distant scenes as I did, and as you mentioned Thomas did, you WILL have DOF issues, even with the 150mm. Why don't you just buy a used wooden 8x10, use your existing tripod and get the 150mm XL and see how close it comes to what you want in terms of DOF. Just test in ideal weather conditions and the results will be 99.9 percent the same as with all your armageddon gear. If you are shooting at f/64 to get the DOF you need, you will lose all the resolution you gain by using the bigger format.

Shooting 8x10 in the field has other challenges. Consider that the quality of light is very important and the sun moves really quickly in terms of how most 8x10 shooters can operate. I could move my Wehman around and get three shots executed before most people could even unload and assemble an 8x10 monorail. If you have a perfectly executed shot in crappy light, it doesn't matter how big you print it.

In short, I think you do not yet understand what your real problems are going to be.

aluncrockford
4-Nov-2012, 14:23
I have both a Sinar P2 and a deardorff, shooting on location with the Sinar is a utter pain, the weight is such a problem, frankly use a deardorff or a Kodak master , the body makes no difference it's the lens that matters , that and your eye, as for shutters the best I have ever used is the expolux, with the screen meter, if you really want to spend vast amounts of cash a P2 Expolux and majestic will do the trick, if it enables you to take better pictures then it is money well spent. Geoffrey Crewdson to name but one is a user of the P2 for his location work,however he has a very large crew to set up the damm thing . If you are just pottering around on your own then you will quickly find the Sinar is a very good studio camera and a very impractical location option

nottired
4-Nov-2012, 14:34
Hmm..

These two were shot with a 150 XL:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/move_lachine/4906666073/in/photostream/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/move_lachine/4901033448/in/photostream/lightbox/

I can only guess but I'd bet that the buildings are in focus. At least that's what he strives for so I guess they are.. He didn't use a distant point to shoot these and I don't think he'd step down drastically- after all high resolution is crucial in his work. He mentioned once somewhere that his prints are so sharp and full of detail that you can inspect them with your nose next to the print and discover whole new world of details.

Any comments on these shots regarding DOF?

Leigh
4-Nov-2012, 14:43
it was M line 2, which has no tilt / swing in rear standard, so it's literally simple.
Lack of rear tilt/swing dramatically reduces its versatility.

The purpose of those movements, coupled with the same on the front standard, is so you can reposition the camera rail to provide greatly expanded shifts.

You point the rail up by some amount, then reset both the front and rear standards vertical, to achieve rise/fall much greater than is afforded by movement of the standards themselves.

- Leigh

John NYC
4-Nov-2012, 14:45
Yeah, I know Thomas' work and I like it.

In the first photo, if you were to view if large, the pavement would be blurrier than the rest of the photo. In the second, the railing is out of focus.

It is all a compromise.

His work became more about fantasy and less about reality, especially in terms of color. IMHO, I don't think people liked his work so much because it was 8x10 precision as it was for his color post processing. And for that, you don't really need 8x10. It is really too bad he ran into financial troubles and stopped his world shooting tour. I would love for him to get back to shooting, but I really wonder if he would do 8x10 these few years later or if he would do 80MP digital. He used to chime in here every once in a while. Maybe he will on this. If you are trying to do what he did, then why don't you get in touch with him and ask advice?

nottired
4-Nov-2012, 15:08
Leigh- thanks for the advice. Yes, I already figured that out, that's a neat trick :)
The reason M line 2 doesn't have these movements at rear is because 'digital' lenses image circles wouldn't allow dramatic movements anyway (so it's a good move by Arca I think).

John- I like Thomas work for what it is- a fantasy urban world, which unfolds when everyone's asleep ;) I like his colors and it's true that it doesn't matter if it's 8 x 10, but what matters is the size of the print- I'm sure I'd appreciate his work much more if I've seen it in person. Just like it's been with Gursky's work.. the size of the print in this case matters and has a meaning and means to it is a large format camera. If these results were obtainable with a dslr, I'd go that route. For me it's about the final image, not the proccess.

80 mp digital.. well I did consider it (due to pricing- just in theory for now), but the lenses suitable for digital capture are a joke. With IQ180 sensor size, you get almost no movements on most of the available 'digital' lenses, even if you get movements- they are very limited. Then the image quality- 8x10 still tops it. Then there's the price factor- the volume of film I'll use doesn't justify the expense of IQ180 and lenses (even if I could afford it at the moment, which I can't). Of course the workflow is much easier, less irritating and less time consuming. But for me the bottleneck of the solution are the lenses.. unless you forget about wide angle / normal lenses and settle for telephoto focal lengths, but for architecture...

I did drop Thomas an email this evening :) I didn't know he was contributing here, good to know. My vision is different from his but in a way one can say that I want to play with the same subject.. I am also probably as fascinated and inspired by urban landscapes as he is.

Leigh
4-Nov-2012, 15:12
The reason M line 2 doesn't have these movements at rear is because 'digital' lenses image circles wouldn't allow dramatic movements anyway (so it's a good move by Arca I think).
This is not a digital forum; it's an analog forum.

I had no reason to consider digital applications.

- Leigh

Frank Petronio
4-Nov-2012, 15:14
The whole reason to have those movements is so you don't have to shoot so stopped down you get diffraction - so getting a camera without movements defeats the purpose. The reason you might want a camera that forgoes movements would be only if you already knew ahead of time that you wouldn't need them, perhaps if you were a portraitist or only making photos from one position.

The Prontor 1s hasn't been made in almost 20 years. It is/was a high quality shutter but because it is a self-cocking design it sacrifices the higher speed that a Copal or Compur has. It also requires a greater force to fire the shutter since you are compressing the spring as you do so. If you are overly concerned about vibration, it would not be my first choice.

An 8x10 Sinar in a backpack would be a pain in more than just your ass, a field camera makes more sense. But an upside down Sinar in a proper case, on a cart, is perhaps the quickest camera of all to shoot with... It is already set-up.

You really should just rent a basic kit and try it out. Until then I am suspecting this is turning into an academic, not an actionable, thread ;-p Scan a few 4x5s and come back after.

nottired
4-Nov-2012, 15:19
Leigh- I'm in no way criticizing what you've written and I agree that it reduces versatility (on the sidenot: there's not much to reduce from with digital large format capture..). Just gave the reason why M Line 2 was designed in such a way.

mdm
4-Nov-2012, 15:31
Dont know, but it seems to me that people doing amazing things, just go out and do it without needing massive amounts of advice or positive reinforcement from the has beens and never were's on internet forums. Why dont you just use your common sense and get the job done, rather than debating the fine points endlessly with ghosts in the ether. How hard can it be?

Noah A
4-Nov-2012, 15:38
I hadn't seen those particular photos by Thomas, I've mostly seen his stuff with longer lenses from more of a distance. I'd be willing to bet that the foregrounds are not tack sharp, which I find distracting but that's a matter of opinion. The 150 is a very wide lens, so perhaps everything could be in focus. But with longer lenses it gets tougher.

I think you'd be surprised by what you could do with 4x5 if your technique is impeccable and if you get a really great drum scan. But if your heart is set on 8x10, really, I'd strongly recommend an Arca F-Metric 8x10. You clearly care about weight, and it's a very light camera but as rigid as pretty much anything out there. I owned one for a few years and even though the format wasn't my favorite, I do regret selling it.

If weight wasn't an issue, then sure, go for a P2 or, perhaps better yet because of price, a Toyo GII.

I've seen and worked with most of these cameras in urban settings. And I can say that if I ever went back to 8x10 again, it would be with the Arca F-Metric.

And if you're going to shoot 8x10, especially at night, then a 5-series Gitzo is going to be a necessity really. Putting a big heavy camera and lens on a small tripod makes no sense at all.

r.e.
4-Nov-2012, 15:39
This is not a digital forum; it's an analog forum.

Oh good, let's resurrect a debate on this forum that was put to rest at least six years ago, if not earlier.

Frank Petronio
4-Nov-2012, 15:57
Dont know, but it seems to me that people doing amazing things, just go out and do it without needing massive amounts of advice or positive reinforcement from the has beens and never were's on internet forums. Why dont you just use your common sense and get the job done, rather than debating the fine points endlessly with ghosts in the ether. How hard can it be?

That's great advice but you're an ass with your backhanded comments, the people posting here do indeed shoot. And quite a lot better than the digital point & shoot cloud shots that I've seen you post.

Peter De Smidt
4-Nov-2012, 16:01
Giant studex + geared column + 400 head + heavy duty bag was 13,5 kg. I know because I just sold it and had it weighed. The camera and lenses will double that. So yes, +/- 6-7 kg makes a big difference if you want to walk around with this. What exactly is hilarious about this?


Because if your worried about weight, you wouldn't need a Sinar P or and Arca M. I don't know of a heavier camera choice in that format that you could make. A huge camera on a lighter tripod won't be a good thing, unless you sandbag the bejeesus out of it, and sandbags aren't light. These massive studio cameras won't get you any better pictures than Arca F or Sinar F. Remember, I've shot with all of them we're discussing here, and I've back-packed with both a Sinar P and an Arca F. Using a geared column and a 400 MF head in the field is silly.

John NYC said about that: "In short, I think you do not yet understand what your real problems are going to be. " I think he's right.

nottired
4-Nov-2012, 16:02
maybe that's a bit off-topic question but I'm reading about shutters at the moment.. Compur shutter seems to be a better shutter when it comes to features- so how come only Copal shutters survived and are offered nowadays?

Frank Petronio
4-Nov-2012, 16:09
Cheaper Japanese versus expensive German manufacturing. At least back in the day when the Japanese were cheaper than Germans.

Copals are fine shutters, Compurs are better quality but seem to require more frequent service, more sensitive to dirt, etc. because of their finer specifications and tighter fitting parts. A Copal is simpler and maybe a bit sloppier, but fine in the real world.

If you were into bokeh and the quality of out of focus rendering then you might be hunting for older lenses and shutters with "rounder" irises, and those would be Compurs, American, or earlier mounts.

nottired
4-Nov-2012, 16:21
Peter- I'm 100% sure I do not yet understand what are the problems ahead. I won't argue with that.
I'll begin with P2 4x5 anyway and keep it at that until I feel comfortable with focusing and composing- then I'll switch to 8x10 and if I don't need all the geared movements / the weight is a problem, I will consider F. I'm young and physically fit, I just have no masochism inclinations- so if I can reduce the weight of tripod/head by 5-6 kg without compromising on sturdyness / stability, I want to do it.
It seems that I'll need some sort of mini-cart anyway, or at least a Peli case on wheels.

Thanks for the explanation Frank!

r.e.
4-Nov-2012, 16:30
It seems that I'll need some sort of mini-cart anyway, or at least a Peli case on wheels.

If you are going to travel by air, you need a Pelican case and its unloaded weight like you need a hole in the head.

Seriously, if you might travel via plane, have a look at your favourite airline's current baggage restrictions, and excess baggage charges, and think about stuff like the empty weight of any luggage you are considering, and the collapsed length of any tripod you are thinking of buying in relation to the airline's maximum luggage dimensions.

And consider that if you are changing planes to your destination and return, the excess baggage charges may well apply to each leg.

On my current trip to Sicily, using Air Canada and British Airways, the cost of a second checked bag, return, to a maximum weight of 50 lbs, is $240. Let me tell you, from personal experience, that it is really easy to hit 50 lbs, especially when one includes the weight of the bag, really fast. And if you think that you can do better by mailing stuff to your destination and back, have a look at the current cost of mailing and insuring packages.

For the airlines, excess baggage charges are the new way of significantly raising the true cost of airline tickets, something that consumers really need to take into account.

rdenney
5-Nov-2012, 08:01
I had that monster, but to be honest I found it a bit too heavy for outdoors. I sold it a month ago, maybe it was a bad move.. but my impression was that it won't be stable enough for 8x10- I used it with a digiback and to my surprise I found it a bit unreliable- it reacts to all the ground shakes. In a city, with cars driving by, this tripod reflected all the possible mini-ground shakes from the environment when it was set on brick/concrete street. It may be unfair judgmenet though because I always used it with a centre geared column and a Manfrotto 400 head- maybe it would perform better without the column / with a different head. But my major concern was weight- combining these three made the tripod really heavy, even for a short walk (and I want to be able to move around at least few km with my equipment).
I think carbon tripods may be better because they tend to dampen these small ground shakes, not to mention the weight factor. But are they solid/tough enough.. that's a different question.

Carbon will not damp shaking ground. The frequencies of ground shake from vehicle traffic are much too low. Carbon is good at damping vibration in the acoustic range, but frankly it's damping characteristics (depending on the layup) are over-rated. Carbon fibers are, after all, quite elastic and it's the epoxy binder that provides the damping.

I studied this matter quite closely with bicycle frames, and found that at frequencies relevant to felt vibration (maybe a tenth the frequency of acoustic ringing), the carbon frames were as stiff and elastic as metal frames, at least as a material.

You might consider a quality wood tripod.

But to me the real issue with tripods is the unsupported length of the legs. Tripods that use tight center-braces have a design-level advantage there.

The easiest way to minimize vibration, though, is to add damping and mass at the same time. That's what sandbags do. There is nothing a tripod can do that will have as much effect as a few sandbags.

Note that if you are on a flexible structure (and all structures are flexible), the deflection of that structure with vibrating loads cannot be damped at the camera. The solution there is to avoid such locations, or wait until the vibrating load is no longer present. I once made photos in a shopping mall. I was in architecture school and using the school's Linhof. On the mezzanine level, I could feel the vibration of people walking by. A tripod might exaggerate these effects with its own resonant vibration, but it can't prevent the whole apparatus from moving with the structure. I had to wait until there were no people within vibration range--like I now wait for a pause in the wind when doing landscapes.

Rick "who knows a thing or two about structural deflection" Denney

rdenney
5-Nov-2012, 08:28
In the amateur telescope-building world, the saying goes, "If you want to grind your own 12" mirror, grind a 6" mirror first."

The idea is that what you learn grinding the 6" mirror will save you more time and money than it consumes when you then grind the 12" mirror, because of what you learn in the process.

I suspect the same is true vis a vis 4x5 and 8x10, particularly in the demanding conditions of architectural work. Camera movements don't seem to help improve focus issues much in the architecture work I've done. I find myself often making photos of scenes that are so three-dimensional that I end up having to depend on stopping down in any case. I still use the movements to give me the best starting point for stopping down, but I often find that even on 4x5 I have to use f/45 and just live with the resulting diffraction effects. The same depth of field (for the same size print) would require f/96 or whatever--not even available on most lenses.

My suspicion is that people depend on "proper viewing distance" to give the impression of endless detail more than they are prepared to admit when printing at the sizes you are describing.

You've already chosen the Sinar, which is good. Sinar was not really any cheaper than the other high-end Swiss and German manufacturers when comparing apples to apples. But it's cheaper on the used market simply because it was so widely used by professional shops. For doing architectural interiors, I'd love to use a P-series Sinar. For me, though, it's just too hard to get it to where I want to take it. I obviously have different objectives than you do, of course.

Leigh: This is an analog forum? I guess I did not get that memo.

Rick "hoping we'll get progress reports" Denney

Peter De Smidt
5-Nov-2012, 08:54
If he really wants front to back sharpness with subjects with a lot of depth, he might have to resort to focus stacking. In other words, he might have to take multiple exposures, changing the focus each time, and then using software (such as Zerene Stacker) to grab the sharpest parts of each negative. Man, that'd be expensive: 8x10 color film, drum scans, and the computer that could handle the processing.

John NYC
5-Nov-2012, 10:09
I suspect the same is true vis a vis 4x5 and 8x10, particularly in the demanding conditions of architectural work. Camera movements don't seem to help improve focus issues much in the architecture work I've done. I find myself often making photos of scenes that are so three-dimensional that I end up having to depend on stopping down in any case. I still use the movements to give me the best starting point for stopping down, but I often find that even on 4x5 I have to use f/45 and just live with the resulting diffraction effects. The same depth of field (for the same size print) would require f/96 or whatever--not even available on most lenses.

Rick "hoping we'll get progress reports" Denney

Bingo.

Leonard Evens
5-Nov-2012, 11:06
Hmm..

These two were shot with a 150 XL:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/move_lachine/4906666073/in/photostream/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/move_lachine/4901033448/in/photostream/lightbox/

I can only guess but I'd bet that the buildings are in focus. At least that's what he strives for so I guess they are.. He didn't use a distant point to shoot these and I don't think he'd step down drastically- after all high resolution is crucial in his work. He mentioned once somewhere that his prints are so sharp and full of detail that you can inspect them with your nose next to the print and discover whole new world of details.

Any comments on these shots regarding DOF?

The hyperfocal distance for a 150 mm lens at f/32 on a 4 x 5 camera is about 23 feet. Focusing at that distance, everything from 11.5 feet to infinity would be in focus in an 8 x 10 print viewed at about 10-12 inches and also in focus for a larger print viewed proportionately further back.

If you could find a 150 mm lens that covers 8 x 10---that would be a very wide angle lens for the format---you would do even better, since those numbers would be divided by two. (But if you used a 300 mm lens on 8 x 10---the "normal" focal length for the format---you would do worse by a factor of two.)

So it seems to me that getting far enough back for such scenes is not terribly difficult.

On the other hand, many urban architectural subjects can't be photographed from that far back, and very wide angle lenses that cover 8 x 10 and allow some movement are few and far between.

John NYC
5-Nov-2012, 11:24
Hyper focal is a compromise. I, for instance, am not happy using it when I want the building details tack sharp. And I have tested this with a 150mm SS XL on 8x10. Your mileage may vary.

Leonard Evens
5-Nov-2012, 11:47
http://www.birke.net/[/url]) shoots his city landscapes with a 8 x 10 and although I haven't seen any of his gallery expositions, it seems he pretty much nails everything in focus- and many of his shots have a lot of expanding 3rd dimension before your eyes. I thought that camera movements make it possible to control depth of field quite freely, even with 8 x 10 format? How much of a problem will it be? I'd appreciate it if you elaborate.. I was aware that there *might* be a DOF problem and as I have no experience with 8x10 yet, I don't know the magnitude of this problem.

Birke's pictures are all taken from far enough back from the subject that depth of field won't be a serious limitation, whatever the format. But needing to get far enough back will generally limit your selection of subjects. It would not be possible for many of the subjects I am interested in.

It seems to me that tilts and swings would not help in Birke's pictures. (Of course he might need to use rise/fall and shifts.) Tilts and swings are not so useful for many architectural subjects because of the shape of the dof region. It is wedge shape with limited extent parallel to the film plane closer to the camera. Often architectural subjects have significant extent in horizontal and vertical dimensions close to the camera.

You can estimate how far back you need to get by using the hyperfocal distance. The formula for hyperfocal distance is

f^2/(Nc)

where f is the focal length, N the f-number, and c the maximum allowable circle of confusion. When comparing 8 x 10 with 4 x 5, you generally should double the focal length---for the same angle of view---and double the coc---for the same resolution in a final print of the same size. That will mean the hyperfocal distance will be doubled for the same aperture, which means you will have to get further back. Of course, you can also double the f-number---change by two stops---which will get you back to the same depth of field. Unfortunately, that will require increased exposure time, which can be a problem if there is any subject movement or if camera shake is an issue. Camera shake is generally more of a problem with large and bulkier equipment.

rdenney
5-Nov-2012, 13:24
The hyperfocal distance for a 150 mm lens at f/32 on a 4 x 5 camera is about 23 feet. Focusing at that distance, everything from 11.5 feet to infinity would be in focus in an 8 x 10 print viewed at about 10-12 inches and also in focus for a larger print viewed proportionately further back.

It depends on your standard circle of confusion. The OP is talking about prints that are six feet along the narrow dimension, which is an enlargement ratio of 9x from 8x10. DOFMaster, for example, clams a hyperfocal distance for 8x10 and a 150mm lens of 12 feet at f/32. But that's for an assumed 8x10" print--a contact print from 8x10 film. DOFMaster is assuming a circle of confusion, which is the standard for how close together details should be before becoming one, of 0.2mm, which is five line-pairs/mm. That's about what most people try to achieve on print that will be inspected closely with the unaided eye. (Some are stricter than that.) With a 9x enlargement, that 0.2mm because 1.8mm, or a line pair nearly every 2 mm. That will obviously lose a sense of endless detail on close inspection.

So, if we set the standard for the print at 0.2mm, then the negative will have to have 1/9 of that when using a 9x enlargement. That's about 0.02mm. DOFMaster proposes a hyperfocal distance of 116 feet at f/32 with that standard of clarity, will provide our standard on the print at subject distances from 58 feet to infinity. That's not a huge amount of depth of field for just about the shortest focal length that is workable on 8x10.

A print can look great and not be that sharp, but one will see the fuzziness on close inspection.

Rick "big prints are extremely demanding--if the standard is apparent sharpness at nose-to-print distances" Denney

John NYC
5-Nov-2012, 14:15
Bingo again, Rick.

premortho
5-Nov-2012, 16:37
Yes, I like a nice picture...but I don't print for 'grain sniffers'. There used to be a bunch of 8X10 shooters who chose the moniker 'f64', these guys shot for the grain sniffers. Ansel Adams started out as an f64 devotee, and you still see it in his later stuff, but not as much. Emerson (the English photographer) usually used a Dallmeyer f8 Rapid Rectigraph, and reccommended shooting wide open. His stuff is pretty good as well. I use 5X7, and 8X10 primarily for their ability to accentuate an item in the picture through the use of selective focus. I use camera movements to shift in focus area to where I want it. Then the diaphram to control the size of the image that is in focus. Then I decide how long an exposure (including recipcrocity of the film,if any) will give me a fully timed negative. I suppose this rather simplistic approach is not for everyone, but it works for me. And yes, I'm one of the over the hill gang, "has beens" I think some one called us on here.

nottired
5-Nov-2012, 17:16
Well, the problem is that I want to benefit from huge prints combined with endless detail.. that's what I'm after 'technically'. I wonder about one thing though when it comes to hyperfocal distance- the definition says that it's the distance beginning with which objects are in 'acceptable focus'. As I understand, the acceptable focus is defined by CoC. Assuming CoC = 0,018 for a 10x enlargment of 8x10 film will be 'tack sharp' or do I need CoC even smaller? It gives approx hyperfocal distance of 55m for 150mm lens @ f22 if my calculations are correct. That's not cool.

John NYC
5-Nov-2012, 17:31
You are starting to catch on...

But there are other problems later in the "signal chain" as well. Wait until you start operating that drum scanner!

Oren Grad
5-Nov-2012, 17:34
Well, the problem is that I want to benefit from huge prints combined with endless detail.. that's what I'm after 'technically'. I wonder about one thing though when it comes to hyperfocal distance- the definition says that it's the distance beginning with which objects are in 'acceptable focus'. As I understand, the acceptable focus is defined by CoC. Assuming CoC = 0,018 for a 10x enlargment of 8x10 film will be 'tack sharp' or do I need CoC even smaller? It gives approx hyperfocal distance of 55m for 150mm lens @ f22 if my calculations are correct. That's not cool.

Before you spend any money based on DoF calculations - regardless of your assumptions about CoC - read this (caveat: 2.1MB download):

Merklinger: The INs and OUTs of Focus (http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/TIAOOFe.pdf)

nottired
5-Nov-2012, 18:07
Ah yes, I didn't drum scan yet but I feel it will be the most painful link of the whole proccess :) Fortunately I can count on the help from very experienced previous owner of the scanner. For now I know that the Scanmate 11000 has a 1 GB limit per file so I'll have to scan PARTS and then stitch them together. Then dust removing, not to mention elephant-sized files which will kill my desktop machine.
Oren- I'll read it tomorrow, thanks.

-edit- if someone could chime in about my assumed CoC value, I'd appreciate it. Do I need to go lower than 0,018 for critical sharpness with 10x enlargement?

Eric Leppanen
5-Nov-2012, 18:10
I presume as part of your research you have seen Tim Parkin's test summary here:

http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/camera-test-editors-commentary/

You've received excellent feedback already, and I can only add that I shot exterior architecture with 8x10 for several years, using an Arca F-Line classic, a 5 series Gitzo carbon fiber tripod with Arca B2 ballhead (supplemented with a Manfrotto long lens support arm), and a set of lenses very similar to those you are contemplating (I had an SS150XL, SS210XL and later 200 Grandagon, 300 Sironar-S, 450 Nikon M and 600/800 APO Tele Xenar convertible). If you have never shot 8x10 for architectural subjects then you may well be shocked by how limited 8x10's depth of field is. I found myself routinely stopping down to f/64 to get everything in focus, and even then that often wasn't enough. At such small apertures there is zero resolution benefit to using 8x10 versus 4x5. Swing and tilt typically doesn't help much since many subjects are irregularly shaped and don't willingly lend themselves to a single plane of focus. Depth of field with the 800 APO Tele Xenar is so limited that the lens will typically be useful for only planar subjects or very distant shots (where camera stability challenges, haze, convection currents, etc. all conspire to reduce image resolution).

Frankly, I used the 8x10 because I was already using it for landscape subjects (where depth of field issues are not as dire), and composing on the large ground glass was so much fun that I said the hell with practicality. But lugging around such heavy, expensive equipment for such limited benefits (I also make enlargement prints, not contacts) finally got old.

nottired
5-Nov-2012, 18:25
Eric- yes of course, I'm familiar with Tim Parkin's test. It was obvious that 8x10 will top IQ180 even without 8x10 experience, the test was pretty much a reaction to totally biased bullsh*t from Mark Dubovoy, who shot 8x10 without any know-how, scanned it with an Epson and said- oh, now I can fully justify my $200000000 digiback, it's the best.
I'm in for 8x10 because of it's resolving power. I think I'll try coping with shooting distances to have my images tack sharp.. I can't compromise on aperture (diffraction) and in cases I just CAN'T pull it off with 8x10, I'll use 4x5 for the extra DOF. Heck, I can always stitch 4 x 5 if I can't pull it off with 8 x 10 and still need the resolution. I think there's always a solution, although as John said numerous times, it's always a compromise.

Frank Petronio
5-Nov-2012, 18:26
If your scans are limited to 1gb, at least at this point, why not use that as your "limit" and scale your print size and goals from there? You may be surprised how much you can do with a "puny" 1gb file.

r.e.
5-Nov-2012, 18:35
Well, the problem is that I want to benefit from huge prints combined with endless detail.. that's what I'm after 'technically'.

Well if that's what you want, the solution is stacking. There are photographers doing it both with 4x5 and 8x10, and for that matter medium format digital, and some of them are doing it without worrying about movement of subjects and changes in light. There was an article last winter in the New York Times about one young photographer who is doing this, and there were examples from him and other photographers at last spring's New York Armory photography show.

Interesting work, but for me the highlight of the Armory show was sitting down with a friend for coffee and getting into a discussion with a gentleman sitting at the same table who turned out to be George Tice :)

P.S. By the way, Mr. Tice was there with his daughter and a film crew. There's a documentary coming.

chacabuco
5-Nov-2012, 18:38
Have you checked out Peter Bialobrzeski? When I saw the Thomas Birke stuff, it reminded me of his work. I think he shoots 5x7 though

nottired
5-Nov-2012, 18:51
Yes, I think Thomas work relates somehow to part of Peter Bialobrzeski's work. I enjoy his urban photography, thanks for mentioning him.

r.e., I'm familiar with focus stacking, in fact I've done it with MF digital :) It's in many cases hassle-free proccess with MF digital but I can't imagine focus stacking with 8x10... scanning, spotting, file sizes with which you play, not to mention drum scanners, even good ones, are not very good at duplicating the results- I was told that scanning twice the same piece of film will give two slightly different files..at least with Scanmate 11000. It will be already troublesome if I have to stitch 2 files for one 8x10 film sheet. Think about focus stacking 3 files together- it will need 6 scanned files, all have to be spotted for dust.. The amount of work would be crazy.

Frank- a not so high DPI scan of 8 x 10 easily exceeds 1 Gb filesize. As far as I remember Thomas scans were 1.6 Gb per file, I am aiming for moreless the same print sizes. I need approx 3000-4000 DPI scan, but to get the best results, I should go for 8000 DPI and size down afterwards if I use fine grain film. Damn it got technical.. I hate technical. But I know that it's the way to save time, money and my nerves so it's better to figure it all out than to cry later.

Hatrick
5-Nov-2012, 18:55
The SINAR 8x10 P2MB has ample bellows flexibility and when using the Schneider 210XL wide angle lens the bag bellows are fine. As mentioned in another comment, the rail can be inclined up or down to facilitate the front rise and fall then adjust the standards to vertical. The SINAR 8x10 P2 is exceptionally easy to set up in this manner using the SINAR pan and tilt head.
Tripod stability was mentioned along the way, my comments to this is, use a quality wooden survey instrument tripod, just as a testimony the tripod mentioned, consider the "Wild" T2 Theodolite, it was designed to divide a degree into not only minutes but down to one second so you can imagine how rigid the tripod had to be, these tripods are available new between $80 - $350 and only require a (3/16" - 1/4" thick) 3/8" extra wide fender type washer and 3/8" GR5 bolt to attach the SINAR pan and tilt head.
Keep in mind that the SINAR 8x10 P2MB, Tripod and all the equipment required for location use is extremely labour intensive but if you have the time, patients and of course a reliable pack mule, the results have the potential to be very satisfying
All the equipment above regularly appears on eBay at reasonable prices, the 210XL lens is rarely seen on eBay but when it is it usually goes for between $2,400 - $3,200

vinny
5-Nov-2012, 19:37
"if I use fine grain film" that's funny.
there's only one 8x10 transparency film (suitable for the look you say you're after) left on the market so I guess you're in luck. Provia.

Frank Petronio
5-Nov-2012, 19:54
He could always take lessons from Drew;-p

nottired
5-Nov-2012, 21:01
Question regarding lens choice- how about 155mm Grandagon N instead of 150mm Super Symmar XL? Which lens resolves better / will give me better results? Is there any reason NOT to buy Grandagon? I see that it's no longer produced by Rodenstock, what's the image circle of this lens?

Frank, 8x10, or should I say LF film is something new for me, so I'm taking the lessons at the very moment :)

Ari
5-Nov-2012, 21:29
Nikon 150 f8 - IC of 400mm
Grandagon 155 f6.8 - 382mm
Super Symmar XL 150 - 386mm
Super-Angulon 165 - 395mm

John NYC
5-Nov-2012, 22:14
Honestly, I think you should start by getting a used, small, easy to carry and setup, 4x5-only monorail for $300, a $200 Fuji 125mm or 150mm lens, two used holders for $30 and just experiment for a while. Everyone on this board knows in almost every situation, you would not be able to tell the results from that setup from a brand new Linhof or Ebony and a Rodenstock Apo Sironar S. You are fooling yourself by thinking all this great gear matters in LF, especially when you get out of the control of a studio situation.

If you don't LOVE doing that in terms of process, you certainly won't love scaling up -- the only exception being an 8x10 ground glass is a little nicer to look at.

Carl J
5-Nov-2012, 22:27
Well if that's what you want, the solution is stacking. There are photographers doing it both with 4x5 and 8x10, and for that matter medium format digital, and some of them are doing it without worrying about movement of subjects and changes in light. There was an article last winter in the New York Times about one young photographer who is doing this, and there were examples from him and other photographers at last spring's New York Armory photography show.

Interesting work, but for me the highlight of the Armory show was sitting down with a friend for coffee and getting into a discussion with a gentleman sitting at the same table who turned out to be George Tice :)

P.S. By the way, Mr. Tice was there with his daughter and a film crew. There's a documentary coming.

Funny you should mention Tice, who seems to do architecture just fine with his trusty 8x10 Deardorff.... ;) I look forward to that documentary! Anybody know what lenses he uses?

Frank Petronio
5-Nov-2012, 22:44
Honestly, I think you should start by getting a used, small, easy to carry and setup, 4x5-only monorail for $300, a $200 Fuji 125mm or 150mm lens, two used holders for $30 and just experiment for a while. Everyone on this board knows in almost every situation, you would not be able to tell the results from that setup from a brand new Linhof or Ebony and a Rodenstock Apo Sironar S. You are fooling yourself by thinking all this great gear matters in LF, especially when you get out of the control of a studio situation.

If you don't LOVE doing that in terms of process, you certainly won't love scaling up -- the only exception being an 8x10 ground glass is a little nicer to look at.

+1

The image differences between a $1,000 outfit and a $10,000 one are virtually indistinguishable and depend on so many factors that the photographer's experience, skill, and luck are the largest determinates, far beyond your choice of lens or camera.

Heck the lenses have sample variation or you may have environmental factors affecting the results... until you get out and work it's impossible to know what will be your nemesis. That $3000 lens may be for sale because it was a dog, a $300 lens can be a gem.

I know that an experienced photographer using a beat-up old outfit with a 30-year old lens will consistently outperform an inexperienced newbie with the latest and greatest. I was once the newb with a bunch of new expensive stuff too and the old guys I assisted consistently licked me with their nasty gear.

mortensen
6-Nov-2012, 00:55
Unless I am seriously misinformed, your Scanmate11000 certainly doesn't have a 1GB file size limit. You are using ColorQuartet with it, right? Not ColorTrio, hopefully... If you are not already there, check the Scan Hi-End group at Yahoo. Dense amount of knowledge over there, too.

Just for the record, Bialobrzeski uses a Technika 4x5 (and according to himself often only stopped down to f11). Nadav Kander used a Technika for his Yangtze project. Bas Princen shoots 4x5 and so does Michael Wolf (and Burtynsky and Gursky as already mentioned). These hotshots probably had their reasons... taking their subjects and working conditions into account. I have had a couple of drum scans made at Tim's at 4000dpi (4x5)... trust me, they are big!

nottired
6-Nov-2012, 04:37
Scanmate doesn't have the file limit, but ColorQuartet does- at the time, there was a Mac OS (and Microsoft) file limit of 1 Gb, so the software followed suit. The times have changed, but the file limit didn't.. Well, it actually did but only for Scanmate 5000 - with 5000, you get 2 Gb file limit when you work with newest ColorQuartet - that's what I've been said. There was a petition from drum scanner owners to make the software developers alter the file limit fot Scanmate 11000 as well, but as things are now, this issue won't be addressed. Silverlight doesn't support Scanview products.. so it's a dead end.
Anyway, Scanmate 11000 is capable of producing 4 Gb scan file, much more than needed for 8 x 10. If Colorquarter allowed 2 Gb files, there would be no problem I guess.
Another bad thing about Scanmate is size of drum... it's such a waste that this drum is so small. It will hardly accept a single 8 x 10.
as a proof, here's a link to a forum thread showing the problem:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?70858-Error-no-1-6-on-ScanMate-11000

Brian Ellis
6-Nov-2012, 05:21
Funny you should mention Tice, who seems to do architecture just fine with his trusty 8x10 Deardorff.... ;) I look forward to that documentary! Anybody know what lenses he uses?

Deardorffs were originally designed and made for Chicago architectural photographers. They're great cameras for that purpose, I've owned two.

I don't know what lenses Tice uses but why would you care?

nottired
7-Nov-2012, 06:27
Here's a message I received regarding Prontor shutter.

"Yes - its right that the spring of the Prontor shutter feels maybe hard - but you can feel this only in the phase of tensioning the spring one moment before you expose your picture. And you do it with the cable - so this is for sure nothing what can produce a vibration for your picture. All kinds of focal plane shutters or mirrors in small format or medium format cameras can produce vibrations - but with a large format camera with leaf shutters its nearly impossible to feel or see something of this. The vibration is centric in the optical axis and no mass is moving from one to another side - so to get any bad results of vibration is even theoretic not possible."

Any comments on that?

rdenney
7-Nov-2012, 06:42
People have made sharp photos using shutters that could brush your teeth. A shutter in a state of good maintenance trumps other subtleties.

I do really recommend that you build your intentions on top of experience. Avoid "Analysis Paralysis". Get something and start making photographs. Sell what doesn't work and buy what does. Learn how you skills will influence those choices. You seem to be trying to start at the large-format-film finish line.

Rick "whose one Prontor shutter runs slow because it needs a CLA" Denney

John NYC
7-Nov-2012, 07:09
Stop worrying about things that will not matter in the big scheme of things. Get a minimal kit together and start shooting. Making pictures successfully with LF is way more craft knowledge than book knowledge.

Noah A
7-Nov-2012, 07:14
If you're shooting on 8x10 (or even 4x5) and you're stopped down, shooting at night or in the dawn/dusk times of day, you'll probably be shooting on Bulb or Time anyway. The shutter is the least of your concerns, as long as it works. I use all modern Copal shutters and they're fine.

Just get out there and shoot some film. And post the results, I know we'd all like to see them!

Frank Petronio
7-Nov-2012, 07:36
Buy a bunch of high-end gear because you only want the best, ponder using it for several months, then sell it to us for a fraction of what you paid.

It could be that guy who wants to start with the $5K Ebony or the 12x20 or the $10K drum scanner... it works out to our benefit in the end ;-p

mortensen
7-Nov-2012, 08:23
... what Noah actually says is, that prontor-shutters will be a PITA, since you don't have "T" for long exposures, but only "B". Bulb on a prontor means either locking the cable (for 5+minutes) or keeping the shutter pressed with your fingers - which enhances the risk of vibration.

Go for Copal shutters!

vinny
7-Nov-2012, 08:45
Here's a message I received regarding Prontor shutter.

"Yes - its right that the spring of the Prontor shutter feels maybe hard - but you can feel this only in the phase of tensioning the spring one moment before you expose your picture. And you do it with the cable - so this is for sure nothing what can produce a vibration for your picture. All kinds of focal plane shutters or mirrors in small format or medium format cameras can produce vibrations - but with a large format camera with leaf shutters its nearly impossible to feel or see something of this. The vibration is centric in the optical axis and no mass is moving from one to another side - so to get any bad results of vibration is even theoretic not possible."

Any comments on that?

Dude, did you read my post, or anyone else's for that matter? get a light-tight box, put a lens on it, go out and shoot!

Kirk Gittings
7-Nov-2012, 09:18
Here's a message I received regarding Prontor shutter.

"Yes - its right that the spring of the Prontor shutter feels maybe hard - but you can feel this only in the phase of tensioning the spring one moment before you expose your picture. And you do it with the cable - so this is for sure nothing what can produce a vibration for your picture. All kinds of focal plane shutters or mirrors in small format or medium format cameras can produce vibrations - but with a large format camera with leaf shutters its nearly impossible to feel or see something of this. The vibration is centric in the optical axis and no mass is moving from one to another side - so to get any bad results of vibration is even theoretic not possible."

Any comments on that?

I used Prontor shutters exclusively on my lenses for many years for doing multiple exposures to build flash power on interiors. There must be some vibration because if you do say 12-16 or more pops you start to get some very slight softness in the image-if its not the shutter I don't know what it would be, but perhaps it comes from the necessary stiff cable release. These are good heavy duty shutters tat take allot of heavy use. Unfortunately they are not made anymore and a bit expensive to fix when they do fail.

Andrew Plume
7-Nov-2012, 10:37
Stop worrying about things that will not matter in the big scheme of things. Get a minimal kit together and start shooting. Making pictures successfully with LF is way more craft knowledge than book knowledge.

.........fwiw and I've only just caught up with this thread, I would personally be concerned that you're running the risk of literally tying yourself up in knots and maybe exhausting yourself mentally before you start................so just buy something that's cheap and go out and play.............do your own thing and don't worry about anybody else

good luck anyhow

andrew

Andrew Plume
12-Feb-2013, 06:14
Deardorffs were originally designed and made for Chicago architectural photographers. They're great cameras for that purpose, I've owned two.

I don't know what lenses Tice uses but why would you care?

I'm not going to comment on what Brian said, as this isn't the point but on re-reading an article on George Tice today, details of the lenses that he uses were mentioned and they are:-

1) 6 1/4" Dagor;
2) 12" Dagor;
3) 16 1/2" Dagor; and a
4) 240mm Schneider

andrew

Carl J
12-Feb-2013, 18:36
Hi Andrew,

Thanks for digging up that answer about what focal lengths Tice used. Very interesting. I'd like to read the article (do you have a reference?).

Just saw a show of his 20x24" pt/pl prints in NYC last week. Stunning.

Carl

C. D. Keth
12-Feb-2013, 18:44
Would a 6-1/4" dagor even cover 8x10?

Kirk Gittings
12-Feb-2013, 19:29
Deardorffs were originally designed and made for Chicago architectural photographers. They're great cameras for that purpose, I've owned two.


Well sort of.......at one time the Dorfs were the best AP camera around and used by top Chicago APs like Hedrich-Blessing but.......and as soon as high end rails came out they dropped the Deardorfs for Sinars and Arcas and when high end digital tech cameras came out the rails got traded in Arca Tech cameras. Jon Miller, long time shooter at HB and currect CEO is a good friend of mine. So yes in their day they were the best around but that day is along time ago.