Are the higher shutter speeds on large format lenses always off?

[Pere Casals]

I noted that there was no appreciable difference from the first firing of the shutter to the sixth. From this I concluded that firing the shutter to "exercise" it made no difference to my readings.

A shutter that is is shape should fire perfectly from the the time, but here YMMV, it depends on the particular shutter, how it was lubricated and stored, and when, also even ambient temperature may have an influence on if first time it fires like the sixth.

I've (only) 7 shutters, one of them is a faulty Seiko that mofidies low speeds a lot after exercised, the other ones don't.

[GoodOldNorm]

A shutter that is is shape should fire perfectly from the the time, but here YMMV, it depends on the particular shutter, how it was lubricated and stored, and when, also even ambient temperature may have an influence on if first time it fires like the sixth.

I've (only) 7 shutters, one of them is a faulty Seiko that mofidies low speeds a lot after exercised, the other ones don't.

I store my shutters set on the B setting is this the correct thing to do?

[Pere Casals]

I store my shutters set on the B setting is this the correct thing to do?

This has been debated with some controversy. B position sure it's safe... Some shutter repair workshops have been recommending the B position as a general rule.

IMO for most "modern" shutters made in the last 4 decades it may be irrelevant the speed set for storage, at least there are no instructions from manufacturers and shutters came from factory in top speed position.

the shutters (old Compurs...) having a booster spring for the 400 speed loads an spring in the 400 position, so I avoid that setting for storage.

"We are the Rodenstock distributor. The factory sends the lenses to us uncocked, press focus closed, aperture at the largest opening and the shutter speed at the fastest shutter speed."

If springs are of good quality then nothing if lost is they are kept under tension, but anyway I would not keep the shutter cocked.

Also some very ancient shutters may tension some (low quality) spring depending on speed setting.

[Bernice Loui]

No "fooling" around, after burning countless sheets of film over decades of this view camera stuff there is not much "fun" in fooling around. It is all serious image making per sheet of film. If the view camera goes out to make images, there is a goal, no experimenting or sudden discoveries, no tolerance for camera limitations, comprehensive knowledge of what a given lens will and will not do-then used a chosen lens appropriately.

This mind-set can from a time when doing in-studio work with folks who made their daily eats and roof over their head by meeting client expectations for excellent work. There were no exceptions, either the work was excellent or you starve. Back then there was a support system to make it possible. Or where the expectations for what this view camera stuff must meet, anything less not gonna happen here. Today, no. Suspect this is why the dramatic change in folks who are doing view camera stuff today. Add to this view camera hardware is not difficult to obtain today.

That said, it's great to see folks tinkering with this view camera stuff. This is where the, "Figure out what works best for you comes from." But, there are those who have been there, done all that and know precisely what works for them and what does not and what is minutia not worth being overly concerned about.

IMO, sheet film B&W printed in a darkroom has no digital equal, but them are "Fight'n Words"..


Bernice

Where's the fun in that? Half the lenses I use on a typical outing are either being used for the first time (by me), or I don't remember how they performed the last time I used them. But then obtaining a 'perfect' image isn't the main reason I go out shooting; it's the process I love. The discovery. When I want a perfect photo, I use my phone like a normal person.

[Jody_S]

No "fooling" around, after burning countless sheets of film over decades of this view camera stuff there is not much "fun" in fooling around. It is all serious image making per sheet of film. If the view camera goes out to make images, there is a goal, no experimenting or sudden discoveries, no tolerance for camera limitations, comprehensive knowledge of what a given lens will and will not do-then used a chosen lens appropriately.

This mind-set can from a time when doing in-studio work with folks who made their daily eats and roof over their head by meeting client expectations for excellent work. There were no exceptions, either the work was excellent or you starve. Back then there was a support system to make it possible. Or where the expectations for what this view camera stuff must meet, anything less not gonna happen here. Today, no. Suspect this is why the dramatic change in folks who are doing view camera stuff today. Add to this view camera hardware is not difficult to obtain today.

That said, it's great to see folks tinkering with this view camera stuff. This is where the, "Figure out what works best for you comes from." But, there are those who have been there, done all that and know precisely what works for them and what does not and what is minutia not worth being overly concerned about.

IMO, sheet film B&W printed in a darkroom has no digital equal, but them are "Fight'n Words"..


Bernice

30 years ago there were a sizeable number of commercial photographers who earned a living doing large format work. I was not one of those. There were a lot more people losing money pretending to be in the stock photo business. I was one of those, though I never used lf for that as it was all a numbers game and you had to keep your costs to a bare minimum. Hence I got in the habit of buying and selling used gear to finance the stuff I couldn't afford to go to the store and buy new. Now the stock photo market disappeared with the Internet and unscrupulous stock agencies that vacuum up every image on the 'net and don't actually pay the photographers. This has led people like me to post very few images on the 'net, and never using commercial hosting sites as their terms of service pretty universally grant them ownership and the right to resell your images without compensating you. If you're not paying for a product, you are the product.

What remains, for people like me, is the business of buying and selling used gear to finance our personal photography, because that part still pays. The fact that I no longer sell a few dollars of photos from time to time simply means I don't have to bother with all the hard work of cataloguing and marketing my photos anymore (I rarely even print them), and I can shoot whatever the h- I want instead of trying to guess what buyers want. I like it better this way. A side effect of this model though is that I need to experiment with a relatively large number of lenses and cameras that pass through my hands, unless I want to sell everything as-is and 'untested'. It so happens that I enjoy doing this, and it motivates me to get out the in field on days where I might stay home instead. Do you know how a 'Polyopse' varifocal projection Petzval lens differs from a standard Petzval design? I'm about to find out.

I participated in this thread because I was considering buying one of the cheap shutter speed testers and I was wondering how useful it might be in practice. And it seems the answer is 'not very' (for leaf shutters), after reading the Sinar brochure and seeing actual numbers and a reference to the standard the shutters were built to. I can make a better shutter tester with a 3x3" bit of photovoltaic cell, flashlight, cardboard, and an oscilloscope, and some software to fit the resulting curve to a rectangle of equal height. If I had >$1M to burn, I could worry about integrating spheres, collimated light sources, integrating 'scopes, and optical test benches. The results would be so close to identical that outside of a nuclear physics lab the differences would be trivial. But my results would differ quite significantly from the $15 ebay shutter speed testers.

[Bernice Loui]

Having been around that kind of commercial work back in those days alters your ways, expectations of how Photography is done, once after being subjected to all that, it forever alters the way one does photography and how photography is done.

Indeed there was a significant market for stock Fotos back then, knew folks who did that in the SF bay area back then, most did not survive, most did it has a side interest. Once purchased some Canon 35mm stuff from a work sports photographer. He showed me his working Canon F1n, there was not one surface on that body that was not significantly dented, most of the paint was wore off or whacked off, yet it remained his working camera. He also did stock Fotos as a side interest.

What is surprising is the sheer number of folks that continue to wheel-deal Foto stuff. Another Foto friend paid for part of his med school wheeling-dealing Foto gear. There remains a significant amount to Foto hardware wheeling-dealing to this day.

Me, I've got more Foto stuff than could ever be needed, they are remains from decades past and impulse buying from a time when film related camera stuff was literally being ~dumped~ on the used market to be replaced by digital.

As for DIY shutter speed sensor and related to check shutter speed, been there done that. Designed-built this Photodiode transimpedance amplifier some time in the early 1990's to... check shutter speed. It's brute over kill as it has a rise-fall time about 50nS with a LOT of dynamic range.


It is often used at the back side of a Sinar (aka integrating sphere Heh....). This plus a Tektronix 7834 analog storage O'scope with the proper set of plug-ins was the set up. That was the shutter speed checker set up back in the early 1990's. But for today's Foto-Op, here it is set up looking at the light output of a LED ring light magnifier on the Tek 7104, which is the O'scope used most often today.


Virtually ANY constant light source works, as that is the least critical item in that test set up.



Bernice

30 years ago there were a sizeable number of commercial photographers who earned a living doing large format work. I was not one of those. There were a lot more people losing money pretending to be in the stock photo business. I was one of those, though I never used lf for that as it was all a numbers game and you had to keep your costs to a bare minimum. Hence I got in the habit of buying and selling used gear to finance the stuff I couldn't afford to go to the store and buy new. Now the stock photo market disappeared with the Internet and unscrupulous stock agencies that vacuum up every image on the 'net and don't actually pay the photographers. This has led people like me to post very few images on the 'net, and never using commercial hosting sites as their terms of service pretty universally grant them ownership and the right to resell your images without compensating you. If you're not paying for a product, you are the product.

What remains, for people like me, is the business of buying and selling used gear to finance our personal photography, because that part still pays. The fact that I no longer sell a few dollars of photos from time to time simply means I don't have to bother with all the hard work of cataloguing and marketing my photos anymore, and I can shoot whatever the h- I want instead of trying to guess what buyers want. I like it better this way. A side effect of this model though is that I need to experiment with a relatively large number of lenses and cameras that pass through my hands, unless I want to sell everything as-is and 'untested'. It so happens that I enjoy doing this, and it motivates me to get out the in field on days where I might stay home instead.

I participated in this thread because I was considering buying one of the cheap shutter speed testers and I was wondering how useful it might be in practice. And it seems the answer is 'not very', after reading the Sinar brochure and seeing actual numbers and a reference to the standard the shutters were built to. I can make a better shutter tester with a 3x3" bit of photovoltaic cell, flashlight, and an oscilloscope, and some software to fit the resulting curve to a rectangle of equal height.

[Dan Fromm]

Jody, whether you should get a shutter speed tester depends on your shutters. I have a number of lenses in so-so shutters that are significantly off speed but still consistent. Since I shoot chromes they could hurt me if I didn't have a shutter speed tester. I don't have to test often. Once a year seems to be often enough, and then I carry the updated summary calibration sheet with me. My tester is a Calumet lookalike that I think came out of the same garage as Calumet's testers.

[Jody_S]

As for DIY shutter speed sensor and related to check shutter speed, been there done that. Designed-built this Photodiode transimpedance amplifier some time in the early 1990's to... check shutter speed. It's brute over kill as it has a rise-fall time about 50nS with a LOT of dynamic range.


It is often used at the back side of a Sinar (aka integrating sphere Heh....). This plus a Tektronix 7834 analog storage O'scope with the proper set of plug-ins was the set up. That was the shutter speed checker set up back in the early 1990's.
Bernice

Nice! I figured that since I'm measuring time, not light, I don't need the amplifier, I can simply use a strong enough light source that the tail ends of the curve that don't get measured are negligible. The benefit of the large photovoltaic cell instead of a point sensor is that I can measure the entire field at once, including with a lens of any design, since the effective shutter speed will vary based on how much smaller the optical path is than the standard shutter opening.

If this was for use with rear-mounted shutters like the Sinar, I would also have to mask the photovoltaic cell to a size corresponding to the eventual film area, but then that's why you used a point sensor?

[Bernice Loui]

Suspect a plain Foot-Cell used in voltage out mode is plenty good enough. The edge rates with mechanical shutters is just NOT that high. Do use a decent 10X scope probe to reduce the capacitance loading at the Foto-Cell, this will help speedy up the Foot-Cell used in volts out mode.

It is really a simple set up. Flashlight is GOOD, battery powered means portable point it where needed with no 60Hz related components. Be aware many LED flashlights today have internal switching power supplies that will modulate the light output. This might or might not be an issue. Using a good-old fashioned "Edison" bulb flashlight gets this done.


Have fun
Bernice

Nice! I figured that since I'm measuring time, not light, I don't need the amplifier, I can simply use a strong enough light source that the tail ends of the curve that don't get measured are negligible. The benefit of the large photovoltaic cell instead of a point sensor is that I can measure the entire field at once, including with a lens of any design, since the effective shutter speed will vary based on how much smaller the optical path is than the standard shutter opening.

[Jody_S]

Jody, whether you should get a shutter speed tester depends on your shutters. I have a number of lenses in so-so shutters that are significantly off speed but still consistent. Since I shoot chromes they could hurt me if I didn't have a shutter speed tester. I don't have to test often. Once a year seems to be often enough, and then I carry the updated summary calibration sheet with me. My tester is a Calumet lookalike that I think came out of the same garage as Calumet's testers.

I shoot negs, and develop in cold water to exhaustion. Mostly because I scan instead of printing, and I didn't have a scanner that could adequately scan chromes (why I stopped shooting chromes). I have recently acquired a scanner that can do 4.0 dmax (apparently), if that works out I might get back into color. I have a Jobo thingy waiting for that day, but to be honest I see in B&W and see no advantage to going back to color at this time. Based on my workflow, there is very little gain to be made by calibrating my shutters, the speed tester was more for peace of mind.