Drew, I don't think that attacking Ed Burtynsky professionally, and asserting that he's a paid monkey, helps advance the discussion or enhances your own credibility. I don't even understand what would motivate you to write your post. You're just lashing out.
Ed Burtynsky doesn't need me to defend him, but I've met the man, he's a pleasure to deal with and open about sharing his expertise, and he gave me some very good advice. I have a lot of respect for him.
Don't try to intimidate me with ANYONE'S alleged reputation. I not green under the ears. And I'm not lashing out at all; what on earth makes you think that? Though not with respect photographic gear per se, I made my living as myself a gear guru involving top end equipment - entirely analogous. I know the ropes, know how to address different interests - not deceptively, but with respect to what certain people potentially need versus other parties - how to tailor equipment endorsements fairly, but deliberately not the always the same, because actual needs differ.
It is you who is attacking me for presuming I'm attacking Ed. Did I ever call him a "paid monkey" - don't put words in my mouth that I never used! Did I ever claim he was an unhelpful person? He would understandably take a certain viewpoint based on his own current taste and requirements; but extrapolating that into something generically "better" is outright nonsense. Better for what??? - that's the real question. For someone else, his personal choice might be a distinct step backwards. Just more blurb filler as far as I'm concerned, entirely predictable. And in a digital blurb, nobody is lingering there to learn traditional view camera skills, or else they wouldn't get sponsors trying to sell digital options instead. Common sense. Basic 101 marketing psychology. No crime; people need to make a living. But one doesn't advertise steak in an ice cream shop.
Agreed! AOV alone is not a good way! Thankfully, that's not why I said what I said.Originally Posted by Bernice Loui
If your photographic vision for your composition requires a lens with an AOV of 23°, you're going to choose a lens with a specific focal length and a specific format. A 300mm f/2.8 on a Nikon D800 won't give you the image you're envisioning.
Sure, sometimes we take one lens out and we look for compositions that fit that lens. Other times we find compositions and come back with our cameras when the light is right with the specific lens and film format combo that gives us that. I certainly dont' want to force my experience on everyone else, but for me with large format, the latter is consistently what happens to me, not the former.
It's difficult to judge anyone's work until you can see optimum prints, as that opinion has been established by many on this forum. Not having seen his work in person, I can only judge Burtynsky's work from afar, and though I don't "enjoy" most of his images due mostly to subject matter, he appears to have the means to take on many intensive, long-term, far flung projects with indulgent focus (not something most of us have the luxury to attempt), showing the industrial wasteland and its effects on the earth etc. I think his "switch" to digital is a matter of convenience in imaging the landscape from the air. He goes into depth about the limitations of LF to get proper focus, and ample shutter speeds, meaning shooting close to wide open with inherent falloff, edge/corner unsharpness etc. He is using the a 100MP Hasselblad from the air, and though he may be paid by that or other companies to promote their products, in reality I sympathize with his seeking better options to realize his objectives.
I actually like some of his LF personal landscape work he shot during the pandemic. 8x10 negative film, and honestly I cannot imagine how we can judge his prints of those images without seeing them firsthand.
A good friend and noteworthy landscape professional, Hans Strand, switched from 8x10 to MF digital, and though he doesn't boast about print quality of enlargements nor comparing it to film, he does speak about the flexibility of that format, and the TS converter which you can use on most lenses to allow front tilts etc. He like BUrtynsky has used the 100MP Hasselblad to shoot Rio Tinto landscapes with the color of poisons in water etc. I believe they both use stabilizers for Helicopter work and Hans tapes manual Zeiss lenses with his Nikon's at infinity to assure proper focus. Essentially the same technique,
I see no reason to speculate about endorsements etc. but some photographers stand out not just for their technical expertise, but because they have the financial means and focus to complete a series of visions, which becomes a focal point for viewers, where the concept meets skill. I see that same intensity in Hans.
I believe for his LF work, Burtynsky uses negative 8x10 film still. Whether he continues to use film is unclear. The exorbitant cost of color 8x10 film might be the deciding factor.
I know several in this forum have used the Nikkor 360/500/720 convertible lenses with great success, even at the longer end. Doable but with double tripods, heavy duty head, and extremely sturdy camera systems with hard locks.
My brother used gyro stabilizers in conjunction with a Super Technika 4x5 for aerial photography, even from badly vibrating helicopters. Needing to use a stack of regular sheet film holders is cumbersome. Of course, real aerial cameras have been around a long time, including 9x9 inch roll film versions. As I already hinted, someone's choice of MF digital instead of LF film is more likely a logistical workflow decision rather than something revolving around optimal print quality.
Burtynsky's color style is rather soft and evolved around the idiosyncrasies of color neg film, and he is on record as disliking greens and blues in his compositions; and traditional color neg film are quite poor at green reproduction. But maybe now he's expanding his color palette and needs an option to expensive chrome film and scanning. That's not a criticism at all, despite what some seem to be thinking. There's no crime in discussing personal style and how it often factors into equipment option.
As far as convertible lenses go, they're not apt to be in the same league optically as dedicated focal lengths, especially for color work. And as supporting long lenses go, there are certain ways to get around double tripods which are far more convenient and even more stable at the same time. But that's a different topic. I don't have 360/500/720 Nikkor teles, but optically way superior Apo Nikkor 360, 450, and 760 process lenses, all of which easily cover 8x10 format, and which of course all need full bellows extension. But for sake of backpack convenience, I prefer just to use 450 and 600 Fujinon C's (compact series) instead.
But he could have easily put one of the LInhof 5” roll backs on his Super Technika, as long as it was no older then the IV.
I doubt he was budgeted for that, Bob. His Super was a V. He picked up a pilot's license and did a certain amount of personal aerial shooting. The Kenro gyro was rentable, and he used that mainly for paying commercial assignments of totally crisp 4X5 industrial shots where steel grids floors etc were constantly shaking due to all the big machinery around.
Helicopter work also needed a gyro, but not shots from airplanes.
Due to a heart condition, he was not licensed to fly unless another pilot was on board with him. But that turned out to be convenient if he wanted to do some shooting instead of being at the controls. Later in life I loaned him my Pentax 6x7, which was a lot more convenient for him when his eyesight began having artery-related issues.
Coming back to the initial question ...
I have (had) both the Apo Tele Xenar HM 800 and the Nikon Apo T 600/800 and worked with both. The main difference between both lenses is the ImageCircle: Tele Xenar is 500 mm (ULF) versus Nikon 320 mm (8x10).
That means if your are "limited" (?) to 8x10 the Nikon Lens is quite as good as the Scheider. Its more common on the second hand market and much cheaper. Interestingly the Nikon 800 setup even worked with my ULF 9x15 / 430mm IC for lighting-circle (not the 600mm setup!) with some image-detioriation to the corners (mainly: color fringing).
There was a later (about year 2000) Schneider Apo-Tele Xenar systemlens 600/800, with is/was (as a "Nikon copy") more compact, cheaper but also nearly 500 mm IC. But its even rarer now as the Xenar HM 800.
In my opinion the 800 Apo-Tele Xenar is the state of the art lens in nearly all optic-physical respects of this kind of lenses, but if you need it or can afford it is another question.
The comparison with apo-process-lenses from Schneider or Rodenstock in the same focal range is in my opionon a nogo. All process-lenses have to be stopped down to f22 for best performance. The Schneider Apo-Tele Xenar 800 HM has the best performance wide open at f12 and will only be stopped down for dept-of-field, as MTF-Curves and my personal experience proves.
I bet, that Andreas Feininger and Reinhart Wolf would have choosen this kind of lenses, if they had been available in there times.
regards Rainer
Last edited by rawitz; 21-Nov-2021 at 09:43.
Then there was Feininger who liked to take New York street scenes from New Jersey.
Darkroom Automation / Cleveland Engineering Design, LLC
f-Stop Timers & Enlarging meters http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
It's a myth that all processes lenses have to be stopped down to f/22 for optimal performance. F/22 was just the common denominator graphics industry standard that specifications were given for. But that's not the same issue. And once VC movements are involved, all kinds of lenses have to be stopped down well below f/22 to get enough usable image circle anyway. But otherwise, a number of apo process lenses seem to be superbly correctly even by f/11. I have direct experience with f/9 Apo Nikkor 4-element process lenses and am completely confident stating this.
The best or most consistent extreme long view work I've ever seen used these, and not teles. Logistically, it's a tradeoff - Long focal length process lenses are relatively compact and lightwt, but you obviously need full bellows extension. Teles are bulky and heavy and potentially need an especially rigid front standard, and are more limited with respect to usable image circle; the nodal tilt point is also annoyingly forward of the lensboard; but you need less bellows.
Pricewise? ... In this case, a King's ransom versus maybe outright free is not an indicator of superior performance, just of current supply and demand realities.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks