T-Max Readyload - Great Experience

[Sal Santamaura]

Mike,

Rather than me muddling through an explanation, please read Ron Wisner's writeup on fresnels at this url:

http://www.wisner.com/viewing.htm

as well as Ron's answer to a question by John Flynn dated 8/20/99 on this page:

http://www.wisner.com/archive.htm

I don't know if Arca places fresnels on the lens or eye side of the ground glass, so can't say whether performing tests using that camera would make possible more meaningful results. Even if Arca got the correct side, one must also confirm a groundglass matt surface 0.190" backset. Otherwise, despite not having a curved visual focal surface, one would still be focusing on a plane offset from where the film will (should) be.

Finally, to reiterate an earlier point, there have been (unconfirmed) reports that, unlike double-sheet Readyload holders, the new single-sheet Readyload holder will account for packet thickness at the packet insertion end. This would finally offer the possibility of emulsion location being a uniform 0.190" as opposed to the ramping result with current holders. For a detailed description of the problem, go to:

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/holders.html#sharpn ess

on Tuan's large format page. I don't think it would be worthwhile for you to do any more rigorous testing until the new holder becomes available in a few months.

[Sal Santamaura]

OK, first, the url shows a space where there should not be one, within "sharpness" near the end. Second, when you get to that page, scroll down to the "Effect of Different Holders on Sharpness" section and click on four sequential links to gifs of Joe Englander's article "Readyload, Quickload, Shoot!"

[Michael Kadillak]

I have yet to find any technical reason to not go out and make photographs versus waiting for something that will either work as intended or fail miserably. While I am sure that they are many individuals in pseudo-academia that are fixated with making sure that the numbers are all correct for whatever reason, personally I am looking for what is available today to see if it improves my photography. As a result, I feel that even half of the data with the Polaroid holder would be better that none of the data waiting on the Kodak improvements. In case you have not noticed, the light is marvelous out there and time it is a wastin....

[Sal Santamaura]

I never said not to go out and shoot, nor did I suggest that Mike shouldn't put a loupe to his negatives that were already exposed in the Polaroid holder. I simply pointed out that he might be wasting effort performing *additional* formal testing with the currently available Kodak holder.

Don't know what the "...individuals in pseudo-academia..." crack was about, but it doesn't seem to contribute anything to a discussion of large format photography.

[Geoffrey_1456]

Sal,

I'm happy to report that I just finished a box of the new Kodak T-MAX single sheet packets. For each shot, one exposure was made with the new Kodak holder, and a second one was made with my Polaroid 545 Pro holder. As for side by side comparisons under my 8x lupe, I could not see any difference in terms of sharpness. So I called my ex-Life Magazine photographer friend over to confirm my observation, he could not tell any difference either. I don't really know whether I had a bad batch of E100VS single sheet packets or that was due to user errors. But I'm certainly impressed with the new Kodak holder. It's much smoothier to insert and retrieve. I'd give it a big plus! Cheers,

[Sal Santamaura]

Geoffrey, thanks for that report. I'm curious: at what apertures were your test sheets exposed? Discrepancies in film position and flatness are much more evident when using larger openings on planar subjects; diffraction can mask any differences in typical 3-D landscape situations at f/22 and smaller. In any case, your good experience with the new holder's mechanical

[Sal Santamaura]

Geoffrey, thanks for that report. I'm curious: at what apertures were your test sheets exposed? Discrepancies in film position and flatness are much more evident when using larger openings on planar subjects; diffraction can mask any differences in typical 3-D landscape situations at f/22 and smaller. In any case, your good experience with the new holder's mechanical performance is very encouraging. Thanks again.

[Mike Kravit]

Sal,

I fully understood your intention on not performing further tests at this time.

I think that it would be a great asset if the Polaroid holder proved to be an excellent platform for exposing the new Readyload packets. What a pleasure in having to carry only one holder on trips where weight and volume are a concern.

Mike

[Geoffrey_1456]

Sal,

A couple of shots at F16 with Rodenstock Grandagon 90/6.8, the others at either F22 or F32. No jams, no blanks. It's definitely worth getting a new Kodak holder just for its smoothness. Cheers,

PS Some people might have sharper visions than me and my friend. You might be able to detect differences under high resolution scans, but it's good enough for me.

[Cal Eng]

I've looked in B & H and Calumet for the new single sheet Readyloads and also for the new holders but can't seem to find any for sale. Where did you buy yours? Thanks.