Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Really a huge additional expense for what I do. However, there are a
few panorama stock imaging companies that are only taking medium
format panoramas submissions currently. Most do the scanning for you.

Interesting - any of them take X-Pan I wonder?

A couple did in the past, but I guess they had too many submissions on 35 mm film. Those two
now only want medium format roll film submissions, though that might change in the future.

Though that at least I can
scan myself (Minolta DiMage Scan Multi-Pro). Would be very interesting if I
do fix up some sort of 6x12 for myself.

I guess the reason there is still a market for these medium format panoramas, is that they are
not the majority of images. It also is one of the realms without many vertical images. The 6x12
format is not a bad way to go, and there are many 4" by 5" lenses that would work well for
that.



[SNIP]
An X = P6 adapter would be what I'd like. That'd let me put my
120mm Zeiss and 150mm Schneider glass on it. I agree focusing the
180mm Sonnar might be a bit of a stretch!

The 120 mm might work okay, though you still have an issue of proper
framing and parallax correction.

Yes, a finder that worked for distance shots wouldn't be too hard to make,
but parallax correction would need some thought.


Still, another adapter possibility is something with an X body mount
and a ground glass at the right registration distance: focus, remount
the lens without moving the focusing ring, and away you go. I can't
see anyone making one commercially, but if I had an adapter to use
the lenses, it would be tempting - and fairly easy - to make such a
focusing tool.


Ground glass focus restricts you to tripod shots, and only on one roll of
film, until you remove the lens. I like the accessory rangefinder idea and
focus distance scales better. You would be surprised how accurate you
can be with something like that . . . I almost never have a focus error
with my folder cameras, even at very close distances near minimum
focus distance.

I wasn't thinking of putting a ground glass on the camera, but putting it on
the lens. ie., taking the lens off the body to focus it, and then
re-attaching it. Sure it's clunky, but it's precise, gives DoF preview, and
for 90% of the shots I'd want to use it for, the camera is on a tripod
anyway and the extra time wouldn't be a big issue.

Still sounds slow, and better for tripod mounted cameras. ALPA had a short video clip (German
only) of one Swiss photographer using a ALPA 12 with ground glass and a long lens. It looked
slow, and too much like large format work, so IMHO the advantage of having a compact ALPA was
somewhat lost. I would hate to drop one or the other while changing around . . . still think an
accessory rangefinder is the best answer.

But you see why I say I
can't see anyone doing it commercially.

An accessory rangefinder would work pretty well though, as you say, and
these things can be very accurate. If I ever made an adapter to put other
lenses on the X-Pan I expect I'd ideally want both options. Come to that,
having the GG 'lens-adapter' would be useful (to me) for previewing DoF even
with the current X-Pan lenses.

Maybe a small box attachment to mount the lens and ground glass. Of course, you know that you
would be viewing the scene upside down.



[SNIP]
For the Pentax shift lens, the rear element diameter is ~ 20.1mm,
Inset ~ 5.8mm. These measurements may be off by several
hundredths as I was trying to work out how to take the measurements
without having steel tipped instruments touch the glass...

No adventure in that . . . anyway, I should have something in EPS for
you by this weekend. Then you can play around a bit, and see how
things fit together. Besides, the measurements only need to be close to
test the concept.

Thanks - will be very interesting.

I forgot to ask, is this e-mail valid for you? If not, send me a regular e-mail so I have your
proper address.



[SNIP]
The ALPA 12 can take a Mamiya back, so they sort of do that,
but at a high price. A slightly simpler design could be much less
expensive. Still a problem of the focusing mount expense, but
something that could be worked out.

An equally complex design made by anyone other than Alpa could be
much less expensive...

The Silvestri is another direction, though that one is not much lower in
cost. I think these things are about ten times the cost to produce the
body, just going by the local CNC machine rates. Really, you could
almost draw the proper dimensions on a napkin using a wide marker,
and most of the local talent would get you a really nice finished piece
(or
several) in very short turn around. We have many former aerospace
industry and former defence industry people locally, so rates are near
$US 50 to $US 70 an hour. In my opinion, the lens with focus mount
should be the most expensive part.

Not seen taht one, though Silvestri is not known for being cheap either.
Sadly machine shop rates are higher here, largely because few people seem
interested in doing small or one-off runs. Agree about the focus mount -
but _basically_ it's just a piece of aluminium with pair of brass or
bronze lined screw threads, shouldn't be hard to have that machined either,
then you can calibrate it with a ground glass.

I think I need to know more about focus mounts, and calibration to lenses. It seems to me that
each lens focal length needs a different focus mount travel, but I just do not know if that is
true.



Your comment about the napkin reminds me of an anecdote about Picasso.
Fairly late in his life he wanted some furniture made and sketched a rough
design which he took to a local cabinet-maker, who said that yes, he could
make it. "How much?" asked Picasso - "Oh, no charge... if you'll just sign
the drawing."

I heard one about Picasso when he was approached by a woman at a café. She asked him to do a
little drawing, which he promptly produced on a napkin. When the woman asked if he could have
that, he replied something to the effect like, "sure . . . that will be $5000", a reply which
shocked and surprised the woman.



[SNIP]
I like very shallow DoF for some things - witness another thread
where I was talking about the f1.2 lens. But I think you are right,
many people have got so used to massive DoF that they are puzzled
when it isn't there - all the same, look how popular shallow DoF,
often manipulated with movements (or badly faked with PS) has
become in, particularly, food photography.

The short DoF was one reason I did some food photography. The look
was very unique, compared to anything else the client had seen.

Ahh, so you're to blame...

I doubt it . . . but I had been doing ultra short DoF with all my other shots, so it seemed
like a good idea at the time. Of course, the best food photographer I have ever seen is Noel
Barnhurst:

http://www.noelbarnhurst.com/ Great stuff, just found this site about a month ago. Lots of
ideas.




You also still see it in movies and TV sometimes - maybe as a
director's badge of honour: "hey, look at me, I can get shallow DoF
so I must be shooting on 35mm, not mini DV, right? ;-)" (CSI is a
classic example.)

In the movies, and television, it is possible with Super 16, but really
tough with 1/2" DV gear. Honestly, those shots can be done cheaper
and easier with Super 16 film cameras, and often are done that way.
Many television shows are still done on film, since the hope of
syndication means future transfer to HD (or the next greater standard);
basically films future proofs formats in television . . . strange, but
true.

Interesting, I can see how that would be so. And even Kodak seems to be
supporting Super 16 quite well over here, with some new emulsions in the
past year or so. One of my cousins is married to a film cameraman, I must
talk to him about this stuff sometime.

Check out the Aaton Minima. It is very small, and can even mount Nikon 35 mm film lenses. Cost
is a little high, though I have heard of some owners renting them to recoup the expense.



. . . . . . . . .


One of my SI shots was an example of this: a tray of quails' eggs shot
just with the light from a cloudy sky (example of shallow DoF too.)
The vast majority of all my flower work - outside or in the studio - is
lit with natural light.

I missed the eggs, but maybe I did not have any coffee that day. ;-)

It was this one:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/23332478/medium

Lovely soft light, shot by an East facing window in the afternoon, 35mm,
with a 100mm lens.

Nice. The crop is the only thing I wonder about, though the shot does work as it sits.



This one is another natural light shot that I happen to have had in the SI,
with slightly harder light:

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/24309630/medium

This one is on 6x7, using an RFB in my 4x5 stand camera. If you know wine,
you can have fun drooling over the names on some of those corks!

Interesting shot. It almost seems like a square crop could have worked too, though I like the
current one.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com